Socialists in the news (in the U.S.)

[theprestige]

In your imaginary dystopia.

And also in every real Socialist state that's ever been attempted. I imagine my dystopia the way a scientist imagines the outcome of a well-known experiment.

 

[lomiller]

Can't have private charity without private property.

Not an issue since socialism says nothing about the existence of private property. Only the means of production needs to be socially owned, which in the case of a charitable foundation, it is.

 

[theprestige]

Not an issue since socialism says nothing about the existence of private property. Only the means of production needs to be socially owned, which in the case of a charitable foundation, it is.

Maybe we're talking about different things? When I donate to the Red Cross, I'm donating money that I privately own, surplus that I generated with my own means of production, which I also privately own. It's my personal property, the profits are my personal profits, and what gets done with them is my personal decision. Socialism says the means of production can't belong to me personally, the profits can't belong to me personally, and the choice of what to do with those profits is not my personal choice to make.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by a charitable foundation collectively owning the means of production. What about corporations? Investors are granted shares in the ownership of a corporation, its assets, its profits. Is that kind of collective ownership Socialism?

 

[dann]

What about corporations? Investors are granted shares in the ownership of a corporation, its assets, its profits. Is that kind of collective ownership Socialism?

No, that's collective exploitation. The people exploited by the owners to make the profits don't own the corporation. They are not a part of the collective of exploiters.

 

[dann]

I imagine my dystopia

Yes, I know. It's obviously all in your imagination and has nothing at all in common with science.

 

[theprestige]

Yes, I know. It's obviously all in your imagination and has nothing at all in common with science.

I mean, it's got stuff in common with social science and the historical record.

 

[Tippit]

It helps to understand the definition of words used in topics. Communism is defined as the state ownership of the means of production and the abolition of private property in a classless society.

Socialism is defined as a stage in communism whereby the state is acquiring more and more of the means of production but the classless society has not yet been achieved.

Of course, both of these totalitarian ideologies are promoted by fools ignorant of history who don't understand the critical role that human nature plays in the corruption of the state, or any centralized power. The ideal of a "classless" society is purely hypothetical, and in fact antithetical to the essence of human nature, which is why they are always doomed, and why communists and socialists must always appeal to the logic of "this time it will be different".

But lets look at why these bankrupt ideologies which are, in reality, sponsored by elites, take root in hordes of desperate and disenfranchised people. The key to understanding this lies with the concept of the equitable acquisition of private property, or, the "means of production". Since capitalism is defined as a system whereby the means of production are privately owned, its success or failure ultimately lies in the equitability of how this property came to be owned, or is acquired or distributed. Since a fundamentally unfair or inequitable system will be doomed to failure, it follows that we must pay special attention to private property, specifically how it is acquired, if we want to preserve capitalism, and stave off the communist horde.

Communists and socialists, unlike their opposition on the right, correctly recognize that the means for acquiring private property isn't based on merit, and that it's virtually impossible for workers to obtain any meaningful equity in the system by actually doing productive work. The evidence for this is clear, one need only look for example at the number of minimum wage hours required to own a share of any major stock index, or to purchase the median-priced home. The prices of financial and other assets in these terms continues to skyrocket higher and higher, and the trend remains firmly up.

The right, oblivious to these concerns, simply advises workers to somehow use their non-existent surplus to purchase debt or equity in the system, and thus participate in "capitalism" in order to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. The reality is that many workers have no discretionary capital to invest, and they've been completely priced out of financial independence. They recognize intuitively that they're on a treadmill of exploitation, and so they turn to socialism and communism as their only perceived saviors from "capitalist exploitation".

But is this unfair system the fault of capitalism, or something else? The communists and socialists, being almost universally ignorant of economics and history, say yes. They believe, incorrectly, that we have to abolish the concept of private property in order to regain fairness and balance, the presumed utopia of the "classless" society.

But there is something else which looms larger than capitalist and communist ideologies, something that supersedes them. Something that totally and utterly undermines the concept of equitable and fair ownership of private property.

That something, is the corruption of the money system, fiat money and fractional reserve banking.

