I am sick and tired of reading ignorant people who’ve never read anything Marx or Engels wrote (except possibly the Communist Manifesto) baselessly claim that ’socialism doesn’t work’.
My simple response to people who spout this empty rhetoric is to ask: how do you know?
Ever since the West witnessed the horror that was the Soviet Union and red China, the dream of socialism has been inexorably married in our literature, politics, rhetoric and culture to these perverse manifestations of totalitarianism. The impact of these horrors has struck all sides of the political spectrum from the left to the right. On left, we have seen them seemingly no longer willing to call themselves ’socialists’ so they go by monkiers like “anarco-socialists” which, at least under the original definition of the term, is as redundant a phrase as PIN number, ATM machine, or NDP party.
On the other end of the spectrum, when he really wants to insult the New Democrats, Conservative cabinet Minister Monte Solberg calls them ’socialists’. In the US, when a word dirtier than the ‘n’ word or the ‘c’ word is needed, usually ’socialist’ suffices.
The problem with all of this verbosity on both the left and the right, of course, is that what happened in the Soviet Union, China and elsewhere bears little if any resemblance to anything that was ever uttered by either Marx or Engels. To say that these countries were socialist is a bit akin to taking a beautifully romantic ballad and then, having never witnessed romantic intercourse, witnessing a horrible rape and claiming that one naturally derives from the other.
In short, the Soviet Union was not the failure of socialism so much as it was the rape of humanity and of socialism itself in equal measure.
So, to those of you on the right wing: okay, fine, keep hating socialism, that’s alright. But if you’re going to be honest and actually read what Marx wrote and then read any history of the Soviet Union, you should all realize that we cannot know that socialism doesn’t work since it’s never been tried in the industrialized world.
And to those of you on the left wing: quit being such cowards and reclaim something that once stood for something just and bold and pure and quit thinking that socialism is a dirty word!
Well Paul,
you should all realize that we cannot know that socialism doesn’t work since it’s never been tried in the industrialized world.
I suppose one would have to ask, Why? Why hasn’t it been tried, as Marx predicted? If it is so just, so ultimately rational and equal and fair, why hasn’t it been tried?
It’s too difficult for the bourgeois masses. They’re lazy.
I have read Marx (other than the Manifesto) though little else of Engles’ work. Marx’s theories are slightly more credible than the pseudo-socialists who misinterpet his work today. I think Marx’s real contribution is not his almost absurd utopian dream but rather his theory of history, the idea that we cannot predict the future, and the fact that we are affected by the values and institutions around us to the point that no one can go outside the box.
In terms of socialism, however, I am thoroughly unconvinced of the possibility of success and am quite skeptical of the so-called freedom Marx says we will all have. Socialism is necessarily contradictory to freedom because it limits how we can engage with ourselves economically and also, in the end, how we can think and which ideas we can have. It necessarily needs people to be of one mind for the system to work or else humanity could very well move back to the system we all had before (which I would argue is much more ideal anyhow). I think that Isiah Berlin’s criticism of the Marxist school of thought is quite accurate; any system that does not place fundamental human rights (and by this I mean negative rights or freedom from interference) lends itself to potential abuse.
Socialism is not possible because to be honest, I do not believe it is feasible. In addition, the industrial conditions Marx talked about have largely disappeared and I don’t see a revolution being led by the service industry. There were once excessive abuses in industrialized society but those abuses have fortunately been remedied. No we are not all equal in terms of circumstances but such equality is neither possible nor is it fair as Aristotle recognized 2500 years ago when he said numerical equality was unjust.
I could provide you with a very long and detailed critique (I have vigorously criticized Marxism before) but I am not going to fill your comment area with an essay.
“Socialism is not possible because to be honest, I do not believe it is feasible.”
Um… what? I don’t think using a synonym as evidence to support your case is typically accepted as legitimate. Certainly if I attempted to argue that “dinosaurs were big because they were huge” or “that man is brave because he is courageous” it would be considered a joke. If you truly wish to support your point, you must present evidence, not just repetition.
Oops when I was altering the default profile in the comments I forgot to get rid of the anonymous.
olaf – while I recognize that your question is intended to be rhetorical, I do think it’s nonetheless a good question. This is basically the subject of a huge corpus of literature by, most famously, Althusser, Gramsci, and closely related to, although distinct from the work of the so-called “Frankfurt School”.
