Socialism is just cooperation

[Norsemaiden]

It seems to me that socialism is basically just about human cooperation. Any form of cooperation is socialistic, be it a marriage or a nation of people all working for the common good. Simply acknowleging that other people matter - and that some even matter more than you yourself as an individual - is socialism.

So who, then, is against socialism?

The alternative would appear to be individualism, in which the individual is completely self-obsessed and couldn't care less about other people, except for what they can get out of them.

It is unfortunate that a lot of people equate socialism with communistic political ideology, as there are forms of socialism that are very far from that.

 

[Έρεβος]

It depends on exactly what you refer to by socialism. I dislike Marxism, and truly hate Leninism.

 

[Norsemaiden]

It depends on exactly what you refer to by socialism. I dislike Marxism, and truly hate Leninism.

The very existence of National Socialism as an ideology shows that the Left has no monopoly over the term.

The bunch of sticks that features in the symbol of the fasces, tied and with an axe is also a symbol of strength through unity, and is therefore basically socialist. It has been used by trades unions in the past.

 

[Έρεβος]

The very existence of National Socialism as an ideology shows that the Left has no monopoly over the term.

The bunch of sticks that features in the symbol of the fasces, tied and with an axe is also a symbol of strength through unity, and is therefore basically socialist. It has been used by trades unions in the past.

In my eyes socialism has always seemed to be a watered down version of communism, something like a hybrid of communism and democracy. To me, "strength through unity" is more a representation of fascism than socialism.

Maybe the philosophy socialism is based on is the same as that which you're talking about, but socialism seems much more of an socio-economic system that is a middle ground between communism and democracy (at least from the articles I've read on it.) So I'd say I guess I agree with the philosophy socialism is built upon, but not the interpretation & means of exhibiting that philosophy (at least that which has been shown in socialist or semi-socialist nations so far.)

 

[s_a_o]

Communism is just a branch of socialism that is more intense.

Socialism is a really good idea. A democracy with socialist elements works pretty well and is good for the people -- look at nations like Finland and Sweden.

Pure socialism will never work, though. Human nature prevents us from this... We are all driven by our own desires and self-interests. For many these include money and power, which can't exist for one person in a true socialist society.

 

[EerieVon]

Communism is just a branch of socialism that is more intense.

Socialism is a really good idea. A democracy with socialist elements works pretty well and is good for the people -- look at nations like Finland and Sweden.

Pure socialism will never work, though. Human nature prevents us from this... We are all driven by our own desires and self-interests. For many these include money and power, which can't exist for one person in a true socialist society.

Pure socialism wouldnt work in places like America, England, or other western influenced countries because, as you said, people in those areas desire for personal gain and wealth--they have been trained by west influence to believe "more is better". Pure socialism could take root in places like central and south america, and east europe to a lesser degree--but the Western Powers would never allow a political system such as this to develop and flourish because it would make their political system seems inferior

 

[Norsemaiden]

An organised, cooperative society is a socialist society. The term "socialist" has been abused and misappropriated by the "Left". In fact Stalin felt so threatened by the Third Reich using the term "socialist" that they insisted on calling the Germans fascist, even though the rest of the allies only referred to Italy by that term.

Socialism need NOT mean state ownership of the basic means of production (farms, factories, stores, etc). Although, imo, it should include: nationalised highways, airports, harbours, national defence and law enforcement among others. It can still allow private ownership of property by individuals.

Let us now also take a look at the term "individual enterprise." It, too, is a theoretical myth and a deceptive fraud. Anyone who has ever played the parlor game "Monopoly" knows what the end result of wide open free enterprise is: before the game is over, one party gains a powerful stranglehold over all the rest, and from then on out, no matter which way the dice roll, when the game is over, he owns everything — houses, land, factories, banks.

