What's your definition of socialism?
- Thread starter Lark
- Start date
I prefer the most basic of definitions of any word, where possible. For me, a socialist culture is one that focuses its collective energies and wealth on its citizens first. As Hartmann would call it... our (american and others) culture is a 'me society' whereas a healthy socialist society is a 'we society.' I include the caveat 'healthy' because socialism can go just as wrong as any other if abused.
Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are owned or controlled by the community or the state or a political philosophy in favour of that.
You that [MENTION=4115]Lark[/MENTION]
You that [MENTION=4115]Lark[/MENTION]
Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are owned or controlled by the community or the state or a political philosophy in favour of that.
You that @Lark
Me that?
I might add the caveat as well that this is the way social cultures are intended to be; everyone is out for everyone's well-being. Some have achieved this better than others... America was doing reasonably well at that between the 30s and 1980. Not so much today. Issue is, humans are still intrinsically self-centered. Me first, screw everyone else [whom I don't own in some fashion or another. And yes, the more anti-socialist an acquaintance of might is, the more they tend to refer to their friends and family as personal property rather than human beings.] It's understandable, too... in the wild, selfish behavior was a survival technique and it saw us through to the beginning of civilization... but now that we have hybridized our animal instincts with the raw unbridled concentrated power of civilization, the damage we do is suicidal as well as biocidal. The more 'social' countries out there are trending toward being the most efficient and 'future-aware' as well.
I think its a good definition specifically to culture, mind you think that culture is very important, almost all important and personal and cultural proceeds structural adjustments.
Well Eric Fromm published and book called Man For Himself, which was protracted reflection on the psychology of ethics, indeed that was the subtitle (the title itself is based upon the saying "everyman for himself", shouted in a moment of crisis but reflecting everyones motivation at that time and in contrast to "women and children first" or "officers first").
He was a socialist but this book has been popularised by capitalists too, the reason being is that he argues that fundamentally self-interest is legitimate, he contrasts it to pathological states of selfishness which sound a lot more like Rand's definition of selfish individualism.
This is an interesting book because taken with his other writings as a whole it appears like a selfish case for socialism, and by that I dont mean any of the criticisms which have been levelled at socialism about it being an umbrella for interest groups or everyone corrupted, he considers how capitalism is supposed to compensate individuals as frustrated producers in exchange for satisfying them as consumers but in reality frustrates individuals all round and disatisfies.
Fromm suggests that despite this individulals will seek success because that's what they do, the result is the me culture and all kinds of maladjustment, although in our society some of those sorts of maladjustment result in success so they'll never disappear. Its interesting because I know that a lot of neurotic self-sacrificing individuals eventually embrace Rand's selfishness because they either find it liberating or a relief, there is an alternative to either self-sacrificing neurosis or pathological selfishness and it's Fromm's ideas. Although I tend to find the majority of people considering either capitalism or socialism arent that penetrating in their analysis.
There is a pressing problem regarding both socialism and capitalism: when deployed in balance and at the right time you can lift much of the populaces life standards significantly; unfortunately when either system is corrupt or bent it will not do so.
The is of course a real issues that compounds problems in both systems: natural resource constraints.
The is of course a real issues that compounds problems in both systems: natural resource constraints.
totally fair, I think; it's all in the mindset.
NAZI, for example, includes socialist in its name; and may even have been if you define their priorities as 'the good of the aryan society is more important than the good of the not-aryan society.' They could be argued as having chosen one social circle to dominate or eliminate all others. In that regard, America is going the same today, prioritizing the health and security of the CEO above all else (including the lives of 45,000 americans every year would could have easily been saved, and for the benefit of one for-profit industry alone. Yes, that literally means 45,000 people a year are dying in order to make rich people here even richer at the very minimum.)
Meanwhile, however, market-friendly socialist countries like Denmark or (i think) Sweden have a different intent behind their socialism. 'The good of the citizen is more important than the good of concentrated wealth.' And don't get me wrong, they along with modern Germany ~have~ wealthy people... these folk just have to match their responsibility toward civilization to what they take from it (i.e., finite wealth), one individual from which was quoted saying 'I don't want to be a rich man in a poor country,' when pestered by an American journalist about his high personal income tax rates.
America's most stable and financially healthiest years came adorned with a virtually identical policy and ever since the rich bought out the lawmakers starting in the late 70s (taking effect 'round 1980), the worker has been the punching bag, the economy has become a zombie, and national security has become a war machine instead that has learned that it can make a killing by stirring up trouble that it can then later be paid to resolve.
