Society/Culture Can a purely socialist society exist?

[kranky al]

No, I'm not.

We're talking about a purely socialist society here. See the thread title.

The State own and control most (if not all) the means of production. Private property ownership is severely curtailed (if it's allowed at all).

To do the above, the State requires oppressive and all-encompassing legislation and powers. Powers to stop you from doing things, owning things, forming groups with like-minded people etc.

Leaving aside the invariable tyrannical nature of such a State (and we Liberals have been warning everyone for centuries about what happens when a State has too much power) there is the unavoidable fact that as you increase the amount of 'Socialism' your Nation becomes more stagnant, innovation is stifled, and personal liberty is curtailed.

When you get all the way to full blown Communism, you wind up with... well look around at literally every Communist nation that has actually existed ever. You can see what you wind up with.

Conversely, every single time a Communist/ Socialist State has gone the other way and wound back Socialist practices and laws (Vietnam, China, East Germany, Poland, much of the former USSR) its economy (and the quality of life for its people) drastically improve.

You can literally see the difference with East Germany vs West Germany, China v Hong Kong/ Taiwan, North v South Korea and other examples.

Same country, same people, same starting economies side by side. In every example the Capitalist versions produced better outcomes (economic development, personal freedoms, Human development, purchasing power, etc) for the people of the Capitalist countries over the Socialist versions, and it wasn't even close,

Socialism doesn't work. Marx is right up there with Freud as a great thinker who is often cited (and looked on with a level of reverence) but his theorems (like those of Freud) have been widely debunked and falsified with time.



Explain what happened with Workchoices then.

Landslide election victory, Government booted from office, now the Coalition are too scared to even say the 'W' word in public.

Corporations might have the money, but we have the vote, and Politicians answer to us, not the Corporations.

Ok let me attack this from a different angle.

What do you see as the difference between socialism and communism?


Here’s what dictionary.com has to say:

Socialism is a social theory. It theorizes that a collective cooperation of citizens will make all governmental institutions public. For example, no one will receive a healthcare bill when going to the doctor because they, and everyone else, have paid a hefty amount in government taxes. That’s where the collective cooperation comes in.

What is communism?​

Communism, on the other hand, is a branch of socialism. It’s similar in that it’s still founded on the idea of collective cooperation, but differs in that communists believe that cooperation should be run by a totalitarian government made up of one and only one government.

 

[Malifice]

Ok let me attack this from a different angle.

What do you see as the difference between socialism and communism?


Here’s what dictionary.com has to say:

Socialism is a social theory. It theorizes that a collective cooperation of citizens will make all governmental institutions public. For example, no one will receive a healthcare bill when going to the doctor because they, and everyone else, have paid a hefty amount in government taxes. That’s where the collective cooperation comes in.

What is communism?​

Communism, on the other hand, is a branch of socialism. It’s similar in that it’s still founded on the idea of collective cooperation, but differs in that communists believe that cooperation should be run by a totalitarian government made up of one and only one government.

From your own link:

Socialism has three main meanings:

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

https://www.dictionary.com/e/socialism-vs-communism/

The State own (or control) the means of production and distribution of capital and land.

Government owned and controlled. Not in private hands. If those things are in private hands, and are being run or owned for profit in competition with other private citizens (and groups of citizens, arranged in a Corporation), that's not Socialism, that's Capitalism.

 

[kranky al]

From your own link:



https://www.dictionary.com/e/socialism-vs-communism/

The State own (or control) the means of production and distribution of capital and land.

Government owned and controlled. Not in private hands. If those things are in private hands, and are being run or owned for profit in competition with other private citizens (and groups of citizens, arranged in a Corporation), that's not Socialism, that's Capitalism.

I think you really misunderstand.

In the community as a whole doesn’t mean the state owns it. It means the workers own it. Workers Co- ops for instance. Early socialist movements encouraged worker coops to buy shares in the companies they worked in so they had both a voice in what went on and a vested interest in the company doing well.

There’s a difference between socialism and communism - of course it’s blurred and argued about. Socialism is a broad church that runs from Swedish style democratic socialism to more austere versions - just like capitalism can have various forms.

But communism is an extreme thats so far to the left it’s got its own designation.

