Socialism

Sorry I've wrote bullshit. So, please simply ignore it.

I'm probably asking something really stupid and off topic, but did Vladamir Lenin make Russia socialist or full blown communist?

Communist

The problem that many people see with socialism is that it's a totalitarian idea.
Socialism's basic philosophy is the advocation of the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. And by removing private ownership there will be a standardization of the economy as a whole.

Many people see this as an infringement on their freedoms and refuse to accept its ideals due to that. Winston Churchill said, "...a socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely." This just shows that people believe that socialism will take away their right to choose what to do with their lives.

However, this does not mean that some aspects of an economy should not be socialized.

Capitalism has been the main economic policy of the US. Capitalism's main philosophy is that privately owned businesses should be allowed to set standards for wages, working conditions, etc, and should be left to trade freely with other businesses. Profits made from trade will go to the owner and wages will be paid to laborors.

Now, looking at Capitalism's ideas, some flaws can be seen in that as well. Such as, allowing the owner of such private businesses to decide wages and working conditions. Not to mention the fact that if a business grows large enough, in Capitalism, it can buy out others and hold a monopoly on its trade (such as what the oil companies have today).

If there was no interference from a government then there would be nothing but monopolies in this day and age. The very fact that the government has standardized wages, working conditions, work hours, etc, is proof that some form of socialism is required for an economy to maintain itself.

What is probably the best form of socialism that would placate both capitalists and socialists would be a form of democratic socialism. A system that balances between privately owned businesses and standardized businesses would be the ideal.

Think of it kind of like this, you and some coworkers have been assigned a task, you each come up with a different idea on how to finish it in the quickest most efficient way possible. However, you dispute over which to use. You now have two choices you can either:
A: Each branch off and attempt your idea by yourself.
B: Choose one idea and work together to accomplish your goal quickly.

If you thought B was the better choice then that leans more towards socialism. Sure you may not choose the idea that would have worked fastest, but working together rather than alone will almost guarantee the task to be done quicker.

In 1995 the Brithish Labour Party said, "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that, by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create, for each of us, the means to realise our true potential, and, for all of us, a community in which power, wealth, and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few."

The fact that the ideas that socialism presents are those that may limit prosperity of a single person does not mean that socialist ideas should be demonized and dismissed, because society is not made up of the few, it is made up of the collective. And if you live in a society where there are few with money and many who are poor then that will lead to a revolution where the poor attack the rich.

In a society where health care is a privately owned business and must be paid for, there are more people who are unable to afford that care in case of the possibility of sickness or injury. Therefore, there are more sick and injured people in the society who are unable to support their family because of a lack of help in receiving health care. Whereas, in a society where health care is provided for all citizens for free, there are more people to care for and people are tended to slower. Personally, I'd rather get help that takes a little time than receive none at all.

In the same article:

Correction, Government. The community has little to no say in how the government owned companies operate.



Define prosperity. Does your definition include a robust middle class while having a smaller number of rich and poor or does it just include a two class society of the working class and the upper class? Another disagreement I have is that society is made up of individuals not a great collective (not to be confused with a large group). We are not a hive mind, each person thinks and acts on their own according to their own judgment. I donate money and time to charities because I want to not because I'm forced to by some third party who can use force to set morality.



"Free" Health care is far from actually being free. Everybody is paying for health care though taxes and hidden costs. All that has been done is forcing people to pay for the health care of others. This illusion of "free" causes people to abuse the system since they don't have to worry about the direct cost to them. I've spoken with many Canadians from Ontario, Nova Scotia, British Columbia and they have told me by a wide margin that people abuse the system since they don't see a direct cost to them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people coming together and working towards a common good but, it shouldn't be forced. Honestly, would you want somebody to help you out from the goodness of their heart or because they are mandated by the government?

