Is Socialism a good thing?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Government nationalization of industry isn't usually a good thing, though there are industries like water supply which work better as public utilities.

Things like social security and government funded health care are good, but they also are not "socialist." Welfare state programs are not socialist by definition because socialism is state takeover of industry.

Basically this. A liberal democracy with a robust social safety net isn't socialism. Progressive taxation isn't socialism so long as it respects people's individual rights.

Authoritarian socialism is always bad.

[Antonio the Sixth]

socialism is state takeover of industry.

That's not what the word means to anyone who isn't 1. An othodox Marxist or 2. Someone who's trying to discredit the concept. Marxists don't have a monopoly on the concept of socialism, they never did to begin with, and they especially don't now. And opponents of socialism don't get to make a strawman out of it.

The only reasonable definition of socialism isn't as a specific set of policies but as a set of values and ideals. And the welfare state has just as good a claim at fulfilling these values as state ownership of industry.

[Green Line]

What does socialism mean?  It seems to mean something very different to everyone I talk to, and from country to country.  I voted bad thing, but at the end of the day, its the results that matter.  Is it making peoples' lives better or worse?  It seems to work well in some European countries.  But then many would say that isn't real socialism.

[brucejoel99]

The problem with these kinds of questions/discussions is that you need to define what you mean by "socialism" to begin with. Socialism is a tricky term because not even self-proclaimed socialists necessarily agree on what it means. It's a theory of an economical system, it's a political movement, it's an ideology, & it's not clearly & definitively separated from terms like "social democracy," "social liberalism," or even "communism." What all these terms share are a critique of capitalism & a lack of belief in the market as the solution to problems in society, but "socialism" is still such an incredibly varied field of philosophy/economics that it has run the gamut from terrifying, one-party, genocidal dictatorships to parliamentary republics that have created the most prosperous societies on Earth.

I mean socialism as in the type that's close to communism.

So, then the question that you obviously should've asked was "Is Communism a good thing?" Gotcha.

The fundamentals of communism ("from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs") can work in small, closed groups in which everybody is on the same page & is willing to dive into the process. The problem with communism is that it requires people to ignore certain innate human desires, such as greed, power, &, on the opposite side of the spectrum, laziness.

Now, it's certainly possible to find, say, 30 or so people that are all willing to forego greediness & a search for power & work together on a community-owned commune. But the system breaks down quickly when one or more people stop putting in the work required of their ability, or even if there's a perception by the other community members that someone isn't putting in their work. Resentment will grow &, taken far enough, break down the goodwill, & the community will disband. This was common with a number of American communes in the '60s & '70s. They'd last for some number of years & then they'd fall apart.

So, on a small scale, communism can work. Most families are small-scale "communist" enterprises, for example, in which you (typically) forego greed & recognition of your individual efforts for the benefit of the group. On a large scale, though, it's simply impossible to expect a society to have all members forego so many basic human instincts in order to prevent the breakdown, so the system must be enforced with an iron fist. But how can you enforce something without power? So now you have, at least, a 2-tiered system: the enforcers & their subjects. Now, no enforcer wants to become a subject, so the methods of enforcement, in time, become more about clinging to power rather than making decisions that are good for the people as a whole. This is why, historically, in practice, communist societies cause societal famine, mass killings, & a halt to innovation.

[Diabolical Materialism]

Workplace democracy is morally right, and anyone who disagrees is a bootlicker.

[John Dule]

Workplace democracy is morally right, and anyone who disagrees is a bootlicker.

Yeah, instead of licking the boot of your employer, you should lick the boot of majority opinion instead.

[PSOL]

Workplace democracy is morally right, and anyone who disagrees is a bootlicker.

Yeah, instead of licking the boot of your employer, you should lick the boot of majority opinion instead.

It isn’t the current majority’s fault that you exhibit such awfulness to be excluded. Try making a convincing case for yourself instead of licking the boots of the current GM.

[John Dule]

Workplace democracy is morally right, and anyone who disagrees is a bootlicker.

Yeah, instead of licking the boot of your employer, you should lick the boot of majority opinion instead.

It isn’t the current majority’s fault that you exhibit such awfulness to be excluded. Try making a convincing case for yourself instead of licking the boots of the current GM.

What are you talking about? I'm just arguing against the claim that democracy is a bootlicking-free system of self-governance.

[Diabolical Materialism]

Workplace democracy is morally right, and anyone who disagrees is a bootlicker.

Yeah, instead of licking the boot of your employer, you should lick the boot of majority opinion instead.

