Socialism

[roderic]

Not sure this is the right forum to post this, I'd like to explore what socialism is, the history and development of the various branches and how it's implemented in different political systems. There is a wide range from the co-operative movement as a grass-roots economic initiative to Stalinist dictatorship and centralised planning of production. Then there are the European models of social-democracy operational within an essentially capitalist economy.

Let's start with: what is "socialism?

The political and social scheme of Robert Owen, of Montgomeryshire, who in 1816 published a work to show that society was in a wretched condition, and all its institutions and religious systems were based on wrong principles. The prevailing system is competition, but Owen maintained that the proper principle is co-operation; he therefore advocated a community of property and the abolition of degrees of rank. (1771-1858.) The Socialists are called also Owenites (3 syl.). In France the Fourierists and St. Simonians are similar sorts of communists, who receive their designations from Fourier and St. Simon (q.v.). http://www.bootlegbooks.com/Reference/PhraseAndFable/data/1155.html

Socialism
By Dr Bruce Haddock. University of Wales Swansea
new perspective Vol. 1, No.1

Socialism as a political movement was very much a response to the consequences of industrialisation. Liberalism and capitalism emerged in socialist argument as Janus-faced villains, defending a conception of political and economic freedom which effectively perpetuated the subordination of the working classes. Socialists might not agree about precisely what was wrong with the status quo; nor could they necessarily agree on a common programme for the future. But there was a general consensus in socialist circles that the ideals of the French Revolution liberty, equality, fraternity - could not be attained in a political system built upon an individualist foundation.
....
A plethora of socialisms has emerged in the twentieth century, some of them directly repudiating the Marxist heritage. Indeed the classic divide between communists and social democrats sets socialists in opposed political camps. What socialists share, however, is a rejection of a narrowly political view of freedom, contending instead that the eradication of wider economic and social constraints is a necessary condition for human fulfilment and wellbeing. http://www.history-ontheweb.co.uk/concepts/socialism11.htm

A term covering many belief systems that oppose the concentration of wealth and power that is a natural part of capitalism. Whereas capitalists emphasize freedom for the individual to possess private property, socialists emphasize the well-being of the community. They strive to achieve this through many methods, including public ownership, regulation, and state-sponsored social programs. Socialism has taken on many different forms throughout the world, with varying degrees of success. Some socialists favour a gradual move away from unrestricted capitalism and the maintenance of a democratic society; others favour force to overthrow capitalism and distribute wealth. http://www.heritage.nf.ca/confederation/glossary.html

[mataj]

I grew up in so called "Self Management Socialism" of former Yugoslavia, invented by Edvard Kardelj. It was much better than Soviet block socialism ("Realsocialism"), but still pretty dysfunctional. In Slovenia, it's gradually being abandoned since 1990. Apart from state control of fuel prices, I don't think there's much of it left.

There are, however a couple of foreign owned factories, still organized pretty much according to Kardelj's principles: French Renault (http://www.revoz.si/), and Danish Danfoss (http://www.trata.danfoss.com/). Owners of these factories figured out, that adapting the organization of their factory to the mentality of the local workforce is the best way of raising quality and productivity. French found it out the hard way, and reorganizd, while Danes started with Kardelj-like organization from the very beginning.

[Atticus]

We've discussed this topic at great length before (which isn't a reason not to discuss it now). Here is one thread worth connecting to the current discussion:

Why Americans are Wary of Socialism (http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52231&highlight=socialism).

[Izdaari]

Socialism as a political movement was very much a response to the consequences of industrialisation. Liberalism and capitalism emerged in socialist argument as Janus-faced villains, defending a conception of political and economic freedom which effectively perpetuated the subordination of the working classes. Socialists might not agree about precisely what was wrong with the status quo; nor could they necessarily agree on a common programme for the future. But there was a general consensus in socialist circles that the ideals of the French Revolution liberty, equality, fraternity - could not be attained in a political system built upon an individualist foundation.
I am obviously not a socialist, since I insist on "a political system built upon an individualist foundation"; a system built on Lockean Natural Law; a system consisting of a limited constitutional republic; a government of laws, not of men; a government that governs best when it governs least.

