All about socialism you wanted to know and feared to ask

[Edric O]

Replying to Caid:

Venedic tribes weren't apes, they were already active in agriculture, used iron and there are rumors they had even own alphabet. And this is no truly ancient time, we talk about era of late Roman Empire. Simply, it was a developed society which retained some kind of democracy.

They certainly couldn't compare with the level of development found in Rome, or Greece, or Egypt, or any of the other ancient slave-based societies. And they couldn't compare with the agriculture practiced there, either (the domesticated animals which the Venedic tribes undoubtebly had are nowhere near the intensive agriculture and irrigation systems of Egypt or Sumer, for example).

And same we can find for example between ancient Jews, which were electing Judges only if there was a threat.

See above.

Or what about Japan? There was no slavery as well.

Excuse me? The state of Japan was created between 350 and 500 A.D. Of course they never had slavery, since they skipped slaveryism and went directly to the feudalist stage (just like America, for example, was created directly in the capitalist stage). It is possible to skip a stage of social development if the rest of the world has advanced faster than you and you're just catching up (or if you're a new country created by colonists from a more advanced part of the world).

While we're on the issue, I should mention that capitalism is the first truly global system. Feudalism and slaveryism were very different in different parts of the world. The classical marxist division of history into tribalism, slaveryism, feudalism, capitalism, socialism and communism is eurocentric; that is, the stages before capitalism are analyzed mainly in their European version. (capitalism itself, and the stages after it, are global)

On, for example, Haiti there is a capitalism, and nobody is rich.

Some Haitians are richer (much richer) than others. The country itself is poor compared to the rest of the world, but there are vast differences or wealth between different people inside it.

In fact, as a general rule, the poorest countries in the world also have the largest gaps between rich and poor. (income inequality is measured by an economic indicator called the GINI Coefficient, and the United Nations publishes regular statistics - perhaps I should start a new topic about it)

For the record, the most egalitarian country in the world in 2004 was Hungary, followed closely by Sweden, Denmark, and Japan. And the most unequal country was Namibia. The United States was somewhere in the middle, but still more egalitarian than the likes of Russia and China (yes, it's official, Russia and China are more capitalist than the USA - and they come complete with sweatshops and all).

[GUNWOUNDS]

i didnt say widows and orphans didnt deserve assistance.....

i said Social Security's original mandate was

[Edric O]

This is what I've never understood. Though that seems logical, we're looking at a state-run everything, correct? Well that means every company will be government-run, and thus in-between the pure hordes of companies there can still be unseen inefficiency that takes away from that corporations production without anyone ever taking note, due to the pure amount of businesses, right?

Right. However, if the inefficiency is big enough to cause a visible negative impact on people's lives, then people will take notice and the planners will come under pressure to shape up or be replaced. On the other hand, if it's too small to cause any visible decrease in living standards, then it's not really much of a problem, is it? Small inefficiencies like these could just as easily appear in capitalist corporations - if they don't cause any visible decrease in profits, no one will bother with them (or even know they exist).

I'll look these up, but could you give me a few examples off-hand? And no, they don't have to be American.

I could give you a few off-hand examples of privatisations that turned out to be miserable failures (such as the privatisation of British Rail), but for any other examples I'll have to look things up.

Question:

(To Edric specifically, though others can answer) Before the NEP (New Economic Policy) was Lenin actually going towards Communism? I recall you mentioning something about Lenin skipping a step, or trying to rush some aspect. What do you think would have been the result had Lenin lived, and Stalin never had come to power?

The NEP itself wasn't very far removed from socialism - it allowed limited capitalism, of course, but this was far less capitalism than in a modern welfare state, for example.

Lenin had a tough job ahead of him, and he knew it, because Russia was very backward and underdeveloped. It was still partially feudalist, so, in many ways, Lenin essentially tried to build socialism from feudalism, skipping capitalism altogether. This would have been possible if there was some other, more advanced socialist country to help Russia along. The international situation in 1917 looked so favourable that Lenin was certain that a Western country (most likely Germany) would soon experience a proletarian revolution and move towards socialism. And sure enough, the German Revolution did begin, in 1918. But it was eventually crushed by the authorities one year later, with help from the proto-fascist Freikorps. So Russia found itself alone and unprepared in building socialism. That was one of the main reasons why Lenin created the NEP, as a "I don't know what to do next" solution. He was still thinking of a way to implement socialism in Russia, despite all the difficulties, when he suffered a series of strokes and died.