Instead of licking the boot of my employer, I should respect the decisions of a fair and democratic body that I am a party to? How is this a tough decision lmao

[John Dule]

Workplace democracy is morally right, and anyone who disagrees is a bootlicker.

Yeah, instead of licking the boot of your employer, you should lick the boot of majority opinion instead.

Instead of licking the boot of my employer, I should respect the decisions of a fair and democratic body that I am a party to? How is this a tough decision lmao

These two words are directly contradictory.

[brucejoel99]

Workplace democracy is morally right, and anyone who disagrees is a bootlicker.

Yeah, instead of licking the boot of your employer, you should lick the boot of majority opinion instead.

Instead of licking the boot of my employer, I should respect the decisions of a fair and democratic body that I am a party to? How is this a tough decision lmao

These two words are directly contradictory.

That depends on how you're defining "fair." Some people would constrain fair to an action that harms no one unjustly (don't even get started on the definition of "just;" let's just assume that it harms nobody that didn't commit a crime for now). Therefore, the only truly "fair" rule would be unanimous agreement among the population as a whole, where they debate the pros & cons until everybody feels that a given decision taken is for the best.

Too bad that's impossible.

[Diabolical Materialism]

Workplace democracy is morally right, and anyone who disagrees is a bootlicker.

Yeah, instead of licking the boot of your employer, you should lick the boot of majority opinion instead.

Instead of licking the boot of my employer, I should respect the decisions of a fair and democratic body that I am a party to? How is this a tough decision lmao

These two words are directly contradictory.

So there is no such thing as a fair election? Ever? They're just shams? Jeez sounds a tad authoritarian for yellow avi.

[John Dule]

Workplace democracy is morally right, and anyone who disagrees is a bootlicker.

Yeah, instead of licking the boot of your employer, you should lick the boot of majority opinion instead.

Instead of licking the boot of my employer, I should respect the decisions of a fair and democratic body that I am a party to? How is this a tough decision lmao

These two words are directly contradictory.

So there is no such thing as a fair election? Ever? They're just shams? Jeez sounds a tad authoritarian for yellow avi.

I'm sorry, we must not have met before.

[American2020]

‘Neoliberal’ is an unthinking leftist insult. All it does is stifle debate

Will the liberal left gift the 2020s to the right in the same way? The first clue will be the Labour leadership contest. If the eventual leader wins as a sworn enemy of “neoliberalism”, be sure that all constructive thought will be expunged from Labour for another electoral cycle. It is possible to believe in the power of government, the reform of capitalism, the necessity of social justice and the imperative to confront the environmental challenge and still want a vibrant, purpose-driven private sector. Shared values mean those are common ends: if the policy mix to achieve them tries to mitigate high taxation, state ownership and a proliferation of government agencies, then that strategy should not be written off as “neoliberal”.

Nor can Brexit be buried. EU membership benefited Britain and Johnson’s impending hard Brexit will harm it. More than that, the EU is a noble cause and a force for good in the world. Leave voters who so desperately wanted better for themselves were sold a lie. To desert the pro-EU cause now is wrong both in principle and, as the lie becomes exposed, in practice. Johnson’s failure is not guaranteed. It remains true that addressing the challenges of our times falls more naturally to the liberal left than the right. But without the same ruthlessness about the pursuit of power, the opportunity may never arise.

So: no more sectarianism, no more hurling vacuous insults at those who don’t sign up to the faith. Exploit the left’s natural advantages and back political winners. Otherwise, the right will control another decade. It is not only social democracy at stake but, as Britain dissolves into an one-party state, liberal democracy itself.

[American2020]

The New Republic is glad Neoliberalisme collapsed.

https://newrepublic.com/article/155970/collapse-neoliberalism

Now, what should be the credinble alternative ?

[Lord Halifax]

socialism is state takeover of industry.

That's not what the word means to anyone who isn't 1. An othodox Marxist or 2. Someone who's trying to discredit the concept. Marxists don't have a monopoly on the concept of socialism, they never did to begin with, and they especially don't now. And opponents of socialism don't get to make a strawman out of it.

The only reasonable definition of socialism isn't as a specific set of policies but as a set of values and ideals. And the welfare state has just as good a claim at fulfilling these values as state ownership of industry.

It's a Leninist idea, not an Orthodox Marxist. But all RL attempts at creating Communist societies are based on Lenin's (heretical) interpretation of Marx, so we don't really know how Orthodox Marxists would have tried to organize the Socialist stage (e.g. Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxembourg if the Spartacist uprising somehow had succeeded).

