CDZ What is socialism?

[shintao]

If you go too far in either political direction, you end up in a situation in which most or all of the political power lies only in a few hands. The just state must strike a balance between power held by each individual, and power held by society collectively. "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition."

In the European political spectrum where you have fascism at one end, and communism at the other, yes that is the case. Not in the American spectrum though where one end is dang near anarchy and the other absolute tyranny.

But where do you stand as far as is socialism good of many vs good of few? And whether or not you like that set up?

I always saw socialism as encompassing the whole, it is good for all.

 

[320 Years of History]

If you go too far in either political direction, you end up in a situation in which most or all of the political power lies only in a few hands. The just state must strike a balance between power held by each individual, and power held by society collectively. "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition."

In the European political spectrum where you have fascism at one end, and communism at the other, yes that is the case. Not in the American spectrum though where one end is dang near anarchy and the other absolute tyranny.

But where do you stand as far as is socialism good of many vs good of few? And whether or not you like that set up?

I always saw socialism as encompassing the whole, it is good for all.

My personal viewpoint is that while socialist economics is good for many people in a society, perhaps even most people, it's less than good for the outliers who find themselves one standard deviation or more on the right hand side of most curves...individual creativity, personal intellect, individual physical ability, and a few others.

I also think that most highly successful folks, in a handful of dimensions, probably sit close to and on either side of the second standard deviation from average, and that they do has been the key to their achievement. In populations the size of the U.S.' or larger, sure, that's a lot of people, but proportionally, of course, it's not a lot of folks. For example, Einstein in physics and intellectual acuity, Mariah Carey in vocal ability (or maybe her former vocal ability), Michael Jordan and Walt Chamberlain with basketball, Warren Buffett and finance, and so on.

Now the thing is that all those folks can and would likely "get on" just fine under any economic system; however, one cannot deny that socialism to some extent disincentivizes many, but not all, people with exceptional abilities from fully exploiting their ability. Now the question isn't whether that's a bad thing for them, it isn't whether they can get by well without the incentives of capitalism, but rather it is whether the rest of us -- depending on what our own particular strengths are -- can get on equally well when those outliers are not spurred to perform at their maximum as we do when they are thus motivated.

I don't think I have "the" answer to that question, but I am certain that my answer is that I don't care to see my country go so far into the socialist realm that I experientially find out. Now if this discussion is somehow pertaining to Mr. Sanders' policy ideas, well, I don't think they are so far into democratic socialism that we're at risk of that, but I certainly would eschew going further into it -- that is, far enough that it'd only be rightly called socialism rather than democratic socialism -- than that for which Mr. Sanders has advocated during his Presidential campaign.

P.S./Edit:
Don't anyone reply to me with some sort of "slippery slope" line. I'm not going to respond to that foolishness.

 

[sakinago]

If you go too far in either political direction, you end up in a situation in which most or all of the political power lies only in a few hands. The just state must strike a balance between power held by each individual, and power held by society collectively. "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition."

In the European political spectrum where you have fascism at one end, and communism at the other, yes that is the case. Not in the American spectrum though where one end is dang near anarchy and the other absolute tyranny.

But where do you stand as far as is socialism good of many vs good of few? And whether or not you like that set up?

I always saw socialism as encompassing the whole, it is good for all.

My personal viewpoint is that while socialist economics is good for many people in a society, perhaps even most people, it's less than good for the outliers who find themselves one standard deviation or more on the right hand side of most curves...individual creativity, personal intellect, individual physical ability, and a few others.

I also think that most highly successful folks, in a handful of dimensions, probably sit close to and on either side of the second standard deviation from average, and that they do has been the key to their achievement. In populations the size of the U.S.' or larger, sure, that's a lot of people, but proportionally, of course, it's not a lot of folks. For example, Einstein in physics and intellectual acuity, Mariah Carey in vocal ability (or maybe her former vocal ability), Michael Jordan and Walt Chamberlain with basketball, Warren Buffett and finance, and so on.

Now the thing is that all those folks can and would likely "get on" just fine under any economic system; however, one cannot deny that socialism to some extent disincentivizes many, but not all, people with exceptional abilities from fully exploiting their ability. Now the question isn't whether that's a bad thing for them, it isn't whether they can get by well without the incentives of capitalism, but rather it is whether the rest of us -- depending on what our own particular strengths are -- can get on equally well when those outliers are not spurred to perform at their maximum as we do when they are thus motivated.

I don't think I have "the" answer to that question, but I am certain that my answer is that I don't care to see my country go so far into the socialist realm that I experientially find out. Now if this discussion is somehow pertaining to Mr. Sanders' policy ideas, well, I don't think they are so far into democratic socialism that we're at risk of that, but I certainly would eschew going further into it -- that is, far enough that it'd only be rightly called socialism rather than democratic socialism -- than that for which Mr. Sanders has advocated during his Presidential campaign.

P.S./Edit:
Don't anyone reply to me with some sort of "slippery slope" line. I'm not going to respond to that foolishness.

