Socialism.
You hear it in the news, you read it on billboards, you learn about it in History class, and you fear it on Glenn Beck, but what exactly is Socialism?
Socialism is a social (what happens in your personal life), political (what happens in the government), and economic (what happens with money) system. What it calls for is equality. There's no discrimination, there's no rich/poor, and all are treated as equals. So far, there have been two main kinds of Socialism, but many smaller suggested kinds: Democratic Socialism and Marxian Socialism. The funny thing is, these two are remarkably similar.
Democratic Socialism has been achieved in countries (like Britain, Sweden, etc.) by legislation. Workers have been unhappy with the current state of things and protest, leading lawmakers to make Socialist strives. In Democratic Socialism, workers elect their bosses and government officials, and the profit of a business is cut evenly among all of the workers in an industry.
Marxian Socialism calls for revolution. It also states that revolution is inevitable. According to this doctrine, Capitalism will inevitably fail, and, due to the natural course of history, workers will rise up to establish an equal Socialist State. Among Marxists, this Socialism is almsot one and the same with the ideas of Democratic Socialism, but in order for Marxists to have their way, the revolution has to take place in a Capitalist country (America, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, etc.). If this does not occur, what you get is failure.
The failed Socialism was never even close to Socialism in the first place. This is what China, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and the USSR claimed to have had, while, in reality, they all had a system of State Capitalism (where the government is the businessman and everyone else is miserable). THIS IS NOT SOCIALISM. AT. ALL. By going from kings and peasants to a Socialist State, this kind of catastrophe happens, bringing famine, starvation, and death.
Finally, and I think that this is very important, Socialism does not mean a planned economy. The government does not call all of the shots, and the government does not own the businesses. What the government does have is the ability to provide things like health care and education. Everything else is to the workers to cooperate for the greater good of all mankind. The farmer, the grocer, and the manufacturer would all be working together (along with millions of others) to produce for the good of all, so that everyone can enjoy the benefits of what is made in a Socialist State.
If you feel like something DESPERATELY IMPORTANT is not present, or if you disagree with everything I said; if you want to argue or discuss, then leave a comment.
UP NEXT: What I saw on Glenn Beck Today (Tuesday, April 6, 2010)!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Human Nature...The End
ReplyDeleteOh and it offers no incentive for technological or economic innovation, nor does it reward hard work. Although you may disagree, our system (although not all of the time) does offer some opportunity to improve your quality of life.
ReplyDeleteThere would also be conflict over everybody being given the same amount. Some would feel the work they contribute to society is worth more.
Nobody could be greedy in this society either, nor could they want anything being what they need. They would have to be content with what they have. Also if someone wasn't quite pulling their weight, their would have to be punishments of some sort.
Overall it is a very restrictive system that pretty much phases out the individual and what he or she wants. Although it has many horrible aspects, I still prefer capitalism with government regulation of course.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I guess I'll deal with the human nature argument. The fact is, nobody knows what human nature really is. In the modern day, it's more of an excuse to do something wrong, for instance, "I can't help punching him; sadism is part of human nature!" In reality, humans are influenced most by their upbringing. A child who gets everything that they want tends to be more greedy, while a child that is given a prominent role in the family will either have leadership skills or be bossy. The reason so many Americans (and other humans) are similar in "nature" is because our upbringing is relatively the same. We have access to the same goods and services, access to the same education, and will ultimately have similar roles in life (generally working).
ReplyDeleteNext, you mention how Capitalism offers a way to improve your quality of life. This may be true, but it only allows you to improve YOUR quality of life, and even that is not guaranteed. Others will inevitably suffer from your own successes in one form or another. Is it right to be a bit more successful at the cost of another? Can the quality of a human's life have a value placed on it that can be expended for self-furthering escapades?
ReplyDeleteIn Socialism you have a societal thought that has occurred before. That is, if one works harder, he/she will produce more. More production will equate to more goods being distributed, which in turn equates to a higher standard of living for all. Nobody must be exploited for success, and all help each other out. The incentive is additionally that you will improve your life.
Some have argued that Socialism, lacking competitive Capitalism, will fail to advance technology. Just because I'm sure somebody will mention this at some point, I must say that it is not true. Edison, Graham-Bell, and Einstein had no profit to gain, nor any legitimate competition. They did what they did for the sake of knowledge.
As for the punishment concept for not pulling one's weight, and not being greedy. The thing is, as the upbringing changes in a world where greed is not necessary to get ahead, so will the general nature of the children. Essentially, Socialism breeds out greed and slack, and replaces it with equality and brotherhood. However, one thing it will never do is phase out the individual. Throughout the scape of time, no human has been created that is exactly alike. Because this cannot be done, the individual cannot be eliminated. Plus, without self-expression, it would be a very dull world, and one unlikely to invent anything (as creativity is the fundamental ingredient to invention). Additionally, as wiping out self-expression is an ideology of the far-right, this far-left ideology would promote the individual. After all, it doesn't take the 70%+ being exploited in America to contain individuality.
