what would it take for socialism to work?

[Faust06]

Since so many of you are sympathetic to this ideal, I'd like to know how you think it would be best executed.

[Karl]

That's like saying "how should capitalism be executed" or "how should a bureacracy be formed"? Big question.

Well in addition to not knowing what you mean by work.

[Faust06]

That's like saying "how should capitalism be executed" or "how should a bureacracy be formed"? Big question.

Well in addition to not knowing what you mean by work.

Just what it sounds like? In the most ideal way possible, of course.. whatever you think that may be.

Socialism failed, so at the very least you can go through how you would go about "correcting" that problem.

[Karl]

Socialism failed, so at the very least you can go through how you would go about "correcting" the problems that emerged.

"They talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America?"

Unsourced quote by Fidel Castro.

Noowww... I think there's not an ideal socialism. It depends on the place and time.

I don't like what China is doing, but I like most of what Cuba is doing. I'll put Venzeula somewhere in between. So obviously, despite saying there's not an ideal socialism, I do have some things I look for.

I don't look for "market socialism." A sort of indefinite NEP like we're seeing in China. That's bad, and makes you often indistinguishable from "social democracy" style government.

I do look for an effective bureaucracy. I think the Soviet-Union had an overbearing bureacracy.

I do look for political unity in the party, and mass organizations to give the people a more direct voice.

I do look internationalism, and a desire to support socialist groups that don't have identical beliefs.

I think there should also be care taken to keep younger people involved in the government. That was a problem in the Soviet Union, and it's something Cuba is successfully avoiding.

Edit: Oh, and I think scientists should have more autonomy over their work than they did in the Soviet Union. Not to the extent of a worker's council in a factory, but something. This could help avoid going about scientific research in a political way.

[MadamI'madaM]

highly evolved lifeforms

[Faust06]

What makes you think autonomy would be possible?

[Ferrus]

A computerised system with computational power unavailable to the old systems.

[trapstar]

State capitalism doesn't work.

Socialism works fine within a market economy

[Karl]

What makes you think autonomy would be possible?

It probably wouldn't be possible unless it was specifically guaranteed by the law. Although I'm not proposing complete autonomy, just that scientists would have a lot of say.


A computerised system with computational power unavailable to the old systems.

That too... imagine trying to run the economy using pencil and paper. Especially a massive country like the Soviet Union. There's a lot of potential in computers, from quickly figuring out what goods people most desire, to using computers to analyze trends, growth, etc. Of course the benefits from computers could mostly apply to capitalism.

[Livid Imp]

Well, this takes some definition of terms, but without it, I'd say some of Europe already has working socialist systems or at least hybrid socialist/capitalist systems. Now are you asking about communism which is really a more refined sort of socialism?

[Faust06]

Now are you asking about communism which is really a more refined sort of socialism?


No.


Europe already has working socialist systems or at least hybrid socialist/capitalist systems

I'm not too familiar with them. I'm starting to think that a hybrid of sorts would be necessary.. a libertarian-socialism sort of thing.

[Karl]

I don't think any country in Europe is socialist. Now, we might have some socialization of the means of production without the socialization of their ownership, but that doesn't make you socialist.

Now, if you're not a Marxist then Canada can be socialist, and if you're really crazy Britain or even the US is currently socialist.

[Livid Imp]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_welfare

Compared to the US, this is downright COMMUNISM! ;)

Actually, I am pro-socialism. But you also have to have some incentive to do well at your job, so I think these hybrid systems are as good as it is going to get.

[Thevenin]

Socialism denies the true nature of humanity. People are competitive and you can't stop it. If they can't compete economically, they'll compete politically. That's what leads to dictatorial regimes.

[trapstar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_welfare

Compared to the US, this is downright COMMUNISM! ;)

Actually, I am pro-socialism. But you also have to have some incentive to do well at your job, so I think these hybrid systems are as good as it is going to get.