Very good answer. And yes slippery slope can be used as a logical fallacy, and often is. But there is a truth to it, after all, ordinary people like you and me descended into nazi germany, and it's important to understand why and how that happened. And simply saying that we are better than nazi Germany and that would never happen is not good enough (don't read this as me saying Mr sanders will usher in a new nazi era, not at all). As a matter of fact I think the similarities to Trump and hitlers rise to power are very worrisome. But, what I'm saying is, I worry about extra power being given to a government who, while perhaps at the time has our best interest in mind, I don't think that lasts long. And when economical, social, or war time turmoils hit a country (which they eventually will, by fault of the government or not) people will want a strong man to do whatever it takes to fix things, whether right or wrong, usually wrong. And with the extra power given to those governors, it's much easier for them to make decisions based on the consequences, or the end justifies the means. And what usually happens in socialist countries is that the governments slowly keep syphoning power to themselves, and not always with bad intentions. And they gain more and more control, and when the economic turmoil hits the fan, or whatever the new problem is, bad decisions get made, and usually not with the peoples interest in mind, but the governments interest.

Edit: now the slippery slope can also be used when it comes to capitalism, people make money, start to get comfortable, start to become complacent, business men get greedy, make morally wrong decisions in search of that extra buck, co-opt politicians to help each other out, because the people are complacent they get away with it for a while, so on and so forth. Much of what we see today. I think it's easier in a constitutional republic to combat that, where those powers are guarded against. It's very hard for people in power to give up that power when it comes time to.

 

[sakinago]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

If done right, there's no need for socialism.

and really, that's the most ignorant definition of it I have ever seen.

b/c that strictly means you take others people labor from them and give them to someone that doesn't work to feed himself b/c he needs to eat as well.


wait


that's the best definition ever

Is the Stock Market Socialist when a stockholder takes a workers profits? Is a right to work scab, socialist when he takes from Union Workers?

BTW, you can't do Capitalism right, it always fails.

Why does it fail, is it because it just does?

And are you ignoring the good that capitalism brings? It brought us mass production, affordable luxuries such as cars, PCs, smartphones, single family homes, medical advancements, safety, delicious food, hygienic care etc. Capitalism is a system where to make money you have to provide a desirable service or product to people, at a value they deem worthy. Not saying there can't be flaws, I feel like your demonizing a system unfairly.

 

[cnm]

Yes but who decides common cause and what is it based on?

Will it help if 'ownership' replaces 'cause'?

 

[cnm]

Just to be clear, I think a mix of 'socialism' and 'capitalism' is essential for a civilised nation.

 

[Fishlore]

I agree with Tony, describing socialism, or any economic system, is complicated at best, and would take far more time than any of us have in this venue. So, if one wanted to obtain a good understanding, visit your local library, or take a few college courses. However, I think that Winston Churchill was a pretty smart guy (I would hope most people would agree) and here is one thing he had to say on the topic:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
I don't know about anyone else, but I think that sums it up as well as anyone has.

It doesn't sum up socialism, it merely calls it names. Churchill, born in Blenheim Palace and raised to a life of alcoholic privilege in and out of various political parties with Trump-like frequency, was never a student of economics, and his social policies were restricted to ordering the army to fire upon striking coal miners. I wouldn't go to him to learn about socialism.

Sometimes, one can gain insight into a term by examining its opposite. The opposite of "socialism" is "individualism". The "social" in "socialism" means "society." The opposite of the society is the individual. The various economic policies and political arrangements employed to implement socialism are many, varied and complex. As you point out, so general a topic is beyond the scope of this thread.

I would suggest that pretty much everyone agrees to the general idea that humans are social animals, that each of us exists in the context of a family and our family with the context of a society, at least for most of our individual lives.

Where to draw the line between the individual and the larger society tends to be a key distinguishing feature of issues in socialism.

Best answer yet, thank you. But there is a variable that I think you are missing. That variable is human nature. Human nature that makes us want to defer authority to other humans with the same flaws we have. Humans that want to control, and stamp out what we don't like. Humans overall are good to each other, but if we've learned anything from milgrams experiments on submission to authority, most of us obey orders that are morally wrong. Humans will also do things morally wrong, crazy, and questionable just to fit in with what we perceive is the social norm. How do we then protect ourselves from these moral blind spots we've seen time and time again throughout history?

The classic answer comes from Plato, "There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands."

The Enlightenment answer was democracy with a faith not unlike Adam Smith's faith in the Invisible Hand of the Market, that an invisible hand of the people, what Rousseau called the General Will, would create a social consensus based on the common understanding of the good.

When the Industrial Revolution seemed to show that democracy by itself wasn't up to the job, Marx and Engels added the requirment of economic equality to political democracy and modern socialism as a political philosophy was born.

If we have learned anything since Marx it is that government is an essential incredient. The state cannot "wither away" under the beneficent glare of equality as Marx and his disciples thought, it must remain central and activist in maintaining both equality and democracy. The socialism which dominates political economic thought in advanced democracies is one which constantly adjusts laws of all sorts in order to sustain and advance democracy and social justice.

