That’s just the way the Comintern crumbles…
A countrywide multi-industry labour union working to overthrow an oppressive totalitarian regime? It was organised on the One Big Union lines made famous by the Wobblies - could it be any more socialist in pedigree? When one quarter of a country (80% of the workforce) belongs to one union, I think that’s a big clue that something socialist is going on.
The trouble being the usual one - the more planned it is, the less democratic it is, and the more democratic it is, the less it’s planned.
A society where everyone plans for themselves is capitalist. By definition, socialist society is run by bureaucrats.
Regards,
Shodan
But since you were asking if there was a “chance”, and since every single time socialism has been tried it’s produced horrors, I would say the “pure” argument isn’t much of an argument. Socialism requires a single party state. It can’t allow any type of democracy that could allow voting out that single, socialist party, or it won’t survive. Chance for becoming oppressive for a single party state with no option to vote that party out? Pretty damn high.
Wait, wait. Certainly it has worked out that way in Stalinist states, but you seem to be imply a logical as distinct from a practical connection. Why? Remember, democracy as such is about making decisions collectively, not individually. Liberty, you might argue, is about making decisions individually; but liberty and democracy are two different things.
Waitaminnit, now. Nobody, least of all Marx, holds any copyright on what is or is not “socialist theory.”
In that case, can we all agree that Obama and the Dems are not socialists? Clearly they don’t advocate such a draconian system.
But what do we make of “socialized” medicine and so on? Those who abhor such a thing are often reminded that we have “socialized” education, police and fire, retirement pensions, and so on.
So is it “socialism” to agree that even one specific societal benefit is best delivered by way of a government-run program that relys on (forcibly) pooled resources rather than a for-profit scheme?
Really? I tend to think of a lot of governments in Western Europe as socialist–Sweden, France, Denmark, for example. Am I wrong to think of them as socialist? Or am I wrong to think of them as non-horrific?
Capitalism can produce its own horrors, too, of course. There was a short segment on This American Life this week about things immigrants have trouble believing about the United States; among them is the fact that there are actually people here who sleep on the streets. For folks from other countries, this is too monstrous to contemplate, and many regard it as an urban legend and smear against the country until they see it themselves.
Socialism does not, as far as I can tell, require a single party state.
My question is what do socialists feel the role of small business is in a socialist economy? How do they work compared to a capitalist economy?
I’m not going to get into the political definitions of socialism and communism, but from a strictly economic point of view, I don’t consider communism to be a separate economic philosophy from socialism. Instead, I would opt to characterize socialism and capitalism as two ends of a spectrum. On this spectrum, socialism is a system where the government controls all aspects of the economy and capitalism is a system where government controls no aspects of the economy. Every economy in the real world, then, falls somewhere along this spectrum.
So, we can talk about whether two economies are more socialist or capitalist relative to each other, or we can talk about whether specific sectors of an economy are more socialist or capitalist. So, for example, I would characterize Norway overall as being more socialist than the US. But within the US, I could say that we have multiple systems of socialist health insurance (Medicare and Medicaid) and we have multiple systems of capitalist health insurance.
I don’t consider regulation per-se to be indicative of either system, although you can certainly set up regulatory systems that tilt one way or the other. And I also realize that many people would characterize something like Medicare to be wealth redistribution, rather than socialism, but I consider wealth redistribution to be government control of the economy, so wealth redistribution (in my view) would push towards the socialist side.
Now, the reason I separated out the economics, is because you can have a wide variety of economic systems with government systems. So, for example, I would characterize the USSR as having a highly-socialized totalitarian system, while I would characterize the UK as having a somewhat-socialized democratic system. Although, I do feel that as you get close and closer to either end of the spectrum, it becomes more and more difficult to maintain democratic forms of government.
ETA: A number of people probably won’t agree with the way I’m defining socialism, capitalism, and wealth redistribution, so whatever terms you want to substitute, feel free. The distinction I’m trying to make is between government control and non-government control.
Ah, you may be right, Sir.
But couldn’t there be a system in which socialism is a given (sorta like our Constitution is a given and we don’t have elections to determine its enforcement) and the people elected which planners/socialists they wanted? If we could have a capitalist republic why couldn’t we have a socialistic republic? FWIW, none of this is meant to be argumentative, just thinking out loud here.
Does it have to crumble this way, MrDribble? IMHO, an ideal world would consist of competitive governments: one capitalistic the other socialistic. Each citizen would be given the choice of living in either for a designated period of time, say for a year. (This designated period would be like a contract and allow the powers that be to plan accordingly.) Then after the increment of time was up the individual could renew his contract/citizenship or change to the other country/economic system. What would be objectionable about allowing people a choice between capitalistic and socialists governments? In other words, why would true socialism be incompatible with ideological competition?
To the socialists: could you recommend some books or literature which you feel best make your case? Many thanks.
