Can Socialism ever work?

[Salad_Baby]

I didn't actually know there was a 'political scene' on VT, so when I found out I thought I'd jump right in! I'll attempt to get to know the 'regulars' through this post..

Anyway, ever since I discovered what socialism, marxism and communism were during my schooling years I was practically hooked onto their shared principles. The idea that human beings, plagued by greed, exploitation and discrimination could live in a homogeneous society where citizens were treated equally and distributed capital as to make all lives better struck a certain chord in my heart. "Down with religion and petty idols", I thought, "and rise the people of the world!" . I pondered for a while as to why not everyone shared this view, surely it is the most practical and fair system the human race could adopt?

But then reality hit. I came to think about whether, in essence, socialism can ever truly work. I thought this due to how us as humans work as a collective species - we are driven, by instinct, to protect ourselves and those around us whilst, in the extreme, disregarding those around us in favour of the benefit of those who will, in turn, benefit ourselves. The idea that an entire human race could collectively throw down their evolutionary traits and adaptations to disregard themselves and put others before them seemed ludicrous. Human beings will always put themselves before others, no matter how caring you claim to be.

Just look at the most classic example of socialism in practice - the USSR. The USSR was formed out of the mind of Lenin as to push a truly socialist nation, under the premise that the Tsar had been exploiting the working people for too long. However - the needs of Lenin and his political peers couldn't be vanquished. Lenin introduced War Communism and the NEP as to benefit the government, the latter of which actually tended away from the principles of socialism, as to stop the threat of the civil war or an uprising. Stalin continued this with Collectivization and the FYPs, both of which were introduced purely out of Stalin's necessity to modernise a severely backward state on the brink of potential war - not for the socialist ideas.

Thoughts? Could include more thoughts but I'm tired.

[Vlerchan]

I'll attempt to get to know the 'regulars' through this post..
Stepping right up.

The idea that human beings, plagued by greed, exploitation and discrimination could live in a homogeneous society where citizens were treated equally and distributed capital as to make all lives better struck a certain chord in my heart.
Just for reference that's not what Marxism necessitates.
Marxism itself is a means of analysing socio-economic events.
Socialism is a political ideal that seeks to bring the means of production under social control. This can involve state ownership - social ownership - co-operative ownership - amongst other organisational models - or a mix thereof.
Communism then is a political ideal that seeks to being the means of production under common control and in the process abolish the state.
None necessitate formal equivalence.

I'm just mentioning this here because there will come a stage in this thread where people will get confused and accuse me of shifting definitions or something.

I pondered for a while as to why not everyone shared this view, surely it is the most practical and fair system the human race could adopt?

I'm going to spend the rest of this response seeming like I want to defend socialism so I'll outline the reason I oppose it [central planning] here:

It's mechanisms with regards to the allocation of desires is inefficient in that it for a large part restricts choice.

If we take a look at the Soviet Union we also find that it's growth was built on increasing the depth of capital as opposed to making increasingly efficient uses of inputs. That's just not sustainable - and it wasn't. Since increasing capital depth also isn't too feasible in post-industrialised economies it's difficult to envision it working regardless.

Is growth the be-all: end-all? No. But at the moment I don't see an issue with maxing out our productive potential. Esp. in poorer regions.

It's historical penchant for unrestrained politico-economic centralisation also doesn't bode well with me.

I thought this due to how us as humans work as a collective species - we are driven, by instinct, to protect ourselves and those around us whilst, in the extreme, disregarding those around us in favour of the benefit of those who will, in turn, benefit ourselves.
I see no empirical evidence to support the idea of an innate self-centredness.

But regardless if we set up out socialist societies with the intention of fostering a sense of interconnectiveness then that point seems mute.

The USSR was formed out of the mind of Lenin as to push a truly socialist nation
I forget what term Lenin used to describe the USSR but he never referred to it as a successful socialist state. Far as Lenin was concerned socialist states couldn't exist.

Lenin introduced War Communism and the NEP as to benefit the government, the latter of which actually tended away from the principles of socialism, as to stop the threat of the civil war or an uprising.
The former was introduced in war-time where strict control of resources were required.

The latter was introduced to deal with the specific characteristics of the USSR. The orthodox opinion within Marxism was that socialism couldn't rise out of feudalism or semi-feudalism. Lenin introduced capitalist reforms in order to develop productive relations and proletarise the masses. It was something that also received quite an amount of opposition and was disbanded with the rise of the Stalinist faction.

alin continued this with Collectivization and the FYPs, both of which were introduced purely out of Stalin's necessity to modernise a severely backward state on the brink of potential war - not for the socialist ideas.
Yes: for socialist ideals. Stalin was pursuing the idea of socialism in one country. He intended to build the USSR up into a strong state as to better aid in the securing of a socialist future for the world's people.

---

I'll include sources and stuff on request.

That - and welcome! We could do with more regular's here.

[SkyClad33605]

It seems to work pretty well in most of Europe right now.

[mattsmith48]

unlike Communism and capitalism, Socialism actually works every where its in place

[phuckphace]

like most things socialism can work ideally in a small homogeneous society of shared values (you know, the complete opposite of 20th-century Russia) so I'm still left needing a better reason than "lol stalin" why it can't work in the right conditions.

every other socialist ever will tell you that nationalism and socialism are incompatible which is p.silly considering that properly executed (not literally) nationalist polices can form the stable foundation needed for socialism to work. the Red crew doesn't define socialism.

[Tris]

I'm more for meritocracy, where people are selected on the basis of their ability.

If one were to be a minister of defence, they would have to have some considerable knowledge in the area of the military and areas related to defense. Just like a minister of education could only be given that position if they were teachers or worked somewhere else in the education field.