Marx viewed a Socialist society as the last stage before the Communist society with genuine common ownership of the means of production and such a high level of material abundance that the concept of property would essentially be meaningless (basically utopia, he imagined full automatization implemented during the Socialist stage would solve almost all scarcity issues). He talks about social ownership of the means of production in the Socialist stage, which can be organized by other means than the state. He was fairly vague about how social ownership should be organized and more focused on how advancing productive technology would lead society towards Communism. In principle social ownership can be organized by employee ownership, coops, citizen ownership of equity (not that Marx would have condoned that..) or common ownership by a mass organization or local community. Marx wasn't exactly a big fan of the state and its use of a state controlled command economy as the main instrument to create a Socialist society is the reason many Orthodox Marxists view the Soviet model as "state capitalism".

[Farmlands]

‘Neoliberal’ is an unthinking leftist insult. All it does is stifle debate

Will the liberal left gift the 2020s to the right in the same way? The first clue will be the Labour leadership contest. If the eventual leader wins as a sworn enemy of “neoliberalism”, be sure that all constructive thought will be expunged from Labour for another electoral cycle. It is possible to believe in the power of government, the reform of capitalism, the necessity of social justice and the imperative to confront the environmental challenge and still want a vibrant, purpose-driven private sector. Shared values mean those are common ends: if the policy mix to achieve them tries to mitigate high taxation, state ownership and a proliferation of government agencies, then that strategy should not be written off as “neoliberal”.

Nor can Brexit be buried. EU membership benefited Britain and Johnson’s impending hard Brexit will harm it. More than that, the EU is a noble cause and a force for good in the world. Leave voters who so desperately wanted better for themselves were sold a lie. To desert the pro-EU cause now is wrong both in principle and, as the lie becomes exposed, in practice. Johnson’s failure is not guaranteed. It remains true that addressing the challenges of our times falls more naturally to the liberal left than the right. But without the same ruthlessness about the pursuit of power, the opportunity may never arise.

So: no more sectarianism, no more hurling vacuous insults at those who don’t sign up to the faith. Exploit the left’s natural advantages and back political winners. Otherwise, the right will control another decade. It is not only social democracy at stake but, as Britain dissolves into an one-party state, liberal democracy itself.

The author there rightfully criticises Labour for expunging any thought favourable to neoliberalism in the last years, thereby sowing divisions and weakening the party. But then he also notes how it should continue tirelessly defending the EU, when that strategy already cost them many seats. So it's clear where his sympathies lie, and it's not in making sure Labour can win another election.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

SOCIAL SECURITY disarms the homeless,  should people cant find work. Student Loan forgiveness, will allow students who cant afford to pay, to rid themselves of debt, like bankruptcy.  A second chance. But, medicare expansion, is a double dip program for medicaid expansion. that's not needed.

[KaiserDave]

You don't know what socialism is.

[Tartarus Sauce]

I personally can't wait for a post-scarcity society so we can stop arguing over how best to structure the distribution of socioeconmic benefits.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I personally can't wait for a post-scarcity society so we can stop arguing over how best to structure the distribution of socioeconmic benefits.

We already live in a post-scarcity society. And yet the wealthy are still hoarding all the fruits of it.

[TJ in Oregon]

I personally can't wait for a post-scarcity society so we can stop arguing over how best to structure the distribution of socioeconmic benefits.

We already live in a post-scarcity society. And yet the wealthy are still hoarding all the fruits of it.

But if we were really living in a post-scarcity society, then wouldn't hoarding it no longer matter? As in they could hoard it and the rest of us could just get more? The fact that we can't seems to imply we're not post-scarcity.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I personally can't wait for a post-scarcity society so we can stop arguing over how best to structure the distribution of socioeconmic benefits.

We already live in a post-scarcity society. And yet the wealthy are still hoarding all the fruits of it.

But if we were really living in a post-scarcity society, then wouldn't hoarding it no longer matter? As in they could hoard it and the rest of us could just get more? The fact that we can't seems to imply we're not post-scarcity.

Well, we're a post-scarcity society in the sense that we currently produce more than enough resources to provide every single person alive today with a good and fulfilling life. I guess we're not a post-scarcity society in the sense of having infinite resources, but if that's how you define it then obviously we will never be.

[AGA]

No. Sanders is not real socialist. Real socialism means either poverty or death camps.

[Santander]

No. Sanders is not real socialist. Real socialism means either poverty or death camps.

You're thinking National Socialism.