[ POLL ] What Is Socialism?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm also learning politics, so far how I see socialism is a step towards 'nationalist socialism', it seems to give government more power over the individual, thus individual rights are striped away. (The majority is allowed to silence the minority, socialists seem to desire to crush free speech and the ability for an individual to more freely guide their life, to accomplish rising from poor to rich is much more difficult for an individual in a socialist society versus a capitalist society). That's how I view it so far, it seems to be a system of oppression and unfairness to 'over achievers'.

Last edited by Crimadella on 08 Mar 2019, 9:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Socialism broadly speaking has no official stance on individualism or collectivism. Benjamin Tucker, for example identified as an individualist.

I personally find the whole "individualism vs collectivism" thing to be a false dichotomy.

I think individual autonomy is a part of collective autonomy and vice versa.

Consider the following:

I have no idea how valid this article is...but it is in sympathy with my general belief...<shrug>

There does seem to be connectivity between socialism and collectivism, imo...
And in addition consider: Isn't fascism also based on collectivism?

In my mind, simply based on concepts I have picked up over a lifetime, aren't both of these memes inherently anti-individualistic?

In addition: I see both socialism and fascism heavily influenced by groupthink...
Be part of the family or be an outsider, so to speak...
(To you pedants out there: Yes, fascists were supremacists, but I am talking within the respective cultural groups...) <sigh>

Doesn't socialism embrace the concept of uni-directional thinking?
For the good of the many within the collective...
And isn't their motto: "resistance is futile"...

The concept of the Borg is fictitious, but it is interesting that they refer to themselves as a "collective"...
And were referred to as a hive mind where individuality was irrelevant...
It seems to be a reasonable assumption to me that the writer/s had political philosophies in mind...
Both fascism and socialism seem to fit the bill...imo...

U.S.S.R: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics...
NAZI: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP)"

Also consider: Collective consciousness...


To me, this also suggests the subservience of individualism...
And it sounds disturbingly like the principles of groupthink...

I was going to go with the state ownership but I think that can be misleading. Like yes the state has some more control over production and distribution of goods, doesn't mean they get full power. I mean in giving the government that sort of responsibility it only makes sense the citizens would keep them in check.

But of course this is why I support democratic socialism, not necessarily just socialism...I mean there can be authoritarian socialism and that is the bad kind. But socialism mixed in with democracy can be a very good thing

Socialism is an economic system, the basic description is the state controls production and distribution. But 'the state' can be defined in different ways. As for democratic socialists the idea is the people are the state so the people would control the production and distribution I mean democratic socialism would essentially in effect be no different than how you are living now. Except taxes may be put to better use so you see the benefits, the social safety net would be better and you wouldn't have to have insurance to go see a doctor if you need to and it would be much more difficult for companies to create monopolies. If anything it would just raise the quality of life for many people.

But how to convince right winger americans that socialism is not necessarily evil? I feel we need to find a way to sell it to them...i mean insulting and/or criticizing right wingers does not seem to be an effective approach so Perhaps us socialists need to find a good way to promote the idea in a way that does not make right wingers feel attacked.

Like seriously a lot of them are just afraid and ignorant, so maybe they need to be reached rather than being attacked. Like as hard as it can be us lefties need to find some common ground among some of the right wingers. I mean we live in the same country we should not be total enemies to each other.

I view socialism beyond economic considerations...
I look at the psychology behind it...

Rightly or wrongly I see socialism here in Australia in terms of reduced freedom of speech through political correctness and threats of litigation, and virtue signalling with a large dash of attitudes of entitlement...
And the term: "Politics of envy" come to mind...

Having said that, I am not sure I can bring myself to vote for the leading conservative parties this coming election...
What a bunch of dickwads...
So please don't be mean to me...you alt lefty guys...

Fascism is an authoritarian ideology that organizes itself around ideas like "race", tradition and the nation.

Fascism worships the state, and through its power seeks to restore a former "glorious" past.

Socialists promote class conflict, while fascists tend to promote class unity.