A plethora of socialisms has emerged in the twentieth century, some of them directly repudiating the Marxist heritage. Indeed the classic divide between communists and social democrats sets socialists in opposed political camps. What socialists share, however, is a rejection of a narrowly political view of freedom, contending instead that the eradication of wider economic and social constraints is a necessary condition for human fulfilment and wellbeing.
And I insist on a "narrowly political view of freedom". Freedom is what I have when no one is coercing me (defined as making me do things against my will by the use of physical force or the threat of physical force). But if I coerce others, others have the right to use retaliatory force against me. Thus if I rob my neighbor (coercion), he may defend himself against my aggression himself (direct retalitory force) or have the policeman arrest me (delegated retaliatory force).

A term covering many belief systems that oppose the concentration of wealth and power that is a natural part of capitalism. Whereas capitalists emphasize freedom for the individual to possess private property, socialists emphasize the well-being of the community. They strive to achieve this through many methods, including public ownership, regulation, and state-sponsored social programs. Socialism has taken on many different forms throughout the world, with varying degrees of success. Some socialists favour a gradual move away from unrestricted capitalism and the maintenance of a democratic society; others favour force to overthrow capitalism and distribute wealth.
Likewise, I emphasize "freedom for the individual to possess private property".

I think you have defined quite well what socialism is; it's something that I reject utterly and want nothing to do with.

[roderic]

I am obviously not a socialist, since I insist on "a political system built upon an individualist foundation"; a system built on Lockean Natural Law; a system consisting of a limited constitutional republic; a government of laws, not of men; a government that governs best when it governs least.Uhm, yeah, obviously not a socialist, thanks for making this clear beyond doubt. :flowers:

And I insist on a "narrowly political view of freedom". Freedom is what I have when no one is coercing me (defined as making me do things against my will by the use of physical force or the threat of physical force). But if I coerce others, others have the right to use retaliatory force against me. Thus if I rob my neighbor (coercion), he may defend himself against my aggression himself (direct retalitory force) or have the policeman arrest me (delegated retaliatory force). I agree with the freedom you describe, I don't see anything in socialism which contradicts this.

I think you have defined quite well what socialism is; it's something that I reject utterly and want nothing to do with.Thanks, but these are not my words, I was quoting from different sources.

Do you think there is any merit in the notion that the accumulation of capital in an unregulated market limits the freedom of some and increases the power of others?:o

[marv]

If everyone were sinless and really loved their neighbors, socialism - and probably communism as well - might work. Unfortunately.....

[roderic]

If everyone were sinless and really loved their neighbors, socialism - and probably communism as well - might work. Unfortunately.....Actually, the assertion of socialists is the other way 'round: in a perfect world, economic differences would not lead to exploitation and infringe on others' freedom, and socialism would not be needed.

Most Western nations apply socialist principles to some extent, from anti-monopoly legislation to social welfare.
The historic roots of this were to counteract the impact of capitalism following the industrial revolution, and while it was opposed to the 'new' philosophy, liberalism, the two are complimentary rather than exclusive.

[Izdaari]

Thanks, but these are not my words, I was quoting from different sources.
Yes, I understood that; it was clear enough.

Do you think there is any merit in the notion that the accumulation of capital in an unregulated market limits the freedom of some and increases the power of others?:o
No, though it may in a regulated market such as we have, because the regulated inevitably gain control of the regulators, and use that power to restrict entry into markets. That I learned from a Marxist revisionist historian, Gabriel Kolko... so socialists aren't necessarily wrong about everything.

