Opinion of Socialism

[Χahar]

Like capitalism, it is a terrible idea when brought to all its logical conclusions, and a very good one when conceived with some pragmatism.

You still don't understand what socialism is.

Here I was going to say that he doesn't understand what capitalism is. Capitalism doesn't really have "logical conclusions."

Either way, the positioning of capitalism and socialism as though they're equivalent and diametrically opposed is incorrect.

[Californian Tony]

I have never said that. "Diametrically opposite" obviously makes no sense in the context of ideologies.

[Sibboleth]

Learning to let go of ideology is perhaps the greatest lesson I've learned, it allows me to think freely (kind of like atheism really).

If you actually think that... then... well... I'm afraid that I have some very bad news for you.

[Sibboleth]

I have never said that. "Diametrically opposite" obviously makes no sense in the context of ideologies.

Capitalism is most definitely not an ideology, unless you're writing from a gloriously archaic Marxist point of view...

[Beet]

Are we talking about actual Socialism and not some American GOP boogeyman? Well in that case, then while some Socialist parties around the world are good, from an economic standpoint, it's hard not to see it as discredited.

[politicus]

Are we talking about actual Socialism and not some American GOP boogeyman? Well in that case, then while some Socialist parties around the world are good, from an economic standpoint, it's hard not to see it as discredited.

Yes, the other thing is utterly uninteresting. Given that we cant have unlimited growth in the future for ecological reasons socialist economic thinking with an emphasis on distribution of resources and government planning may have a comeback at some point in the future.

[Communists For McCain]

Learning to let go of ideology is perhaps the greatest lesson I've learned, it allows me to think freely (kind of like atheism really).

If you actually think that... then... well... I'm afraid that I have some very bad news for you.

Okay, maybe not the greatest lesson I've ever learned (brushing my tongue while brushing my teeth to give me fresh breath is probably the greatest lesson I've ever learned), but it's up there.

Obviously, not being beholden to a consistent pattern of thought has it's benefits.  You don't ever have to defend something for being "not (insert x here)".

[Χahar]

An ideology is, in its essence, a logically consistent way of viewing the world. That's important.

[Insula Dei]

Like capitalism, it is a terrible idea when brought to all its logical conclusions, and a very good one when conceived with some pragmatism.

You still don't understand what socialism is.

Since 'what is socialism?' seems to be sort of the point of this thread, a post like that begs for some further explanation of your definition of socialism.

[Big Wiggly Style]

Horrible ideoology.

[ModerateCoward]

Voted FI assuming we're talking about the principles behind it - public ownership, greater social equality, redistribution of wealth etc.

You are missing the most important part of the principle, democratic control of production which is probably the most Freedom part of the Ideology.

Are we talking about actual Socialism and not some American GOP boogeyman? Well in that case, then while some Socialist parties around the world are good, from an economic standpoint, it's hard not to see it as discredited.

Explain how democratic control of production is discredited?

[ModerateCoward]

Like capitalism, it is a terrible idea when brought to all its logical conclusions, and a very good one when conceived with some pragmatism.

You still don't understand what socialism is.

[Redalgo]

Are we talking about actual Socialism and not some American GOP boogeyman? Well in that case, then while some Socialist parties around the world are good, from an economic standpoint, it's hard not to see it as discredited.

Explain how democratic control of production is discredited?

I am pretty sure he was referring to centralized planning, which is not really democratic anyway.

[Peter the Lefty]

Depends on what kind.
Communism (as in, what Marx actually intended by it) Misguided, unrealistic. 
Leninism: A failure
Maoism: A failure
Trotskyism: Loony
Stalinism: A perverse disgrace to true socialism, even more than the ideologies already mentioned. 
Democratic Socialism: Good, but without all the industrial nationalizations please, and with economic democracy in the private sector, rather than having central planning.
Social Democracy, traditional style: Very good.  In the Scandinavian form, it works quite well. 
Social Democracy, Third Way style: a sellout to win more votes, and an insult to true socialism.

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

It varies.

Marxism is loony and misguided, whereas Stalinist socialism is a HI.
Social Democracy or Democratic Socialism however are FI's.

[JulioMadrid]

It varies.

Marxism is loony and misguided, whereas Stalinist socialism is a HI.
Social Democracy or Democratic Socialism however are FI's.

This. However, sometimes I think we should read Marx again to pick some of his ideas, because we can't be considered lefties anymore... That after Tony Blair, Papandreu or even Zapatero.

[Gustaf]

Voted FI assuming we're talking about the principles behind it - public ownership, greater social equality, redistribution of wealth etc.

You are missing the most important part of the principle, democratic control of production which is probably the most Freedom part of the Ideology.

