What is Socialism?

rigumagoo · 10-07-2010 03:47PM #1

Socialism an economic ideology in which the means of production and distribution of goods are controlled by the government, rather than by the free market (this is known as a central planning or 'command' economy). The other defining feature of socialism is the redistribution of wealth, in which wealth generated by richer people is transferred to poorer people by the government through the apparatus of taxation. In this respect, western european countries and canada are more socialist than the United States, but less socialist than the likes of say, Venezuela.

There are several reasons why socialism is widely regarded as an inferior system to capitalism.
One is that governments cannot control the distibution of goods better than the free market can. Every response to a change in the market must, in a socialist system, be crafted by the government. This is inefficient because the government does not and cannot have a perfect knowledge of every factor and side effect involved in the situation, and because the response is slow and dragged out due to the unavoidable bureaucracy associated with making a decision.
The free market, on the other hand, is an automatic, organic response to changes in the economic situation (this automatic response is known as the 'invisible hand', a term coined by economist Adam Smith).

The other major reason that socialism is considered an inferior system is the redistribution of wealth aspect.
In a society where a large portion of your income may be taxed by the government, a person has a large incentive not to bother trying to excel or earn money. We see this in our own economy, where many people who want to work overtime decide not to, because the extra income generated would push them into the 'wealthy' tax band and they would actually end up with less income than before.
This leads to a less productive economy than you otherwise would have.

The purpose of this thread was to give a primer on socialism as an economic ideology and the major objections to it. I think I have addressed these.

jmayo · 10-07-2010 05:08PM

rigumagoo wrote: »

Socialism an economic ideology in which the means of production and distribution of goods are controlled by the government, rather than by the free market (this is known as a central planning or 'command' economy). The other defining feature of socialism is the redistribution of wealth, in which wealth generated by richer people is transferred to poorer people by the government through the apparatus of taxation. In this respect, western european countries and canada are more socialist than the United States, but less socialist than the likes of say, Venezuela.

There are several reasons why socialism is widely regarded as an inferior system to capitalism.
One is that governments cannot control the distibution of goods better than the free market can. Every response to a change in the market must, in a socialist system, be crafted by the government. This is inefficient because the government does not and cannot have a perfect knowledge of every factor and side effect involved in the situation, and because the response is slow and dragged out due to the unavoidable bureaucracy associated with making a decision.
The free market, on the other hand, is an automatic, organic response to changes in the economic situation (this automatic response is known as the 'invisible hand', a term coined by economist Adam Smith).

The other major reason that socialism is considered an inferior system is the redistribution of wealth aspect.
In a society where a large portion of your income may be taxed by the government, a person has a large incentive not to bother trying to excel or earn money. We see this in our own economy, where many people who want to work overtime decide not to, because the extra income generated would push them into the 'wealthy' tax band and they would actually end up with less income than before.
This leads to a less productive economy than you otherwise would have.

The purpose of this thread was to give a primer on socialism as an economic ideology and the major objections to it. I think I have addressed these.

We do have a form of socialism in this country.

It involves all the citizens, particularly the taxpayers, sharing what little wealth they do have with former billionaire developers, builders, failed hoteliers, failed construction related entrepeneurs, bankers, politicans and assorted other arrogant egotisical greedy leeches who made fortunes during our "boom".

Irish "fianna fáil socialism" is where wealth generated by ordinary non connected people is transferred to rich connected people by the government through the apparatus of taxation and assorted other shemes (NAMA), all under the pretence that we are saving the country.

Gurgle · 10-07-2010 05:22PM

rigumagoo wrote: »

Socialism an economic ideology in which the means of production and distribution of goods are controlled by the government, rather than by the free market

Nope, thats communism.

The other defining feature of socialism is the redistribution of wealth, in which wealth generated by richer people is transferred to poorer people by the government through the apparatus of taxation.

Thats socialism, but described with a capitalist spin.

There are several reasons why socialism is widely regarded as an inferior system to capitalism.

Yep, and they're all based on the ego-centric thinking and policies that directly caused the Irish potatoe famine (being the example closest to home)

The purpose of this thread was to give a primer on socialism as an economic ideology and the major objections to it. I think I have addressed these.

