Okay, first put away the preconceived notions that most capitalistic groups convey when they even utter the word socialist. I realize that a government template is not as easy at it sounds, that said, tell me a system that has ever worked perfectly. I like democracy, I truely like the idea and history behind it, but it is running off course and I see no end in sight.

Capitalism mixed with democracy is almost its own unique identity when mixing in present day realities like corporate scandals, coverups, cronyism, nepitism, etc. Now I can understand that there are a few types of people in the world; People that live to work, and people that work to live. There will always be a problem with our structure when these two polarities make up a population.

You know really don't want to get into why I think our present model is slowly eroding and stick to my original topic.

Why is socialism such a dirty word in politics?

sure would be interested to hear others opinions.


Socialism

Marl Marx

why is this not @ the brand new " above politics " board ???? skeptic , majic and other staff spent time and money getting that up and running

USE IT !

Well, maybe we can continue in this forum until some moderator moves the thread as ignorant ape suggests.

In my opinion, there are several things wrong with socialism, but the most important one is this: socialism is based on the false though noble belief that man is perfectible and that human nature can be changed for the better.

Socialism demands that people work for the good of 'society', often without direct benefit to themselves and sometimes at considerable personal cost. The result, more often than not, is that people work as little as possible, take no interest in the results of their work, or try to subvert the system so that it benefits them personally, often to the detriment of society. This is why inefficiency, lethargy and corruption are endemic in all socialist countries.

In a socialist society, decisions about what is good or bad for a person are made, not by the person, but by the government. It's like being forever a child, taking orders from a distant, impersonal, uncaring 'parent' who doesn't have the faintest idea what the 'child' wants or needs. In a socialist society, people have little or no say in the decisions affecting them.

Some versions of socialism attempt to get around these problems by referendum and consensus. The result, of course, is that the very worst decisions are the only ones that ever get made, because they are the only ones that all can agree to. Pretty soon the consensus falls apart, to be replace by authoritarianism.

And that is the worst thing of all: socialism leads inevitably to dictatorship.

How about you practice some restraint next time you think you're good enough to practice bad cop.

I happened to not be aware of that, thank you.

Next.

Most people do not understand what socialism really is.
They only have a distorted view of it, of course supplied by those that see it as their enemy, the capitalists.

We have only ever seen versions of socialism in the world that still had an elite and an authoritarian overlord, government. But it's not really socialism it's still capitalism, which creates elitism and inequality in the population. Except for a short period of time in Spain, when the workers organised and created collectives (coops). It worked very well for the couple of yrs it was practiced. Check out the Spanish revolution of 1936...



Source

True socialism won't work while trying be capitalistic and authoritarian, it becomes just another form of control. The only true form of socialism is Libertarian Socialism, also known as Anarcho-Socialism.

*See the links in my sig for a better explanation of what Socialism really is and how a society like that would look.*

I believe it is Human nature to cooperate, and the present system we live in works against our nature, which causes a lot of the worlds problems.

[edit on 23/1/2007 by ANOK]

This may well be true. My understanding of socialism is 'ownership of the means of production by the people'. What's yours?


Ownership implies management. Unless your productive capacity is going to be limited to cottage industry, this means the people will have to get together to form a large, powerful central authority to manage it. That's government, your 'authoritarian overlord'.


This is without doubt the saddest defence commonly advanced on behalf of socialism: that none of the societies that have claimed to be socialist in the past were 'truly' socialist, and that we cannot, therefore, judge socialism from the experience of these societies. Instead, we are encouraged to look at an 'ideal' form of socialism, which would work like a charm if only everyone could be persuaded to adopt it, and if only the bad guys could be prevented from corrupting and perverting it. It is the saddest defence because of what it reveals about human nature and the futility of the socialist project.

Socialism has been tried in a variety of different forms, time and time again, in country after country. It has never worked for more than a year or two. At that point the feelgood factor has vanished, the inefficiencies and accidental brutalities of the system have begun to manifest themselves, people have begun to find ways to beat the system and the inevitable degeneration into tyranny is well under way.


Of course it is human nature to cooperate. That is why families, communities, countries, corporations, quilting bees and the Mafia exist. We humans are a social species; we cooperate.

But it is also human nature to compete. We compete, often lethally, for wealth, status and mates. If you think this is new, read the Aenid (I've just finished the excellent Everyman translation by C.H. Sisson) or the Iliad. The latter poem is so ancient it is literally prehistoric, and there is plenty of competition in it. The 'present system' has no bearing on the issue.

Liberal democracy and its soulmate, capitalism, acknowledge and make use of both the cooperative instinct and the competitive one. Socialism tries to eliminate competition. It might as well try to eliminate breathing.

