Socialism

leviathon · 06-27-2008, 06:04 PM

I wasn't sure where to post this so here will do.

Why Socialism?

The first parts of my essay are discussions of the meaning of socialism and what exactly I am arguing for, whilst later on I will discuss five advantages of socialism. When attacks on socialism have been made I will be able to defend from them.

I will firstly just briefly explain socialism; it is a system of government and an economic system which hopes to bring democracy and equality to the workplace. It wants to make everyone equal and to nationalise industry. This means that the means of production are put into the hands of workers, either through the government or directly controlled by the workers themselves. I prefer to have it managed by the government with worker input, because it can be better managed through the government.

I will now discuss some points of contention among socialists, this being whether we have a revolutionary democracy or a democratic socialism. A revolutionary democracy is a single party democracy like in Cuba, democratic socialism is where a socialist party gets democratically elected and maintains democracy through the revolution. I favour democratic socialism.

Some socialists espouse their views that democratic socialism can be seen as unstable, liable to slip back into capitalism if an election is held, but I strongly disagree. It is my opinion that socialism is self-continuing, that is that when the workers get four or five years of socialism they will see the benefits of it. When they feel the effects of nationalisation and heavier tax on the rich they will realise this is better for them. And then the next election they will again vote for the socialist party and through this process the whole of the political spectrum in the nation will shift left, because the workers will force it to do so, as the majority group. This way over a period of many years, many decades most likely, socialism can develop until a truly socialist society can organically develop, of its own free-will. So even if there are a few blips, maybe the revolution, for this is what it is, stumbles, and the socialist party is not voted for and we have four or five years of moves towards capitalism. But this is not disastrous, as the revolution is based on solid foundations, not on force or coercion, all it will do is reinforce the knowledge of the workers that socialism is best for them. This is what we are starting to see in Venezuela.

The problems with the Cuban style system are, I believe, in three areas. The first is that revolutionary democracies are not looked kindly upon by the international community. So you get a situation where the revolution is strangled economically and sometimes by the use of force as well, and whilst Cuba has survived admirably that can’t always be the case. The second is that the revolution is more unstable, because it is built more on a quick coup, or the use of force, maybe excessive propaganda, it is unstable as it can not be fully supported by the workers. I honestly do think that free-will is key to humans, and key to their happiness, and if the workers are not allowed to make the choice of their free-will they will not be as happy as they should be under socialism, and be more likely to accept capitalism. The final, and for me maybe most important, is that I believe in true democracy. We don’t have that in Britain or America but it is doing well in Germany, and with a German-style voting system the natural progression is socialism. Much of socialism is about nationalising industry, effectively creating democracy in the work-place, getting rid of the hierarchical systems in capitalism. So for me socialism is a continuance of democracy and to get rid of parliamentary democracy, at least to some degree, I believe is a bad step to make. To sum up, the advantages I believe are present in a democratic socialism are that it is almost immune to international force, it is more stable, and it is important to maintain true democracy.

So, I do not support the Cuban or Soviet Union style systems and instead support a democratic system.

I would now like to discuss briefly the international aspect of socialism. Internationalism is a key part of socialism, as socialists do not believe that people should gain through accident of birth. So a socialist strives for global socialism, not just single nation socialism. I believe that the best way to create a global revolution is to have socialism in one country and be open about it, that way the workers of other countries can see socialism working and may follow suit.

Now, I will present five advantages of socialism.

1) An accident of birth should not determine wealth and your life chances.

This is referring to a problem of capitalism as much as anything; that is the problem of luck due to birth. The argument is often used by capitalists that socialism provides equal benefit to the lazy as the hard working, and I will argue against this further later, but here we can see the same is true in capitalism. In capitalism one can be a lazy idiot but be born into a wealthy family and so do no real work and yet still live a life of luxury, a prime example being Paris Hilton. And in capitalism one can be a studious and conscientious worker and still end up with very little, due to bad luck of birth, most likely meaning they had a poor education. Obviously it’s impossible for me to give just one example of this but go to a poorer part of your state and study those living in poverty and you will find countless examples.

In socialism this doesn’t happen, no matter who you are born to you are considered an equal to everyone else and will have the same opportunities. Socialism isn’t about giving everyone exactly the same material wealth but more equality of life quality and opportunities, so birth will not affect your chances in life.

