Socialism made simple, why it doesn't work

Post Reply New Topic

It depends upon many circumstances. The Kibbutzes in Israel were very successful socialist enterprises while they lasted.

^^^ "while they lasted" is the operative phrase.

what caused theireventual failure?

The Nature Vs Nuture argument is an interesting one. Personally I believe that nurture has a greater influence. We are still warlike due to the nature of the system we live under. True there are always going to be ambitious, greedy, control freaks and they are the ones that have set up this system. The majority are not like this. It was the failure to recognise and deal with this that led to the Soviet Union becoming a Degenerate Workers State.

Anna Banana you cite Cuba as an example of how Socialism does not work. Firstly I would debate the socialist nature of Cuba. The simple fact that the country is ruled by a dictator seems to deny this possibility. Secondly like Capitalism, Socialism cannot exist in isolation it must be a global system to operate effectively.

I am constantly amazed at the continued support for capitalism. It so obviously is not meeting the needs of the planet. Masses of people starve to death daily, the place gets ever more polluted, war is a constant, and to cap it all off it has nearly collapsed 3 times. Perversely world wars were needed to rescue it on two occasions.

the only system that seems to take into account human greed ("gimme"), avarice ("gimme more"), and laziness is capitalism. all other systems seem to assume that such things can be legislated away (socialism) or will eventually be renderered superfluous by evolution (communism).

you can not ignore the human propensity for practicing avarice, greed, and sloth when designing and implementing an economic system.

unfortunately, until there is a more efficient and effective economic system that works in both the long and short term, and at the global and individual scales (and all those in between), we are stuck with capitalism as the most viable economic system.

very good point.
examples of "hardline socialist" countries today arent very good. cuba, vietnam and north korea.

something tells me at least 2 of 3, of such a selection, would prove to be a relatively troubled nation, considering their history, especially if isolated anyway.

Socialism is an economic system. Ideally it would occur in conjunction with some form of representative government, but that is true of capitalism as well. Socialism can well occur under a dictatorship, it just seems must less consistent when it does.


Well, every attempt to set up socialism has failed even worse, as partially evidenced by the eagerness of modern-day socialists such as yourself to disown every openly socialist state in human history. Capitalism has had remarkable successes, war actually is significantly less frequent and also less destructive than it has been at any point in human history, malnutrition is probably considerably lower than it has historically been. Were world wars necessary to save capitalism twice? I can't think of the three ties capitalism has nearly collapsed, all that springs to mind is the Great Depression and to blame that on capitalism seems dishonest as many of the policies enacted around that time would not be approved of from a capitalist perspective.

You're an optimist, and that's cool, but I'm a realist and I'm telling you, it is incredibly far-fetched.

I'm all for it, but it ain't gonna happen.

I may not be as firmly grounded in the drudges and cruel realities of the real world as you guys, but I consider myself fairly practical and realistic.

Is large scale cooperation so hard to envision? Is there not something we can all strive for and cooperate to achieve? F*ck the naysayers I say.

You all seem to have very bitter views on human nature. Maybe that's how it really is.

I guess I am in la la land. But seeing as I post on this specific forum, maybe you can understand where I'm coming from.

your not the only one imagining that humans may, some day, get their act together, and behave nicely, but consider this

when was pure evil and recklessness ever cherished? throughout human existence, we have had the same dream: for humans soon to be above our pettyness. like some delusional drug addict: ONE more glorious invention, and we will become enlightened! no? well, after the NEXT glorious breakthrough, then. we have all the time in the world.

no? world's limited? ah well,
we are what we are then

I just don't see how you instill this sense of cooperation in people. I'm open to the idea that nurture>nature and that it is attainable, but you need everyone on board, and I don't see how that happens.