This constant adjustment and tinkering is now accepted as the best system we can get in this imperfect world and the original vision of a climactic revolution that would bring about permanently stable social institutions seems now as naive as the faith of those Millerites who stood clad in white garments on hillsides of America in the 1840s, confidently expecting the end of the world at dawn

Plato's solution was platos republic. And while the idea of a beneficent philosopher king, or a beneficent philosopher oligarchy is nice...how long will they remain beneficent? Is there something to the saying of absolute power corrupted absolutely? I find it strange that there are those who view our current system as an oligarchy of the powerful businessmen, want to shift to an oligarchy of powerful politicians and expect better results. How much does the centralized power care about those who live on the ends of the "social bell curve".

And there is a significant difference between democracy and a constitutional republic. And what Kant was referring to was not democracy. Nor was democracy the main subject matter in his piece in what is enlightenment. But the bad in the industrial revolution was not the result of capitalism run amok, much of it was the result of cronyism, which is the stifling out of alternatives usually with the aid of government or others in power positions, banks and etc. That being said it's still undeniable that much of our technical progress today can be attributed to the industrial revolution. Yes there were many things wrong with the industrial revolution, but many of those problems were addressed by offering better alternatives, and not all with the help of government. Don't confuse that as me saying that there's no room for regulation, but that regulations should be judged by a set of principles as opposed to whatever the current interests are at the time.

Plato's solution is, I agree, purely theoretical. He didn't say it was about to happen or how to bring it about.

 

[anotherlife]

What is socialism? Socialism is when a couple of wise guys get hold of every asset, take it all away from you, then make you thank for it.

 

[320 Years of History]

This post is dedicated to folks who like short explanations of things​

Political, business and economic systems and their adherents and applications in terms of two cows:​

Socialism
You have two cows. You keep one and give one to your neighbor.

Communism
You have two cows. The government takes them both and provides you with milk.

Fascism
You have two cows. The government takes them and sells you the milk.

Bureaucracy
You have two cows. The government takes them both, shoots one, milks the other, pays you for the milk, and then pours it down the drain.

Capitalism
You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

Corporate
You have two cows. You sell one, force the other to produce the milk of four cows and then act surprised when it drops dead.

Democracy
You have two cows. The government taxes you to the point that you must sell them both in order to support a man in a foreign country who has only one cow which was a gift from your government.

A CHRISTIAN:
You have two cows. You keep one and give one to your neighbor.

A REPUBLICAN:
You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So what?

A DEMOCRAT:
You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being successful. You vote people into office who tax your cows, forcing you to sell one to raise money to pay the tax. The people you voted for then take the tax money and buy a cow and give it to your neighbor. You feel righteous.

A FASCIST:
You have two cows. The government seizes both and sells you the milk. You join the underground and start a campaign of sabotage.

DEMOCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE:
You have two cows. The government taxes you to the point you have to sell both to support a man in a foreign country who has only one cow, which was a gift from your government.

CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE:
You have two cows. You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.

BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE:
You have two cows. The government takes them both, shoots one, milks the other, pays you for the milk, then pours the milk down the drain.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when the cow drops dead.

A FRENCH CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.

A GERMAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You reengineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows but you don't know where they are. You break for lunch.

A RUSSIAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 12 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

A MEXICAN CORPORATION:
You think you have two cows, but you don't know what a cow looks like. You take a nap.

A SWISS CORPORATION:
You have 5000 cows, none of which belong to you. You charge for storing them for others.

A BRAZILIAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You enter into a partnership with an American corporation. Soon you have 1000 cows and the American corporation declares bankruptcy.

A TALIBAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You turn them loose in the Afghan "countryside" and they both die. You blame the godless American infidels and the Jews.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You worship them.

 

[sakinago]

I agree with Tony, describing socialism, or any economic system, is complicated at best, and would take far more time than any of us have in this venue. So, if one wanted to obtain a good understanding, visit your local library, or take a few college courses. However, I think that Winston Churchill was a pretty smart guy (I would hope most people would agree) and here is one thing he had to say on the topic:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
I don't know about anyone else, but I think that sums it up as well as anyone has.

It doesn't sum up socialism, it merely calls it names. Churchill, born in Blenheim Palace and raised to a life of alcoholic privilege in and out of various political parties with Trump-like frequency, was never a student of economics, and his social policies were restricted to ordering the army to fire upon striking coal miners. I wouldn't go to him to learn about socialism.

Sometimes, one can gain insight into a term by examining its opposite. The opposite of "socialism" is "individualism". The "social" in "socialism" means "society." The opposite of the society is the individual. The various economic policies and political arrangements employed to implement socialism are many, varied and complex. As you point out, so general a topic is beyond the scope of this thread.

I would suggest that pretty much everyone agrees to the general idea that humans are social animals, that each of us exists in the context of a family and our family with the context of a society, at least for most of our individual lives.

Where to draw the line between the individual and the larger society tends to be a key distinguishing feature of issues in socialism.