2) Natural resources are too important to be controlled by only those who can afford to.

This refers directly to the nationalisation of industry that I have already gone over briefly. The key advantages are that recourses are ensured for those who need them, profit is made by the government for the people, and wealthy industrialists cannot exert influence over the government as happens all over the place, to the detriment of the people.

3) Working and living conditions are more important than profit.

So this refers to the conditions under which many labourers currently work and how this can be improved under socialism. The problem with capitalism is that for the capitalist (this means the bosses) profit is the be-all and end-all, to be maximised at all costs; the objective function if you’re mathematically inclined. This leads to production that outstrips need, (but the perception of need or want is created through advertising), and to the interests of the worker being ignored. Under socialism the excess is not produced as the false want and false “need” is not created so less is needed to be produced, also all the rubbish that no-one should need (like the expensive and polluting cars for example) are not produced. This means that the worker is able to work for less time and in less strenuous conditions, meaning he is happier and more content, and we all know that a happy worker=a productive worker.

4) If you believe that everyone should have equal access to services like health care and education.

This is self explanatory really, in socialism health care and education are nationalised so everyone can have an equal access to good quality of care. The difference between socialism and, say, the British system is that in socialism there would be no need for private schools or private health care as they would all be controlled by the workers anyway. This nationalisation is not the same as industry nationalisation, teachers and doctors would control how they worked, the key point being that they are government funded and owned by the people, for the people. Where we see real improvement over the British system is in education where at the moment many of the better brought-up kids are sent off to private schools meaning they get a better education and stay in the upper classes, whilst also depriving state schools with good pupils, making them correspondingly worse.

5) Socialism supports meritocracy and opposes success and wealth being by and large a product of inheritance.

This is similar to the first point of the five made about birth being a key to success. The only other point I would make here is that a common misconception of socialism is that everyone is the same, this is untrue: everyone is equal. But some who are better suited to being politicians will be so, some who are better at being doctors will be so, and some who are better at mining will do so. Socialism helps to make sure that people do what they’re best suited to doing, not what society tells them to do.

Thanks for reading all of that, the first part is mostly definition, in order to streamline the debate somewhat, and explain where I am coming from. So in conclusion, socialism provides equality and fairness, and provides a more democratic working environment, where the best suited for a job do it. It conquers the problems associated with accident of birth that capitalism suffers from. Also the “socialist” societies so far, the Soviet Union, or Cuba, you might say, are not really socialist and as such are not a representation of what I am arguing for.

Now I’m almost done but there are two more points that I’d like to raise if I may. The first concerns the capitalist argument that socialism rewards the lazy as much as the industrious. This is basically a falsehood, they are monetarily rewarded in the same manner, for sure, but this is not what matters in a socialist society, instead what matters is happiness (by this I mean a deep happiness, one might say contentment) and human relationships. So consider who is most rewarded in a socialist society: the hard-worker who has the respect of his peers and is content in the knowledge that his work is directly helping the whole society or the lazy worker who does little and is cast out from society?

I would also like to counter the same argument by saying that it is in fact not really an argument against socialism at all, but indeed a key part of why socialism is a good system. In capitalism a man (or woman, man means human more than anything here) must work or he will die, but in socialism man doesn’t have to work. This means that man must make a conscious choice to help society and not just himself, so the man who does work is connected to his labour by this decision and will be more content in it because of this. There is also the point that in my idea of socialism (a slow progression towards it) almost all will choose work, because they will see how much better off they are in a socialist system and how work is good for them, it will not be a chore but a pleasant thing. This is also helped by the improved quality of work already discussed.

The final point is an economic one and is based in simple economics. The argument is often made that in socialism the economy will suffer, and this is only partly true, it will suffer a little but this will be roughly the same as the useless work done now that has been eradicated. As discussed above. But there are significant economic advantages to socialism too. A man (as per previous definition) who earns enough to feed, clothe and provide shelter for him and his family will spend all of his money, putting all his earnings into the economy. A man that earns millions will have much money doing no work, sitting in an off-shore bank account generating no advantage to the economy. Since socialism increases the amount of money in the hands of poor, and decreases the amount in the hands of the rich it follows that the economy will benefit.