[Blueangel]

There are, however a couple of foreign owned factories, still organized pretty much according to Kardelj's principles: French Renault (http://www.revoz.si/), and Danish Danfoss (http://www.trata.danfoss.com/). Owners of these factories figured out, that adapting the organization of their factory to the mentality of the local workforce is the best way of raising quality and productivity. French found it out the hard way, and reorganizd, while Danes started with Kardelj-like organization from the very beginning.Thanks for that. I found it very interesting as a socialist who has never lived in a truely socialist society.

The 'socialist' principles I was brought up with are that all people should have equal access to opportunities that would help them make the best of themselves. Basically, equal access to education, equal access to health care and equal employment rights.

I strongly feel that those are the basics of life but I will never accept the concept that we are all equal.
We are all individuals with different needs and requirements to live our lives as best we can, that's why I could never be a communist and why I put the strongest emphasis on access to the basic requirements.

[AgentM]

It seems that only in the US is there this great aversion to the word "socialist" same with "liberal". I believe it comes from misuse of the terms and ignorance/misunderstanding. People like the ***tard McCarthy didn't help either.

[Izdaari]

It seems that only in the US is there this great aversion to the word "socialist" same with "liberal". I believe it comes from misuse of the terms and ignorance/misunderstanding. People like the ***tard McCarthy didn't help either.
I understand the term very well. I just disagree with everything it stands for. I am for the minimal "night watchman" state, and for true laissez-faire capitalism.

[AgentM]

I understand the term very well. I just disagree with everything it stands for. I am for the minimal "night watchman" state, and for true laissez-faire capitalism.

I was speaking in general terms. I appreciate that you understand socialism.

[Izdaari]

I was speaking in general terms. I appreciate that you understand socialism.
Thank you. However, I don't think it's a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge that makes most Americans averse to socialism. They may not be as well educated about economics as you or I, but they know their values, and property rights and individual responsibility rank high among those values. I think they know at least enough about socialism to legitimately be suspicious of it. At the very least they know it likely means bigger government and higher taxes, and those aren't things they're in favor of.

[AgentM]

Thank you. However, I don't think it's a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge that makes most Americans averse to socialism. They may not be as well educated about economics as you or I, but they know their values, and property rights and individual responsibility rank high among those values. I think they know at least enough about socialism to legitimately be suspicious of it. At the very least they know it likely means bigger government and higher taxes, and those aren't things they're in favor of.

That's as may be, I'm just judging from what I've heard and read from Americans over the years. I think there are many misconceptions in America about what modern socialism entails. Most countries are more socialist than the US. Canada is more socialist than the US to a degree. We have "bigger" governments. We have universal (note:that does not mean free) health care, more subsidized post-secondary education, things like that. But does that mean we are not a free country? Of course not. We are just as free as you are. We are also a Western Middle Power. One of the richest countries in the world, a G7 nation. We have the same property rights as you. We are not nearly as socialist as say, Sweden, but even they have the same freedoms as you or I. "Socialism" is merely a product of our being more "collective" oriented than you Americans. Sure there may be higher taxes sometimes, but it doesn't mean that we don't get anything for them, if govt is well managed.

[Izdaari]

No indeed, AgentM. I would not say life is horrible in Canada, or even that it's horrible in Sweden. I could probably live happily in either country. But what's the best way to organize society? My vote is for a limited constitutional republic with free market capitalism under a philosophy of Classical Liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism).

[AgentM]

No indeed, AgentM. I would not say life is horrible in Canada, or even that it's horrible in Sweden. I could probably live happily in either country. But what's the best way to organize society? My vote is for a limited constitutional republic with free market capitalism under a philosophy of Classical Liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism).

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate classical liberalism. If I had been living in Britain during the Glorious Revolution I would probably have been a Whig, maybe a radical one. Today I consider myself centre-left (generally a Liberal Party supporter federally). I generally like free trade principles and such, to a point (except when it's unfair free trade). But I don't think that people should be left out on their own for basics such as health or education. Health care and education are investments in a successful society, the way I see it. Same with roads and other infrastructure. I like fiscal responsibility, however, and don't think we should have enormous debts. I suppose I'm kind of all over the place.

