Socialists: What are your views?

[Dostoyevsky]

I’m putting this in the General Questions forum because 1) I’m not looking to debate the pro’s and con’s of socialism and 2) I’m not looking for answers from those who disagree with socialism. If someone wants to take a whack at socialism please start another thread. I’m not trying to debate views, but simply gather them. Specifically, the views of socialists.

I ask this after having just seen Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story. I agreed with some of it, disagreed with other parts of it. I’m not a socialist, but I’ve always been curious about the ideology. So, if you’re a socialist I’d love to pick your brain.

1. How do you define the term? I know the dictionary definition, but is there some particular detail that puts you in a specific strain or school of thought?

2. How/when did you become a socialist?

3. What do you believe socialism’s future to be? Will it catch on in the West? If so, how so and under what conditions?

4. Is socialism compatible with civil liberties? For instance, does government growth in the economic sector necessarily translate into government interference with what are conventionally understood as private matters?

5. Is there a chance of a socialist government becoming just as oppressive as a libertarian/capitalist society? For that matter, is there a chance of a socialist government becoming oppressive at all? Assuming socialism can be oppressive, what checks and balances do you feel would be necessary to prevent oppression?

6. Do you vote? If so, are you registered as a member of a certain party? How would you describe your political involvement?

Finally, I’d like to thank any socialist kind enough to answer my questions. I’m not looking for an argument here and I chose GQ specifically to avoid one. I’m not sure what I think of socialism (or politics) but I’d love some thorough information from people who identify as socialists.

Many thanks,
Me

[Colibri]

@Dostoyevsky

I’m not looking for an argument here and I chose GQ specifically to avoid one. I’m not sure what I think of socialism (or politics) but I’d love some thorough information from people who identify as socialists.

I think what you’re actually looking for here is more like a poll, and as such should go in IMHO. I’m going to move it there, and reiterate the request that people should NOT use this thread to debate socialism. However, I also note that some of your questions are so broad (particularly 3, 4, and 5) that they invite debate even by those who identify as socialist. However, I will leave it to the IMHO mods to determine if and when to kick it over to GD.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[Dostoyevsky]

@Colibri

However, I also note that some of your questions are so broad (particularly 3, 4, and 5) that they invite debate even by those who identify as socialist.

Yea, it’s true that the questions are broad. But I was hoping that any socialist who answered would simply provide his/her opinion and abstain from debating other socialists. That I wasn’t going for any kind of debate amongst anyone probably should have been made clearer than what it was in the OP.

[Colibri]

@Dostoyevsky

Yea, it’s true that the questions are broad. But I was hoping that any socialist who answered would simply provide his/her opinion and abstain from debating other socialists. That I wasn’t going for any kind of debate amongst anyone probably should have been made clearer than what it was in the OP.

It’s clear enough, but debates tend to break out here about whether or not the sky is blue. At any rate, since you are seeking people’s opinions, rather than facts, GQ wasn’t the place for it.

[Little_Nemo]

Are you accepting submissions from non-socialists?

1. I see socialism as an economic/political system where businesses are run by the government with a goal of public service rather than by private entities with a goal of profit.

2. Pass

3. My big problem with socialism is that I can see it working great in theory but it often has problems in practice. Then again, I don’t think capitalism always works as well as it theoretically should either. So I try to be practical. Use whichever ssytem seems to work better in a given situtation. Usually that will be capitalism but sometimes it will be socialism.

4. I don’t see government control over business being any worse than other areas that have traditionally been under government control.

5. Definitely. Any government has the potential to become oppressive and a socialist system has extra capabilties and opportunities.

6. Yes, I vote. But again, I’m not a socialist so my personal voting history isn’t relevant here.

[Torpor_Beast]

Many of your questions seem to assume that there’s a significant number of people out there who advocate the state taking over all business, and the abolition of private property, or something to that effect. The downfall of USSR pretty much took care most of those people, and they aren’t a significant political force, except as a right-wing talking point.
It’s important to realize that the word “socialist” is such a vague definition, that it’s practically useless when describing someone’s political leanings. The center-left Social Democracy is so far removed from Communism, for example, that two societies, each run by one of the two philosophies would end up looking very different. Yet, when the word socialism is used in the US, it invokes visions of gulags, and people queuing for bread, which you would see under communist systems.