Yup I live there :grin:

Seriously if you compare it to all other systems available I think this one is superior. Our economy is comparable to that of any uber-capitalist state. The small differences in wealth, growth and innovation aren't enough to compensate for letting people live in poverty. Sure, you can be poor here too but you won't ever be chucked out on the street. (Unless the new laws for housing pass, then there will be a mass emigration of working class families from inner city Stockholm and other major cities... fucking liberals!)

[AkuManiMani]

Since so many of you are sympathetic to this ideal, I'd like to know how you think it would be best executed.

If control of the society wasn't centralized -- but at the point it would stop being socialism and evolve into a free-market.

[trapstar]

Socialism denies the true nature of humanity. People are competitive and you can't stop it. If they can't compete economically, they'll compete politically. That's what leads to dictatorial regimes.

Socialism at the same time embodies a large part of that true nature of humanity; Living in a community where people look after eachother.

Capitalism is a system, not an ideology. You don't need to be a conservative or a liberal to implement it. The ideology is there to sway the system in the direction it dictates.

[Thevenin]

Capitalism is a system, not an ideology. You don't need to be a conservative or a liberal to implement it. The ideology is there to sway the system in the direction it dictates.

What direction does capitalism, or an ideology thereof, dictate?

[lowtech redneck]

A computerised system with computational power unavailable to the old systems.

There are arguably other problems:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

[trapstar]

What direction does capitalism, or an ideology thereof, dictate?

Well the prevalent ideology in a nation decides what people think is important, thus what people will invest in.

US: Growth and progress -> Powerful corporate climate
Sweden: Stability and Safety -> Strong welfare


(I don't know if I interpreted your question right)

[Thevenin]

Well the prevalent ideology in a nation decides what people think is important, thus what people will invest in.

US: Growth and progress -> Powerful corporate climate
Sweden: Stability and Safety -> Strong welfare


(I don't know if I interpreted your question right)

Interesting perspective--thanks.

[MadamI'madaM]

Socialism denies the true nature of humanity. People are competitive and you can't stop it. If they can't compete economically, they'll compete politically. That's what leads to dictatorial regimes.

There is not enough data about the "true" nature of humanity. A (very) long series of weak individuals isn't the final word on a species' potential.

Eventually (probably in centuries), if we can't find a way to drop our greed and operate as one colony, we'll have failed evolution and civilization will begin to deteriorate. The idea of a castle for every drone just isn't grounded in reality. We'll also need to find a way to be selective about reproduction. I'll put it this way: the thing we like to call "global warming" is a very small facet on the huge predicament called overpopulation. The individual needs to lose the fear of genetic death if the game isn't to be spoiled for everyone.

Communism vs capitalism is a symbolic representation of this problem.

The pyramid scheme called America is already starting to bottom out. Civilization could follow in a shorter timeframe than we'd like to imagine.

[Lethal Sage]

Socialism makes about as much sense as capitalism, not much at all.

[AkuManiMani]

Ideally socialism is a self-regulating society that maintains security for all its members. The thing is that the most likely way to achieve this is by democracy, rule of law protecting individual rights, and free-markets. The top-down engineering of society that socialism requires is just counter productive and inefficient.

[Roger Mexico]

What direction does capitalism, or an ideology thereof, dictate?

Capitalism tends to direct society's collective efforts toward the satisfaction of the desires of those who control the capital.

Duh.

If you read Marx et. al. beyond just the Manifesto, it's made very clear that an effective socialist system arises out of an advanced capitalist economy. Socialism works best in a post-scarcity stage of economic development.

Capitalism is a much more efficient way to organize production than, say, agrarian feudalism. Rather than each individual performing the same labor to produce needed commodities at a subsistence level, you let people develop specialized skills and perform a specific type of labor in order to generate a surplus. Each person then trades the surplus product of their own specialized labor for the surplus product of someone else who has specialized in a different task. Theoretically at least, each individual is performing the task they're most suited for, and each task is being performed by the person or persons most suited to perform it. In addition, each producer has a clear incentive to produce more efficiently, and therefore to develop new means of production related to their own specialization.

