What is socialism?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Medusa said:
Yes, here's were we come together on this. Marxism works on paper, literally.

Do you think though that knowing the solutions, the way people should act, is enough?
Because the problem I see there is in getting people to act as whatever ideal we're implementing dictates.
Dictates turns to dictatorships. Implementing turns to enforcing. Utopias (with the best of intentions) turn to Dystopias.

We can't make people behave with more compassion toward each other without enforcing a dictatorship.

This if fun. :)
Click to expand...
It’s not about knowing how people act or making them act in any way. It’s about going out among the public and finding out what concerns them most, finding ways of addressing that, taking it back to them to explain the ideas, and getting them interested enough to be involved in whatever way and at whatever level they’re comfortable with. It’s about collective, democratic organizing of agreed-upon action to solve problems.

How can we correct global warming that scientists say is already creating extinctions and threatening our own survival? How about finding ways to end fossil fuel usage or at least reduce it to a fraction? How can we end medical costs that are twice what other countries pay yet they have healthcare as good or better than the US? How about a public option? How about nationalizing healthcare? How about making drug companies non-profit and regulating it?

The point is to get people involved and make a difference.
 

Senter said:
It’s not about knowing how people act or making them act in any way. It’s about going out among the public and finding out what concerns them most, finding ways of addressing that, taking it back to them to explain the ideas, and getting them interested enough to be involved in whatever way and at whatever level they’re comfortable with. It’s about collective, democratic organizing of agreed-upon action to solve problems.

How can we correct global warming that scientists say is already creating extinctions and threatening our own survival? How about finding ways to end fossil fuel usage or at least reduce it to a fraction? How can we end medical costs that are twice what other countries pay yet they have healthcare as good or better than the US? How about a public option? How about nationalizing healthcare? How about making drug companies non-profit and regulating it?

The point is to get people involved and make a difference.
Click to expand...
I have to pause here as I'm about to turn into a pumpkin and I'd like my answer(s) to have some coherent thought.
Will pick up tomorrow. :)
Thanks again.
 

Murrmurr said:
Where's the inaccuracy? And what events are you talking about?
Click to expand...
Reviewing, you said "Socialism is the ideal government for an ideal society. It hasn't really worked because it hasn't yet found an ideal society."

Socialism has to be realistic. Idealism is certain failure. But it hasn’t worked because the effort to establish socialism has never reached the point at which it is functioning and has any measure of stability. And even more importantly, while the whole purpose and goal of socialism is to establish control by the working class, the role of the state, which is most essential, was never developed. Marx never got to it before he died, so when following Marxian principles, there is no guidance for creation of a state that is collectively, democratically run by the working class (99% of the people). That is why workers’ co-ops are so important. The state must not be run by bureaucrats, and the job of the state must be to facilitate and protect workers’ control of the means of production. The state must be largely a record-keeping agency and embody a law enforcement function. Business ownership and/or control is out of the question. That is where the USSR and China and other cases went wrong.

That’s enough for now. I’m not going to “lecture”.
 
Senter said:
Reviewing, you said "Socialism is the ideal government for an ideal society. It hasn't really worked because it hasn't yet found an ideal society."

Socialism has to be realistic. Idealism is certain failure. But it hasn’t worked because the effort to establish socialism has never reached the point at which it is functioning and has any measure of stability.
Click to expand...
Because it requires an ideal society.
 
Senter said:
No. That’s not true. It requires the means of putting the working class in charge instead of the capitalist class, like we have.
Click to expand...
But you need a whole society that's content with that, no? If you have millions of people who know nothing about capitalism, socialism might succeed....like it did in ancient times. I'm talking very ancient, and relatively small societies as well.
 
Murrmurr said:
But you need a whole society that's content with that, no? If you have millions of people who know nothing about capitalism, socialism might succeed....like it did in ancient times. I'm talking very ancient, and relatively small societies as well.
Click to expand...
Today we seem to operate on majorities (or apparent majorities if votes can be “stolen”). So if the majority supports the elimination of the profit motive and the creation of a new system whose motive for action is service to society in which we live, for us, by us, then the majority would “win”. If they clearly see the potential for a government that is in fact one of the people, by the people, for the people, they will embrace it I believe. Don’t you?
 
