Is Socialism an Utopia?

[Ron_Tomkins]

The reason I ask is because I recognize that I have a lack of knowledge on many aspects of politics and economics, and this seems a crucial aspect.

So it all started with a conversation between me and a friend. This friend of mine is a socialist and I greeted him with this joke I have about an imaginary Bus that goes around putting burglars behind bars.

He said something in the lines that the real people who need to be put behind bars are the people in charge of corporations that exploit workers. He also added that he didn't support Private Property as a mechanism that works, because Private Property is always about exploitation. He said that in all types of work that are salary based, the "boss" (the one who pays) is taking ownage of part of the work that the workers do; and that the only thing that makes this possible is the Private Property industry.

I asked him if there were any Countries that had already reached this type of Socialism, that he considered role models and he said: The Soviet Union until 1953, Cuba, Yugoslavia and Hungary.


It is my belief that trying to come up with a system in which there are no differences in class is an utopia. However, I agree, it would be great if there were no such differences. It would be great if there were no rich people exploiting poor people. And I understand that that's where the rationale starts from: Since there has to be a difference of classes for the rich man to exploit the poor man, then we must eliminate such differences. There must be no ranks. But I think this is an utopia.

I don't know.

Thoughts?

[Eyeron]

The problem I can see is that Socialism can only be a Utopia if it is something that everybody agrees to.

And the other problem is that even in Socialist countries, you still have class division. The people who control the wealth are the ones who have the most power and are often far wealthier than the people they say they are spreading the wealth to.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by Eyeron

The problem I can see is that Socialism can only be a Utopia if it is something that everybody agrees to.

I'm not sure I understand why. Maybe I was using the wrong word. What I meant by Utopia was "an ideal". Such ideal, I think, may or may not be shared by everybody. That wouldn't change the fact that it's still nothing but an ideal (more specifically a non realistic ideal).

In fact, I would think that the closest thing a non realistic ideal could ever come to becoming materialized is precisely if everyone agreed on it. Then, perhaps everyone could agree to live a fantasy together. A sort of shared delusion (and the history of myths and religion certainly has proved that that can be the case).

Originally Posted by Eyeron

And the other problem is that even in Socialist countries, you still have class division. The people who control the wealth are the ones who have the most power and are often far wealthier than the people they say they are spreading the wealth to.

That sounds interesting. Is there any material where I could read more and expand on that? Because that's the kind of things I wanted to communicate my friend: I think that no matter what, there are always going to be such differences. You cannot have a completely homogenic society, in terms of social classes (or anything for that matter). I also believe that there has to be ways that someone can make more money without having to exploit other people. But my friend insists that you can't have it both ways: That there is absolutely no way you could end up having more capital than other people, without having become an exploiting capitalist. That issue seems to be at the core of Socialist thinking.

[Cain]

I can confidently say socialism is NOT an utopia.

[parky76]

any society where no one is homeless, everyone has a job, everyone has health-care, everyone can pay their bills, and everyone has relatively happy....sure is Utopia.

but thats not socialism. its Social-democracy with a strong welfare state and a social-market economy/mixed economy.

[XBoxWarrior]

Originally Posted by parky76

any society where no one is homeless, everyone has a job, everyone has health-care, everyone can pay their bills, and everyone has relatively happy....sure is Utopia.

I'm pretty sure I saw that episode of Star Trek...

It could actually work, as the means are there, but I seriously doubt if it will happen in today's political landscape. People want to have the opportunity to actually be Bill Gates, even when they are purchasing their next lotto ticket on the way home from the liquor store to their mobile home, getting ready for the next "tea bag" rally...

[psychictv]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

He also added that he didn't support Private Property as a mechanism that works, because Private Property is always about exploitation.

He sounds more like an anarchist.

[Eyeron]

Quote:

Is there any material where I could read more and expand on that?

You might want to start with this Wiki here:

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

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

The Soviet Union until 1953, Cuba, Yugoslavia and Hungary.