Realistically, to achieve something like this, you have to completely eliminate religion, along with various other traditions that hold back our mental capabilities. You are likely a good enough person, where that, if everyone was like you, it could happen. Unfortunately, most people in the world are incredibly horrible and selfish, and this is key, they think they are good people while being incredibly horrible and selfish. If you try and confront them with their horrible nature, they take SERIOUS offense and think that you're the jerk.

But like I said, you're an optimist, and that's totally cool. Keep on keepin on, as it were.

It is not defending socialism or not recognize that the capitalist system produced the greatest grow in wealth ever. To quote Karl Marx: "The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?"

But if you want to start to criticize the socialist theory, you need to understand this theory. Marx claimed that his ideas and theories are based on the facts as they can established and his main work, the three volumes of The Capital, is to a large extent a collection of facts, well researched from trustworthy sources (like reports to the British Parliament).

So you had go this way too. You can well argue - for example - that the Marxian point of view of the Human Nature is not touched by the knowledge we gained since Freud about the dark sides of our nature. You can well argue that Marx's theories are based on the idea of a homogeneous workforce and that this base, may be existing in 1860s does not exist any longer. You also an well argue that the introduction of socialist element in the capitalist system (starting in 1880s in Germany with a General Health Insurance and other protection laws) shows that the need for an overturn of the capitalist system is no longer needed. etc etc.

But to point just to the Soviet Union and its satellites is a too cheap argument.

---

Perhaps let speak Marx on a stage in Soho (London) for himself:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSYczEWz1Q4[/youtube]

I would cite Soviet Russia and the German Democratic Republic as good examples of why the socialism experiment failed. Capitalism in fact has been around throughout human history(even before that in fact). There has always been trade and mercantilism and a merchant class in every civilizaton. Market forces have proven themselves to be uncontrollable as far as governments are concerned. Just look at what they black market did to the former Soviet Union! Your belief that nurture has a greater influence has turned out to be scientifically, statistically, and historically wrong. ALL civilizations in human history arrose more or less the SAME way! I do not know of a single society on Earth that has ever existed which evenly distributes resources.
The idea that people can and will someday change their fundamental behavior and that nuture has greater influence than nature is the core of the Blank Slate theory which the Left regards as infalliable dogma.

It is the question how important those groups were for the society: In a feudal society they play a role behind nobility and church. Capitalism is quite a recent form, in which this trade and class is dominant (BTW: Mercantilism is special form of economy found in the Absolutism).



To have market forces to work you need a frame work provided and maintained by the state. The development of modern capitalism is deeply bonded to development of the modern state with his claim of monopole of violence and the ability to enforce his laws against anyone. The modern state and the capitlist system are only two sides of the same coin.



You will hardly find a socialist theory which does claim to do so.

actually i am reaching the age when i would appreciate a system that actually takes care of its citizens' basic needs (food, clothing, shelter, and medical care) without first requiring that the person submit to a battery of probing questions into his or her political views, education, and professional background.

as it is, my hmo often overbooks my physician and counts on a 20 to 30 percent "no-show" level in order to maximize the number of patients that any one physician might see in one day.

top this assembly-line principle off with a list of prescriptions that are based on an obscure priority system that takes into account the opinion of some myopic bean-counter without any real medical experience or training and only an actuarial table of projected life spans to determine whether or not a patient receives expensive life-saving treatments or just a bottle of motrin for his troubles, and you have a medical-care provider that can rival any socialist medical bureaucracy for generating hopelessness and frustration in the people that they are sworn to treat with compassion.

no more cheap, generic pills. i want the rich man's treatments!

Does less money always mean less reward?

What about international black markets like the drug trade, arms trade, and sex trafficking? As far as states having a monopoly on violence that is what governments have been doing for thousands of years. Certain modern states permit the legal ownership of private property. But EVEN during the cold war there was illegal buying, selling, and smuggling of goods among citizens. What Im talking about here is the Black Market which states expend billions trying to dismantle but it continues because of the ceaseless demand and suppliers willing to meet that demand no matter what.