Thread: The problems facing modern Socialists

So basically socialism in it's "pure" and "proper" form will be mankind's prefered system of choice once:

1. All people have changed their mindsets to such an extend they no longer desire to earn money/commodities for personal gain or to better themselves and their families.

2. All people mutually respect each other to the extend they accept every individual of a society and see him/her as a valuable contributor regardless of the contribution.

3. All people accept that there are people who decide to spend their lives on benefits (claiming that their mere existence is fullfilling and a valuable contribution to society).

Call me a cynic but I don't see this happen.

Who decides the average or minimal needs for people? The state? Should everybody live on let's say 3,000 calories a day? Surely there should be some differentiation between physical and non-physical jobs - people with high or low metabolism. It's only fair and equal when it's done on an individual level. Will I still be able to shop for my food and cloths? Or do I collect my rations every week?

And what if people handle their cloths carelessly? Let them live in rags or has this socialist society reached a state of complete harmony and happiness?

What strikes me is that apparently in our current system we don't value other people's contribution. And apparently we don't take care of the needy, the less intelligent or the weak. Well there are extensive benefit systems, (re) schooling programs and shelter networks in all European countries. It's not a matter of sink or swim. On the contrary - in our societies your head is kept above the water even when you refuse to peddle for yourself.

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Originally Posted by smallbrownprivates

It would be worth looking at a book called "What's Left? How Liberals lost their way." by Nick Cohen for a contemporary view on what answers socialism has been to offer on some of the main issues.
One idea put forward is that the left has become less principled and instead puts an automatic anti US bias on everything it sees, hence the post invaison marginalising of Iraqi exiles, previously feted as witnesses to saddam's genocide.

He is a signatory to the Euston Manifesto, an effort by the left to redefine their core values at a point in its political history when democracies have been villified in favour of restrictive discriminatory islamic regimes.

He raises some interesting points, not always acceptable or right, but he gets my vote for giving the BBC a slagging for being too right on and not impartial.

The book is highly interesting, Smallbrownprivates, if only for the insights it offers. I'd also recommend it as very readable, although it should be taken as simply another point of view.

Cohen, in my opinion, represents all that's bad about the development of Socialist and Communist organisations in the last couple of decades. These are the wallahs who constantly play a silly game of oneupmanship/intellectual wänking with totally obscure and irrelevant elements of Marxist/Trotskyist/Whatever theory, without giving much of a thought to the practical application of Socialism and what it would/should mean to folks and their identification with it. It's these folks, more than anybody else, who've moved Socialism into the realms of abstract academic thought - where it just doesn't belong.

While such discussions, and I've taken part in plenty, are thoroughly interesting and enjoyable as intellectual exercises, they don't contribute much in a constructive sense to the alleviation of the very real problems facing the world, particularly at a time like this.

MsG

What's Left is an interesting and important book in as far as it debates the abandonment by much of the 'progressive Left' of the anti-fascism in favour of anti-Americanism to the point where there are now many people in the West who would identify themselves as Socialists whilst allying with theocratic/reactionary/nationalist/fascist movements.

A better book on the subject of how the Left (in Britain) moved away from being a cause of (and often from) the working class is 'The Fallout' by Andrew Anthony.

Originally Posted by Stanley1975

Well there are extensive benefit systems, (re) schooling programs and shelter networks in all European countries. It's not a matter of sink or swim.

And those are the socialist aspects of our current society. See? That wasn't so hard, was it?

Originally Posted by smartascarrots

Originally Posted by jew_unit

People have been shown under capitalism to be fundamentally lazy. Why do you think this will all change if we move to a socialist system?

Perhaps that's because they see the dice as loaded against them from the start? Where's the incentive to clean the barn well if you know it'll be somebody else who'll reap the reward of your labours?

If you want to argue self-interest is the governing factor, you can't rule that out.

I'm lazy as hell, and so are most of the guys I live with. The cards are hardly stcked against us. Do you really think that most of us would do the level of work we did if we could get an identical reward for doing less?