Are we talking about actual Socialism and not some American GOP boogeyman? Well in that case, then while some Socialist parties around the world are good, from an economic standpoint, it's hard not to see it as discredited.

Explain how democratic control of production is discredited?

If by 'democratic control' you mean central planning and/or abolition of private property...really? How is it not discredited?

[politicus]

Voted FI assuming we're talking about the principles behind it - public ownership, greater social equality, redistribution of wealth etc.

You are missing the most important part of the principle, democratic control of production which is probably the most Freedom part of the Ideology.

Are we talking about actual Socialism and not some American GOP boogeyman? Well in that case, then while some Socialist parties around the world are good, from an economic standpoint, it's hard not to see it as discredited.

Explain how democratic control of production is discredited?

If by 'democratic control' you mean central planning and/or abolition of private property...really? How is it not discredited?

Everyone (well, almost everyone) agrees central planning has been discredited, but a model with workers ownership - either alone or combined with community ownership (municipalities, cooperatives etc.) - has not. There are numerous potential problems with such a model, but since it hasn't been tried full scale in a whole society, you cant say it has been discredited.

[opebo]

...central planning and/or abolition of private property...really? How is it not discredited?

Conversely, how is it that private privilege and control of others through 'property' not discredited?  We see the carnage all around us.

[Gustaf]

...central planning and/or abolition of private property...really? How is it not discredited?

Conversely, how is it that private privilege and control of others through 'property' not discredited?  We see the carnage all around us.

Oh, that might be the biggest increase in public welfare and the greatest eradication of poverty the world has ever seen which is playing its tricks. I understand that might be discrediting from your point of view, since you like the poor to starve and get shot, but not to most people.

Politicus, that a model has never even been tried is not a major strike in its favour.

[opebo]

Conversely, how is it that private privilege and control of others through 'property' not discredited?  We see the carnage all around us.

Oh, that might be the biggest increase in public welfare and the greatest eradication of poverty the world has ever seen which is playing its tricks.

Yes, nearly everyone, like you, believes that about the social order.  Looks rather like propaganda viewed from the bottom up though, n'est-ce pas?

[politicus]

...central planning and/or abolition of private property...really? How is it not discredited?

Conversely, how is it that private privilege and control of others through 'property' not discredited?  We see the carnage all around us.

Oh, that might be the biggest increase in public welfare and the greatest eradication of poverty the world has ever seen which is playing its tricks. I understand that might be discrediting from your point of view, since you like the poor to starve and get shot, but not to most people.

Politicus, that a model has never even been tried is not a major strike in its favour.

No, thats obvious. But you cant say that it has been discredited.

Elements of it has been implemented in Israel - espcially in the 50s and 60s.
The whole concept of a decentralised Socialist market economy is interesting. It is remarkable  that the Left has mostly stopped advocating an alternative to capitalism (as opposed to market economy) after the collapse of the Soviet model, without trying to develop viable alternatives. 

[Gustaf]

Conversely, how is it that private privilege and control of others through 'property' not discredited?  We see the carnage all around us.

Oh, that might be the biggest increase in public welfare and the greatest eradication of poverty the world has ever seen which is playing its tricks.

Yes, nearly everyone, like you, believes that about the social order.  Looks rather like propaganda viewed from the bottom up though, n'est-ce pas?

If one were to ask my grandmother, who's sister died at childbirth, who never got to attend university and had to spend most of her life washing and cleaning by hand whether life got better over the last century I don't think she would consider it propaganda.

Your worldview is only possible to believe from a very privileged position (actually, not even then, since it requires severe delusion as well).

[Gustaf]

...central planning and/or abolition of private property...really? How is it not discredited?

Conversely, how is it that private privilege and control of others through 'property' not discredited?  We see the carnage all around us.

Oh, that might be the biggest increase in public welfare and the greatest eradication of poverty the world has ever seen which is playing its tricks. I understand that might be discrediting from your point of view, since you like the poor to starve and get shot, but not to most people.

Politicus, that a model has never even been tried is not a major strike in its favour.

No, thats obvious. But you cant say that it has been discredited.

Elements of it has been implemented in Israel - espcially in the 50s and 60s.
The whole concept of a decentralised Socialist market economy is interesting. It is remarkable  that the Left has mostly stopped advocating an alternative to capitalism (as opposed to market economy) after the collapse of the Soviet model, without trying to develop viable alternatives. 

I would say that organizational experience in general pretty much discredits it, as does the reorganizing of production in general over the last couple of centuries.

[Sibboleth]

Of course no one would define 'liberalism' as the rigid adherence to the economic policies of the 19th century.