I have never used this phrase before, but

THREAD FAIL !!!11!1

Denerick · 10-07-2010 05:25PM

Socialism requires a society that is completely equal in terms of material wealth. Redistribution is not socialism as it still has inequality and leaves the base of the capitalist system intact.

I don't advocate socialism by the way, but people throw around that word far too much.

Permabear · 10-07-2010 06:41PM

This post has been deleted.

George Orwell 1982 · 10-07-2010 07:56PM

The term socialism covers such a wide range or political movements from the very far left marxist tradition to moderate democrative socialism represented by the likes of Barak Obama. Its very difficult to define.

rigumagoo · 10-07-2010 09:03PM

Gurgle wrote: »

Nope, thats communism.

Nope, that's central planning, a feature of both socialist and communist economies:

"In the 20th century, most planned economies were implemented by states that called themselves socialist. Also, the greatest support for planned economics comes from socialist authors. For these reasons, the notion of a planned economy is often directly associated with socialism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy#Planned_economies_and_socialism

Gurgle wrote: »

Thats socialism, but described with a capitalist spin.

Wealthy people are more productive than non-wealthy people. That is how they get wealthy (with the possible exceptions of people who have inherited a lot of money). And yes, this includes bankers, builders, speculators and all those other professions which have suddenly become pariah.

Gurgle wrote: »

Yep, and they're all based on the ego-centric thinking and policies that directly caused the Irish potatoe famine (being the example closest to home)

Some say the famine was caused by the laissez faire approach with which the government handled the crisis. They believed that Irish entrepreneurs would solve the food shortage and the market would rectify itself. This was wrong.
The Irish potato famine was caused by direct government interventionism in the market. The corn laws were a protectionist attempt at keeping the price of food high.
When these laws were extended to Ireland, it created a 'corn bubble', in which the vast majority of arable farmland was used to grow the cash crop.
When this government-created bubble finally collapsed in on itself, we ended up with a whole lot of Irish labourers out on their asses with no work and no way of earning income.
When the famine came, we were unable to fix the problem ourselves because we had no domestic capital with which to do so.

Gurgle wrote: »

I have never used this phrase before, but

THREAD FAIL !!!11!1

ew.

johnnyskeleton · 11-07-2010 12:07PM

rigumagoo wrote: »

Socialism an economic ideology in which the means of production and distribution of goods are controlled by the government, rather than by the free market (this is known as a central planning or 'command' economy). The other defining feature of socialism is the redistribution of wealth, in which wealth generated by richer people is transferred to poorer people by the government through the apparatus of taxation. In this respect, western european countries and canada are more socialist than the United States, but less socialist than the likes of say, Venezuela.

There are several reasons why socialism is widely regarded as an inferior system to capitalism.
One is that governments cannot control the distibution of goods better than the free market can. Every response to a change in the market must, in a socialist system, be crafted by the government. This is inefficient because the government does not and cannot have a perfect knowledge of every factor and side effect involved in the situation, and because the response is slow and dragged out due to the unavoidable bureaucracy associated with making a decision.
The free market, on the other hand, is an automatic, organic response to changes in the economic situation (this automatic response is known as the 'invisible hand', a term coined by economist Adam Smith).

The other major reason that socialism is considered an inferior system is the redistribution of wealth aspect.
In a society where a large portion of your income may be taxed by the government, a person has a large incentive not to bother trying to excel or earn money. We see this in our own economy, where many people who want to work overtime decide not to, because the extra income generated would push them into the 'wealthy' tax band and they would actually end up with less income than before.
This leads to a less productive economy than you otherwise would have.

The purpose of this thread was to give a primer on socialism as an economic ideology and the major objections to it. I think I have addressed these.

There are also several reasons why capitalism is considered inferior to socialism. It is often forgotten that capitalism can be just as inefficient as socialism where a) all the means of production are owned by a few individuals and hoarded instead of used; b) financial mismanagement leads to asset bubbles (i.e.misallocation of funds); c) capitalism can lead to class structures which, over time, prevent talented people from rising to the top because they are "working class" or can't afford an education or don't have start up funds etc.