 

[Malifice]

I think you really misunderstand.

In the community as a whole doesn’t mean the state owns it. It means the workers own it. Workers Co- ops for instance.

Which is something you can do right now, here, in the USA and in every other liberal capitalist nation.

Early socialist movements encouraged worker coops to buy shares in the companies they worked in so they had both a voice in what went on and a vested interest in the company doing well.

Again, there is nothing stopping you owning shares in the place you work under liberal capitalism.

We just don't have a State forcing this system on anyone.

There’s a difference between socialism and communism - of course it’s blurred and argued about.

Communism is just 100 percent Socialism. Socialism taken the full monty.

Seeing as this thread is about a 'purely socialist' society (which is effectively indistinguishable from Communism at that point), it's much of the muchness.

I'm not saying liberal capitalism is perfect by the way. In a way it's like democracy, an imperfect system with flaws, but the best one we have to live under.

 

[kranky al]

From your own link:



https://www.dictionary.com/e/socialism-vs-communism/

The State own (or control) the means of production and distribution of capital and land.

Government owned and controlled. Not in private hands. If those things are in private hands, and are being run or owned for profit in competition with other private citizens (and groups of citizens, arranged in a Corporation), that's not Socialism, that's Capitalism.

It’s right there in the link

<<<

What is socialism?​

Socialism has three main meanings:
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Socialism is a social theory … makes sense. It theorizes that a collective cooperation of citizens will make all governmental institutions public. For example, no one will receive a healthcare bill when going to the doctor because they, and everyone else, have paid a hefty amount in government taxes. That’s where the collective cooperation comes in.

What is communism?​

Communism, on the other hand, is a branch of socialism. It’s similar in that it’s still founded on the idea of collective cooperation, but differs in that communists believe that cooperation should be run by a totalitarian government made up of one and only one government.>>>

You are essentially arguing that there is no difference.

 

[Malifice]

It’s right there in the link

OK, explain to me how a 'purely socialist society' can exist without State interference (regulation, bans, prohibitions etc).

Let's assume you and I live in this 'purely socialist' society, and I (and my mates) want to create our own company, for profit, hiring people, who we will pay a salary to. The company (and myself and my mates) will own property (including real property, and intellectual property such as trademarks and so forth).

In a purely socialist society, the above would not be allowed right? I'd be forced (by the State) into collective ownership of both the company, and its property. Profit wouldn't go to me (and my mates), it would go to the collective.

Do you agree?

 

[btdg]

OK, explain to me how a 'purely socialist society' can exist without State interference (regulation, bans, prohibitions etc).

Let's assume you and I live in this 'purely socialist' society, and I (and my mates) want to create our own company, for profit, hiring people, who we will pay a salary to. The company (and myself and my mates) will own property (including real property, and intellectual property such as trademarks and so forth).

In a purely socialist society, the above would not be allowed right? I'd be forced (by the State) into collective ownership of both the company, and its property. Profit wouldn't go to me (and my mates), it would go to the collective.

Do you agree?

I think the error here is in assuming that a 'purely socialist society' can exist without almost everything else about society changing as well.

We can't just slap down a socialist system tomorrow... rather it has to emerge, either gradually (with moderation progression made over time) or radically (out of a crisis - revolution, or a natural disaster etc) - the many varied and different socialist philosophers can all give different perspectives on that.

But I would assume that by the time we reach a 'purely socialist society' everything about society is different, including your perspectives, and the scenario changes too. In this case, I imagine it is more realistic to say something like:

"I and my mates recognise that our skills and talents could be utilised in a more fulfilling way if we started our own productive enterprise. We formed a new worker's collective, inviting fellow citizens to join with full ownership rights, and with everyone receiving both a living wage and share of the profits, while paying an appropriate level of taxation to support the vital services and infrastructure that supports our vibrant society. Our enterprise purchased suitable productive resources (which we will maintain sustainably, and relinquish when we can no longer use them efficiently) and made use of technology shared freely under an open source model, and having identified improvements to the productive process, we freely shared these so that others could benefit from our advancements"

Of course to get to that point requires radical changes in:

• the nature and relations of production; including the way that individuals organise themselves and participate in 'work'
• the way taxes are used, levied, and understood
• the legal system -> which evolves from something that aims to protect private property, to something that aims to provide equity and justice for all
• The way we view ourselves in relation to others - not in some sort of contest to extract as much as possible before others beat us to it, but as part of a community/network in which we all have a vested interest in seeing others thrive just as much as we are

That's a vastly different... everything... which is sort of the point. But without recognising that, it is easy to look and think 'well how does any of this happen without state violence...'

