Try debating your convictions.
What is socialism?
- Thread starter Irwin
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, that's the capitalist "definition" of socialism. And it's pretty easy to persuade people that's what socialism is because it reflects what we've all seen in the USSR and China in particular. But what they don't tell us is that it turned to "state ownership" for one of two reasons. One is that in China the "capitalist roaders" regained power and sabotaged the socialist effort, and the other is that in the USSR the "detour" into state capitalism was consciously made in order to supercharge the effort to develop the productive forces. Lenin talked about this and recommended it, calling it "state capitalism" since the relationship between employer and employee was not changed. And he also said that the downside would be that a second revolution would eventually be necessary in order to transition finally to actual socialism.
Wow. You did it. You confused "communism" with "communism". Yeah, if you read THIS it will clarify what I'm saying.
How can you believe that a country can have a functioning, stable, economy of worker ownership and control? I can’t.
You seem to believe that a system based on cooperation and democracy where private profit and private opportunism are good, but it is just a delusion. There will be fights in the democratic society just like there just like there is today. Banned and prevented people will seek refuge and want to escape the democratic society. Just like the do today. Remember that all you've been exposed to in your life is a belief that allows those things, so you think it is true.
Alligatorob
SF VIP
Thanks for your response @Senter and I did go back and read your post at the link. To be honest I am still not quite clear as to what you are saying, but have better idea now.
How do you see the Communist regions of Italy fitting into this? I have done some work in that area, including in Bologna, it did not seem all that different, except that many of the corporations were government owned. It seemed more what I call Socialist, but they claim to be Communist. From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Communist_Party:
In all its history, the PCI (Italian Communist Party) was particularly strong in Central Italy, in the so-called "Red Regions" of Emilia-Romagna, Tuscany, Umbria and Marche, as well as in the industrialized cities of Northern Italy. However, Communists' municipal showcase was Bologna, which was held continuously by the PCI from 1945 onwards. Amongst other measures, the local PCI administration tackled urban problems with successful programmes of health for the elderly, nursery education and traffic reform while also undertaking initiatives in housing and school meal provisions. From 1946 to 1956, the Communist city council built 31 nursery schools, 896 flats and 9 schools. Health care improved substantially, street lighting was installed, new drains and municipal launderettes were built and 8,000 children received subsidised school meals. In 1972, the then-mayor of Bologna, Renato Zangheri, introduced a new and innovative traffic plan with strict limitations for private vehicles and a renewed concentration on cheap public transport. Bologna's social services continued to expand throughout the early and mid-1970s. The city centre was restored, centres for the mentally sick were instituted to help those who had been released from recently closed psychiatric hospitals, handicapped persons were offered training and found suitable jobs, afternoon activities for schoolchildren were made less mindless than the traditional doposcuola (after-school activities) and school programming for the whole day helped working parents. Communists administrations at a local level also helped to aid new businesses while also introducing innovative social reforms.
How do you see the Communist regions of Italy fitting into this? I have done some work in that area, including in Bologna, it did not seem all that different, except that many of the corporations were government owned. It seemed more what I call Socialist, but they claim to be Communist. From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Communist_Party:
In all its history, the PCI (Italian Communist Party) was particularly strong in Central Italy, in the so-called "Red Regions" of Emilia-Romagna, Tuscany, Umbria and Marche, as well as in the industrialized cities of Northern Italy. However, Communists' municipal showcase was Bologna, which was held continuously by the PCI from 1945 onwards. Amongst other measures, the local PCI administration tackled urban problems with successful programmes of health for the elderly, nursery education and traffic reform while also undertaking initiatives in housing and school meal provisions. From 1946 to 1956, the Communist city council built 31 nursery schools, 896 flats and 9 schools. Health care improved substantially, street lighting was installed, new drains and municipal launderettes were built and 8,000 children received subsidised school meals. In 1972, the then-mayor of Bologna, Renato Zangheri, introduced a new and innovative traffic plan with strict limitations for private vehicles and a renewed concentration on cheap public transport. Bologna's social services continued to expand throughout the early and mid-1970s. The city centre was restored, centres for the mentally sick were instituted to help those who had been released from recently closed psychiatric hospitals, handicapped persons were offered training and found suitable jobs, afternoon activities for schoolchildren were made less mindless than the traditional doposcuola (after-school activities) and school programming for the whole day helped working parents. Communists administrations at a local level also helped to aid new businesses while also introducing innovative social reforms.
ElCastor
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern CA
Back in my college days I spent a summer working in a unionized sheet metal factory. I paid my dues and went to meetings. Over time I began to feel that I was working for the union, not the company. It was not a good experience. Years later I did a little research on the internet and read about a big shot in my former union found floating in a canal, and a Canadian branch that had turned over management of its funds to a defrocked priest living in Panama. Huh?
