Does socialism work?

[LDeska]

It depends what you understand by 'socialism'. I don't know any example of working socialism in large scale. In small scale however it might work. Look at family - it is a socialism at work First christians also might be counted as such socialism at work or maybe even communism. The issue is that those first christians formed communities willingly. They were not forced like most people in history that lived in socialistic or communistic states.
In large scale people start to think as follows: if everything is common, then if I will start to work very hard, I will still get the same wage, because my added value divided by ten millions of other citizens will not change anything. Ever more: if I will not work at all or even will steal something, I will still get the same - because when my "substracted value" will be divided among all citizens, it will be nothing. And the system was doomed - people had no impulse to work harder as it is in capitalistic economies.

In small communities or in communities were people had motivation to work hard this system might work - as it works in our families

 

[LightSpectra]

If I have to fix my car, that means that my car is better fixed than unfixed. You seem to be arguing in the opposite direction: if I have to fix my car, that means my car is better off without being fixed!

No, if you have to fix your car, that's evidence you're not in a utopia, since in a utopia, cars don't get damaged. But while you're living in a not-perfect world, go ahead and fix your car.

So in this case, if the government needs to have more control over the people, that doesn't show that things are worse with that control - it shows that things would probably be bad without it. For example, the government says that murder is illegal and if commit murder you will be punished. The fact that the government needs to intervene in our lives in that way doesn't indicate that we'd be better off without them doing so; on the contrary, it indicates that we'd be worse off.

There wouldn't be any need to outlaw murder in a utopia. Doing so would be proof that you're not in a magical political paradise.

Why is this relevant? Because, in my experience, most socialist or communist theorists try to say that the closer you try to get to a utopia, the worse it gets, until you actually get there, which is when all of the pieces finally snap together and everything gets magical.

 

[Saim]

"Magical" isn't the right word there; magic is either:

1. A power or force within the fantasy genre, that a wizard, cleric, magic-user, mage, witch, dragon, etc. can tap into.
2. A magic trick.
3. Anything paranormal.

IMO, a utopia does not fit into any of these.

 

[LightSpectra]

There's two ways a paradise is achieved. Through God, which is miraculous, or through progress, which doesn't happen overnight (not miraculous). Either way, thinking that utopia will hit once you discover a magic theory (there's that word again) is wrong.

 

[Alpha Killer II]

The second statement is more agreeable, though far off, the whole 'no money, no hunger, no disease' is beautiful, but in the end, that's not necessarily socialism but what people in general would like to see.

Actually, it is what Socialism is meant for, Capitalism MUST include money, thus meaning someone will always be at the bottom, there will always be some chance of rebellion from the lower classes thus showing the failure of Capitalism

Another Response @ the thread: Jamestown, Virginia (The first settlement founded in America) basically used the early theory of Communism/Socialism (but still using Capitalism) to survive (You dont work, you dont get food! ), Without knowing it, go figure (and eventually Jamestown Prospered, besides the disease and Indian attacks and ect.)

And yet another Response to the thread: Even though Im Atheist, I know most of u people are "Christian" but dont u understand that "Jesus" is also Socialist? "Heaven" is a example of a Socialist Utopia, No Money, No Disease, No Hunger, No Upper Classes, and all the "bad seeds" are sent to "hell" to not ruin "Heaven"

 

[LightSpectra]

Another Response @ the thread: Jamestown, Virginia (The first settlement founded in America) basically used the early theory of Communism/Socialism (but still using Capitalism) to survive (You dont work, you dont get food! ), Without knowing it, go figure (and eventually Jamestown Prospered, besides the disease and Indian attacks and ect.)

Of course, they almost destroyed themselves. Then they switched to full-blown capitalism and prospered.

And yet another Response to the thread: Even though Im Atheist, I know most of u people are "Christian" but dont u understand that "Jesus" is also Socialist?

No, he wasn't. He didn't show many economic beliefs, other than that he wanted people to live as monks: no personal possessions, but still helping society. He didn't say "we will dispose of all possessions," he said "sell all of your possessions and give it to the poor." Which I guess would make him a capitalist, albeit a very benevolent one.

"Heaven" is a example of a Socialist Utopia, No Money, No Disease, No Hunger, No Upper Classes, and all the "bad seeds" are sent to "hell" to not ruin "Heaven"

Heaven would be a totalitarian police state. There's no free will, since you cannot sin in Heaven, and God is the omnipotent total king who sees your every thought and action. Granted, it would be a very happy dictatorship, but calling it socialist is a joke. There wouldn't be any currency in Heaven because God would accommodate for all your needs.