In short, while I understand that you intended your question to somehow assail me, your question is more or less exactly the question I have posed to myself which animates much of my current academic research. Sadly, however, I have no quick, short answer for you which would satisfy you or which can be delivered here (as this is basically the subject of my dissertation, so I highly doubt you or anybody else would be willing to read 150 pages on this subject).
Michael,
I thank you for your contribution to this discussion. I just wanted to address a couple of items in your comment.
When you say:
“Marx’s theories are slightly more credible than the pseudo-socialists who misinterpret his work today.”
Are you referring to what I call the “pop-culture” Marxists who claim to be hard-core left wing but really haven’t read any of his work or are you referring to the various schools of Neo-Marxism discussed above (Althusser, Gransci et cetera)? If you’re referring to the former, I couldn’t agree more with you. If you’re referring to the latter, I’d be interested to hear why you feel these thinkers are “pseudo-socialists”.
As for your comment that, “I think Marx’s real contribution is not his almost absurd utopian dream but rather his theory of history”, I think there are a couple of items which might be worthy of your consideration. Both Marx and Engels abhorred utopian socialism. In fact, Engel’s most famous work was Anti-Dühring which, while written after Marx’s death, was the most complete formulation of Marx and Engel’s disdain for socialist utopianism. Moreover, there is a rather preeminent section of the Communist Manifesto wherein Marx and Engels attack utopian socialism.
As for the “the so-called freedom Marx says we will all have.”, I do not know to which you refer. Marx’s conception of freedom was merely Hegel’s conception of freedom which plainly states that freedom is not necessarily the removal of all oppressions (although that would be a form of freedom) but rather the realization of the constraints upon your person. Do you disagree with Hegel’s concept of freedom?
As for your contention that “Socialism… [limits] how we can think and which ideas we can have.” Actually the whole purpose behind Marxism (and Historical Materialism) is the notion that UNDER CAPITALISM the vast majority of the people do not have the ability to full freedom of ideas because, as Engels noted,
“Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion etc.” (Anti-Dühring)
Since the proletariat do not have the economic means to be idle like the bourgeois, it is impossible to say that they can engage in free thought such as idle philosophizing since they must work hard to eat and cloth themselves first before anything else. If, in short, Socialism truly did limit how people could think, I would cease calling myself a socialist. But a fair argument can be made that capitalism restricts thought to a greater extent and I think you’ve ignored that critical segment of Marx’s thought.
Finally, as for your contention that “Socialism is necessarily contradictory to freedom because it limits how we can engage with ourselves economically” You’re right, Socialism does limit how we can engage each other economically. I’ll refer you to one of Marx’s earlier work, On the Jewish Question, wherein he writes:
“The right of property is, therefore, the right to enjoy one’s fortune and to dispose of it as one will; without regard for other men and independently of society. It is the right of self-interest. This individual liberty, and its application, form the basis of civil society. It leads every man to see in other men, not the realization but rather the limitation of his own liberty.”
If we accept that Marxism is undesirable because it doesn’t allow people to economically exploit other people, the we must accept that freedom, as you have presented it, would necessarily allow the exploitation of one person by another. This isn’t the case even under capitalism. We limit pedophiles from abusing children. Their freedom is, rightly, limited. We limit convicted criminals’ freedom of motion. We limit husbands from treating their wives as property.
So socialism doesn’t limit freedom, it changes the definition of what is and is not exploitation. If you want to have a debate on that, then I’m more than happy to address your points, however it is academically dishonest to say that Marxism is diametrically opposed to freedom.
In addition to the comments posted here, there was one comment posted on progressivebloggers.ca. I’m going to copy and paste it here:
Walkswithcoffee wrote:
Have you read the example of the commons: fields shared by everyone where all are allowed to graze their horses? The fields were laid waste because everyone, no mater the impact on the environment, were always motivated to send their horses to graze there.
The same happens to an environment left to unbridled capitalism…
The moral of the story: good management is, like science, experienced based and not founded on the ramblings of the ideological beliefs of a few dead writers.