As I said before. Socialism isn't exclusively a collectivist or individualist ideology.


Not necessarily, socialists don't agree with each other on everything.


Do you consider North Korea a democracy? DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea)


In what way is the concept of collective consciousness exclusive to socialism? Does current society, not have a collective consciousness?

Everyone in this thread is sharing the same language. Isn't that a form of collectivism?

Ok, what does this have to do with socialism?

Yes, they both have a collectivist agenda which differ in ideology...



But this is a universal given...
Humans are not clones but they can be influenced by groupthink...
Some may not follower the established political line...
But doesn't that put them outside of the core collective?
In politics, this sometimes results in an offshoot party in a Democracy...
But could this happen in a Hitlerian or Stalinian type dictatorship?...



I consider it a collective...



I didn't suggest it was...
I explicitly indicated it wasn't when I introduced fascism into the conversation...
I see nothing so far to debunk the idea of socialism and fascism embracing a collectivist mindset...<shrug>



The context is embracing a philosophical construct...
How do you explain individuals from different philosophical collectives being in the same philosophical collective...
In context, it can't be the case...

I think you are mistaking the context involved...
The collectivism I am interested in involves a mindset...
Using English very minimally influences opinions, belief system and moral values...
Language is a *tool* to facilitate the communication of intellectual constructs...
It does not create a conceptual/philosophical collective simply by using it...



Not specifically socialism...
It is an aspect of a collectivist mindset...

Neurotypicals in particular often form a mob mentality or groupthink in innumerable situations...
Simply look at the violence associated with groups on either side of the political divide...
Unless one is an independent, it is likely one is embracing groupthink to some degree...
Even those more enlightened individuals would feel the pull of conformity and confirmation bias...
I know I do...
It is a constant challenge to maintain an objective mindset...

So you just wanted to talk about Stalin?

You haven't made a case for your idea. All you did was say "look at Stalin". A guilt by association fallacy.

Socialists don't agree with each other on everything, including "individualism" and "collectivism".

I going to have to strongly disagree with this.

If each individual worker controls their own means of production, they are an individual contractor. Individual contractors use their skills to generate a living. Individual contractors sometimes are able to generate more wealth than is necessary for baseline subsistence. They are then free to apply that wealth to hire other individual contractors to do certain tasks for them.

This system is called capitalism. It means everyone owns their own work and can accumulate wealth if they are able. Then people get upset because some people are able to accumulate a lot of wealth and bequeath it to their progeny, giving their progeny a leg up in the next generation. Others are just jealous that some have had the skills to accumulate vast sums of wealth and think that something unfair must be going on. Sometimes this is the case, sometimes it is not.

Socialism says the means of production are owned by the workers collectively. That means that no individual worker is free to apply their skills how they choose and accumulate wealth. Otherwise the system is indistinguishable from capitalism. Instead each individual worker works in accepted roles defined by the group of workers who control the means of production.

Enter government. The government as recognized by the social contract is the representative of the governed. The most effective way to enforce socialist policy is to have all individual workers regulated by the government. The result is a state controlled economy.

I favor a social-political philosophy known as capitalism with limits. Certain features of capitalism need the government to step in to prevent unhealthy policies. Monopoly busting is one example, as monopolies are unhealthy. However, in general I think the government should be a minority stake holder in the economy. Increasing government power should always be viewed skeptically.

I consider all the options presented in this poll as definitions of Communism.

To me, Socialism occurs when a government uses public funds to guarantee some minimal quality of life for all citizens, although a government can only be considered truly "Socialist" if this becomes an overarching principle. To contrast, the US has many Federal social programs that might be considered "socialist" but they have a limited scope and are not guaranteed to benefit everybody who might believe themselves deserving, for example Medicaid which in theory provides access to medical care for those unable to pay on their own, but can be made available on a somewhat capricious basis. I would contrast this with Canada where the government more or less guarantees medical care to all citizens without the need for them to apply for it, and possibly be denied on an arbitrary basis. For this reason, I would not consider the US to be a Socialist country whereas I would characterize Canada in that way.

