ITT we talk about socialism

[Cuddlefish]

So what prevents socialism/communism from working the way it's supposed to?

People

S'funny cuz it's true.

[BabylonHoruv]

Speaking as a former Poli Sci major, socialism, in its original context at least was supposed to serve as a transitional phase between the current state of affairs and true communist utopia. It was the stage at which the "state" owned all the businesses, goods, etc. and distributed them equally (or at least fairly) among the populace. True communism was a place in which there was no "state", because it was no longer necessary, because the people had come to a point at which they could freely share the goods and the labor, and all was well.

Of course, this is a rather simplified version, and again, what was originally meant by the term, when Marx was still alive and able to spell out what he meant. In a modern context, socialism generally refers to basically any government that ensures all or at least a goodly number of its citizens have access to basic needs like food, shelter, healthcare, etc. Whether that is a correct definition or not, it is an all too common one.

People tend to overlook the fact that communism is an economic theory and a political theory, that leads to dissolution of the government once the economic principles are adequately in place. The USSR was not truly communist, and it could fairly easily be argued it wasn't all that socialist either, but thanks to its very existence, the definitions have changed. Nowadays, just about everybody defines it in their own personal way.

On a somewhat unrelated note, I remember seeing a political cartoon many years ago that featured a "Russia: Then and Now" motif. In the "Then" section, which was indicating before the collapse of the USSR, it featured a food vendor's stand with a single sausage, advertised at one rubble, with a long line of people waiting to buy it. "Now" had the same vendor's stand, with a significant supply of sausages, advertised at millions of rubbles (can't recall how many, exactly), with only a single person in line. I believe it was a "1989/1999" comparison, but I can't recall, and I may be exaggerating at the price of the "now", but needless to say, it was a completely unfair price. The message was that Russia wasn't much better off under capitalism, though, that was fairly obvious I'm sure. That particular cartoon always amused me, and made me consider the dangers of extreme capitalism for the first time. that's basically the time I started advocating for a state of permanent and benevolent socialism, so I guess it's relevant.

So what prevents socialism/communism from working the way it's supposed to?
Every example of socialist/communist states I've don't ever seem to work out to the ideal it holds itself to...

I'd say Scandinavian Socialism, while far from perfect, has been working pretty well.

[Doktor Howl]

Speaking as a former Poli Sci major, socialism, in its original context at least was supposed to serve as a transitional phase between the current state of affairs and true communist utopia. It was the stage at which the "state" owned all the businesses, goods, etc. and distributed them equally (or at least fairly) among the populace. True communism was a place in which there was no "state", because it was no longer necessary, because the people had come to a point at which they could freely share the goods and the labor, and all was well.

Of course, this is a rather simplified version, and again, what was originally meant by the term, when Marx was still alive and able to spell out what he meant. In a modern context, socialism generally refers to basically any government that ensures all or at least a goodly number of its citizens have access to basic needs like food, shelter, healthcare, etc. Whether that is a correct definition or not, it is an all too common one.

People tend to overlook the fact that communism is an economic theory and a political theory, that leads to dissolution of the government once the economic principles are adequately in place. The USSR was not truly communist, and it could fairly easily be argued it wasn't all that socialist either, but thanks to its very existence, the definitions have changed. Nowadays, just about everybody defines it in their own personal way.

On a somewhat unrelated note, I remember seeing a political cartoon many years ago that featured a "Russia: Then and Now" motif. In the "Then" section, which was indicating before the collapse of the USSR, it featured a food vendor's stand with a single sausage, advertised at one rubble, with a long line of people waiting to buy it. "Now" had the same vendor's stand, with a significant supply of sausages, advertised at millions of rubbles (can't recall how many, exactly), with only a single person in line. I believe it was a "1989/1999" comparison, but I can't recall, and I may be exaggerating at the price of the "now", but needless to say, it was a completely unfair price. The message was that Russia wasn't much better off under capitalism, though, that was fairly obvious I'm sure. That particular cartoon always amused me, and made me consider the dangers of extreme capitalism for the first time. that's basically the time I started advocating for a state of permanent and benevolent socialism, so I guess it's relevant.

So what prevents socialism/communism from working the way it's supposed to?
Every example of socialist/communist states I've don't ever seem to work out to the ideal it holds itself to...

I'd say Scandinavian Socialism, while far from perfect, has been working pretty well.

If someone wants perfection, they're going to spend their entire lives being disappointed.  The purpose of civilization isn't the bottom line or a high GDP...Those are a means, not an end.

If someone wants efficient government, they need look no further than Nazi Germany.