Here in Sweden health care isn't free, going to a doctor or an hospital is pretty expensive for just a small a visit. However we have a cap on health care cost that once exceeded gives you a little card that you can use for free health care for the rest of the year. A healthy person won't reach the cap so technically health care isn't free here, we just help out the people that needs it. The only disadvantage i see with the general idea of the government running it is when money needs to be saved, guess what they'll cut down on? But i guess it might be better then people trying to squeeze money out of you, but I'm not to knowledgeable on the health care in the U.S.



Revolution is strong word but these sort of things will happen as long as we have the money system, and it's a bit hard to get rid.

I am all for giving socialism a try. Our current system has failed us so why would you not want to change it? And if socialism does indeed lead us down the road to communism then we will just vote someone into office to change that. And if the government would not change course then the citizens will force it to.

Well I'm sure most people would agree with you, if they lived in some banana republic. However if it comes to large nations socialism never ends well... If you're wonder how I know this then look at... Russia, China, and 1930-45 Germany and you might get an idea as to why America and Britain hate socialism so much. (Mind you the reason I say 1930-45 Germany is because Nazi is an acronym to "National Socialist" hmm...)

Found this on Digg. Found it interesting/relevant. Try to get past the shot at conservatives and look at the socialism we already have in our country
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I am a conservative.
This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy.

I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.

After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level
determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.

On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its
valuables thanks to the local police department.

And then I log on to the internet -- which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration -- and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right."
------------------------------------------------------------

This was hilarious and insightful.

I'm not really gonna provide any input regarding this argument, yet. However, with some hope that this discussion may get back on track, I'll say SOCIALISM IS NOT COMMUNISM. Either one can be sustained, provided that the people practicing them stay true to their fundamental aspects, but people corrupt pretty much everything they touch. I think that before this discussion goes any further, anyone who wants to participate in it needs to do a lot more research and know what the fuck they're talking about.

I apologize if I'm sounding like a dick, but even if I'm not giving any input regarding the topic, I felt I could at least provide input regarding the quality of the discussion.

Because Socialism has failed too, and much worse than this. Not only this, but one can argue "Pro Business Socialism" has caused this mess. In a normal Capitalist Socitey, the banks would have collapsed totally, expect for the ones who realized "HMMMM, that was a stupid idea, getting derivatives and all. Like gambling. Let's not do it again! Oh and fire the jackasses who came up with the idea"

We would have lost jobs, but not nearly as much.

Also, you have to remember the insanity in America's current health care system has only occurred in the past thirty years...Basically when America began cracking down on the medcial field like any other "bussiness" tax and reliability wise (Hint, Dick move)

Also Monopolies aren't bad, as long as they aren't violent ones. As the banking system has shown us, simple incompetence can bring down invincible fiscal fortresses. Hell what most people forget is ROCKERFELLAR, the man who owned the biggest monopoly, earned his by fighting another one.

Monopolies only have power to keep other business down if the other business are providing lesser services then them, aren't smarter than them or if the monopoly owns the police. You only need to stop the latter. The rest is Survial of the Fittest. Pro Tip: Man is an animial not an selfless angel, no matter who much your preacher tells you otherwise. The best leaders are always led by self centered motvies, because the Selfless are forced by nature, to take care of those only around them and lack the amoralness required in some descions on a grand scale.

Also, why do you trust a Politician over a Businessman. One earns his career by lying and cheating, the other are pedophile sex addicts, who caused the Holocaust, Hiroshima, The Trail of Tears, the Rape of Nakesaga (sorry Chinese people for mis spelling that), and a thousand other war crimes...and eat infants.

The worst Bill Gates did was put you out of work, after GIVING you the job in the first place.

I hate saying this, but people who get into Goverment are people who want POWER. They don't want to serve and protect, they want to rule and are willing to go to dangerous extremes to do so. Their also more likely to be racist and sexist, as it helps them select a target for the masses to strike.

A Businessman only cares about getting rich off his ass.


Also, for Socialists, there is no such thing as a free lunch. It was accidentally proven by Skinner, that talented individuals when felt unappreciated or feel inaptly rewarded by society stop working or leave all together. Its only motivations like self interest or greed (usually material) that makes an individual want to work. Man is an Animal, not a saint.

