Does socialism work?

[Dakho]

Based on the examples of China and Soviet Russia, I would say, I don't think socialism works. But before I begin, let me say they are not communist, at least not in the Marxist sense of the word, where there is no government and everyone just works together in a Utopian society.

In both aforementioned countries, citizens are wholly controlled by the government. You always have to put human greed into the equation, as it is what messes up socialism. The government becomes too greedy, and instead of being socialism it ends up looking more like totalitarianism.

Though while in these countries it has induced fear mongering governments, in other places people live peaceably. In places like Canada and Switzerland, socialism works well, from my understanding. However, I don't think it would work for America.

In a free market, greed fuels the economy. And that is a good thing, it yields interesting innovations and an overall higher standard of living. Millions have come to America because of this: to give themselves and their children a better future. America has it's problems, of this there is no doubt; we're deep in debt, our government, even when controlled by one party, can't decide on anything, and we're not exactly the healthiest people either. We're fighting two wars, one that didn't really have a good reason to start and one that many think is doomed to fail.

But even then, America has a higher standard of living. I owe that to capitalism.

 

[ElderKingpin]

it sounds like greed. for all the right reasons.

 

[CatCat]

Hmmmm, and China doesn't seem to be doing that badly economy-wise. But maaaaybe Capitalism just doesn't work in America? Maybe it's not the economic values that are flawed.
Some countries do fine under socialistic rule, some don't. I'm sure the same goes for capitalism.

 

[ElderKingpin]

capitalism isnt perfect, no other government is perfect. we have debt because our government lacks the ability to control themselves when it comes to spending.

 

[CatCat]

Yea..... Blame the government... too bad we live in a democracy. I'm not tooo sure but the demo(s) in democracy means people, and the cracy (kratos) means Power. You do elect your officers in government over there right?

Nevertheless, 10 trillion dollars. I'm not sure we can just wave that off with

"because our government lacks the ability to control themselves"

Especially in a DEMOcracy. The answer can't be THAT simple, right?

 

[T.s.e]

why is the human nature argument pure nonsense? If humans could act however they wanted, and human nature was pure nonsense, socialism could work because people wouldn't feel inclined to be lazy, and they'd care enough about the group to put in their share of the work, and it wouldn't matter if they were getting stiffed for doing more then enough, because they could control their desire for stuff and glory to help the greater whole. But human nature is a very important part of this.

You assume that all humans act like that, because that's what they do in today's capitalistic society, where you have to act like that to survive. Our society completely revolves around money and greed, when you say that greed is human nature, you don't even consider the possibility that greed is artificially made out of scarcity of resources and not our fundamental behaviour.

it's not that people make mistakes, it's that people are and always will be self-interested. This isn't always a bad thing, though, as it does lead to innovation as some people pointed out. But, left unchecked, people can go very far in their own self interest.

An example of this would be the Ford Pinto. It was found unsafe, and that the cars were blowing up, killing and seriously burning people. However, Ford calculated that it would be cheaper to just let people die and get burned and pay legal fees then recall every vehicle and repair it, so instead of launching a recall they initially intended to just let people die, because technically it was in their self interest.
(http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Pinto.htm )

How many times do I have to explain this to you? People MUST go far in their own self-interest because capitalistic societies work that way. Money rules EVERYTHING. Profits are the only thing to worry about in a society like ours, and to maximize profits, you cannot worry about people's well-being. If you don't maximize profits, you get destroyed. This is the sickening backside of capitalism, and the sickening backside of the concept of money itself.

Why the fuck do we even have money? It restricts technology, endangers our lives and renders us arrogant, suspicious and disconnected from each other. If we applied all the technology that exists to create electricity without pollution, we could be independent of fossil fuels today. Why don't we just do that? Because of money, the oil industry's lobbyism and influence stagnates our technological progress and slows down our chances of saving the world from an environmental collapse. Money is the most idiotic invention of humanity. You can't eat money, you can't power your computer on money, and you can't run your car on money. If you think that a world without money would collapse under over-consumption, think about how our lifestyles already are. We over-consume on biblical scales, and while we do it, people suffer for no reason. If the technology was put into practice instantly, everyone in the world could have enough to eat and electrical power.