BTW, I’m a centrist… because I believe that is where experience (formed via observation) can be applied to the benefit of the most people with the least risk of harm… the same cannot be said of ideologies, such as socialism or communism… as the 20th century showed us.
Original Reply from PB:
Okay, communism is not socialism, don’t make that mistake. The Communist Manifesto was written to differentiate communism with socialism.
I too am a centrist, and thus come bringing evidence that socialism does not work:
North American Phalanx in New Jersey – 1843-1854
New Harmony Icarians in Indiann – 1854-1859
The Rappites – 1849-1852
Mormons in Salt Lake City – 1860-1870
Warren Experiment in Long Island – 1860
Oneida Community in New York – 1849-1881
These were all utopian socialist communities established in the indutrial era testing out various socialist theories on collective property, cooperative work, and common goals. They failed for a number of reasons. The most important was thatthey were all self-sufficient, however a leader held them together with either money or authority. As soon as the money or authority is gone… there goes the community.
Free-rider problem is a problem in everything. Today it is most identified with the environment. Canada has a small share in the environmental problem and if China, India, Russia, and America do not do their share Canada’s share is meaningless. Thus Canada could get away with doing nothing or very little.
Now take this into a socialist system. We all work 10 hours a week everything we need is provided to us by the state, however we have no reason to work hard. Socialism breaks down when competitive capitalist markets compete against it. Socialism seeks to provde only what is needed, capitalism seks to provide surplus. People in socialist systems are rather unnatural in this sense. They’re sitting next to all of the larg industrial worlds who are pumping out vaste wealth while your socalist society pumps out very litle. If war breaks out the socialist country loses unless it has a strong sene of nationalism to drive up massive recruitments. If not war then it is the constant threat of it. Sweden would not have lasted if it had prepared for a Soviet invasion.
Having given my political theoretical jibberish, socialism has one strong front, cooperatives. Cooperatives have generally been very powerful and useful for building strong communities and raising the standard of living.
New Additions:
I’d like to add a few things. First, socialist always say the “true socialism” has not yet come whenever socialism fails. This is akin to saying God exists, he just has not shown himself yet.
As for claims on Marx. Marx was anti-utopian and you’re giving a utopian vision of socialism. Marx felt that with the proper circumstances communism would happen. For this he created a criteria of things that have to happen in society, including the destruction of property. Marx constantly called socialists hacks because they lacked the same sort of understanding he had of class conflict and material history. These socialists did not understand that we are using the material of capitalism right now and so our society necessarily moves in that pattern. When socialism happens it will be due to a contradiction in capitalism that makes it change.
Thats great and all…. but where is the evidence of that sort of theory? He gives briefs of history and shows them as supporting his theory, without ever answering things that would contradict his theory. Marx regarded religion as being designed by what sort of society you were in. If you are industrial you have one god. If you are agricutural you have many gods. However, the opposite is true of India. He thought everything was broken down into two classes for all of history, yet there are all these classes like the middle class and the clergy that he just shrugged at.
Is Marxism anti-freedom? Marx probably didn’t even know. As a member of The International he cheered on the Paris Commune which was a hodge podge of free market, collective property, collective ownership, cooperative factories, and citizen militias. However after the whole fiasco he talked down most of the actions carried out freely by the people of the Paris Commune.
Has socialism happened? Tones of times. As well I could list the Owens’ Project which saw Owens buying up an entire community (factory community) and transforming it into a socialist paradise. It worked until he died, it had no continuity without the original director. Socialism has a tyranical character because it requires a constant charismatic leader to be in charge to give direction and maintain social order.
Stalinist Communism failed, you can’t force people to work hard.
Marxist Communism cannot be tested because its said to be powered by “natural forces” (naturalistic fallacy). Marxism is much alive. I think the statism elements of Marx is quite dead and won’t be coming back. Marx’s theories have mostly been thrown in the garbage. What people pay attention to now are his criticisms of capitalism, society, socialists, and religion. I do think its valuable to read Marx, if not for the sake of disagreeing with him.