None of these strike me as particularly utopian, and IMHO the Soviet Union actually improved a bit after 1953 (the end of the Stalin era).

[Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

He also added that he didn't support Private Property as a mechanism that works, because Private Property is always about exploitation.

Ask him for his car keys for a minute.

Sit in his car's driver's seat and tell him you're taking the car for a ride.

When he asks, "where?", say, "What do you care? Thanks for the keys!"

When he says, "but it's my car, you can't just take it", remind him that he just said that private property is always about exploitation, and he doesn't want to be an evil exploiter, does he?

[Skeptic]

Originally Posted by XBoxWarrior

I'm pretty sure I saw that episode of Star Trek...

It could actually work...

Yes, on some other planet, with a species different from homo sapiens.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Ask him for his car keys for a minute.

Sit in his car's driver's seat and tell him you're taking the car for a ride.

When he asks, "where?", say, "What do you care? Thanks for the keys!"

When he says, "but it's my car, you can't just take it", remind him that he just said that private property is always about exploitation, and he doesn't want to be an evil exploiter, does he?

He probably doesn't own a car, you know, those evil fossil fuels and all...

[kellyb]

I think we need to define "socialism", first.
A completely classless society (one definition of "socialism") is doomed to failure, IMO. Humans do, in fact, respond to incentives with productivity.

But if "socialism" is defined as having stuff like single-payer healthcare, progressive taxation, and a strong communal "safety net" for people in times of misfortune? Then sure. That works. And is comparatively Utopian in a good and plausible way.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

He said something in the lines that the real people who need to be put behind bars are the people in charge of corporations that exploit workers. He also added that he didn't support Private Property as a mechanism that works, because Private Property is always about exploitation. He said that in all types of work that are salary based, the "boss" (the one who pays) is taking ownage of part of the work that the workers do; and that the only thing that makes this possible is the Private Property industry.

This is a really nefarious way of looking at things. People are paid market wages for their work. Iam an employee for a company. By allowing my capitalist bosses to "exploit" me, i.e., work for wages, I am able to afford a very comfortable middle-class lifestyle. I have no doubt that I would be much poorer if I didn't have access to a capitalist who wanted to exploit my labor.

Quote:

I asked him if there were any Countries that had already reached this type of Socialism, that he considered role models and he said: The Soviet Union until 1953, Cuba, Yugoslavia and Hungary.

Your friend seems to be a fan of Stalin, who died in 1953. I think that it is almost universally agreed that Stalin was a terrible dictator and the Soviet Union under Stalin was an awful place to live. There were massive famines and gulags.

[Ziggurat]

Your friend is not a socialist. He is a communist. And private property rights are not exploitation: they protect the little guys, the people who don't have political connections or lots of money. Those guys can always come out on top, and they can exploit the little guys far more in the absence of property rights than they ever can with it. If you have no property rights and no connections, people can do anything to you, and there's nothing you can do to stop it. The history of the nations your friend cites are living proof of the lie that abolishing property rights protects anyone.

[Darat]

According to the proponents of any ideology the end result is a utopia. The problem of course is that no ideology is an accurate model of how the world actually works so in practise following the dictates of an ideology will not result in an utopia.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Darat

According the proponents of any ideology the end result is a utopia.

Nonsense. Only ideologies which posit the perfectibility of man consider utopia as their end result. If you think man is inherently flawed and can never be made perfect, then while you may think that the world can reach a best state by following your ideology, it still won't be a utopia.

And yes, the difference between ideologies which posit the perfectibility of man and those which do not is quite real, quite profound, and has massive real-world consequences.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Nonsense. Only ideologies which posit the perfectibility of man consider utopia as their end result. If you think man is inherently flawed and can never be made perfect, then while you may think that the world can reach a best state by following your ideology, it still won't be a utopia.

