Society/Culture Can a purely socialist society exist?

[CM86]

In broad terms.

Is it possible to actually have a socialist society? How would it function?

As all we have ever known and lived within, is a mostly capitalist society. Even if many of the socialist aspects are the things we most take for granted.
Are we able to actually envisage what a purely socialist society would be?

We structure everything through our learned views, so is there a way for a purely socialist society to be established and explained in a way, that doesn't seem counter-intuitive based on how we currently live and survive?


In a purely socialist society, what happens to a person, persons or groups who try to undermine/destroy socialism?
What happens to people who try to implement capitalism, or push to introduce capitalism?

 

[spike101]

In broad terms.

Is it possible to actually have a socialist society? How would it function?

As all we have ever known and lived within, is a mostly capitalist society. Even if many of the socialist aspects are the things we most take for granted.
Are we able to actually envisage what a purely socialist society would be?

We structure everything through our learned views, so is there a way for a purely socialist society to be established and explained in a way, that doesn't seem counter-intuitive based on how we currently live and survive?


In a purely socialist society, what happens to a person, persons or groups who try to undermine/destroy socialism?
What happens to people who try to implement capitalism, or push to introduce capitalism?

Why would you want to live in a socialist society?

 

[Gethelred]

Why would you want to live in a socialist society?

Do you generally answer a series of questions with another question?

 

[Carringbush2010]

In broad terms.

Is it possible to actually have a socialist society? How would it function?

As all we have ever known and lived within, is a mostly capitalist society. Even if many of the socialist aspects are the things we most take for granted.
Are we able to actually envisage what a purely socialist society would be?

We structure everything through our learned views, so is there a way for a purely socialist society to be established and explained in a way, that doesn't seem counter-intuitive based on how we currently live and survive?


In a purely socialist society, what happens to a person, persons or groups who try to undermine/destroy socialism?
What happens to people who try to implement capitalism, or push to introduce capitalism?

Interesting question, we live in a liberal democracy, so I think you're more looking for how could we function as a social democracy rather than versus a capitalist society.

Capitalism is based in economic definitions rather than societal definitions, of course I'm not disputing there's overlap, capitalism in liberal democracies has decayed to the point where it's profiteering rather than competition in free markets, which is the envisioned spirit of capitalism.

And that's probably a result of free wheeling liberalism. I say this as a fanboi of liberal democracy, or more to the point a fan of democracy.

Personally the Nordic models of socialism seem to work very well, admittedly I'm no expert in social democracy, however I wouldn't view those societies as hard line socialist or for want of a better term 'controlling the public' - from the outside looking in I see liberalism for Jan and Joe public within those societies.

IMHO liberal democracies allow it's citizens to do as they please within the social elements within it, law and order for example. And personally I'd prefer more social elements in our own liberal democratic society.

This thread should make for interesting conversation.

 

[tricknologist]

I mean, it really depends on how one defines socialism. If socialism precludes the existence of free markets, then it will struggle to exist, if only due to the fact that socialist nations will never be able to outcompete free market economies. But if your vision of socialism is something more in line with social democracy, then not only can it exist but it can thrive as evidenced by the Nordic model.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

Are we talking about here on Planet Earth or are we talking about on another planet where there are no Humans?

 

[Malifice]

In a purely socialist society, what happens to a person, persons or groups who try to undermine/destroy socialism?
What happens to people who try to implement capitalism, or push to introduce capitalism?

You get shot at dawn or sent to the Gulags.

Same deal with a free press, human rights, freedom of movement, freedom of expression and any form of liberty. None of these things exist anymore.

All become subordinate to the State and the Party.

Marx was wrong. He imagined a Stateless society with everyone buying into some kind of utopia. People dont work like that, and Socialism requires a State to function.

You cant have socialism without a State enforcing (and running) the damn thing.

People keep ignoring the above though (and the countless historical examples of Socialist States turning into totalitarian tyrannical shitholes, every single time they get tried).

 

[Malifice]

I mean, it really depends on how one defines socialism.

Social ownership of the means of production (as opposed to private ownership).

Land, Labour and Capital (including capital goods, and infrastructure) are now owned by the State. Banks, finance, stock markets etc cease to exist.

In Scandinavia all of those things are in private hands. Calling the Danes, Norwegians and Swedes 'Socialist' is a furphy that really needs to stop.

 

[tricknologist]

In Scandinavia all of those things are in private hands. Calling the Danes, Norwegians and Swedes 'Socialist' is a furphy that really needs to ststop.

I agree with that (and the definition you provided for socialism), but for that reason I often don't know what people mean by "socialism" in these sorts of discussions because it always gets used in different ways and contexts (like neoliberalism).

 

[peetoo]

Marx is a hard read but didn’t he reckon it was just a stage on the progression to something else altogether?

We have lots of examples of failed socialist / communist states, but these are relatively few compared to the various failed societal systems throughout history

80s capitalism failure is coming home to roost in current times.

 

[Mofra]

I mean, it really depends on how one defines socialism. If socialism precludes the existence of free markets, then it will struggle to exist, if only due to the fact that socialist nations will never be able to outcompete free market economies. But if your vision of socialism is something more in line with social democracy, then not only can it exist but it can thrive as evidenced by the Nordic model.

I think you've noted the important part here - there's no singular agreed concept of 'socialism'.
Bernie Sanders is a self-avowed socialist, while serving as a politician in the most capitalist society on the planet.

Like different forms of capitalism, socialism is a spectrum. The Nordic models do have some attractive aspects to their framework

 

[peetoo]

Apparently socialist it one of the biggest insults you can say in Singapore……but look how much the state intrudes in everyone’s lives there. State owned capitalism

 

[IlovethePies]

Social ownership of the means of production (as opposed to private ownership).