Paul Vincent – just to address some of your comments:
I, like Marx and Engles, use the terms socialism and communism interchangeably. It’s only in the 20th Century that we’ve come to give the distinction that socialism is “bad” and communism is “very bad”. Clearly you haven’t read “the Communist Manifesto” carefully, although you pass yourself off as somebody who has, since any person who’d read it would know that the terms don’t mean anything different and that Marx NEVER differentiated communism from socialism.
Moreover, if you had read ANYTHING by Marx (even the Communist Manifesto), you would also know that the “free-rider” problem as you phrase it isn’t a problem under socialism because, as is explicitly stated in s.2 of the Manifesto, under socialism if you’re capable of working and you don’t, you starve.
Lastly, all of the examples of societies you mentioned have absolutely nothing to do with Marxism or socialism or communism. You seem to be confusing communitarianism with communism. This is a significant mistake as some of these societies you listed, such as the New Harmony Icarians, had some extremely weird ideas on the male orgasm and semen as well as toyed with the notion of raising children communally. Marx of course, thought both were stupid beyond belief. In short, you explain yourself in your post why these examples don’t pertain to Marxism when you (correctly) note that these are examples of UTOPIAN socialism (although they’re not really socialism, but I’ll grant you that one). Since utopian socialism has absolutely nothing to do with Marxism, this contention is a little bit like saying that the failure of Hippie communes in the 70s portends to the failure of Marxism.
Paul Vincent – when you write, “Marx regarded religion as being designed by what sort of society you were in. If you are industrial you have one god. If you are agricutural you have many gods. However, the opposite is true of India.”
You’re right that India has many gods, however you seem to be confusing Marx’s conception of religion. Marx never said that religion is “designed” or constructed. Marx said that religion was a natural “sigh” resulting from the class exploitation. And as for monotheism versus polytheism, if he ever wrote anything of the sort, then I’ve never read about it.
As for your contention that “He thought everything was broken down into two classes for all of history, yet there are all these classes like the middle class and the clergy that he just shrugged at.” You also seem to be confusing the fact that Marx uses the term “class” in a different sense than you are using it. For Marx, “class” pertains to one’s relation to the relations of production. Marx DID talk about other classes than the Bourgeois and the Proletariat (such as the petit Bourgeois), however the “clergy” in the Marxist sense wouldn’t be a class at all.
As for your statement: “Has socialism happened? Tones of times.” See my comment that I posted before this one.
Well, one thing that has to be accepted is that there are different brands of socialism. Marx rejected all of the socialists of his time referring to them as “utopian.” Communism and socialism do have a difference under Marx, communism is socialism but socialism is not communism, its a brand like others.
That’s why I’m a little in shock that you seem to be saying that Marxism, socialism, and communism are all interchangable here. The communities I labeled were examples of socialism, not communis. The topic at hand was “to those who say socialism doesn’t work” so we are talking about socialism and not communism. Just so we’re on the same page, socialism is any doctrine indicating wealth is subject to social control. Owen, Fourier, St-Simon, Blanc, and Proudhon just happen to be early socialists and most consider to be “Pre-Marxian.” So you have Marxian socialism called “communism” and then you have all these other socialists.
Now socialism doesn’t work in a capitalist society because every time it has tried it failed. Is it possible for socialism to work some day? Sure, but thats only as true as to say that anything can work with the right circumstances… not the strongestargument.
Paul Vincent – you’re absolutely right that Marx rejected utopian socialism because, I think we both agree, utopian socialist systems will inevitably collapse. However, I can tell you as a student of Marx who is fairly heavily read in him, I have NEVER found any passage in any of his works, in any translation of his works, which would validate your statement “Communism and socialism do have a difference under Marx, communism is socialism but socialism is not communism, its a brand like others.”
If you can find me a primary quote from Marx which validates your above statement, then I’ll admit defeat on this front, but I highly doubt that such a quote exists.
As for your statement that I “seem to be saying that Marxism, socialism, and communism are all interchangable.” I should clarify my position. Marxism, by definition, is scientific socialism or scientific communism. So there is a difference between Marxism and the pre-Marxian socialists or communists such as the Diggers of the Glorious Revolution in England or many of the more famous figures you mentioned in your post. Therefore, my position could not possibly be that Marxism, as a term, is interchangeable with these pre-Marxian socialisms. Rather, I merely stated that contrary to modern convention, but in accordance with Marx’s uses of the terms, I use the specific terms socialism and communism interchangeably. Thus, there could be scientific forms of socialism/communism inspired by Marx, or there could be utopian forms of socialism/communism. But the practice of placing ’socialism’ under the utopian category and communism under some sort of broader category in modern parlance has no basis in Marx or Engels or Lenin’s writings.
