Socialism Is Always Doomed to Fail

[Jason Harvestdancer]

See? I said you can't tell the difference between form and function.

 

[untermensche]

This is what is needed.

Constitutional protections.

Like the right to practice religion. Freedom of speech.

And many more.

Jefferson wanted to ban corporations. Some call him a visionary.

Rigorous education to prepare people to participate in a democratic society.

Right now we have education to participate in a top down society.

The rights of minorities can only be protected in one place. The courts.

You will not have utopia.

But you will have less wars and better schools and roads and bridges and less expensive Universities.

 

[arkirk]

This is what is needed.

Constitutional protections.

Like the right to practice religion. Freedom of speech.

And many more.

Jefferson wanted to ban corporations. Some call him a visionary.

Rigorous education to prepare people to participate in a democratic society.

Right now we have education to participate in a top down society.

The rights of minorities can only be protected in one place. The courts.

You will not have utopia.

But you will have less wars and better schools and roads and bridges and less expensive Universities.

And............better health care!

What democracy offers us is a chance to rearrange our governance when it appears to have run afoul of the needs of the people. In other words, democracy is never set in stone and unable to change course when a course alteration is necessary....like now. If we had a real democracy we would not be experiencing many of the ecological and social problems we have today. Much (not all, but much) of our current problems revolve around money displacing democratic decision making. Jason may be blind to this but I and most Americans are aware something has gone terribly wrong with our democracy. People who really did not win elections are put into office by rules established in the days of SLAVERY.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If it doesn't do what you want it's not democratic.

Dodge.

Again, how exactly would I gain control by giving control to a democratic majority?

You say with one side of your mouth I want control.

Then with your other side you say something about me labeling things. Totally dodging my answer.

There is no rational connection between anything you say.

I want a functioning bottom up democracy, where leaders come from the bottom and work their way up. Where leaders understand what those at the bottom go through.

Not what we have now where politicians are bought by the highest bidder.

And that would not in any way make me a ruler of anybody.

You assume a true democracy will do what you want. Therefore, anything that doesn't do what you want is not a true democracy and must be opposed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm simply trying to get untermensche to answer a simple straightforward question. He chooses to dodge it instead.

The underlying assumptions of your question is that humans are generally evil and deranged.

Absolute nonsense.

That is a minority of people.

And when minorities rule for too long, like in the US, the majority can become polluted by the crimes of a minority.

The underlying assumption of your position is that people will vote in the long term interest of society.

 

[Tristan Scott]

To be fair, there was discussion of socialism before there was discussion of democracy, so it wasn't 44 pages.

Socialism is about collective ownership of the means of production, not sharing resources and rights in an equitable civilized manner. It really is just about collective ownership of the means of production.

Not in practice. That definition is archaic and doesn't apply to most of the countries today that are considered socialist. Even in Communist China we find that less than 30% of its total industrial and service economic sectors are controlled by state owned enterprise. (of course, China's banking and energy sectors are still state owned which arguably is what is keeping China from being the dominant economy in the world.)

 

[untermensche]

The underlying assumption of your position is that people will vote in the long term interest of society.

Why would they not?

It is only people looking after their financial interests that vote to continue with the massive pollution.

It is only the people looking after the interests of insurance corporations that prevent a nationalized decent health insurance system.

 

[arkirk]

To be fair, there was discussion of socialism before there was discussion of democracy, so it wasn't 44 pages.

Socialism is about collective ownership of the means of production, not sharing resources and rights in an equitable civilized manner. It really is just about collective ownership of the means of production.

Not in practice. That definition is archaic and doesn't apply to most of the countries today that are considered socialist. Even in Communist China we find that less than 30% of its total industrial and service economic sectors are controlled by state owned enterprise. (of course, China's banking and energy sectors are still state owned which arguably is what is keeping China from being the dominant economy in the world.)

Jason's definition is not just archaic it overstates the importance of claims to ownership. He cannot stop harping on the idea that all private property will be taken away from people by socialist government and that totalitarianism will rule. I would like to remind him that we have a guy for president who doesn't seem to find authoritarian totalitarianism objectionable. He runs the country like a dictator and he is from the monied elite...no socialism there! Almost all ownership needs to be conditioned upon protection of the environment. Some things some owners wish to do with their property have far ranging effects on the environment and society as a whole. The basis of humanistic and environmental law is not some claim of ownership but rather one of protecting us all from unwise usage of resources. That amounts to a kind of partial ownership (ownership implies sole control and use). People complain when they cannot make a profit regardless of whom it may hurt because environmental laws protect people (all of society) and not just those claiming ownership of resources.