These are some of the qualities of Meritocracy listed by the Meritocracy Party in Britain:

1. A world in which every child gets an equal chance to succeed in life.
2. The abolishment of party politics.
3. Only those with a relevant education and work experience should be allowed to vote, rather than just anyone who has reached the age of 18 or 21.
4. The introduction of 100% Inheritance Tax, so that the super-rich elite can no longer pass on their wealth to a select few (their privileged children) rather than the Commonwealth this inheritance tax would mean the end of the elite dynasties, and abolish hereditary monarchy.
5. A radically reformed educational system, based on the MBTI personality types, and insights from radical innovators such as Rudolf Steiner and Maria Montessori.
6. To replace free market capitalism with social capitalism and to replace democracy with a fully transparent meritocratic republic, under a meritocratic constitution.
7. The end of nepotism, cronyism, discrimination, privilege and unequal chances.



Posts merged. Next time, please use the "edit" button. -Alluring

[Stronk Serb]

It seems to work pretty well in most of Europe right now.

Lol, wut? First of all that is not socialism. Those are several socialist policies implemented and a lot of them hinder their countries because they are abused.

[phuckphace]

European "socialism" consists mostly of elites importing thousands of fighting-age foreign males to offset the 15% unemployment rate caused by their very own neoliberal policies. here's a free healthcare bone to chew on, and pay no attention to the Somalian next door with 9 children.

it's the kind of shit you can't make up.

[Salad_Baby]

Yes: for socialist ideals. Stalin was pursuing the idea of socialism in one country. He intended to build the USSR up into a strong state as to better aid in the securing of a socialist future for the world's people.


I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. It could be said the true essence of the mentioned reforms and acts are 'socialist' in nature, but I don't believe they were introduced by Stalin as to push for an eventually fully-socialist state/world. In my opinion, these economic acts were simply introduced under the veneer of promoting socialism, but were in fact introduced as to bring the USSR out of a, frankly, feudalism-based and backward thinking society which inhibited the nation from being able to compete with its western neighbours. Additionally, Stalin's process of dekulakization, which he again advertised and justified under the impression that the Kulaks were anti-revolutionaries and were against the socialist agenda that Lenin had thought so hard for, was just a manipulation and demonstration of the power Stalin controlled as to eliminate those who opposed the economic progression he desired - not as to create a more 'cohesive' and equal society that a socialist regime would hope for.

Thanks for the thoughtful response btw :D

[phuckphace]

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. It could be said the true essence of the mentioned reforms and acts are 'socialist' in nature, but I don't believe they were introduced by Stalin as to push for an eventually fully-socialist state/world. In my opinion, these economic acts were simply introduced under the veneer of promoting socialism, but were in fact introduced as to bring the USSR out of a, frankly, feudalism-based and backward thinking society which inhibited the nation from being able to compete with its western neighbours. Additionally, Stalin's process of dekulakization, which he again advertised and justified under the impression that the Kulaks were anti-revolutionaries and were against the socialist agenda that Lenin had thought so hard for, was just a manipulation and demonstration of the power Stalin controlled as to eliminate those who opposed the economic progression he desired - not as to create a more 'cohesive' and equal society that a socialist regime would hope for.

wait, so, Stalin wasn't a real socialist, therefore socialism can't work?

just making sure I'm receiving your point correctly before I continue.

[Salad_Baby]

wait, so, Stalin wasn't a real socialist, therefore socialism can't work?

just making sure I'm receiving your point correctly before I continue.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I was merely elaborating on the reason why, I believe, Stalin truly introduced the reforms he did. I didn't make a connection between Stalin being a bad socialist and the idea that socialism can't work.

[Miserabilia]

First of all you seem to be confusing communism as socialism while communism is in a way an extreme form of socialism though.

Since socialism can vary from very mildly socialist to north korea levels, yes ofcourse it can work; it just depends on how it's done and in what extent.

[Salad_Baby]

First of all you seem to be confusing communism as socialism while communism is in a way an extreme form of socialism though.

Since socialism can vary from very mildly socialist to north korea levels, yes ofcourse it can work; it just depends on how it's done and in what extent.

I do understand the difference, I was just referring to them collectively as leftist-beliefs for the sake of simplicity. I believe my argument still applies to each of the different political beliefs I mentioned.

[Vlerchan]

It could be said the true essence of the mentioned reforms and acts are 'socialist' in nature, but I don't believe they were introduced by Stalin as to push for an eventually fully-socialist state/world. In my opinion, these economic acts were simply introduced under the veneer of promoting socialism, but were in fact introduced as to bring the USSR out of a, frankly, feudalism-based and backward thinking society which inhibited the nation from being able to compete with its western neighbours.
I don't understand why you believe these aims are mutually exclusive.

The expressed aim of Socialism In One Country was to build up the USSR so it could compete with capitalist nations and liberate the proletariat from their reach. It could have been done with less bloodshed and lots of Marxists agree with that whilst still siding with the general aim of economic development.

It is debatable whether Socialism in the Marxian sense can exist in one country, definitionally. Trotsky, and other advocates of Permanent Revolution, would have said no.

Additionally, Stalin's process of dekulakization, which he again advertised and justified under the impression that the Kulaks were anti-revolutionaries and were against the socialist agenda that Lenin had thought so hard for, was just a manipulation and demonstration of the power Stalin controlled as to eliminate those who opposed the economic progression he desired - not as to create a more 'cohesive' and equal society that a socialist regime would hope for.
To Stalinists the elimination of the upper-class farmers (Kulaks) would have equalised the USSR through the flattening of class distinctions and made the USSR more cohesive through the elimination of class-conflict. I would imagine there's some amount of truth to that claim though since Stalin lumped in the peasants that otherwise disagreed with him with the Kulaks.