Is this what you have in mind to govern us? Of course not, but the dream world you imagine just might turn out to be something less than you wish. Anyhow, is there a country, any country, that has adopted your model of socialism? If not, who comes the closest, and why do you think they have not succeeded?
Why not? And how can you know? You can't because you have no possible basis for knowing.
"where private profit and private opportunism are good"??? I've specifically stated that socialism would BAN private profit and private opportunism and private profit! Maybe a closer reading of my post would clarify this.
Well, just for the record, any belief we can establish a society in which there are no fights, no disagreement, no conflicting interest would be a belief in utopia. And that's certainly not me. But I also know that our seeming differences have been exaggerated, capitalized on, and even boosted with insane conspiracy theories. I believe if most of us and the government really wanted to sort out differences and unite over the most pressing issues facing us, it could be done. But one weakness of the Russian experience which led to its demise as an attempt at socialism, was there was little effort to effectively manage those who would prefer a path back to capitalism and exploitation. That would be a role of the state and Marx never got around to analyzing that need and claifying his thoughts on the role of the state. So that is one of the main issues the new flock of socialists will need to sort out.
My point was that many tend to conflate "communism" (communist ideology and policy) with "communism" (theoretical communist society). One minute they say "communism" meaning the current or past ideology-driven actions, policies, and views of a communist party somewhere, and the next minute they're saying "communism" meaning a theoretical socio-economic system that would be classless, stateless, and moneyless where the rule is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" where if you need a gallon of milk you go to the distribution center and take one. One is ideology and the other is a social structure, but the hypothetical poster in questions never thinks about this and so conflates the two thinking there is just one "communism". Theory and practice.
And that is what I believed I saw in your post. Is that more clear now?
Last edited:
I've talked about that ad nauseum in "SeniorForums" for days now. You might hover over my "avatar" and when the window pops up, select "Messages" in the bottom left to see what I've said.
I'll say this: capitalism is in crisis. We have late-stage capitalism and it is now doing what it must: transitioning to fascism, or trying to. We can't go on with all these problems capitalism has created and shown it cannot solve. The problem is the profit motive and the greed that rises to the top. So all we can do is to keep developing a system that democratically bans private profit if we are to get past this.
Well, I am a bit confused it seems as though we have run around in a big circle. In my initial post I told the story of a childhood experience I had. I did not expect to have someone like you chasing after me for what I experienced in the story, insulting, ridiculing me for what I told in the story. I see you as a troublemaker and I will treat you like one. Troll - Troll -Troll
I have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe you should report my post.
[Edit: I tracked back to your story of your childhood experience. You seem to be hyper-sensitive with a good dose of imagination involved. None of our conversations that followed seem to be even vaguely related to your objections. I don't think I am qualified to help you.]
Last edited:
Paladin1950
Baseball Fan Forever!
- Location
- Mohawk Valley, NY
Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.
Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security.
Socialism is what they called farm price supports.
Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.
Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.
Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.
Harry Truman October 10, 1952
No wonder back in the 50's people used to say, "Give 'em hell, Harry!"
Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security.
Socialism is what they called farm price supports.
Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.
Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.
Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.
Harry Truman October 10, 1952
No wonder back in the 50's people used to say, "Give 'em hell, Harry!"
It's very instructive to notice all the ways the "powers that be" work to confuse and disarm the people. You listed examples. If we cannot agree on what capitalism and socialism are, we sure as hell can't unite to stop the madness and create an alternative.
Another example of how any growing interest in socialism is crushed is the "taboo" on discussing it. Just try raising a slightly positive thought about socialism at a party. Immediately there will be someone who will ridicule you for daring to think that way. That is the taboo on discussing it. You may even feel a hesitancy to bring the subject up because you may get such a reaction. That is the taboo at work, doing its job.
And there's more work that was done to prevent the working class from taking any steps to organize its power or to represent its interests. Just study into the Powell Memorandum and you'll see.
I hope we are done with each other for I am ready to close this matter and leave it behind. Do not repost my posts in the near future please. It is nice for people to get along together is a good ideology. Up and down, we jump, the world goes around, a wise man knows when to keep secrets, the man that sleeps outside his house has a wife who is angry, do not judge and not be judged and then the day will pass, and the tomorrow will be a better day.
ElCastor
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern CA
Capitalism is transitioning to fascism? No it is not, but socialism will be severely rejected in the midterms. Disagree? Well, we shall see.
Well, I sure as hell HOPE we don't go fascist but that seems to be on the ballot in some states. Socialism isn't anywhere on the horizon. Oh, there are brainless accusations flying around occasionally, but no socialism.
SeniorBen
Senior Member
Socialism is community ownership of the means of production. The state (meaning government) may represent the community when the economic system is democratic socialism. I don't think anything like that currently exists today, though.
Several countries, such as China, have government run capitalism — not communism. The government runs everything and the people don't have a say, since the government is a dictatorship. It's actually called the "people's democratic dictatorship," which is an oxymoron since with a dictatorship, the dictator isn't elected, so obviously, there is no democracy.