Naturally, I have no way of knowing whether Lenin (or Trotsky, for that matter) could have found a way, if given the chance.

What are/were some Social Democratic governments?

Social Democracy itself is an ideology which split off from Classical Socialism around the beginning of the 20th century. It can be described as "socialism lite", since it advocates a capitalist economic system with strong socialist elements, not full socialism. Social Democracy fills the gap between socialism proper and what is known in America as "liberalism". In other words, it is to the left of liberalism and to the right of socialism (although some variants of social democracy are identical to some variants of American liberalism - Roosevelt's New Deal, for example, can be described as social democratic). Social democrats were the creators of the welfare state in the mid-20th century. The "ideal" social democratic countries are Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and, to a lesser degree, Finland and Iceland - the "Nordic countries" of Europe. The heartland of social democracy in general is Europe, although much of the anti-capitalist wave that is currently sweeping across South America is also social democratic in character (the rest being composed of proper socialists).

Social democratic parties are major political forces in all Western countries except one - the United States. Some social democratic parties you might have heard about are Britain's Labour Party, Germany's SPD (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands), France's Parti Socialiste, and Spain's PSOE (Partido Socialista Obrero Espanol). The vast majority (if not all) social democratic parties around the world are members of an organization called the Socialist International.

Although social democrats often call themselves "socialists", they haven't advocated full socialism for nearly 100 years, so this title is a bit outdated. Also, most of the gains made by social democrats during the early and mid-20th century are now under heavy attack from the forces of neoliberalism and globalisation, prompting many socialists (including myself) to send them a message along the lines of "we told you so, you damn fools - you refused to help us in trying to abolish capitalism completely, and now the capitalists are counter-attacking with overwhelming force".

[GhostHunter]

Right. However, if the inefficiency is big enough to cause a visible negative impact on people's lives, then people will take notice and the planners will come under pressure to shape up or be replaced. On the other hand, if it's too small to cause any visible decrease in living standards, then it's not really much of a problem, is it? Small inefficiencies like these could just as easily appear in capitalist corporations - if they don't cause any visible decrease in profits, no one will bother with them (or even know they exist).

What you're saying is that is could happen, but if it became noticable they would be replaced. What if no one wanted the job? What if it began to happen on a larger scale (smaller inefficeencies, that is)? How would they possibly be able to compete against Capitalism, where one mistake could possibly mean bankruptcy? Just the sheer amount of companies that there would be makes this inevitable.

And sure enough, the German Revolution did begin, in 1918. But it was eventually crushed by the authorities one year later, with help from the proto-fascist Freikorps. So Russia found itself alone and unprepared in building socialism. That was one of the main reasons why Lenin created the NEP, as a "I don't know what to do next" solution. He was still thinking of a way to implement socialism in Russia, despite all the difficulties, when he suffered a series of strokes and died.

Why couldn't they? I'm sorry, but I don't know - is there some dire need in Socialism for a technologically advanced state beforehand? Because Socialism is just a governmental concept, right? Or was it only specifically related to Russia at this time?

Question:

Why hasn't Socialism actually been instituted on a larger scale? It seems an incredibly plausible system to me.

*Off-topic a bit* Spain's leader-elect is from the Socialist party, so what does that mean for the way they're run?

I think you stated somewhere that Marx stated Russia was a bad choice for Communism. Was this because of what you stated, or did he share a different view?

Was/are there any flaws with Karl Marx's theories specifically?

EDIT: I'm going out for a hour or so. Thanks for the help so far, Edric.

[DukeLeto]

I fail to see why it matters which government department slaps their name on the checks.  Why do we need all of this beauracracy?  Just abolish it all and create a single department to handle ALL social services.