This, too, happens in real life. It is easily discernable that, say Standard Oil, left free to play the rules of the game proudly known as "free enterprise" could from the beginning, have driven every other company out of the oil business and acquired the oil business in totality. It could easily have acquired a total monopoly in worldwide oil. It could have owned every service station and gas station in the world through squeeze play and financial strength. It could have then moved into the banking business until it acquired every bank in the country. Left unchecked, it then could have started acquiring manufacturing businesses such as the electrical industries, etc. As its financial powers snowballed, it could then easily have taken over the railroads, real estate, etc., until, in fact, one company owned everything and held every individual at their mercy.

This is "free enterprise" in clear essence, the same "free enterprise" that the Kosher Konservatives just love to prattle about.

Basically this is what has happened on a worldwide basis.

Ben Klassen

Klassen points out that really it has not been Standard Oil that has achieved this strangle hold on the world, but infact the House of Rothschilds, and others in the international banking conspiracy.

As the previous poster said, the powers that be would not allow a socialist system to flourish that would take this away from them.

 

[s_a_o]

Pure socialism wouldnt work in places like America, England, or other western influenced countries because, as you said, people in those areas desire for personal gain and wealth--they have been trained by west influence to believe "more is better". Pure socialism could take root in places like central and south america, and east europe to a lesser degree--but the Western Powers would never allow a political system such as this to develop and flourish because it would make their political system seems inferior

When any government with remotely Socialist leanings pops up in South American, African, and East Asian countries, the United States and other Western nations go in and put it down. They do this so that they will remain dominant in trade.

Example: In 1954, in Guatemala, the United States (via the CIA) organized an extreme right-wing coup to put down the Socialist leader Jacobo Arbenz. Arbenz wanted to nationalize the United Fruit Company and start giving back to the Guatemalan people. Didn't work.

I can't blame Western countries though. As much as it isn't any of our business to meddle in the way foreign countries run themselves, each country wants to look out for their own best interest. If the balance of the economy or trade is going to be offset in a manner that is not beneficial to a powerful country, the powerful country, of course, is going to go in and try to fix things so that the situation will be favorable.

 

[OldScratch]

It seems to me that socialism is basically just about human cooperation. Any form of cooperation is socialistic, be it a marriage or a nation of people all working for the common good. Simply acknowleging that other people matter - and that some even matter more than you yourself as an individual - is socialism.

So who, then, is against socialism?

The alternative would appear to be individualism, in which the individual is completely self-obsessed and couldn't care less about other people, except for what they can get out of them.

It is unfortunate that a lot of people equate socialism with communistic political ideology, as there are forms of socialism that are very far from that.

I agree entirely. The key to success, however, is the cooperation you mentioned, made to work on a large scale. This is where the Leftist incarnation of socialism reveals its wicked heart - coercively take from those who can and do and give to those who can't or won't. Surely that will not engender a spirit of unity or cooperation for long, and was hardly the original intent of Socialism. Many western "democracies" are learning this lesson by employing a quasi-socialistic sytem within a suposedly democratic one, where the very Class-Warfare that National Socialism, for instance, actually was designed to eliminate, only thrives and grows year upon year!

 

[Seditious]

right now it seems like we cooperate---working to get money to get what we want. we could cooperate without money in the middle, without gaining proportionate to how much you achieve, but that seems like it would just encourage people to do less.

I really can't imagine some sort of lasting functioning socialism.

googling around I read this
Socialist Party of Canada - What Socialism Means
and it just seems strange. we're all going to run everything? we're going to produce everything yet be up to speed on all the issues which politicians spend all day working on, and researchers spend all day researching, and yet we still need sleep, we still need to work and eat and perhaps raise children in our spare time, how well could we do all this?

 

[Seditious]

hey, can I inject a question in here---what are the Socialist ethics?

If someone is sick is it your collective duty to keep them alive, if someone is handicapped, or likes to have sex with ten year olds, should their needs be met, or should people who are more burden than aid to the socialist society be removed in some manner? Is there any moral judgment or is it complete acceptance that people are different and every human should get what they want?

 

[Norsemaiden]

hey, can I inject a question in here---what are the Socialist ethics?

If someone is sick is it your collective duty to keep them alive, if someone is handicapped, or likes to have sex with ten year olds, should their needs be met, or should people who are more burden than aid to the socialist society be removed in some manner? Is there any moral judgment or is it complete acceptance that people are different and every human should get what they want?