Best answer yet, thank you. But there is a variable that I think you are missing. That variable is human nature. Human nature that makes us want to defer authority to other humans with the same flaws we have. Humans that want to control, and stamp out what we don't like. Humans overall are good to each other, but if we've learned anything from milgrams experiments on submission to authority, most of us obey orders that are morally wrong. Humans will also do things morally wrong, crazy, and questionable just to fit in with what we perceive is the social norm. How do we then protect ourselves from these moral blind spots we've seen time and time again throughout history?

The classic answer comes from Plato, "There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands."

The Enlightenment answer was democracy with a faith not unlike Adam Smith's faith in the Invisible Hand of the Market, that an invisible hand of the people, what Rousseau called the General Will, would create a social consensus based on the common understanding of the good.

When the Industrial Revolution seemed to show that democracy by itself wasn't up to the job, Marx and Engels added the requirment of economic equality to political democracy and modern socialism as a political philosophy was born.

If we have learned anything since Marx it is that government is an essential incredient. The state cannot "wither away" under the beneficent glare of equality as Marx and his disciples thought, it must remain central and activist in maintaining both equality and democracy. The socialism which dominates political economic thought in advanced democracies is one which constantly adjusts laws of all sorts in order to sustain and advance democracy and social justice.

This constant adjustment and tinkering is now accepted as the best system we can get in this imperfect world and the original vision of a climactic revolution that would bring about permanently stable social institutions seems now as naive as the faith of those Millerites who stood clad in white garments on hillsides of America in the 1840s, confidently expecting the end of the world at dawn

Plato's solution was platos republic. And while the idea of a beneficent philosopher king, or a beneficent philosopher oligarchy is nice...how long will they remain beneficent? Is there something to the saying of absolute power corrupted absolutely? I find it strange that there are those who view our current system as an oligarchy of the powerful businessmen, want to shift to an oligarchy of powerful politicians and expect better results. How much does the centralized power care about those who live on the ends of the "social bell curve".

And there is a significant difference between democracy and a constitutional republic. And what Kant was referring to was not democracy. Nor was democracy the main subject matter in his piece in what is enlightenment. But the bad in the industrial revolution was not the result of capitalism run amok, much of it was the result of cronyism, which is the stifling out of alternatives usually with the aid of government or others in power positions, banks and etc. That being said it's still undeniable that much of our technical progress today can be attributed to the industrial revolution. Yes there were many things wrong with the industrial revolution, but many of those problems were addressed by offering better alternatives, and not all with the help of government. Don't confuse that as me saying that there's no room for regulation, but that regulations should be judged by a set of principles as opposed to whatever the current interests are at the time.

Plato's solution is, I agree, purely theoretical. He didn't say it was about to happen or how to bring it about.

Yes it was, I still disagree with it. I don't want my life, and what to do with it to be dictated by a class who considers themselves the "philosopher kings". There's a hubris into thinking that the few have all of the answers for us.

 

[Flopper]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

Socialism done right would solve most of our problems but socialism will not be done right because we are human. We strive to have more than our fellow man and want to keep it. That is human nature. However, some degree of socialism is needed in society because what happens to others effects us all in one way or another.

The question should not be whether we need socialism but rather how much.

 

[320 Years of History]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

Socialism done right would solve most of our problems but socialism will not be done right because we are human. We strive to have more than our fellow man and want to keep it. That is human nature. However, some degree of socialism is needed in society because what happens to others effects us all in one way or another.

The question should not be whether we need socialism but rather how much.

You have the key point right, IMO: human nature, specifically the avarice concomitant of it, is the reason a number of systems don't work more closely to their ideal conception than they do.

• Want more than the other guy and want to keep it --> capitalism
• Want enough and don't care about having more than enough --> socialism

Greed is the undoing of both those systems, but the way in which it does so differs.

 

[Fishlore]

It doesn't sum up socialism, it merely calls it names. Churchill, born in Blenheim Palace and raised to a life of alcoholic privilege in and out of various political parties with Trump-like frequency, was never a student of economics, and his social policies were restricted to ordering the army to fire upon striking coal miners. I wouldn't go to him to learn about socialism.

Sometimes, one can gain insight into a term by examining its opposite. The opposite of "socialism" is "individualism". The "social" in "socialism" means "society." The opposite of the society is the individual. The various economic policies and political arrangements employed to implement socialism are many, varied and complex. As you point out, so general a topic is beyond the scope of this thread.

I would suggest that pretty much everyone agrees to the general idea that humans are social animals, that each of us exists in the context of a family and our family with the context of a society, at least for most of our individual lives.

Where to draw the line between the individual and the larger society tends to be a key distinguishing feature of issues in socialism.

Best answer yet, thank you. But there is a variable that I think you are missing. That variable is human nature. Human nature that makes us want to defer authority to other humans with the same flaws we have. Humans that want to control, and stamp out what we don't like. Humans overall are good to each other, but if we've learned anything from milgrams experiments on submission to authority, most of us obey orders that are morally wrong. Humans will also do things morally wrong, crazy, and questionable just to fit in with what we perceive is the social norm. How do we then protect ourselves from these moral blind spots we've seen time and time again throughout history?