Spideynw · 06-27-2008, 06:56 PM

My response is that the Pilgrims were starving under socialism. Once they decided to privatize, they flourished. Under socialism, there is no accountability. Under capitalism, people are accountable, and therefore have incentive to work and make improvements, which is why the Pilgrims quit suffering once they abandoned socialism and privatized industry.

As to equality, you can either have equal wealth or you can have eqaul liberty. I prefer equal liberty, since it is moral. Equal wealth is immoral, since it requires taking from those that have worked hard for their money and giving it to those that have not, which results in less productivity, which results in less wealth for society as a whole.

If you are really interested in understanding economics, try www.fee.org or www.mises.org.

thewise1 · 06-27-2008, 10:42 PM

my response: property rights > *

7960 · 06-27-2008, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by leviathon

1) An accident of birth should not determine wealth and your life chances.

life's not fair, too fucking bad.

This is referring to a problem of capitalism as much as anything; that is the problem of luck due to birth. The argument is often used by capitalists that socialism provides equal benefit to the lazy as the hard working, and I will argue against this further later, but here we can see the same is true in capitalism. In capitalism one can be a lazy idiot but be born into a wealthy family and so do no real work and yet still live a life of luxury, a prime example being Paris Hilton. And in capitalism one can be a studious and conscientious worker and still end up with very little, due to bad luck of birth, most likely meaning they had a poor education. Obviously it’s impossible for me to give just one example of this but go to a poorer part of your state and study those living in poverty and you will find countless examples.

[font=Arial]In socialism this doesn’t happen, no matter who you are born to you are considered an equal to everyone else

In a perfect world maybe, but in the real world this all-powerful govt will be run by PEOPLE, and people are fallible and seek power. So people in the govt will have power over people who aren't and they will abuse it.

[font=Arial]5) Socialism supports meritocracy......

You have a typo there. It supports MEDIOCRITY.

thewise1 · 06-27-2008, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

You have a typo there. It supports MEDIOCRITY.

correct

7960 · 06-27-2008, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

correct

I just don't understand their argument..........where is the incentive to go to school for 12 years to be a doctor when you're going to be considered "the same" as the uneducated guy who spreads my fertilizer?

thewise1 · 06-27-2008, 11:38 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

I just don't understand their argument..........where is the incentive to go to school for 12 years to be a doctor when you're going to be considered "the same" as the uneducated guy who spreads my fertilizer?

For myself, I don't understand how one could have the audacity to ask, even demand, that I live my life in their service.

A_C_E · 06-28-2008, 02:03 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

I just don't understand their argument..........where is the incentive to go to school for 12 years to be a doctor when you're going to be considered "the same" as the uneducated guy who spreads my fertilizer?

Because that's not how Marxian socialism actually works

The brand of leftist socialism currently practiced is left over from Leninism and Trotskyism, which were complete and total perversions of what Marx wanted. Even Marx himself said "I would dare not call myself a communist," since even while he was alive, people had twisted and warped his system into something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than what was originally intended.

A_C_E · 06-28-2008, 02:04 AM

Originally Posted by thewise1

For myself, I don't understand how one could have the audacity to ask, even demand, that I live my life in their service.

And why not?

motivez · 06-28-2008, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

I just don't understand their argument..........where is the incentive to go to school for 12 years to be a doctor when you're going to be considered "the same" as the uneducated guy who spreads my fertilizer?

They're not the same though. People who live in Sweden for example don't all get paid the same wages regardless of their job

motivez · 06-28-2008, 05:54 AM

Should be an interesting thread with as many libertarian free market junkies as we have on the site

Questions I have begin with what makes a government better suited to manage the economy than the people themselves through purchasing decisions, which in turn drives the market, and allows business to adapt to that changing market?

Government isn't infallible, and certainly those who get elected often know little about economics (The US Government has far more lawyers than people with expertise in economics, for example).. and a lot of times the decisions they make are poor

The libertarian argument seems to think of business interests and the desire for profit as a benevolent entity that can do no wrong on the grand scale, and should be left entirely on its own to do what it wants, how it wants, when it wants, which I disagree with.. but you are putting forth essentially the same claim, only with government substituted for the market and profit.