Originally Posted by Stanley1975

So basically socialism in it's "pure" and "proper" form will be mankind's prefered system of choice once:
1. All people have changed their mindsets to such an extend they no longer desire to earn money/commodities for personal gain or to better themselves and their families.
2. All people mutually respect each other to the extend they accept every individual of a society and see him/her as a valuable contributor regardless of the contribution.
3. All people accept that there are people who decide to spend their lives on benefits (claiming that their mere existence is fullfilling and a valuable contribution to society).
Call me a cynic but I don't see this happen.
Who decides the average or minimal needs for people? The state? Should everybody live on let's say 3,000 calories a day? Surely there should be some differentiation between physical and non-physical jobs - people with high or low metabolism. It's only fair and equal when it's done on an individual level. Will I still be able to shop for my food and cloths? Or do I collect my rations every week?

And what if people handle their cloths carelessly? Let them live in rags or has this socialist society reached a state of complete harmony and happiness?

What strikes me is that apparently in our current system we don't value other people's contribution. And apparently we don't take care of the needy, the less intelligent or the weak. Well there are extensive benefit systems, (re) schooling programs and shelter networks in all European countries. It's not a matter of sink or swim. On the contrary - in our societies your head is kept above the water even when you refuse to peddle for yourself.

No, Stanley, you’re not being cynical. What you’re doing is trying to find as many reasons as you can to support your underlying opinion that Socialism is inherently “bad�. It’s quite understandable, given the decades of misleading propaganda churned out by those who in no way want their status and privileges messed with. It’s notable that the intellectual energy you expend on discovering why Socialism, in your estimation, won’t work, could just as well be utilised in finding methods for its practical application.

The point is that once Socialism becomes accepted as a system in which the individual sees her/himself embedded in a society and her/his human requirements are catered for on an everyday basis, then much of what you see as "drawbacks" will resolve themselves.

If you believe that sounds too utopian and thus unworkable, try talking to older folks who actually experienced such a society, albeit within the Capitalist system. They'll be able to give you a very good idea of how it worked, and, more to the point, why they miss it so much. I've yet to meet any person at all from such communities who categorically stated that the whole experience was negative and they’re glad it’s gone.

You can also travel to more rural parts of Europe and still see isolated towns and villages that have never had any Old Bill and in which the inhabitants enjoy the benefits of this feeling of “belonging�, of being valued as a human being, of being “embedded� in their lives.

Socialism is never going to be perfect, but it provides an environment much better geared to provide vital elements for us human beings to realise our potential and engender contentment.

MsG

MsG, how do you respond to the fact that the biggest area of faliure within our society is the socialist part? The benefits scum class knows that they will be catered for and thus chooses to do nothing. They could pull themselves up, and those that have the aspiration to have a better life can and do take such a course of action, but the majority are happy sinking into a quagmire of faliure. This shows what I've been saying all along. Without incentive, people do nothing. I argue that we have become too socialist and that society was healthier when the prospect of faliure served to motivate those at the poor end of society.

Also, where does religion fit in your socialist state? I cant see a way that you can make socialism function effectively whilst still allowing religion.

Originally Posted by jew_unit

I'm lazy as hell, and so are most of the guys I live with. The cards are hardly stcked against us. Do you really think that most of us would do the level of work we did if we could get an identical reward for doing less?

Lucky old you.

But who says you'd get an identical level of reward? If people don't graft, nobody has it easy. Collective reward and collective punishment, both defined by the collective efforts of everybody. That's been the way human's have organised their economic activities for millennia, I can't see why it would miraculously start failing us now.

Originally Posted by jew_unit

They could pull themselves up, and those that have the aspiration to have a better life can and do take such a course of action, but the majority are happy sinking into a quagmire of faliure.

Could they really, though? If giving people £1,000,000 each wouldn't end poverty, what makes you think that 'pulling yourself up' will? All that would mean is that someone else is moved to the bottom of the pile. Do you think the market is going to provide livelihoods for all? Of course it isn't, but that's not going to stop people needing to eat. So, where do they get the wherewithal in the absence of land to grow food on?

