What is socialism?

[JulesG]

I just thought in a communist state everyone is equal yes?

then why is EdricO the :

"Subversive revolutionary of the FED2k Staff"

Surely this is a title designed to show his superiority to the rest of us proles?

is that in keeping with his communist statements?

[nemafakei]

Uh, it's humour. Just checking you are aware...

[Edric O]

If only he put as much effort into Dune Editing as he did Communism, he never going to achieve anything like converting countries to communism...

Oh, don't be so sure... ;) Time will tell, comrade, time will tell...

[Wolf]

Well said. (Cue the music!)

[Caid Ivik]

As I said before, Caid, you don't seem to understand what I'm talking about when I mention government transparency. What the hell does "spying" have to do with it? Transparency means that in any democratic system (and therefore in any socialist system), the people should be aware of the government's activities, and how the government spends their money. And they should be involved as much as possible in the government's decision-making process.

Regarding your second point, Nema already answered it. Keep in mind that a socialist economy is a planned economy, run by a democratic state, which organizes production according to need.

How is the state supposed to fade away, then? Simple: Representative democracy is slowly replaced by direct democracy, and the role of the state (as an organizer and co-ordinator) is taken over by the people themselves. The need for taxation dissapears when private property dissapears. In socialism, the state is necessary because private property still exists. In communism, the state has no function any more.

1. But of course I do. Do you think you know what is government doing? Yes, media show a little from discussions and such. But that is no governing. Everything is there already done. Done in private talks, without overseeing of media, voters. Ie privatization. Market secrets are needed, sometimes their revelance may lead to bancrot. Or contracts for army technologies. These are things you simply cannot show to public. And place where you have best opportunity to abuse it.

2. I do not think that it is very important to me to rule how much latrines would be made. But there is other problem: what if we would democratically choose to make a product, which is over our resources? For example you cannot make a billion of gold rings, just because people want it to. Economy was left to experts because of something... Reverse process means reverse of prosperity. Or do you think we all should have university economical education?

3. I want to see that "fading of private property", better word for theft I cannot imagine myself...

[Edric O]

Caid, you somehow always manage to make a big deal out of the most irrelevant issues. Like this whole "transparency" debate, which started from one unimportant word in my original post ("transparency" was never more than a side issue - it's democracy that counts).

But if you insist on continuing the debate, so be it.

1. But of course I do. Do you think you know what is government doing? Yes, media show a little from discussions and such. But that is no governing. Everything is there already done. Done in private talks, without overseeing of media, voters.

Yes, that's the way things are right now, in our limited form of democracy (capitalist democracy). And you think this is a good thing?

Ie privatization. Market secrets are needed, sometimes their revelance may lead to bancrot.

Privatizations? Market secrets? Caid, these things don't exist in socialism!

Or contracts for army technologies. These are things you simply cannot show to public. And place where you have best opportunity to abuse it.

Of course there are secrets that the government can't reveal. Like, for example, what the intelligence services are doing. But I said the government should be as transparent as possible. In other words, it shouldn't reveal sensitive secrets that might be dangerous if terrorists or enemy powers found out about them, but all day-to-day government activities should be open rather than secretive, the people should know where their tax money is going, and they should be able to involve themselves in the running of the government (as more and more people get more and more involved in the government's decision-making process, representative democracy fades into direct democracy and socialism slowly turns into communism).

2. I do not think that it is very important to me to rule how much latrines would be made.

Yes there is. How can we know how many latrines to make, if we don't ask the people how many latrines they need?

But there is other problem: what if we would democratically choose to make a product, which is over our resources? For example you cannot make a billion of gold rings, just because people want it to.

First of all, when was the last time you heard people saying they want gold rings more than they want food? ::)

Second of all, what people choose democratically is how to allocate existing resources. So the problem you're talking about doesn't really exist. The people can't vote to spend more resources than they actually have.

Economy was left to experts because of something... Reverse process means reverse of prosperity. Or do you think we all should have university economical education?

A socialist economy is run by experts, Caid. That's why it's called a planned economy - because someone plans it. But in order to make a good economic plan, the experts must first ask the people what they need. Otherwise you end up with the same problem that plagued the Soviet Union in its final years: the economy produces too many things that nobody wants, and doesn't produce enough of the things that evrybody wants. A planned economy only works properly when it uses democracy in making decisions about what to produce.

3. I want to see that "fading of private property", better word for theft I cannot imagine myself...

Theft is when someone takes your private property and makes it his private property. Thus, theft can only exist while private property exists.

If private property doesn't exist, then who is stealing what? If all posessions are put in common and shared, where's the theft? No one can possibly steal anything, since there is nothing TO steal (there's no private property), and there's no way to keep what you've stolen (you can't make it your private property).