I think the mistake made in these types of debates (or "primers" if you like!) is to think that government ownership of industry and government regulation of industry are one and the same, and that free enterprise and no regulation are one and the same.

There is no reason in theory why a government owned company cannot compete at market level, it's just that they have a tendency not to. Likewise, there is no reason in theory why capitalism cannot produce equal opportunity for all, it's just that it has a tendency not to.

Besides, real socialism and real free market capitalism are so far away from what we have in any country in the world at present that it is very difficult to argue one side or the other. Paticularly since the main reason given for why the capitalist west triumphed over the socialist east is not that capitalism is inherently better than socialism, but that capitalism became a bit more like socialism whereby people were no longer stuck in a particular class while socialism in the USSR failed to take the good things about capitalism. China took some captialist ideas and has managed to do quite well from it (as a country, not as a society).

Let's just sit on the fence for a few centuries, and we'll see how that goes.

ei.sdraob · 12-07-2010 10:46AM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

There are also several reasons why capitalism is considered inferior to socialism.

considered by whom :rolleyes:

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

a) all the means of production are owned by a few individuals and hoarded instead of used;

firstly most people get rich by working harder or being more enterprising, socialism kills the will to do this, resulting in the whole society becoming more and more impoverished over time, as has occurred many's of times in the past hundred years in all of the socialist experiments

secondly what is the point of hoarding money when inflation will wipe it out over time
when you have the money you spend it and/or invest it
sitting on your pile of money doesnt get one anywhere
yes some people malinvest their wealth, but its their choice/mistake, governments and central authorities are on the other hand very good at malinvestments

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

b) financial mismanagement leads to asset bubbles (i.e.misallocation of funds);

erm no, government interference is the root of asset bubbles
the last one was directly due to the FED creating a wall of money out of thin air
right now the seeds are being sown for the next bubble by Keynesians who think that creating money out of nothing is a cure to all problems, when if anything its the cause

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

c) capitalism can lead to class structures which, over time, prevent talented people from rising to the top because they are "working class" or can't afford an education or don't have start up funds etc.

and socialist experiments dont have "classes" :rolleyes:
we humans have a tendency to form social groups and hierarchies
the same happens under socialism with the people in THE PARTY being well above the PROLES

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

China took some captialist ideas and has managed to do quite well from it (as a country, not as a society)..

praising a highly Authoritarian and repressive country on boards :rolleyes:
this is the same country with 7 million party members, the largest organisation class structure in the world

Permabear · 12-07-2010 12:00PM

This post has been deleted.

Knarr · 12-07-2010 08:55PM

Denerick wrote: »

Socialism requires a society that is completely equal in terms of material wealth. Redistribution is not socialism as it still has inequality and leaves the base of the capitalist system intact.

Incorrect. Both socialism and communism have, or can have, inequalities in material wealth. Infact it would be an impossibility to have anything other than inequalities in material wealth.

Knarr · 12-07-2010 09:05PM

rigumagoo wrote: »

Socialism an economic ideology in which the means of production and distribution of goods are controlled by the government, rather than by the free market (this is known as a central planning or 'command' economy). The other defining feature of socialism is the redistribution of wealth, in which wealth generated by richer people is transferred to poorer people by the government through the apparatus of taxation. In this respect, western european countries and canada are more socialist than the United States, but less socialist than the likes of say, Venezuela.

Your 'definition' of socialism is wrong, or at least narrow. Both left wing anarchists and Marxists are socialists, but with anarchists opposing the existence of a state and central planning.

Socialism is a revolutionary phase towards a stateless society. It can be defined as having the means of production under collective/community control and the abolition of private ownership over the means of production within the remit of the revolution.

Socialism differs from communism in that forms of coercion are still required, either in the form of a Marxist state, or 'militias' in the case of anarchists.

Knarr · 12-07-2010 09:18PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

firstly most people get rich by working harder or being more enterprising,

People do not get rich by working harder in a market society. Hard work has nothing to do with it. This is common sense really.

People also do not necessarily get rich by 'enterprising' either.