Alan Maass, The Case for Socialilsm, Haymarket Books. And yes, that is the way the Comintern has to crumble; a society based on solidarity and cooperation cannot exist side-by-side with a society based on profit and competition without inevitably being affected by it, as the cooperative system will be forced to compete with the competitive system on the international level and become more like it. Were it otherwise the Soviet Union would be gearing up for its hundredth anniversary by now.
BrainGlutton - nobody owns the copyright on physics, either, but we’re generally able to tell scientifically rigorous, correct physics from pseudo- or unscientific crap, aren’t we? Socialism is social science, but science nonetheless. It is possible to examine all sorts of political manifestations and determine what is socialist and what is not. We can’t simply accept something as ‘socialist’ just because someone (Mao, Stalin, the tea-baggers talking about Obama’s lackluster health care proposal) says it is, much the same as we can’t accept the latest perpetual motion machine just because its ‘inventor’ says it works.
An’ another thing…
Socialism does not require a one-party state. The world working class is a heterogeneous mix of genders, ethnicities, sexual preferences, and so on and so forth, with widely varying interests, needs, and wants. Debate and discussion around all that is vital for any democracy, and this will naturally lead to the growth of new parties and factions. But that on the basis of a classless society, not a society in which class divisions exist.
Late to the game here, but hey, I am still travelling (stuck on an 8 hour layover in Heathrow right now).
I consider myself a democratic socialist in many ways - my belief is that the concentration of ownership (and more importantly control) of the means of production into the hands of a small group of individuals leads to unacceptable levels of inequality; makes the society as a whole worse off; and alienates the individual from his or her work life. It also leads to the undervaluation of societal costs and externalities, and an over emphasis on private profit. The idea of a democratic socialist society should, IMHO, be the spread of democracy away from the idea of voting once every couple of years to empowering people to make decisions on a daily basis that affect the important aspects of their lives, be that work, education, local issues, the environment etc.
Thatcher’s Britain. Seeing the assaults on the union movement - police used to attack miners, printers and others whose “crime” was to seek (however possibly naively) to defend their jobs and ways of life. The way in which the Herald of Free Enterprise inquiry was a snow job designed to cover up the misdeeds of corporate owners resulting in the deaths of hundreds (incuding my coach). Then at college (1987-90) I became exposed to a far broader spectrum of the labour movement, and found my place.
I believe it has a future, once it moves away from its focus on statism, and concentrates on elements such as industrial and local democracy.
Absolutely. “Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.” It is capitalism (as well as statism of any type) that is incompatible with civil liberties. Devolving power down to the lowest possible levels in all areas of life is a recipe for more not less civil liberty.
Absolutely there is, and history has shown that this is the path down which state socialism goes. The checks and balances lie in the strength of the representative organizations - the independent unions, community groups, etc where democracy will be practiced.
I don’t vote at the moment. I am still a British citizen living in the US and cannot vote here. Even if I could still vote in the UK, I wouldn’t as I don’t live there. I was, in the past, a member of the British Labour Party and secretary of my ward. I left when the party lurched to the right.
God, no. An *ideal *world would consist of no governments at all.
But I think you’re missing the point - it’s not (for me, anyway) about the socialist revolution desiring no capitalist competition, it’s about everyone (or the vast majority, anyway) finally waking up and realising that capitalism isn’t for their benefit. Without that worldwide epiphany, what you have is *imposed *socialist experiments, and experience has indeed shown that that usually leads to dictators and worse. Also, you have the Cold War-style problems too, if there are still capitalist regimes.
Now, it could be argued that a sudden epiphany isn’t needed, that gradual progress towards a European-style SD model worldwide, is the way to go, and that may be, but the end result isn’t socialism there. There’d still need to be a paradigm shift from Social Democracy to my preferred stateless society.
Just like any other business, IMO. Run by and for its employees.
Though I don’t often agree with the ideology, I appreciate the information being spread here. Thanks guys.
Good post villa, but I find the quoted sentence above amusing, because I would reference those very things in opposition to socialism. I don’t think ceding even more control of society to bureaucrats is empowering, and I’m at a loss to explain how you think it is. If anything, it’s dis-empowering. It encourages voting once every couple of years rather than making decisions on a daily basis, as the only way to influence a decision is through voting once every couple of years to vote in the elected official that will (hopefully) act in your interests.
How in God’s name did you get “empowering bureaucrats” from that sentence?!
Uhh.. the topic of the thread, socialism, which has been posited as control of industry by the people. In representative democracies, the people are represented by officials they elect to office and the people that work with these officials, all of these people being bureaucrats:
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
A bureaucrat is a member of a bureaucracy and can comprise the administration of any organization of any size, though the term usually connotes someone within an institution of a government.
[/QUOTE]
So control of industry by the people through their representatives in government. Pretty self evident.