NationStates Jolt Archive

A couple threads here caused me to start thinking about something here, and so I now have this theory: a socialist "state" is impossible. The level and size of organization implied by the words state used in that sense, combined with human nature, guarantee that inequality will result, no matter who's in charge.

This is not to say that socialism is a bad idea on the whole. In fact, all other things being equal and certain circumstances assumed, it works quite well - in a college dorm, for instance, you can sometimes see a similar "system", where stuff is shared or provided depending on who has means and needs, all quite voluntarily (or at least under "social" pressure to fit in). Socialism could probably have worked in an older city-state culture (for instance, Sparta was practically a military socialism). But with the modern concept of the nation-state, I maintain that socialism is impossible to implement successfully.

There's a mimimum size for statehood now?

Socialism will be unworkable until the law of scarcity is effectively rendered obsolete, the concept of private ownership is abolished, and productivity is self-evolving and implementing. Otherwise, economic/technological stagnation, shortages, and corruption will all continue to undermine the system.

Even so, there are still the problems of human nature itself; there would have to be a fundamental shift in human nature for socialism to truly work. It might succeed under conditions of hardship or external threat or on a very small scale but until these problems are addressed it will not be possible on anything larger than a local level.

A couple threads here caused me to start thinking about something here, and so I now have this theory: a socialist "state" is impossible. The level and size of organization implied by the words state used in that sense, combined with human nature, guarantee that inequality will result, no matter who's in charge.

This is not to say that socialism is a bad idea on the whole. In fact, all other things being equal and certain circumstances assumed, it works quite well - in a college dorm, for instance, you can sometimes see a similar "system", where stuff is shared or provided depending on who has means and needs, all quite voluntarily (or at least under "social" pressure to fit in). Socialism could probably have worked in an older city-state culture (for instance, Sparta was practically a military socialism). But with the modern concept of the nation-state, I maintain that socialism is impossible to implement successfully.
You sound about right there. A socialist state could only exist on a small scale i reckon....

You sound about right there. A socialist state could only exist on a small scale i reckon....

The only socialist state I approve of generally is, that thing which most of you oppose virulently, the family: mom, dad, and kids.

The only socialist state I approve of generally is, that thing which most of you oppose virulently, the family: mom, dad, and kids.

*blank look* How is the family socialist?

The EU is socialist. It works fine. Noone starves. Jews frolic in the streets. Brazilians get a hard time of it for some reason.

*blank look* How is the family socialist?

A family is socialist, mom doesn't charge kids for dinner (stereotype of mom making dinner), dad doesn't charge kids for rent for a room (stereotype of dad as breadwinner).

'Conscience and Truth': Mom and dad charge for power.

Some families are dictatorships. Most tend toward monarchy/oligarchy. A few tend toward a more democratic setting, but I haven't come across any that are truly socialist, nor truly democratic--more of a republic.

Yes, the parents provide life neccessities, but in return for obedience. The parents make the decisions for the children (don't get me wrong, I'm fully aware some families are different, mine for instance) and give the children what the children need.

There's a 'Father Knows Best State' in the UN categories. That's a family.

A family is socialist, mom doesn't charge kids for dinner (stereotype of mom making dinner), dad doesn't charge kids for rent for a room (stereotype of dad as breadwinner).

I dunno. In my family, the kids have to do most of the chores.

In my last post, I concentrated solely on teh family comment. I ignored teh original point, so here it is.

I feel socialism works in a community regardless of size. The differing factor is that all must be informed of each other and retain at least moderate compassion for one another. This has historically been only possible in smaller communities, but with communication now available (the one I'm using now works excellently) to connect those of various backgrounds, I feel socialism has potential to work better the larger teh community.

My reason for this is the distribution of wealth, power, etc. The larger the community, the more there is to circulate, and the greater equality each person can have. There's more people to foster a community, and more return to come out of working as a community. The ideal representation of this would be, of course, the entire world.

A couple threads here caused me to start thinking about something here, and so I now have this theory: a socialist "state" is impossible. The level and size of organization implied by the words state used in that sense, combined with human nature, guarantee that inequality will result, no matter who's in charge.
Add to it the fact that since no economic calculation (the ability to determine profit/loss, not only in money but in terms of the most efficient utilization of resources) of any real merit, there's no way to determine how things and what things should be manufactured.

A couple threads here caused me to start thinking about something here, and so I now have this theory: a socialist "state" is impossible. The level and size of organization implied by the words state used in that sense, combined with human nature, guarantee that inequality will result, no matter who's in charge.

I'm a capitalist and have discussed matters like this with a number of them, and I don't recall that all socialists advocate a re-distribution of wealth such that everyone is economically equal. What sort of socialist state are we talking about, specifically?

This is not to say that socialism is a bad idea on the whole. In fact, all other things being equal and certain circumstances assumed, it works quite well - in a college dorm, for instance, you can sometimes see a similar "system", where stuff is shared or provided depending on who has means and needs, all quite voluntarily (or at least under "social" pressure to fit in).

I agree. Voluntary cooperation is wonderful.

Socialism could probably have worked in an older city-state culture (for instance, Sparta was practically a military socialism).

An interesting example. I like it. :)

But with the modern concept of the nation-state, I maintain that socialism is impossible to implement successfully.

Hmm. I'm not sure how much it has to do with the modern concept of a nation-state. I tend to see cultural and institutional barriers as the main obstacles in the way of a socialist state.

A family is socialist, mom doesn't charge kids for dinner (stereotype of mom making dinner), dad doesn't charge kids for rent for a room (stereotype of dad as breadwinner).

lol, an interesting analogy that I also make. I used to tell people that I believe in anarchy on the global scale (no one can really rule the world), free-market democracy on the national scale, communism with my family and friends and I rule myself like a fascist dictatorship.

I'm a capitalist and have discussed matters like this with a number of them, and I don't recall that all socialists advocate a re-distribution of wealth such that everyone is economically equal. What sort of socialist state are we talking about, specifically?

Not even equal, but even trying to determine what each person "needs", and it you have more than that, who gets it. I don't think anyone can determine that (see below).

Hmm. I'm not sure how much it has to do with the modern concept of a nation-state. I tend to see cultural and institutional barriers as the main obstacles in the way of a socialist state.

(Continued from above) Among other things, I see the idea of a socialist "state" as a contradiction in terms. Socialism has to be voluntary, otherwise you have someone telling everybody what to do, and they're going to screw it up. Basic fact of human existence.

Second basic fact of human existence: in large groups, people like having someone telling them what to do - or at least, someone they can blame when things go wrong. :rolleyes: So yes, the cultures and institutions we have stand in the way of achieving socialism on a large scale, but the cultures etc. grow out of human nature trying to bond when intimate community becomes impossible. So it's not really the nation-state per se, but the fact that the nation-state (and simlar entities) come natural to humans in large groups.

You sound about right there. A socialist state could only exist on a small scale i reckon....

On the idea of small scales: do you believe that a collection of small, locally socialist hamlets and villages together could be called a state?

That's socialism's best chance. Remember the rule of 150: all societies based on the honors system get corrupted after the population reaches 150.

Still, socialism is morally wrong anyway; the free market is not working.

Still, socialism is morally wrong anyway; the free market is not working.

Socialism is morally wrong? Why, exactly?

On the idea of small scales: do you believe that a collection of small, locally socialist hamlets and villages together could be called a state?
If they had political cohesion then yes they could be treated as a state. However, they would have a pretty crappy economy.