And yes, the difference between ideologies which posit the perfectibility of man and those which do not is quite real, quite profound, and has massive real-world consequences.

Not nonsense, however if you want to use a definition of utopian which simply means "perfection" then please feel free to do so, it's a not a definition I will be using.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Darat

Not nonsense, however if you want to use a definition of utopian which simply means "perfection" then please feel free to do so, it's a not a definition I will be using.

I'm using a definition which matches the origin of the name. Which doesn't require perfection, but does require a view of human nature which not all ideologies share. If you want to redefine it as meaning merely the best achievable result, well, you've stripped it of its significance.

[HansMustermann]

Well, the problem is that it's not an all or nothing situation. At least a certain kind of typical USA propaganda seems to be an OCPD exercise, i.e., suffer from an excluded middle: you're either right wing all the way, or it's the worst stalinist redefinition of socialism.

In reality, most of western european socialism has moved towards a more mixed model. Sometimes called "social democrat" rather than "socialist".

Can it work? Well, Germany seemed to work OK ever since WW2 with a "social market economy" model, which is just such a hybrid. France is a major economic power too, and it's pretty left wing. And I don't just mean wellfare and health care. The government of France owns extensive chunks of key industries, like railway, and is a major investor in a lot of companies and funds a lot of their research. And not just weapons and military: they own a chunk of TFT patents, for example.

And neither ended up hanging CEOs or whatnot.

In fact, in some aspects you just have to wonder. For example one of the most waved around aspects of unrestricted all-out capitalism is that it motivates people. Well, France has the highest productivity per hour worked of the G8 countries. Hmm...

[The Painter]

"The problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people's money."

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I'm using a definition which matches the origin of the name. Which doesn't require perfection, but does require a view of human nature which not all ideologies share. If you want to redefine it as meaning merely the best achievable result, well, you've stripped it of its significance.

The problem with using such a definition is that everyone will use different criteria to determine if a society is perfect or not, so the term becomes pretty much useless if you want to have a meaningful discussion regarding what different ideologists state is the "best possible" society that will arise if their ideology is followed.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Darat

The problem with using such a definition is that everyone will use different criteria to determine if a society is perfect or not

Except that's not the criteria I'm using.

Quote:

so the term becomes pretty much useless if you want to have a meaningful discussion regarding what different ideologists state is the "best possible" society that will arise if their ideology is followed.

No, Darat. By your own admission, you definition applies everywhere. In contrast, I have given a clear ideological divide between utopian and non-utopian ideologies. The ability to make such a distinction, along with the real-world consequences of that divide, make my definition useful where yours, because it can be applied everywhere, is useless.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by The Painter

"The problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people's money."

That was no more funny (or true) the first time I heard it. You don'y have anything identifiabnle as "your money" until you have paid all your utility bills, made your contribution to the infrastructure that allowed you to have any income.

The bad thing about capitalism, per se, is that it appeals to the least desireable characteristic of human kind - the drive to acquire stuff, as much of it as possible, and devil take the hindmost.

Soccialism, in any of its known manifestations, is aimed at ensuring that all get a reasonable share of the resources that the environment has to offer, that all benefit from their labor, and that labor and resources shall be pooled to enhance the available resources for the common good.

This is, to my mind, in keeping with the better characteristics of mankind, especially and specificly with those that raised us up above the common animals.

There is proof in the fossil record that out earliest ancestors acted cooperativelty, rather than competitively. The collective is greater than the individual, but the individual who is part of a c0llective is greater than the soliotaire

The only self-made man is the naked savage running about the bush poking animals with a sharp stick for a living.

An ideal society takes this into account, and tries to find some way to balance the drive to acquire stuff.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Except that's not the criteria I'm using.



No, Darat. By your own admission, you definition applies everywhere. In contrast, I have given a clear ideological divide between utopian and non-utopian ideologies. The ability to make such a distinction, along with the real-world consequences of that divide, make my definition useful where yours, because it can be applied everywhere, is useless.