But nah, you see, we have to maximize profits to survive in this ridiculous world, while wasting away our lives. Running on the hampsterwheel, every single day. We have limited time here, I just don't see why we need to use the only life we have to maintain a corrupt and heartless institution, based on pieces of paper that have no other practical value than we give it. Bah, I put my faith in the Venus Project, and hope others will as well.

That being said, a communist society is in no way less capitalistic than the society of today; they both revolve around money, just in different ways.

 

[ElderKingpin]

oh ho ho ho. cat cat.

People are apathetic. many people dont care, that is why i can blame the government.

I can blame the governemnt, and i can blame everyone. But i wont.
The government obviously doesnt care about the debt, and they should be the ones taking the initiative, a person shouldnt have to hold their hand and tell them. Ok. lower the debt. no you cant do that.. etc.

 

[CatCat]

oh ho ho ho. cat cat.

People are apathetic. many people dont care, that is why i can blame the government.

I can blame the governemnt, and i can blame everyone. But i wont.
The government obviously doesnt care about the debt, and they should be the ones taking the initiative, a person shouldnt have to hold their hand and tell them. Ok. lower the debt. no you cant do that.. etc.

Don't you think that our society is a bit more complex than that? I mean, you must be joking (or at the least sarcastic) when you say that "the government doesn't care about the debt".
When you say "a person shouldn't have to take initiative" It's not THAT easy, and definitely not that simple ....right?

I really wish it was as easy as you say it was, I really do. But... It's very hard for me to believe as well.

 

[ElderKingpin]

i dont understand where you get "a person shouldn't have to take initiative"

 

[ReVolver]

Yea..... Blame the government... too bad we live in a democracy. I'm not tooo sure but the demo(s) in democracy means people, and the cracy (kratos) means Power. You do elect your officers in government over there right?

Nevertheless, 10 trillion dollars. I'm not sure we can just wave that off with

"because our government lacks the ability to control themselves"

Especially in a DEMOcracy. The answer can't be THAT simple, right?

Stop calling USA a Democracy, its a Facist, we don't elect our "officers" the owners of the nation do.

 

[Varine]

Hmmmm, and China doesn't seem to be doing that badly economy-wise. But maaaaybe Capitalism just doesn't work in America? Maybe it's not the economic values that are flawed.
Some countries do fine under socialistic rule, some don't. I'm sure the same goes for capitalism.

China's communist, not socialist, bro. Of course they're doing good, the government takes whatever it wants and if someone has a problem with it they disappear. Not that anyone would notice given their population....

Stop calling USA a Democracy, its a Facist, we don't elect our "officers" the owners of the nation do.

Stop calling it fascist, it's a Republic and they're called 'officials' and you elect those that elect the President who sets the Justices. So... stop electing them and things change a bit (or elect Obama and they institute supposed health care systems that don't really [it really doesn't, it leaves out 24 million people in 2012 still] solve the problem). Or you can be like Bill Gates (is he considered upper class?) and have the government try to royally fuck you over when you do make money. Based off of things like that I think it's quite the opposite of what you do, but that's just me. Of course I watch Fox, so I shouldn't be allowed to live anyway, let alone have an opinion that involves anything political, that's how it goes right?

Oh and for a country that's

a Facist

(which is a far right form of government), why does the left have control of ALL branches?

 

[thewrongvine]

Debt is good, Money, wee.

~Hai-Bye-Vine~

 

[WolSHaman]

You assume that all humans act like that, because that's what they do in today's capitalistic society, where you have to act like that to survive. Our society completely revolves around money and greed, when you say that greed is human nature, you don't even consider the possibility that greed is artificially made out of scarcity of resources and not our fundamental behaviour.


How many times do I have to explain this to you? People MUST go far in their own self-interest because capitalistic societies work that way. Money rules EVERYTHING. Profits are the only thing to worry about in a society like ours, and to maximize profits, you cannot worry about people's well-being. If you don't maximize profits, you get destroyed. This is the sickening backside of capitalism, and the sickening backside of the concept of money itself.