[Edric O]

Why couldn't they? I'm sorry, but I don't know - is there some dire need in Socialism for a technologically advanced state beforehand? Because Socialism is just a governmental concept, right? Or was it only specifically related to Russia at this time?

Well, it's a (very) long story... The point is that you cannot simply conjure up any kind of economic system anywhere, by just telling people "and now we will all do this". Socialism itself doesn't require any specific level of social and technological development in order to function, but the transition from capitalism to socialism does. And notice I said social and technological development. In general, the conditions for passing from one system to the next fall under two categories: material (technological) conditions and society-related requirements. Russia had problems in both categories.

Why hasn't Socialism actually been instituted on a larger scale? It seems an incredibly plausible system to me.

The main reason is that socialism would abolish the privileges of the capitalist ruling class (the rich and powerful), and, naturally, the rich and powerful don't want to see that happen. There is a conflict of interests between the majority of the population (who would be better off under socialism), and the few (but powerful) people who currently hold immense amounts of wealth. This conflict of interests is what marxists call "class struggle": A sometimes cold, sometimes hot "war" between capitalists and workers. The capitalist arsenal in class struggle includes everything from propaganda ("socialism is evil, socialism is evil...") to military repression. The workers' arsenal includes everything from trade unions and peaceful political parties to armed rebellion.

*Off-topic a bit* Spain's leader-elect is from the Socialist party, so what does that mean for the way they're run?

Zapatero is from the PSOE, which is a social democratic party (see the last paragraphs of my previous post; as I explained there, social democracy originally split off from socialism, so many social democratic parties still keep their old socialist names). So the PSOE's victory means social democracy - a stronger welfare state, perhaps a nationalisation or two, certainly more democratic accountability of the government, etc. - in other words, more socialist elements in Spain's capitalist system, but not anything like full socialism.

I think you stated somewhere that Marx stated Russia was a bad choice for Communism. Was this because of what you stated, or did he share a different view?

It was because of Russia's social and technological backwardness. This ties in with the question I answered at the top of this post.

Was/are there any flaws with Karl Marx's theories specifically?

Of course. No theory is perfect. However, most of Marx's errors (which weren't too many to begin with) have been identified and corrected by other marxists after his death. It is important to understand that marxism isn't the work of just one man - Karl Marx was the one who placed the foundations of marxism and started building on them, but many others (Friedrich Engels, Rosa Luxemburg, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, to name a few) have contributed to marxism in the 120 years since Marx's death.

EDIT: I'm going out for a hour or so. Thanks for the help so far, Edric.

You're welcome. :) But I'm going to sleep right now (it's getting really late over here), so I won't be able to reply until some time later tomorrow.

[Caid Ivik]

Replying to Caid:

They certainly couldn't compare with the level of development found in Rome, or Greece, or Egypt, or any of the other ancient slave-based societies. And they couldn't compare with the agriculture practiced there, either (the domesticated animals which the Venedic tribes undoubtebly had are nowhere near the intensive agriculture and irrigation systems of Egypt or Sumer, for example).

Excuse me? The state of Japan was created between 350 and 500 A.D. Of course they never had slavery, since they skipped slaveryism and went directly to the feudalist stage (just like America, for example, was created directly in the capitalist stage). It is possible to skip a stage of social development if the rest of the world has advanced faster than you and you're just catching up (or if you're a new country created by colonists from a more advanced part of the world).

While we're on the issue, I should mention that capitalism is the first truly global system. Feudalism and slaveryism were very different in different parts of the world. The classical marxist division of history into tribalism, slaveryism, feudalism, capitalism, socialism and communism is eurocentric; that is, the stages before capitalism are analyzed mainly in their European version. (capitalism itself, and the stages after it, are global)

Some Haitians are richer (much richer) than others. The country itself is poor compared to the rest of the world, but there are vast differences or wealth between different people inside it.

In fact, as a general rule, the poorest countries in the world also have the largest gaps between rich and poor. (income inequality is measured by an economic indicator called the GINI Coefficient, and the United Nations publishes regular statistics - perhaps I should start a new topic about it)

For the record, the most egalitarian country in the world in 2004 was Hungary, followed closely by Sweden, Denmark, and Japan. And the most unequal country was Namibia. The United States was somewhere in the middle, but still more egalitarian than the likes of Russia and China (yes, it's official, Russia and China are more capitalist than the USA - and they come complete with sweatshops and all).