I'd like to address just this one point separately, if I may.

No system of government (or anything else) can possibly prevent or eliminate the sort of abuse you mention here. Whatever the system, human beings will always find a loophole, a way to beat it. And as soon as the people who run the system close that loophole, the people who want to beat the system will find another. So the system keeps getting tighter and tighter and the crooks keep getting smarter and smarter. It's an arms race.

The best any society can do is minimize such abuses. And in this, as in other measures of achievement, liberal democracy and capitalism are not failing. They are stellar successes -- no other systems of government or economic management even come close to what they have achieved. Yes, there's corruption, cronyism, nepotism and so on. These things, like the poor, are always with us. But the difference is that in liberal-democratic, capitalist societies, these things are taken seriously and dealt with, for the most part, openly and fairly. Believe me (and I speak as one who has lived under many different systems of government, socialism and capitalism both included), there is, as a whole, far less of this kind of thing in free, open, capitalist societies than in any other kind. If you doubt this, just take a look at Transparency International's annual Corruption Perceptions Index and see how different systems of government in different countries stack up.

[edit on 23-1-2007 by Astyanax]

Ehhhh.. that's a matter of OPINION. Are you an athiest nihilist? You're in complete parallel to most teachings and schools of thought. Perhaps you don't notice it.



Ehhhh.. all capitalism leads to imperialism! Come on, you can do better than generalizations. Here's a tip - socialism is based on sociological theory. Just like communism, do NOT confuse it with the failed implementations. Remember, it was perverted just like everything always is.

Although I do appreciate your lengthy explanation, and I feel you are extremely genuine in your perception and belief of liberal-democrocy, I do find this to be an obvious contradiction nevertheless. If all sytems have people that cheat that system, what's the difference what system? Socialism could be molded to eliminate such subversiveness.

I believe it is more human nature to feel like you are being cheated, or not being provided the same amount of opportunity which drives people to compete, and most of the time without sincere motives.

I just think it is time to redirect the prioroties of our controlling figures, and redirect the outcome of our hardwork. If there is to be a surplus in any of the factions of production, that should be like taxes, except the government equally provides dividends to the people.

I propose we have a small pilot country try a form of modern socialism, perhaps sealand

AAC

[edit on 23-1-2007 by AnAbsoluteCreation]

Socialism, in its many forms, fails for many different reasons. It's a useful form of government for the people in charge. The underpinning notion that re-distribution of wealth is good for he society is flawed in the socialist champions seem to think that total wealth re-distribution will result in their utopian dream.

I'll use myself as an example. I work for myself. In a socialist State, I would not be permitted to accumulate wealth. Without that incentive, I'm not going to be nearly so innovative. I would not, for example, have written the book that I'm known for. Under such a regime, if I did not go to jail for what I published, I wouldn't be permitted to reap the rewards that I now enjoy.

The net result is that I have no incentive to do it again. Why? Because my next "thing" involves using the capital I have save up from my first endeavor...to do something bigger. Assumiong that the State tolerated me, I'd be dis-incentivized to do that next bigger thing. Why? Because the government would not see the point in my ambitions. Why? Because the cost of my 'speculative art' couldn't be jsutifed. Why? The so-called Nanny State can't survive without importing improvements, or financing in-house what few improvements it does make.

That's just a small part of it. Again I suggest you read the links in my sig.

I don't believe it's Human nature to compete on the levels we do. Competition is taught to us in school, because it benefits capitalism.
Competition should only come in when resources are scarce, but in a system that works for the whole and not the few, resources should not be scarce. As a race we really do not cooperate other than when it benefits us as individuals and not as a whole. True cooperation would mean everyone in the workplace would cooperate equally in production and the benefits of its production. Thus happier workers, better products, benefits everyone.

Justin Oldham, again you are looking at socialism within the context of capitalism and personal gain, as if we have no other choice.
It's personal gain that causes the unbalance we have in society.

Think of this, if there was no need to gain capital then everyone could have the best of what there is. Instead of thousands of different TV's, for example, being produced every day waisting valuable resources, why not just make one good model? We know there is enough resources to go around and they are kept artificially scarce to keep prices up.

Socialism only fails because it really isn't socialism, if it's still an authoritarian elite system then it's not true socialism.

Capitalism is an illusion, a pyramid scheme created to benefit the elite. It is designed to control the lower classes and to keep the riches of the Earth in the hands of the few. All the anti-socialist propaganda comes form above, from those who will lose their elitism. Wealth creates paranoia, and those who have it will do anything to hold on to it, including lying to and killing you.