Your problem is that you are arbitrarily using certain types of hard work and certain types of enterprising to base your views on. It is a fickle argument.

and socialist experiments dont have "classes" :rolleyes:
we humans have a tendency to form social groups and hierarchies
the same happens under socialism with the people in THE PARTY being well above the PROLES

We do have a tendency to form hierarchies. We also have the ability to create social structures to limit power and increase accountability. Representative democracy for example.

By your logic we should just let nature take its course until we arrive at the "natural" form of governance, despotism.

Knarr · 12-07-2010 09:30PM

rigumagoo wrote: »

One is that governments cannot control the distibution of goods better than the free market can. Every response to a change in the market must, in a socialist system, be crafted by the government. This is inefficient because the government does not and cannot have a perfect knowledge of every factor and side effect involved in the situation, and because the response is slow and dragged out due to the unavoidable bureaucracy associated with making a decision.

A socialist response to your economic calculation problem:

http://www.cvoice.org/cv3cox.htm

Socialism does not necessarily equal central planning or state control

ei.sdraob · 12-07-2010 11:40PM

Knarr wrote: »

People do not get rich by working harder in a market society. Hard work has nothing to do with it. This is common sense really.

Knarr wrote: »

We do have a tendency to form hierarchies. We also have the ability to create social structures to limit power and increase accountability. Representative democracy for example.

By your logic we should just let nature take its course until we arrive at the "natural" form of governance, despotism.

you must be new here,
I recommend you read my posts in politics forums, i have never advocated despotism or anything leading to it

Knarr · 13-07-2010 01:10PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you must be new here,
I recommend you read my posts in politics forums, i have never advocated despotism or anything leading to it

Apologies for taking your post up wrong.

johnnyskeleton · 13-07-2010 08:40PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, considering that I expressly said that it had done better as a country rather than as a society, your question does not make sense.

johnnyskeleton · 13-07-2010 08:51PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

considered by whom :rolleyes:

I dunno, same people who consider, in the OP's post, that socialism is inferior to capitalism.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

firstly most people get rich by working harder or being more enterprising, socialism kills the will to do this, resulting in the whole society becoming more and more impoverished over time, as has occurred many's of times in the past hundred years in all of the socialist experiments

Not true. Some people get rich by working hard, others get rich by inheritance etc. Also, would you say that socialism has killed the will to be more enterpirising of the Sweeds, Germans etc?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

secondly what is the point of hoarding money when inflation will wipe it out over time
when you have the money you spend it and/or invest it
sitting on your pile of money doesnt get one anywhere
yes some people malinvest their wealth, but its their choice/mistake, governments and central authorities are on the other hand very good at malinvestments

Say that to the landed gentry who stockpiled wealth during a period of unregulated capitalism leading to their ultimate decline.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

erm no, government interference is the root of asset bubbles
the last one was directly due to the FED creating a wall of money out of thin air
right now the seeds are being sown for the next bubble by Keynesians who think that creating money out of nothing is a cure to all problems, when if anything its the cause

It's amazing that for all the threads that talk about the reasons for various bubbles so many people have so many different views, the Fed's credit expansion being one of many reasons, and yet you can categorically state that it is government interference that is the root of all asset bubbles. Was it the root of the wall street bubble and crash, or that of tulipmania? Was it the government that made people buy all them houses at inflated prices?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

and socialist experiments dont have "classes" :rolleyes:
we humans have a tendency to form social groups and hierarchies
the same happens under socialism with the people in THE PARTY being well above the PROLES

Maybe so, but even if it is the case, do you not see a qualitiave difference between social groups being formed by individuals due to what they do in their lifetime, and social classes which are formed over many generations? People can move in and out of the former, but in the latter they are often stuck in a class.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

praising a highly Authoritarian and repressive country on boards :rolleyes:
this is the same country with 7 million party members, the largest organisation class structure in the world

How you took a point about how no country in the world is either capitalist or communist but a mix of both, and that it is often the addition of aspects of the one which increases the overall strength of the other and read it as being praise for China I'll never know.

johnnyskeleton · 13-07-2010 08:53PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you must be new here,
I recommend you read my posts in politics forums, i have never advocated despotism or anything leading to it