[Caid Ivik]

1. In politics, you can't look at things by morale and such. I thought you already know strong influence of that Florentian in my life. If you want to create a functional state, which would have its sense in serving the society, you must look on effectivity, not moral value of an act. As smaller the government is, lower number of person has to carry the burden of sin here. This is why I dislike idea of communist revolution, for it forces me to carry it as well, while I don't support it, as I think it is ineffective. Here is dilemma what can be revealed and what not. It is impossible to find out here how is our secret service abused by premier, especially when it is against his "allies" in coalition. Force it to show documents, and you have whole muslim line Piestany-Bratislava-Berlin (example) warned.

2. Maybe we can leave the resources in hands of people who build own houses to choose by their own will and resources, what density of hygienical devices is optimal. While some resources may be better used as capital, as take ie metal. You can make much more tools of carbonized iron, of course, but someone may want more quality than quantity, so he invests more to make steel tools. Who want to spend less then buys iron tool, someone who uses it more buys steel one. Decision has to remain individual, as everyone has own needs. Everyone is an expert for himself.

3. I aim to you a pistol, take your wallet from you and then argue that private property doesn't exist... Law system is irelevant, when I control the thing and use it for my own pleasure.

[Edric O]

1. In politics, you can't look at things by morale and such. I thought you already know strong influence of that Florentian in my life. If you want to create a functional state, which would have its sense in serving the society, you must look on effectivity, not moral value of an act.

Machiavelli lived far before the modern principles of democratic government and human rights were created. He is therefore irrelevant when it comes to such matters.

And I'm not being moralistic. I'm only pointing out that a proper democratic government needs to answer before the people. The state cannot and will not serve society if the state can't be held accountable for its actions.

As smaller the government is, lower number of person has to carry the burden of sin here. This is why I dislike idea of communist revolution, for it forces me to carry it as well, while I don't support it, as I think it is ineffective. Here is dilemma what can be revealed and what not. It is impossible to find out here how is our secret service abused by premier, especially when it is against his "allies" in coalition. Force it to show documents, and you have whole muslim line Piestany-Bratislava-Berlin (example) warned.

First of all, I have no idea what you're talking about with that "burdern of sin" comment, or what it has to do with any of this. Are you trying to mix politics with religion again?

And second of all, I thought I made it clear that secret service documents are NOT among the things that a government is expected to reveal (there's a reason they're called "secret" services, after all).

2. Maybe we can leave the resources in hands of people who build own houses to choose by their own will and resources, what density of hygienical devices is optimal.

What if they don't have enough resources, or what if they have too many? What if some people have resources and others don't? What if the people with more resources didn't work to earn them, but instead they got them by exploiting other people?

In communism, the people themselves manage their own resources and use them where they are the most needed, so things are very much like you said. But that requires a high level of co-ordination between groups of people, unless you expect every small community to be self-sufficient. Reaching that level of co-ordination will take quite some time and a lot of education - just like all the other elements of communism. That's why we must go through socialism before we can get to communism. In socialism, the people elect representatives to manage the resources on a national level and plan the economy. They also vote on how resources should be allocated, and get to choose between several different economic plans offered by the experts. So nothing gets done against their will.

While some resources may be better used as capital, as take ie metal. You can make much more tools of carbonized iron, of course, but someone may want more quality than quantity, so he invests more to make steel tools. Who want to spend less then buys iron tool, someone who uses it more buys steel one. Decision has to remain individual, as everyone has own needs. Everyone is an expert for himself.

"Everyone is an expert for himself" - that's perfectly true, and that's why democracy is the best form of government: No one rules the people better than the people themselves.

As for individual decision, that is one thing which exists to a certain extent in every system. And socialism is no exception. Any good planned economy will take into account the need for diversity (for example the fact that both steel tools and iron tools are needed). When there is an abundance of resources, industries will diversify and build several different products with the same use (like iron tools and steel tools are different products with the same use), in order to give consumers the opportunity to choose the one they like best. When things are bad and there is a shortage of resources, however, industries will cut down on diversity in order to make sure they produce all the items of strict necessity, in the required quantities (if you can give two different types of tools to everyone, great! But if you can't, then it is more important to make sure that all people have tools than to give two different types of tools to one man and no tools to another).

In the end, this gives a planned economy the ability to adapt rapidly to any crisis, by quickly diverting resources from non-essential sectors to the more essential sectors - an ability which market economies do not have.

3. I aim to you a pistol, take your wallet from you and then argue that private property doesn't exist...

If private property doesn't exist, then I can still take all the money I need from that wallet you just "stole" (because the wallet isn't your property). So you haven't really stolen anything.