Then we shall have to agree to disagree.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

There is proof in the fossil record that out earliest ancestors acted cooperativelty, rather than competitively.

No there isn't. Cooperation and competition are not mutually exclusive. There is strong evidence our ancestors cooperated, but NO evidence that they did not compete.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

In fact, in some aspects you just have to wonder. For example one of the most waved around aspects of unrestricted all-out capitalism is that it motivates people. Well, France has the highest productivity per hour worked of the G8 countries. Hmm...

Want to know the fastest way to increase that figure? Fire all the low-wage workers. That figure will shoot up. But things won't be any better.

France's labor laws provide strong disincentives to hire low-productivity workers. Figures like this don't mean as much as you might think.

[Francesca R]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

The bad thing about capitalism, per se, is that it appeals to the least desireable characteristic of human kind - the drive to acquire stuff, as much of it as possible, and devil take the hindmost.

The useful thing about capitalism is that it works with a human trait that is in plentiful supply (thanks to evolution or whatever you believe)--namely self-interest. Altruism etc is perhaps a little more scarce, limiting the efficacy of doctrines that require it in its pure form (IE not combined with self-interest)

Quote:

There is proof in the fossil record that out earliest ancestors acted cooperativelty, rather than competitively.r

Care to provide it? To be clear you seem to be saying that they co-operated demonstrably more than they competed. I doubt that.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No there isn't. Cooperation and competition are not mutually exclusive. There is strong evidence our ancestors cooperated, but NO evidence that they did not compete.

Agreed. Moreover there is bountiful evidence everywhere that modern capitalist societies (that sanctify property and contract rights) co-operate stupendously more than folks did in any prior era.

[Francesca R]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

IMHO the Soviet Union actually improved a bit after 1953 (the end of the Stalin era).

It's hard to discern actually, with data available for life expectancy and income per person (row 65).

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Francesca R

The useful thing about capitalism is that it works with a human trait that is in plentiful supply (thanks to evolution or whatever you believe)--namely self-interest. Altruism etc is perhaps a little more scarce, limiting the efficacy of doctrines that require it in its pure form (IE not combined with self-interest)

As evidence that altruism out-weighed self-interest, at least of the individual level, is to be seen in the many fossils available. Individuals so badly injured that they could hardly have stood upright frequently survived and recoivered, even though many of them clearly would have continued to need a great deal of community support. The Homo habilis remains found by Donald Johanson at Oulduvai showed clear indications of totally debilitating bone disease from which the individual recovered. Many of the Dmanisi remains (Homo ergaster? H. erectus?) are clearly geriatric, some to a debilitating extent. There seems only one explanation. Even at that low level of physical evolution, they cared about each other and were willing to donate a good deal of the community wealth to maintaining these people in their old age and infirmity.

Quote:

Agreed. Moreover there is bountiful evidence everywhere that modern capitalist societies (that sanctify property and contract rights) co-operate stupendously more than folks did in any prior era.

The record of that is spotty and, since 1980, at least, trending more toward ruthless competition.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Cain

I can confidently say socialism is NOT an utopia.

Two votes.

Once again, we see the excluded middle crap again, and lack of acknowledgement of the sliding scale.

You got chocolate on my peanut butter!
No, you got peanut butter on my chocolate!
Where along this continuum does a system fall? What's the mix?

Pure Socialism......................................... .........................Pure Capitalism

..............↓.............↓...............↓.............↓...............↓...

100............................................... .......................................0

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Want to know the fastest way to increase that figure? Fire all the low-wage workers. That figure will shoot up. But things won't be any better.

France's labor laws provide strong disincentives to hire low-productivity workers. Figures like this don't mean as much as you might think.

Nevertheless, France doesn't have a massive unemployment problem either. So those workers have to go _somewhere_, where apparently they're more productive.

The fact is that humans are humans, and France has to figure out a way to use X% of the Y million of people it has. Same as the USA. That figure is at the scale of the whole country, not just of one company.

