What's the deal with Socialism?

[Andre]

China with or without nth Korea look in pretty good standing as the new military world control. They could take us and the Muslim world out in a number of ways though.
Our farmers have even cut down old trees and walked off farmland because of their imports. Our nation have been living off their imports and making money from them and restructuring whole industries around it. Soon we will be fucked when they say we are.
Then they'll walk in unopposed.

[CFH]

This is going to be a long post.

I think that socialism, like any ideology, is dangerous when taken to extremes. Totalitarianism, regardless of the mask it wears, is always a bad thing.

I do believe strongly in the value of social democracy though, for reasons I am sure we have discussed a thousand times over.

What exactly do you like about it? And have the things you liked ever been sustainable or successfully used by a government in real life?

The Socialist idea of constant revolution, to me is ridiculous and if you're constantly revolting #1 You can't make serious progress and #2 At a certain moment you turn from a revolution of ideas to just pure blood lust like France did in their revolution. Of course that isn't ALL socialists just the "shit
stirrers" like a Lenin or Guavera.

First of all, let me say that I am not a socialist. I value personal freedom, democracy, and many other liberal (small 'l') ideologies. Calling someone with my views a socialist or comparing us to Stalinists is akin to calling a calling a conservative a fascist and comparing them to the Nazis.

What I am is a social democrat. I do believe in government-run social services, higher taxation for those who make more money, and in prioritizing the needs of everyone.

Certain people in our societies are accorded a distinct and unearned privilege as a result of their race, gender, sexuality, religious beliefs etc. etc. etc. This means that there are other people who are places at a distinct disadvantage as a result. There are also people who are marginalized as a result of their health, mistakes, or just bad luck.

I believe that it is the governments role to address these social problems as it is the single biggest determiner of our culture and social structure. Charities are not sufficient to do so, they never have been, and they only serve to perpetuate a system of advantage and often one of exploitation. Charities are a nice way for societies elites to impose their values on other people and to feel good about themselves. The help a relatively small number of people but almost never effect any change (in fact, I cannot think of a single instance where a charity has done so, but I concede that I may be wrong there).

Despite all the propaganda (which is often inherently racist or discriminatory) about 'welfare queens' and a few extreme examples, the vast majority of people who are forced to rely on the government for help do so for a very short period of time. I don't have the exact statistic in front of me, but in Canada something like 95-98% of those who go on welfare or employment assistance do so for less than a year and never return. That is not becoming a 'dependant' and I would argue that a system of charities with wildly fluctuating resources, capabilities, and competencies would do much more to establish people as 'dependants' than a system that actively works towards social change and personal empowerment.

To take things a step further, I would argue that conservative social ideology does little more than justify the unearned privilege granted to societal elites while vilifying others and perpetuate an inherently biased social structure.

Any privileged person who thinks that they are any better, smarter, or more hard-working than a poor single mother or a minority who cannot find work is a fool. They've usually just been put in a better position to succeed. While there are always exceptions and I believe that success should be encouraged and that a large degree of competition can be a good thing, I also believe in working towards a society in which everyone has the same opportunities and no one, regardless of all other factors, is left to live at a substandard level.

That, very briefly and written in a very off the cuff way, is why I am a social democrat. I'm sure this post is filled with spelling errors and half-finished thoughts because I wrote it quickly, but I hope it explains my position. Honestly, to really explain myself I would have to write an essay and I simply don't have the time. Basically, I believe that the success of a nation should be judged by how it treats those in its charge who have the least, not on how they treat those who have the most and that government, as an extension of the people, is best-suited to address these issues.

Social democracy is also an political system that has achieved great results. The Scandinavian countries have the highest quality of life of anyone in the world. Here in Canada, our system of universal healthcare, arguably (or perhaps inarguably) the single thing most Canadians are the proudest of, was the direct result of a socialist/social democratic politician.

Do I think such a system is possible in the States? No, not for centuries because of the way most people feel there, and that is fine. People have a right to chose how they want to live and be governed. I don't think that means it is not a successful system of governance though.

One more quick note, concepts like perpetual revolution are examples of things taken to the extreme and that is not something unique to socialism or leftist thought (obviously). Even Thomas Jefferson argued for something similar

CFH, I don't mean to crap on your beliefs I just don't get it. Like Punk Rock...if you're a Punk band you pride yourself on a certain lack of popularity, however popularity = money and money = success, economic security but to their fans success = bourgeois, sell outs, all things bad. Much is the same with the Socialist leaders, hell Lenin was shot by a former supporter who though he had "sold out", Mexico had their hearts broken several times by Socialist leaders in their revolution, Robespierre "sold out", Castro "sold out" so lamented El Che....I mean I've never seen nor heard of a successful, well liked Socialist leader that didn't threaten to murder any opposition.