You see, in order to steal something, you have to make that object your private property. If you "steal" an object and make it public property, then the original owner can still use it. So it's not actually stolen, is it?

Theft means taking someone else's private property and making it your private property. So there can be no theft if there is no private property.

[Caid Ivik]

1. Machiavelli lived in one democratic, prosperous and functional state. You would lose your breath if you would see the society of Florencia in that time. Don't forget it was this society, which created Utopy and Sun State. "Burden of sin" is nothing else than responsibility. Politically you can accept something morally unacceptable. And I don't want have my hands blurred by what my premier does. In communism, who would have responsibility for secret service, if it will commit a crime? You can impeach government, but not whole nation.

2. If some haven't enough resources they join up with others, make a town and then build it from own, tough common, resources. However, they don't put a hand on property of those, who have enough. That's what done barbarians to Rome, by the way. If something is unproducable, there is still possibility of market. And if there is something over productivity of town, it will join up with other towns and make a state. And even wealthy one would support it, if it will be ie about building of a road.

3. Money is just a model thing. However, when someone will steal your car and than drive over you with it, I'm not sure that fact the car was "shared" helped you...

[nemafakei]

Who is to blame is who is at fault. Whereas in modern democracy, whoever is blamed is often chosen by the ruling party's headquarters rather than by the facts, the person in the secret service who makes the error would surely be to blame.

[Wolf]

I'm afraid I don't get the car bit, what do you mean by that, Caid? Is it like... the society produces weapons which are later used to kill them? I don't really think that could be a criticism of either system, since people can abuse anything.

[Edric O]

I hope you don't mind me picking up where we left off before my 2-week absence...

1. Machiavelli lived in one democratic, prosperous and functional state. You would lose your breath if you would see the society of Florencia in that time. Don't forget it was this society, which created Utopy and Sun State.

Prosperous and functional, yes. But democratic? I admit I'm not well informed about 16th century Florence, but I'm damn sure it didn't have anything even remotely resembling modern democracy.

Anyway, arguing about what kind of society Machiavelli lived in is pretty pointless and very much off-topic... let's not go on that wild tangent.

"Burden of sin" is nothing else than responsibility. Politically you can accept something morally unacceptable. And I don't want have my hands blurred by what my premier does. In communism, who would have responsibility for secret service, if it will commit a crime? You can impeach government, but not whole nation.

In communism, there wouldn't be any secret services, since there wouldn't be any government. The responsibility for what the people do lies with the people themselves, of course.

But we were discussing government trasparency and secret services in socialism, so I don't see how you suddenly jumped to communism...

Oh, and if you don't think you're responsible for what your government does, think again. In any democratic system, the people who elect certain leaders share SOME (but not all, of course) responsibility for the actions of those leaders. This is not a debatable issue, it's an established fact. If you elect a leader that starts a war with another nation, you WILL suffer because of it. If, on the other hand, you elect a good leader that brings prosperty to your country, you WILL benefit from it. Your choices always affect you, for better or for worse.

2. If some haven't enough resources they join up with others, make a town and then build it from own, tough common, resources.

Yes, that's something that would probably happen very often in communism, too.

However, they don't put a hand on property of those, who have enough.

There's a difference between having enough and having so much that there's nothing left for everyone else. The whole point of communism is that everyone should have enough.

That's what done barbarians to Rome, by the way.

Both the barbarians and Rome used the concept of private property. They all had private property, and they fought over private property. Your comparison with a communist system is therefore entirely flawed.

3. Money is just a model thing. However, when someone will steal your car and than drive over you with it, I'm not sure that fact the car was "shared" helped you...

And if you live in a capitalist system, and the car is your private property, and someone steals your car and then drives over you with it, did private property help you in any way? No, of course not. As Wolfwiz pointed out, there can be abuses and crime in any system.

And neither communism nor capitalism can help you when you're dead, so I don't really see your point...

[danielsh]

Pardon my ignorance, but a question I had difficulty answering came up when last I was discussing communism with some friends: What happens to the artist in a communist state? Since 'art' is a subjective label, how do the artist and writer and playwright strike a balance between ability and need?

My response was that although a group of individuals may disagree on what is "Good Art" and what is "Bad Art," each individual should be able to recognize the objective value of any art, even though he may not like it personally. But this didn't satisfy the questioner, who was trying to turn the whole debate towards motivation again ("If I see that Jill is an artist, and gets food & shelter for doing nothing, I'll want to get food & shelter for doing nothing; I'll write a few crappy poems every day instead of farming, and so will everyone else.") Perhaps you have a more satisfactory response?

[Edric O]

I suppose there will be 2 kinds of artists in a communist society: Those who practice their art as a hobby, in addition to their usual work, and the full-time artists.