The classic answer comes from Plato, "There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands."

The Enlightenment answer was democracy with a faith not unlike Adam Smith's faith in the Invisible Hand of the Market, that an invisible hand of the people, what Rousseau called the General Will, would create a social consensus based on the common understanding of the good.

When the Industrial Revolution seemed to show that democracy by itself wasn't up to the job, Marx and Engels added the requirment of economic equality to political democracy and modern socialism as a political philosophy was born.

If we have learned anything since Marx it is that government is an essential incredient. The state cannot "wither away" under the beneficent glare of equality as Marx and his disciples thought, it must remain central and activist in maintaining both equality and democracy. The socialism which dominates political economic thought in advanced democracies is one which constantly adjusts laws of all sorts in order to sustain and advance democracy and social justice.

This constant adjustment and tinkering is now accepted as the best system we can get in this imperfect world and the original vision of a climactic revolution that would bring about permanently stable social institutions seems now as naive as the faith of those Millerites who stood clad in white garments on hillsides of America in the 1840s, confidently expecting the end of the world at dawn

Plato's solution was platos republic. And while the idea of a beneficent philosopher king, or a beneficent philosopher oligarchy is nice...how long will they remain beneficent? Is there something to the saying of absolute power corrupted absolutely? I find it strange that there are those who view our current system as an oligarchy of the powerful businessmen, want to shift to an oligarchy of powerful politicians and expect better results. How much does the centralized power care about those who live on the ends of the "social bell curve".

And there is a significant difference between democracy and a constitutional republic. And what Kant was referring to was not democracy. Nor was democracy the main subject matter in his piece in what is enlightenment. But the bad in the industrial revolution was not the result of capitalism run amok, much of it was the result of cronyism, which is the stifling out of alternatives usually with the aid of government or others in power positions, banks and etc. That being said it's still undeniable that much of our technical progress today can be attributed to the industrial revolution. Yes there were many things wrong with the industrial revolution, but many of those problems were addressed by offering better alternatives, and not all with the help of government. Don't confuse that as me saying that there's no room for regulation, but that regulations should be judged by a set of principles as opposed to whatever the current interests are at the time.

Plato's solution is, I agree, purely theoretical. He didn't say it was about to happen or how to bring it about.

Yes it was, I still disagree with it. I don't want my life, and what to do with it to be dictated by a class who considers themselves the "philosopher kings". There's a hubris into thinking that the few have all of the answers for us.

I think you are taking my reference to Plato a bit out of context. I cited his famous idea not because I think socialism or the platonic republic are my ideals but because you asked how government can prevent and remove the evil which some people bring into society. Plato's observation merely says, it can't, at least not under the circumstances in which we live.

Democracy was introduced in the American Constitution out of the belief that, as a practical matter, ratification by the majority was the best method of preventing government by the evil or the insane. The system isn't fool-proof, as the twentiety century demonstrated with bloody ferocity. The majority may be persuaded to evil or madness

Socialsts think that electoral democracy is, by itself, not sufficient. "Democracy is the path to socialism," said Karl Marx. Democracy points the ship in the right direction but glaring inequality leads to class conflict and social instability which destroy democracy. It is not enough to set up a system in which the vote of one genius is equal to the vote of one fool, the society itself must provide a necessary foundation of social justice for the democratic process to work successfully.

 

[Two Thumbs]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

If done right, there's no need for socialism.

and really, that's the most ignorant definition of it I have ever seen.

b/c that strictly means you take others people labor from them and give them to someone that doesn't work to feed himself b/c he needs to eat as well.


wait


that's the best definition ever

Is the Stock Market Socialist when a stockholder takes a workers profits? Is a right to work scab, socialist when he takes from Union Workers?

BTW, you can't do Capitalism right, it always fails.

you're questions are based on idiocy and false premise.

workers don't profit, they get paid.
An American seeking work that gets a job can't take from the union worker.

Capitalism never fails as it will self fix b/c it wants to do so.

 

[Flopper]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

Socialism done right would solve most of our problems but socialism will not be done right because we are human. We strive to have more than our fellow man and want to keep it. That is human nature. However, some degree of socialism is needed in society because what happens to others effects us all in one way or another.

The question should not be whether we need socialism but rather how much.

You have the key point right, IMO: human nature, specifically the avarice concomitant of it, is the reason a number of systems don't work more closely to their ideal conception than they do.

• Want more than the other guy and want to keep it --> capitalism
• Want enough and don't care about having more than enough --> socialism

Greed is the undoing of both those systems, but the way in which it does so differs.

I've always though it strange that people would argue against any form of socialism because it's as inevitable as sunrise and sunset. Civilization began with despotism where only the strongest survived. As civilizations grew, leadership became vested in governments that saw their function more in terms of service. With disappearing frontiers, urbanization, education, growth of population, people became aware that problems in one segment of society created problems in other segments. Disease, poverty, crime in slums effected the rich, the poor, and the growing middle class. By the 19th century in both Europe and America government was providing more services for the people. Life saving medical care for the indigent was becoming common as was public education, and other services available to all. In the 20th century, those services expanded as did the wealth of nations.

