Explaining Socialism

[Greatguardian]

Except that worldwide socialist policies are in effect and are very successful ( as indicated in the OP concerning education and healthcare, for example ), whereas conservative policies are not as widespread and have proven to have destroyed economies.

Ideally, I would say your naïveté provides me with a cynical criticism to levy against you for attempting to sound wiser than what you've expertly betrayed in two sentences. I'll leave that criticism for the audience to fill.

3/10, no attempt to define terms shows a complete lack of comprehension of problems highlighted on the majority of the page.

Idealism does not necessitate impossibility. Socialism, as a construct of 20th century modernism, is certainly more idealistic than post-modern conservatism by definition. If anything, the notion that something which is idealistic is impossible is a recent post-modern idea. You're not actually contradicting anything if you happen to be talking to a modernist.

[Ashmada]

I would argue that contemporary liberalism is equally cynical, to be perfectly honest. Both liberalism and conservatism of the 21st century have developed in post-modern western societies, which are fundamentally opposed to 20th century idealistic modernism. 21st century liberalism only looks progressive relative to 21st century conservatism - an extremely poor benchmark.

In the grand scheme of things, it could be argued that post-modern/21st century liberalism is more dangerous to a society than post-modern/21-century conservatism because at least the latter does not pretend to be making forward progress.

You'll note my terms were relative , that's what I was saying.

Edit: Note that I'm not addressing socialism directly. I'm not mixing up the terms, just addressing a tangent. Socialism is generally a holdover of 20th century modernism, which I would imagine is more prevalent over in the EU (where you're from, yes?). It pretty much doesn't exist any more in the context of the United States. Even our progressives are post-modern. Americans have forgotten how to dream.

Truth be told, it's not dreaming at the core, it's history. And not peaceful history.
We just remember the 19th century; we remember that the works of Dickens (Oliver Twist), Hugo (Les Misérables) and Zola (Germinal) aren't pure fiction but an accurate if chilling portrayal of the era's harsh economic realities.
And we remember the blood spilled for the current acquis sociaux (sorry, there's no traduction), so we're loath to relinquish them.
In my country (Belgium), we've always had 3 historical "pillars" of power: liberals (means right-wing ultracapitalists here, remnants of the bourgeoisie), catholics and socialists.


In the US, you have a different history, different roots. That's all it amounts to.
Dreams have little to do with it, if we're being honest.

I'm not sure how many socialists are actually in this thread. I know I'm not, I'm a pretty good mix. Just because there are parts of society you wish to be more socialist does not a socialist make

Heh. Never said anyone in the thread was. I currently vote socialist, so you could say I am.
Truth is, the more time passes, the weaker my political convinctions.

[Demosthenes11]

I believe labels like "socialist" "communist" or even "capitalist" are pretty pure labels. If one goes out of their way to either label themselves or someone else with this, there is a strong element of purity in that - the person believes almost all tenants of that belief. Obviously you don't have to like everything about the idea, but it at the very least implies a "most" judgement and a "least" judgement for other things.

[Kuya]

It was probably mentioned already, but i'd correct the OP by saying that what is being explained is social democratic policy and not socialism itself, since in marxist theory socialism is historical stage after capitalism but before communism where the state (that is controlled by workers) controls the means of production or property used to produce capital.

[Greatguardian]

You'll note my terms were relative , that's what I was saying.

Truth be told, it's not dreaming at the core, it's history. And not peaceful history.
We just remember the 19th century; we remember that the works of Dickens (Oliver Twist), Hugo (Les Misérables) and Zola (Germinal) aren't pure fiction but an accurate if chilling portrayal of the era's harsh economic realities.
And we remember the blood spilled for the current acquis sociaux (sorry, there's no traduction), so we're loath to relinquish them.
In my country (Belgium), we've always had 3 historical "pillars" of power: liberals (means right-wing ultracapitalists here, remnants of the bourgeoisie), catholics and socialists.

In the US, you have a different history, different roots. That's all it amounts to.
Dreams have little to do with it, if we're being honest.

We do have a different history, but we weren't always caught up in this trap. The United States did have its own period of modernist thought, extending from the late 19th century to the mid 20th. You are right to say, however, that we reacted to the advent of post-modernist thought differently than the EU did due in large part to that historical gap.

The defining element of American Modernism was the ability of people to dream of a better world. Shows like Star Trek look campy and naive now, but in their time they were the embodiment of the future people wanted to paint for the human race. I firmly believe that the advent of the computer played a large part in the shift from dystopian pessimism to utopian optimisim in literature and audiovisual media in the 20th century. Mankind experienced unprecedented growth and prosperity. Children grew up dreaming about flying through the stars like Captain Kirk.

