Disappointed?

dave · Feb 7, 2010

So much of this talk of socialism is pie in the sky.

The only issue is who has the power. In countries of any size, that means the government. It doesn't matter what label you put on it - socialist, republic, democracy, or any of these hybrids peple keep mentioning - it always comes down to the government versus the people. It doesn't matter if its a government or a corporation or the local school board or a charity, all organizations work to expand their power and control. Once it crosses a threshold where it has accumulated enough power to be unaccountable, people become nothing more than a resource to be used as needed.

Socialist/communist/dictatorships all start out with a very powerfull government and quickly degenerate into those classic nasty governments we all know about.
Anarchy isn't the answer either.

The idea that "the people" will control everything is impractical and will not work.

David · Feb 7, 2010

dave said:
So much of this talk of socialism is pie in the sky.

The only issue is who has the power. In countries of any size, that means the government. It doesn't matter what label you put on it - socialist, republic, democracy, or any of these hybrids peple keep mentioning - it always comes down to the government versus the people. It doesn't matter if its a government or a corporation or the local school board or a charity, all organizations work to expand their power and control. Once it crosses a threshold where it has accumulated enough power to be unaccountable, people become nothing more than a resource to be used as needed.

Socialist/communist/dictatorships all start out with a very powerfull government and quickly degenerate into those classic nasty governments we all know about.
Anarchy isn't the answer either.

The idea that "the people" will control everything is impractical and will not work.

So you're a pessimist?

deanhills · Feb 7, 2010

GOP said:
They were dictatorships, but that's mostly what socialist countries have been and still are. Belarus and North Korea as an example today.

Think you have lost me on this one. Are you saying socialist countries and dictatorships are the same thing?

deanhills · Feb 7, 2010

GOP said:
That's exactly why I interpreted the post made by deanhills, as referring to socialdemocracy.

We're probably going off topic here, but the closest to socialdemocracy for me would be Germany under Hitler. Stalin had a different kind of Government that had very little to do with socialism. Stalin's was a true dictatorship.

For me the current government in the United States is a plutocracy, where Government and big money are mingled to the disadvantage of those who are not among the select few that the Government is doing business with:

The second usage of plutocracy is a pejorative reference to a disproportionate influence the wealthy are said to have on political process in contemporary society: for example Kevin Phillips, author and political strategist to U.S. President Richard Nixon, argues that the United States is a plutocracy in which there is a "fusion of money and government."[3]
Positive influence includes campaign contributions; negative influence includes refusing to support the government financially by refusing to pay taxes, threatening to move profitable industries elsewhere, bribes, and so on. It can also be exerted by the owners and ad buyers of media properties which can shape public perception of political issues (see also: fourth estate).

Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy

Dirk · Feb 7, 2010

David said:
So you're a pessimist?

No, he just doesn't like democracy. :giggle:

dave · Feb 7, 2010

David said:
So you're a pessimist?

No, I'm a realist. The closest people have come to a free society is due to the Constitution. Create a government to do specific things that require the nation to speak with one voice, and put strict limits and checks on those powers. The beauty of the Constitution is that it gives the federal government enough power to do what is required, but allows the states to veto the federal government. It pits the state politicians against the federal politicians - all want power, none want to give up any of their power, and the states will fight to keep their power. Since the states start out with more power than the federal government, theoretically, the federal government should not be able to reach that threshold where it is unaccountable.

Things didn't work out that way for several reasons, most notably the fact that so many people fell asleep and gave their freedoms away.

Socialism, as others have already pointed out here, never works in the real world. Its a fantasy based on the belief that all people, without any incentive except their own initiative and desire to "do good", will work for the greater good. Thats not the way people work. Thats where capitalism comes in, its a system that lets people improve their situation by providing what other people want.

GOP · Feb 7, 2010

deanhills said:
Think you have lost me on this one. Are you saying socialist countries and dictatorships are the same thing?