Its a game you can't win IMO which is one of many reasons I can't wrap my head around it.

You're not crapping on my beliefs. I appreciate that your comments have made me think a little bit and justify my own beliefs. It's something I haven't had to do in a while.

I would argue that the leaders you mention are all extremists and that few of them are actual socialists. For the most part, they were totalitarian dictators under a banner of socialism.

I would also argue that it would be awfully difficult to successfully establish any state, socialist or otherwise, when the world's wealthiest and most powerful nations are all actively trying to subvert you.

[Gandalf]

Great post, CFH and I agree with large swathes of it.

Socialism is one of those great general terms like democracy and capitalism. Taken to its extremes as Lyle does by citing the likes of the early Soviet Union then I don't think you will find too many people supporting it. I certainly don't adhere to Communism, but at the same time I certainly don't tolerate the extreme views of capitalism which have typically been spouted by the Chicago school economists and taken up in practice by the US and British political and corporate elite. Both extreme models were prone to massive abuse and in one example failed and in the other is failing right now.

Lyle, like too many American's, is unable to talk about 'socialism' without talking about extreme cases. Most countries practice socialist models. In fact you only have to go back to America in the 1800's with it's protectionism and state support for developing industries to see what free market ideologues of today would look upon in horror. The US of 1885 would not have qualified for an IMF loan whatsoever and yet that is what they force poor or developing countries to take on if they want money from IMF America Inc. Governments provide education to nurture children, health care is provided at the point of use. Public transportation is provided to enable cheap and effective commuting. It is only in countries that have become capitalist extremes where these are being taken away. In the UK you can barely afford to use the train regularly and in the US you must go through a private Insurer to get treatment.

Historically the US was at its most successful by incorporating socialist strains into its economy. Even in recent years the government has acted in an extremely socialist manner by involving the state in massive bailouts of both finance and the auto industries. Surely a capitalist nation would just have allowed the markets to correct themselves. Free market ideologues are only capitalist in as far as they want advantages over other countries and seek ways to make the rich richer. They will readily adopt 'socialist' policies in order to protect their own and veil them in a bunch of fancy rhetoric. It is largely hot air.

Socialist policies are the great equalizer. The powerful need to be checked and the poor need a more even playing field. Wealth should be redistributed. The rich can still be rich, but they have an obligation to the society in which they operate and likewise the poor who receive assistance have a duty to respect the law and pay their own taxes when they start to work and if they do well then in turn they have a duty to pay more and thus help up others less well off. Religion and charity as substitutes for that? Poppycock. Tell the man who has been laid off to go to church! Why should he? He doesn't even believe in God, but he does believe in society! The great equalizer.

Right now I would argue the opposite. What's the deal with capitalism? It is an out of control unchecked beast and it is currently cutting its own neck. We are in interesting times and I look on with keen interest.

[Gandalf]

"I'm awaiting someone to mention a system that's worked better, put more roofs over more heads, fed and clothed more people than the American way......I don't think there is such a system, it certainly isn't some socialist one I can tell you that right no" - Lyle.

Historically America is a country that has had a very large state involvement in its economic development. Yes, the American way was very interesting up until the 1950's. Though try telling that to black people who didn't have it so good. It was a system that provided jobs and the markets were regulated. Wages actually went up and quality of life was definitely improving. I like that America.

Then of course you have America turning to deregulation and deciding to impose brutal economic systems on the rest of the world. Large swathes of Latin America fell and the US began to assassinate leaders in order to impose their own puppets or otherwise just full on invaded countries because they would most likely not implement the US model. "You must have free trade with us or we don't give you loans!". "But you didn't use free trade when you started out!". "Hush little nation. You do as we say, not what we did. Furthermore, our corporations want access to your resources and utilities services". "Our people will hate it, but okay". And so it went as nation after nation gave in. Even the rich nations became brainwashed as Thatcher declared that society no longer existed and then privatized everything she could. Years later Brits spend half their income on bills and some even ran overseas in a desperate bid to escape the horror.

Most would concede that Britain and America are just a little bit screwed up right now and it is the socialist, protectionist nations that have actually managed to grow.