 

[theprestige]

Huh. I'm not seeing it. Maybe I should squint harder?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I would contest that Socialism is inherently a transitional state to communism. At least, there are plenty of Socialists who don't see it that way and are actively opposed to many elements of outright communism.

 

[theprestige]

I would contest that Socialism is inherently a transitional state to communism. At least, there are plenty of Socialists who don't see it that way and are actively opposed to many elements of outright communism.

That's not socialism, that's just capitalism with a larger social safety net.

ETA: There's a couple different things going on.

On the one hand, there are asshats who condemn every attempt to raise taxes, regulate private business, or expand the social safety net as "socialism" and an incremental step towards communism.

On the other hand, there are asshats who really do see these as incremental steps or interim measures towards the desired goal of communism.

And the former group of asshats can get traction with their "sky is falling" routine, because the latter group also really does exist, even if they're usually smart enough to keep quiet about their goal.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I would contest that Socialism is inherently a transitional state to communism. At least, there are plenty of Socialists who don't see it that way and are actively opposed to many elements of outright communism.

Socialism and Communism are effectively the same thing. Both force you to share your wealth with others or prevent you from having any. This is why everybody hates Socialism - I mean, sharing? C'mon!

Capitalism works because everybody wants as much for themselves as possible, and the competition for that leads to greater efficiency and overall wealth. OK, so the wealth actually concentrates in the hands of a few, who then have the power to force others to make them even richer, but this is what we mean by 'works'.

Socialists think we can spread the wealth around so everybody has enough to be content, but that won't work because we will never be content just having enough - especially if others do too.

Socialism is inherently a transitional state to communism because once the moochers discover they can get their hands on some of your money, nothing stops them from taking more and more until they have bled you dry. Which is so unfair. They didn't help you make that money, so why should they get any of it? And they breed like rabbits, so the more they get the more there are, until the whole country becomes 'socialist' - which really is communist because there are no more capitalists left - you are working for them now.

 

[dudalb]

There is no middle ground between Ayn Rand and Stalin and Mao?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

That's not socialism, that's just capitalism with a larger social safety net.

ETA: There's a couple different things going on.

On the one hand, there are asshats who condemn every attempt to raise taxes, regulate private business, or expand the social safety net as "socialism" and an incremental step towards communism.

On the other hand, there are asshats who really do see these as incremental steps or interim measures towards the desired goal of communism.

And the former group of asshats can get traction with their "sky is falling" routine, because the latter group also really does exist, even if they're usually smart enough to keep quiet about their goal.

I suppose that's true if you consider the vast political space between Ayn Rand style Libertarian utopia and outright Communism all "Capitalism".

Such a broad, sweeping categorization is of dubious value.

I suspect there's plenty of meaningful distinction between uninhibited capitalism, social democracies with high taxes and a vigorous redistributive welfare state, a democratic socialist state in which the people (and the state) have large ownership stakes in industry to counterbalance private capital, and an outright dictatorship of the working class.

I suppose you could class everything in the middle as "capitalism", but that seems like a deliberately obtuse way to approach a very nuanced discussion.

 

[psionl0]

Socialism is defined as a stage in communism whereby the state is acquiring more and more of the means of production but the classless society has not yet been achieved.

I would define socialism as "communism-lite". There is no reason to believe that a socialist country will inevitably march on to full blown communism - especially if free elections are allowed in the country.

But there is something else which looms larger than capitalist and communist ideologies, something that supersedes them. Something that totally and utterly undermines the concept of equitable and fair ownership of private property.

That something, is the corruption of the money system, fiat money and fractional reserve banking.

As bad as these things are they are not the cause of inequitability. That is the result of allowing corporations to grow and accumulate massive amounts of power while having politicians sell the country off to the highest bidder.

 

[zooterkin]

Several posts were moved to AAH.

A reminder, this thread is about socialists in the news. If you want to get into a deep discussion of socialism v. capitalism v. communism, or fiat money and the economy, or anything else not on topic, please take it to another thread. As always, other members are not the topic of the thread, either.

Thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin

 

[theprestige]

There is no middle ground between Ayn Rand and Stalin and Mao?

What did you have in mind?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

What did you have in mind?

Tommy_Douglas^WP