They grew different plants and drank mead instead of wine, however in technological development they were on same level, just in smaller scale, as their numbers weren't as high. Also when you live in forest land, you build towns from wood and need no special masonry. Fact that they need no special irrigation is that soil they had was much more fertile than that around Nile... Already bronze-age Celts and Scythes were for example better craftsmen than Greeks or Romans, but I don't use their example for their society was more stratified than venedian. My point is, if marxist historiology is unable to fit more than history of german (as in tribal sense) world, how can we then measure (and lead) whole world by it? On a scale of millenium, a democratic venedian tribe was subdued by feudal Byzantium and then enslaved by Turks. Or take dravidic culture, their history is based on thousands of years of strengthening social stratification (while lesser castes have no binding to higher ones, what is also very sociologically interesting).

I was not on Haiti, but there could be found any other places. Only if there is somebody dealing with foreign, richer nation, is able to gain wealth. This is case of Russia, China or haitian drug mafia. However, they cannot produce wealth by themselves. You can "spend work" on digging an extremely pitch hole, but it won't give you same if you would spend same amount in golden mine and then selling it. These are basics of economy, perhaps if you would use more than 19th century scales you can understand this. And I don't mean your trockism by this.

[gunner154]

I still have 2 questions unanswered...

1.) In Communism, is EVERYTHING shared? That includes TV sets, toothbrushes... etc.

2.) In Communism, if everybody is paid the same for whatever work they do, would they have incentive? (this is different from the 'basic necessities and human nature' argument)

[Caid Ivik]

1.) everything before consumption

2.) there is no financial wage, you receive products which you need

[Dude_Doc]

1.) In Communism, is EVERYTHING shared? That includes TV sets, toothbrushes... etc.

At the time when Communism is implemented there would probably have been many technological breakthroughs. And no, it's not like I can break into your house and watch your TV - because I'll have my own TV, my neighbour will have one, and so on. It's called mass production, people who want a TV will get one. But it is so called owned by the people - that is, no private corporation will make your toothbrush - you and many others will (in an indirect way).

2.) In Communism, if everybody is paid the same for whatever work they do, would they have incentive? (this is different from the 'basic necessities and human nature' argument)

There won't be any money in Communism - because Communism is built on the people. That is, you know that you do a good work for all people, and you already have what everybody else have, so the need for money is useless.

And, as I said, the technological breakthroughs will probably be a daily reality - therefore you would soon see that there won't be any physically hard work left. Evey day would be a day closer to Utopia.

[gunner154]

In Communism, it won't be possible for someone to work more in a bid to achieve a higher standard of living, right?

Also, would anybody bother to invent something if it benefits not just himself? Even if he can retry any number of times...

I agree with the arguments that 'dispel the myth about human nature', yet I also agree with arguments using human nature.... Oh well...

[Dude_Doc]

[quotw]In Communism, it won't be possible for someone to work more in a bid to achieve a higher standard of living, right?

It depends on what you are meaning. A higher standard of living in the sentence of, for example, having a super computer, well of course - you'll have to work for it. But you won't have to worry about the most basic things. You have the absolute right to exist without having to worry about it . But if you want more things, then something is needed in return - i.e. the form of work. You contribute to society, and society contributes back to you.

Also, would anybody bother to invent something if it benefits not just himself? Even if he can retry any number of times...

The thing is - when he invents something, another person may get an idea and continue on the idea or the work of the first person. Thus, development can come both suddenly and quickly - without having to worry about someone stealing anything. People do have the will to show what they can and what they know. Why is WWW free? The person who invented it could just as well have forced everyone to pay him for his idea. How come people make all kinds of programs, free music, even free movies? (look for example on www.theforce.net)

Then, of course, a person could have personal feeling and problems that restricts him to share his ideas and inventions. The thing is, if he share it could benefit him and all of us in great many ways.

