NationStates Jolt Archive

I am still confused, not sure about this whole thing. Is their any socialists here that could aid me?

Please don't. The arguments on this topic have been exhaustive to the point of nausea. Just go back over the last couple weeks and read some of the debate threads about communism and socialism - there's very little about both points of view that you can't learn from any given 2 or so of those threads.

A question might be useful...

Communism-nice ideas and all (as I understand it...complete social/economic freedom and equality, butterflies, unicorns, and rainbows), but the flaws of human nature make it impossible for the system to work. Thus you end up with ugly dictatorships, not at all like fluffy clouds and ice cream sundaes as Marx predicted (from what I know of it).

Socialism-Eh. Works for Europe. I prefer the good ol' American-style democracy. Socialism creates too much bureaucracy and huge unmanagable government. At least in America, huge unmanagable government wasn't completely unavoidable. And there's hope for toning it down in the future. Which is why, when I run for the senate in 20 years, you should vote for me. ;)

Socialism-Eh. Works for Europe.

Europe is not by any means "Socialist."

Europe is not by any means "Socialist."

I apologize. I really don't know what I'm talking about. But that's the beauty of internet. Being able to throw your two cents in without consequences! Except maybe looking like a jackass...but it's not like anyone knows you in real life anyway. Hooray for internet! :p

Socialism-Eh. Works for Europe.

Europe isn't really socialist - at worst, they're to socialism what bathwater is to Dasani. Serious socialism is something fortunately absent at the moment.

Don't bring up socialism. The debate will always dissolve into a war of namecalling.

Socialism increases in difficulty to make work in proportion to the size of the socialist group and the ability of the group to evict nonproductive members. They tend to be nonfunctional on wider scales, where the common goal becomes less visible in favor of the personal goal.

For instance, a household should probably be run in a socialistic manner. From each, according to his (or her) ability, to each accoring to his need. A rural neighborhood, or a church, should be run in the same way.

However, on a larger scale, you are left with essentially two options: operation far below the country's potential, especially economically--for the drive to do better, work harder, innovate, etc. is 'it will help me and mine'. Alternateltly, you can create a highly ordered society, which punishes dissidants.

The world's militaries work in much this way. Militaries, since they need to operate together for the common good--the pursuit of a strategy--need to operate in an essentially socialistic manner. Parts of the military will still operate for their own self-interest, but they will follow the chain of command and work for the greater good, and within the military, it is 'from each, according to his ability, to each according to his need'. However, countries ruled in the manner of a military tend to be bad ones to live in, not least because it is traditionally the civilian government which keeps the military in check, and your workforce is not volantier, but for the most part born into it.

You can also mix socialism and markets, by trying to make it such that there is still incentive for at least some of your population to work hard and innovate, while making sure that nobody is badly off. This is the sort of thing that much of continental Europe uses. (Though to an extent all 1st world ations do this, even the economically-rightist USA, it is a question of degree. Contrast the USA and Sweden.)

That's called a mixed market or welfare state, and is the paradigm to some degree for every single Western nation.

Don't bring up socialism. The debate will always dissolve into a war of namecalling.
@ the Capitolists: Socialism is the 1337. Only retards would think crapitoli$m is any good.

@ the Socialists: Socialism=OMG Oppression. Capitalismis the only way to be free.

I am still confused, not sure about this whole thing. Is their any socialists here that could aid me?

Don't, it's stupid.

Socialism is a very broad term, but pretty generally means stealing from productive people to give to everyone else. Socialists like the rule "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". I much prefer, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability". My maxim tends to maximize ability and its utilization. Socialism tends to minimize ability and maximize need.

If all you are looking for is info, here are a couple of links to get you started.

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dmcm/
http://www1.minn.net/~nup/
http://sp-usa.org/

but the flaws of human nature make it impossible for the system to work.

I'm tired of constantly addressing this one. "Human Nature" isn't constant. Every human thinks differently. Some people are selfish. Some people aren't. Our "nature" and personality develops as a response to the conditions around us. It isn't there from birth.

I see the nature of the 20th century attempts at socialism as a problem with Marxian theory - there are other forms of communist thought besides Marxism. (Marxists would disagree, though, because they do that.)

Communism-nice ideas and all (as I understand it...complete social/economic freedom and equality, butterflies, unicorns, and rainbows), but the flaws of human nature make it impossible for the system to work. Thus you end up with ugly dictatorships, not at all like fluffy clouds and ice cream sundaes as Marx predicted (from what I know of it).