But the absence of government or strong government has often lead to despotism e.g. Muzzolini in Italy.

ei.sdraob · 14-07-2010 09:03AM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But the absence of government or strong government has often lead to despotism e.g. Muzzolini in Italy.

i never advocated absence of government either ffs :rolleyes:
smaller government and better judicial system is not anarchy

once again you try to deliberately confuse libertarianism with anarchy
if you cant tell the difference between these two you shouldnt be on this subforum imho (especially after many many threads on subject)

Hazlittle · 16-07-2010 03:04PM

Socialists are people without historical, economic, or behavioral psychology knowledge.

Man is not meant to be rules by other men.

Executive Steve · 16-07-2010 08:43PM

Socialism was invented to give Libertarians something to talk about on the internet

johnnyskeleton · 17-07-2010 02:00AM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i never advocated absence of government either ffs :rolleyes:
smaller government and better judicial system is not anarchy

Yeah, you're right, let's all live in that happy idealistic world you want us to live in where everything is better just by relabeling everthing. Great. Let's go.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

once again you try to deliberately confuse libertarianism with anarchy
if you cant tell the difference between these two you shouldnt be on this subforum imho (especially after many many threads on subject)

On the contrary, it is you who misunderstands the two terms. What you are trying to do is redefine libertarianism into something it is not.

cognac123 · 21-07-2010 11:14PM

What we have in Ireland is not socialism,but champagne socialism.
A corrupt clique of politicans,bankers,developers and trade union leaders.
They have brought this country to it's knees.

Ireland needs REAL socialism,not jobs for the boys/girls champagne socialism.

Denerick · 22-07-2010 09:00AM

cognac123 wrote: »

What we have in Ireland is not socialism,but champagne socialism.
A corrupt clique of politicans,bankers,developers and trade union leaders.
They have brought this country to it's knees.

Ireland needs REAL socialism,not jobs for the boys/girls champagne socialism.

Another one of these people whinging about Irish politics.

Who has ever claimed to be socialist (With a straight face that is, so lets discount Bertie) in the FF party?

Hazlittle · 22-07-2010 09:32AM

cognac123 wrote: »

What we have in Ireland is not socialism,but champagne socialism.
A corrupt clique of politicans,bankers,developers and trade union leaders.
They have brought this country to it's knees.

Ireland needs REAL socialism,not jobs for the boys/girls champagne socialism.

This the problem with socialism. You fail to understand that implementing policies doesnt mean that you'll get the result you intended. You get the result human nature produces. If give more(or any) power to a central state, it will be abused.

Denerick · 22-07-2010 11:23AM

Hazlittle wrote: »

This the problem with socialism. You fail to understand that implementing policies doesnt mean that you'll get the result you intended. You get the result human nature produces. If give more(or any) power to a central state, it will be abused.

Are you saying Ireland is a socialist entity?

wiseguy · 22-07-2010 01:48PM

Denerick wrote: »

Are you saying Ireland is a socialist entity?

A lot of the Fianna Fail actions (in their pursuit of populism) of last decade are socialist, like quadrupling the welfare above inflation in 10 years.

As an anecdote I was talking to someone who grew up and lived 40 years in ex USSR, and then emigrated here about 15 years ago.
She jokingly remarked
"Here we were building socialism for 70 years while yee here in Ireland had it all along"

Food for thought there

Hazlittle · 22-07-2010 04:20PM

Denerick wrote: »

Are you saying Ireland is a socialist entity?

We have a very centralised state with little to no protection for private property.

Denerick · 22-07-2010 04:38PM

Hazlittle wrote: »

We have a very centralised state with little to no protection for private property.

We have a relatively centralised State. We have protection for private property. We can't keep slaves or shoot postmen who dare to set foot over our threshold though. Thats probably a good thing.

Hazlittle · 22-07-2010 09:41PM

Denerick wrote: »

We have a relatively centralised State. We have protection for private property. We can't keep slaves or shoot postmen who dare to set foot over our threshold though. Thats probably a good thing.

Read out constitution on private property. You have it unless the state says so. Bogs for example.

What is Socialism?

Comments