In a scarcity situation (where supply < demand for the most important commodities), a system of equivalent exchange is the most efficient way of allocating the aggregate surplus of everyone's labor. If an external force (e.g. the state) intervenes to redirect some portion of the surplus to an entity that cannot compensate the surplus' producers, such external force must thereby deprive someone of that commodity. Under scarcity conditions, such deprivation is likely to inhibit production, since those deprived will very likely be unable to continue their productive labor.

If, however, an economy has reached a stage of technological and organizational development where the means already exist to generate surplus product above and beyond the level that would meet every producer's needs and enable them to continue producing, it will be more efficient in many cases to allocate portions of the surplus on the basis of need rather than equivalent exchange. Since it's in everyone's mutual interest to keep production running, participants in such a hypothetical economy/society may decide to collectively allocate resources toward the general interests of the community rather than demand a quid pro quo exchange for the satisfaction of every need.

People do this in small groups all the time. Marx, Engels, and their compatriots simply posited the idea that at some point the integration of specialized labor inherent in the development of industrial capitalism would make it not only advantageous but also highly feasible for it to happen on a scale that would encompass entire societies.

Marx repeatedly hinted that the country most likely to establish the first effective socialist system would be Germany, which in the 19th century had by many indicators the world's most advanced industrial economy.

Russia was actually a really poor candidate in that respect, since it was one of the last countries in Europe to begin industrializing and was still mostly an agrarian society governed by a feudal/aristocratic political system.

The Bolsheviks were basically attempting to "skip a step" in Russia's development and go straight from agrarian aristocracy/monarchy to industrial socialism without the intermediate step of developing an industrial infrastructure through private entrepreneurship. The Five-Year Plans and such were an attempt to catch up to the West through centralized, state-mandated modernization of key industries [Edit: A really interesting book on 'modernization theory' is Barrington Moore's Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy]. On balance, they were actually rather successful, (Compare Russia in the 1960's to countries that were still living under hereditary monarchies) but in the process they created a lot of misery and deprivation that the more decentralized, entrepreneurial approach to modernization favored by Western countries largely avoided.

But let's not forget that the economic situation in the United States and Germany wasn't so great in the 1930's, either, and Russia suffered staggering losses of both people and resources in World War II. And the fact that the main factor in the Soviet Union's decline was the strain put on its domestic civilian economy by huge expenditures on the military during the Cold War.

[C.J.Woolf]

Socialism at the same time embodies a large part of that true nature of humanity; Living in a community where people look after each other.
I imagine that socialism at a national level will work only in homogeneous nations, where people consider all their countrymen as "us" and there is no "them".

[Ptah]

Since so many of you are sympathetic to this ideal, I'd like to know how you think it would be best executed.

In fiction.

[Ellipsis]

"They talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America?"

Unsourced quote by Fidel Castro.



Actually socialism failed first in many of those nations thus causing many of todays problems. As for Asia just look at Japan, China and India. There are less in Latin America because many where controlled by external entities or still dependent on one leader.

The greatest correction to socialism is making it on a smaller scale not controlled by the "greatest" good but rather by the community's good. Then I would agree to socialism. Sure it would take some of my right as a individual but still give me some power in the small community. Give more power to the local level.

[Faust06]

Socialism denies the true nature of humanity. People are competitive and you can't stop it.

I don't think so. People will continue being competitive without fighting for money. Not a very enjoyable competition anyway.

Nice post, RM.

[Zephyrus055]

It seems to be the case that people are motivated by expanding their power and control of resources, and that this drive is inherent and superior to our desire to help the community.

I don't know how that makes socialism possible. It seems contradictory. I know Marx thought that people were selfish because of society, but it seems he grossly over rated the importance of the environment on our selfishness.