Socialism-Eh. Works for Europe. I prefer the good ol' American-style democracy. Socialism creates too much bureaucracy and huge unmanagable government. At least in America, huge unmanagable government wasn't completely unavoidable. And there's hope for toning it down in the future. Which is why, when I run for the senate in 20 years, you should vote for me. ;)

Oh, so you didn't actually study either, you just wanted to sucker leftists in to a crappy debate.

I'm tired of constantly addressing this one. "Human Nature" isn't constant. Every human thinks differently. Some people are selfish. Some people aren't. Our "nature" and personality develops as a response to the conditions around us. It isn't there from birth.

I see the nature of the 20th century attempts at socialism as a problem with Marxian theory - there are other forms of communist thought besides Marxism. (Marxists would disagree, though, because they do that.)

The problem is not that all people are greedy and selfish, it is just that there are a great many (I would say majority, you may say minority). Human nature is varied, that is given, but the desire for self improvement is generally inherent.

It is in our nature to better ourselves, and sometimes those around us. We want a TV, we want microwaves, we want anything that will make our lives easier. That will not change, so the argument is valid.

However, were true communism to ever arise, it would be through free economic action by the people, because it would be in their self interest to do so. So it is in that sense that the argument is worthless.

It really boils down to what type of socialism you are looking for. I tend to prefer the social libretarian/market socialist view. What it basically breaks down to is the ability of people to maximize their social freedoms with a limited set of laws governing social behaviors (i.e. 16 yr old drinking age, you can own guns, you can smoke pot if you want to, gays can marry etc. . . .) The economic side tends to be one of higher regulation - pollution controls, minimum wage laws, etc. . .


There are a few kinks, as there are in every system, which is where a balance between the forces of market capitalism and government collectivism come together.


I like to see a healthy private sector that competes with goverment sectors to win contracts. It tend to up the productivity of both parties if they have to work for their meat.

I also expect the government to hold a responsability to care for its citizens. The best model I have to work from in the real world would be the scandnavian countries and switzerland.

Socialism is a very broad term, but pretty generally means stealing from productive people to give to everyone else.

No, it means giving back to the productive people what has been stolen from them, by turning over ownership of the means of production to those who actually do the work.

If you want to be a socialist become a hardcore volunteer. Soup kitchens are needy, why not work in a retirement residence or other many activities.

If you do that without gathering an income and not for fame of any degree then you are well on your way. You'd be a hypocrite to not be a government socialist as well, its all about helping people and your community and trusting the government to take care of its citizens.

I am still confused, not sure about this whole thing. Is their any socialists here that could aid me?

Sure, what do you want to know about soclialism ? ;)

(Long live the Socialist Party!)

Look up 1917 to 1924 Russia. That'd explain it better than I ever could.

Join the Peace Corp or something similar. If you like helping people over yourself then research socialism again. If you don't even want to do that come up with some idea idiots will buy (fuzzy watches) and then make it so it kills them and pretend you didn't know it would. This is to ensure there will be no returns (it also adds to the coolness factor of the product). When the net of the law makes it's way towards your white collar ass you can sell out your investors and employees and run behind a wall of lawyers while leaving the blame on Stevens the new CEO. After that either repeat the process or just live large on your billions.

The problem is not that all people are greedy and selfish, it is just that there are a great many (I would say majority, you may say minority). Human nature is varied, that is given, but the desire for self improvement is generally inherent.

... inside a capitalist society. That's one of the key of marxism, historical materialism shows us that the huge majority of the population is heavily affected by the society. So it's no wonder why in a capitalist (selfish, reckless, me-or-you) society, many people are mostly selfish (but even then, most are not completly selfish). In a socialist (sharing, helping, me-and-you) society, a far greatest proportion of people would be more generous and helpfull. That's one of the main reasons for which I'm "communist", because I strongly oppose a system (capitalism) which rewards, encourages and produces egoism.

Another point is that "socialism" doesn't require 100% of nice, sharing, altruist people. Nor does it require anyone to be 100% altruist. It just requires a fair majority to be mostly nice and altruist (that's, IMHO, the main difference between socialism and anarchy, and why anarchy, while a nice dream, is unrealistic, while socialism (and later, communism) is).

It is in our nature to better ourselves, and sometimes those around us. We want a TV, we want microwaves, we want anything that will make our lives easier. That will not change, so the argument is valid.