So if France's laws can create that kind of optimization, yes, I think it says what I thought it does.

[Francesca R]

Relative to what/where? Unemployment in France is usually lower than Germany, (at least, since unification), and about the same as Italy, but generally a couple of % higher than in Japan, the UK or US.

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by Darat

According to the proponents of any ideology the end result is a utopia. The problem of course is that no ideology is an accurate model of how the world actually works so in practise following the dictates of an ideology will not result in an utopia.

QFT and definitely not nonsense. I think every politics has a vision of what society would be like if there were no ideological competitors and their ideas could be implemented in an unfettered manner: the socialist sees a world where inequality is mild and all the poor are treated with dignity and respect, the Hayek crowd sees a society bequeathed with efficiency wealth and individualism by the glories of the free market, the RedStateUSA sees America returned to a mythical golden age before all the trouble started and the lessons of the founding fathers (as they see them) were polluted by foreign ideas and corruption... etc etc

I don't think socialism therefore has anything about its particular vision that separates it from other political perspectives, in fact, it would be a pretty dry politics and a pretty unimaginative individual that doesn't have some kind of vision of the better world that would result if their particular politics were applied.

[Eyeron]

Considering that the goal of Socialism is to wipe out poverty, through the expectation of wealthy people to give up at least 90 of everything they have, because it is their social duty to pay for the poor because they have a lot more stuff, I'd consider it a utopia.

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by Eyeron

The problem I can see is that Socialism can only be a Utopia if it is something that everybody agrees to.

"Everybody" seldom agrees with anything in politics. In best cases a direct majority over 50% agrees with something. Even that situation is rarer than you would expect, because the statistical chance that more than 50% agree with one declared option out of infinite possibilities is very small.

A solution would be giving the followers of major political trends more autonomy about their own affairs, so they would agree with their own decisions, no matter what the other political factions decide about their own economy etc.

Originally Posted by Eyeron

And the other problem is that even in Socialist countries, you still have class division. The people who control the wealth are the ones who have the most power and are often far wealthier than the people they say they are spreading the wealth to.

Well uhm ahh ehh. Okay, this has happened.

If this described activity is legal in the system, and not technically illegal corruption, then the legislation is not designed to be true Socialism. No Socialism, a false flag operation.

[Toke]

The main characteristics of utopia's is that they don't exist.
And there are uncountable versions of socialism.

I like the idea of a country with UHC, good unemployment benefits, and extensive government check on private companies.
Capitalism is useful, but like fire it should not be left unchecked.

[Eyeron]

Quote:

If this described activity is legal in the system, and not technically illegal corruption, then the legislation is not designed to be true Socialism. No Socialism, a false flag operation.

It may not be technically legal corruption by that definition, but capitalism has been defined by some socialists as a corrupt system because it allows for the unequal distribution of wealth and control of all wealth in the hands of a few. So whenever there is class division based on unequal wealth division, then it is corruption. If not technically legal then ideological.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Two votes.

Maybe I should have italicized my last two words for you.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

As evidence that altruism out-weighed self-interest, at least of the individual level, is to be seen in the many fossils available. Individuals so badly injured that they could hardly have stood upright frequently survived and recoivered, even though many of them clearly would have continued to need a great deal of community support. The Homo habilis remains found by Donald Johanson at Oulduvai showed clear indications of totally debilitating bone disease from which the individual recovered. Many of the Dmanisi remains (Homo ergaster? H. erectus?) are clearly geriatric, some to a debilitating extent. There seems only one explanation. Even at that low level of physical evolution, they cared about each other and were willing to donate a good deal of the community wealth to maintaining these people in their old age and infirmity.

May I ask you if you would care for an aging, ailing disabled Republican? Would you spend money to take care of him, or does your altruism only work for people who think like you?

I see alot of belligerent competitivity in your overall behavior on this forum.