ReplyDeleteI'm still having trouble with the incentive to work in this society. Yes, it is true that if everyone works harder then, there will be a larger production to be distributed, resulting in having more overall. However if for some reason production were to drop off, the individual would feel lost as he is now dependent on the rest of society to produce for him. With no incentive to work, due to the guarantee of necessities, people would only produce the bare minimum required.
ReplyDeleteCaptialism provides an incentive to produce more, because the more you produce, the more income you recieve. Capitalism provides the same function as communism, by having everyone working for themselves as individuals,it would result collectively in increasing the total production of labor. All we need to do is raise minimum wage much higher, so that nobody is below the poverty line, (i'm sure rich corporations could afford it, because in the end it will go back to them when products are sold)
I really still don't think you could apply this system to humans. The main problem is that people will always want something more. This system phases out the individuals wants, for that of what the majority of society wants. I think it would be next to impossible to first change the entire culture of the modern world, and second to achieve a sort of collective human conscience where everybody has the same wants and needs, which they can agree to collectively work toward.
If i'm understanding this right (please correct any flaws) communism will be achieved by a revolution of the working class after years of exploitation by the bourgeoisie. I doubt this too will happen especially in this country. First, we have an entrenched culture of greed, materialism, and also a horrible view of communism due to years of propaganda. Second, our system is set up to where if some crisis for our workers did occur, they would put enormous pressure on our politicians to pass legislation to stop any kind of worker abuse. If for some reason they didn't listen then they would be throw out during elections. It would take decades of neglect from politicians, and horrible abuse from corporations to provoke a communist revolution.
ReplyDeleteInternationally it would take even longer. There is an enormous cultural divide between the many different people in this world. You would have to get rid of religion, re-educate everyone, and unify them culturally. We are in an increasingly globalized world, but different groups still have long-standing divides making it very difficult for me to see a worldwide communist revolution by the working class.
Now after a short rant to address your arguements.
ReplyDeleteI think I have human nature figured out. Something that the VAST majority of people always will do, is try to survive. Survival is a thing I definately see as human nature. Humans can join together to help in survival or they can work alone. If you work individually, you may not be assured of survival, but you aren't dependant on anyone else. When in groups you have the power of several people, but the needs then increase. Now you aren't going to tell me that if food was in short supply that they would still share. In that case whatever individual was dominant would survive.
The same general concept can be applied to communism and capitalism. You can work with all of humanity and share the production of your collective labor, or you can go it alone to have the production of your own labor to yourself, but not be assured of survival.
Because almost no country has the resources to be completely self-sufficient, communism would have to be an international union.
So what if the population were unable to be sustained by the production of food. If you could somehow implement this, I'm sure it could flourish for awhile. But as populations grew, and resources were stretched, eventually peoples' standard of living would have to be cut back, not because of lack of production, but because of a insufficient amount to supply the population. It is similar to Malthus' theory that our population growth could not be sustained unless we produced more. The system would then fail, as people began to look out for their own survival rather than everyone else's good.
As you explained to me earlier, competition has not always existed within human society. However we haven't always had to struggle to survive. We have been able, for the most part, to produce an abundance of food.
So all i'm saying is,that communism even if implemented would fail eventually, if a lack of resources were to force us to struggle to survive, causing competition.
First on incentives. The problem with your argument is that Capitalism rarely provides a legitimate incentive for hard work. There's always the possibility of a promotion, but in the end, a Capitalist will only promote you if it doesn't harm production and increases profit. Therefore, it's better to keep hard workers down low, where they can continue to produce, than in high-pay, white collar jobs.
ReplyDeleteSocialism, on the other hand, has a definite incentive, which I covered previously. Instead of a fleeting chance of one person potentially making it bit, Socialism gradually improves the quality of life substanitally for all.
Communism Monopoly
ReplyDeleteOn the revolution and unification. Capitalism relies on bubble economics, where short "bubbles" of production exponentially increase capital, only to "pop", destroying the lives of millions of workers relying on the capital. Examples would of course be the Great Depression and the recent Recession, both were caused (at least a large percentage of the cause) by Capitalism's bubble economics.
ReplyDeleteNow eventually, that bubble will be too large, and the resulting pop will force so many into such harsh conditions that revolution is guaranteed (look at the French Revolution, for example). That revolution will begin the first truly Socialist nation. Now, if Capitalism is anywhere, Socialists will be uneasy, so Socialism is inherently an international movement. The worker is the primary cultural binding. Look at how our American culture has changed since the our revolution. That was from Feudalism/Colonialism to Independence and a new culture. Most Communists (and Socialists) are fully aware that this world-changing revolution won't happen tomorrow, and probably not within your, or my, lifetime. There are still countries that are in the Feudalist phase of history, after all, so they'll probably be Capitalist by the time America turns Socialist. This is unavoidable. However, those Capitalist markets will have to trade with the Socialist nations if they hope to turn a profit of any kind, until they themselves turn Socialist by following Marx's historical theory.