Why is "better ourselves" wanting a TV and not wanting to know more ? Why is "better ourselves" wanting a bigger car and not wanting to help the community ? Capitalism, with its advertising brainwashing, and it's glorification of money and wealth _creates_ the impression that "bettering ourselves" is being more wealthy and possessing more. Sure, it can be part of it, and we should try to have some comfort, but it's far, far from being the main way to "better ourselves". It's only the capitalist society that, since, brainwash us to think this way.

However, were true communism to ever arise, it would be through free economic action by the people, because it would be in their self interest to do so. So it is in that sense that the argument is worthless.

What's your "self interest" ? Say, you can buy two cars, one costs $1000 more but pollute far less. Your "self interest", as a consumer, is to buy the cheaper car. The pollution of ONE car will not affect you much, but $1000 for you will change a lot. But then, if everyone (say, 100k persons) does this choice, it's not ONE car which pollutes, but 100k of cars that pollutes ! And that may affect yourself more than the $1000. Your "self interest", as a member of the society, is that everyone buys the more expensive car. So, even if you would be acting only for your "self interest", if you take the decision for yourself (for example, buying), you would chose the polluting car, if you take the decision for the community (for example, voting for which car should be produced) you would chose the less polluting one.

It may seem a silly example, but it's a very common situation in economics, which contributes to "Nash equilibrium" (capitalism leading to the worse situation for everyone). Socialism, by increasing the number of decisions taken collectively tends to make everyone play collective. Even a selfish person will, mathematically, acts more altruisticly inside a socialism system, because it encourages you to think about collective effects, and not about individual effects. For the better of all.

I'm tired of constantly addressing this one. "Human Nature" isn't constant. Every human thinks differently. Some people are selfish. Some people aren't. Our "nature" and personality develops as a response to the conditions around us. It isn't there from birth.


Quite so. It's also shaped by the society we live in. I'd point to Tokelau as an example. In Tokelau, the complete sharing (inati) of all ressources is seen as natural and is never questioned. Until very recently (the change coming with the influence of the Western world) there was no concept of trying to accumulate wealth and property while disregarding the basic needs of your fellow citizens. The "human nature" argument has no basis in fact.

Quite so. It's also shaped by the society we live in. I'd point to Tokelau as an example. In Tokelau, the complete sharing (inati) of all ressources is seen as natural and is never questioned. Until very recently (the change coming with the influence of the Western world) there was no concept of trying to accumulate wealth and property while disregarding the basic needs of your fellow citizens. The "human nature" argument has no basis in fact.

"no basis"? When resources are low people are known to kill eachother for them. Your one example does not change this for all humans. Is that enough? I see your point and don't necessarily disagree but "no basis" is definately an overstatement.

It is in our nature to better ourselves, and sometimes those around us. We want a TV, we want microwaves, we want anything that will make our lives easier. That will not change, so the argument is valid.


You've got a rather strange definition of "bettering" yourself. Also, what you're describing isn't in our "nature" (see my earlier post). It's because society conditions us to want these things. It's utterly artificial. Consumer society is neither natural nor a "norm". We've reached the height of absurdity with a consumer society which, instead of trying to respond to genuine needs, deliberately creates artificial needs by selling and advertising products no-one would have dreamt of wanting (or 'needing' or missing) had they not been told to want them.

It's got nothing to do with "our nature".

You've got a rather strange definition of "bettering" yourself. Also, what you're describing isn't in our "nature" (see my earlier post). It's because society conditions us to want these things. It's utterly artificial. Consumer society is neither natural nor a "norm". We've reached the height of absurdity with a consumer society which, instead of trying to respond to genuine needs, deliberately creates artificial needs by selling and advertising products no-one would have dreamt of wanting (or 'needing' or missing) had they not been told to want them.

It's got nothing to do with "our nature".

Correct - I see the selfish nature of many people in a capitalist society as a response to it. The best way to get TV's and Microwaves (or the ever popular designer-bottled-water ;)) is by being selfish.

"no basis"? When resources are low people are known to kill eachother for them. Your one example does not change this for all humans. Is that enough? I see your point and don't necessarily disagree but "no basis" is definately an overstatement.

All right, I could have phrased it differently. Let me put it this way, then. When living in a stable, organised society, when ressources overall are not scarce, then there is little or no basis for it.

When ressources are extremely scarce, then what you would call "human nature" falls back simply into animal-like survival instinct, which is natural, yes. But that's somewhat beside the point. What some have been saying is that the selfish accumulation of human wealth, through the exploitation of those who produce it, and far beyond one's needs, is just "human nature". I was explaining why that isn't true.

