Heaven on Earth The Rise and Fall of Socialism

[NobleSavage]

Something for you to watch this weekend. 3hrs.

Much of the history of the past 200 years revolved around a single idea. It was the vision that life could be lived in peace and brotherhood if only property were shared by all and distributed equally, eliminating the source of greed, envy, poverty and strife. This idea was called "socialism" and it was man's most ambitious attempt to supplant religion with a doctrine grounded on science rather than revelation.

It became the most popular political idea in history. Its provenance was European, but it spread to China and Africa, India and Latin America and even to that most tradition-bound of regions, the Middle East. While it never fully took root in America, its influence shaped the nation's political debate. At its crest in the 1970s, roughly 60 percent of the earth's population lived under governments that espoused socialism in one form or another. Then, suddenly, it all collapsed.

Because its goal proved so elusive, the socialist movement split and split again into diverse, sometimes murderously contradictory forms. There was Social Democracy, which insisted that only peaceful and democratic means could produce a harmonious commonwealth. There was Communism, which extolled the resolute use of force and dictatorship to propel mankind to a new way of life. There was Arab Socialism, African Socialism, and other Third World variants that sought to amalgamate western Social Democracy and eastern Communism. There was even fascism, which turned the socialist idea on its head by substituting the brotherhood of nation and race for the brotherhood of class. And there were those - from early American settlers, to the "flower children" of the 1960s, to Israeli Zionist kibbutzniks - who built their own socialist communities, hoping to transform the world by the force of example.

As an idea that changed the way people thought, socialism's success was spectacular. As a critique of capitalism that helped spawn modern social safety nets and welfare states, its success was appreciable. As a model for the development of post-colonial states, the socialist model proved disappointing, fostering economic stagnation among millions of the world's poorest people. And in its most violent forms, socialism was calamitous, claiming scores of millions of lives and helping to make the twentieth century the bloodiest ever.

Through profiles of the individuals that brought socialism to life, HEAVEN ON EARTH tells the story of how an idea arose, evolved, changed the world, and eventually fell.

HOUR 1: THE RISE
HOUR 2: REVOLUTIONS
HOUR 3: THE COLLAPSE

 

[dystopian]

Socialism fell? I'm sorry, did I arrive in a parallel universe by mistake where the idea of socialism and its enduring popularity among the public and the many political parties that represent them in countries around the world is no more?

 

[NobleSavage]

Socialism fell? I'm sorry, did I arrive in a parallel universe by mistake where the idea of socialism and its enduring popularity among the public and the many political parties that represent them in countries around the world is no more?

Don't get hung up on the title. It's worth watching. You can see the other videos the user has if you want to try and tease out any ideological slant: https://www.youtube.com/user/EducateKnowledge/videos

 

[Togo]

Socialism fell? I'm sorry, did I arrive in a parallel universe by mistake where the idea of socialism and its enduring popularity among the public and the many political parties that represent them in countries around the world is no more?

That depends. Have you been to the US? If so, then yes, you have visited just such a parallel world.

 

[dystopian]

Socialism fell? I'm sorry, did I arrive in a parallel universe by mistake where the idea of socialism and its enduring popularity among the public and the many political parties that represent them in countries around the world is no more?

Don't get hung up on the title. It's worth watching. You can see the other videos the user has if you want to try and tease out any ideological slant: https://www.youtube.com/user/EducateKnowledge/videos

Actually, I didn't get hung up on the title, so much as the content of the text you quoted; which is pretty much complete bullshit from start to finish. The political bias that oozes from the blurb is so blatant and at the same time so tired that it makes me reject out of hand the notion that it's worth wasting nearly three hours of my time watching; a worthwhile and *objective* documentary surely wouldn't poison the well right there on the proverbial dvd cover.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Socialism fell? I'm sorry, did I arrive in a parallel universe by mistake where the idea of socialism and its enduring popularity among the public and the many political parties that represent them in countries around the world is no more?

Don't get hung up on the title. It's worth watching. You can see the other videos the user has if you want to try and tease out any ideological slant: https://www.youtube.com/user/EducateKnowledge/videos

Three hours?!