With religion and other culture, they seek to establish nationalism. If you've perhaps viewed my profile picture, it reads "Internationalist Communist Left Workers Have No Country." Socialism has little need for things like religion, but wouldn't stand in the way of it, nor does it need a unifying culture, other than that of the end of struggle, but it wouldn't impede on culture either. Remember, "religion is the opiate of the masses."
A Few quick questions
ReplyDeleteLets say your system was implemented...
1. Could everyone still choose their own career/job.
2. If not enough people wanted to work on farms, or in manufacturing how would you produce enough for everyone.
3.Would we just recieve necessities such as food/water/housing/etc.. or would we be able to get other products too.(Because we're all individuals, in our leisure time everyone would want to have some sort of hobby, and if they don't have access to anything else what will they spend their time doing, besides working)
4. When implemented, if some didn't want the system, would it still be forced on them, or could they form a different state.
5. What would be the government's role.
In America, we possess all of the resources to provide for our country (minus luxury goods) for a good period of time. Yes, Socialism (and Communism) is an international movement, but I find it unlikely that a Socialist revolution would only happen in one place, rather than a multitude of nations. Then you have enough resources for a happy society until global Socialism comes into effect, then Communism. Although human population growth is inevitable, we must understand the leaps and bounds mankind has made in terms of overproduction. Food and water aren't that big of an issue (as one can be synthesized and the other makes up 70% of our planet), but housing is a problem. Certainly, crouding would have some serious negative consequences, and thus has been the motivation for space exploration for some time now. By the time a Socialist revolution comes about, I guarantee you that we will have a colony on Mars and will have begun terraforming. Suddenly, we'll have increased our population capacity by many billions. There's also at least 2 other moons that we can colonize in our Solar System, not to mention the engine technology that will have come about by that time (possibly enough to reach Proxima Centauri). In the mean time, we still have plenty of room internationally for people. It's the intense nationalism that is keeping people from being more spread out.
ReplyDelete1. Yes. As we are today, people end up with a variety of different jobs. This would not change in Socialism.
ReplyDelete2. I don't see this as a problem yet. People will continue working in rural and industrial areas for a good time. By the time they stop, we'll probably be able to produce through robotic labor.
3. Food would be distributed. Water would be channeled out to everyone. Property would be distributed. Other things, such as insurance, electricity, etc. would also be distributed. Essentially all that is produced is distributed.
4. Likely they would have it forced on them, just like the Union forced on the Confederacy and the American revolutionaries forced on the loyalists. They could probably leave for a time, but the global revolution would catch up to them.
5. In Socialism, the government would mostly exist to oversee distribution, make appropriate legislation, enforce laws, and handle international affairs. This government would be democratically elected by the workers, and each representative would be subject to recall/expulsion at any time (to prevent corruption/maintain accurate representation).
1. I understand the distribution, I was just wondering what other than life's necessities would be produced?
ReplyDelete2. If a large group of people were to oppose a socialist state, why would it be forced on them?
3.Who would be responsible for defense of the state, especially from internal conflict?
1. Imagine every good that is produced in America today (/is capable of being produced in America today). That's what you're looking at. Things from deoderant to transportation to education to frozen pizzas to Gidget #X.
ReplyDelete2. In 1776, 30% of Americans were for Independence. They won. In 1861, 30% of Americans were for the abolition of slavery. They won. In 2010, 30% of Americans view Socialism in a positive light. The fact is, by the end of a war for anything, one side comes out on top, and the other isn't happy about it for a while. If they wanted to continue living in the same geographical territory, then those people would have Socialism, whether they wanted it or not.
3. With the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (not Socialist, but at least respectable for a time), Leon Trotsky organized the Red Army. Naturally, people would be employed as soldiers and police officers (/other peacekeepers), but no standing force would be necessary at all times, because a Socialist nation would only militarize in the event that it were invaded. Typically, when a nation is invaded, a large portion of the population subsequently joins the military. I don't think that there would be too many problems.
Well, I'm out of questions...
ReplyDeleteSo if I'm understanding you right this is how it would work.
ReplyDeletePeople would all work producing all of the same products as today, only without the capitalist middleman profiting from it. All goods would then be distributed evenly to everyone.
Government would oversee distribution, and would be comprised of representitives elected by workers, and would be subject to immediate removal if necessary.
An army comprised of workers could be called on if necessary for defense.
Land would open up for settlement, and more would be reached by space exploration.
Technological innovation would keep up with food/manufacturing demands.
...Did I cover everything?
That's a pretty good assessment. Now sure, there's lots of other finite things to cover, but that's more than sufficient for most people.
ReplyDelete