Personally, I’m an European social democrat, and will try to answer your questions as one.

1. To quote Wikipedia, “The goal of social democracy is to complement capitalism through parliamentary and democratic processes in order to achieve a mixed economy, controlled by a representative government. This includes financial regulation, and various state sponsored programs to ameliorate and remove the inequities and injustices inflicted by the market system. Social democrats do not aim to replace the fundamental aspects of capitalism; private-ownership of the means of production, the system of wage-labor and commodity production”.

I can’t really disagree with the above.

2. Sometimes in my twenties(I’m 35 atm) I began to think politically, and noticed a few things:

• Public companies are the best way to drive a democratic country’s economy. The capital available to them for research and development is unmatched by anything else.
• The only goal of public companies is to produce maximum profit, and they’re therefore amoral actors, that can conflict in many ways with the individual happiness of the majority.
• If unregulated competition between companies is allowed, monopolies automatically form due the fact that every competition tends to have a winner. Which obviously increases the problems caused by the previous point.

To me, the perfect political system allows maximum possible freedom for corporations and small businesses to prosper, while simultaneously protecting and maximizing the welfare and individual freedom of it’s citizens. Social democracy answers these needs by democratic means, by regulating businesses, providing basic social safety net and providing basic services, like law enforcement, fire departments, schools, public transit, postal services etc. in a way that gives them relative immunity to the market forces.

3. Social democracy has already caught in the west, and much of the western World is de facto social democratic. Including the United States, which is a mixed economy, just like the European countries. Socialism is just a dirty word, so few people realize this.

4. Like all democratic systems, social democracy aims to maximize individual liberties. And like all democratic systems, it has the risk of people voting away their liberties. Government ownership of some businesses isn’t in itself a danger to privacy, for example. Since under social democracy, goverment just owns shares of publicly traded companies, the same privacy etc. laws apply to them, just like to companies with no government ownership.

5. See my answer to question 4. Like all democracies, a social democracy needs, and most, to my knowledge have, free and fair elections and a mechanism to democratically change members of the three branches of government, should they not perform to expectations.

6. Looks like I’ve voted a social democrat candidate in most elections. Once for a liberal conservative, and once for a Green League candidate, though. I tend to vote for people and not parties.

[Olentzero]

Hi there. Revolutionary socialist of long standing.

@Dostoyevsky

1. How do you define the term? I know the dictionary definition, but is there some particular detail that puts you in a specific strain or school of thought?

Socialism is a society based on the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism by an organized, conscious working class and the elimination of private ownership of the means of production in favor of communal ownership thereof. I guess you could call it the classical Marxist position.

2) How/when did you become a socialist?

A little over 20 years ago now, round about the time the Berlin Wall came down. I’d been curious about the politics for a couple of years before that and met a group at the University of Iowa who didn’t shy away from the question of what exactly the hell was going on in Eastern Europe and Russia and had an analysis of the nature of the regime to back it up.

*3) What do you believe socialism’s future to be? Will it catch on in the West? If so, how so and under what conditions?

*Socialism has a past in the West as well as a future - in the US, for example, stretching back to the struggle for the eight-hour day and the Haymarket Affair in the 1880s, through people like Eugene Debs and John Reed in the years around the First World War, and on to the people who built and sustained unions like the Teamsters in the 1930s and 1940s until they were hounded out thanks to the Red Scare and McCarthyism. Socialism’s future lies in the same kinds of people today who are getting involved where fightbacks are popping up - unions, gay and lesbian rights, stopping the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - and advocating ways to push those fights forward on a consciously political basis.

4) Is socialism compatible with civil liberties? For instance, does government growth in the economic sector necessarily translate into government interference with what are conventionally understood as private matters?