With our growing population social controls become more and more of a reality and private "ownership" of the non-sustainable kind will have to shrink for us all to get fed, clothed, housed, and perhaps medically treated. If we decide human rights come first, then Jason's utopian idea of a lot of little kings owning everything simply will never come to pass. He better quit planning on unsustainable growth as practiced by Trump and in fact the entire Republican Party and a good portion of the Democrats. Libertarian society (beyond social control in lieu of democracy) is simply an idea that is DOOMED TO BE ENDING SOON. When it does, the oligarchs of our present system will have to take deep cuts in their ownership of the world. If they can do so gracefully and reflect their desire for civilization to continue, then we will have a fighting chance at continuing as a species. If not...there will be still more blood spilled and the problems we have will escalate to a point where we will perish as a species on the planet.

It is long past the time we must stop ignoring what we are doing to our environment....and each other.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Jason's definition is not just archaic it overstates the importance of claims to ownership.

Without it, the term expands to being meaningless. People using it to describe social safety nets in otherwise market economies is incorrect because that results in the term having no meaning.

I would like to remind him that we have a guy for president who doesn't seem to find authoritarian totalitarianism objectionable. He runs the country like a dictator and he is from the monied elite...no socialism there!

So? I didn't say that the only form of totalitarianism is socialism. It is but one of many in a fetid bouquet of decaying mildewed flowers.

If we decide human rights come first, then Jason's utopian idea of a lot of little kings owning everything simply will never come to pass.

A lot of little kings?

He better quit planning on unsustainable growth as practiced by Trump and in fact the entire Republican Party and a good portion of the Democrats.

It is a good thing I don't plan for that.

Libertarian society (beyond social control in lieu of democracy) is simply an idea that is DOOMED TO BE ENDING SOON. When it does, the oligarchs of our present system will have to take deep cuts in their ownership of the world.

So our current system is libertarian? That's why we struggle to get 1% of the vote I guess.

Goodness man, I've told you repeatedly that you aren't very good at reading minds.

 

[dismal]

To be fair, there was discussion of socialism before there was discussion of democracy, so it wasn't 44 pages.

Socialism is about collective ownership of the means of production, not sharing resources and rights in an equitable civilized manner. It really is just about collective ownership of the means of production.

Not in practice. That definition is archaic and doesn't apply to most of the countries today that are considered socialist. Even in Communist China we find that less than 30% of its total industrial and service economic sectors are controlled by state owned enterprise. (of course, China's banking and energy sectors are still state owned which arguably is what is keeping China from being the dominant economy in the world.)

Wow, I'm old enough to remember way back when people used to say it was right wingers who mislabeled everything "socialism" because the word had such negative connotations.

Now it seems like the left has such a hard-on for the word they want to pretend what Merriam-Webster currently says is the definition of the word is "archaic".

 

[untermensche]

You never met one person who wanted the government to own all the businesses.

There is more than one kind of private ownership.

There can be ownership without dictatorship.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You never met one person who wanted the government to own all the businesses.

Yes I have.

There is more than one kind of private ownership.

Are you referring to the difference between "private property" and "personal property"?

There can be ownership without dictatorship.

True.

 

[untermensche]

Yes I have.

Oh, you met that one guy.

There can be private property that the owners or owner are permitted to run as a dictatorship.

And there can be private property that is run in a democratic fashion free of dead wood dictators and managers there just to service the dictatorship.

 

[Tristan Scott]

To be fair, there was discussion of socialism before there was discussion of democracy, so it wasn't 44 pages.

Socialism is about collective ownership of the means of production, not sharing resources and rights in an equitable civilized manner. It really is just about collective ownership of the means of production.

Not in practice. That definition is archaic and doesn't apply to most of the countries today that are considered socialist. Even in Communist China we find that less than 30% of its total industrial and service economic sectors are controlled by state owned enterprise. (of course, China's banking and energy sectors are still state owned which arguably is what is keeping China from being the dominant economy in the world.)

Wow, I'm old enough to remember way back when people used to say it was right wingers who mislabeled everything "socialism" because the word had such negative connotations.