 

[Traitorfish]

No, he wasn't. He didn't show many economic beliefs, other than that he wanted people to live as monks: no personal possessions, but still helping society. He didn't say "we will dispose of all possessions," he said "sell all of your possessions and give it to the poor." Which I guess would make him a capitalist, albeit a very benevolent one.

Well, he was neither a capitalist or a socialist, he was an anarchist. He didn't support state-property because he didn't support the state, and he didn't support capitalism because he didn't support private property. His moral system largely seems to support a sort of anarcho-communism, devoid of private property or government.

 

[Newbunkle]

Socialism won't work until we have:

1. Robots to perform the dirty and menial tasks.

2. Replicators/Holo Decks like on Star Trek, so people can have whatever luxuries they want.

3. Leaders that do not hold onto power against the will of the people.


I'm not rich, but I do have a disposable income. I have hobbies that I spend my spare cash on. When I buy food, I like to choose what I eat, even if its not locally produced. I also think its a bad idea for people in power to be in sole control of the media, food supply, power supply, water supply, etc. Look at the problems they have now in North Korea and Burma.

I would never support a system that takes away any of my freedoms. I wouldn't support a system that penalises people for saving and passing things on to their children, while families who waste everything they are given always have everything they need provided for them. I wouldn't support a system where my children must go without needlessly, because everything is taken from us and redistributed to others who haven't earned it.

I like living in a system where talent, ambition and efficiency give you an edge. I like living in a system that allows me to invest in my own future. I can change jobs at will, study, or even emigrate. If I do well and want my children to benefit from it, I have that choice, which is important.

Most importantly, I would never allow a system to take away my human rights. Ever. I would fight to protect them. Here are some examples:

"Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others."

"No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."

"Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author."

Now, if we had the technology I mentioned in Number 2 (above) we would have no need of private property because everyone would have everything. Technically that would be a way of getting around it.

Freedom of choice is always the most important thing. For instance, imagine a socialist country had a large workforce of farmers. If a neighbouring country needed their skills, and could offer them a better quality of life, they could choose to emigrate there (its a human right to be able to change your nationality). This is an example of why we need the robots I mentioned in Number 1 (above), so the robots could be put to work. Without them, the country would need to stop the farmers leaving, either by force (breach of human rights), or by enticing them to stay (doesn't sound socialist).

Until my three points above can be met, I would never support such a system.

 

[West 36]

Socialism won't work until we have:

1. Robots to perform the dirty and menial tasks.

2. Replicators/Holo Decks like on Star Trek, so people can have whatever luxuries they want.

3. Leaders that do not hold onto power against the will of the people.


I'm not rich, but I do have a disposable income. I have hobbies that I spend my spare cash on. When I buy food, I like to choose what I eat, even if its not locally produced. I also think its a bad idea for people in power to be in sole control of the media, food supply, power supply, water supply, etc. Look at the problems they have now in North Korea and Burma.

I would never support a system that takes away any of my freedoms. I wouldn't support a system that penalises people for saving and passing things on to their children, while families who waste everything they are given always have everything they need provided for them. I wouldn't support a system where my children must go without needlessly, because everything is taken from us and redistributed to others who haven't earned it.

I like living in a system where talent, ambition and efficiency give you an edge. I like living in a system that allows me to invest in my own future. I can change jobs at will, study, or even emigrate. If I do well and want my children to benefit from it, I have that choice, which is important.

Most importantly, I would never allow a system to take away my human rights. Ever. I would fight to protect them. Here are some examples:



Now, if we had the technology I mentioned in Number 2 (above) we would have no need of private property because everyone would have everything. Technically that would be a way of getting around it.

Freedom of choice is always the most important thing. For instance, imagine a socialist country had a large workforce of farmers. If a neighbouring country needed their skills, and could offer them a better quality of life, they could choose to emigrate there (its a human right to be able to change your nationality). This is an example of why we need the robots I mentioned in Number 1 (above), so the robots could be put to work. Without them, the country would need to stop the farmers leaving, either by force (breach of human rights), or by enticing them to stay (doesn't sound socialist).

Until my three points above can be met, I would never support such a system.

I don't think you really understand socialism. Robots would help in any system too.

And Jesus didn't 'sell' things to the poor, he gave to them.