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by this question. I don’t hold socialism to be the expansion of government into the affairs of economy and business. Since, however, I am of the view that the world should be run so that everyone can get housing, food, clothing, education, health care, and decent, safe jobs regardless of race, color, gender, or sexual orientation (to name a few) then I’d have to say yes, socialism is compatible with civil liberties.

5) Is there a chance of a socialist government becoming just as oppressive as a libertarian/capitalist society? For that matter, is there a chance of a socialist government becoming oppressive at all? Assuming socialism can be oppressive, what checks and balances do you feel would be necessary to prevent oppression?

Any government that operates in a class society (i.e. a society run by a minority in the interests of that self-same minority) has the potential to become oppressive. The checks and balances against that government are often imposed as if from the outside and often by forceful means - the civil rights struggle in the US, for example. Socialism, on the other hand, would be the conscious self-government of the working class; the checks and balances (for example, immediate recall of representatives, arming of the entire class as a police force, the wages of elected representatives being no higher than average working wages) would be self-imposed with the goal of eventually uniting the functions of government and work so that society itself is the government rather than government being a body separate from and above society.

6) Do you vote? If so, are you registered as a member of a certain party? How would you describe your political involvement?

Didn’t in the US, as neither the Democrats nor the Republicans represent my interests as a working man; here in Sweden I’m involved in a smaller party that will be standing for local offices in September - not with getting elected as the main aim (although we take seats if elected) but of using the campaign season as a tribune for our political perspectives and arguments and thereby attracting sympathizers and new members. If I’m allowed to vote this fall - may not have lived here long enough by then - I definitely plan on voting for them. Very active as a member; am unofficially a member of my local branch’s steering committee.

[Torpor_Beast]

Gah… I just reread what I wrote last night. Sorry 'bout the typos and missing words.

Oh, and hey neighbor! Didn’t figure we’d get an old school socialist here.

[Shakester]

1)* How do you define the term? I know the dictionary definition, but is there some particular detail that puts you in a specific strain or school of thought?*

I wouldn’t call myself a Socialist, but by US standards I’m sure I’d qualify. Politically, the person I most agree with is George Orwell, and he identified as a democratic socialist, so I guess that qualifies me too. Personally, I describe myself as a pragmatist: some parts of capitalism work well, some parts of socialism work well, and so on. Let’s stop worrying about ideologies and labels start doing whatever works best for the well-being of our societies.

2. How/when did you become a socialist?

I was never not what I am now, politically, I just understand more about how things work than I did when I was a kid. I started becoming who I am politically when I started learning about politics and power.

3. What do you believe socialism’s future to be? Will it catch on in the West? If so, how so and under what conditions?

Parts of it did catch on, as previously mentioned. Why do you think workers have rights in “the west” that they don’t have in the third world? Because workers and unions fought for them. That’s Socialism in action. You don’t work 12-hour shifts for minimal pay: you need to thank Socialists for that.

As for the future… I’m pessimistic. But I also believe that anyone who predicts the future is automatically wrong. My only prediction is that things I hadn’t imagined will definitley happen: historically, they always do.

4. Is socialism compatible with civil liberties? For instance, does government growth in the economic sector necessarily translate into government interference with what are conventionally understood as private matters?

What socialism isn’t is Soviet-style Communism. They’re entirely different things: Communism is just plain dictatorship with a sideline in bullshit, no different to any other kind of dictatorship. Socialism is about giving rights to people who didn’t have them. It’s about protecting people from the abuses of those in power.

It’s not about taking anything away from anyone, except for the things that harm society. No-one has a right to exploit or harm anyone else, so that “right” can’t be taken away.

5. Is there a chance of a socialist government becoming just as oppressive as a libertarian/capitalist society? For that matter, is there a chance of a socialist government becoming oppressive at all? Assuming socialism can be oppressive, what checks and balances do you feel would be necessary to prevent oppression?

No. Libertarianism isn’t even a real political philosophy, it’s just a bunch of socially irresponsible people rationalising their own selfishness. Duh.

Capitalism works very well as an economic system, which is what it is: any political meaning it’s come to have is incidental, not part of the definition of Capitalism. The two real competing systems are fascism and socialism, basically. Note: I use “Fascism” in the original 1930s political sense of the word, not as a synonym for the Nazi Party.