I can understand the fear because we are taught from day one that without the elite we would all fall apart and destroy each other. Again look at what happened in Spain, you can't dismiss that, it worked. All it takes is for everyone to believe in themselves and realise we are all in this together and realise that the earth and it's people are far more important than a big bank account.

Capitalism creates greed, war, poverty, crime...

You say socialism doesn't work. Well I say capitalism doesn't work, and the proof is all around you.

I have to agree with anok here. There aren't any basis for comparison when trying to reference outside the box. All we can do is look at the aspects of why our society in general seems to be socially & morally crumbling.

I also don't agree that our innovation would decline. If it is wealth you desire to inspire your creativity, then it is perverted desire. There could be levels to socialism, with people choosing their own role in the system, whatever role they are comfortable associating with. I believe there could be a role for everyone:

Type A citizen labors three days a week to get what is only sufficient for him to enjoy his life.

Type D citizen could be a CEO of a nationized company where he recieves Type D perks.

Government should be transparent and auditted monthly. Bring back life & true freedom.

I will add that when the indians first made deals with the governments they claimed that at that point life change from living, to surviving.

AAC

Originally posted by ANOK


Anyone who is willing to work harder, smarter, or longer, than others do is competing. When they figure out how to do these things, or, if they figure out how to make the tools that let them do more...they are innovating. We are not all of us smart enough or sufficiently motivated to achieve to a high standard. Those who can will excersize their power accordignly. Those who can't will argue for exemptions, exceptions, and hand-outs.



This thing that isn't really socialism might be believed by educated and erudite men, but it won't fly in the real world. Because no two humans posess the same equal degree of intelligence, drive, and humility, your mythical socialism that's not socialism will remain just one more high-minded ideal.



As one of those paranoid elitists you're talking about, I've got to tell you that the people whom I provide work to don't seem to be that oppressed. They don't have to provide goods and services to me. I may not rule the world, but I'll put more people to work tomorrow than my neighbor will.



What I have I've made for myself. Nobody forced me to do it. I have not once chained somebody to their desk to make them work. I have not been forced to pay protection money. Althought it IS company policy, I can't recall that I've actually flogged anyone. That's important to me, because I'm the boss and the guy who dishes out the pain.



Responsible ownership may be a crime to you, but it has kept me and otehrs like me out of poverty. By being accountable and rewarded for the risks I take, I do more for others than I would as a single drone with no goals and no assets. It's true that I did go to war with a competitor once upon a time, but he was price-gouging.



The 'proof' that's all around me backs up my assertion that I have been a force for good in the world. My desire to test my mettle and improve my ideas has provided livelihood for others who are also free to seek the limits of thier own potentials. I'm not trying to yank your chain, but I've been out in the world for a while and I've learned the hard way that what you suggest doesn't exist and can't be had AT THIS TIME.

When science and technology make everything plentiful to the point of being free, those who think like you in the far and distant future might get your wish. then, the challenge really will be to conform and adhere. There might not be anything else to do.

I think to evolve as a species we must stop directing our efforts and ambitions to monetary gain. The main problem with capitalism is how it distracts us all. It becomes our life. The little energy we have left (for most workers) is then given to capitalistic entertainment and sport.

...sorry.

[edit on 24-1-2007 by Astyanax]

...dammit. I'm clumsy today. Must be all this talk of socialism, I'm sensitive to atmosphere.

[edit on 24-1-2007 by Astyanax]

I saved this one for a separate post because it deserves a nice long reply, which not everyone may care to read in full.


I'm not sure what you mean by 'in parallel', but judging by the rest of that paragraph, I'm going to assume you mean 'in contradiction'. I've never counted 'teachings and schools of thought' to establish whether I'm on the side of the majority or not, but here are a few that are in harmony with my viewpoint.

1. The doctrine of Original Sin, as preached by the Christian church. See, among others, the Confessions of St. Augustine.


2. The ideas of Thomas Hobbes...


3. ...and Friedrich Neitzsche.


(Nietzsche was, of course, a sort of nihilist, but you could hardly say that about Augustine or Hobbes.)

4. The psychology of Freud and Jung (like me, Jung loved to quote an old German saying: 'you can push Nature out the door with a pitchfork, but she'll just come back in through the window') and, in fact, the entire school of analytical-psychological thought founded by Freud.

5. The principles of natural selection and the Neodarwinian Synthesis, which hold that human nature is, essentially, animal nature (implying that morality is a higher evolved function and is essentially pragmatic, a survival characteristic).

6. Pretty much all of today's neuroscience, which supports the same sort of thinking as the Synthesis.

It is socialists and their friends in academia who are out of tune with the tenor of modern scientific and even philosophical thought (see Popper, Dennet, et al). They're still stuck with the myth of the tabula rasa and the babble of Lacan and Derrida. All old hat now, I'm afraid.