 

[LightSpectra]

Well, he was neither a capitalist or a socialist, he was an anarchist. He didn't support state-property because he didn't support the state, and he didn't support capitalism because he didn't support private property. His moral system largely seems to support a sort of anarcho-communism, devoid of private property or government.

He appointed apostles to lead over the rest of his disciples, meaning he at least believes in a theocratic government. He also refers to Heaven as a kingdom.

 

[Traitorfish]

He appointed apostles to lead over the rest of his disciples, meaning he at least believes in a theocratic government.

Well, yes and no- the apostles were primarily preachers, intended to lead, but not to rule or command. They were never really intended to preside over the sort of monolithic churches that later arose.

He also refers to Heaven as a kingdom.

Yes, but that was a metaphor intended to make an anti-monarchist point- he believed that there was no true ruler except God, rendering any earthly monarchies invalid.

 

[LightSpectra]

Well, yes and no- the apostles were primarily preachers, intended to lead, but not to rule or command. They were never really intended to preside over the sort of monolithic churches that later arose.

That's exactly what he intended. He specifically appointed Peter as the leader of his church. Remember all that "do you love me? Then feed my sheep" jazz? The apostles passed on their position to their successors. Jesus had many disciples: why let the apostles be his inside circle if they weren't at all special among his others? Why would they need to give their seat to other Christians, if being an apostle had no authority?

They were always meant to be authority figures, because it was pre-figured as that in the Old Testament (Moses/Joshua and the judges). Immediately after the resurrection, there's immediate controversy among the Christians, which Peter settles.

 

[Alpha Killer II]

Of course, they almost destroyed themselves. Then they switched to full-blown capitalism and prospered.

It was already Capitalist, just...without the breaks capitalism gives...

No, he wasn't. He didn't show many economic beliefs, other than that he wanted people to live as monks: no personal possessions, but still helping society. He didn't say "we will dispose of all possessions," he said "sell all of your possessions and give it to the poor." Which I guess would make him a capitalist, albeit a very benevolent one.

I am not talking about the Economic views on "Jesus", I was talking about the system of government in "heaven"

Heaven would be a totalitarian police state. There's no free will, since you cannot sin in Heaven, and God is the omnipotent total king who sees your every thought and action. Granted, it would be a very happy dictatorship, but calling it socialist is a joke. There wouldn't be any currency in Heaven because God would accommodate for all your needs.

Ok, explain this: What kind of government is "heaven" then? Its obvious its Socialist Utopian State! (And yes it probably is a totalitarian police state, I mean the dude knows all ur freakin thoughts!, Kinda like that one thing Bill Gates made that can read people's minds

 

[LightSpectra]

It was already Capitalist, just...without the breaks capitalism gives...

No. It was a communal-socialist system, which failed. Then they switched to laissez-faire capitalism, and it prospered.

I am not talking about the Economic views on "Jesus", I was talking about the system of government in "heaven"

Jesus was trying to bring the kingdom to Earth. He wouldn't of tried to implement a system contrary to that of Heaven's.

Furthermore, Heaven wouldn't have an economy. The only resource is piety, which is infinite, and the only need is to be more pious, which has no competition. There is no supply and demand here.

Ok, explain this: What kind of government is "heaven" then?

This baffles me. You continue to say it's socialist, but then turn around and say that I'm right, it is omnipotent-totalitarian.

Heaven has no economy.

 

[Alpha Killer II]

No. It was a communal-socialist system, which failed. Then they switched to laissez-faire capitalism, and it prospered.

Sorry, I forgot wat I was thinking there again, but yet, how better way to motivate the "gentlemen" of Jamestown than saying "NO WORK NO FOOD!!!"

Furthermore, Heaven wouldn't have an economy.
***
There is no supply and demand here.

That is what I meant!, A Socialist Utopia would have all ur needs (For sure) and almost all of ur wants given to u, and it doesnt have a "economy" because it uses no money, which is one of the factors in a Socialist Utopia

This baffles me. You continue to say it's socialist, but then turn around and say that I'm right, it is omnipotent-totalitarian.

