03 May 05
Originally posted by RedmikeThat could very well be true!
It only sounds like socialism to you because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
But I do know that under capitalism the harder you work the more you earn.
My understanding of socialism is the no matter what you work you receive the same benefits. Unless of course you're talking about some watered down version of socialist policy.
My point in starting the thread was to illustrate that if the socialist concept was sound, don't you think the true believers would have congregated in one area and formed their "utopia".
That's how the U.S.A. was born.....
03 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by monster truckBut I do know that under capitalism the harder you work the more you earn.
That could very well be true!
But I do know that under capitalism the harder you work the more you earn.
My understanding of socialism is the no matter what you work you receive the same benefits. Unless of course you're talkin ...[text shortened]... d formed their "utopia".
That's how the U.S.A. was born.....
Really? So these starving millions in Africa are just lazy then? If they'd just work a bit harder they'd be rich?
My understanding of socialism is the no matter what you work you receive the same benefits. Unless of course you're talking about some watered down version of socialist policy
Ultimately, everyone would be equal in a socialist economy. But that's going to be a long way off. There's as much work in changing people's attitudes as there is in changing the economy.
My point in starting the thread was to illustrate that if the socialist concept was sound, don't you think the true believers would have congregated in one area and formed their "utopia".
As I've already said, no such country exists, and socialists generally don't believe that a single country can be properly socialist. Sure, when countries start moving in that direction, some socialists might move to these countries (like Che Guevara moving to Cuba, for example), but that depends on local circumstances. Most socialists will work in their own regions though.
Just because no socialist country exists doesn't mean the concept isn't sound.
03 May 05
Originally posted by RedmikeA So how would socialism help the starving African's? Oh wait, I know... their socialist brothers in the rest of the world will work to take care of them. How about we just help them be self-sufficient?
[b]But I do know that under capitalism the harder you work the more you earn.
Really? So these starving millions in Africa are just lazy then? If they'd just work a bit harder they'd be rich?
My understanding of socialism is the no matter what you work you receive the same benefits. Unless of course you're talking about some watered down vers ...[text shortened]... ons though.
Just because no socialist country exists doesn't mean the concept isn't sound.
B Yes, I agree. A long way off in a land called Never Never Land.
Do you really believe that the world will reach a point where we all agree on socialism as the best policy?
C I agree, lack of existence does not refute the concept.
Thanks for sharing, brother Mike.
K
03 May 05
Originally posted by monster truckA So how would socialism help the starving African's? Oh wait, I know... their socialist brothers in the rest of the world will work to take care of them. How about we just help them be self-sufficient?
A So how would socialism help the starving African's? Oh wait, I know... their socialist brothers in the rest of the world will work to take care of them. How about we just help them be self-sufficient?
B Yes, I agree. A long way off in a land called Never Never Land.
Do you really believe that the world will reach a point where we all agree ...[text shortened]... agree, lack of existence does not refute the concept.
Thanks for sharing, brother Mike.
K
Interesting. You ask a question, assume my answer and then criticise an answer I didn't give.
Of course we'd help them to be self-sufficient, but that's not what's happening just now.
B Yes, I agree. A long way off in a land called Never Never Land.
Do you really believe that the world will reach a point where we all agree on socialism as the best policy?
I don't know whether everyone will agree that socialism is the best policy, but we don't need everyone to agree.
03 May 05
Originally posted by RedmikeYou're terminally afflicted by "top-down" thinking. True Socialism will never be brought into effect at the national level. If there is to ever be a real socialist transformation of society it will have to begin at the community level and build its way up. Forget about transforming all of society in one fell swoop via a revolution. It doesn't work. A real socialist transformation of society would take decades. Build one community at a time along egalitarian socialist ideals and gradually build your way up. It's an incremental strategy with reachable goals at every step that doesn't rely on the world-wide-spontaneous-revolution-pipe dream-fantasy.
In practise though, there's not likely to be a single state pushing for socialism while the rest of the world goes in the opposite direction. Much as I'd like to see an Independant Socialist Scotland, I'm not naive enough to think we'd have a snowball's chance if that wasn't alongside other, similar movements elsewhere (even in England, who knows).
...[text shortened]... litical, economic etc) against the inevitable attacks by the multi-nationals and their allies.
There are two advantages to this:
1. There is no sudden and imminent threat for the capitalists to react against. A quick and startling transformation of economic relations would bring certain retaliation from the capitalist class. But a gradual and incremental transformation would pose no significant threat at each new step of the way. It would be a long and gradual transformation of people's perceptions which would be self-reinforcing. Eventually the capitalist state would become superfluous and whither away.