Senter said:
Right. I’ve been studying into this for 50 years but not with any intensity, but still…..

Tell you what. If you’re interested you might pose some questions relating to what you just posted here and I’ve quoted and maybe I can shed some light on it for you. No promises!
Click to expand...

I’ve seen this thread title recently appearing more frequently on the ‘New post’ page, so I started reading it again. This time from the very beginning; all 19 pages with its 450 posts. Even I can hardly believe I’ve done that.

Then I see that @Medusa has jumped into the discussion, and seems to have immediately raised the discussion to a higher maturity.

I’m looking forward to seeing where this discussion goes and the insights that might be shared. It's always fascinating to read differing perspectives and opinions on such a complex topic.
 
Senter said:
Today we seem to operate on majorities (or apparent majorities if votes can be “stolen”). So if the majority supports the elimination of the profit motive and the creation of a new system whose motive for action is service to society in which we live, for us, by us, then the majority would “win”. If they clearly see the potential for a government that is in fact one of the people, by the people, for the people, they will embrace it I believe. Don’t you?
Click to expand...
No, I don't believe we will embrace a system of eliminating profit and serving society. In fact, I doubt it would ever come up for a vote. I DO believe that a socialist system is as corruptible as any (today).
 
Murrmurr said:
No, I don't believe we will embrace a system of eliminating profit and serving society. In fact, I doubt it would ever come up for a vote. I DO believe that a socialist system is as corruptible as any (today).
Click to expand...
One day very soon it will all become exceedingly clear to most people that we cannot go on with the current order of things. More and more they will recognize that it is the profit motive in particular that is at the base of all our most vexing national problems. Then sentiments regarding the need for a new system not relying on profit will change.
 
Murrmurr said:
No, I don't believe we will embrace a system of eliminating profit and serving society. In fact, I doubt it would ever come up for a vote. I DO believe that a socialist system is as corruptible as any (today).
Click to expand...
But you’re absolutely correct that it will never come up for a vote.
 
Senter said:
One day very soon it will all become exceedingly clear to most people that we cannot go on with the current order of things. More and more they will recognize that it is the profit motive in particular that is at the base of all our most vexing national problems. Then sentiments regarding the need for a new system not relying on profit will change.
Click to expand...
It's more likely, imo, that people will recognize and become outraged that most of the profit gained by regular people's work goes to a handful of hands-off business heads, boards, and investors, and change will come, but the change will primarily be more income for more people. And possibly more privately owned businesses, too.

As I commented earlier, when a society is several million people from many different countries and cultures and whose belief systems vary widely, socialism will not work. imo
 
Murrmurr said:
It's more likely, imo, that people will recognize and become outraged that most of the profit gained by regular people's work goes to a handful of hands-off business heads, boards, and investors, and change will come, but the change will primarily be more income for more people. And possibly more privately owned businesses, too.

As I commented earlier, when a society is several million people from many different countries and cultures and whose belief systems vary widely, socialism will not work. imo
Click to expand...
I don’t see social diversity being a problem. But also, We need to be clear that someone getting rich is not the problem. Most of us like there to be a possibility of becoming rich. The actual problem is the political power an inordinate amount of wealth confers on a person. Currently we have about $4 billion being spent by 12,000 lobbyists in congress and an organization in which corporate lawyers write bills ready-made for your Congressman to submit for a vote and to establish as legislation (A.L.E.C.). This kind of power should trouble everyone. How can we compete? We’re told that is a “democracy” and we get to vote if you can trust the vote. But with that kind of power plus corporate funding of PACs and campaigns, we’re kidding ourselves if we think we have anything remotely like a democracy. So it’s not the money itself, but the political power that is a problem when it ignores global warming, medical costs, failing education, student debt, extreme incarceration rates, immigration insanity, gun proliferation, homelessness, cheating banks, election dysfunction, abortion rights, and ocean pollution out of control to name a few things. Most of these things can be easily corrected but not with 12,000 lobbyists and corporate campaign contributions interfering.
 