A totalitarian state can be a Socialist Utopia, but with ur definition of "God" can change it to a socialistic Utopian-totalitarian state to a omnipotent-totalitarian-socialist-Utopian state

 

[Plotinus]

I think the discussion here about Jesus is one of the most ludicrous threadjacks I've seen in a long time. Jesus wasn't a socialist, or a communist, or an anarchist, or a capitalist.... he was an eschatological preacher. When asked about taxes, he responded with a theological point. He probably wasn't much interested in politics and economics - he was interested in God. He never talked about "the kingdom of heaven" (that is Matthew's rephrasing) - he talked about "the kingdom of God". And that's not what we would call "heaven", which is a later concept. He didn't "appoint" apostles to be "leaders" of the church; that too was a later development. The references in the Gospels to the apostles being authority figures obviously reflect the later situation, not the situation as it was in Jesus' time. Indeed, the fact that the different Gospels can't even agree on the names of the "Twelve" indicates that that group was fairly fluid and ill-defined in Jesus' lifetime.

I also think its a bad idea for people in power to be in sole control of the media, food supply, power supply, water supply, etc. Look at the problems they have now in North Korea and Burma.

What about Singapore, then? You can't cite some of the "bad" examples and conclude that such a system doesn't work without considering some of the ones where it does.

Freedom of choice is always the most important thing.

No - surely having enough is the most important thing. Do you think someone who's starving thinks that being free to choose what to eat is more important than having something to eat in the first place? The point of socialism is surely that it sees that freedom of choice is a secondary good, as it were, while having the basic necessities of food, safety, healthcare, etc are primary. That is why a certain degree of freedom, such as the freedom not to pay taxes, is surrendered in order to ensure that everyone has the basics. Once that is taken care of, then you have freedom of choice. Effectively, it's saying that caring about others is more fundamentally important than selfishness.

 

[Traitorfish]

Jesus wasn't a socialist, or a communist, or an anarchist, or a capitalist.... he was an eschatological preacher.

But he clearly presented a morale code to his followers, and any morale code leads to the implication of a form of government that best fits that morale code. Therefore, while Jesus said relatively little on the topics of politics or economics, it's possible to derive certain viewpoints from the morality he espoused. After all, that's what religous groups like the Diggers were all about- an attempt to apply the morality presented by Jesus to a society.

 

[Plotinus]

But he clearly presented a morale code to his followers, and any morale code leads to the implication of a form of government that best fits that morale code. Therefore, while Jesus said relatively little on the topics of politics or economics, it's possible to derive certain viewpoints from the morality he espoused. After all, that's what religous groups like the Diggers were all about- an attempt to apply the morality presented by Jesus to a society.

Simply expressing moral injunctions, such as "Do this" or "Do that", doesn't imply any kind of government at all. First, a series of such injunctions does not add up to a "moral code" or system. In order to be a moral system you really need an explanation of right-making properties (ie, what it is that makes this action right and that action wrong), which you won't find in the Gospels and indeed which I don't think is really addressed even in later Christian writers before Augustine. And second, even if you have such a system, I don't see there's even an implicit programme of government-creation. You might as well say that preferring coffee to tea implies the desire for a government that favours coffee over tea. That is, on the assumption that you're interested in government-forming, then yes, the adoption of one moral code rather than another has implications for what sort of government you want. But if you're not interested in governments in the first place, it doesn't. And I don't believe there's any evidence that Jesus was interested in such things. He probably thought the world was about to end - politics would have been at the bottom of his list of priorities. The fact that you may be able to derive political systems from his ethical teachings isn't really relevant to the question whether he sought to do so.

 

[Imrahil91]

Depends on what degree of socialism you mean. We in the Nordic countries, would probably be called socialists by Americans. We have free school (from elementary to university), free medical care and many forms of social security. And all the Nordic countries are at the top of UN's HDI scale, with Norway ranked as 1 (best country to live in!).
Most of Europe have some socialism in our political system, but also full democracy, free market etc.
IMO I can't say countries with very little of social security work very well. If you get really wounded in an accident, you may die because it's too expensive to get in a hospital. And if your parents are poor, you can't get a proper education because college costs money...

Socialism is ok as long as the governent is chosen with a democratic method.

 

[Newbunkle]

No - surely having enough is the most important thing. Do you think someone who's starving thinks that being free to choose what to eat is more important than having something to eat in the first place? The point of socialism is surely that it sees that freedom of choice is a secondary good, as it were, while having the basic necessities of food, safety, healthcare, etc are primary. That is why a certain degree of freedom, such as the freedom not to pay taxes, is surrendered in order to ensure that everyone has the basics. Once that is taken care of, then you have freedom of choice. Effectively, it's saying that caring about others is more fundamentally important than selfishness.

Well, I disagree. We already pay taxes, and that should be used to help the starving. There are also charities and agencies which do the same thing. There is absolutely no need for further erosions of our freedoms, which a move to a more socialist government would result in.