PROTIP:  An efficient government is a tyranny.  Bureaucratic fuckups are your last line of defense.

[Cain]

Discussing socialism just encourages Glenn Beck, and smug takedowns of the former by the Fabians.  And no-one wants that.

[Iron Sulfide]

my understanding was always that Socialism is the economic aspect of Maxism (i.e. the Distribution of goods and services, orchestrated by Gov't), whereas Communism was the proprietary aspect of Marxism (the land, means of production, the other buzzwords...)

Of course, Karl Marx is dead, so whatever he said is just as subject to being mangled as Jesus' words, right?

I would say that Socialism/Communism haven't worked for a list a reasons. The biggest being that the more well known communist states weren't. Show me a communist state, and I will Wikishow you why they are Fascist, Or Capitalist, or at the least, Not Communist.

I think communism could work, actually, if people were bred into it over the course of several generations. Not that anyone would want that, of course, but it DOES gives credence to the notion of a conspiracy...

[Doktor Howl]

my understanding was always that Socialism is the economic aspect of Maxism (i.e. the Distribution of goods and services, orchestrated by Gov't), whereas Communism was the proprietary aspect of Marxism (the land, means of production, the other buzzwords...)

Of course, Karl Marx is dead, so whatever he said is just as subject to being mangled as Jesus' words, right?

I would say that Socialism/Communism haven't worked for a list a reasons. The biggest being that the more well known communist states weren't. Show me a communist state, and I will Wikishow you why they are Fascist, Or Capitalist, or at the least, Not Communist.

I think communism could work, actually, if people were bred into it over the course of several generations. Not that anyone would want that, of course, but it DOES gives credence to the notion of a conspiracy...

Okay.

Canada is now a Marxist nation.

[Cain]

Communism could work with 150 people or under.

[Triple Zero]

So what prevents socialism/communism from working the way it's supposed to?

People

S'funny cuz it's true.

Yes, but that holds for most -isms.

Except Discordianism, that works the way it does because of People.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

So what prevents socialism/communism from working the way it's supposed to?

People

S'funny cuz it's true.

Yes, but that holds for most -isms.

Except Discordianism, that works the way it does because of People.

Tribal monkeys are tribal and monkeys.


Here is a real world example of most -ism's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJUn4gwevLg

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

Speaking as a former Poli Sci major, socialism, in its original context at least was supposed to serve as a transitional phase between the current state of affairs and true communist utopia. It was the stage at which the "state" owned all the businesses, goods, etc. and distributed them equally (or at least fairly) among the populace. True communism was a place in which there was no "state", because it was no longer necessary, because the people had come to a point at which they could freely share the goods and the labor, and all was well.

Of course, this is a rather simplified version, and again, what was originally meant by the term, when Marx was still alive and able to spell out what he meant. In a modern context, socialism generally refers to basically any government that ensures all or at least a goodly number of its citizens have access to basic needs like food, shelter, healthcare, etc. Whether that is a correct definition or not, it is an all too common one.

People tend to overlook the fact that communism is an economic theory and a political theory, that leads to dissolution of the government once the economic principles are adequately in place. The USSR was not truly communist, and it could fairly easily be argued it wasn't all that socialist either, but thanks to its very existence, the definitions have changed. Nowadays, just about everybody defines it in their own personal way.

On a somewhat unrelated note, I remember seeing a political cartoon many years ago that featured a "Russia: Then and Now" motif. In the "Then" section, which was indicating before the collapse of the USSR, it featured a food vendor's stand with a single sausage, advertised at one rubble, with a long line of people waiting to buy it. "Now" had the same vendor's stand, with a significant supply of sausages, advertised at millions of rubbles (can't recall how many, exactly), with only a single person in line. I believe it was a "1989/1999" comparison, but I can't recall, and I may be exaggerating at the price of the "now", but needless to say, it was a completely unfair price. The message was that Russia wasn't much better off under capitalism, though, that was fairly obvious I'm sure. That particular cartoon always amused me, and made me consider the dangers of extreme capitalism for the first time. that's basically the time I started advocating for a state of permanent and benevolent socialism, so I guess it's relevant.

So what prevents socialism/communism from working the way it's supposed to?
Every example of socialist/communist states I've don't ever seem to work out to the ideal it holds itself to...

I'd say Scandinavian Socialism, while far from perfect, has been working pretty well.

If someone wants perfection, they're going to spend their entire lives being disappointed.  The purpose of civilization isn't the bottom line or a high GDP...Those are a means, not an end.