Unfortunately, America doesn't have hundreds of years of history and experience to fall back on. Our society is inexperienced with change and didn't realize the amount of time it takes to engender meaningful changes in the world around us. We are not used to work towards an ideal that spans more than one lifetime. Therefore, when the pace that such changes were being made with became clear to us, we had a cultural meltdown. Post-modernism is, by definition, a reaction to modernist thought. In the context of the United States, this is embodied primarily by cynicism, hopelessness, and fear. Instead of planting seeds for the future and working to solve the core of our problems, we waste our lives away bickering over how many band-aids to place over a broken arm. Liberals want to put 5 band-aids over it, while Conservatives think people should be happy with 2, but no amount of band-aids is ever going to mend a broken bone - you can't patch up wounds in society without addressing the underlying problems that cause them.

People are scared. So very, very scared. No one wants to live their life working towards change only to die without seeing measurable progress. That's scary. It really is. So, instead of working towards that ideal, people devote their lives to something tangible - something they can see and accomplish before they die, even if it doesn't really mean anything, even if it doesn't really change anything. People are scared, and so they've tricked themselves into thinking that what they're doing is beneficial - that what they're doing is solving the world's problems, just in a realistic and pragmatic way. It doesn't have to be the best, it just has to be better than what we have now, isn't that right?

No, Americans have certainly forgotten how to dream.

I believe labels like "socialist" "communist" or even "capitalist" are pretty pure labels. If one goes out of their way to either label themselves or someone else with this, there is a strong element of purity in that - the person believes almost all tenants of that belief. Obviously you don't have to like everything about the idea, but it at the very least implies a "most" judgement and a "least" judgement for other things.

If you think any label is pure, then you aren't think about it hard enough.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

3/10, no attempt to define terms shows a complete lack of comprehension of problems highlighted on the majority of the page.

Idealism does not necessitate impossibility. Socialism, as a construct of 20th century modernism, is certainly more idealistic than post-modern conservatism by definition. If anything, the notion that something which is idealistic is impossible is a recent post-modern idea. You're not actually contradicting anything if you happen to be talking to a modernist.

Tryhard belongs in spam my friend, not in here. It is far more pragmatic to execute concepts laid forth in a socialist agenda ( apply taxes paid by Y to build / maintain / sustain X ) than it is to execute conservative agendas ( trickle down, corporate leniency, expectations of the rich and businesses to do good by society ). It's very clear cut throughout history where the idealism lies in the spectrum by virtue of what exists in reality to today. Socialist constructs thrive, America attempted conservative idealism on many levels over the past 3 decades and we've been in a few recessions since then.

And stop trying to ride my nuts to get ahead, it ain't work.

[Greatguardian]

Tryhard belongs in spam my friend, not in here. It is far more pragmatic to execute concepts laid forth in a socialist agenda ( apply taxes paid by Y to build / maintain / sustain X ) than it is to execute conservative agendas ( trickle down, corporate leniency, expectations of the rich and businesses to do good by society ). It's very clear cut throughout history where the idealism lies in the spectrum by virtue of what exists in reality to today. Socialist constructs thrive, America attempted conservative idealism on many levels over the past 3 decades and we've been in a few recessions since then.

And stop trying to ride my nuts to get ahead, it ain't work.

Alright, I'll be real simple then. No tryhard intellectualism from me.

Dude, you talking about different shit from the rest of us.

[RKenshin]

The biggest failure with all of these theories of the perfect/ideal society (socialism, capitalism, etc) is that they never account for (or even seriously address) greed and corruption.

In a perfect world, yeah, both ways could work very well in there own ways.

But the ultimate failure in implementation tends to just be greed; whether it's the monopolies/trusts/price-gouging, or the over-indulgence and excessive gluttony of the successful, or the unsustainable attempts at socialistic policies without paying for them (cause 'tax' is such a bad word now), or just the people that will make a way of life off of living on the system.

All of that said though, choosing between the extremes I'd still rather live in a society where some people cheat, but everyone is well-provided for... than the essentially Darwinist alternative, even if it does foster higher levels of innovation.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

The rest of you must be thinking way too fucking hard about this then, it's very simple.

[Kuya]

The biggest failure with all of these theories of the perfect/ideal society (socialism, capitalism, etc) is that they never account for (or even seriously address) greed and corruption.

In a perfect world, yeah, both ways could work very well in there own ways.

But the ultimate failure in implementation tends to just be greed; whether it's the monopolies/trusts/price-gouging, or the over-indulgence and excessive gluttony of the successful, or the unsustainable attempts at socialistic policies without paying for them (cause 'tax' is such a bad word now), or just the people that will make a way of life off of living on the system.

All of that said though, choosing between the extremes I'd still rather live in a society where some people cheat, but everyone is well-provided for... than the essentially Darwinist alternative, even if it does foster higher levels of innovation.

It's not necessary for people to be mean spirited individuals for free economies or planned economies to fail. It's enough to know that human beings aren't always rational actors and even when they are, what might seem reasonable at an individual level could be a disaster at a systemic level.

[RKenshin]

It's not necessary for people to be mean spirited individuals for free economies or planned economies to fail.

Of course there are many possible causes for economic/societal failure besides greed, but it's certainly a major one.

[Greatguardian]

The biggest failure with all of these theories of the perfect/ideal society (socialism, capitalism, etc) is that they never account for (or even seriously address) greed and corruption.

In a perfect world, yeah, both ways could work very well in there own ways.