I'll save Locke for later, as when I write about him...it will be a big ass, well written post, and instead end this one by a story told by a Roman Senator to a bunch of Rebellious farmers...witch made them stop rebelling.

"Long ago, to a certain man whose body could speak in parts, a curious thing happened.

His hands decided to Rebel against his belly. They had good reason to as well. All they did all day was work and toil all day on the fields, while the belly just sat there inert. The hands where bruised and scraped...a few of their fingers where missing nails, while the belly was plump and only moved when it flopped around in glee. To make matters worse, it demanded the fruits of the hands labor to eat.

It was then the hands came to a daring plan. When the belly asked for food, they would not feed him or move at all. They did not need him, he was a parasite. Soon after implmenting there plan, they got weaker and weaker, until they perished. Not only does the belly need to be feed, it also feeds its own."

Now, tell me, what is the difference between communism and socialism? They both require dictators. In my eyes, all dictatorship are the same.

A) State Property does not equal socialism. State property is as old as Ancient Egypt and has been in fashion throughout antiquity, the middle ages, the early modern era up to the present day. Neither Ancient Egypt, nor the Holy Roman Empire, nor absolutist France were very socialist.

B) Public Infrastructure does not equal socialism. Public Infrastructure was quite in style during the Roman Republic and Empire, and has been throughout antiquity, the middle ages, the early modern era up to the present day.

C) State-controlled Businesses or even Public Mono-Poleis do not equal socialism. Neither imperial roman forges nor mercantilist lace manufactures were socialist, but they embodied state-controlled businesses and monopolies.

D) Governmental Regulations do not equal socialism. They ("THE LAW") have been around for some time, and it is not very probable that Ammurāpi was having a socialist fit when he had The Codex set into basalt stelae.

And likewise, the welfare state is no more socialist than these; it was incepted by conservatives, and it has very little to do with the dictatorship of the proletariat and everything with optimizing the labour force of a nation.

Therefore, it is highly amusing to anyone who has ever heard of socialism, read about socialism, or even lived in a socialist state to see what american citizens refer to as "socialism". You might as well substitute "socialism" for "pumpkin pudding" and it'd make about as much sense. That is to say, NONE.



In theory, communism is the "next step" after socialism, a magical epoch of everlasting peace and prosperity and unicorns for all, when a class-less society has been established by means of global revolution, and (Marx:) people are empowered to procure goods manufactured by society, but no longer able to subjugate others through this procurement. In this state of being, no more dictatorship of the proletariat would be necessary (or even possible), because there would be no more proletariat - viz. class-less! That is what all the fanciful dreamers fall back to when they tell you that "socialism is no communism" and that "real" communism has never been established, and that "people" are "just not benevolent enough for communism". Flimshaw.

Alright Gibbous, then explain Socialism to the rest of us since you are currently residing what is probably the first country people think of when they hear Socialism.

Not trying to sound arrogant or whatever. I honestly want to hear your definition.

Edit:


Even Libertarians and Republicans argue for public infrastructure. Only Anarcho-capitalists will argue against that.



I gotta point out that mostly socialist and communist states seize private companies/industry. It's basically the first thing to mind when you try to think of all the similarities between "socialist" countries ,government owns/runs businesses collectively.

Straight from
Britanica

Only Anarcho-capitalist argue against regulations. Regulation is a good thing but, too much or poorly designed regulations are terrible.

Socialism is good. On paper. When you put people into the equation it all gets fucked up. Man's biggest flaw is greed, which in socialism can not happen. So when you have a thing like socialism and people sharing everything and helping everyone out It goes against the nature of man. If you look at how socialism would work out it goes very well. However when you have the greedy nature of humainty in they screw it up. You have to have some form of gov that relies on man's greed. A book that shows just how well people can f up socialism is 1984. Give it a read. It shows that when you have a gov like socialism requires and then throw in people, you get something twisted and deformed from the original thing.
So to finish this out, Socialism is a good thing....on paper. Howver when you have people thrown in it doesnt work.

quite. I am just arguing that it is in no way exclusive to socialism, and that state-controlled businesses (as opposed to state-controlled business, see below) alone make no socialist system.