 

[NobleSavage]

Don't get hung up on the title. It's worth watching. You can see the other videos the user has if you want to try and tease out any ideological slant: https://www.youtube.com/user/EducateKnowledge/videos

Actually, I didn't get hung up on the title, so much as the content of the text you quoted; which is pretty much complete bullshit from start to finish. The political bias that oozes from the blurb is so blatant and at the same time so tired that it makes me reject out of hand the notion that it's worth wasting nearly three hours of my time watching; a worthwhile and *objective* documentary surely wouldn't poison the well right there on the proverbial dvd cover.

What is wrong with the summary? Pure socialism never worked very good. Capitalism with a welfare state seems to work best.

 

[NobleSavage]

The company that made the film is New River Media. They are associated with PBS http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/about_nrm.html

 

[dystopian]

What is wrong with the summary? Pure socialism never worked very good. Capitalism with a welfare state seems to work best.

Are you kidding? It's poisoning the well from the get go.

 

[NobleSavage]

How is it poisoning the well?

 

[dystopian]

How is it poisoning the well?

You're kidding right? Did you not read the text you quoted?

Let's take a look:

'Because its goal proved so elusive' = poisoning the well by priming the reader/viewer into thinking socialism can't/hasn't achieved its goals.

'the socialist movement split and split again into diverse, sometimes murderously contradictory forms.' = Murderously contradictory? Again, primes the reader/viewer, this time with colorful language. Socialism is contradictory! Socialism is violent!

'There was Social Democracy, which insisted that only peaceful and democratic means could produce a harmonious commonwealth. There was Communism, which extolled the resolute use of force and dictatorship to propel mankind to a new way of life. There was Arab Socialism, African Socialism, and other Third World variants that sought to amalgamate western Social Democracy and eastern Communism. There was even fascism, which turned the socialist idea on its head by substituting the brotherhood of nation and race for the brotherhood of class. And there were those - from early American settlers, to the "flower children" of the 1960s, to Israeli Zionist kibbutzniks - who built their own socialist communities, hoping to transform the world by the force of example.' = primes the reader/viewer into thinking of socialism as hopelessly fragmented and chaotic, and does so by dishonestly conflating systems and idealogies that actually have very little to nothing to do with each other.

'As a model for the development of post-colonial states, the socialist model proved disappointing, fostering economic stagnation among millions of the world's poorest people.' = blames a priori the economic troubles of these states on socialism (and not, you know, the same reasons that keep many post-colonial capitalist states in similar poverty), also poisoning the well by insinuating that it would do similar things in developed economies that can actually sustain socialist policies, even if they're not outright implying it, they should be more than capable of understanding that less skeptical minds will innately jump to that subconscious conclusion.

'And in its most violent forms, socialism was calamitous, claiming scores of millions of lives and helping to make the twentieth century the bloodiest ever.' = poisons the well by conflating socialism and authoritarian communist states; priming the reader/viewer into thinking of socialism as an idealogy that leads to violence.

'Through profiles of the individuals that brought socialism to life, HEAVEN ON EARTH tells the story of how an idea arose, evolved, changed the world, and eventually fell.' = poisons the well by saying that socialism 'eventually fell' (neither the idea of socialism not socialism in practice has fallen); thereby insinuating that it can not stand on its own and socialism is doomed to failure: ideas that have risen and fallen are things we consider to belong in the past; so by referring to and idea that is still very much alive and practiced today in such a way, they're poisoning the well by priming the reader/viewer into regarding it as an outdated concept.

It would be one thing if they made these arguments in the documentary itself; their arguments would still be wrong but they wouldn't be poisoning the well at that point. However, stating these things beforehand is even more problematic. An objective teacher (as documentaries should aspire to be) should never put the conclusion before the facts. You don't start out by saying 'X sucks, here's why.', even if you hide it in more subtle language.

 

[NobleSavage]

Can you give me an example of where pure socialism worked well? Most of your points boil down to 'they weren't TRUE socialists'

 

[dystopian]

Can you give me an example of where pure socialism worked well? Most of your points boil down to 'they weren't TRUE socialists'

Not relevant to the discussion. The text quoted in the OP talks about socialism in ALL its forms; not 'pure' socialism (there's no such thing, incidentally; not as a governmental system in any case. 'Pure' socialism would simply refer to the principles underlying socialist systems, but you'd still need to add stuff on top of it in order to arrive at a functioning government/society, and thus you're not left with 'pure' socialism the way you're talking about)

And no, not only do most of my points NOT boil down to 'they weren't true socialists'; NONE of my points do in fact since my argument isn't about whether or not socialism works, it's about how the documentary's preamble is oozing with bias and is therefore unlikely to be of objective interest: in that context, pointing out that the documentary makers conflate authoritarian communism with socialism isn't an argument of 'they weren't true socialists' even if you're too simplistic of thinking to properly differentiate between communism and socialism; it's an argument that they are, as I've been saying, *poisoning the well*.