If people don't have the opportunity to improve their lot through their own graft, why do you expect 'self-interest' to encourage them to do anything else but sit on their arrses and let someone else provide? Would you work for minimum wage, knowing that despite your talents that's all you were ever going to get?

As much as I'm in favour of equal opportunity and mutual respect I honestly fail to see how socialism as outlined in this thread can work.

Let's turn it around and say we live in a socialist society in which everybody lives fullfilling lives and receives equal revenues. Since I'm free to develop myself in this society I choose for instance to help other people out. Because of this extra work I'm burning more calories and my cloths need more washing than for instance my neighbour who can't work. Or I want to spend my evening studying or coaching a football team.

In one scenario I get compensated for doing extra work and receive additional food and clothing. Either by the state or by fellow citizens. This is probably not what you're aiming for because it has capitalistic tendencies: the more you invest/do the more your revenues are (ideally).

In another scenario you could say I don't deserve extra food or clothing because everybody needs and gets more or less the same. The principal of equailty. In that case I might stop doing extra work because my clothes look bad and I go to bed hungry.

One way to avoid breaking the equality principal this is to raise my returns + everybody's elses so in the end we all receive the same. Yet, I wonder whether this is financially obtainable.

My point is; regardless of how beautiful full equality is, I can't imagine a practical situation where it really works. At the end some people invest more in the socialist society than others and will either get compensated for it or discouraged to rise above the average.

Your discomfort with excessive bonusses we read about in the papers is understandable but that doesn't mean our whole system is cr4p. In fact the few socialist laws we have, have encouraged an underclass of people to live on benefits as jewunit pointed out before.

The societies in some rural parts of Europe you refer to should be a warning sign rather than something to aim for in my opinion. Yes they express solidarity towards each other. But it's unlikely the cure to let's say AIDS will ever come from those areas.

Originally Posted by smartascarrots

Originally Posted by Stanley1975

Well there are extensive benefit systems, (re) schooling programs and shelter networks in all European countries. It's not a matter of sink or swim.

And those are the socialist aspects of our current society. See? That wasn't so hard, was it?

Why do you think I mentioned it. So what's the evil thing about our current system.....?

Originally Posted by Stanley1975

As much as I'm in favour of equal opportunity and mutual respect I honestly fail to see how socialism as outlined in this thread can work. Let's turn it around and say we live in a socialist society in which everybody lives fullfilling lives and receives equal revenues.

There’s the logical gap! I wondered where the little bugger had got to…

What does socialism have to do with everyone receiving equal incomes? I’m pretty sure Bugsy has said over and over that it’s about guaranteeing basic needs? Communism, on the other hand...

It is not about equality, it’s about commonality. Every human being needs the same things as a baseline. Every human has the ability to contribute something to the overall good.

Originally Posted by Stanley1975

Why do you think I mentioned it. So what's the evil thing about our current system.....?

There’s nothing whatsoever evil about having a balance of socialism and capitalism, as you rightly state we currently already do. There is plenty evil about excluding socialism entirely from the mix purely from a dislike of what it’s mistakenly thought to be. There’s plenty foolish as well – ask Louis Quatorze.

Originally Posted by jew_unit

MsG, how do you respond to the fact that the biggest area of faliure within our society is the socialist part? The benefits scum class knows that they will be catered for and thus chooses to do nothing. They could pull themselves up, and those that have the aspiration to have a better life can and do take such a course of action, but the majority are happy sinking into a quagmire of faliure. This shows what I've been saying all along. Without incentive, people do nothing. I argue that we have become too socialist and that society was healthier when the prospect of faliure served to motivate those at the poor end of society.

Also, where does religion fit in your socialist state? I cant see a way that you can make socialism function effectively whilst still allowing religion.