Now it seems like the left has such a hard-on for the word they want to pretend what Merriam-Webster currently says is the definition of the word is "archaic".

That is what M-W says. You've seen their caveat, why are you ignoring it in this debate?

 

[arkirk]

To be fair, there was discussion of socialism before there was discussion of democracy, so it wasn't 44 pages.

Socialism is about collective ownership of the means of production, not sharing resources and rights in an equitable civilized manner. It really is just about collective ownership of the means of production.

Not in practice. That definition is archaic and doesn't apply to most of the countries today that are considered socialist. Even in Communist China we find that less than 30% of its total industrial and service economic sectors are controlled by state owned enterprise. (of course, China's banking and energy sectors are still state owned which arguably is what is keeping China from being the dominant economy in the world.)

So you think you can define socialism as unfair and backward and "not sharing rights and resources in a civilized equitable manner. In the end, my friend I have to declare you are full of shit. Sharing rights and resources in a civilized equitable manner is what socialism aims to attain. It does not often come close to attaining it, but so far it has been a closer shot than anything capitalism, can provide an entire society. What you anti-socialists want is anti-social. You will find any excuse to maintain the distribution of rights and resources in your own favor at all costs. You arguments all are arguments for depriving some portion of mankind for the benefit of the good, beautiful, rich people. I think your arguments are arguments for authoritarian dictatorship of the rich. You have it at the present time, but it is always handled so clumsily by Orange Haired fools, war lovers, and narcissistic dictators, it is not surprising that unstable capitalism hurts a vast majority of society. We have jackasses running things now that are looking for nuclear war and relaxation of prohibitions on killing humans and ecosystems running the show. Thank you wise men who always know better than the rest of the human race. You're damned fools.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

To be fair, there was discussion of socialism before there was discussion of democracy, so it wasn't 44 pages.

Socialism is about collective ownership of the means of production, not sharing resources and rights in an equitable civilized manner. It really is just about collective ownership of the means of production.

Not in practice. That definition is archaic and doesn't apply to most of the countries today that are considered socialist. Even in Communist China we find that less than 30% of its total industrial and service economic sectors are controlled by state owned enterprise. (of course, China's banking and energy sectors are still state owned which arguably is what is keeping China from being the dominant economy in the world.)

So you think you can define socialism as unfair and backward and "not sharing rights and resources in a civilized equitable manner. In the end, my friend I have to declare you are full of shit. Sharing rights and resources in a civilized equitable manner is what socialism aims to attain.

Tristan, myself, and others are describing Socialism in terms of method. You are describing it in terms of goals. That doesn't work very well, because just about any ideology, when described by its supporters, will be about doing the greatest good for the greatest number. A socialist will say the GOAL of socialism is societal good. An anarchist will say the GOAL of anarchism is societal good. A fascist will say the GOAL of fascism is societal good. A moderate will say the GOAL of moderation is societal good.

So skip the bullshit and concentrate less on what it promises and more on what it does.

It does not often come close to attaining it, but so far it has been a closer shot than anything capitalism, can provide an entire society. What you anti-socialists want is anti-social. You will find any excuse to maintain the distribution of rights and resources in your own favor at all costs.

That is the goal of those who oppose socialism as described by a socialist. Those who oppose socialism will describe their goal as societal good.

Skip the goals and concentrate on what it does. Goals are fever dreams and faerie wings compared to the practical reality of "and how are you going to do this?"

You arguments all are arguments for depriving some portion of mankind for the benefit of the good, beautiful, rich people.

No they're not.

See how easy that was to counter an empty assertion?

I think your arguments are arguments for authoritarian dictatorship of the rich.

No they're not.

You have it at the present time, but it is always handled so clumsily by Orange Haired fools, war lovers, and narcissistic dictators, it is not surprising that unstable capitalism hurts a vast majority of society. We have jackasses running things now that are looking for nuclear war and relaxation of prohibitions on killing humans and ecosystems running the show. Thank you wise men who always know better than the rest of the human race. You're damned fools.

And the funniest part is that somehow you think our current system is capitalism and that those who support capitalism support cronyists like Trump.

 

[untermensche]

Tristan, myself, and others are describing Socialism in terms of method.

It has no methods.

Only goals.

Anarchism is a subset of socialism.