[gunner154]

No matter how hard I try, I can't seem to organise my friggin' thoughts properly and convince others that Capitalism will fail and Socialism and Communism will prevail! I need help! Everybody always says the same old damn thing.

Humans will twist it, and it will fail.

WHAT CAN I DO!?!?!?!

[Barbarossa]

Hop on a boat with Edric O and go to Cuba? just kidding  ;)

[Dude_Doc]

No matter how hard I try, I can't seem to organise my friggin' thoughts properly and convince others that Capitalism will fail and Socialism and Communism will prevail!

Well, I think it is pretty obvious that when Socialism is pronounced - people trigger their special though-thing, whatever it is called, and start thinking of the Soviet Union. Just like some people will think "Nazis!" when German History is spoken of.

But if you want to speak to anyone about Socialism, then this person must be, at least, open minded. If they are not, well, you can always start by saying that they already are Socialists everyday without knowing it (helping each other, their families, maybe even about P2P - i.e. sharing files etc.).

Other than that, well, I think you have to ask Edric O.

I need help!

You can also visit sites about Socialism and Communism:

http://www.marxists.org

http://www.wikipedia.org      <-- Use search engine.

http://www.chelives.com

...and so on.

Everybody always says the same old damn thing.

I know, my friends do too. All that is good is probably very hard too. Jesus was the ultimate good and had to go through the ultimate painful path. Martin Luther King had it probably very difficult, he was even killed, Nelson Mandela, and so on and so forth.

Okay, this doesn't proove anything, but I'm saying that this takes time. It took over a year for me to actually understand what this was all about.

Humans will twist it, and it will fail.

Well, without understanding it is probably pointless in even trying. People have to know and realise.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

I know, my friends do too. All that is good is probably very hard too. Jesus was the ultimate good and had to go through the ultimate painful path. Martin Luther King had it probably very difficult, he was even killed, Nelson Mandela, and so on and so forth.

and stalin, who had to deal with such incompetent people. it was not his fault that it was not communism in soviet union, it was the peoples fault. people who wouldn't submit themselves to him.

[Dude_Doc]

and stalin, who had to deal with such incompetent people. it was not his fault that it was not communism in soviet union, it was the peoples fault. people who wouldn't submit themselves to him.

This, for example, is what I am talking about. People who think that Socialism is automatically the Soviet Union and everything else they have "learned" from movies and Fox News.

[VigilVirus]

and stalin, who had to deal with such incompetent people. it was not his fault that it was not communism in soviet union, it was the peoples fault. people who wouldn't submit themselves to him.

Hmm, this is the dumbest thing I've read all day :)

[Davidu]

I say you shouldn't take a political view for granted.

I mean, I'm a little bit of everithing.

PS. here at Architecture where I'm student, let's say that the right wing is quite popular. Actually I never MET someone who supported communism.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

Hmm, this is the dumbest thing I've read all day :)

hehe, it was meant as a joke ;)

the reason why people don't support communism is not because they think it is a bad idea, but their common sense tells them that it is impossible to make it work.

[Dude_Doc]

I say you shouldn't take a political view for granted.

I mean, I'm a little bit of everithing.

Sure, you can have whatever political views you wish, just like any other person, but when you have the power to form and set the rules by your beliefs and your perspective only - there is where the problem is. A good example of this is how Bush passes all kinds of laws and regulations (Patriot Act 1 & 2, his openly hostility towards homosexuals and researchers etc).

the reason why people don't support communism is not because they think it is a bad idea,

I don't think so. They think that Communism or Socialism is what happened in the Soviet Union and what Cuba, North Korea, Laos and PR of China have today. They think that you would have to work 23,5h/6 days a week for a lousy sum of money, a dictator and lots of propaganda - only to mention a few things.

What many still don't realise is that Socialism is a system by the people for the people - which can only work if there is open democracy. It is quite ironic to say that the United States, after the "witch-hunt-for-Communists" times, actually were more Socialists than the Soviet Union. Just like they are more Socialists today than North Korea.

but their common sense tells them that it is impossible to make it work.

Of course it is impossible if they don't even want a better system. 4000 years ago people in Egypt never thought of anything about democracy or human rights. Their masters were the ones to dictate this and that - to tell them what to believe. Just like we today are conditioned, from our very births, to only think of ourselves and what we want, not what the majority want or what they need.