However, since you asked and pointed it out, it is in fact true that full-on classical socialism hasn't been tried on a nationstate scale; as such I can hardly produce an example of where it's worked well (just like you can't provide an example of where it's failed). When people point at socialist countries and their economic failures, they're not so much pointing at a failure of socialism itself, but a failure of a centrally planned economy (which is by no means a fundamental aspect of socialism).

 

[NobleSavage]

If I wrote a summary of Nazism I'd include genocide. Would that be poising the well?

Socialism as defined as an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production has never worked very well. The summary seems accurate with history. Yet, they point out the positive aspects: "As an idea that changed the way people thought, socialism's success was spectacular. As a critique of capitalism that helped spawn modern social safety nets and welfare states, its success was appreciable"

 

[dystopian]

If I wrote a summary of Nazism I'd include genocide. Would that be poising the well?

You don't seem to understand what poisoning the well means. If two people enter into a public debate about say, universal healthcare, and then in the opening remarks the guy debating against the subject starts out by saying something like; 'my opponent's position was also taken by some nazis and serial killers'; he may or may not be technically correct, but what he's doing is poisoning the well by making it impossible for his opponent to properly debate him because now in the mind of the audience his position is associated with nazis and serial killers even though that it really has nothing to do with the debate. Writing a summary about nazism is not the same as writing a preamble to a documentary that claims to look at the ' rise and fall' of an idea (keeping in mind the idea hasn't fallen, but whatever).

Socialism as defined as an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production has never worked very well.

So you may claim, but it is a baseless claim. Again, any examples you can list are not examples with the problem lies with social ownership of production but rather with central planning. This is however, as I've already pointed out, not the argument here.

The summary seems accurate with history. Yet, they point out the positive aspects: "As an idea that changed the way people thought, socialism's success was spectacular. As a critique of capitalism that helped spawn modern social safety nets and welfare states, its success was appreciable"

Which doesn't change the fundamental objection. In fact, it's a common trick when (intentionally) poisoning the well to also list some positive attributes of the idea/person you're attacking, in order to lend some credibility to the negative claims. It doesn't change my objection. And I think we're about done with this argument, you don't seem willing to understand what my objection is; and nobody seems interested in wasting their time on spending 3 hours on your pet documentary, so I think this thread is pretty much dead.

 

[NobleSavage]

Check out Google's N gram viewer. The interest in Socialism has indeed risen and fallen:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/gra...moothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1;,Socalism;,c0

Look at Wiki's list of Socialist Countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states There are more former than current. There were a lot of Ephemeral attempts. I'm sure you will have a problem with the list and have an excuse for every failure.

Small socialist communes have had limited success. The Kibbutz movement in Israel seems to be a very authentic attempt at implementing socialist ideals. Yet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz

During the 1980s, following the peak of the kibbutzim crisis, many people started leaving their kibbutzim, and there was considerable tension due to the economic situation. In order to cope with the situation, some kibbutzim began to change in various ways.

The changes that occurred could be divided into three main types:

Extensive privatization of the kibbutz services—in fact, such privatization had been introduced over the past two decades in many kibbutzim. Most of these privatization processes, however, were made in matters that were considered relatively minor. Currently, many kibbutzim that have privatized (some of them with subsidies) have also privatized the education and health systems, which were once considered untouchable.[citation needed]
"Differential wage"—one famous characteristic of the kibbutzim was that each kibbutz member received an equal budget according to his or her needs, regardless of what job they held. In many kibbutzim, members are now paid differentially based on the work they do.
"Association of properties"—refers to the transfer of some of the properties belonging to the kibbutz, in its capacity as a cooperative commonality, to the ownership of individual kibbutz members. This is actually true privatization (unlike the services privatization). These assets include the homes where the members live and a sort of a "stock" in the manufacturing component of the kibbutz. This change allows kibbutz members to sell and bequeath both types of properties, within certain limitations.

http://israelity.com/2010/01/27/kibbutz-changes/

According to a survey conducted by the University of Haifa 188 of all kibbutzim (72%) are now converted to the "renewing kibbutz" model, which could be described as more individualistic kibbutz. Dr. Shlomo Getz, head of the Institute for the Research of the Kibbutz and the Cooperative Idea believes that by the end of 2012, there will be more kibbutzim switching to some alternative model

You seem to lay the blame on centralized planning. But decentralized socialism has for the most part been an academic exercise. My favorite is Cybersyn:http://www.cybersyn.cl/ingles/cybersyn/cyberfolk.html

Just because the summary didn't sugarcoat Socialism doesn't mean they are poising the well. Market economies and mixed economies work, yes they do have their problems, but that is what the welfare state is for.