You've got a rather strange definition of "bettering" yourself. Also, what you're describing isn't in our "nature" (see my earlier post). It's because society conditions us to want these things. It's utterly artificial. Consumer society is neither natural nor a "norm". We've reached the height of absurdity with a consumer society which, instead of trying to respond to genuine needs, deliberately creates artificial needs by selling and advertising products no-one would have dreamt of wanting (or 'needing' or missing) had they not been told to want them.

I totally agree with that :) And it's leading us to destroy the planet, wasting ressources creating artificial needs and then wasting even more ressources fulfilling them...

I was never convinced by the human nature argument either. Seems to me it's just flaunted by the sort of people who just are incredibly selfish, and assume it must apply to everyone else. Whilst everyone is selfish to some degree, humans have evolved a sense of morality precisely because we are communal animals and have a natural empathy and sense of responsibility to others. If humans only cared about themselves, we wouldn't have accomplished much as a race. Selfishness has it's place in human nature, but it's certainly not the be-all and end-all.

well, the thing that i like about socialism is that i really feel that it's so disgusting for people to starve, and for people who do hard physical labor and necessary jobs to go poor while some guy whose whole job it is to pass money from one person to another becomes a huge millionaire. not everyone who's poor is unproductive and not everyone who's rich is productive. it's an unfair blanket statement and it's not right to label an entire economic class that way. and if i could help one struggling family while a thousand leech off me, i'd be satisfied.

Don't, it's stupid.

Socialism is a very broad term, but pretty generally means stealing from productive people to give to everyone else. Socialists like the rule "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". I much prefer, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability". My maxim tends to maximize ability and its utilization. Socialism tends to minimize ability and maximize need.

So you're a social darwinist, the stronger take more than the weak. Really moral, isn't it? So you're already living in your paradise, 'cause that's called capitalism:sniper:

... inside a capitalist society. That's one of the key of marxism, historical materialism shows us that the huge majority of the population is heavily affected by the society. So it's no wonder why in a capitalist (selfish, reckless, me-or-you) society, many people are mostly selfish (but even then, most are not completly selfish). In a socialist (sharing, helping, me-and-you) society, a far greatest proportion of people would be more generous and helpfull. That's one of the main reasons for which I'm "communist", because I strongly oppose a system (capitalism) which rewards, encourages and produces egoism.

People will push for an easier life, all things flow to the path of least resistance and humans are no different.

Another point is that "socialism" doesn't require 100% of nice, sharing, altruist people. Nor does it require anyone to be 100% altruist. It just requires a fair majority to be mostly nice and altruist (that's, IMHO, the main difference between socialism and anarchy, and why anarchy, while a nice dream, is unrealistic, while socialism (and later, communism) is).

It requires a fair majority to be freely nice and altruist and the other people to be forced to be nice and altruist. Democracy is not justification for the elimination of rights.

Why is "better ourselves" wanting a TV and not wanting to know more ? Why is "better ourselves" wanting a bigger car and not wanting to help the community ? Capitalism, with its advertising brainwashing, and it's glorification of money and wealth _creates_ the impression that "bettering ourselves" is being more wealthy and possessing more. Sure, it can be part of it, and we should try to have some comfort, but it's far, far from being the main way to "better ourselves". It's only the capitalist society that, since, brainwash us to think this way.

In a capitalist society you can buy a collection of encyclopedias or a TV, 95% of the population would buy a TV, I would buy a TV, you would buy a TV. I have not been brainwashed, have you?

We want a TV because our life is more enjoyable, we want a microwave because our life is more convenient. Socialism will not change that.

What's your "self interest" ? Say, you can buy two cars, one costs $1000 more but pollute far less. Your "self interest", as a consumer, is to buy the cheaper car. The pollution of ONE car will not affect you much, but $1000 for you will change a lot. But then, if everyone (say, 100k persons) does this choice, it's not ONE car which pollutes, but 100k of cars that pollutes ! And that may affect yourself more than the $1000. Your "self interest", as a member of the society, is that everyone buys the more expensive car. So, even if you would be acting only for your "self interest", if you take the decision for yourself (for example, buying), you would chose the polluting car, if you take the decision for the community (for example, voting for which car should be produced) you would chose the less polluting one.

It may seem a silly example, but it's a very common situation in economics, which contributes to "Nash equilibrium" (capitalism leading to the worse situation for everyone). Socialism, by increasing the number of decisions taken collectively tends to make everyone play collective. Even a selfish person will, mathematically, acts more altruisticly inside a socialism system, because it encourages you to think about collective effects, and not about individual effects. For the better of all.

