A Socialist blueprint?

patsman07

I find myself in agreement with socialists on most political issues, however im still unaware of what a socialists ideal world would look like so Im looking for a book which will describe to me a socialist society. What it would look like? How would it be for the average citizen?
Utopia by Thomas More is the closest i've come to so far but its very dated.
I've tried to read Marx-Capital is pure economics and The Communist Manifesto is just a rant against capitalism. Most socialists always go on and on about what they're against but what is the alternative?

tolosenc

Examples of socialist states include: USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Venezuela and Yugoslavia.

That give you an idea?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SLUSK

Toulousain wrote: »

Examples of socialist states include: USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Venezuela and Yugoslavia.

That give you an idea?

China, a socialist country? LOL

Cannibal Ox

G.A Cohen - Why Not Socialism? is probably a good place to start. The problem with "socialism", like liberalism, or democracy, or capitalism, is that there isn't a socialism, no more then there is a liberalism. At the moment, I think egalitarian theory is probably more interesting than socialist theory (The Spirit Level, Equality: From Theory to Action, and Inequality Reexamined)

Denerick

Although DonegalFella was being coy in his recommendation, Animal Farm is an excellent book which follows in a rich tradition dating back to Burke, demonstrating the dangers of unrestrained revolution and allowing elites to form leadership factions without significant oversight or transparancy.

The fact that Orwell was indeed a socialist, lends weight to his arguments.

In the struggle for revolution, it is always the individual who loses out, and/or suffers from the associated anarchy. I think the concept of a 'utopia' is laughable, the concept of a socialist 'utopia' even more so.

People think that 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' is a fundamentally virtuous concept. But I would pose this question - who decides what my ability is and who decides what my needs are? What monolithical ultra statist body is going to play havoc with my individual liberty in this manner?

Iwasfrozen

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Wasn't that more of a book on how not to run a socialist society ?

Toulousain wrote:

Examples of socialist states include: USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Venezuela and Yugoslavia.

That give you an idea?

You can stop trolling now.

ei.sdraob

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Toulousain wrote: »

Examples of socialist states include: USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Venezuela and Yugoslavia.

You can stop trolling now.

what they werent "socialist" enough

you follow socialism to its logical conclusion and it never ends pretty, history is littered with bloody examples

Iwasfrozen

ei.sdraob wrote: »

what they werent "socialist" enough

you follow socialism to its logical conclusion and it never ends pretty, history is littered with bloody examples

An apple called a bannana is still an apple. Just because they said they were socialist doesn't mean they where.

Read some of Marx's work to find out what a real socialist society would be like.

Denerick

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

An apple called a bannana is still an apple. Just because they said they were socialist doesn't mean they where.

Read some of Marx's work to find out what a real socialist society would be like.

There is no fundamental text to define what a socialist body will look like. Did you ever pause to think that maybe socialism doesn't work because every society that has ever tried it has resorted to state capitalism and brutal repression?

Have you ever considered that something is fundamentally wrong in the formula that allows for the creation of a small, militant elite, with enormous political power?

Socialism as a revolutionary ideology has been proven impractical. Face it.

Valmont

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Read some of Marx's work to find out what a real socialist society would be like.

Ah, the "No True Scotsman" of socialism. I am perplexed as to why so many socialists trot this argument again and again and again....

Should we keep trying horrible socialistic experiments until we get the right answer? The one enshrined by Herr Marx? According to the boards.ie socialists, yes, let the blood flow ad infinitum until we reach the utopia of equality. I would make a claim for reality here but that would be too obvious...

Iwasfrozen

Denerick wrote: »

There is no fundamental text to define what a socialist body will look like. Did you ever pause to think that maybe socialism doesn't work because every society that has ever tried it has resorted to state capitalism and brutal repression?

Did you ever pause to think that maybe I'm not a socialist and was only pointing out an error in another post ? No ? Tought not.