[TMA_1]

...

dont you see though, that you lead a similar crusade against capitalism liek many capitalists do against communism and sociallist philosophies? You are acting the same way that many you argue with are.

Its just sad because so many liberal people feel that somehow they need to enlighten those who aren ot liberal, and say that it is the conservatives that need to step outside the box and face the times.

Well maybe it isnt your place to prosolatize others to your cause. You make those who disagree with you sound completely wrong, and by doing this you are making yourself the fool because your opinions are no more valid than those with capitalist ideals.

Personally I agree that capitalism is completely evil in many ways, but at the same time that idealistic, and almost naive belief that communism has all the answers is silly. sorry if I sound mean, I dont mean to at all, I just odnt like to see this happen.

[nemafakei]

Hang on...

"No matter how hard I try, I can't seem to organise my friggin' thoughts properly and convince others that Capitalism will fail and Socialism and Communism will prevail!"

This was the original question - whether or not it will happen, as opposed to whether or not it's a good thing.

Do you mean this, or the question that everyone else seems to have read?

[Wolf]

I must agree with TMA on this one. If communism truly does have all the answers, as it has been often claimed, then why has it not been practiced in any large form? And do not say that the Soviet Union, Castrolite Cuba, and Maoist China -- the fact that these revolutions occured -- are evidence of people at least wanting to try communism. If it cannot be said that these nations are examples of communism's failure, then it cannot also be said that they are examples of communism's promise; did the men who lead these revolutions, with possibly the exception of the Russians, have motives faithful to the oh-so-good-and-true virtues of communist utopia? I think not; as they ran their nations like dictatorships.

I am quickly beginning to think that many of communism's revolutionary ideals are more superfluous than we really think; and its supposed incompatibility with capitalism also over-inflated. Give me a moment to explain. Claims that we must eliminate money and organized government might not really be necessary to the end-goal of communism. What is the end goal? To create a utopian society in which everyone's needs are met and in which all people are treated as equals and have equal opportunity and access to the resources of the society. Perhaps the elimination of money and government would help, but is there any process of elimination that would not cause social upheavel? Is there even any gradual process of the elimination of these institutions that exists? Short of humanity just... "doing it on its own," I think not. Perhaps, in the future, as technology advances, and the world becomes less a grouping of nations and more the connection of nations, with the national boundary slowly becoming less and less important, I think we may very well see the creations of what are viewed as universal rights... with from that, I believe that universal fulfillment of needs can occur... perhaps. I'm talking in very abstract terms at this point, but how can we be so certain that corporate entities will continue to bar the ideals of communism? They do so now; they may do so for a long time. But the standards of "human needs" are constant; food, clothing, shelter. If these things, through the advancements in technology -- which are made possible by corporate profit, not by the cobbling inventors of old -- become cheaper, and cheaper to make... it is very likely that we could see universal fulfillment of human need, through what is essentially a capitalist system. Indeed, to me, it seems that the only difference between capitalism and communism is that capitalism is human economic interrelations with third-party enforced rules, and communism is these interrelations without such rules or enforcement. And the evils conducted under capitalsm do not come from capitalism itself, by from abuse of the rules of capitalism performed by individuals. The "exploitation of the proletariat" often seems grossly overstated to my eyes... are not the nations who have been capitalist the longest the ones with the highest overall standard of living? Did China's standard of living not surge when it, too, engaged in capitalist actions? The nations which suffer the worst... the ones the UN terms "developing," these are the nations that suffered from colonialism, overexpansion, imperialism... but, I think that capitalism is not all to blame for their woes. If capitalism were to disappear from this earth this very moment, I do not think that we would be any better off. You can change the name of the system, but the individuals who committed misdeeds under that system will find a way to do so in the next. If communism, under any name, in any form, is to have any chance of success, these people cannot be present. It is as simple as that.

[VigilVirus]

I truly believe that Lenin wanted communism in Russia. A lot of people who followed him also wanted the same, but there's always that desire of dictatorship and ultimate power.