The socialism of the "Left" considers that all the kind of defectives you mention should be preserved to an extent that spells doom for society and not the utopia that they believe it would bring. It claims to be socialist and yet plainly the interests of the individual are being allowed to drag down the interests of the collective, which makes it contradictory.

Opposing this is ethnic socialism - putting the interests of the tribe first. This system rejects democracy in favour of the Leadership Principle, but never makes the society serve the leader or serve the State. The leader and the State are there to help their kind.

The Leadership Principle goes back to the first ever human tribes - this is the first and most enduring example of socialistic society. Of course it works - it has worked for millenia. Simply, it is an organised society, with a leader at its head, who leads, directs and plans the interests of the whole group. While having the authority to command, he must be totally responsible to the group.

Consider how the army is organised, having a Commander in Chief at the top, followed by a chain of command: generals, colonels, etc, down to the private.

This system works, it has worked before civilisation, and it continues to work today. It works for corporations as well, and is a time-proven principle.

History shows that leaders should be of their own people (the very word "King" is connected to the word "kin" meaning part of the same homogenous group). This stands in contrast to the leader being, for eg. a traitor fronting for the interests of another group that wish to exploit the people (ie. those who won Monopoly).

To maximise the chances of having a good leader there would have to be an orderly programme of succession. Inheritance of leadership is not advisable. The leader must be well trained and carefully selected by "Elders" who decide the line of succession.

This is far more effective than democracy, which would lead to a chaotic mob rule, except that the present so-called "democracy" is really rule by a State that sees the population as a resource for it to exploit.

A large degree of homogeneity and a common culture is necessary for this form of realistic ideal government to work. It will only work if the people feel they are as one, and not if the society is fractured by individualism and viewing others as enemies and competitors who belong to different tribes.

 

[Tabubua]

Socialism has some good points...

I love the NHS (it doesn't exactly work as well as it could, but its a life line for those who could not otherwise afford medical care).

And our public transport was far better before it was privatized.

Unfortunately socialism often doesn't work in the way you described - it should do, but often it is used as a way for a government to exact far too much control over its subjects.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Former Conservative Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher famously once commented:There's no such thing as society." "There are individual men and women and there are families."

We cannot really have socialism in Britain while we are fragmented by multicultures or multi ethnicities (this subject has a thread of its own of course) - because socialism is about a common feeling and a natural urge to get on with eachother. This fragmentation is exploited to enslave the population and limit organised dissent.

The advantage of group survival is the reason why most species practice social behavior. An excellent example of social creatures whose very survival is locked into their interdependence is the bee colony. A bee colony comprises three different types of bees: queens, drones, and workers, each of whom perform complementary tasks for survival. No individual bee could survive for long on its own. They are so interdependent that one could say the entire colony is the real organism; subdivisions of it do not exist independently.

In a similar manner, there is evidence that human beings are genetically wired for social behavior. It is natural for humans to become lonely when separated for long from the group, and to yearn for the friendship and interaction of others. In fact, French sociologist Emile Durkheim discovered that suicide is a function of integration into the social group. The less integrated people are, the more likely they are to commit suicide. (Since Durkheim's discovery, other factors leading to suicide have also been identified, but his theory of social integration remains a central one even today.)

There’s no such thing as society... only individuals and families

 

[Blowtus]

you don't think socialism can be legislated? I would think it couldn't help but fail if you're simply relying on peoples goodwill. If it can be legislated effectively then cultural issues should make no difference...

 

[Seditious]

also. I hate to keep injecting questions rather than really getting into the discussion, but how do pro-socialism individuals feel about welfare?

So many politically minded people are really opposed to 'the welfare state' and whatnot, but surely socialism is forced to allow it.

It may work to say 'we can found socialism once we have enough people willing to work the socialist system' but in a few generations there will be people born without some great ideals who really don't have some productive work ethic or great talent and don't really want to do anything but get what they 'need' and have fun all day, just as we have now---after all it's not all a lack of work or ability for why they don't work, so in a world where people have the choice, want the producers be as resentful of the consumers as people today who 'pay taxes' are of people 'on welfare'? creating its own class issue between those who contribute and those who take, just as we have today?