What we have now, in “the west”, is a bunch of systems that are more or less balanced on the socialism/fascism scale. Some countries are more socialist, others are more fascist. No country is entirely one thing or the other.

6. *Do you vote? If so, are you registered as a member of a certain party? How would you describe your political involvement? *

Yes, I vote, but when I do I vote for the lesser evil, because no-one is running on a platform that I’d really like to vote for. Also: not an American.

[Shakester]

Sorry, I skipped over one of the questions: Assuming socialism can be oppressive, what checks and balances do you feel would be necessary to prevent oppression?

Democracy, basically. Democratic Socialism, as described by George Orwell. Democracy has its faults, especially in this media-saturated age, but real democracy is a better system than any other real-world system.

The main problem with modern Democracy is that it’s been pretty thoroughly subverted by capitalism. The two things (democracy & capitalism) are not synonymous. The checks and balances that need to exist need to be imposed on Capitalism, not genuinely democratic socialism. Money buys power - that’s the problem.

A good example is deregulation of the banking system. People ought to read more history: those regulations were imposed for very good reasons, during previous economic downturns, to repair the damage done by unregulated economic mayhem. Taking them away again is exactly what got us into our current disaster.

[Olentzero]

@Torpor_Beast

Oh, and hey neighbor!

Hej själv!

Didn’t figure we’d get an old school socialist here.

I’m so old school Leon Trotsky stole my lunch money.

[septimus]

As others point out, we’re not talking about communism. In some ways, Pinochet’s Chile (“rightist”) and P.R. of China of the same era (“leftist”) had much similarity; foreign relations with U.S.A. being a main difference.

But Torpor Beast gave a great description of Europe’s left of center. I’d love to vote for policies he describes (or a bit to the right, or even a bit to the left). One might think of “social democrat”, very roughly, as somewhere in between true socialism and “American centrist thetoric”.

@Torpor_Beast

Personally, I’m an European social democrat, and will try to answer your questions as one…

Wonderful post, Torpor Beast!

… much of the western World is de facto social democratic. Including the United States, which is a mixed economy, just like the European countries. Socialism is just a dirty word, so few people realize this.

There may be some resemblance (of U.S. to Euro SocDem) at an applied policy level, but not at the emotional level which defines U.S. politics.

I tend to vote for people and not parties.

We don’t have that luxury in America. Parties like Green don’t have a chance. GOP is clearly out of the question at least in any national election. (Even rational GOP Congressman rally to their party leaders.) Americans have but half a party to vote for: any vote but Democrat is just silly (unless it’s “to send a message”).

[MrDibble]

@Dostoyevsky

So, if you’re a socialist I’d love to pick your brain.

I self-identify as an anarcho-syndicalist with socialist bent, so I think I can answer for myself…

1. How do you define the term? I know the dictionary definition, but is there some particular detail that puts you in a specific strain or school of thought?

Well, I’m an anarchist, so ending capitalism and private property is a big one for me.

2. How/when did you become a socialist?

Raised in Apartheid South Africa - the revolution was a very real thing at the time. Of course, now it’s pigs/people/pigs/people, just like Orwell said.

3. What do you believe socialism’s future to be? Will it catch on in the West? If so, how so and under what conditions?

Some aspects will, led by the example of the European social democracies, but America is going to fight that strain to its end, I think.

4. Is socialism compatible with civil liberties?

Of course socialism is compatible with civil liberties - much more so than capitalism. You just have to decide which civil liberties you value more. IMO, Western Europe generally has more *real *civil liberties than the US, and the ones Americans like trotting out like guns and “free” speech are a smokescreen. Civil liberties should always be about protecting the person from the state. But in capitalist society, the state and capital are so tied together, you have to protect the people from both to have any effect.

For instance, does government growth in the economic sector necessarily translate into government interference with what are conventionally understood as private matters?

I happen to believe the “conventional understanding” in these things is often wrong. But then I’m not an advocate of separate government, and I’m a huge fan of direct democracy.