But go back to what predates capitalism and apply the same sentence: "I (and my mates) want to create our own company, for profit, hiring people, who we will pay a salary to. The company (and myself and my mates) will own property (including real property, and intellectual property such as trademarks and so forth)."

Under the Feudal system, almost nothing in that sentence makes sense. There's no such thing as a company, for starters. Individuals don't have the right to start a business for profit. Work isn't arranged by 'hiring people, who we pay a salary to' - work is organised through a complex system of social relationships and ties. There's no 'ownership of property'; it's all provided by the grace of the King, and again tied to complex relationships and dues. There's certainly no 'intellectual property, such as trademarks', whatever that means...

And again, that's the point... capitalism changed everything; and a 'purely socialist' society could only be described in a way that requires a complete leap in thought from where we are today. The one difference, I think, is that in the modern world there has always been a much bigger emphasis on the 'what if...' way of thinking (which capitalism kind of requires... see you example about starting a business) and thus we are far more conditioned today to think about a different world than your typical medieval peasant (and thus capitalism sows the seeds of its own destruction on something along those lines...)

 

[Malifice]

"I and my mates recognise that our skills and talents could be utilised in a more fulfilling way if we started our own productive enterprise. We formed a new worker's collective, inviting fellow citizens to join with full ownership rights, and with everyone receiving both a living wage and share of the profits, while paying an appropriate level of taxation to support the vital services and infrastructure that supports our vibrant society. Our enterprise purchased suitable productive resources (which we will maintain sustainably, and relinquish when we can no longer use them efficiently) and made use of technology shared freely under an open source model, and having identified improvements to the productive process, we freely shared these so that others could benefit from our advancements"

You can literally do the above right now. There is nothing stopping you.

My opposition is to the State telling people they must do it that way. I prefer the current model of 'do it how you want to, for profit or as a collective, it's up to you'.

As a side note, with the current freedom to do things either way (as a collective, or for profit) people generally don't run things as collectives and overwhelmingly run businesses for profit.

Which should answer your question about the odds of the majority of people in society suddenly shifting to desiring altruistic socialism absent any State compulsion.

It's not going to happen. Humans don't operate like that.

But go back to what predates capitalism and apply the same sentence: "I (and my mates) want to create our own company, for profit, hiring people, who we will pay a salary to. The company (and myself and my mates) will own property (including real property, and intellectual property such as trademarks and so forth)."

Under the Feudal system, almost nothing in that sentence makes sense. There's no such thing as a company, for starters. Individuals don't have the right to start a business for profit. Work isn't arranged by 'hiring people, who we pay a salary to' - work is organised through a complex system of social relationships and ties. There's no 'ownership of property'; it's all provided by the grace of the King, and again tied to complex relationships and dues. There's certainly no 'intellectual property, such as trademarks', whatever that means...

Under the Feudal system, people were literally forced to work in communes based around the local Lords manor as Serfs and were forbidden from owning any property themselves (all property was owned by the King/ Barons/ Lords/ Knights in that order, and also by the Church).

So it was basically medieval Communism. The only difference being Feudalism contains an express hierarchy (Serf to Lord, to Baron to King etc) whereas Communism purports to abolish hierarchies (which of course, it never does with Party members becoming the new Lords pulling all the strings and wielding all the power, and the Party leader usually ruling as a dictator with vast powers).

It's no co-incidence that at least 1 Communist movement (the Khmer Rouge) sought to implement that exact system by murdering anyone with a high school education (literally millions of people) and seeking to turn the entire nation of Cambodia into an agrarian feudal society.

I'm a leftie. In that space I frequently associate with Socialists and Communists. I shake my head at them every time. It's not only never worked, but in the places it has actually been implemented (in literally scores of nations) it invariably (invariably) descends into a stagnant tyranny that only starts to improve when the market gets liberalized (Vietnam, Ukraine, Poland, China etc) and the Socialist measures get wound back.