But the ultimate failure in implementation tends to just be greed; whether it's the monopolies/trusts/price-gouging, or the over-indulgence and excessive gluttony of the successful, or the unsustainable attempts at socialistic policies without paying for them (cause 'tax' is such a bad word now), or just the people that will make a way of life off of living on the system.

All of that said though, choosing between the extremes I'd still rather live in a society where some people cheat, but everyone is well-provided for... than the essentially Darwinist alternative, even if it does foster higher levels of innovation.

Why does it matter?

That's a serious question, by the way. Why does it matter if some people get greedy, or leech off the system, or wantonly consume without paying their dues to society?

When all members of a society are able to be provided for even if they don't do anything - even if they leech off the system, even if they're greedy, even if they're corrupt - why does it matter if some number of people act this way?

Post-computer age idealism denotes a potential shift in the fundamental motivation for mankind. Right now, and throughout our history, we have worked in order to survive. Systems like capitalism worked because they (generally/in theory) rewarded those who put in the most work, because society would collapse without work. But in a world where it's not necessary to have the entire workforce, or even the majority of the workforce, doing anything at all to sustain itself, why would people work? Why would they get out of bed in the morning? What would be their nouveau raison d'etre?

This sort of world isn't some far-off impossibility. You can already see the symptoms today. Technology will only improve. Unemployment will only continue to rise. Maybe not in one year, maybe not in ten. But it will rise. There is no need for people to increase production beyond the limits of global consumption. When a facility operated by 10 mechanics can produce enough food to feed 100 million, capitalism will die. And if people abuse their newfound freedom, who cares? No one will starve because of it. When we are capable of producing in excess of our consumption, there will be no need to ration our resources.

[Kuya]

Why does it matter?

That's a serious question, by the way. Why does it matter if some people get greedy, or leech off the system, or wantonly consume without paying their dues to society?

When all members of a society are able to be provided for even if they don't do anything - even if they leech off the system, even if they're greedy, even if they're corrupt - why does it matter if some number of people act this way?

Post-computer age idealism denotes a potential shift in the fundamental motivation for mankind. Right now, and throughout our history, we have worked in order to survive. Systems like capitalism worked because they (generally/in theory) rewarded those who put in the most work, because society would collapse without work. But in a world where it's not necessary to have the entire workforce, or even the majority of the workforce, doing anything at all to sustain itself, why would people work? Why would they get out of bed in the morning? What would be their nouveau raison d'etre?

This sort of world isn't some far-off impossibility. You can already see the symptoms today. Technology will only improve. Unemployment will only continue to rise. Maybe not in one year, maybe not in ten. But it will rise. There is no need for people to increase production beyond the limits of global consumption. When a facility operated by 10 mechanics can produce enough food to feed 100 million, capitalism will die. And if people abuse their newfound freedom, who cares? No one will starve because of it. When we are capable of producing in excess of our consumption, there will be no need to ration our resources.

What are you talking about?

[Greatguardian]

What are you talking about?

Long story, lacking context. Essentially, greed and corruption are only fundamental flaws of societal idealism in cases wherein the abuse of resources is actually detrimental to society.

Did it matter to the USSR? Definitely. Does it matter to anywhere else around the world today? Definitely. Will it matter in the future? No, I don't think it will.

[Yugl]

Why does it matter?

That's a serious question, by the way. Why does it matter if some people get greedy, or leech off the system, or wantonly consume without paying their dues to society?

When all members of a society are able to be provided for even if they don't do anything - even if they leech off the system, even if they're greedy, even if they're corrupt - why does it matter if some number of people act this way?

Basic collective action problem is probably why the issue matters. Many want to be "that guy" that leeches.

[Greatguardian]

Basic collective action problem, obviously. Many want to be "that guy" that leeches.

I'm sure damn near everyone will be for a generation, maybe two. But I don't think human beings are a fundamentally stagnant species. We don't take well to sitting around doing nothing. We may want to do it now because we've been forced to live under the precepts of natural selection for so long, but when we have a generation that's free to live outside those rules and not be fettered by their reaction against them, I think that's when we'll really flourish.

When the fundamental motivation behind mankind is not the need to survive, but the desire for self-improvement, then we'll really get somewhere.

[Kuya]

Anyway, independent of the current philosophical discussion, i doubt you american left leaning people will ever get your more secular social democracy, because the party that you use is currently more orthodox economic liberal than heterodox econ lib, the current right-wing movement is highly moneyed and professional, and culture in america seems biased against statist central planning.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Still not understanding the pseudo-philosophical debate over instances that can be proven anecdotally.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

College kids must have gotten new books to read this month.

[Greatguardian]

Still not understanding the pseudo-philosophical debate over instances that can be proven anecdotally.

I wouldn't call it a debate, more a discussion. And it has more to do with modernism and post-modernism than it does with socialism and capitalism at this point. No one's in here defending the free market, last I checked.

Look if you don't want to think about shit that's cool, but there's no need to be dismissive. You're being pretty arrogant for someone who charged into the thread without even knowing what the fuck we were talking about.