2. A gradual transformation of society would minimize any transitional chaos that typically is associated with violent revolutions. By the time the bulk of society had been transformed, most people would have been managing their own affairs at the community level for decades already.
Socialist political parties are largely a waste of time. You're never going to convert anyone to socialism when there are nothing but capitalist alternatives around them. The best way to make socialists is to build some egalitarian socialist commuities and let them experience firsthand what that transformation might be like. There are many people who yearn for some kind of change, but who despair at the impossibility of socialist revolution. I say forget about the revolution. Start small and build your way up.
03 May 05
Originally posted by rwingettI think we've had a similar debate before, and I'm not unsympathetic to your view.
You're terminally afflicted by "top-down" thinking. True Socialism will never be brought into effect at the national level. If there is to ever be a real socialist transformation of society it will have to begin at the community level and build its way up. Forget about transforming all of society in one fell swoop via a revolution. It doesn't work. A re ...[text shortened]... of socialist revolution. I say forget about the revolution. Start small and build your way up.
I'm not advocating a top-down, nation-by-nation approach - its just that the context of the question was 'socialist states'. I agree you have to start at the community level, but the objective is still to control the economy, and this is done at the state level and above.
When economic areas are won over to socialism, this is most likely (though not necessarily) to be the same as an existing state. It isn't possible, in my opinion, to have a socialist community within a state operating a capitalist economy.
I don't agree with your position that the capitalists will somehow allow things to change to their detriment if we do it slowly and incrementaly. As soon as they're threatened, they'll act. Trying to 'sneak past them' won't work. We can already see the lengths they'll go to to increase their profits - they're not going to stand by if their existence is threatened.
I wish you were right, but I really don't see them giving up without a struggle.
And I strongly disagree with your point about socialist parties. I see people 'converted' to socialist ideas all the time, in the midst of all these capitalist parties. In Scotland on Thursday we're going to get thousands of votes for an openly socialist party. We're recruiting new members all the time - these people are clearly being 'converted' to socialist ideas.
03 May 05
2 edits
Originally posted by RedmikeYes, we have had this same conversation before in one form or another. It seems that you are one of the few people on this site who has the intellectual capacity to talk intelligently about socialism.
I think we've had a similar debate before, and I'm not unsympathetic to your view.
I'm not advocating a top-down, nation-by-nation approach - its just that the context of the question was 'socialist states'. I agree you have to sta ...[text shortened]... ople are clearly being 'converted' to socialist ideas.
I agree with you that socialist parties "convert" people to socialism all the time. But what is the outcome? They build a bigger socialist party which in the end accomplishes absolutely nothing. If you got ten times the number of votes for your Scottish socialist party than you expected, what would be the result? You'd win some meaningless election. Maybe you enact a few pieces of legislation. But the root system remains unchanged. That would be even less effectual than having a single socialist country within a global capitalist network. It represents a huge amount of effort frittered away on nothing. Socialism will never be enacted through the efforts of a socialist political party.
I disagree with your statement that the transformation of the economy must be accomplished "at the state level and above." It is this kind of top heavy thinking that has doomed all previous attempts at socialism. As with the Soviet Union, it leads inexorably to state capitalism. The individual community must be the beginning of the socialist transformation of society and it must remain the primary focus when that goal is reached. There must be no hand off of power from the communities to the state apparatus when socialism has been achieved. All power must remain with the individual communities. They will inevitably elect administrators to coordinate production and services between communities, but there must be no governing power higher than the individual community. The Bolsheviks came to power under the slogan "All power to the Soviets (workers councils)", but the first thing they did upon assuming control was divest the Soviets of all power and transfer it to the Communist Party apparatus. That mistake must not be repeated.
As for capitalist opposition: the Federation of Egalitarian Communities in the US currently consists of six communities with about 210 people between them. Do the capitalists perceive this as a threat and try to crush them? No, they don't. What if there were 60 communities with 2,100 people? Would they arouse the wrath of the capitalists then? Or 600 communities with 21,000 people? There must, necessarily, be a beginning phase where there are egaliatrian socialist intended communities operating within a larger capitalist framework, according to the laws enacted by the capitalist system. As long as that happens, they are not a threat to capitalism. They're merely a niche player within the larger capitalist marketplace. As more communities build and diversify, they can slowly wean themselves away from a dependance on the capitalist marketplace. They can become autonomous economic entities independant from the surrounding capitalist structure. There would still be opportunities for the capitalists to exercise their rapacity within their own sphere. But eventually there would come a turning point when the balance of power would shift imperceptibly away from the capitalists and toward the socialists. Maybe capitalism should never be totally abolished. It might be preferable to have a socialist dominated economy with a niche capitalist marketplace for the Ayn Rand, Social Darwinists to sharpen their teeth on.