[Atticus]

I think Americans have an aversion to socialism because, for whatever reason, our experience of labor divorced from the profit motive is rather negative. We have the sense that people whose work is too far removed from the possibility of job loss or the possibility of pay increase just don't work very hard. Remember, Americans are the ones who prefer to pay wait staff at restaurants very poor wages but tip fairly generously (in comparison to the tipping customs elsewhere).

"Close enough for government work" is a popular phrase. The idea that major industries will be run by government (which I take to be the primary tenet of most socialist systems) seems like a very bad idea.

I also understand that this phenomenon of work quality being strongly tied to the expectation of compensation is not universal. For whatever reason, Americans simply don't trust each other to do a good job when job security is high and the variation in pay is small--another feature of most socialist systems.

[roderic]

That's as may be, I'm just judging from what I've heard and read from Americans over the years. I think there are many misconceptions in America about what modern socialism entails.
...Thanks, I agree entirely. There are a number of misconceptions about, some quite subtle.
As Atticus pointed out, there is a thread on Americans and why they tend to reject socialism already. I was aiming this thread at looking at the merits and a few different examples of implementation of socialist policies, rather than commenting on why one doesn't like it and what is better instead.

For whatever reason, Americans simply don't trust each other to do a good job when job security is high and the variation in pay is small--another feature of most socialist systems.The variation of pay being "small" is a relative perception, but yes, the difference between top-earners and minimum wage tends to be much narrower than in the US, but it still is huge. I mean, how many million a year does one need to feel adequately compensated?

The money has to come from somewhere. I find it ironic that workers are layed off because of budgetary constraints, yet management gets another two-digit pay-rise, as is seen all too often? Early 20th century there are examples of workers literally starving while the companies proudly announced record profits for the shareholders.

[mataj]

Thanks for that. I found it very interesting as a socialist who has never lived in a truely socialist society.

The 'socialist' principles I was brought up with are that all people should have equal access to opportunities that would help them make the best of themselves. Basically, equal access to education, equal access to health care and equal employment rights.

I strongly feel that those are the basics of life but I will never accept the concept that we are all equal.
We are all individuals with different needs and requirements to live our lives as best we can, that's why I could never be a communist and why I put the strongest emphasis on access to the basic requirements.A quick comparsion from the little guy's point of view.

In socialism, taxes are higher, and salaries lower. One does not need a pension plan, however, there's is no need to pay for medical insurance, college tuitions for kids etc. Consequently, the amount of disposable income is roughly the same at the end.

The major difference between capitalism and socialism is who bosses the little guy. In capitalism, the little guy is driven mostly by his boss at work, in socialism by politics, which can be quite intrusive at a times. Still, politics (even in the form of communist party cells in every organization) could never exert as much pressure, it never had such power over the individual as capitalist management does. Management in socialistis enterprises almost had no power at all, as a matter of fact. So called "worker's council", elected by employees, was above the CEO. As a software developer, I was paid more than my boss, for example.

Noble lies, which keep the society going, are also different, of course. Socialistic says: "We have all equal rights and opportunities, there is no exploitation of workers, there are no conflicts of interests, everything is fine, so stop complaining and get to work!" The noble lie of capitalism says: "We have all equal rights and opportunities, and everyone can get rich through hard work and some luck. If you are poor, is therefore your own fault. So stop complaining and get to work"

From the individal's point of view, the quality of life in socialism is roughly the same as in capitalism. Consequently, Yugoslavia could afford itself to have its borders wide open to the West, without risking the mass exodus if its population. In this respect, it was substantially different from the Soviet block states, where living standard was much lower.

The good things about our socialist system were equal access to education, free healthcare for everyone, and PAYG state pensions. IMHO, these things certainly are worth paying taxes for. There were also a couple of other solutions, which turned out well, for example centralized financial clearing system, and enterprise organization.