I just don't think it's possible without collapsing in to Stalinism.

[Roger Mexico]

I imagine that socialism at a national level will work only in homogeneous nations, where people consider all their countrymen as "us" and there is no "them".


Mmmm, not so much. An "us" implies a "them"; neither concept can exist without the other. [OK, I suppose "them" could be opposed only to "me," but that's hardly a workable political philosophy ;) ]

"National Socialisms" have a tendency to deplete themselves in obsessive campaigns against foreign and/or domestic, real and/or imagined 'others' in the hopes of rallying the favored in-group around an often spurious sense of common identity. Informative examples include Serbian nationalism and Iraqi Baathism as well as the obvious one of the Germans who famously coined the term.

However, the German example is particularly instructive since the enemy of choice in that case was a highly assimilated minority that for the most part identified with the majority and differed from them only in the relatively trivial areas of religious identity and practice.

Self-identified "socialists" without the "national" modifier would likely tell you that their ideology offers a superior alternative to identification of oneself primarily with a national/cultural collectivity.

[Lethal Sage]

Eventually (probably in centuries), if we can't find a way to drop our greed and operate as one colony, we'll have failed evolution and civilization will begin to deteriorate. The idea of a castle for every drone just isn't grounded in reality. We'll also need to find a way to be selective about reproduction. I'll put it this way: the thing we like to call "global warming" is a very small facet on the huge predicament called overpopulation. The individual needs to lose the fear of genetic death if the game isn't to be spoiled for everyone.

Communism vs capitalism is a symbolic representation of this problem.

The pyramid scheme called America is already starting to bottom out. Civilization could follow in a shorter timeframe than we'd like to imagine.

America bottoming out has to do with a collective "fuck this" from the rest of the world and America itself. I'd hate to imagine a life without greed, as it's simply an exaggeration of self-interest or satisfaction.

I agree. I wonder how that civilization thing is going to work out, although I have my ideas.

[Roger Mexico]

The idea of a castle for every drone just isn't grounded in reality.


Nice. Concise yet insightful. As usual. Cheers.

[Karl]

If you read Marx et. al. beyond just the Manifesto, it's made very clear that an effective socialist system arises out of an advanced capitalist economy...

As someone who's read more than just the manifesto, I have to congratulate you here. You have a good understanding. The core of Leninism is pointing that socialist revolutions are actually more likely in the nations least suited for socialism in some respects, and trying to figure out how to make it work. They didn't exactly try to skip a step in the USSR, as there was the NEP and then a period of industrialization, but it wasn't the conditions or methods that Marx predicted. (edit: actually that's not the core, that's just a big part of it)

But Marx said very little about what the dictatorship of the proletariat would be like, and he did say that Marxism was a science, so all this is okay.

[C.J.Woolf]

The core of Leninism is pointing that socialist revolutions are actually more likely in the nations least suited for socialism in some respects, and trying to figure out how to make it work.
I've noticed that advanced capitalist societies tend to produce institutions and leaders that save capitalism from itself, like FDR in the United States. Did Marx fail to foresee that?

[earwax]

highly evolved lifeforms
Yeah, along those same lines, I was going to say people who actually cared about their fellow humans and weren't greedy...

But then, any system would work fine under those conditions.

[Faust06]

it seems he grossly over rated the importance of the environment on our selfishness.

We're completely dependant on the environment, so I wouldn't say so. Some people just lack foresight, or just prefer to be ignorant for some immediate pay-off.


The idea of a castle for every drone just isn't grounded in reality.

Well said, though I don't think any pro-socialist would want or expect that, since they're supposedly non-materialistic. In any case, socialism would mean just one castle: the government.


I was going to say people who actually cared about their fellow humans and weren't greedy...


Please define "greedy". Does it mean sacrificing someone else for your own ends? Or just plain gaining more of what you desire?