That said, I do feel that you have touched on something meaningful that perhaps I have not clarified satisfactorally. When I said that socialism has never been tried in the industrialized world, I was referring to scientific socialism. I should have made that clear in my opening post and you can legitimately fault me for not specifying that. Thus, while some of the examples you cited cannot be considered even utopian socialism, but rather would more aptly would be characterized as communitarianism (or even extreme communitarianism to Platonic levels), there are examples of bonna fide utopian socialism which failed. The biggest example which comes to mind was the Paris Commune, however since this was so short-lived and was quashed through violence, it is difficult to judge the extent to which even it falls under this category.
So, having clarified that point, it’s difficult to see how your contention that “socialism doesn’t work in a capitalist society because every time it has tried it failed.” is tenable. Find me an example of scientific socialism which has been attempted in the industrialized world, and I’ll admit defeat on this front.
Lastly, as I was replying to this post, I read over my last comment and I realized that in it I wrote: “For Marx, ‘class’ pertains to one’s relation to the relations of production” I meant to say “MEANS of production” not relations of production. I just wanted to clarify that.
Wow!! My head is spinning from all the theory here. Indeed, I have not read Marx and others works mentioned here, and so I am likely to be considered by some as “ignorant” – so be it, everyone is entitled to their opinion – but here is my simple take on all of this.
If socialism has truly been successful anywhere in the world, I would think that other countries / societies might consider embracing such a notion. But that has yet to happen. It is reality – wealth is needed to drive everything in society, including socialism. Countries cannot and will not provide for everyone’s needs in a practical and uniform manner without the creation and continuing generation of wealth. And where does the wealth come from to support a socialist society? They cannot just start the money printing presses up to fund their needs. Too much theory and academic thought here without a sufficent dose of practicality and reality.
I suppose the writers here in this piece could go on and on and on about socialism and the benefits (and hopefully recognize and accept some of the pitfalls as well), because it is a theory or notion, not throughly and successfully tested, implemented and widely accepted in the real world today. And consider this……… an even higher mountain to climb might be how a society might transition from capitalism (the real world today) to socialism even if it had the will to do so. It cannot possibly fathom how this might happen. Can you?
Pushing water uphill would surely be easier.
BigguyinTB,
The purpose of this post wasn’t to go into a lengthy discussion on Marxist theory, however Michael and Paul Vincent’s comments started me along that path. The purpose of this post was merely to prove that it’s foolish to say that “socialism doesn’t work”. The reasons I gave for this (and I think I’ve been pretty thorough here) is that since scientific socialism has never been tried, it is difficult to argue that it doesn’t work.
Now you’re right, there are HUGE issues with how exactly a transition from capitalism to communism is to happen. But, I wasn’t trying to engage in a discussion on how this would come about. I was merely attempting to show that if somebody’s going to use an argument against socialism (and there are strong arguments out there) it’s academically dishonest to use an argument based on the premise that socialism doesn’t work in practice.
Lastly, although this is off topic, you wrote that “And where does the wealth come from to support a socialist society?” In socialist societies, wealth would be created in exactly the same manner as in capitalistic societies. The only difference is that in the latter, the labourers do not accumulate the surpluses of society equally with the capitalists whereas in the former, the surplus generated by society (which the definition of wealth that I believe you’re using) is shared equally.
Well, socialism works – because I’ve seen it works.
I am the citizen of Croatia, ex Yugoslavia. Hence, I’ve seen how both systems work. Each of the systems had its stronger and weaker points. In my opinon, advantages of the socialism prevail. Socialism was better in economical (idnustry, agriculture, foreign debt, employement, export etc) and social issues (crime, social differences, easier to solve existental problems, culture.) On the other side, socialism had worse political organization and reduced freedoms of political expression. So, I believe future belongs to socialism, just it needs to be improved in some areas.
paulitics — the word “communism” can mean different things, and when people say that USSR shows that communism doesn’t work, which I agree with, I think they refer to communism in an economic sense, ie the idea of forming a system with common ownership of the means of production
Red China/USSR are good examples of why communism in this sense doesn’t work, because they show how inefficient the economy “owned by the people” tends to be
Anarcho-syndiclism is the best form of future government. Read/Listen to Chomsky.