Denerick wrote: »

Have you ever considered that something is fundamentally wrong in the formula that allows for the creation of a small, militant elite, with enormous political power?

Are you trying to say Capitalism doesn't create a powerful elite ?

Denerick wrote: »

Socialism as a revolutionary ideology has been proven impractical. Face it.

Socialism has not proven itself impractical, far from it since it is still a theory.

Iwasfrozen

Valmont wrote: »

Ah, the "No True Scotsman" of socialism. I am perplexed as to why so many socialists trot this argument again and again and again....

Should we keep trying horrible socialistic experiments until we get the right answer? The one enshrined by Herr Marx? According to the boards.ie socialists, yes, let the blood flow ad infinitum until we reach the utopia of equality. I would make a claim for reality here but that would be too obvious...

Again you make the assumption I am a socialist...

I hope you feel pretty dumb now.

ei.sdraob

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

read some of Marx's work to find out what a real socialist society would be like.

sure thing, i did

enjoy its quite short but gets right to the point

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Spudmonkey

ei.sdraob wrote: »

sure thing, i did

enjoy its quite short but gets right to the point

Marx: "And that my son is how communism works!!"

Freddy: "....I think I want my mommy...."

CoalBucket

patsman07 wrote: »

I find myself in agreement with socialists on most political issues, however im still unaware of what a socialists ideal world would look like so Im looking for a book which will describe to me a socialist society. What it would look like? How would it be for the average citizen?
Utopia by Thomas More is the closest i've come to so far but its very dated.
I've tried to read Marx-Capital is pure economics and The Communist Manifesto is just a rant against capitalism. Most socialists always go on and on about what they're against but what is the alternative?

The Ragged Trousered Philantropist, Not exactly what you are looking for but well worth a read no matter what your political persuasion.

ei.sdraob

jokes aside

the only good working example of a socialist utopia i can think of is the world depicted in the star trek series
but hey they have access to near limitless energy and energy<>mater conversion technology
socialism might just work in such a situation and people might spend time on pursuits like arts, research and exploration
but then again some things might always be in short supply (the Ferengi gota love em ) and this point of time we live on a spinning rock with a growing population

Actually thats one thing about Socialism, Marx insisted that for it to work the whole planet has to "convert", i wonder how would worldwide socialism work out in a closed system with limited resources and rising population, stagnation would ensue in no time putting the Soviet rot to shame

anyways just rambling on

patsman07

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll try 'Why Not Socialism' and a few others. I've read Animal Farm. Its just a parody of the Stalin era in the Soviet Union and his dispute with Trotsky.

Denerick

patsman07 wrote: »

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll try 'Why Not Socialism' and a few others. I've read Animal Farm. Its just a parody of the Stalin era in the Soviet Union and his dispute with Trotsky.

Superficially yes, but there is much much much more to it than that.

patsman07

Denerick wrote: »

Superficially yes, but there is much much much more to it than that.

Could you expand on that please?

Denerick

patsman07 wrote: »

Could you expand on that please?

Well to describe it as a parody of Stalinism is perhaps to overlook the more substantial message in Animal Farm - namely the tendancy for revolutionary elites to betray the principles on which the masses struggled for, the tendancy for these groups to twist and corrupt and employ brutal repression in the interests of maintaining their grip on power.

You also have the whole theme of 'all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others', the final mantra of the revolution which changed so many times that the animals could no longer remember what they originally fought for. Remember the wise old donkey that refused to get on board the revolutionary bandwagon at the beginning - thats Orwell!

Of course Orwell wrote the book at a time when Stalin was extremely popular in Britain at the height of the war and its immediate aftermath. So it is of course dictated by that very obvious political reality but I believe he was making a broader argument.

P.S- Also lets not forget the fundamental anti-Utopian theme.

Bigdeadlydave

ei.sdraob wrote: »

sure thing, i did

enjoy its quite short but gets right to the point

I have to admit I enjoyed that.