5. Is there a chance of a socialist government becoming just as oppressive as a libertarian/capitalist society?

Of course. People get things wrong all the time, either by mistake or wilfully.

Assuming socialism can be oppressive, what checks and balances do you feel would be necessary to prevent oppression?

Direct democracy.

6. Do you vote?

Yes

If so, are you registered as a member of a certain party?

No

How would you describe your political involvement?

I’m a member of some NGOs, but I don’t really hold with current party politics in my country…

[kombatminipig]

If I may hijack the thread, I’d like to ask the hardcore socialists another question:

Is a planned economy necessary for socialism (and we’re talking the hardcore kind, not social democracy), and if so, do you find that in any way goes against one’s civil rights (in the case, the right to choose one’s profession)?

@Olentzero

Hej själv!I’m so old school Leon Trotsky stole my lunch money.

Varför drogs alla svenskar till tråden om socialism? (transl: Why were all the Swedes drawn to the thread about socialism?)

[Olentzero]

@kombatminipig

Is a planned economy necessary for socialism (and we’re talking the hardcore kind, not social democracy), and if so, do you find that in any way goes against one’s civil rights (in the case, the right to choose one’s profession)?

Absolutely a planned economy is necessary for socialism. The more rationally and democratically planned, the better. I stated in my previous post that socialism would strive to make society its own government rather than the government being a body separate from and above society; this necessarily entails that society as a whole become the planner of the economy rather than the planners becoming a body of bureaucrats separate from and above society as a whole. This in no way excludes an individual’s right to choose a profession; a planned economy does not mean people’s lives are planned down to the minutest detail. In fact, socialist society would benefit greatly from people trained in more than one profession. Quick quote from Marx in his work The German Ideology:

…in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production (i.e. a planned economy - O.) and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another thing tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic.

Varför drogs alla svenskar till tråden om socialism? (transl: Why were all the Swedes drawn to the thread about socialism?)

I only claim Swedish ancestry at this point; I’m an expat from the States. Don’t think I’m qualified to answer this question.

[msmith537]

Why do you think a planned economy could provide for the needs of its people more efficiently than a market economy?

[Olentzero]

Because a market economy does not provide for those who are unable to pay.

[Little_Nemo]

@Olentzero

Socialism’s future lies in the same kinds of people today who are getting involved where fightbacks are popping up - unions, gay and lesbian rights, stopping the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - and advocating ways to push those fights forward on a consciously political basis.

A question. Are you saying that all of these causes are part of a common ideological package? Or are you saying that, while these causes may be independent of each other, people who support one of them might be sympathetic to the others?

[MrDibble]

@kombatminipig

Is a planned economy necessary for socialism

No, I wouldn’t say so. It’s possible, IMO, to run a form of free market economy on syndicalist lines, based on free association of independent economic entities, such as communes, workers’ collectives and individuals, without central planning or state involvement of any sort other than (possibly) as an arbitrator in disputes.

, and if so, do you find that in any way goes against one’s civil rights (in the case, the right to choose one’s profession)?

That’s a civil right, now? S’funny, they won’t let me practice law or medicine - I must be in a planned economy.

More seriously, if “the right to choose one’s profession” were an overriding civil right (vs, say, “the right of people not to starve because everyone wants to be a poet not a farmer”), nothing would ever get done. But we already have several controls on that right - the afore-hinted licensing, economic impediments, educational impediments, etc. So its not like some measure of planning would hinder an otherwise completely-unfettered right we all enjoy.

[Olentzero]

@Little_Nemo

A question. Are you saying that all of these causes are part of a common ideological package? Or are you saying that, while these causes may be independent of each other, people who support one of them might be sympathetic to the others?

The causes all have the same foundation - the injustice and exploitation of the capitalist system. They do arise independently, of course, but this perspective (the same root cause) leads socialists to argue that they should be sympathetic to each other and act in solidarity. That solidarity among various social and economic justice movements makes it possible to transform the fight against the worst excesses of capitalism into a fight against capitalism itself.