The Workers Dream: Socialism and Communism

I'm injured and not in the mood to hash it out over whether freedom for the individual and their sovereign rights or the supremacy of the state's authority to control everyone is best. If it really matters to you, fine you win, but I just wanted to post this article which explains what life in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was like:

Unions, Lenin, and the American Way

One of my favorite portions:

The only real choice before us, therefore, is not between economic inequality and economic equality, but between two types of economic inequality.

One is the transparent, volunteer economic inequality of laissez-faire capitalism, where people are free to choose opportunities that they like - but that also lead to predictably different compensation. Whether it's the intense life of a CEO taking risky decisions, or the safe but uneventful existence of a government clerk, or the relaxed bohemian lifestyle of an artist - these are free choices based on what best suits people's character and makes them happy, taken with full knowledge of the potential risks and rewards. The CEO, the clerk, and the artist receive different compensation for their work, yet they are all equal before the law, which protects their contracts with society and with each other.

These are not rigid classes; people can change their lives if they want to, and their children do not have to follow in their footsteps if a certain lifestyle or profession does not match their idea of happiness. Their material rewards are just because they are determined by the free market, and the differences motivate everyone to be more creative and productive. This system has brought prosperity, opportunity, and happiness to most people, making them equal beneficiaries of liberty and human dignity, as long as they don't succumb to crime, drugs, or class envy.

The other type of economic inequality is the state-enforced redistribution of wealth, which is never transparent. The only successful career in such a system can be made inside the state hierarchy, which sooner or later becomes a snake pit ruled by cronyism, nepotism, kickbacks, and backstabbing.

Just my two cents.

Communism/Socialism call it whatever you want. It continually fails throughout history because of the one thing you cannot change. Human Nature. Have we not learned this lesson yet??? You will always have those who want something for nothing, to be provided for without putting forth any effort. You will always have those who take, take, take, and the few who give for the joy of giving. Those in power who become corrupt by their power from public office. Nirvana, the perfect economic/political system, does not exist and will never exist due to Human Nature.

I hesitate to add to this, as every time I think I have a handle on defining Communism or Socialism, some one comes along and says, "No, that's not what it is."

As I understand it, the goal of Communism is to deliver the means of production into the hands of the workers, instead of allowing the business owner to profit exponentially from the labors of his/her employees.

The questions I have are:

What level of control/responsibility does this ownership bring? Are the workers responsible for maintaining their own equipment? Finding their own supply and distribution chains? Running security for the operation?

How does this economic philosophy carry over to a modern world where people are more than just farmers and goods manufacturers?

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by Phoenix267

 

I believe in Socialism.

It can be implemented such that it doesn't equal everything all the detractors get all mouthy foamy and conspicuously over defensive about.

Okay so explain how "it can be implemented" so us "mouthy foamy and conspicuously over defensive" types can have a better understanding.

How would you implement Socialism amongst 300 million people? Would you just decree that their property is no longer their own, but rather the State's? What if people resist? I am honestly curious to hear how you would implement such.

seriously? You think that you "own" your property? Tell you what don't pay your property taxes and see what happens. Oh heck I'll tell you, the STATE takes it away. Wait that can't be though because that would never happen in a "free" country and would only happen in a socialist one like you claim right ? Socialism isn't a bout taking anything away from anybody, well maybe the extremely wealthy but screw them.
We also enjoy a number of social programs like police,fire, roads, libraries, and public schools. IMO democratic socialism with true capitalism is the final evolutionary step for government. I can't imagine anything better, that would work

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by DarthMuerte

 

That's one of the problems so many have developed in bias against a Provident Socialism.
Nothing needs be taken or forced on anyone.

Community incentives would work just fine, especially combined with restructuring the responsibilities, and accountability of leadership.

For instance, myself and several neighbors have community gardens on our respective properties.
We OWN our properties, yet, our gardens are freely available to everyone to share in cultivation and to take what's wanted or needed.
I can, on a whim, level my garden and put up a Zen rock garden for aesthetic purposes only if I wanted to as it's my property, but, what good does that do the community, my neighbors without gardens whom derive enjoyment and pleasure in the occasional attendance and fresh vegetables?

It fosters reciprocity and community incentive on mutual support toward general prosperity.

Public, city owned property could be managed similarly. People wouldn't need be required to cultivate gardens and contribute, but creating incentive for participation through such things as a % break on neighborhood owner's association dues and maintenance, city tax, and other such could create greater participation, all voluntary, and all at zero loss of private ownership.

It's a matter of community participation and mutual support in creating incentives for collectively beneficial social contracts where the overall community prospers as a result.