[s'box]

Theres been a really narrow field of debate within what constitutes socialism here, there is vastly more to socialist systems than state ownership or social democratic welfare states.

what socialism needs to work is democracy. Not just stuffing a ballot box every couple years bread and circus democracy, it needs democracy at all levels of society, and most importantly in the workplace.

Democratic worker owned cooperatives have nothing but a good track record across the board, whether they dominate the economy or are in competition with capitalist enterprises they have proven themselves just as strong and efficient as privately owned business but with a whole lot less of the hierarchal crap involved. So we have a system that debunks the fallacy of socialism and the free market being incompatible. I'm not necesarily advocating market socialism (and this is what should be called market socialism, rather than mixed capitalist/stateowned economies like north europe and china), but at some level it could be integrated into a democratic socialism to sort of pick up the scraps, and keep the sort of human endeavor that creates wonderful and useless things that no one in a council would ever find worth social resources.
for examples, we have the Emilia Romagna region of italy, which is among the most prosperous, and with a solid 2/3rds of its population working for cooperative enterprise
http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/07/report-from-emilia-romagna.html
Titos yugoslavia held a similar model and without the corruption endemic to a one party state would likely have continued its economic growth at its post ww2 rate which was above most other european nations at the time. We have more and more co-ops coming out of venezeula, and the radical co-ops in the spanish civil war outproduced their hierarchally bound peers.

So the first step to a working socialist model, regardless of who directs production or how, is that democracy in the workplace must be an inherent right.

after that, decentralization needs to be key, and at what levels what things are operated at will be a matter of public discourse. A series of councils or economic based groups based on local organizations as much as possible would be the main force behind any economic planning involved. Most things of 'need' will ultimately be run by some sort of council involving consumer advocates and the representatives of democratic industry. Localization again will be key, and this system will bolster regional cooperation of economy rather than the hyper specialized location based system of modern capitalism.

Parecon, participatory economics, is one of the best worked out of one of these systems, it proposes a democratic system of decentralized planning that can exist completely outside the context of the state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parecon

Likely a mix of socialist systems would come out to be the most stable, with most major industry being relegated to worker run and democratically decided production, and space for small time co-operative or self-employment within a socialist free market.


I just don't think it's possible without collapsing in to Stalinism.

This shows a complete lack of a critical analysis of former socialist states, and i would challenge you to make a decent case of how socialist economics specifically led to the collapse towards dictatorship (which i'd argue was present long before stalin took control), as opposed to the much more straightforward reasons of the bolsheviks undemocratic and super centralized party structure which was an internal dictatorship long before it secured itself over a new re-centralized armed forces and eventually a new state.

The socialist system, as in, the soviet workers councils, were in a state of constant war against the encroachments of dictatorship, and it took years of little measures (and the squashing of a few outright revolts) of bolshevik power grabbing plus the chaos of a brutal civil war to dismantle that internal democracy.

[djm]

To answer the OP, a lot less people.

[Karl]

The core of Leninism is pointing that socialist revolutions are actually more likely in the nations least suited for socialism in some respects, and trying to figure out how to make it work.

Actually this isn't right. Scratch that. But it's a big part of Leninism.


I've noticed that advanced capitalist societies tend to produce institutions and leaders that save capitalism from itself, like FDR in the United States. Did Marx fail to foresee that?

To most modern day Marxists, saving the US comes down to imperialism and not the policies. Obviously you can do capitalism better or worse from an administrative side, but it doesn't cease to rely on exploitation. Thus coming back to Leninism, and thinking that once the imperialized countries revolt, the US WON'T be able to save itself.

Although whether or not revolution is possible in advanced countries is still a hot topic among Marxists. Some say no, there's no chance, some say you need at least one industrialized country to help the others develop, and some say it's possible in both industrialized and non-industrialized countries.

[tinribz]

An unlimited renewable energy source.