If it was just that it didnt work that would be bad enough, but it also leads to a tyranny that is worse than what was present before.

Hard pass.

 

[barreness]

The minimum wage is a creature of Legislation; Corporations don't control that. They also don't control Unions.

They can throw money around, but ultimately Workers have more votes.



Quite the opposite. Profiteering (shifting manufacturing to 'third world former Socialist countries' like Vietnam etc) has actually resulted in the standards of living for literally billions of people drastically improving.

Look at every single former Socialist nation, that has now embraced capitalism. You'll see a sudden and dramatic spike in standard of living, and a booming middle class.

Quality of life improves under (liberal) capitalism. It stagnates under Socialism.




I agree more should be done to stop tax havens existing, and to ensure everyone pays a fair amount of tax.

The reality of globalization and competition means that it's a hard thing to pin down. Treaties would go a long way to fix it, but no-one wants that because large Corporations (like Amazon) generate trillions of dollars of economic activity in the places where they operate (making life better for everyone that lives in those places).

Tax them harder, and that economic activity slows down making life worse for everyone. There are fewer jobs, more competition for the jobs that do exist, which leads to lower wages and so on.

Low corporate tax rates actually has a net positive impact for workers.

Of course, the Companies themselves then want to pay CEO's tens of millions per annum, and that's what needs to be stopped.

Almost all former soviet countries suffered a catastrophic loss of quality of life and a decade or more in the doldrums, similar with Yugoslavia. Shock doctrine was not kind to any of them

 

[Seeds]

There is no difference between purely socialism and communism.

Workers owning capital rather then the government simply means the workers are capitalists. Just like equity owners are today. Thus such a system is not purely socialist cos it involves capitalist elements.

 

[Malifice]

Almost all former soviet countries suffered a catastrophic loss of quality of life and a decade or more in the doldrums, similar with Yugoslavia. Shock doctrine was not kind to any of them

Poland (Polish Peoples Republic dissolved in '89 following USSR perestroika in'88):



Vietnam (In 1986 Vietnam launched the 'Doi Moi' campaign that switched the economy from a centrally planned socialst one, to a free market economy):



Germany (and again, notice the spike in Eastern Germany following perestroika in 1989 and the end of socialism in the East. notice also the marked difference in the economies of West v East, under capitalism and socialism respectively leading up to that point):



Socialist China vs Capitalist Taiwan (note the changes in China following free market economic reforms in the late 20th century):



North Korea vs South Korea:



I could go on, and on, and on.

The data is in. The evidence is overwhelming.

While liberal capitalism is not perfect (poverty at one end, and excess at the other) for the majority in the middle, the standard of living is far superior to socialism, and the freedoms that go along with it (including the freedom to start a non for profit Co-Op and live in a commune, if that's what you want to do) are simply unsurpassed.

I know I rail on about this a lot, but it still surprises me that people other than 1st year Uni students with (unironic) Che Guevara shirts and a copy of the Manifesto at home next to their bongs actually think Socialism is a good thing.

Well intentioned, but terrible in actual practice.

 

[barreness]

Lies and statistics right

Poland (Polish Peoples Republic dissolved in '89 following USSR perestroika in'88):

View attachment 2153614

Poland yeh, was one of the worst run communists states, thats why the shock doctrine dip is so low. Go through every SSR or former Yugoslav state and the main trend is a massive loss in quality of life for a decade or more

.
Vietnam (In 1986 Vietnam launched the 'Doi Moi' campaign that switched the economy from a centrally planned socialst one, to a free market economy):

View attachment 2153616

Still a marxist leninist state to this day, so your point is moot. A market reform in a communist state is no more a capitalist move than single payer health care is socialism in a capitalist state

Germany (and again, notice the spike in Eastern Germany following perestroika in 1989 and the end of socialism in the East. notice also the marked difference in the economies of West v East, under capitalism and socialism respectively leading up to that point):

View attachment 2153619

GDP per capita is no measure of inequality within a state, it's a crude measure. It doesn't reflect a workers standard of living

Socialist China vs Capitalist Taiwan (note the changes in China following free market economic reforms in the late 20th century):

View attachment 2153621

So you don't think China lifted 100's of millions out of poverty? I'm sure you were a fan of the brutal dictatorship of taiwan

North Korea vs South Korea:

View attachment 2153626

Again, another former dictatorship that you're a big fan off. You need PPP for this measure because NK was above SK by almost every metric until the fall of the USSR and the famines hit(sanctions/climate/poor management all had an effect)

I could go on, and on, and on.