So instead of spending all their time and money building a socialist political party and trying to run candidates for office, I think the socialists would find their efforts better spent on building some intentional communities and working toward that goal now, rather than in some Quixotic post-revolution utopia lead by the vanguard party.
03 May 05
Originally posted by RedmikeI've got two great examples of socialism that thrived under capitalist States...
I think we've had a similar debate before, and I'm not unsympathetic to your view.
I'm not advocating a top-down, nation-by-nation approach - its just that the context of the question was 'socialist states'. I agree you have to start at the community level, but the objective is still to control the economy, and this is done at the state level and ab ...[text shortened]... embers all the time - these people are clearly being 'converted' to socialist ideas.
1. The kibbutz's in Israel.
Yes, most of them went down eventually, but they maintained a great presence for most of the 20th century.
2. In certain parts of Holland a secondary economy of trading time with each other has started taking off. Basically somebody will do a week's worth of baby sitting for someone who'll make a chair for someone else, who'll stitch some football clothing for a local club, etc.
It is possible, there are basically 2 problems to over-come.
1. For it to expand it people need to see the bigger picture.
There's no point in starting a secondary economy if you can't continue expanding it. If people can't see the benifits, won't support trade unions, etc. then it's going to fail eventually.
2. The media.
This is the single deadliest blow to communism. The powerful effect of the media, especially TV, is basically so devestating that you can convince whole nations to go to war and murder each other with it (Iraq, Ruwanda, etc.)
There needs to be an objective media that people know is objective (so people need to care first) where they will turn to, to hear the truth.
People will not care until they see the bigger picture. That's education.
And part of education should be the stimulation of the imagination, getting children to WANT to know things.
Ask what your kid learnt at school today and then ask yourself if that's helping him to WANT to know things.
And that's where we've got to start.
03 May 05
Originally posted by rwingettI think there's a fundamental problem with your approach.
Yes, we have had this same conversation before in one form or another. It seems that you are one of the few people on this site who has the intellectual capacity to talk intelligently about socialism.
I agree with you that socialist parties "convert" people to socialism all the time. But what is the outcome? They build a bigger socialist party which in ...[text shortened]... that goal now, rather than in some Quixotic post-revolution utopia lead by the vanguard party.
The levers of economic power remain at the state level. The state can, and will, impose sanctions on all citizens. Whether they're in self-proclaimed egalitarian communities or not. The state can impose taxes, control the education system, impose military service etc etc. If the state is on the side of the multi-nationals, then it will act against any threat to their interests. This also means that your communities aren't really autonomous from capitalism - do they still pay taxes, are they subject to conscription?
I don't know at which point capitalism will find your egalitarian communities a threat. I know that they will at some point. They'll not turn up with tanks, but you'll find the press running stories about 'hippy communes', you'll find the 'mainstream' comunity being steered towards suspicion and fear of your communities.
The party I'm a member of doesn't, for a minute, think that elections are the way to power. Elections are a means to get our message to working class people, many of whom are more politiced at the time of bourgouis elections. We get a broadcast on National TV, we get a leaflet delivered to every home. We recruit members. If we win seats, like we do in the Scottish Parliament, the elected representatives give the bulk of their salary to the party and put forward our ideas in the parliament.
We don't put forward 'revolutionary' ideas, but practical everyday measures tio make people's lives a bit easier - what are known as transitional demands.
If we did come to power in Scotland, by elctoral or other means, I'd expect that to be part of a wider movement across the world, or at least across Europe.
I don't disagree with much that you say, but I just don't see the capitalists sitting back and letting any movement challenge them.
If your approach takes of, I'll be there. I just dont see it.
04 May 05
Originally posted by shavixmirI'm not arguing that egalitarian communities can't exist within capitalist societies. My point is that they can't really be socialist while they are still dependant on these capitalist states. Maybe that's just semantics.
I've got two great examples of socialism that thrived under capitalist States...
1. The kibbutz's in Israel.
Yes, most of them went down eventually, but they maintained a great presence for most of the 20th century.
2. In certain parts of Holland a secondary economy of trading time with each other has started taking off. Basically somebody will d ...[text shortened]... rself if that's helping him to WANT to know things.
And that's where we've got to start.
I don't know the details of kibbutzes, but I imagine people are still subject to israeli taxation and conscription etc. They have to rely on the state for their basic infrastructure etc.
