Close Topic Options

Socialism

I noticed that a few of our new members stated they are socialists. I live in a country that used to be socialist. It was not good. The socialism in theory is very different from the "applied" socialism. I have some economic considerations to make regarding this subject and I expect those who consider themselves socialists to try to come with contra-arguments.
(1) socialists assume that economic prosperity is a "gift of nature", that can't be lost by the limitation of market economy.
(2) they believe that social justice is a law of nature. They think that the economic prosperity must exist in nature so that it should be enough to sustain the needs of all people (even of those that are not active in this process), or else it wouldn't be fair.
The first supposition ignores history: no civilization before the 17th century knew prosperity - only the "western civilization", after 17th century accomplished that. Also consider the living standard they had before 1960. So history constantly repeats that economic prosperity is not something that comes naturally, but a lot of factors must "click" in place.
The second supposition means basically that because people are born equal, they should live in identical condition of prosperity and having the same opportunities OR "progresist" people should do something to regulate if it not happens naturally. In both cases, 2 questions appear: (a) is it enough prosperity for everyone and ( after the equal division of prosperity, is it reasonable to expect that the previous level of prosperity will be reached in the next productive cycle? I other words, the stimulants that "gave birth" to the first status will be still active if the wealth obtained in this process is divided to all - active and inactive? The reasonable answer for these question is: NO!

Interesting?

Edited: RaulDrake on 6th Aug, 2005 - 5:42pm

Socialism

That is an excellent analysis. I would also add that socialism punishes the more productive members of society, especially the innovative and creative, and rewards the less productive. Since under socialist ideas, equality of results is more important than equality of opportunity, this will always be so.

Socialism History & Civil Business Politics

Believe me, I know what I'm talking about. This philosophy ruined my country and of course the other ex-communist countries. Why? Let me give you a concrete example: my father-in-law worked in a factory. In the first month, he tried to work really hard; he thought that way maybe he'll get some bonus to his salary. The other workers looked at him and laughed. At the end of the month, they got the same pay. You can figure out yourself how my father-in-law worked in the next month. You're right, he worked just not to get kicked out. This is where socialism leads to.

Socialism

Despite the fact that socialism has failed in many different environments, there will always be people who want to try it again.

The reason is this: nature has made the human species very, very uneven, in tems of the general distribution of talents, energies, intelligence, and so on. This is very unfair.

At the same time, modern society inculcates a great desire for fairness in most of us. Socialism is the attempt to overcome the unfairness of nature.

Note also that a little socialism is a good thing. The U.S. Marine Corps is a socialist institution, as are the wonderful National Parks of America. Free at the point of consumption state-subsidized education is a socialist institution, as are child labor laws. So it is natural for some people to want to generalize: if a National Park works well as a state-run institution, why not the steel industry?

Fortunately, most people can now see the errors of socialism. So the Left attacks society in a different way.

Doug

Socialism

Interesting post. You're right in saying socialism in theory is different than socialism in practise. But that is consistant with all theories. We are human and will never be able to account for all variables that go into society. What you do is take a theory and than see how it can be applied to your distinct society.

Are you talking about local decentralized socialism or centralized forms of socialism. Where are you getting most of your assumptions on socialism from? If I understood your perspective on socialism a little better I may be able to make better sense of what you have just written (which theories on socialism are you referring to?)

It sounds like you are talking more about a European style of socialism.

What do you define as economic prosperity?

Socialism

Romania had a centralized form of socialism, but regardless of that, I'm sure that with the exception of the few examples given by Doug, socialism is a wrong system.If generalized to an entire state, it will eventually destroy it by collapsing its economy.

Ultimately, I'm referring to the socialism implemented in Romania, but what I said could apply to the socialism from the entire ex-communist bloc (eastern Europe). I think this example is more important than any theory.

I'm not sure if I can give you a definition, but by economic prosperity I understand a process of evolution of the society, a process that lead to a better living standard of that society.

All my considerations regarding socialism were related to economics, not to the social or moral aspects of the theory of socialism.

P.S. One could say that nazism (National Socialism) is good, 'cause in theory sounds quite perfect

Socialism

There cannot be decentralized socialism.

In theory, one could imagine all of the steel workers at a particular steel mill "owning" (via the state) their mill, and competing for orders with all of the
other "locally-owned" steel mills. This would be a kind of capitalism, with the
corporation owned by its workers. While this is imaginable in theory, in practice
it has never happened, and is not seriously advocated by any real socialist
party, for the following reasons:

(1) The economic justification for socialism is that it will be more efficient than
capitalism, just as capitalism is more efficient than feudalism. This efficiency is
to be brought about by the supposed advantages of a rational, centralised plan,
as opposed to anarchic capitalist competition. Why have eight different design teams trying to invent a better database or automobile -- just have the best members of all eight working in one team, etc.

Decentralized "socialism" would simply reproduce all of the supposed economic
disadvantages of capitalism: you would have business cycles, wasteful duplication, etc.

(2) In fact, decentralized "socialism" would be less efficient than capitalism, because the worker-owners would inevitably be unable to exercise proper labor
discipline, and would pay themselves uneconomic wages.

(3) And it would not be fair, because workers who were lucky enough to become "owners" of modern, advanced steel mills would do well, as opposed to
those unlucky enough to become "owners" of old, backward steel mills.

So well-meaning socialists who, quite rightly, see the problems with actually-existing socialism, and who are genuinely concerned about maintaining liberty, often come up with the idea of "localized socialism". But it's not a serious alternative to capitalism.

The thing to do, comrades, is to bite the bullet: we have as yet found no better system than a lightly-regulated free market. If workers really want to take the risks that the owners take, let them pool their resources and start producer co-operatives, which have had some success, in Spain for example. Let them organize politically into social-democratic parties and press for national unemployment insurance, minimum wage and child labor laws, redistribution of income via well-financed state support for education and training, etc. (But be careful -- too much of this will slowly strangle the capitalist goose: see France.)

Young idealistic activists who find this too boring should seek some other outlet for their (admirable) energies, such as the struggle for liberty and equality for women in the Third World.

Doug

Socialism Politics Business Civil & History

So you want us to validate Socialism from a Capitalist perspective? The current problem with Socialism and Capitalism is the attempt to do things on a global scale. Competetion rather than cooperation.

Socialism has to be decentralized because there is no one way to run a economy. Each region has its own culture and needs. The State as we perceive it is a sham. Nationalism is a sham. These are structures created to benefit the elite.

When viewing socialism from an industrialized perspective than it will always fail. Current modes of Socialism have relied on our dependance on energy. Oil IS finite. When we are forced to power down most governments will eventually have no choice but to implement more socialist type strucutres.

Locally based socialism is possible if there is a LETS style economy in place. This type of economy influences and benefits local trade (google LETS and look at some Australian and Canadian success stories). When money as an end is the object than socialism fails... It's also the reason why Capitalism fails.

There have never been good examples of Socialism or Capitalism because the current elite that have implemented these structures were and are corrupt.