 

[dystopian]

There seems to be a fundamental inability to communicate, it seems.

 

[skepticalbip]

Something for you to watch this weekend. 3hrs.

Much of the history of the past 200 years revolved around a single idea. It was the vision that life could be lived in peace and brotherhood if only property were shared by all and distributed equally, eliminating the source of greed, envy, poverty and strife. This idea was called "socialism" and it was man's most ambitious attempt to supplant religion with a doctrine grounded on science rather than revelation.

It became the most popular political idea in history. Its provenance was European, but it spread to China and Africa, India and Latin America and even to that most tradition-bound of regions, the Middle East. While it never fully took root in America, its influence shaped the nation's political debate. At its crest in the 1970s, roughly 60 percent of the earth's population lived under governments that espoused socialism in one form or another. Then, suddenly, it all collapsed.

Because its goal proved so elusive, the socialist movement split and split again into diverse, sometimes murderously contradictory forms. There was Social Democracy, which insisted that only peaceful and democratic means could produce a harmonious commonwealth. There was Communism, which extolled the resolute use of force and dictatorship to propel mankind to a new way of life. There was Arab Socialism, African Socialism, and other Third World variants that sought to amalgamate western Social Democracy and eastern Communism. There was even fascism, which turned the socialist idea on its head by substituting the brotherhood of nation and race for the brotherhood of class. And there were those - from early American settlers, to the "flower children" of the 1960s, to Israeli Zionist kibbutzniks - who built their own socialist communities, hoping to transform the world by the force of example.

As an idea that changed the way people thought, socialism's success was spectacular. As a critique of capitalism that helped spawn modern social safety nets and welfare states, its success was appreciable. As a model for the development of post-colonial states, the socialist model proved disappointing, fostering economic stagnation among millions of the world's poorest people. And in its most violent forms, socialism was calamitous, claiming scores of millions of lives and helping to make the twentieth century the bloodiest ever.

Through profiles of the individuals that brought socialism to life, HEAVEN ON EARTH tells the story of how an idea arose, evolved, changed the world, and eventually fell.

HOUR 1: THE RISE
HOUR 2: REVOLUTIONS
HOUR 3: THE COLLAPSE

Thanks for the link. I was afraid that it would just be a rant against socialism but found it to be an entertaining history of various attempts to institute socialism as a political form.

Political Marxist socialism has proven to be a failure likely because it sought to change human nature to some ideal that is contrary to the nature of most species of life with the exception of critters like ants or bees.

 

[NobleSavage]

Thanks for the link. I was afraid that it would just be a rant against socialism but found it to be an entertaining history of various attempts to institute socialism as a political form.

Political Marxist socialism has proven to be a failure likely because it sought to change human nature to some ideal that is contrary to the nature of most species of life with the exception of critters like ants or bees.

Yeah, I thought it was even handed. I'm not against socialist ideas. I just think in practice they haven't worked so well.

 

[Togo]

Check out Google's N gram viewer. The interest in Socialism has indeed risen and fallen:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/gra...moothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1;,Socalism;,c0

The graph shows that it's maintianed most of the popularity it had in the 20th century, although not as much as it did around 1910. The differences on the graph are tiny.

Look at Wiki's list of Socialist Countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

That's a very different list from the one used by the article, and presumably the one used by the film. There's no western Europe on it, for a start.

Just because the summary didn't sugarcoat Socialism doesn't mean they are poising the well.

No, it's claiming that socialism is somehow a common element that caused the failure of both flower child communes and Nazi Germany, that's poisoning the well. It's a technical term, and whether you approve of socialism has nothing to do with it.

Unless you or the video is seriously trying to argue that the Nazi Holocaust was somehow a result of insufficient dedication to market forces?