Most artists will be of the first category. They will work like everyone else, but they will dedicate their free time (which should be considerabely more than the free time you have under capitalism, by the way) to their art, simply because that's what they love doing. They won't have any reason to follow any standards, and they'll probably come up with good art just as often as they'll come up with bad art.

The full-time artists will be much fewer, and they will be able to dedicate all their time to creating art because they will be the ones who are so talented that their art is known, loved and enjoyed by a great number of people. You see, although there are no objective standards for art, you can always judge it by its popularity. The really popular artists will not have to concern themselves with anything other than their art. As for the exact definition of "really popular", that will have to be decided by each community.

"If I see that Jill is an artist, and gets food & shelter for doing nothing, I'll want to get food & shelter for doing nothing; I'll write a few crappy poems every day instead of farming, and so will everyone else."

See, unless your poems fall under the "really popular" category, as I explained above, you can't live off writing poems. You can always write poems in your spare time, however.

Keep in mind that true artists create art for art's sake, not for personal gain. And you should remind your friends that the kind of art which is done for the sole reason of making money is usually not very good art at all.

[otheymzefedaykin]

I've never seen emprworm, in last times.. ::) Where is he to answer about socialism ?

[Edric O]

I seriously doubt Emprworm knows anything about socialism, given the fact that he never seems to be able to participate in a rational discussion about it (in this topic, for example, the only thing he posted was a highly emotional rant). Before making this topic, I've challenged Emprworm to define the word "socialism" several times, and he never answered my challenge. That pretty much proved that he was clueless about socialism.

[Anathema]

The full-time artists will be much fewer, and they will be able to dedicate all their time to creating art because they will be the ones who are so talented that their art is known, loved and enjoyed by a great number of people. You see, although there are no objective standards for art, you can always judge it by its popularity. The really popular artists will not have to concern themselves with anything other than their art. As for the exact definition of "really popular", that will have to be decided by each community.

You do realise though that most artists only become popular when they're already dead right? And what of those artists whose works aren't widely liked, and still won't do any "real" work?

[Caid Ivik]

I hope you don't mind me picking up where we left off before my 2-week absence...

Prosperous and functional, yes. But democratic? I admit I'm not well informed about 16th century Florence, but I'm damn sure it didn't have anything even remotely resembling modern democracy.

Anyway, arguing about what kind of society Machiavelli lived in is pretty pointless and very much off-topic... let's not go on that wild tangent.

In communism, there wouldn't be any secret services, since there wouldn't be any government. The responsibility for what the people do lies with the people themselves, of course.

But we were discussing government trasparency and secret services in socialism, so I don't see how you suddenly jumped to communism...

Oh, and if you don't think you're responsible for what your government does, think again. In any democratic system, the people who elect certain leaders share SOME (but not all, of course) responsibility for the actions of those leaders. This is not a debatable issue, it's an established fact. If you elect a leader that starts a war with another nation, you WILL suffer because of it. If, on the other hand, you elect a good leader that brings prosperty to your country, you WILL benefit from it. Your choices always affect you, for better or for worse.

Yes, that's something that would probably happen very often in communism, too.

There's a difference between having enough and having so much that there's nothing left for everyone else. The whole point of communism is that everyone should have enough.

Both the barbarians and Rome used the concept of private property. They all had private property, and they fought over private property. Your comparison with a communist system is therefore entirely flawed.

And if you live in a capitalist system, and the car is your private property, and someone steals your car and then drives over you with it, did private property help you in any way? No, of course not. As Wolfwiz pointed out, there can be abuses and crime in any system.

And neither communism nor capitalism can help you when you're dead, so I don't really see your point...

1. Medici house gave full rights to florentian citizens to vote for own senate, of course with some tax-based census. Excluding Lorenzo, all held their titles after being proven by senate. But if you mean with "modern democracy" this senseless oligarchical system of mass parties fightning each other with medial intrigues and demagogy, ok... But to the problem. So there will be no secret service, no military, no police? I think we were once discussing about this and you concluded it otherwise...

2. Each person is dependant on the otherone, as no one is a god, no one can make everything for himself. Well, could, if there weren't so many people. However there are not SO many people to need redistributive system like in war times. When we can have more than our survival needs, why not? Little adrenaline is always needed... Barbarians were lured by roman wealth. They thought everyone has right for same luxury as Romans had, so they thought they can simply take it. You slightly missed my point, I don't look on world materialistically.

3. I was countering your thought, that "stealing" is possible only with system of private property. I was trying to show a practical result. Things don't have a label over them "this is Ivik's property". It's important, who uses it, who harvests the merit of the thing. Understand?