Why the fuck do we even have money? It restricts technology, endangers our lives and renders us arrogant, suspicious and disconnected from each other. If we applied all the technology that exists to create electricity without pollution, we could be independent of fossil fuels today. Why don't we just do that? Because of money, the oil industry's lobbyism and influence stagnates our technological progress and slows down our chances of saving the world from an environmental collapse. Money is the most idiotic invention of humanity. You can't eat money, you can't power your computer on money, and you can't run your car on money. If you think that a world without money would collapse under over-consumption, think about how our lifestyles already are. We over-consume on biblical scales, and while we do it, people suffer for no reason. If the technology was put into practice instantly, everyone in the world could have enough to eat and electrical power.

But nah, you see, we have to maximize profits to survive in this ridiculous world, while wasting away our lives. Running on the hampsterwheel, every single day. We have limited time here, I just don't see why we need to use the only life we have to maintain a corrupt and heartless institution, based on pieces of paper that have no other practical value than we give it. Bah, I put my faith in the Venus Project, and hope others will as well.

That being said, a communist society is in no way less capitalistic than the society of today; they both revolve around money, just in different ways.

and why did money and greed come about? Society? What makes up society? Society is made up of people, society is created by what people believe and how their minds work. People always like most stuff. If I offered anyone here 1 million bucks, they'd take it. One of the most core parts of being human, it seems, is greed, or, more specifically, self-interest, although like other instincts it can be overcome, but very few people seem able or willing to.

As for money, what's the alternative? If you wanted food from a farmer, would you barter with him? Offer him something you own in exchange? If there were no money, half the energy of society, at least, would just be devoted to trying to barter. Money simply provides an easy middle ground. I pay you 5 dollars for food, then you use the 5 dollars to buy what you want, simple. People can't just give stuff away for free, there wouldn't be enough to go around.

Basically what I'm suggesting is it's not money that's leading to the problems in society today, but, more specifically, people acting in their own self-interest at the expense of everyone else, a form of greed in my opinion.

 

[MasterOfABCs]

Well, I bet that if china reduced its population by 2/3 and instituted a 35-40% capital gains tax, economic strife would arise.

 

[T.s.e]

China's communist, not socialist, bro. Of course they're doing good, the government takes whatever it wants and if someone has a problem with it they disappear. Not that anyone would notice given their population....

People should really stop calling China communist. China is a turbocapitalistic state with a strong bureaucracy.

 

[Kershbob]

For the most part it's not true... The USA has the highest standard of living

Not sure what you're referring to here. But out of all the countries, specifically modernised countries, it's not high at all.

 

[SerraAvenger]

instead of launching a recall they initially intended to just let people die, because technically it was in their self interest

You're not thinking far enough.
Making money was their self interest. But what defines self interest? Do you really think that making money is self interest "by nature"? When we were in nature there was no money.
Some Animals eat their children when they are really hungry, that's their self interest. Will you eat your children when you're hungry?
That is nature. Not some weird capitalist construct we crafted within a thousands of years.

What is and what is not "self interest"? I do think that our interests are not determined by the society we live in, but the ways we believe we can satisfy those interests are.
If we change the society, we change the way of thinking.
If we change ourselves, the society will change too.

I have no doubt that peoples nature is in fact much different from what most of us believe. Look at children, they're more natural that adults.
Let us play a simple cookie scenario. Grandma brought some awesome cookies. Now, the first action of the children would be taking as many cookies as possible for their own enjoyment. Okay, so far it's supporting the theory you believe in. This so called self interest I'll call greed. "Get the most for yourself", it states.
Most probably, some children have more cookies than others. Those who have less will get sad. Those who have more will notice.
And now, their true self interest comes in. Happiness. Many of those can't really be happy if they eat cookies while others don't. So what they'll naturally do is distribute their cookies. Really, it happens so often with little children that I find it deeply amazing. And I think that is what self interest really is.
Self interest is actually the interest to be happy. And if in a society we "learn" that happiness is achieved by wealth, we'll believe it until we see something different. I don't have much money, yet I'm much more happy than most of my friends who have.
I have four younger siblings, and with all of them I had to see: The older they get, the more cookies they'll keep for themselves. I was the same until I realized cookies don't make me happy. Its my friends who do.
And I believe that if more people will realize this, and will stop believing the dogmas they get indoctrinated from their school/society/whatsoever ("Self interest is making money", "human nature is greed", "Humans can't live for each other, only for themselves"), they will also see that living together is much more satisfying.