Sandvich

Valmont wrote: »

Ah, the "No True Scotsman" of socialism. I am perplexed as to why so many socialists trot this argument again and again and again....

Should we keep trying horrible socialistic experiments until we get the right answer? The one enshrined by Herr Marx? According to the boards.ie socialists, yes, let the blood flow ad infinitum until we reach the utopia of equality. I would make a claim for reality here but that would be too obvious...

That's not how you use No True Scotsman. You can claim that homosexuals are paedophiles; and then when someone says homosexuals are not paedophilies, that's the NO TRUE SCOTSMAN fallacy. It's rubbish. You actually have to explain why. Blurting out logical fallacies doesn't prove a point.

Also, is the Nordic model an example of a "horrible socialistic experiments?" It's just as much "socialist" as most of the examples listed. To deny those would be as much so a "No true Scotsman", or should I say no True Swede?

The "socialism" people on this forum would push for and the "socialism" of countries like China are obviously very different. People often hold up Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland as examples, so obviously that's closer to the route they want to see persued.

It's also nonsense because socialism is not meant to be something that's "forced" on the people like in "Communist" Russia. There are actually reasons why they're bad examples. All of these states are pretty obviously socialist mostly in name only, but they're just too damn good for the neoliberals to pass up!

But instead you insist NO YOU'RE ALL COMMIES. The way socialists are jumped in this forum is both absurd and highly childish.

MrMatisse

There seems to be some confusion here between socialism and communism.

Socialist countries include-Sweden, Norway,Finland, Denmark and to a lesser extent Germany and France. Very well run countries although France is borderline.

Unregulated free markets do not work, attempts to regulate and manipulate them through state intervention in order to better the lot of the people in a country is a socialist idea.

Chile under pinochet, was capitalist. Socialism does not always equal tryanny or economic mismanagement. Ireland is capitalist......

Free market ranting is an idea generated by economists born in the 19th century Hayek etc which was discredited between 1950-1980 as governments saw things as free healthcare and old age pensions as necessary to promote political stability (both socialist ideas).

People forget why such things were introduced and thus see them only as a burden.

Eliot Rosewater

Sandvich wrote: »

That's not how you use No True Scotsman.

It is, actually. The claim is that socialism will create equality. It is quickly pointed out that socialism in Cuba has only created inequality, to which is replied "Cuba not true socialism".

Sandvich wrote: »

People often hold up Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland as examples, so obviously that's closer to the route they want to see persued.

No, it's not. The countries you listed are still market economies. Socialists on this forum appear to be looking for much more that just a big welfare state.

Sandvich wrote: »

All of these states are pretty obviously socialist mostly in name only, but they're just too damn good for the neoliberals to pass up!

I think you've just played yourself into the aforementioned no true Scotsman fallacy: you are saying that China and the USSR aren't (or weren't) true socialist states.

MrMatisse

ei.sdraob wrote: »

what they werent "socialist" enough

you follow socialism to its logical conclusion and it never ends pretty, history is littered with bloody examples

Thankfully we now live in a peaceful war-less post socialist world.......

ei.sdraob

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Ireland is capitalist......

can i quote you on that :rolleyes:

MrMatisse

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

It is, actually. The claim is that socialism will create equality. It is quickly pointed out that socialism in Cuba has only created inequality, to which is replied "Cuba not true socialism".



No, it's not. The countries you listed are still market economies. Socialists on this forum appear to be looking for much more that just a big welfare state.



I think you've just played yourself into the aforementioned no true Scotsman fallacy: you are saying that China and the USSR aren't (or weren't) true socialist states.

Sweden, Norway, Denmark are market economies?

How?

You need a permit to move house in Sweden.

They have a market, a market heavily manipulated by their government. Again socialism and communism are not the same.

MrMatisse

ei.sdraob wrote: »

can i quote you on that :rolleyes:

Of course.