No, not necessarily. But what we've experienced during the long history we have with socialism, is that socialist countries turn out to become dictatorships.

deanhills said:
We're probably going off topic here, but the closest to socialdemocracy for me would be Germany under Hitler. Stalin had a different kind of Government that had very little to do with socialism. Stalin's was a true dictatorship.

I'd prefer to put this differently. Stalin was a communist and he definitely meant for the USSR to be a communist nation, but Stalin was very troubled by his thoughts and psych. When Stalin grew up in Georgia he had absolutely no power, and he became power sick during his early years, now when he came to power, he knew how to take advantage and force people to do what he pleased. This has very much to do with socialism, because this is exactly the sort of people who are attracted to become nation wide leaders for socialist countries, the power sick ones. Once they are president, they control everything, because the state is supposed to control every single detail in the country.

deanhills · Feb 7, 2010

GOP said:
No, not necessarily. But what we've experienced during the long history we have with socialism, is that socialist countries turn out to become dictatorships.

I've never seen a truly socialist country yet but am open for correction. Can you give an example of a socialist country? If you had Russia in mind, I doubt Russia has ever been a socialist country. More like going from one dictatorship to another and pretending it was communism.

GOP · Feb 7, 2010

deanhills said:
I've never seen a truly socialist country yet but am open for correction. Can you give an example of a socialist country? If you had Russia in mind, I doubt Russia has ever been a socialist country. More like going from one dictatorship to another and pretending it was communism.

Now the arguments that state that there is no, hasn't been a communist country is to me ridiculous because the reason why people say this isn't because it never existed, but it never got the chance to be fulfilled and the reason for this is that socialism can never work in a society, no one can get a 100% socialist country without forcing people to do different things so government gets its power. And there you have Stalin in the USSR, he forced farmers to give up land to the Soviet state, now they had to, or else they were murdered. And Soviet was definitely a socialist state, you have examples of the state handing out food, clothing - instead of private firms doing this like we have in Britain and in the United States. Same with North Korea, it's an example of communist power house where all the control is with the president. I don't believe people who claim that this isn't a part of communism. Giving power to one single sector, while everyone else are supposed to be treated just the same in everything they do, will never work. It's against our human way of living and that's why they had to solve it in a brutally manner because they didn't manage to do it civilized, as the farmers in Russia are a good example of.

deanhills · Feb 8, 2010

GOP said:
Now the arguments that state that there is no, hasn't been a communist country is to me ridiculous because the reason why people say this isn't because it never existed, but it never got the chance to be fulfilled

If it never got fulfilled, it could not have existed? Probably they got bogged down at the point when power was necessary, and then when they got the power, the focus became more one of survival of power to control, which made it impossible to implement socialism. Socialism is supposed to come from the people. From that point onwards I would agree. People are not sufficiently educated or focussed on the interests of the group to be able to make socialism work. Perhaps poverty and lack of education are other ingredients for the failure of socialism to take hold in any country.

GOP said:
And Soviet was definitely a socialist state, you have examples of the state handing out food, clothing - instead of private firms doing this like we have in Britain and in the United States. Same with North Korea, it's an example of communist power house where all the control is with the president. I don't believe people who claim that this isn't a part of communism. Giving power to one single sector, while everyone else are supposed to be treated just the same in everything they do, will never work. It's against our human way of living and that's why they had to solve it in a brutally manner because they didn't manage to do it civilized, as the farmers in Russia are a good example of.

Before the French Revolution, the Royals also handed out bread and "cake" from time to time. That was not socialism though. It was a Monarchy trying to please the people. Handing out food and clothing does not make for a socialist Government.

GOP · Feb 8, 2010

deanhills said:
If it never got fulfilled, it could not have existed?

My point is that it didn't get to exist in the way Karl Marx wanted it to, but I believe that when you try to make a country socialist, the results we've seen with different dictators through the years is the only result you get. It's not a human friendly ideology. We're not equally good at everything, and it will create uproar and major difficulties for the people of a country when the government is trying to push this on a population.

deanhills said:
Probably they got bogged down at the point when power was necessary, and then when they got the power, the focus became more one of survival of power to control, which made it impossible to implement socialism. Socialism is supposed to come from the people. From that point onwards I would agree. People are not sufficiently educated or focussed on the interests of the group to be able to make socialism work. Perhaps poverty and lack of education are other ingredients for the failure of socialism to take hold in any country.