That’s a fair one, Jew_unit. Allow me to slightly alter your conclusion: “the biggest failure within our presently Capitalist society is the Socialist part�. Just because benefits are paid out of the public coffers, doesn’t automatically make them “Socialist�. It is, in fact, a Capitalist stratagem to avoid wide-scale unrest and itinerant bands of homeless beggars. And, just like the introduction of universal healthcare (which was designed not strictly with an eye to the health of the population, but to ensure that folks could continue working), it’s paid for by the population anyway, so doesn’t actually mean that Capitalists forego their profits. They see it as a necessary evil, since there’s actually no realistic alternative.

So how would that play out under Socialism? The change in mindset and attitude necessary for Socialism to succeed would not go unnoticed by yon class of folks (you call them “benefit scum�, I wonder why). As soon as one of their number developed sufficient interest in what’s going on around her/him, that person would exert influence (not necessarily directly, but more by example) on those in her/his circle of friends and acquaintances. The benefits enjoyed by those thus engaged and clear for all to see, would lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy and make benefit payments (for doing nothing) a thing of the past.

Religion. Forget all that from Marx about religion being the opium of the masses, he was writing at a time when religion had much more influence on state and social affairs than is the case today. There’s no reason whatsoever to "ban" religion under Socialism. In fact, to even try would go against the very tenets of the highly democratic system that Socialism actually represents. I know a sort of a ban existed in the USSR, East Germany etc, but it was always there, quietly. And don’t forget it was largely the activities of Catholic workers in Poland that led to the formation of Solidarnosc and eventually to the fall of the regime. Also, the Mormons, who organise their lives very much on a religious/socialist basis, seem to be doing very well.

Ideally, Socialism should be combined with Buddhism, since it’s the religion that encourages social interaction and support. But that’s just my opinion.

MsG

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Originally Posted by jew_unit

MsG, how do you respond to the fact that the biggest area of faliure within our society is the socialist part? The benefits scum class knows that they will be catered for and thus chooses to do nothing. They could pull themselves up, and those that have the aspiration to have a better life can and do take such a course of action, but the majority are happy sinking into a quagmire of faliure. This shows what I've been saying all along. Without incentive, people do nothing. I argue that we have become too socialist and that society was healthier when the prospect of faliure served to motivate those at the poor end of society.

Also, where does religion fit in your socialist state? I cant see a way that you can make socialism function effectively whilst still allowing religion.

That’s a fair one, Jew_unit. Allow me to slightly alter your conclusion: “the biggest failure within our presently Capitalist society is the Socialist part�. Just because benefits are paid out of the public coffers, doesn’t automatically make them “Socialist�. It is, in fact, a Capitalist stratagem to avoid wide-scale unrest and itinerant bands of homeless beggars. And, just like the introduction of universal healthcare (which was designed not strictly with an eye to the health of the population, but to ensure that folks could continue working), it’s paid for by the population anyway, so doesn’t actually mean that Capitalists forego their profits. They see it as a necessary evil, since there’s actually no realistic alternative.

So how would that play out under Socialism? The change in mindset and attitude necessary for Socialism to succeed would not go unnoticed by yon class of folks (you call them “benefit scum�, I wonder why). As soon as one of their number developed sufficient interest in what’s going on around her/him, that person would exert influence (not necessarily directly, but more by example) on those in her/his circle of friends and acquaintances. The benefits enjoyed by those thus engaged and clear for all to see, would lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy and make benefit payments (for doing nothing) a thing of the past.

Religion. Forget all that from Marx about religion being the opium of the masses, he was writing at a time when religion had much more influence on state and social affairs than is the case today. There’s no reason whatsoever to "ban" religion under Socialism. In fact, to even try would go against the very tenets of the highly democratic system that Socialism actually represents. I know a sort of a ban existed in the USSR, East Germany etc, but it was always there, quietly. And don’t forget it was largely the activities of Catholic workers in Poland that led to the formation of Solidarnosc and eventually to the fall of the regime. Also, the Mormons, who organise their lives very much on a religious/socialist basis, seem to be doing very well.