With a near exponential growth in technology, strong economic growth among the most wealthy, and a growing global middle class, those that are left behind will be demanding a larger piece of the pie and they will get it. There're several factors that support this conclusion. First, we are placing a much higher value on human life and not just life but the quality of life. Second, the media exposes social problems as never before and argues strongly for social equality. Lastly, only government can provide the services. We have long passed the point where charitable organization can meet the demand.

 

[sakinago]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

Socialism done right would solve most of our problems but socialism will not be done right because we are human. We strive to have more than our fellow man and want to keep it. That is human nature. However, some degree of socialism is needed in society because what happens to others effects us all in one way or another.

The question should not be whether we need socialism but rather how much.

You have the key point right, IMO: human nature, specifically the avarice concomitant of it, is the reason a number of systems don't work more closely to their ideal conception than they do.

• Want more than the other guy and want to keep it --> capitalism
• Want enough and don't care about having more than enough --> socialism

Greed is the undoing of both those systems, but the way in which it does so differs.

I think there is another factor besides greed not being said. That factor is power, power in the sense you can tip the scales in your favor. In capitalism this should not happen, and is one of the main things to guard against . In socialism those scales are already being tipped by nature. In respects to capitalism and socialism, this creates a manufactured and false sense of supply and demand.

It also depends on your definition of greed. Is greed simply wanting more than what you have? If that's the case, I don't see anything wrong with that. Or is greed doing something morally wrong or unfair to obtain more? If that's your definition, then yes it is wrong.

 

[sakinago]

Best answer yet, thank you. But there is a variable that I think you are missing. That variable is human nature. Human nature that makes us want to defer authority to other humans with the same flaws we have. Humans that want to control, and stamp out what we don't like. Humans overall are good to each other, but if we've learned anything from milgrams experiments on submission to authority, most of us obey orders that are morally wrong. Humans will also do things morally wrong, crazy, and questionable just to fit in with what we perceive is the social norm. How do we then protect ourselves from these moral blind spots we've seen time and time again throughout history?

The classic answer comes from Plato, "There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands."

The Enlightenment answer was democracy with a faith not unlike Adam Smith's faith in the Invisible Hand of the Market, that an invisible hand of the people, what Rousseau called the General Will, would create a social consensus based on the common understanding of the good.

When the Industrial Revolution seemed to show that democracy by itself wasn't up to the job, Marx and Engels added the requirment of economic equality to political democracy and modern socialism as a political philosophy was born.

If we have learned anything since Marx it is that government is an essential incredient. The state cannot "wither away" under the beneficent glare of equality as Marx and his disciples thought, it must remain central and activist in maintaining both equality and democracy. The socialism which dominates political economic thought in advanced democracies is one which constantly adjusts laws of all sorts in order to sustain and advance democracy and social justice.

This constant adjustment and tinkering is now accepted as the best system we can get in this imperfect world and the original vision of a climactic revolution that would bring about permanently stable social institutions seems now as naive as the faith of those Millerites who stood clad in white garments on hillsides of America in the 1840s, confidently expecting the end of the world at dawn

Plato's solution was platos republic. And while the idea of a beneficent philosopher king, or a beneficent philosopher oligarchy is nice...how long will they remain beneficent? Is there something to the saying of absolute power corrupted absolutely? I find it strange that there are those who view our current system as an oligarchy of the powerful businessmen, want to shift to an oligarchy of powerful politicians and expect better results. How much does the centralized power care about those who live on the ends of the "social bell curve".

And there is a significant difference between democracy and a constitutional republic. And what Kant was referring to was not democracy. Nor was democracy the main subject matter in his piece in what is enlightenment. But the bad in the industrial revolution was not the result of capitalism run amok, much of it was the result of cronyism, which is the stifling out of alternatives usually with the aid of government or others in power positions, banks and etc. That being said it's still undeniable that much of our technical progress today can be attributed to the industrial revolution. Yes there were many things wrong with the industrial revolution, but many of those problems were addressed by offering better alternatives, and not all with the help of government. Don't confuse that as me saying that there's no room for regulation, but that regulations should be judged by a set of principles as opposed to whatever the current interests are at the time.

Plato's solution is, I agree, purely theoretical. He didn't say it was about to happen or how to bring it about.

Yes it was, I still disagree with it. I don't want my life, and what to do with it to be dictated by a class who considers themselves the "philosopher kings". There's a hubris into thinking that the few have all of the answers for us.

I think you are taking my reference to Plato a bit out of context. I cited his famous idea not because I think socialism or the platonic republic are my ideals but because you asked how government can prevent and remove the evil which some people bring into society. Plato's observation merely says, it can't, at least not under the circumstances in which we live.