[Lethal Sage]

Please define "greedy". Does it mean sacrificing someone else for your own ends? Or just plain gaining more of what you desire?

It'd be interesting to watch a society where you would get more by allowing them to do their own thing than take from them. It would make socialism much more practical, although socialism in itself seems like the opposite of capitalism whereas, communism is a forced socialism.

I favor libertarian socialism as it seems to mirror what is inherently in place with illusory systems pasted on. It would fall into place if a highly rational civilization chose to try out Anarchism.

[Livid Imp]

Socialism denies the true nature of humanity. People are competitive and you can't stop it.

Simply being competitive isn't so much the problem. You can still have competition in socialist systems. You just wont have the huge disparity between the rich and the poor like you get in the US.


Socialism makes about as much sense as capitalism, not much at all.

Way to go....criticize without offering a solution. If neither end of the spectrum work, then what would?

Nevermind, you answered about the same time I posted.


I imagine that socialism at a national level will work only in homogeneous nations, where people consider all their countrymen as "us" and there is no "them".

No truer words have been spoken (errmm...written). I honestly believe this is why Americans are so opposed to social programs. There is a pervasive thought in white middle and upper class Americans, that "those" welfare people are living high on the hog, off of MY taxes. Of course what they think of when they say "those" are black and hispanic welfare moms shooting out babies like a Gatling gun. While examples of this stereotype do exist, the reality is, most people on welfare ARE WHITE. This stereotype is the last vestige of racism in America.


I've noticed that advanced capitalist societies tend to produce institutions and leaders that save capitalism from itself, like FDR in the United States. Did Marx fail to foresee that?

Unfortunately, I think FDR was a fluke. The right man at the right time. The stock market crash actually happened under Hoover's watch, and he did nothing to try to correct the situation. Today, among conservative circles, FDR is considered a communist that set America back. Not exactly a hero's welcome. And capitalism does need to be protected from itself. Extreme social libertarianism leads to anarchy, extreme economic libertarianism leads to economic anarchy.

[Lethal Sage]

Anarchy leads to order. Total anarchy is an impossibility.

See above. ...on quoting, nice save

Edit: I wonder why libertarianism isn't discussed more, as it allows social and economic growth through freedom.

I suppose it's the government's "You need us" and the people's "We need you" mentality.

[intpgolfer]

1. Socialism - needs honorable men who are just a little bit greedy.

2. Capitalism - needs greedy men who are just a little bit honorable.

And most men are closer to the second, while most gods are closer to the first?

[Ptah]

1. Socialism - needs honorable men who are just a little bit greedy.

2. Capitalism - needs greedy men who are just a little bit honorable.

And most men are closer to the second, while most gods are closer to the first.


This god is closer to the second. :devil:

[Livid Imp]

1. Socialism - needs honorable men who are just a little bit greedy.

2. Capitalism - needs greedy men who are just a little bit honorable.

And most men are closer to the second, while most gods are closer to the first.

LOL I love it. Well stated. :theclap:

[LastRailway]

My main objection against socialism is that, while it tries to ensure a relative economic equality, it substitutes the actual government with another, just as (if not more) authoritarian.

[Faust06]

1. Socialism - needs honorable men who are just a little bit greedy.

2. Capitalism - needs greedy men who are just a little bit honorable.


Again, please define honorable and greedy.

[MadamI'madaM]

When I think of socialism/communism, it's in reference to economic regulation. Aside from that, any form of government could take place.

With the advent of the internet, much purer forms of democracy are possible. (not to suggest I believe America is any form of democracy) This could go hand in hand with a socialist economy.

[Hustler]

An unlimited renewable energy source.

Dilithium crystals. Totally.

[Architectonic]

Since so many of you are sympathetic to this ideal, I'd like to know how you think it would be best executed.

Mind reading technology. Hive-mind. :ph34r:


Socialism works best in a post-scarcity stage of economic development.

Which suggests socialism only works in an imaginary universe....