If someone wants efficient government, they need look no further than Nazi Germany.

PROTIP:  An efficient government is a tyranny.  Bureaucratic fuckups are your last line of defense.

Nazi Germany was actually horribly inefficient. Their military was a well oiled machine but the government was a mess. Hitler had set up a system where the power of government officials was poorly defined and as a result ended up overlapping, this lead to infighting and general confusion.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Speaking as a former Poli Sci major, socialism, in its original context at least was supposed to serve as a transitional phase between the current state of affairs and true communist utopia. It was the stage at which the "state" owned all the businesses, goods, etc. and distributed them equally (or at least fairly) among the populace. True communism was a place in which there was no "state", because it was no longer necessary, because the people had come to a point at which they could freely share the goods and the labor, and all was well.

Of course, this is a rather simplified version, and again, what was originally meant by the term, when Marx was still alive and able to spell out what he meant. In a modern context, socialism generally refers to basically any government that ensures all or at least a goodly number of its citizens have access to basic needs like food, shelter, healthcare, etc. Whether that is a correct definition or not, it is an all too common one.

People tend to overlook the fact that communism is an economic theory and a political theory, that leads to dissolution of the government once the economic principles are adequately in place. The USSR was not truly communist, and it could fairly easily be argued it wasn't all that socialist either, but thanks to its very existence, the definitions have changed. Nowadays, just about everybody defines it in their own personal way.

On a somewhat unrelated note, I remember seeing a political cartoon many years ago that featured a "Russia: Then and Now" motif. In the "Then" section, which was indicating before the collapse of the USSR, it featured a food vendor's stand with a single sausage, advertised at one rubble, with a long line of people waiting to buy it. "Now" had the same vendor's stand, with a significant supply of sausages, advertised at millions of rubbles (can't recall how many, exactly), with only a single person in line. I believe it was a "1989/1999" comparison, but I can't recall, and I may be exaggerating at the price of the "now", but needless to say, it was a completely unfair price. The message was that Russia wasn't much better off under capitalism, though, that was fairly obvious I'm sure. That particular cartoon always amused me, and made me consider the dangers of extreme capitalism for the first time. that's basically the time I started advocating for a state of permanent and benevolent socialism, so I guess it's relevant.

So what prevents socialism/communism from working the way it's supposed to?
Every example of socialist/communist states I've don't ever seem to work out to the ideal it holds itself to...

I'd say Scandinavian Socialism, while far from perfect, has been working pretty well.

If someone wants perfection, they're going to spend their entire lives being disappointed.  The purpose of civilization isn't the bottom line or a high GDP...Those are a means, not an end.

If someone wants efficient government, they need look no further than Nazi Germany.

PROTIP:  An efficient government is a tyranny.  Bureaucratic fuckups are your last line of defense.

Nazi Germany was actually horribly inefficient. Their military was a well oiled machine but the government was a mess. Hitler had set up a system where the power of government officials was poorly defined and as a result ended up overlapping, this lead to infighting and general confusion.

Makes sense. Guaranteed that he still called all the shots.

[Thurnez Isa]

He kind of set the guidelines - sort of. It was up to his ministers (sometimes he would appoint several on the same task) to make what ever nonsense he spouted to a reality. That's why it was so poorly defined and there was so much infighting.

I remember reading (though I don't claim to be an expert on this, or even have a defined opinion on this) that without the war and the exploitation of the new territories the government and economy probably would have collapsed.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

He kind of set the guidelines - sort of. It was up to his ministers (sometimes he would appoint several on the same task) to make what ever nonsense he spouted to a reality. That's why it was so poorly defined and there was so much infighting.

I remember reading (though I don't claim to be an expert on this, or even have a defined opinion on this) that without the war and the exploitation of the new territories the government and economy probably would have collapsed.

I heard the same thing from one of my friends who is a fan of alternate history novels.

[Cain]

Hitler purposefully infused Nazi Germany with that kind of inefficiency, however.  He did it partly out of ideological reasons, and partly out of sensible, dictatorial ones.  By making sure everyone had at least one other person with a similar portfolio or responsibilities, they'd have to fight each other to prove themselves to Hitler, and thus they were all too busy scheming against each other instead of against the Fuhrer.  It fitted well with his Social Darwinist worldview, of the weak being weeded out by the strong as well.

[BabylonHoruv]

Back to Socialism, have we established yet that it is more than Soviet Russia and "Communist" China?  It's also Scandinavia, Canada, and quite a few European countries.  So "Socialism doesn't work" is no more accurate than "Democracy doesn't work"