In the real world, countries that have Socialist policies do not practice government control of the means of production "in the name of the people". That is Marxism, although some enterprises e.g. railroads and over-the-air broadcasting may be government-run whereas in the US they may be privately run (the US is actually rather unusual in having so many privately-run railroads). A Socialist will tell you that private enterprise actually benefits from Socialism as they believe it better for an employer to have a healthy and well-educated labor force at its disposal, which Socialism can, in theory, provide. For other benefits, I will refer you to your nearest friendly neighborhood Socialist to enlighten you.

In countries where one of the two or three leading political parties calls itself the Socialist Party, that party typically supports the principles I just articulated.

There are many legitimate arguments against Socialism, some of which I will list here.

One argument is that, if the government gets into the business of providing benefits, then it assumes the authority to decide who deserves those benefits as well as which benefits will be funded by hard-earned tax dollars. Of course, not everybody agrees on those things.

Another argument is that under Socialism, people develop a sense of entitlement and become focused on clinging to whatever benefits their government provides for them instead of taking responsibility themselves for improving their well-being. One consequence is a greater fear of immigrants in that they may be asked to share their entitlements with foreigners who have sought refuge in their country for whatever reason. It seems to me that countries with the strongest anti-immigrant movements tend to be European countries with well-established Socialist policies.

Another argument is that, when the government provides services that would be obtained privately in a country like the US, this deprives citizens of the freedom to make decisions for themselves in matters such as health care. Consider last year's viral video of a Canadian woman loudly demanding to be seen by a White doctor. Although this is comforting for Americans who are tired of being told by Canadians that racism is an "American thing", it also emphasizes the woman's sense of helplessness when seeking care at a government-operated facility. Another example is horror stories one hears in the US about care at Veterans Administration hospitals, the VA being the only major government-run health system in the US.

I'll come right out and say that I don't know which side of the argument I fall on. New leadership has arisen in our Congress and many of these people are self-proclaimed Socialists (being a 2-party system we don't really have a relevant Socialist party). In the interest of doing something about Climate Change, I am willing to follow these people with or without the Socialism, as it's been so long since we've had any real leadership in this country.

In fact I'm not convinced there is one and only one right way to organize Society. Both Socialism and Laissez-faire Capitalism could be successful systems to live under, depending on circumstances.

EDIT: if you think that your preferred system of government (whatever it is) can bring about a Utopia, then you are tragically mistaken!

According to the Oxford Living Dictionary, Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

The Legal definition, however is ”... an economic and social theory that seeks to maximize wealth and opportunity for all people through public ownership and control of industries and social services.

The term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe positions as far apart as Anarchism, Soviet state Communism, and Social Democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market. The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended towards Social Democracy.

So, while the “official” definitions may vary in a legal or scholastic context, the colloquial meanings are based on whatever the individual speaker hates most.

For instance, if you’re a Capitalist or a Republican, then everyone you don’t like is a Socialist.

The issue is that the capitalist class doesn't generate wealth by selling their own labor. They do this by leveraging their ownership over capital. And these monopolies over production are state sanctioned.

This is a problem individualists like Tucker have with capitalism. He did not oppose individual contracts, what he opposed is the monopolies capitalists have, that are enforced by the state.

Just like socialism has various degrees of social democracy, socialist, communist, so does capitalism have flavors of corportism and crony capitalism. Cronyism is justly hated by everyone who isn't getting rich off it. This is why I stated in my post that I don't support naked capitalism, and think that monopolies should be prevented. The benefits of capitalism come from freedom and competition.

All modern western countries are some mix of socialism and capitalism, so middle ground does exist, but in a socialist system you have to be opposed to individual freedom to accumulate wealth, because said individuals are threats to your socialist system.

Watch the video dude. Tucker isn't just against "cronyism", he's against capitalism.

Last edited by RushKing on 10 Mar 2019, 4:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.