MrMatisse

We have no history of social democrats in Ireland, thus people on this forum mix marxism, communism into one, throw in socialism and associate this concoction with stalin, not with socialist sweden, old age pensions and healthcare for the poor. Two things which are not compatible with pure capitalism.

There is also a serious misunderstanding that socialist polices cannot be introduced into a market economy (sweden finland etc)

ei.sdraob

Really-Stressed wrote: »

We have no history of social democrats in Ireland, thus people on this forum mix marxism, communism into one, throw in socialism and associate this concoction with stalin, not with socialist sweden, old age pensions and healthcare for the poor. Two things which are not compatible with pure capitalism.

oh mate you really are digging a hole for yourself

please contrast and compare socialism and communism

plenty of historical examples

Eliot Rosewater

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Socialist countries include-Sweden, Norway,Finland, Denmark and to a lesser extent Germany and France.

Those countries are social democratic countries, which (like Ireland) combine the welfare state with a market economy.

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Chile under pinochet, was capitalist.

Seems as you brought up a dictator who believed in free markets, should I put up a list of all the main socialist tyrants? For extra fun we can compare the amount of people who were killed under the respective regimes!

(Hint: you don't want this.)

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Socialism does not always equal tryanny or economic mismanagement.

No? Can you give me an example of a socialist economy that has delivered all the equality and freedom that socialists promise will come?

MrMatisse

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Those countries are social democratic countries, which (like Ireland) combine the welfare state with a market economy.



Seems as you brought up a dictator who believed in free markets, should I put up a list of all the main socialist tyrants? For extra fun we can compare the amount of people who were killed under the respective regimes!

(Hint: you don't want this.)



No? Can you give me an example of a socialist economy that has delivered all the equality and freedom that socialists promise will come?

Ireland is social democratic? HA HA HA HA HA!

list of capitalist dictators? See a history of south america from 1945 to 1995 or africa even.

As I said sweden is socialist. Having unregulated markets is capitalist.

I think counting bodies is a bit stupid, most ancient tyrants were capitalist, the romans etc so its hard to do.

MrMatisse

ei.sdraob wrote: »

oh mate you really are digging a hole for yourself

please contrast and compare socialism and communism

plenty of historical examples

Socialist- The new deal, the NHS, old age pensions, works alongside a market economy.

Communism- oppression.

Eliot Rosewater

Andrew Heywood defines social democracy as "a balance between the market and the state, a balance between the individual and the community". He continues, "The chief characteristic of social democracy is thus a belief of reform within capitalism, underpinned by a general concern for the underdog in society".

By that token both Sweden and Ireland are social democratic.

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Sweden, Norway, Denmark are market economies?

Yes, they are. They have privately owned shops in Sweden, yes?

Denerick

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Ireland is social democratic? HA HA HA HA HA!

I don't see why thats so funny. We have one of the most generous welfare systems in the world, one of the most generous minimum wages, before the crash our public spending was inimical to a social democratic country... ETC.

Drumpot

I just dont understand why we cannot have a society with a mixed bag. . Bits of socialism and bits of Capitalism. .

Doesnt really seem to matter what system you have in place, there will always be people who are corrupted by power . . The key is to have effective mechanisms not simply to try to deter these people, but also to deal with them appropriately.

One could argue that there really should be revolutions EVERY time these kind of crisis happen . . There is simply no deterrent to stop this kind of messing happen again . . Investors are able to bend the ears of powerful people far too much (Galway tent and US fund raising events spring to mind). . I mean right now the markets have helped push Greece into the hands of the IMF . . While I accept Greece deserves everything its getting, I feel very uncomfortable with the fact that investors can decide the fate of other countries . .

Whatever about the pitfalls of Socialism, i would argue that the same problem with it was that it never had a true leader/system that encouraged the embrace of its core principles. As far as capitalism goes, its not really much differant . . While there are leaders who may not completely agree with this system, they are pretty much slaves to it (play the game or suffer dearly for it) . .