Occasionally, a leader is democratically elected and then manipulates elections until they are so corrupted that they become irrelevant. The leader becomes defacto dictator. That's what Putin has become and what was attempted in our last presidential election here in the U.S.
Last edited:
ElCastor
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern CA
You could say the same about Fascism. We better be careful -- this is getting political.
Ya think?
A Socialist society is one where everyone is considered equal. However the 'one size fits all' policy doesn't work in practise because people vary so much. Children have widely different levels of intelligence and skills and to educate them all to the same level is very frustrating for the brighter ones.
If a child works hard at school, passes exams and takes a training course, surely they are entitled to a higher standard of living than someone who couldn't be bothered to work and so ends up doing menial tasks. All societies need doctors, scientists, engineers etc. They need to be educated and trained, which again, puts them on a higher level than those of lower intellect.
I don't think it's actually possible to have a classless society with everyone regarded as being the same.
If a child works hard at school, passes exams and takes a training course, surely they are entitled to a higher standard of living than someone who couldn't be bothered to work and so ends up doing menial tasks. All societies need doctors, scientists, engineers etc. They need to be educated and trained, which again, puts them on a higher level than those of lower intellect.
I don't think it's actually possible to have a classless society with everyone regarded as being the same.
Let's see if I can bring my 50+ years of interest in socialism to bear on this. My comments will be "all Marx" and I agree with all of what I'll be saying. I think I covered all your point in the following, @Lavinia .
Capitalist society is a class society. There are various ways of identifying "classes" but the capitalist method of dividing society into "classes" based on income is an arbitrary method. Where does the middle class end and the upper class begin? $150,000 of annual income? $160,000? $200,000?
The Marxian method is based on a person's relationship to the economy; their role. There's nothing arbitrary about that. And the role has strong influence on their outlook, which becomes a class outlook. So one class is the working class and the working class tends to have a working class outlook of laboring, struggling against exploitation, "pinching pennies", and everything else that goes into being a working class person.
Classes, then, do not end by decree. Even ending exploitation doesn't end classes because the class outlook remains. Ending class consciousness is a long process. So the working class person is left with their class interests, class goals, class values, intentions, hopes, expectations, desires, purposes, etc. etc. etc. These are what makes them a class.
So your first point: "everyone is considered equal" cannot be true if the assessment of society is valid. We all have different abilities, intelligence, innate talents, interests, drives, ambitions, etc. Those tend to become "entangled" with class consciousness.
Bottom line is that capitalism is class society and socialism will also be class society. That is the essence of the meaning of "dictatorship of the proletariat". It's the dictatorship of the working class over the capitalist class. The real difference is that in the context of socialism where capitalist privileges are denied and the one equality is that of everyone being required to refrain from exploitation of others, owning businesses with employees, and other capitalist activities, the very existence of class distinctions can diminish and ultimately vanish, leading to a very distant "communist society" which would be classless.
So there can be no "one size fits all" policy in socialism. Education will need to accommodate different interests, different intellects, etc. producing engineers, doctors (Cuba has excelled at this!), mathematicians, production workers, janitors, accountants, etc. etc. And with the rule being "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work", there will be a "pay scale" for different incomes for different job descriptions just like there is now.
So classless society ONLY "shows up" when classes vanish of themselves. Marx said that by living in a society in which people cooperate rather than compete, economically, and become accustomed to democratic interaction and problem solving, the existing class-thinking and class-consciousness will diminish and eventually vanish, leaving communist society as the norm. But that will be a very distant future after many generations of practicing cooperation and I'm not convinced it will ever happen. But then there's no need to convince or be convinced.
Timewise 60+
Senior Member
May I suggest that those who really want to understand all of this don't look here! You will not find the answer here!
Most all, including me, have a strong bias and will present our arguments accordingly. Some may be factual; many will not be. Do your own research, do some reading and find your own conclusions...be careful, as having this knowledge, especially if you live in a Free Market Society, is critical as your votes, over time, will determine where you end up!
Most all, including me, have a strong bias and will present our arguments accordingly. Some may be factual; many will not be. Do your own research, do some reading and find your own conclusions...be careful, as having this knowledge, especially if you live in a Free Market Society, is critical as your votes, over time, will determine where you end up!
Alligatorob
SF VIP
Maybe so.
It has me thinking that the definitions of Socialism, Communism, or Capitalism are not so important. To me specific issues such as how do we manage Medicare or Government subsidized education and housing are what's important. Not the label we put on it.
Timewise 60+
Senior Member
I think you have to also ask if you and other likeminded voters can in anyway, by voting, influence how these services are run....
OK. Here's a good exercise. List for me a variety of job titles of different kinds of workers.
Anti-socialists typically only can think of ditch diggers, line workers, trash collectors, janitors, etc.
What would you list?
- Status