The primary reason why Yugoslavian socialism fell, was the political system, which was terribly dysfunctional and ineffective. The prevailing sentiment in the end 80s, when it became clear, that the whole thing is unsustainable, was: "Riding the 1st class on Titanic."

[Blueangel]

Noble lies, which keep the society going, are also different, of course. Socialistic says: "We have all equal rights and opportunities, there is no exploitation of workers, there are no conflicts of interests, everything is fine, so stop complaining and get to work!" The noble lie of capitalism says: "We have all equal rights and opportunities, and everyone can get rich through hard work and some luck. If you are poor, is therefore your own fault. So stop complaining and get to work" ." I really like that analogy. :D It's spot on!

From the individal's point of view, the quality of life in socialism is roughly the same as in capitalism. Consequently, Yugoslavia could afford itself to have its borders wide open to the West, without risking the mass exodus if its population. In this respect, it was substantially different from the Soviet block states, where living standard was much lower.

The good things about our socialist system were equal access to education, free healthcare for everyone, and PAYG state pensions. IMHO, these things certainly are worth paying taxes for. There were also a couple of other solutions, which turned out well, for example centralized financial clearing system, and enterprise organization.
I remember the old Yugoslavia and it's open borders. Never visitied but I wish I had... It created such a stark contrast to states such as Albania and even Bulgaria.

The perception of Yugoslavia in the rest of Europe was that you had the balance right. Trade was open. People came and went over the borders without any noticable issues and Ljubljana was the party capital of Europe long before Ibiza ;) I was brought up in a household where Tito was acclaimed as a hero who resisted the pressure of the Soviet block countries and kept his country and people safe.

But, as you stated, politics got too boring and stagnant and someone had to stir the pot. It was almost as if Yugoslavia had too much of a good thing.
The model of equal access to education, free healthcare for everyone, and PAYG state pensions is replicated throughout Europe in one form or another with varying degrees of success, but it's still the model we all wish to attain and sustain. I totally agree that it is worth paying for and I totally agree that the ammount of disposable income remains roughly the same.

[mataj]

But, as you stated, politics got too boring and stagnant and someone had to stir the pot. It was almost as if Yugoslavia had too much of a good thing.Boring? Stangant? Nah, I'd rather say that former Yugoslavian political system was brain damaged.

In the USA, big money and media select the presidential candidates, people vote for electors, and electors vote for presidents.

In the former Yugoslavia, people voted for electors's elector's electors's electors' electors, which voted for elector's electors's electors' electors, which voted for electors's electors' electors, and so on. Candidates were selected by the Communist party at all levels. It was called "delegate system", a variant of Soviet system. It never functioned, and the most people speculated, that it was designed solely to prevent the ruling class from being elected out of office. Delegate system was organized municipially, as well as ocupationally. You elected one representative in your local community, and one representative at your workplace. You could always get back at your boss, but alas, there was no way one could influence the politics in general without joining the Communist Party, and raising through its ranks.

In the early 1980s, the political system became hopelessly corrupt, and incapable of solving any real world problems, like economy, or growing national tensions, which started to boil under the surface at that time.

The proverbial stirring of the pot gradually picked up steam just after the mid 1980s. The first major step were direct elections of the Slovenian representative to the collective presidency of Yugoslavia in 1989 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janez_Drnov%C5%A1ek). One of the most notable events in the people's memory is the world famous "Hafner's finger":http://www.famainternational.com/mirror/smcontent.htm
What would be remembered, though, is the finger pointed at him by Vinko Hafner, the old Slovenian communist whose orientation was expressively pro-Yugoslav, and his words addressed to Milosevic: "Comrade Slobodan, consider carefully the road you are taking, think it over, Comrade Milosevic!" But, the frozen and scornful Milosevic's face would also be remembered. He knew very well where he was going. Many people think, that the said finger should be mumified, and preserved for future generations.

Well, anyway, after that, everything went ka-blamo.