We've had similar things in Scotland, on a small scale, when the council closes down a local facility. On a number of cases, the local community has simply occupied the place and kept it open. There are a number of such cases in Pollok, for example (which is one of our stongest areas).
I think you're right about the problems of expanding these sort of communities. There would need to be education.
There is still the problem though, that at some point, as your communities grow, the capitalists will see you as a threat. They'll use the media, as you say.
I've a real concern about what my kids are taught at school. I spend a lot of time making sure they understand it is ok to question things (which is a bit of a pain when they question my views), but some of the teachers seem to want compliant weans, who'll accept what the official line is. Its a constant battle, but the object of education in the UK these days isn't to produce a generation of people with an all-round education. It is to produce a generation of docile employees who'll answer the phone and flip burgers in the prescribed manner.
04 May 05
Originally posted by RedmikeThe object of education in the UK these days isn't to produce a generation of people with an all-round education. It is to produce a generation of docile employees who'll answer the phone and flip burgers in the prescribed manner.
I'm not arguing that egalitarian communities can't exist within capitalist societies. My point is that they can't really be socialist while they are still dependant on these capitalist states. Maybe that's just semantics.
I don't know the details of kibbutzes, but I imagine people are still subject to israeli taxation and conscription etc. They have ...[text shortened]... neration of docile employees who'll answer the phone and flip burgers in the prescribed manner.
That deserves repeating.
06 May 05
2 edits
Originally posted by RedmikeThe "unsaid" part of this post is interesting. The implication is that "as long as there is an escape route from it, socialism is doomed because the ambitious will escape and the lazy will arrive like a bad dream, ready to be 'provided for'"?
For a single state to practise socialism, 'like an island in a sea of capitalism', is probably not viable. There would need to be a number such states, so that they wouldn't be dependant on capitalist countries for resources.
That's ...[text shortened]... a single state, but that's not the same as practising socialism.
I agree entirely. Until and unless each person is held at gun point (as in all current and past communist states) there is no way to change basic human nature.
For true socialism to succeed, all people must be willing to (give benefit to) and contribute to the needy and to those less able -- and do it at the expense of themselves and their children. This is the "greedy" benefiit that we all instinctively want for our children.
The greedy benefit to our offspring is natural and totally understood by all. It is why all good socialists and capitalists send their kids to the best schools.
For socialism to succeed, all we need to do is to reshape human greed into love of our fellows.
Good luck, and don't leave the light on.
06 May 05
2 edits
In John Paul's encyclical Centecimus Annus (1991), on the hundredth anniversary of Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum on Capital and Labor (1891), John Paul describes what the fundamental error of socialism is, "the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature ......... ".
1991.05.01
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html
..........
13. Continuing our reflections, and referring also to what has been said in the Encyclicals Laborem exercens and Sollicitudo rei socialis, we have to add that the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order. From this mistaken conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law, which defines the sphere of the exercise of freedom, and an opposition to private property. A person who is deprived of something he can call "his own", and of the possibility of earning a living through his own initiative, comes to depend on the social machine and on those who control it. This makes it much more difficult for him to recognize his dignity as a person, and hinders progress towards the building up of an authentic human community."
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html
It would be interesting to hear some serious thoughts from serious debators about this criticism of anthropological reductionism in socialism uttered by someone, John-Paul II, who was one of the initiators to cause the downfall of Real Socialism embodied in the Sowjet Union of Socialist Republics and its satellite states in Eastern Europe.
06 May 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhy shoot Joe, He says it almost as good as I do.
In John Paul's encyclical Centecimus Annus (1991), on the hundredth anniversary of Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum on Capital and Labor (1891), John Paul describes what the fundamental error of socialism is, "the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature ......... ".
1991.05.01
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/e ...[text shortened]... odied in the Sowjet Union of Socialist Republics and its satellite states in Eastern Europe.
"Socialism is doomed because anyone of worth will escape it and anyone of no worth will seek it out."
At least until we all become true christians and learn to share with our fellows that which we have.
Isn't it ironic that the one thing that could help socialism succeed is the thing that socialism tries to destroy? Religion?
Very sad kind of humor.
How are you sir?
06 May 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWy
Why shoot Joe, He says it almost as good as I do.
"Socialism is doomed because anyone of worth will escape it and anyone of no worth will seek it out."
At least until we all become true christians and learn to share with our fellows that which we have.
Isn't it ironic that the one thing that could help socialism succeed is the thing that socialism tries to destroy? Religion?
Very sad kind of humor.
How are you sir?
I'm fine, SVW. As you can see we are discussing the concepts and misconcepts of socialism ...... one of your favorite issues .....