Absolutely, and this is exactly why it does not work!

deanhills said:
Before the French Revolution, the Royals also handed out bread and "cake" from time to time. That was not socialism though. It was a Monarchy trying to please the people. Handing out food and clothing does not make for a socialist Government.

No, but the point I was making was the in the Soviet Union private companies were not allowed to earn or do anything. This is why clothes, food and all the necessary things for people were handled by the state. This is exactly what communism is.

Dirk · Feb 8, 2010

1. Socialism doesn't require a state/government.

2. The Soviet Union used the support the idea of socialism had to justify itself - it wasn't socialist itself.

3. Communism is a hypothetical stateless society.

4. Communism is probably next to impossible.

5. Just because i claim to be made of chocolate, doesn't mean i am. Facts are independent of personal claims.

6. Also, me claiming to be made of chocolate does not change the definition of chocolate.

7. Thus operates common sense.

deanhills · Feb 8, 2010

GOP said:
No, but the point I was making was the in the Soviet Union private companies were not allowed to earn or do anything. This is why clothes, food and all the necessary things for people were handled by the state. This is exactly what communism is.

OK. That says that the Government was anti-capitalist. It did not want to share any power with people making money. Only the State was allowed to deal with money. That is still not socialist. Government representatives got to fill their pantries with a variety of food from abroad through their black market. This was not shared with people who had no food and had to line up for bread and other basics.

GOP · Feb 8, 2010

"...a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

Source: Dictionary.com

This is exactly what I was speaking about. And EXACTLY how the USSR was run.

myp · Feb 8, 2010

GOP said:
"...a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

Source: Dictionary.com

This is exactly what I was speaking about. And EXACTLY how the USSR was run.

Communism and socialism tend to cause confusion when people who use the historical term (like you and usually me as well) talk about it with people who use the theoretical term (like Dirk/David.) For clarity's sake, let's just call it "state socialism" or "state communism" to explain the USSR- both sides can agree on that definition.

GOP · Feb 8, 2010

myp said:
Communism and socialism tend to cause confusion when people who use the historical term (like you and usually me as well) talk about it with people who use the theoretical term (like Dirk/David.) For clarity's sake, let's just call it "state socialism" or "state communism" to explain the USSR- both sides can agree on that definition.

Brilliant!

I agree with that definition.

David · Feb 8, 2010

myp said:
Communism and socialism tend to cause confusion when people who use the historical term (like you and usually me as well) talk about it with people who use the theoretical term (like Dirk/David.) For clarity's sake, let's just call it "state socialism" or "state communism" to explain the USSR- both sides can agree on that definition.

I guess so.

deanhills · Feb 8, 2010

myp said:
Communism and socialism tend to cause confusion when people who use the historical term (like you and usually me as well) talk about it with people who use the theoretical term (like Dirk/David.) For clarity's sake, let's just call it "state socialism" or "state communism" to explain the USSR- both sides can agree on that definition.

Excellent definition, thanks MYP. For Russia it probably represents the "Dark Ages" too.

David · Feb 8, 2010

deanhills said:
Excellent definition, thanks MYP. For Russia it probably represents the "Dark Ages" too.

You do know how bad it was under the Empire, right?

deanhills · Feb 9, 2010

David said:
You do know how bad it was under the Empire, right?

Which one? I sometimes wonder whether the British Empire had been much much worse, as it always had the pretense of a democracy, and being civilized, but it has to have been one of the most treacherous of empires ever. With an enormous ability to double talk. I am almost convinced that this is how the English language developed so many words that have double and triple meanings, depending how they are used. Compare this with German and Dutch words that exactly describe what they mean. I believe words in the Russian language also have a variety of meanings and can also be fickle.

Disappointed?

Similar threads