You conflate Socialism with Communism.
Bad bad bad! ;-)
That we don’t know Communism doesn’t work because it hasn’t been truly tried is roughly analogous to saying we don’t know if making a boat of cement with a hole in it will work because we haven’t tried.
A key premise of Communism (which again is not socialism), the Labor Theory of Value, is false. Communist theory is a house of cards because of this foundation.
Socialism has indeed been tried and works quite well, on the other hand. It’s called Norway and they have one of the highest standards of living on the planet.
It occurs to me that you might be a philosopher rather than an economist. If you’re unfamiliar with the LToV, it’s essentially an idea positing that for any good, additional labor (best considered in this example as human capital) in whatever form will raise the intrinsic value of that good. It’s an absurd assumption in same way that unregulated capitalism is a great idea because of resource depletion (tragedy of the commons). On paper they’re both stupid. But no one ever tries the on-paper version. Capitalism (unregulated, laissez faire style) was tried and failed as miserably as (protectionist, centrally-controlled markets) Communism did.
To attempt the dated “it hasn’t been tried” argument begs the question in the classic sense: it assumes true a very faulty premise, namely that an implementation will match the academic version appearing in print (whether Marx or Smith).
Yaroslav – I take Communism to mean more or less what Marx took it to mean. In that case, one can objectively and truthfully claim that yes, the USSR didn’t work, but that it was far removed from what what Communism actually is, ergo this can’t be used as an argument.
————————————————————-
Anonymous – I’m a huge fan of Chomsky and I’ve posted many posts with discussions centering around Chomsky on this blog which you may be interested in.
For instance:
http://paulitics.wordpress.com/2007/04/30/chomsky-on-self-deception-and-other-fun-topics/
http://paulitics.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/on-intellectual-honesty-and-the-cuba-debate/
http://paulitics.wordpress.com/2007/01/30/is-capitalism-justified/
I don’t think Anarco-syndicalism is inherently diametrically opposed to Marx (or at least my reading of him).
—————————————————————
Sid – I do not conflate socialism and communism. I, like Marx and Engels, use the terms interchangeably because I believe that it draws out the fact that they have the same intellectual history. However, that said, I recognize that since Marx’s time, the two terms have come to mean different things, the fact remains that this distinction has no basis in Marx or Engel’s writings and is a purely conventional distinction.
As for your points about the Labour Theory of Value. First, there are economists who call themselves “Marxian” (as opposed to ‘Marxist’) economists who have updated and refined the Labour Theory of Value and hold that it has merits. Thus, I believe your presumptive rejection of Marx’s theory of value is a bit rash.
Second, I consider myself a student of Marx and I would say that historical materialism and a respect for a Heglian-inspired dialectic are the two fundamental sine qua non aspects of Marx’s writing, not the LToV. I would suggest the first chapter of Lukács’s “History and Class consciousness”, wherein Lukács discusses exactly this point.
As for your final point that I am in error in assuming that an implementation of Marx’s writings would have to occur as outline by Marx, I think this would be a somewhat fair argument, however it assumes something about my position which ultimately isn’t true.
I draw on Lukács who says explicitly in the first chapter of History and Class Consciousness that one can reject every single solid premise and still consider oneself a Marxist. The progression from Capitalism to something better doesn’t have to follow Marx’s description of how this will occur because Marx was not a prophet but a philosopher and an economist. Indeed it would be foolish to hold that the rise of something better than capitalism (regardless of what one might call it) will exactly follow Marx’s version because it’s already patently obvious that Marx’s version posits that Capitalism is much more unstable than it is in actuality and as a consequence it also posits that the transition to Communism, was very near.
Rather, I hold, like Lukács did, that an end must come to capitalism and out of its ashes shall arise something better due to the facts of the dialectic that everything which has a beginning also must have an end. And capitalism had a beginning.