In truth, I despise the concept behind capitalism because at its root ideal, its about greed. . Having more then others . . Some say it rewards hard work, but it rewards devious foul play aswell . . Wasters in work who just know who's ass to lick . . Chancers who take risks with everybody elses money (ireland PLC is learning, Greeks getting hammered) . . Governments swayed by Bondholders! WTF . . People argue that Capitalism is just a market system, but its actually controlling how countries are run (so in essence its a dictator by default).

For me, capitalism is simply another form of feudalism . . Im not saying socialism is the solution, but you have to question whether or not a system designed to reward the few at the expense of the many, is actually a universally superior system to use . . .

ei.sdraob

Drumpot wrote: »

I mean right now the markets have helped push Greece into the hands of the IMF . .

Those evil markets

nothing to do with a wasteful socialist government not willing to face up to the reality, no?

Denerick

Personally I would be what you'd call a 'New Liberal', more like the Keynesian Liberal party of the 1920s (UK) than either a Libertarian or a socialist. I think Keynesianism is a pretty admirable philosophy, getting the balance right between the excesses of capitalism and socialism.

Or maybe I'm more like Clement Atlee and the postwar Labour Party (The Welfare State, the NHS and all that lark) I don't know. Depends on my mood I suppose. Libertarianism has its attractions but I wouldn't like to live in a world with no social safety net and in which the poor have to rely on the good will and charity of the wealthy in order to survive.

And lets no even begin to discuss how conditions both marginalised and social incomprehensible (Such as the treatment of Schizophrenics, for example) would survive in a Libertarian system. I cannot see any value in refusing state intervention, or in other words, being principally opposed to state charity. It levels the playing field, thank God.

Drumpot

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Those evil markets

nothing to do with a wasteful socialist government not willing to face up to the reality, no?

Two wrongs dont make a right and a system that basically makes money off the backs of the suffering of a nation isnt something I would encourage or endorse. .

Like I said I know both are flawed, but I dont believe Capitalism has proven to be the lessor of two evils . . I think people are all too accepting of the world they are born into and this hampers real change . .

ei.sdraob

Drumpot wrote: »

Two wrongs dont make a right and a system that basically makes money off the backs of the suffering of a nation isnt something I would encourage or endorse. .

Like I said I know both are flawed, but I dont believe Capitalism has proven to be the lessor of two evils . . I think people are all too accepting of the world they are born into and this hampers real change . .

fluffy fluff

those poor Greeks are not responsible for that hole they were digging for last decade

no of course it the evil markets, funnily enough "socialist" countries that are insulated from the markets such as North Korea are real worker paradises :rolleyes:

Denerick

Drumpot wrote: »

Two wrongs dont make a right and a system that basically makes money off the backs of the suffering of a nation isnt something I would encourage or endorse. .

Like I said I know both are flawed, but I dont believe Capitalism has proven to be the lessor of two evils . . I think people are all too accepting of the world they are born into and this hampers real change . .

The Greeks funded an absurdly generous welfare system and public sector with unsustainable public spending, trying to keep the voters happy while allowing the country to sink into economic incompetiveness. Those problems were not caused by 'an excess of' capitalism, you'll find.

Drumpot

Denerick wrote: »

The Greeks funded an absurdly generous welfare system and public sector with unsustainable public spending, trying to keep the voters happy while allowing the country to sink into economic incompetiveness. Those problems were not caused by 'an excess of' capitalism, you'll find.

Hold on, are you actually reading what I write ? Where have I said the greeks haven't completely screwed themselves ? Where have I said they dont deserve to feel pain for their mistakes?

I will repeat myself again as it seems to be difficult for some of you to grasp . I dont believe its good for the system we abide by, to be the one that encourages people to make money off the misery of others . . If you think thats ok (even for the "evil" greeks) then you have the world you want so you should be a happy bunny. . The phrase "do onto others like you would like them to do onto you" comes to mind . .