[Master]

Doesn't the USA government subsidise the petrol so that people can get around in their cars? That is socialism in action.

[El Kabong]

Thank you to CFH and miles for taking the time to try and educate me on this issue, or at least expressing your views, because I find those interesting as well.

OK, the reason most of the figures I mentioned were "totalitarian" and "extremists" is because they were the only ones that gained control of entire governments, and although they had the ideals of making things better, making their countries better, they really messed things up instead of improving them. Which Socialist leaders did you want me to look at? Do you guys have a few that I should look into?

I understand that certain aspects of American economic policies both individual and corporate can be defined as Socialism and that is something I think that hurts the middle class most as they are the ONLY ones not bouyed by the helping hand of the government...the middle class play fair, play by the rules of Capitalism and they are punished with taxation to pay for individual and corporate welfare. If politicians truly cared about the middle class, then they would make adjustments to allow for both the poor and the wealthy to be placed on a level playing field with the middle class. welfare in my view does much more harm than good. With the individual welfare shackles them to be perpetually destitute, it punishes them for striving to dig themselves out of the lower class by taking away benefits. With corporations it increases the tax burden on other companies that don't have the political sway of a GE.

miles, first off The United States has the right to trade with whomever they please, however they come to an agreement. Secondly, you argue that the US did something wrong by using the leverage of loans to countries to get Free Trade from them....well miles that's just life, I don't know of any country that would not try and make a better deal for themselves if given the opportunity. Finally, which "socialist protectionist" countries are doing better miles Greece? They Were lead by a Socialist and things ain't looking to hot for them. Perhaps you were thinking of China? Well for the time being China seems to be doing ok, but it won't be long before their bubble bursts...you think the Baby Boomer Generation in the United States will eat up large amounts of capital, China is going to get demolished by their older citizens in the very near future.

[CFH]

Thank you to CFH and miles for taking the time to try and educate me on this issue, or at least expressing your views, because I find those interesting as well.

OK, the reason most of the figures I mentioned were "totalitarian" and "extremists" is because they were the only ones that gained control of entire governments, and although they had the ideals of making things better, making their countries better, they really messed things up instead of improving them. Which Socialist leaders did you want me to look at? Do you guys have a few that I should look into?

Well, the problem with extreme socialism is that it is just that, extreme. I honestly can't think of a single hardcore 'socialist' leader I would be happy living under, though if I am being completely honest I only really know anything about the major ones (Lenin, Mao, Castro etc.). I'd like to learn more about Latin American socialism. But I also wouldn't want to be ruled by anyone who took their ideology to the extreme. I believe a country functions best when there are a number of competing viewpoints.

Those individuals you mention are not socialists in the same way that I am. Like I said in my original reply, comparing my beliefs to theirs is a lot like comparing your beliefs to those on the extreme right. It's neither fair nor accurate.

If you would like to learn about two social democratic leaders for whom I have a ton of respect and who I would have no problems governing Canada I suggest you read about Jack Layton (the man in my sig) and Tommy Douglas. Neither are perfect, in fact a young Douglas once published a paper supporting eugenics (which he would later regret), but they are much more in line with my beliefs than someone like Hugo Chavez.

Wikipedia isn't the greatest source, but it's sure the easiest:

Tommy Douglas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jack Layton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I understand that certain aspects of American economic policies both individual and corporate can be defined as Socialism and that is something I think that hurts the middle class most as they are the ONLY ones not bouyed by the helping hand of the government...the middle class play fair, play by the rules of Capitalism and they are punished with taxation to pay for individual and corporate welfare. If politicians truly cared about the middle class, then they would make adjustments to allow for both the poor and the wealthy to be placed on a level playing field with the middle class. welfare in my view does much more harm than good. With the individual welfare shackles them to be perpetually destitute, it punishes them for striving to dig themselves out of the lower class by taking away benefits. With corporations it increases the tax burden on other companies that don't have the political sway of a GE.

From what I know, the facts do not back up this kind of statement. There are always going to be those who abuse any system, but for the vast majority of people income assistance is a short-term solution to a crisis situation.

How would you like to see the poor, middle class, and wealthy all achieve a 'level playing field' without government intervention and therefor structural change? I'm curious.

[El Kabong]

CFH, I think you might be inclined to like someone like Zapata, whom was assassinated before he was corrupted by power.