You are pretty much saying that people are altruistic because they are punished if they don't. Myopic decision making is not justification for punishing those who seek to maintain their individualism and liberty.

You've got a rather strange definition of "bettering" yourself. Also, what you're describing isn't in our "nature" (see my earlier post). It's because society conditions us to want these things. It's utterly artificial. Consumer society is neither natural nor a "norm". We've reached the height of absurdity with a consumer society which, instead of trying to respond to genuine needs, deliberately creates artificial needs by selling and advertising products no-one would have dreamt of wanting (or 'needing' or missing) had they not been told to want them.

It's got nothing to do with "our nature".

This is absolutely absurd. Yes, consumerism is a problem in America and much of the Western world. The governments of these nations have facilitated a great deal of debt spending in the interests of economic growth and high employment.

Now, first I meant, bettering myself as in bettering my lifestyle, my way of life. My microwave makes it easier for me to eat, my TV keeps me entertained when I have nothing else to do. These traits do not come from consumerism, they come from the fact that I like my life to be easier. Hell, socialism is based on giving the lower off in society an easier life.

Your point about advertising only proves my point, as advertising uses our predisposed psychological preferences (nature) to create wants and desires that would not normally be there. While they do create a need, it is only possible because of our nature of wanting an easier life.

Did anyone read the second to last sentence of my statement? "However, were true communism to ever arise, it would be through free economic action by the people, because it would be in their self interest to do so." I mean I am a capitalist, but I would hope people would understand my points before launching into an attack.

The main reason socialism* fails is because it is doomed to failiure. It suppresses individual choice, with the result being that the government must ultimately sacrifice democratic freedoms to maintain its grip on the economy. The political power awarded by central planning leads to corruption and power struggles, and ultimately collapses due to the political nature of the system itself.

Until the marginal benefits of socialism exceed the marginal costs, the system will be doomed to failiure.

*For the purposes of this statement, we are assuming that the government will have control over the economy. "Socialism" in Western Europe is nothing more than mixed-market capitalism, with the free market system still intact.

Correct - I see the selfish nature of many people in a capitalist society as a response to it. The best way to get TV's and Microwaves (or the ever popular designer-bottled-water ;)) is by being selfish.

Exactly what I was getting at in my post. You admit that people want to make an easier life for themselves. They want TVs and microwaves. So it is in human nature to lookout for themselves. In that point the others claiming human nature are correct.

However, in my last paragraph I state that socialism will arise only if it becomes easier for them to gain this position by free mutual altruism. In other words human nature can just as easily lead to socialism.

Exactly what I was getting at in my post. You admit that people want to make an easier life for themselves. They want TVs and microwaves. So it is in human nature to lookout for themselves. In that point the others claiming human nature are correct.

However, in my last paragraph I state that socialism will arise only if it becomes easier for them to gain this position by free mutual altruism. In other words human nature can just as easily lead to socialism.

Ah, so we agree on that point then, more or less.

I am still confused, not sure about this whole thing. Is their any socialists here that could aid me?

Confused? Not sure where to turn? www.google.com

Socialism (real socialism, not the watered down stuff pushed by various reformist parties) is not an easy path. You will likely face much ridicule, condemnation, etc. Nonetheless, if you are willing to shed the dogma of capitalist society, you will find it very rewarding to know what really goes on.

It should be noted that there are several different types of socialism. The three main types are:

Marxism -- Based on the Hegelian dialectic and argues for a series of stages a society passes through due to advances in technology and economic progress; Marxism has a number of subcategories such as Trostkyism, Maoism, and Leninism

Anarchism -- Holds that all authority, not just capitalist authority, is to be opposed (note that "anarcho"-capitalism is actually a one word oxymoron); can be broadly divided into communist and mutualist branches depending on stance on the market

Democratic socialism -- The economy is controlled by a democratic state and the people control the economy through voting; a watered down version operates in Canada, Sweden, etc.

Communism -- An economic system that calls for communal management of the economy without the use of money or markets; most anarchists and all Marxists are communists

Other variants include:

Utopian socialism -- A movement from the early 1800s contrasted with Marxism (which Marx called 'scientific socialism')

Libertarian Marxism -- Combines Marxist theories on the development of society with anarchist critiques of authority

Related concepts:

State capitalism -- An economy where the state forms the owning class that exploits the working class; many socialists regard Stalinism and its relatives as state capitalist

Fascism -- Sometimes confused with socialism, fascism is defined by Mussolini as the merger of state and corporate power and is not in fact socialist at all

Wikipedia has a good list of the various political and economic theories that have been called socialist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Don't bring up socialism. The debate will always dissolve into a war of namecalling.