Ideally, Socialism should be combined with Buddhism, since it’s the religion that encourages social interaction and support. But that’s just my opinion.

MsG

Why do you believe that those at the bottom of society have no examples of the benefits of graft already? Do you really believe that all they are waiting for is inspiration, at which point they will take up tools and strive for the collective good? This has been the main faliure of any form of socialism of communism attempted thus far in that this process just hasn't happend.

What would you do about religions which demand money, such as scientology? Also, how do you prevent individual religions amassing money?

Originally Posted by jew_unit

Why do you believe that those at the bottom of society have no examples of the benefits of graft already? Do you really believe that all they are waiting for is inspiration, at which point they will take up tools and strive for the collective good? This has been the main faliure of any form of socialism of communism attempted thus far in that this process just hasn't happend.

What would you do about religions which demand money, such as scientology? Also, how do you prevent individual religions amassing money?

Again you’re arguing from a point of view that merely replaces Capitalism with Socialism and neglecting the obvious change to the mindset and attitude that would have to occur before Socialism became viable (this “arguing within the present system� that was mentioned earlier on the thread).

But let’s run with that anyway. Imagine that chav A sees, say, a game of basketball on the telly and thinks it could be interesting to have a cabby. So off he goes to some gym somewhere in which basketball is played and asks if he can join in. After a while, he discovers that he’s not only gained a new circle of friends, he’s also found something that lifts his human spirits because he’s become part of a collective (the team) engaged in a common objective. When they win, they share their jubilation, when they lose they also share their disappointment. So he’s experiencing the ups and downs as part of a mutually supportive community, which also enhances the ups (as a shared experience) but also buffers the downs because he's not the only one who's disappointed (a product of the mutual consolation the situation entails).

His erstwhile muckers, chavs B, C and D, will certainly notice the changes in their mate and become curious as to how he became so positive all of a sudden. So they decide to try this basketball caper for themselves. Maybe they discover they've no particular talent for the game, and perhaps they try another sport and relive the experience of chav A.

Entirely theoretical, I know, but also not impossible. Imagine now that these chavs see this influence by example all around them on an everyday basis and perceive the benefits many others are enjoying by dint of being embedded in a vibrant community. Some will surely resist the “temptation�, but I wager the large majority would be drawn into things, just as chav A originally was.

Religions amassing money. These religions would be composed of believers embedded in a Socialist society, I therefore believe that they’d see no need for any religious grouping to heap up money. The democratic process evident in other facets of their lives would also lead to them questioning the validity of such a move by their respective religious leaders.

However, that, again, is arguing within the present system to a certain extent and my response to that particular question is purely conjecture on my part, since I have no real idea what would transpire were such a situation to occur in a Socialist society.

MsG

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Originally Posted by jew_unit

Why do you believe that those at the bottom of society have no examples of the benefits of graft already? Do you really believe that all they are waiting for is inspiration, at which point they will take up tools and strive for the collective good? This has been the main faliure of any form of socialism of communism attempted thus far in that this process just hasn't happend.

What would you do about religions which demand money, such as scientology? Also, how do you prevent individual religions amassing money?

Again you’re arguing from a point of view that merely replaces Capitalism with Socialism and neglecting the obvious change to the mindset and attitude that would have to occur before Socialism became viable (this “arguing within the present system� that was mentioned earlier on the thread).

But let’s run with that anyway. Imagine that chav A sees, say, a game of basketball on the telly and thinks it could be interesting to have a cabby. So off he goes to some gym somewhere in which basketball is played and asks if he can join in. After a while, he discovers that he’s not only gained a new circle of friends, he’s also found something that lifts his human spirits because he’s become part of a collective (the team) engaged in a common objective. When they win, they share their jubilation, when they lose they also share their disappointment. So he’s experiencing the ups and downs as part of a mutually supportive community, which also enhances the ups (as a shared experience) but also buffers the downs because he's not the only one who's disappointed (a product of the mutual consolation the situation entails).