Senter said:
I don’t see social diversity being a problem. But also, We need to be clear that someone getting rich is not the problem. Most of us like there to be a possibility of becoming rich. The actual problem is the political power an inordinate amount of wealth confers on a person. Currently we have about $4 billion being spent by 12,000 lobbyists in congress and an organization in which corporate lawyers write bills ready-made for your Congressman to submit for a vote and to establish as legislation (A.L.E.C.). This kind of power should trouble everyone. How can we compete? We’re told that is a “democracy” and we get to vote if you can trust the vote. But with that kind of power plus corporate funding of PACs and campaigns, we’re kidding ourselves if we think we have anything remotely like a democracy. So it’s not the money itself, but the political power that is a problem when it ignores global warming, medical costs, failing education, student debt, extreme incarceration rates, immigration insanity, gun proliferation, homelessness, cheating banks, election dysfunction, abortion rights, and ocean pollution out of control to name a few things. Most of these things can be easily corrected but not with 12,000 lobbyists and corporate campaign contributions interfering.
Click to expand...
"I don’t see social diversity being a problem." I certainly do.

Re: the rest; Yeah, that's what I was talking about (in a few words). We have corrupt capitalism and that's no big secret. It's why so many young people are attracted to socialism. But ask someone who grew up in, for example, the socialist soviet union if they would like to return to that and you'll get a resounding No.

I won't debate about whether the USSR was pure socialism or not because it's moot. Socialism is not immune to corruption. Neither is democracy, communism, democratic socialism, any other ism, or even religious-based systems of government.

They are all completely corruptible. But why? hint: "there is no ideal society" (paraphrased)
 
Alligatorob said:
I think it does, for some people, at least in part.

I know I am happier knowing my friends and neighbors are successful and happy. I suspect a lot of us are. The question is what are we willing to sacrifice to make that happen.
Click to expand...
Hopefully we never get there.
Why would a hard working successful person want to support a leech on society? So in your scenario, one neighbor goes to work every day, works long hours, gets raises for his/her contribution, provides for his family....and his/her neighbor decides to stay home, able to work, but chooses not to and they view that as success and happiness, leeching off government handouts, basically taking from his successful neighbor. Is that the world you want?
 
If you want to understand Socialism and how its nothing more than a stepping stone to communism, but in a more accepting to the uneducated, then read Saul Alinsky.
Saul's books talk about how to insert Socialism in America in subtle ways that typically go unnoticed in our day to day lives. He also talks about the transitions from Socialism, to Marxism, then Communism. Along the way, putting blockers so it can't be 'undone' once citizens come to the final conclusion that communism has taken over.
Rules for Radicals is a roadmap to Socialism that the US is following.
 
Murrmurr said:
If people come together and decide overwhelmingly that this is what they want to achieve, yes. I don't see that working for a multicultural, multi-religious society of several million or more.
Click to expand...
Yes, I've been saying something similar throughout this conversation. We are not ready, as a whole culture, to support such an ideal as socialism. Hopefully we're evolving toward that end.
 
Medusa said:
Yes, I've been saying something similar throughout this conversation. We are not ready, as a whole culture, to support such an ideal as socialism. Hopefully we're evolving toward that end.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't we have to become one culture globally? That has never been the case in the entire history of human kind, which started about 250,000 years ago, give or take 100,000 years. And we recently reached a milestone; 8 billion people, give or take a few million.

Have you ever seen Star Wars - A New Hope? It was Episode lV in a series tells a multi-millennia story of multicultural societies that, by episode 12, still haven't gotten life right. You've got your dictators, your emperors, power struggles, feuds and wars, land-grabs and greed, slavery and serfdom, and endless....useless....negotiations.

Too realistic to be a sci-fi/fantasy. :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top