Democracy was introduced in the American Constitution out of the belief that, as a practical matter, ratification by the majority was the best method of preventing government by the evil or the insane. The system isn't fool-proof, as the twentiety century demonstrated with bloody ferocity. The majority may be persuaded to evil or madness

Socialsts think that electoral democracy is, by itself, not sufficient. "Democracy is the path to socialism," said Karl Marx. Democracy points the ship in the right direction but glaring inequality leads to class conflict and social instability which destroy democracy. It is not enough to set up a system in which the vote of one genius is equal to the vote of one fool, the society itself must provide a necessary foundation of social justice for the democratic process to work successfully.

Again there is a big difference between democracy and a constitutional republic. Democracy in a sense is mob rule, or two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. A constitutional republic sets up a system where no one, not even the highest official can take away your unalienable rights. That government can only operate in these perimeters, and in those perimeters you elect someone at your local, and state, and federal levels. Those in New York cannot have a say in how those in Kansas should live, all while within the limited perimeters of government. The problem today is that government on local, state, and especially federal level has been overstepping their boundaries for a long time. And it's given more power to traditional democracy, where people can vote away the things they see that they do not like, even when it's overstepping the governments power. Even worse those with lots of money are lobbying for laws to tip the scales in their favor, overstepping the government boundaries.

 

[sakinago]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

Socialism done right would solve most of our problems but socialism will not be done right because we are human. We strive to have more than our fellow man and want to keep it. That is human nature. However, some degree of socialism is needed in society because what happens to others effects us all in one way or another.

The question should not be whether we need socialism but rather how much.

You have the key point right, IMO: human nature, specifically the avarice concomitant of it, is the reason a number of systems don't work more closely to their ideal conception than they do.

• Want more than the other guy and want to keep it --> capitalism
• Want enough and don't care about having more than enough --> socialism

Greed is the undoing of both those systems, but the way in which it does so differs.

I've always though it strange that people would argue against any form of socialism because it's as inevitable as sunrise and sunset. Civilization began with despotism where only the strongest survived. As civilizations grew, leadership became vested in governments that saw their function more in terms of service. With disappearing frontiers, urbanization, education, growth of population, people became aware that problems in one segment of society created problems in other segments. Disease, poverty, crime in slums effected the rich, the poor, and the growing middle class. By the 19th century in both Europe and America government was providing more services for the people. Life saving medical care for the indigent was becoming common as was public education, and other services available to all. In the 20th century, those services expanded as did the wealth of nations.

With a near exponential growth in technology, strong economic growth among the most wealthy, and a growing global middle class, those that are left behind will be demanding a larger piece of the pie and they will get it. There're several factors that support this conclusion. First, we are placing a much higher value on human life and not just life but the quality of life. Second, the media exposes social problems as never before and argues strongly for social equality. Lastly, only government can provide the services. We have long passed the point where charitable organization can meet the demand.

I don't think the question is binary in nature, socialism or no socialism. I think the question is do we need more of it, or do we need less. Will more solve our problems, or create new ones? Will less solve our problems or create new ones? Again it comes down to my OP, what is socialism, and does it bring our desired solutions

 

[anotherlife]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

Socialism done right would solve most of our problems but socialism will not be done right because we are human. We strive to have more than our fellow man and want to keep it. That is human nature. However, some degree of socialism is needed in society because what happens to others effects us all in one way or another.

The question should not be whether we need socialism but rather how much.

You have the key point right, IMO: human nature, specifically the avarice concomitant of it, is the reason a number of systems don't work more closely to their ideal conception than they do.

• Want more than the other guy and want to keep it --> capitalism
• Want enough and don't care about having more than enough --> socialism

Greed is the undoing of both those systems, but the way in which it does so differs.

I've always though it strange that people would argue against any form of socialism because it's as inevitable as sunrise and sunset. Civilization began with despotism where only the strongest survived. As civilizations grew, leadership became vested in governments that saw their function more in terms of service. With disappearing frontiers, urbanization, education, growth of population, people became aware that problems in one segment of society created problems in other segments. Disease, poverty, crime in slums effected the rich, the poor, and the growing middle class. By the 19th century in both Europe and America government was providing more services for the people. Life saving medical care for the indigent was becoming common as was public education, and other services available to all. In the 20th century, those services expanded as did the wealth of nations.

With a near exponential growth in technology, strong economic growth among the most wealthy, and a growing global middle class, those that are left behind will be demanding a larger piece of the pie and they will get it. There're several factors that support this conclusion. First, we are placing a much higher value on human life and not just life but the quality of life. Second, the media exposes social problems as never before and argues strongly for social equality. Lastly, only government can provide the services. We have long passed the point where charitable organization can meet the demand.

I don't think the question is binary in nature, socialism or no socialism. I think the question is do we need more of it, or do we need less. Will more solve our problems, or create new ones? Will less solve our problems or create new ones? Again it comes down to my OP, what is socialism, and does it bring our desired solutions

However evil socialism has proven itself to be, in the near future, when every work is replaced by automation, socialism is the only available theory to provide for human life without the opportunity to work.