I'd dig out more quotes and references if I had time, but you seem like an educated chap who's probably read them all anyway, and besides, someone is paying me vast sums of money to be doing something different right now.

Originally posted this first, then accidentally took it down. I said I was clumsy today...

Well, well. This thread has really taken off in the last 24 hours, hasn't it?

I find I have very little to add to what I posted yesterday. Most of what I might have contributed has already been said, lucidly and elegantly, by Justin Oldham.

That being the case, I'll confine myself to responding to some statements made by the socialist 'opposition'.


Do you seriously believe that there exists a system people con't or won't cheat? You underestimate human ingenuity... and perversity.

I didn't say that all systems were the same. I said that abuses exist under all systems, but some are better at controlling them than others. Liberal-democratic capitalism is the best by far.

I don't know if you're familiar with the term 'perverse incentive'. Justin explained the principle in one of his posts, though he didn't use the word. Well, socialism is nothing but a basket of perverse incentives. It actually encourages corruption and deceit. It is much worse at controlling corruption, cronyism, etc. than capitalism is.


I have thought of it. So has just about every other capitalist who would like to maximize his profits by minimizing his R&D and production costs. It's a damn fool idea, and here's why: people come in different varieties. Not thousands, but billions of different varieties. And all these different varieties of people have different expectations from a TV set. Not just in terms of performance, but even in terms of irrelevant attributes such as cabinet colour. So -- one TV to fit all needs? Forget it. Look, we've seen this particular 'benefit of socialism' at work already. You don't get a good TV that works fine for everybody.Without capitalist competition, what you get is an ugly, clumsy grey box that doesn't work properly and that everybody hates. That's socialism for you -- in a nutshell. Thanks for the example.


There you go again. I've already dealt with this in a previous post; you're repeating yourself. But you're allowed another chance, I guess, so...

...show me the evidence, comrade!

And finally, I'm posting this quote from Mr. Oldham because it perfectly sums up our shared viewpoint:


Amen to that.

I am certainly playing devil's advocate here, so I shall admit that there are just as many complaints about present day liberal-democratic capitalism. Let me ask you two this, how high and how far does free enterprise need to go? Why is everyone in a hurry? Anyone with a tad bit of honest foresight can see that capitalism and free enterprise has dragged us into yet another war, and will ultimately be its own demise.

These qestions I pose are because I see a dying form of government that is capable of taking down more than itself. We need a new direction for our futures. If you don't see it, that may not be because it isn't there, but perhaps you are oblivious to it. We questioners of our governments are not extremists or trouble-makers, we may just not be blinded anymore by our ego-obsessed reality.

Of course, and like always, these are simply my opinions.

AAC

[edit on 24-1-2007 by AnAbsoluteCreation]

[edit on 24-1-2007 by AnAbsoluteCreation]

I agree, but socialism doesn't automatically mean hand-outs. In fact in a Libertarian Socialist society you would be required to do your part otherwise you won't get much back from that society and thus wouldn't survive very long.



Source







One size doesn't have to fit all, this is again a misunderstanding. In a cooperative workplace ALL the workers benefit equally from that workplace and their labours. That in itself is enough motivation to do your best as you will personally gain from it, unlike the workplace of now. Remember most ppl are workers, and are in fact the back bone of any productive society.
If you as an individual wish to offer a service then ppl would be free to either use your service or not, just like now. The only difference is you won't be able to exploit the labor of others, unless they choose to work for you. I'm sure you motive is not only financial? If it is then maybe under socialism you'd do something you do enjoy other than the financial gains it brings you.
Anything you do that improves society as a whole also improves society for the individual, no?



But your workers are forced, through economic reasons, to work for somebody at the wage that somebody will pay. Don't take the word forced literally, just like ownership of property. When we speak of property we mean the means of production, land etc...Not personal property. When we say forced we don't mean, necessarily, physical force.



That's great but again it's only keeping a few out of poverty, what about those not in the position to do what you do?



The reason things are not plentiful is because in this system everything has to make a profit. That's why we still live in dirty expensive cities. We could have had clean free energy long ago for example, but FREE is a four letter word.

Why would we have to conform and adhere? Isn't that what you have to do now to succeed? There is more to life than being financially successful.
It's a myth that socialism takes away individuality. In fact the opposite is true. In a truly free society the individual is free to pursue his dreams and desires with no outside interference form the state.

And no it wouldn't work at this time, it will take education, people need to know there are alternatives to what we have now.



[edit on 24/1/2007 by ANOK]