As for the "level playing field", I suggest removing government intervention as much as possible and allowing people to earn for themselves with no boost from Uncle Sam. I would also suggest a simplified tax code for individuals and corporations to limit people gaming the system and to make it easier for individuals. I would also allow for foreign held funds of American corporations to be brought back to the United States without heavy taxation.

The bottom line, if the government is going to help the poor and the wealthy then no wonder the middle class is disappearing.

[Nameless]

I will come back later to answer all of this. For a philosopher who spent like 10 years studying (among other things) the implications and the meaning of socialism, it is quite hard to believe what some are making of this word sometimes. Socialism doesn't mean stalinism, maoism or anything like that, it is much complex and varied than that.
When I look of what many in the US think about socialism, it's almost like if we need a red flag with something yellow on it and be lef by a Tyran. The funniest example is these tee-baggie-boys with Glen Beck who try to paint Obama like some kind of fascist because he instaured a social health care. The argument: this communist impost us a health system that we don't want. *insert huge face palm here* There are so many social micro systems in the US, it is just aberrant that people still connect socialism with a form of totalitariam communism a la Lenin.

By the way Lyle, socialism doesn't mean permanent revolution, I don't know who did put that in your head but it's plain wrong and false. Marx himself thought that a kind of "peace" would achieve once the class fights would be over and once the proletarian class would head to power (I absolutely do not agree with Marx and lean much more on Max Weber's analyses on that side but it is just to show that it's deeply wrong in its very roots that socialism means permanent revolution too).

[CFH]

CFH, I think you might be inclined to like someone like Zapata, whom was assassinated before he was corrupted by power.

As for the "level playing field", I suggest removing government intervention as much as possible and allowing people to earn for themselves with no boost from Uncle Sam. I would also suggest a simplified tax code for individuals and corporations to limit people gaming the system and to make it easier for individuals. I would also allow for foreign held funds of American corporations to be brought back to the United States without heavy taxation.

The bottom line, if the government is going to help the poor and the wealthy then no wonder the middle class is disappearing.

The problem with that perspective (IMO of course) is that people don't all start out on a level playing field.

There are social and structural inequalities built into our cultures and our systems of government which privilege certain groups of people.
A healthy white male from a middle class background has a much better chance of achieving 'success' (by which I mean financial security, good health, social inclusion, longevity, freedom from persecution, and so on) than does a woman, a visible minority, someone with mental health problems, an immigrant etc. This person has done nothing to earn this privilege, it is simply accorded to them from birth because of their ascribed social identity. I believe that the government should have a primary role in address this problem.

Your vision of a 'level playing field' in which nothing is done to address this fundamental difference results in the perpetuation of a system which is inherently biased and unequal. It preserves privilege and leads to continued marginalization and oppression.

I'm not saying we need to kill the property-owners and seize their land, but what I am saying is that we need a system that ensures that no one is left behind and that everyone, regardless of who they are or where they come from, has a chance to succeed.

[generalbulldog]

CFH, I think you might be inclined to like someone like Zapata, whom was assassinated before he was corrupted by power.

As for the "level playing field", I suggest removing government intervention as much as possible and allowing people to earn for themselves with no boost from Uncle Sam. I would also suggest a simplified tax code for individuals and corporations to limit people gaming the system and to make it easier for individuals. I would also allow for foreign held funds of American corporations to be brought back to the United States without heavy taxation.

The bottom line, if the government is going to help the poor and the wealthy then no wonder the middle class is disappearing.

The problem with that perspective (IMO of course) is that people don't all start out on a level playing field.

There are social and structural inequalities built into our cultures and our systems of government which privilege certain groups of people.
A healthy white male from a middle class background has a much better chance of achieving 'success' (by which I mean financial security, good health, social inclusion, longevity, freedom from persecution, and so on) than does a woman, a visible minority, someone with mental health problems, an immigrant etc. This person has done nothing to earn this privilege, it is simply accorded to them from birth because of their ascribed social identity. I believe that the government should have a primary role in address this problem.

Your vision of a 'level playing field' in which nothing is done to address this fundamental difference results in the perpetuation of a system which is inherently biased and unequal. It preserves privilege and leads to continued marginalization and oppression.

I'm not saying we need to kill the property-owners and seize their land, but what I am saying is that we need a system that ensures that no one is left behind and that everyone, regardless of who they are or where they come from, has a chance to succeed.