 

[Blowtus]

Seditious - I would have thought that form of problem could be largely eliminated by making 'welfare' an option anyone felt they could take at any time. Divide a fixed % of total taxation (or GDP, or whatever) amongst all who want it, with smooth transition between 'earning nothing, all welfare' and 'earning plenty, no welfare'. Services like education and healthcare you loan whatever portion should be 'user pays' and recover that at a fixed % of a persons income. (including welfare)
The 5 minutes thought I've put into it makes it look like a self correcting system

 

[Seditious]

Seditious - I would have thought that form of problem could be largely eliminated by making 'welfare' an option anyone felt they could take at any time. Divide a fixed % of total taxation (or GDP, or whatever) amongst all who want it, with smooth transition between 'earning nothing, all welfare' and 'earning plenty, no welfare'. Services like education and healthcare you loan whatever portion should be 'user pays' and recover that at a fixed % of a persons income. (including welfare)
The 5 minutes thought I've put into it makes it look like a self correcting system

I'm not sure what you mean. Socialism is -fundamentally- a society without money, so they say.

what is this taxation you speak of?

there is no income or tax, only production and consumption---you make and service what you want to, and 'each takes according to his need'

I'm all for 'different systems to what we have today which seem more appealing to socialists' but what you described sounds like something that would work in today's capitalist democracy not in socialism itself, which is why I asked what the socialist way of dealing with it would be.

what I'm asking is how do you deal with problems like that in socialism without solving socialism by getting rid of it, and going back to what we have now. that's something a socialist needs to be able to answer with socialism obviously.

 

[Norsemaiden]

also. I hate to keep injecting questions rather than really getting into the discussion, but how do pro-socialism individuals feel about welfare?

So many politically minded people are really opposed to 'the welfare state' and whatnot, but surely socialism is forced to allow it.

It may work to say 'we can found socialism once we have enough people willing to work the socialist system' but in a few generations there will be people born without some great ideals who really don't have some productive work ethic or great talent and don't really want to do anything but get what they 'need' and have fun all day, just as we have now---after all it's not all a lack of work or ability for why they don't work, so in a world where people have the choice, want the producers be as resentful of the consumers as people today who 'pay taxes' are of people 'on welfare'? creating its own class issue between those who contribute and those who take, just as we have today?

The welfare state enjoyed in the west today takes its inspiration from the welfare state of Nazi Germany.

West Germany built up a social welfare state, making sure that nobody would be worse off than under the Nazis, and the East German communists until 1989 did all they could (however insufficiently) to keep the people satisfied in material terms.

http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cach...l+nazi+welfare+state&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=2
The same thinking caused the welfare states to be considered vital to other countries that didn't want it obvious to their people that they were worse off than they would have been if living in the 3rd Reich.

The Nazis advocated and implemented a very extensive welfare state, and this was by no means incidental to their program or a mere sop thrown to the lower classes to keep them in line. It flowed from the very same collectivism that national socialists shared with international socialists, notwithstanding that the former saw race solidarity rather than class solidarity as the key to social harmony.

http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cach...l+nazi+welfare+state&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1

In any case, the welfare state had, and still has, a very useful purpose to to the internationalist capitalists as it is the easiest way to encourage a higher birth rate among the poor and to support and encourage immigrants from poorer nations to emmigrate here. All the better to enslave the people. Because the welfare state has been redesigned as a destroyer of nations, it does have the effect that you say, Seditious, that people are "born without some great ideals who really don't have some productive work ethic or great talent and don't really want to do anything but get what they 'need' and have fun all day".

 

[Blowtus]

would whatever system you envisage break down in the presence of people with such ideals, or lack of, Norsemaiden?

Seditious - my knowledge may be letting me down again, but that is not my understanding of socialism. It sounds more like one specific breed of it. Dictionary definitions I found are as follows:

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done