His erstwhile muckers, chavs B, C and D, will certainly notice the changes in their mate and become curious as to how he became so positive all of a sudden. So they decide to try this basketball caper for themselves. Maybe they discover they've no particular talent for the game, and perhaps they try another sport and relive the experience of chav A.

Entirely theoretical, I know, but also not impossible. Imagine now that these chavs see this influence by example all around them on an everyday basis and perceive the benefits many others are enjoying by dint of being embedded in a vibrant community. Some will surely resist the “temptation�, but I wager the large majority would be drawn into things, just as chav A originally was.

Religions amassing money. These religions would be composed of believers embedded in a Socialist society, I therefore believe that they’d see no need for any religious grouping to heap up money. The democratic process evident in other facets of their lives would also lead to them questioning the validity of such a move by their respective religious leaders.

However, that, again, is arguing within the present system to a certain extent and my response to that particular question is purely conjecture on my part, since I have no real idea what would transpire were such a situation to occur in a Socialist society.

MsG

What a load of inaccurate pipedream rubbish.

The chavs you mention, a b c & d, are already able to see and be inspired by their flat screen TVs and as much sport as you like on their sky+. They're not all rushing down to Cannons to sign up are they?

Their inate being requires them to follow the line of least resistance to make the maximum gain, the holy grail of money for nothing.

You are now drifting into the realms of "mind control" seeking to persuade the majority to conform to the Ideal of Socialism.

There will always be a grouping of lazy bast***s willing to take more than their fair share. The same as there will always be a grouping of greedy types who want to take more than theirs. Then there are the cunning, the altruistic, the hard working, the honest, the dishonest etc etc and we are still only within one country.

Are you suggesting pan-global socialism, continental socialism or locally single-state socialism? Perhaps we could try an experiment in, say, the FRY. If we get the local players there on-side perhaps we could take stage 2 to Northern Ireland and the Republic.

The point I am trying to make through my Gallo induced haze, is that we humans are ultimately too self-centred for Socialism to work. Granted, we are intelligent enough to understand the concept, but I purport that the survival instinct built in to us at a fundamental level prevents the concept being applied.

4-1 come on you Reds (Liverpool)

Originally Posted by bluntslane

The point I am trying to make through my Gallo induced haze, is that we humans are ultimately too self-centred for Socialism to work. Granted, we are intelligent enough to understand the concept, but I purport that the survival instinct built in to us at a fundamental level prevents the concept being applied.

While you just espouse this as a theoretical, vague and abstract concept, in spite of the certainty of presentation, I can tell you that you’re categorically wrong. I say this not as a theory but as a result of personal experience in Socialist states. I've lived and talked (lots) with folks who know exactly what it takes to introduce a practical version of Socialism. I know for a fact that it’s possible.

We seem to be back to the “human nature� aspect again; something that you appear to consider immutable. What, however, if you have a City high-flyer, who’s earning loads and is the toast of his company. He has all the trappings of success and has the typical selfish attitude that would justify your label of “human nature�. Then he meets a lady and after a while decides that she’s the one for him. So they get hitched. Then they have kids. Let’s say they have three kids. Your man discovers that within the family community to which he belongs, he finds a whole lot more in a spiritual sense than in his superficial, abrasive and dog-eat-dog working environment. He finds that there’s more to life than just earning money and spending it to impress folks he can’t stand. He finds a singular pleasure going for a walk with his wife and kids, a special brand of fulfilment that he never really knew existed.

It doesn’t mean that he’s about to give up his job, but it does mean that his “human nature� has been subtly altered, and he feels all the better for it.

With that I mean that what you class as “human nature� (in contrast to basic animal needs) is infinitely responsive to personal, financial, societal and political influences and can easily change and adapt.

When I was living in the former GDR, I met more than a few folks who were once Nazis, then they became "Socialist", only to have the switch to Capitalism thrust upon them in 1989. In each respective system, they had to adapt their "human nature", but they didn't find it particularly difficult.

MsG