In history, we tried lots of different approaches to states.
Some of them where somewhat socialist. Many weren't.
There is a couple of prejudices about "Communist" societies that are untrue. I will try to clarify them.
1. Stalinist Russia.
We all know that Stalinist Russia called itself Union of Socialist Sovjet Republics.
Socialist. The name doesn't claim to be communist. And still socialism != socialism. The socialism performed in the USSR was a socialism in one land, or the national socialism. The Nazis (National Socialists) tried a similar model in Germany, which wasn't socialist at all. Nor was the USSR.
Sovjet. Also known as Council. A Sovjet Democracy is a democracy where the state is ruled be a direct-democratically voted council. It's not far from a parliamentary democracy, like the one I live in.
There is just two main differences: In a council democracy, you don't vote for parties but for people. And as soon as one of those does something different than what they told you they would do, you can (direct-democratically was a keyword) deselect that person.
It is, in fact, much more democratic than our system.
Too bad the USSR was nothing like that.
Republic. The USA is a republic. In a republic, the people are protected from the government by laws. Sadly, in the USSR there were laws to protect the people, but they were ignored.
The USSR was, in fact, a fascist, terrorist state.
2. China
Many people believe China is a Communist state. As T.S.E Pointed out, China is everything but socialist or communist.
3. Communism/Socialism works/works not
Communism isn't a term, its a terminology. It's the same like saying "democracy works". The Weimarer Republic was a democracy. It didn't work at all and ended with Hitler and the second world war.
There are different ways of Communism. They all have in common that the people are the state and that the means of production are owned by the people, ie the sate.
In most communist theories, there is also an instrument called planned economy. I personally think that this element is the one that will inevitably fail, unless we make a) everybody equal oO or b) survey everyones desires. While a) is likely improbable and disgusting, b) can so easily be abused to destroy peoples lives that its not clever at all.
It is good to have plans. But the more precise those plans are, the greater they are and the more important they are, the less useful they will be. We can see this in our capitalist society, where the societal "self interest" made DNF fail.

I don't like to think in categories like communism, capitalism, welfare-state or socialism.

I'd enjoy it if everybody got used to postulate an idea of how the state might work, and then discuss that specific idea.

On a slightly related note:
I would love to see a council republic with a good conditionless base income, 1-10% wealth taxes, mediocre income taxes (really low for low incomes) and a further use of taxes as a control mechanism.
I'd also love to see a little more interest in technology, since thats the only thing that'll save us. It doesn't matter if stuff like Global Warming is caused by humans or not, we must prepare to live with it.
Or die.

 

[Varine]

People should really stop calling China communist. China is a turbocapitalistic state with a strong bureaucracy.

No, they are communist. Not as much as it has been since the 70's, given uneven distribution of wealth, but they are still Communist even if you don't want them to be. Just because economic policies have changed doesn't mean the the system of government has, making them communist.

 

[SerraAvenger]

No, they are communist. Not as much as it has been since the 70's, given uneven distribution of wealth, but they are still Communist even if you don't want them to be. Just because economic policies have changed doesn't mean the the system of government has, making them communist.

communism is actually more a form of both government and ecomonomics. The CP is no Marxist Government. The new economic policy in China isn't either. China is not communist by marxist standards.

 

[DogOfHavoc]

People seem to forget humans are animals. Yes, sometimes we are compassionate animals, but animals nonetheless. An animal's most basic instinct in survival. Every creature is born with a Me or Him mentality in which the interests of the self are infinitely more important than the interest of the other.

Socialism, and by extension any form of society whose aim is complete economic equality, makes the incorrect assumption that all men are born equal. Simply put, this is not the case. Some men are stronger than other men, some men are smarter than other men, some men are more attractive than other men. Yes, even the most unfortunate, ugly, mentally retarded man deserves equal civil and human rights, but is it fair to put them on the same economic level as someone who can create a rocket that can fly to the moon? I don't believe it is. I think humans work with what they are given at birth, and depending on how they apply their gifts, are entitled to greater rewards. The problem with socialism is that it gives a nuclear engineer the same benefits as a janitor. Sure socialism sounds nice on paper, but in application it is unfair.