 

[320 Years of History]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

Socialism done right would solve most of our problems but socialism will not be done right because we are human. We strive to have more than our fellow man and want to keep it. That is human nature. However, some degree of socialism is needed in society because what happens to others effects us all in one way or another.

The question should not be whether we need socialism but rather how much.

You have the key point right, IMO: human nature, specifically the avarice concomitant of it, is the reason a number of systems don't work more closely to their ideal conception than they do.

• Want more than the other guy and want to keep it --> capitalism
• Want enough and don't care about having more than enough --> socialism

Greed is the undoing of both those systems, but the way in which it does so differs.

I think there is another factor besides greed not being said. That factor is power, power in the sense you can tip the scales in your favor. In capitalism this should not happen, and is one of the main things to guard against . In socialism those scales are already being tipped by nature. In respects to capitalism and socialism, this creates a manufactured and false sense of supply and demand.

It also depends on your definition of greed. Is greed simply wanting more than what you have? If that's the case, I don't see anything wrong with that. Or is greed doing something morally wrong or unfair to obtain more? If that's your definition, then yes it is wrong.

Avarice is more than merely wanting additional "whatever." It's the combination of (1) wanting more than is necessary to sustain oneself and those for whom one is responsible, (2) acting to get it, (3) obtaining it, (4) refusing to share that thing with others, especially in the face of their palpable and observed desperate need for it, and (5) treating/viewing the whole matter of wanting, obtaining and keeping hold of those things as a zero-sum matter. It is, then, both the act of wanting "whatever" and the attitudes/thoughts one adopts in obtaining and retaining that which one wants.

I realize that many people want a simple, perhaps binary, way of determining in advance and in the abstract what deeds and thoughts are and are not greedy, unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. I don't think there is such a clear and simple way to assess every instance that may be manifestations of one's greed. I think the only way to make that determination is to apply the principles given in both Christian and non-Christian modes of thought:

• Christian --> Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
• Native American --> Walk a mile in another man's shoes before you judge him.
• Confucianism --> What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others.
• Sikhism --> Precious like jewels are the minds of all. To hurt them is not at all good. If thou desirest thy Beloved, then hurt thou not anyone's heart.
• Buddhism --> Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. Just as I am so are they, just as they are so am I.
• Islam --> Woe to those who, when they have to receive by measure from men, they demand exact full measure, but when they have to give by measure or weight to men, give less than due.
• Taoism --> Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss.
• Wicca --> That that which ye deem harmful unto thyself, the very same shall ye be forbidden from doing unto another.
• Ancient Egyptian --> Do to the doer to make him do. That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another.

Those are just a few examples, but the same axiomatic principle exists in numerous segments of human culture. Which one opts to apply matters not for, at the end of the day, there is no substantive difference among them.

Lastly, you mentioned power. Power itself isn't the problem. Power accrues to oneself as a result of one's actions and luck/circumstance. Merely having power isn't the problem. How one exercises power can be a problem or not a problem.

For example, if one uses one's power to both obtain a resource and also to deny others from obtaining enough of that same resource to sate themselves too, yet there is enough of the resource that none need be unsated, it is one's greed, not one's power, that is the problem. The only reason those who are denied see one's power as the problem is because they are innately aware they cannot, in what they consider a timely enough manner and perhaps not at all, alter one's greedy attitude, but they may be able to erode or remove one's power to exercise one's greedy intentions.

P.S./Edit:
If you desire to learn of an illustration of greed in non-human nature, read this: Wolverines Give Insight into the Evolution of Greed .

Wolverines are expert hunters, rarely preyed upon, and comfortably at the top of their food web. Because their food sources are all in common with many other predators, they have become fierce competitors. Wolverines are known to chase other scavengers away from a carcass and they have no shame in stealing a hard earned kill from a smaller wolverine or even a different animal entirely.

They are voracious eaters, which gave rise to their various names in other languages such as “glutton” (in French), “gluttonous badger” (in Romanian), and “fat belly” (in Finnish). In fact, the scientific name of the wolverine is Gulo gulo, from the Latin word for gluttony. Although wolverines sound rather like playground bullies, this is all pretty standard food competition. Where does the greed come in? Well, after a wolverine has eaten all it can whether from its own kill or find, or something it has stolen from some unfortunate shlemazl, it will actually spray the leftover food with its marking scent.

This might not seem so weird and biologists once thought that the wolverines were simply marking the food to protect its next meal of leftovers. However, this doesn’t seem to be the case. The wolverines rarely return to their leftovers. Sure, the distinctive wolverine scent alone is probably enough to dissuade many animals, but it turns out that the spray of wolverines, unlike that of skunks, is highly acidic. By spraying noxious carboxylic acids onto the leftover food, the wolverines actually accelerate the spoiling process.

To summarize, the wolverines have consumed all they can fit into their stomachs, and then they try to spoil any leftovers so that other predators and scavengers can’t eat them. This fits part of our description of greed. It’s not just about acquiring things; it’s about having more than others have.​