The data is in. The evidence is overwhelming.

Nah, you're using one metric, GDP per capita(sometimes PPP and sometimes 'real' figures). No one sane would suggest this reflects the quality of life of an average individual in a society.

There is no one measure that can do this, you could add inequality measures(gini) or medium ppp income to get a better idea

Then throw in these days when we need to be de industrialising and talking about sufficiency rather than growth

While liberal capitalism is not perfect (poverty at one end, and excess at the other) for the majority in the middle, the standard of living is far superior to socialism, and the freedoms that go along with it (including the freedom to start a non for profit Co-Op and live in a commune, if that's what you want to do) are simply unsurpassed.

I agree, "Capitalism is both the best thing that ever happened to humanity and the worst thing"*

*I stole this from somewhere and google isn't being helpful


It's currently the hegemonic politico economic ideology that is killing the biosphere. I consider suicide cults a bad thing so I'm willing to explore more options, there would be no reason to repeat the mistakes of any state

I know I rail on about this a lot, but it still surprises me that people other than 1st year Uni students with (unironic) Che Guevara shirts and a copy of the Manifesto at home next to their bongs actually think Socialism is a good thing.

It's quite simple. The profit and growth model central to capitalism will kill the earth, its an infinite model in a finite reality.

You're a lawyer right? Almost every agrees that it's a Byzantine practice that serves itself far more than anything else. Yet you still do it? why?

Well intentioned, but terrible in actual practice.

It's a mode of production, that comes with politics(as they all do). If all the mistakes of capitalism were added up you'd surely say the same thing, or is it ideological?

 

[kranky al]

OK, explain to me how a 'purely socialist society' can exist without State interference (regulation, bans, prohibitions etc).

Let's assume you and I live in this 'purely socialist' society, and I (and my mates) want to create our own company, for profit, hiring people, who we will pay a salary to. The company (and myself and my mates) will own property (including real property, and intellectual property such as trademarks and so forth).

In a purely socialist society, the above would not be allowed right? I'd be forced (by the State) into collective ownership of both the company, and its property. Profit wouldn't go to me (and my mates), it would go to the collective.

Do you agree?

OK, explain to me how a 'purely socialist society' can exist without State interference (regulation, bans, prohibitions etc).

Let's assume you and I live in this 'purely socialist' society, and I (and my mates) want to create our own company, for profit, hiring people, who we will pay a salary to. The company (and myself and my mates) will own property (including real property, and intellectual property such as trademarks and so forth).

In a purely socialist society, the above would not be allowed right? I'd be forced (by the State) into collective ownership of both the company, and its property. Profit wouldn't go to me (and my mates), it would go to the collective.

Do you agree?

A state run fire service is socialism
A state run medical system is socialism
A state run military is socialism
A state run emergency service is socialism


If you want to start your own business and pay people to work for you that’s fine, what you won’t be able to do is pay off politicians to keep an artificially low minimum wage so you can make more profit.

What you won’t be able to do is pay politicians to engage in aggressive anti - union policies.

You won’t be able to use zero hour contracts

You won’t be able to keep full time employees as casual with no benefits.

If your company goes public you will be encouraged to have part of your remuneration to employees be in the form of shares whether that be as individuals or as a collective employees group. This means you will have employees with a vested interest in your company doing well.

You will be competing with other companies that are entirely owned by workers collectives for available talent. Chances are if you are paying your ceo 351 times what your average worker gets, as is the case in 2020* - you aren’t going to be able to afford to pay your lower end people what they would earn at a collectively owned business. This means you will get a lower grade of employeee.

* source: https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2020/#:~:text=CEO pay has skyrocketed 1,322% since 1978 CEOs,not simply reflect the market for skills


Basically it returns us to your average workers conditions in the 60’s and early 70’s - or you know, the Nordic countries now….

Where families with a low income could afford to buy a house.