With private contributory gardening alone, nationwide as community incentives, we'd not have the demographics of hungry we currently have in the nation.

The problem with the current American culture is the inherent selfishness associated with it. An attitude of responsibility toward one's community and caring for its overall prosperity is an entirely foreign concept to most.

It gets boiled down to ME ME ME ME ME, and fear mongering over What is the government going to TAKE from ME ME ME ME now?

I mean, just listen to your own comment above about forcing small businesses to do ... whatever, forcing, taking, forcing, taking. It's such an entirely male aggressive rape-like attitude; take, force,take.

What are YOU doing for your community? With a community awareness toward fostering local providence, it doesn't take much by way of contributing to have a visible impact toward the greater prosperity of the whole.

edit on 27-3-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)

By the same token, socialism in production of agriculture or industrial would fall in output since there would be no incentive to do any more than the bare minimum. After all, expending effort beyond the 'mean' would be of no personal gain since it will still be distributed to all whether the did a lot or a little. After a while, very little would be done. When famines came, there would very likely be no reserves saved from bountiful times, as bountiful times would not be striven for.

I once had a colleague who was Chinese and had lived in China under communism. I asked him what it was like. He said it was a scam, and no different than the so called capitalist society we have here in the west. Its just a group of people, a small cabal, that uses "communism", or "capitalism" as a system of control to remain in power and further their power agenda. The ideology never works as advertised, its just cherry picked to keep the ruling cabal in power. I think this is the case with ANY governmental system, since government by definition, is one group governing another.

reply to post by openminded2011


You're correct. The Chinese government has transformed and the communist past is gone as you can see how the market reforms has transformed the country to a super power.

reply to post by exlibertateveritas


In your example of the "two types" of economic systems, I suggest the cronyism and corruption that marred the second form, communist Russia, is exactly what's marring the first model, the U.S.A., now.

I feel that a certain level of subsistence, comfort and education offered by the state, more than is currently offered now in the U.S. (more along the lines of certain successful European models) is only logical and decent. The extremes in class we are seeing now are appalling.

Humans weren't meant to fly...should we do away with our planes and jets? Should we never have invented them?

Yes socialism goes against our nature...at least our nature we've been conditioned too for the last 400+ years.

Capitalism is like a guilty pleasure we are all living out. It's the reason so many from other countries wish to immigrate here. This doesn't make capitalism benevolent, just enjoyable and catering to certain desires. The question is, should those desires be catered too, are they counter-productive to us as a species?

Compare America and our capitalism to the cool kids at school. You know, the kids who parents aren't as strict as everyone elses. Their parents allow them to drink, smoke, curse and party. Of course the other kids (who's parents are strict) will gravitate toward these rebel kids. THAT is human nature, we gravitate toward the negative.

Now apply this to countries and do you still feel the need to brag that, "everyone wants to immigrate too America"? Of course they do...we're the undisciplined, cool kids in this school called Earth.

Every other country curbs their childrens desires in order to make them better students and people. What will be the future for those cool children who are allowed to drink, smoke and party? It won't be as bright as the other kids who are disciplined is the answer. The "freedom" those cool kids have will manifest itself in nefarious ways also.

Our "freedom" in America comes with a extreme cost too. Just look at our society and where it is headed. Some will contribute this to "creeping socialism" but they aren't being honest. The path we're headed down is due to our "freedoms" and not curbing our lusts.

In all actuality, if we truly desire to advance we will need a type of totalitarian government. It's the only way we will get to that next step. The problem is finding the people to elect to that position and creating enough safety features to guarantee there won't be any misconduct and corruption. And yes this can be done, with something like a understanding that he/she/they will be publicly executed by the people.

Capitalism is a flawed system, no doubt. Yet, consumers at least have some input into what is produced via purchasing choices in the market place. Sure the product mix available is always limited, but at least the everyday consumer has a say. This is known as a 'trend'. Case in point: the move towards organic and the outcry against GMO, as a simple example. As consumers demand a specific product over substitutes, will be produced less and less, because MR decreases related to TC, when fewer people purchase said substitutes.

Socialism/Communism are not at all what they seem (they are nice on paper). Forget worker lead anarchy. Efficient economies of scale would never be established. Now I will say at some point quality suffers as economies of scale reach a certain point. What Socialist/Communist economic models really do is put decision making into hands known as central planning by committee. Yes, if we only produced one model of car, one pair of shoes, one type of home etc. we would reap massive benefits do to streamlined innovation and focused R&D, BUT unfortunately there is not ONE type of person in the world.