It should also probably be mentioned that there really aren't any non-socialist governments on the planet at this time (except where there is no government and only anarchy rules.) It's all a matter of degree. To have a public sector is to embrace a unit of socialism. Did you have to personally pay to have the highway brought to your town, or did you share in the burden with the rest of the taxpayers? If the answer is the latter, then your road system is socialist. Do you have to pay protection money to the local mercenaries or do you band together with the rest of society to help fun a police force, fire department, and military? If so, then your police force, fire department, and military are all social[ist] constructs. Granted, the USA has opted out of social medicine, but that only makes us slightly less socialist than the U.K., for example, who socializes medicine. Not NOT socialist entirely.
Whee, I talk too much. It just matters to me. I still half-believe humanity is worth saving from extinction, so I rant.
Last edited:
To an extent that's an issue, especially since both Smith and Marx considered poverty synonymous with shortages and that increases in productivity and surplus/super abundance would resolve that, neither seemed to consider finite resources too much.
However George Monbiot has said that finite resources isnt the issue that ecologists once thought it was and that believing in cataclysmic peak points is a hangover from other, older ideologies.
I don't entirely disagree. And capitalism isn't mutually exclusive with socialism, any more than it is tied to democracy (as china pointedly demonstrates.) Capitalism is a financial institution while socialism is a society-balancing construct. They definitely make ripples in the same pond and so intersect with one another in varying ways... but it's like if one asks about fruit salad 'do you want grapes with your watermelon or apple with your watermelon'... this doesn't force grapes and apples to have to fall into the same classification of food (though for all I know, they might.)
I'd also suggest that self-interest is not anathema in socialism. In what we have today, people take care of themselves as a defensive measure against others. Person A assumes their interests are mutually exclusive with or otherwise hostile to the interests of Person B. Certainly, if Helmsley decides that making 1.5 billion in takehome pay for 5 year work (or was it 10?) is in his best interest, and sending people to their cancer-riddled deaths via money-saving recission is a really nifty way to do it, then his interests ARE mutually exclusive with potential cancer patients, not to mention 1,500 potential entrepreneurs for whom the wealth DOES NOT EXIST to perhaps propel them along the american-dream-trajectory toward being a millionaire (which isn't even enough to retire on at age 65 anymore... you need at least 2.5.) Point people, if people's mindset was 'taking care of each other means that i'm also being taken care of' then self interest is complimentary to social interest, rather than mutually exclusive with it.
Last edited:
It's the old cost curve problem.
The only real benefit capitalism has over socialism is that IOUs chase ingenuity.
Last edited:
This assumes, of course, that our pro-rich shinanigans even LET you retire at 65, and that recission hasn't killed you before or soon after that age, in which case you don't really need to set aside a couple million to live the rest of your life off.
[MENTION=3019]~jet[/MENTION]; [MENTION=4115]Lark[/MENTION]; [MENTION=3473]InvisibleJim[/MENTION];
*is delighted by intellectual discussion taking place*
Yes! And so civilized.
I'm enjoying reading though I don't feel I have much to add.
[MENTION=3019]~jet[/MENTION] Are you liberal? I could have sworn I heard you say you were conservative, yet your statements lean towards liberal views.
Anyway, I think conservatives miss the big picture. They are only focused on what one part. Money. Who gives a crap how they get their's, screw taxes, I work for my money. What they're missing is the economy doesn't thrive with this mindset. If you keep the middle and lower classes happy, and don't screw them over, I think they'll be more positive about everything and it's just better for everyone's well being. Screw that though, money for me. Every man for himself. Haha such bastards. They could chip in a little bit more. Obama even says it. I love obama. He says I can afford to pay more, I'm just like every other rich guy and I can afford it. So true, so true. Does anyone know where the us is at as far as socializing medicine? I know obama has been wanting to do that for awhile and he sticks to his plans. Obama for 2012. Screw the trump. And Palin. Especially palin, she went in as the vp to gain popularity and wants money for her books and stuff. She's so f-ing fake.
Anyway, I think conservatives miss the big picture. They are only focused on what one part. Money. Who gives a crap how they get their's, screw taxes, I work for my money. What they're missing is the economy doesn't thrive with this mindset. If you keep the middle and lower classes happy, and don't screw them over, I think they'll be more positive about everything and it's just better for everyone's well being. Screw that though, money for me. Every man for himself. Haha such bastards. They could chip in a little bit more. Obama even says it. I love obama. He says I can afford to pay more, I'm just like every other rich guy and I can afford it. So true, so true. Does anyone know where the us is at as far as socializing medicine? I know obama has been wanting to do that for awhile and he sticks to his plans. Obama for 2012. Screw the trump. And Palin. Especially palin, she went in as the vp to gain popularity and wants money for her books and stuff. She's so f-ing fake.