Land, Labour and Capital (including capital goods, and infrastructure) are now owned by the State. Banks, finance, stock markets etc cease to exist.

In Scandinavia all of those things are in private hands. Calling the Danes, Norwegians and Swedes 'Socialist' is a furphy that really needs to stop.

What also needs to stop is any reference to Stalinist dictatorships as "socialist".
The Soviet Union, the former dictatorships in Eastern Europe, the Chinese communist Party, were/are Stalinist dictatorship that faslely usurped the name of socialism. They carried out horrible political and social crimes in the name of socialism, and today we still suffer from that legacy of historical and political confusion.

 

[Malifice]

What also needs to stop is any reference to Stalinist dictatorships as "socialist".
The Soviet Union, the former dictatorships in Eastern Europe, the Chinese communist Party, were/are Stalinist dictatorship that faslely usurped the name of socialism.

Mate, they were 100 percent Socialist. The means of production were owned and controlled by the State.

Which required a tyrannical State to exist.

A State that controls everything (Socialism) is a State that controls everything (a tyranny).

You're sitting here trying to tell me Marxist Leninism 'is not socialist'.

How much in denial can you possibly be?

 

[Malifice]

80s capitalism failure is coming home to roost in current times.

Did it fail though?

We have it better now than at any other time in human existence.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I think the ideal nation is one where the State owns every important national resource - water, power, banking, insurance, transport. Ideally the richest entity in the State should BE the State. It is the State's responsibility to look after its people, because without the people, the State is NOTHING.

There should be a regulated free market, with laws ensuring no private interest ever gouges the people like we see happening now.

There should be a human rights charter, and freedom of religion with the proviso that the State is, and will always remain, godless in its operation favouring no belief over any other no matter the demographics or the voting blocs.

There will always be democracy, but any political party must swear an oath to uphold he national constitution, human rights charter and any other bill of rights there happens to be. No party promising hate and division will ever hold office.

 

[Malifice]

I think the ideal nation is one where the State owns every important national resource - water, power, banking, insurance, transport.

One thing the Scandis do well and we do poorly is how they manage their natural resources. All State owned for the benefit of the people.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

One thing the Scandis do well and we do poorly is how they manage their natural resources. All State owned for the benefit of the people.

Too right!

https://www.nordicpolicycentre.org.au/norway_sovereign_wealth_fund

...A Norwegian style sovereign wealth fund could enable all Australians to benefit from Australia’s natural resources and help Australia manage the next resource boom.

Gas companies operating in Australia have high levels of foreign ownership with a large share of profits going offshore. These companies also contribute little tax. In contrast, Norway has been taxing the profits of its oil and gas industry at 78% since the 1990s, building the world's largest sovereign wealth fund.

Norway’s approach to natural resource management is premised on common ownership using revenues from the resource sector to ensure long-term stability and security for all. According to Jens Stoltenberg, former Prime Minister of Norway:

“The natural resources in the ground, that’s something we own in common. It’s not private ownership...”

 

[Malifice]

Too right!

Imagine if Australia had a sovereign wealth fund like that?

Instead Palmer and Rhineheart get it all.

 

[peetoo]

Did it fail though?

We have it better now than at any other time in human existence.

2000 was peak. In the couple of crisis since, we’ve all ‘pulled together’ but the wealth gap significantly increased both times

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Imagine if Australia had a sovereign wealth fund like that?

Instead Palmer and Rhineheart get it all.

I know. It's bloody disgusting.

 

[peetoo]

Imagine if Australia had a sovereign wealth fund like that?

Instead Palmer and Rhineheart get it all.

We do have our super funds, warts and all.

 

[FruitTingles]

At what scale? As a a set of smaller communities that don’t get too large I think it can. But the problem at the moment is the economic theory behind it doesn’t work well

 

[peetoo]

At what scale? As a a set of smaller communities that don’t get too large I think it can. But the problem at the moment is the economic theory behind it doesn’t work well

Biggest problem with capitalism is central banks and interest rate policy.

Richer areas economies overheat while poorer areas economise are only just getting going.

Interest rate sledgehammers stops them dead. And the policy gets less localised as time goes on. Reserve banks looking at other countries reserve banks for a lead

 

[IlovethePies]

Mate, they were 100 percent Socialist. The means of production were owned and controlled by the State.

Which required a tyrannical State to exist.

A State that controls everything (Socialism) is a State that controls everything (a tyranny).

You're sitting here trying to tell me Marxist Leninism 'is not socialist'.

How much in denial can you possibly be?

No they were not socialist, they were Stalinist. They were based on the anti-Marxist program of " building socialism in one country,".

Lenin and Trotsky were genuine Marxists/socialists. The Russian Revolution led by the Bolshevik party was based on the perspective of permanent revolution...the genuine socialists understood that socialism represents the next phase of human development and will only be established after the working class seizes political power in every nation, and capitalism is abolished everywhere. Socialism means a world planned economy. It has not yet been achieved in human history.

Now quite literally, mankind confronts only one of two alternatives: socialism or barbarism.


In 1924, Stalin put forward the program of "socialism in one country", which articulated the social interests of a burgeoning bureaucracy within the Soviet union which no longer viewed its material privileges as tied to world socialist revolution but rather to the continued existence of the isolated nation state that was the USSR.

Trotsky at this time began his struggle against Stalinism, initially as the leader of the Left Opposition.

In 1936 Trotsky published his masterpiece, 'The Revolution Betrayed' in which he predicted that unless the Soviet working class could overthrow the bureaucracy in a political revolution, the bureaucracy would ultimately restore capitalism, and the Soviet workers would pay a catastrophic price in terms of a collapse in living standards and material security. This is precisely what occurred in 1991.