I should like to remind any reader that I am in no way an adherent of socialism, and therefore not trying to argue in its favor.

The first, and most rudimentary definition of socialism, is the pre-marxian socialism (blanquists, communards, ...), which can be subsumed under the desire to create a society without class distinction - the ideal of class-less society is the first ingredient of any socialist theory. We must remind ourselves, that this early stage of 'socialism' was in no way as clear about its goals or even backgrounds as we would like it for the sake of a precise definition; hence Sombart's quip about socialism having over 260 definitions.

With the advent of Marxism, and its direct antipode, Lassallean state-socialism, other ingredients were added, which form much of the present-day perception and definition of socialism. To both Marxists and Lassalleanites it was of utmost import, that the means of production be transferred into the hands of the proletariat, because capitalism always meant that the lion's share of any expected profit would always remain in the hands of the prosperous few, whereas the workers would always only receive a wage that would barely allow them survival.

Marx saw socialism as a stage between capitalism and communism; socialism as the dictatorship of the proletariat, a state of revolution, the de-privatization of the means of production was to him the necessary step forward, before communism (i.e., a global class-less society) could be attained. At this stage (socialism), class-differences were not yet entirely abolished and not all traditions of "bourgeois society" were yet done away with, but it would be marked by the slow transition to the communist mode of production - wherein the "good of all" (i.e. social improvement), as determined by science would replace "profit" as predominant business goal.

In Marxist thought, socialism needn't necessarily be the one-man dictatorship we would think of when someone mentions socialism; early revolutionaries in Russia (sailors, soldiers, workers) formed councils ("soviets"), where decision-making was a democratic process. But, the advent of Leninism added yet another important ingredient to our definition of "socialism": Lenin denounced these worker's and soldier's soviets as both ineffective and counter-revolutionary and abolished them. Leninism called for the shock troops and vanguard of the proletariat,embodied by the party cadre, to take control. Lenin established a tight planned economy model, wherein all aspects of industrial and agrarian production were centralized and subjected to party-directed command: For example, plants were assigned production targets by the party and were expected to meet them, no matter the actual demand for goods, etc.

The final bits were added to the mix by Stalinism: The total collectivization of agrarian and industrial production, (i.e. the abolishment of small, independent farms, plants, mines, etc.; instead, they were grouped into large-scale operations (kolkhoz - sovkhoz - combinate) for the sake of synergy - or so the party's line of argumentation) and the establishment of justice as "the faithful maidservant of the party on the march to communism".


SUMMARY:

Therefore, it is in my opinion not impudent to define socialism as a policy as follows† :
-ideal of class-less society
-transfer of means of production into hands of proletariat
-dictatorship of the proletariat
-de-privatization of means of production
-transition to communist mode of production, "common good" replacing profit, "scientific management" replacing supply/demand
-single party rule, with party cadre controlling the state centrally
-planned economy
-collectivized production
-instrumentalisation of judicial system as means of revolution†¡

† I'm not including things such as "personality cult", because I believe that this is much more a hallmark of despotism in general than socialism in particular. Socialism is but one form of tyranny.
†¡Included in the definition on the following grounds: While every tyranny will bend the law to its whim, they usually try to uphold the illusion of legality (cf. Hitlerites, Fascists, etc.) - socialism openly does away with it.

Sources:
A. I. Vyshinskiy: Speeches (1952)
V. I. Lenin: What is to be done (1903)
I. W. Dzhugashvili: Questions of Leninism (1939)
F. Lassalle: On the worker's problem (1863)
K. Marx: Class struggle in France (1850)

Thank you gibs for the informative post. You make it easier for everybody else to grasp the idea of socialism. You deserved a +rep

So is Capitalism the only thing that functions out of paper? Most societies that involve ideals of socialism tend to lag behind countries who function through capitalism.