What's wrong with some sort of compromise in between where governments authority extends to making sure businesses look out for the rights of workers and the rest of the country, but otherwise leave them alone, only stepping in to enforce regulations and so forth?

Also, I disagree with the term "revolutionary democracy" as you've described it. One party rule is not democracy, nor is it freedom for the people who are forced to live under it

leviathon · 06-28-2008, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by Spideynw

My response is that the Pilgrims were starving under socialism. Once they decided to privatize, they flourished. Under socialism, there is no accountability. Under capitalism, people are accountable, and therefore have incentive to work and make improvements, which is why the Pilgrims quit suffering once they abandoned socialism and privatized industry.

As to equality, you can either have equal wealth or you can have eqaul liberty. I prefer equal liberty, since it is moral. Equal wealth is immoral, since it requires taking from those that have worked hard for their money and giving it to those that have not, which results in less productivity, which results in less wealth for society as a whole.

If you are really interested in understanding economics, try www.fee.org or www.mises.org.

I don't know the history of the pilgrims so I can't really comment, but whether or not I did some anecdotal evidence based on possibly flawed, and definitely biased, history proves nothing. Socialism provides equal liberty too, aswell as equal opportunities and equal access to the necessities, it does not provide equal wealth. This is a myth. Do you not think that in fact knowing you pwn in part the factory where you work, or the school where you teach would encourage a better work effort. Socialism actually allows everypne to quite literally work for themselves, whereas capitalism only creates an illusion of this.

Quite apart from this debate what makes equal liberty moral but not equal wealth? I didn't realise you had solved all meta-ethical problems. Congratulations.

leviathon · 06-28-2008, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by thewise1

my response: property rights > *

=theft.

motivez · 06-28-2008, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by leviathon

=theft.

Property rights = theft?

Wouldn't the government taking away the private property of individuals for use in socialism be theft?

leviathon · 06-28-2008, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

life's not fair, too fucking bad.

You're a happy fellow aren't you? Nice to make your acquaintance. Life isn't fair, no, and not even socialism will cure this but we must agree that justice, not only in law but in life and equality is a good thing and that life will always be unfair is no argument to try to rectify it as much as possible. If life is unfair why not just bring back slavery? It would boost the economy, provide a better standard of life for all citizens, as slaves would not be citizens, and would ensure the United States remains the sole world super-power given its access to pletiful and free labour. And hey, life's unfair too fucking bad.

Originally Posted by 7960

In a perfect world maybe, but in the real world this all-powerful govt will be run by PEOPLE, and people are fallible and seek power. So people in the govt will have power over people who aren't and they will abuse it.

Not all people, certainly some and of course like in every state corruption would have to be countered. But this is no different to everywhere and with strong democratic principles and various checks and requirements for open government the problem would be no greater, if not less, than in any other nation.

Originally Posted by 7960

You have a typo there. It supports MEDIOCRITY.

No, it supports an equal and flourishing society where all can live in peace and work together for the society.

leviathon · 06-28-2008, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

Property rights = theft?

Wouldn't the government taking away the private property of individuals for use in socialism be theft?

No, the people would take the land back for themselves. How do you think land was gained in the first place? Who/what is to say that the piece of land your house occupies belongs to you and not to your neighbour, only paper and ink. Property rights represent the inequality engrained in the capitalist which is possibly worse than that found under feudalism and similar systems.

leviathon · 06-28-2008, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

I just don't understand their argument..........where is the incentive to go to school for 12 years to be a doctor when you're going to be considered "the same" as the uneducated guy who spreads my fertilizer?

But you're not considered "the same". Your life and welfare are considered equal to his, but to society your work would be worthy of praise and respect, more than that of the "uneducated guy" in your scenario. Which brings me to another point, socialism ensures taht all are educated well as it is controlled by the state and the people, so education quality is not related to how much one earns.

leviathon · 06-28-2008, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by A_C_E

Because that's not how Marxian socialism actually works

The brand of leftist socialism currently practiced is left over from Leninism and Trotskyism, which were complete and total perversions of what Marx wanted. Even Marx himself said "I would dare not call myself a communist," since even while he was alive, people had twisted and warped his system into something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than what was originally intended.

Very true.