You would say that wouldnt you you republican!!! ;p

Socialism can be summarized in the following two ways.

100 workers work for 4 hours and make 10000 shoes per day.

A machine is invented to make production double!

Capitalists fire half the workers.
Communists produce twice as much.
Socialists half the working day.

This is propoganda. But please believe it ;p

The other idea is that socialism=HIGH taxes but LOTS of welfare for the underprivelaged. See NHS. In conclusion, socialism Is.

Here is the dictionary.com definition.

com·mu·nism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kmy-nzm)
n.
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Communism
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.


so·cial·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm)
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Why are you interested in socialism, anyway? Usually, you go socialist due to a problem with capitalism rather than just interest.

I am still confused, not sure about this whole thing. Is their any socialists here that could aid me?

I'll do my best to help with any confusion you have. If the thread spams up with debate completely then telegram me and I'll get back to you when I can.

Why are you interested in socialism, anyway? Usually, you go socialist due to a problem with capitalism rather than just interest.

I went socialist after reading a socialist novel, I didn't even realise what socialism was before I read it.

I went socialist after reading a socialist novel, I didn't even realise what socialism was before I read it.

What novel are you refering to?

I am still confused, not sure about this whole thing. Is their any socialists here that could aid me?

mate, read this (follow link below) it's bloody brilliant. Commies and capitalists in cartoon form! Yay!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1840460555/qid=1139010374/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-0866211-5714229

What novel are you refering to?

'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists' by Robert Tressell. Brilliant book and as subtle as a brick.:)

Democratic socialism -- The economy is controlled by a democratic state and the people control the economy through voting; a watered down version operates in Canada, Sweden, etc.

Actually this has never existed, and it is an entirely contradictory notion for reasons which must be very clear.

Socialism is not a positive economic system. It is properly described as "anti-capitalism", they seek to negate capitalism, yet claim that the great prosperity and good standards of living that characterise capitalism can be retained, or enhanced even with the removal of the structures of capitalism.

Socialists promise a perfect life, I've seen the word "utopia" thrown around. Yet, they fail utterly, plunging people into a living hell. People don't like a living hell (unless one imagines a nation of masochists!), so democratic socialists will fall because they fail.

Fascism -- Sometimes confused with socialism, fascism is defined by Mussolini as the merger of state and corporate power and is not in fact socialist at all

Such an argument can only be made by obscuring the characteristics of state, and commerican players. In all government/private partnerships, the government is in control. One cannot escape from this fact because it is government which can legally use coercive measures, and it is only government that can gain wealth without providing something that people want, they acquire it compulsorily. Firms cannot send you to gaol (they can do only what you can do, petition the government to do it), and they cannot tax you.

Fascism is in fact socialism because the government exercises all the powers that come with ownership. Ownership in fascism exists in name only.



Re: Workers' control=socialism. Not the case. Firstly, there is nothing non-capitalist about workers owning the means of production, in fact, it is capitalism which has enhanced workers' control because they are more prosperous, and their savings can be directed into their industry (this means institutions like employee credit unions, and industry retirement funds, and simple stock ownership)

Secondly, virtually all wealth is in the hands of someone who works. About the only non-workers who hold much are retirees, and children (in trusts).

Thirdly, no attempt at socialism has actually done this. What has in fact happened is that the government takes the property away, and keeps it. Workers' control in such a system amounts to nothing more than empty rhetoric.

Re: Communes, or Kibbutzim. I refer to small communes in which people live some sort of collective, or communal lifestyle voluntarily. I don't consider this to be socialism, though it does arguably draw on socialist thought (thought it could also be argued that it is merely a scaling-up of the normal family).

It is in fact identical to a corporation, people pool their property into a collective entity voluntarily.

One might say that investing in a corporation is about profit. I would say that you can't jump inside someone's head. All that one can actually conclude about someone investing in a corporation, or moving into a Kibbutz is that they thought they'd be better off by doing it. If they thought they would be worse off, they wouldnt have done it.

The only real socialism that exists (or can exist) is state socialism, in which the state has either de jure, or de facto ownership of all productive property, and directs its use. Everything else is not possible, or indistinguishable from capitalist institutions.