Free Markets are the closest model that would achieve what Socialism/Communism describe as worker lead anarchy. Capitalism does not incorporate true free markets in any fashion, just an illusion the free markets. See the writings Rothbard for further explanation of "anarchy based on free markets".

Originally posted by truthwilout
Communism/Socialism call it whatever you want. It continually fails throughout history because of the one thing you cannot change. Human Nature. Have we not learned this lesson yet??? You will always have those who want something for nothing, to be provided for without putting forth any effort. You will always have those who take, take, take, and the few who give for the joy of giving. Those in power who become corrupt by their power from public office. Nirvana, the perfect economic/political system, does not exist and will never exist due to Human Nature.

Unfortunately you are correct. Doesn't matter what political system you have if the people running it are corrupt power/money hungry individuals. Is why we need more average citizens in our political system. No more lawyers no more spoon in mouth ivy leaguers. We need scientists,teachers,doctors, philosophers, mixed with the everyday hard working individuals. I don't care if a person went to harvardiwant somebody who has lived in he real world,has dealt with real world problems, and knows how to solve problems. Not saying those ppl won't eventually become corrupt but is what we need

Originally posted by bjax9er
socialism is about power from the top. ABSOLUTE POWER.

Huh...no it isn't.

For the number of people that starred your post, ignorance runs deep on an internet site that should "deny ignorance".

I'm not saying that socialism is perfect but it seems that everyone that speaks against it always debate on aspects that aren't even part of socialism. It's like speaking against libraries by the amount of guns they carry.

People who don't understand socialism (read: most of the people in this thread who get really indignant when anyone even brings it up) love to parrot the fallacy that "socialism has always failed."

No. It hasn't. While pure socialism has never been attempted, at least on a large scale, the places it is being used right now are doing just fine. Very prosperous, actually. I realize a lot of Americans operate under the bias that the planet revolves around them, however Finland, Sweden, Canada, Denmark, and The Netherlands are doing just fine. Higher standard of living than we do, better education, healthcare for all. They're also freer than we are.

Snap out of it. You were lied to and programmed to work against your own and everyone else's economic interest. Except the interests of those who use their wealth and power to amass more wealth and power for themselves and their wealthy and powerful friends. Unless of course those in this thread are a member of that sect, and then I understand, obviously.

Socialism can only work if every participant is a willing volunteer. For this reason it can usually only work well in small groups. The moment it's imposed on an unwilling participant it's oppression.

The inherent problem with all forms of socialism is that someone has to run it. Someone has to adjudicate how things are "made fair" and that's a hell of a lot of control for individuals to give up and have faith in. We all know what happens when you give pretty much anyone too much control.

Any form of government, no matter how well intended, will ultimately fail or be oppressive if it requires giving up liberty to run.

Another thing that is baffling and amusing about these ATS socialism threads is there are always people like,

"Oh Yeah?! Well how would YOU implement socialism?" As if because some regular shmoe on ATS doesn't have a complete economic and transitionary government plan worked out it can't be done.

Socialism doesn't work in the real world. Because it gives too much power to the federal government to control the free market which will lead down the road to communism. Power corrupts, so government must always be limited and kelp in check.

Evil and power hungry people become politicians. Good people become doctors. So there are not enough good people in government to stop the corrupted, therefore, government has to be controlled by the people.

Now, if government was ran by Angels socialism may work, but not in a world where evil and good exist.

reply to post by Phoenix267



Even in case that government proclaim commmunism, there are the forces of reaction, who would make problems: Churches, Capitalists and Nobility (according to Lenin).
That's fictional, of course.

Marx said that move toward communism would be possible with growing of production forces. He thought that communist revolution would be possible in highly developed western countries, where workers' class is numbered, and well organised. But, that happened first in half-feudal Russia, in 1917.

The second one happened in Germany, 1919, but, it failed.

Than, it happened in Mongolia, in 1921.

The communism spread over the world during The WW2, and after that.

In 1986? one Soviet cruiser took a control over the whole South Jemen,

Originally posted by Malynn
Another thing that is baffling and amusing about these ATS socialism threads is there are always people like,

"Oh Yeah?! Well how would YOU implement socialism?" As if because some regular shmoe on ATS doesn't have a complete economic and transitionary government plan worked out it can't be done.

One would assume that if they belived in an economic and governmental system, that they would have thought through how to implement said system.

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by Phoenix267

 

I believe in Socialism.

It can be implemented such that it doesn't equal everything all the detractors get all mouthy foamy and conspicuously over defensive about.

S+F

Expect a ton of bricks to be dropping in with all that conspicuous overly defensive mouthy foamy ranting against Socialism soon.

ironically, second post in, we have our first example of "all mouthy foamy"


issues much