What Anarchism says is you have to look at structures of power in a society to deal with anything first.

If you have a dictatorship then you can do very little.

Dictatorships that are not absolutely necessary like a parent holding a child from running into the street or telling the child when to go to bed are considered immoral.

And they should be dismantled without exception.

You change the power structures.

You do not confiscate anything. But the way people can use their property must change. They can still own it if they choose. But they can't run it like a dictator.

That will deter people owning the services of other people.

People will own their own services.

 

[ZiprHead]

Tristan, myself, and others are describing Socialism in terms of method. You are describing it in terms of goals. That doesn't work very well, because just about any ideology, when described by its supporters, will be about doing the greatest good for the greatest number. A socialist will say the GOAL of socialism is societal good. An anarchist will say the GOAL of anarchism is societal good. A fascist will say the GOAL of fascism is societal good. A moderate will say the GOAL of moderation is societal good.

So skip the bullshit and concentrate less on what it promises and more on what it does.

Irony meters all over the world just exploded in unison.

 

[BH]

Mr. Harvestdancer,

Respectfully, the problem with the results of socialism is not whether or not it produces the consumer goods or not or what it provides or not in terms of a safety net. It does provide consumer goods and a social safety net. The problem is one of economic perspective and where you stand under capitalism. Socialism will never provide someone who did the very best under capitalism the same economic benefits. However, the great many people who would have been on the lower end of the totem pole economically under capitalism can do and did do a lot better under socialism.

People who say socialism does not work because it does not give them the x,y, and z they would get under capitalism because they were in the small higher economic tier are on par with the nobility and churchmen who bewailed the end of feudalism and claimed capitalism was less effiecent because they judged how the rise of capitlaism affected their own power and economic wealth (took most if not all of it away) and not what it did for the great masses. Its the same with socialism. A few miss out what they got before but it is better for most people overall.

 

[dismal]

Wow, I'm old enough to remember way back when people used to say it was right wingers who mislabeled everything "socialism" because the word had such negative connotations.

Now it seems like the left has such a hard-on for the word they want to pretend what Merriam-Webster currently says is the definition of the word is "archaic".

That is what M-W says. You've seen their caveat, why are you ignoring it in this debate?

How about if I read what the socialists themselves say?

1) What does DSA believe in?

Like most socialist organizations, DSA believes in the abolition of capitalism in favor of an economy run either by “the workers” or the state — though the exact specifics of “abolishing capitalism” are fiercely debated by socialists.

“The academic debates about socialism’s ‘meaning’ are huge and arcane and rife with disagreements, but what all definitions have in common is either the elimination of the market or its strict containment,” said Frances Fox Piven, a scholar of the left at the City University of New York and a former DSA board member.

In practice, that means DSA believes in ending the private ownership of a wide range of industries whose products are viewed as “necessities,” which they say should not be left to those seeking to turn a profit. According to DSA’s current mission statement, the government should ensure all citizens receive adequate food, housing, health care, child care, and education. DSA also believes that the government should “democratize” private businesses — i.e., force owners to give workers control over them — to the greatest extent possible.

But DSA members also say that overthrowing capitalism must include the eradication of “hierarchical systems” that lie beyond the market as well. As a result, DSA supports the missions of Black Lives Matter, gay and lesbian rights, and environmentalism as integral parts of this broader “anti-capitalist” program.

“Socialism is about democratizing the family to get rid of patriarchal relations; democratizing the political sphere to get genuine participatory democracy; democratizing the schools by challenging the hierarchical relationship between the teachers of the school and the students of the school,” said Jared Abbott, a member of DSA’s national steering committee. “Socialism is the democratization of all areas of life, including but not limited to the economy.”

DSA does have a history of members who were more likely to consider themselves “New Deal Democrats,” more interested in creating a robust welfare state than in turning the means of production over to the workers. But David Duhalde, DSA’s deputy director, says the “overwhelming majority” of its current members are committed to socialism’s enactment through the outright abolition of capitalism.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/5/15930786/dsa-socialists-convention-national

I detect a large amount of "socialism means government or collective control of the means of production" in there. Even a slight mockery of the pantywaists who only go so far as advocating a "robust welfare state".

So, again, we are left with the puzzling question: Why do so many people here want to call a "robust welfare state" "socialism" when socialism has a well-established meaning?

Is the intent to deceive and mislead the real socialists?