Galway Revolutionary Left

Drumpot wrote: »

Hold on, are you actually reading what I write ? Where have I said the greeks haven't completely screwed themselves ? Where have I said they dont deserve to feel pain for their mistakes?

I will repeat myself again as it seems to be difficult for some of you to grasp . I dont believe its good for the system we abide by, to be the one that encourages people to make money off the misery of others . . If you think thats ok (even for the "evil" greeks) then you have the world you want so you should be a happy bunny. . The phrase "do onto others like you would like them to do onto you" comes to mind . .

Very good, makes a lot of sense. The competitive aspect wouldn't apply though. It promotes more economic doom.

Sandvich

ei.sdraob wrote: »

fluffy fluff

those poor Greeks are not responsible for that hole they were digging for last decade

no of course it the evil markets, funnily enough "socialist" countries that are insulated from the markets such as North Korea are real worker paradises :rolleyes:

Oh come on, that's ****ing ridiculous. That's nearly on par with using Nazi Germany since they were National SOCIALISTS.

And the fact that Denerick thanked you shows how dishonest he is too.

If people posted this kind of rot in the Liberal thread the Randians would go nuts. Be fair.

Sandvich

It is, actually. The claim is that socialism will create equality. It is quickly pointed out that socialism in Cuba has only created inequality, to which is replied "Cuba not true socialism".

But you haven't proven how it's socialism to begin with.

Also, Cuba was a ****hole before it's "socialism" anyway. Cuba is the way it is because of the people in charge, not the economic model they clam to use. Is that so hard to understand?

Trying to lump Cuba in with countries like Sweden and Norway and hope everyone thinks they're the same, is wrong.

Sandvich

You know, I just have to point out something.

In the Liberal thread, the minute people got critical of Libertarian ideology, guys like Eliot started complaining.

Yet it's okay for the get go for them to come in here completely putting down Socialism and acting as if it's some universal fact it's a load of tat?

This isn't the "blueprint" of a mature discussion forum.

Sandvich

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Those evil markets

nothing to do with a wasteful socialist government not willing to face up to the reality, no?

See, this is stupid. There is no correlation between "socialist" countries in europe and being particularly boned. The US is quite bad, and that's not a social democracy. Sweden is more "socialist" than Ireland; yet which of us is worse off?

I'm getting sick of saying it but I'm getting tired of intellectually dishonest remarks. Also this "Those evil markets/corporations!" thing from Libertarians. Just because you make a mockery of it, it makes it untrue? It's a petty tactic.

Denerick

Sandvich wrote: »

Oh come on, that's ****ing ridiculous. That's nearly on par with using Nazi Germany since they were National SOCIALISTS.

And the fact that Denerick thanked you shows how dishonest he is too.

If people posted this kind of rot in the Liberal thread the Randians would go nuts. Be fair.

Chill out. I thanked him because the other posted insinuated Greece was some kind of paradise, the reality being that it exists within a bubble of its own making. A bit like Ireland too.

Eliot Rosewater

Sandvich wrote: »

But you haven't proven how it's socialism to begin with.

It was the Bolshevik Revolution, no? Lenin et al went out to create a fully socialist country. Of course the USSR didn't turn out like Karl Marx or others predicted, which is no surprise; "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". The problem is that the kind of mass socialism proposed by the hard left only has and only will end in tyranny.

Sandvich wrote: »

Also, Cuba was a ****hole before it's "socialism" anyway.

That's no excuse whatsoever.!

Sandvich wrote: »

Trying to lump Cuba in with countries like Sweden and Norway and hope everyone thinks they're the same, is wrong.

I don't know why you say this because you are the only one who has lumped them together. Throughout this discussion I've tried to separate "socialism" and "social democracy", but you have resisted this for some reason.

Sandvich wrote: »

This isn't the "blueprint" of a mature discussion forum.

You give Boards.ie way too much credit.