In America there is much more of a meritocracy if one tries to achieve it. Let's be honest now, and this is politically incorrect to say, but certain groups advance much faster and farther than others in a merit based society because of things like work ethic and a culture of education that is ingrained in that group. Take the Jews for example, a group of people discriminated and oppressed for centuries in every nation they've been in. But yet they've managed to rise up and attend elite universities in whatever nation they reside in and manage to be bankers, lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc. At the start of the 20th century these Jews from the ghettos of America were able to get into the elite universities of America such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton and others because of what? Their work ethic and a culture that prides itself on scholarly activities. Another group that manages to rise up the socio-economic ladder just like the Jews are Asians primarily of the Confucian culture. So why is it that other groups like Native Americans, blacks, Hispanics can't do what these 2 groups do? Take a look into the culture and the work ethic. Insensitive and politically incorrect to say? It's all true. Culture heavily defines us.

Max Weber a German sociologist and a contemporary of Marx came up with this theory that culture defines us heavily, he was wrong about one thing though, he believed that the Protestant work ethic was superior to others. But I would have to say in terms of competitiveness and a scholarly culture it takes a back seat to the culture of the Jews and Asians from Confucian culture.

And another thing about leveling the field. There will always be the haves and have nots and I think it's ridiculous to try to level this. Yes some people may be born into privilege but then there are others that work their ass off in life. Like the Jews and Asians. There is equality of opportunity but not equality of results was something my old sociologist professor once said when talking about America's system.

In fact if I'm not mistaken, most countries that are heavily socialist and left wing have never had a Abraham Lincoln or Bill Clinton meaning individuals that were born into the shit gutter and rose up to be the most powerful individual of their nation. I find it ironic that many of these socialist nations likes to take a shot at America and proclaim how superior their systems of leveling the field is with scores of opportunities when their nations leaders/politicians are mainly from the wealthy, elite, and privilege class. And a Clinton or Lincoln would have almost zero shot at being president/prime minister/head of state because of the class they were born into if they were born into those societies.

[Andre]

Probably the best so far..

Switzerland features a system of government not seen in any other nation: direct representation, sometimes called half-direct democracy (this may be arguable, because theoretically, the Sovereign of Switzerland is actually its entire electorate). Referendums on the most important laws have been used since the 1848 constitution.
Amendments of the Federal Constitution of Switzerland, the joining of international organizations or changes to federal laws that have no foundation in the constitution but if in force for more than one year must be approved by the majority of both the people and the cantons, a (double majority).
Any citizen may challenge a law that has been passed by parliament. If that person is able to gather 50,000 signatures against the law within 100 days, a national vote has to be scheduled where voters decide by a simple majority of the voters whether to accept or reject the law.
Also, any citizen may seek a decision on an amendment they want to make to the constitution. For such an amendment initiative to be organised, the signatures of 100,000 voters must be collected within 18 months. Such a popular initiative is formulated as a precise new text (general proposal initiatives have been canceled in 2009 [1]) whose wording can no longer be changed by parliament and the government. After a successful signature gathering, the federal council may create a counterproposal to the proposed amendment and put it to vote on the same day as the original proposal. Such counter-proposals are usually a compromise between the status quo and the wording of the initiative. Voters will decide in a national vote whether to accept the initiative amendment, the counter proposal put forward by the government if any, or both. If both are accepted, one has to additionally signal a preference. Initiatives (that are of constitutional level) have to be accepted by a double majority of both the popular votes and a majority of the cantons, while counter-proposals may be of legislative level and hence require only simple majority.

[killersheep]

I love how people that sit in front of a computer all day for work like to talk about the work ethic of others. It's absolutely ridiculous.

[El Kabong]

I love how people that sit in front of a computer all day for work like to talk about the work ethic of others. It's absolutely ridiculous.

.........Lazy bastard

[Gandalf]

I'm not sure that Koreans work all that hard. In terms of productivity they are well down on the OECD lists. They do work long hours and have short vacations, but in work it is my perception that they are quite lazy. In the bank the other day for example, there were five people on the counter sitting idle. 3 more senior types behind (with one of them playing with his phone) and a total of 3 customers including me and my wife. Hardly overrun with work at all. You see it everywhere in Korea. Far more people working than you need and many idling about making coffee. I'm not knocking it as it provides jobs, but Korean's are hardly bastions of efficiency nor productivity.

As for the whole socialist argument, that one takes up too much time for me to post about, so I will politely abstain for a couple of days and I will try to give a proper response then. It's the last day of the year and I'm going to watch to watch the boxing and then try and stay away from the computer until the New Year. So best wishes to you all and I hope you all manage to have a good evening and stay out of trouble!