“wealth is needed to drive everything in society, including socialism” – yes, that is true but why should it drive me to hand you “profit” I produced for you while I have to keep being “driven” just so I can barely stay in place? No one is arguing about “wealth”, only the practice of hording it to the detriment of those who actually make society work.
No, perhaps the Socialism we have been shown hasn’t worked (then again, in a sea of Capitalism, it’s pretty damned hard to get an honest foothold) but Capitalism is constantly dancing through its own mine fields. Just because something worked for hundreds, even thousands of years in the past, doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t eventually die (or kill itself).
Humanity lived under various forms of monarchy and common folks, generation after generation, saw this as part of nature or “God’s will”, until this belief slowly eroded until these walking gods lost their aura of authority and in some cases, their heads.
You are an idiot.
“it’s never been tried in the industrialized world.”
Derp.
I am not even touching that.
Yes, isn’t that interesting? I guess “The New Deal” had no Socialist overtones either, or unions don’t count, or the struggle for the eight hour work week, women’s rights, civil rights, etc., I guess this all comes out of the generosity of free market Capitalism because we know Socialism has “never been tried in the industrialized world”.
News flash, “Industrialism” has been steadily dying for at least thirty years now and Capitalism is trying to reinvent itself within it’s out of touch “political” sham as it slips and slides toward oblivion, why, because it works?
If Socialism was premature in the industrial age, it may be ripe for the information age. I love these people who are so threatened by progress, that they have to keep trying to convince us “it will never work” because, apparently, they have crystal balls or something and know what the rest of the world wants.
ANNOUNCEMENT:To those interested in discussing Socialism in-depth and meeting with others, such as Amy Goodman, John Pilger, Iraq Veterans against the war, etc.If you will be in the Chicago area: there will be a four-day conference at The Crowne Plaza. Look up http://www.socialismconference.org for further info.
Cam – I never said that “socialism will never work.” In fact, I hold that it can work — and will work when the time is right and people are ready for it. I merely stated that full-scale socialism as Marx saw it in its most mature form has never been tried yet.
Thanks for the announcement though. I really do wish I could be there. But sadly, Chicago’s just a bit too far for me to travel right now. :(
No Paul, I am responding to the same post “thejist” responded to (at first, I thought “thejist” was responding to me). “Olaf”, I believe is his site name.
Indians (hindus) have NO gods or ONE god, if they are monothesistic they believe in the manifestation of their god in many FORMS, it is NOT a polytheistic religion
actually like Buddhism its a “way of life” and a philsophy not a religion at all, ill get on topic in a few
I know the secret of a successful socialist type government, which is an endless supply of money, hence a money tree or forest.
I know this because every socialist that has failed, which is all of them, has said we didn’t have enough resources (money) because everyone wanted the free services and not the free jobs.
Paul
Paul – Those are some pretty bold blanket statements you put forward. Do you care to back any of them up with some facts or examples?
Did you read my post? My whole contention is that there has never been any truly socialist government ever in history (which in and of itself negates your comment). Rather, all that there’s been is state capitalist states who have usurped the title ’socialist’.
I am looking for a quotation from probably the late 1800s up to maybe the early 1920’s. I had thought it was from Marx. But now I’m thinking maybe Bakunin. The person said of Lenin’s plans for the Soviet Union, “It’s not Socialism. And it won’t work.” Can you tell me who? Or can you tell me where I might find out?
I too doubt that socialism will triumph. But I think its spirit is very important. I think that some application of its basic principles will be the only way we will be able to live together in the long run. But I think that application will be part of a mish mosh of several philosophies of political philosophy. The end result may or may not be called socialism. But I’m sure it won’t be what anyone thinks of a socialism today.
Edward,
Well, I’m pretty sure it’s not Marx who said that. I have no idea where you could find out who said that, but if I were to guess who it was that said it, my first two guesses would be Bakunin and Emma Goldman.
Let me know if you’re able to find anything out.
Cheers.
Paul
P.S. Do be weary of quotes attributed to Goldman. She was a very quotable woman, but there are several quotations floating around out there that are often attributed to her, but were never actually said by her.
The success of democracy and capitalism in today’s world has made Marxist thought obsolete. 124 years after his death, Marx himself would agree. Marx said that “The rise of the working class is inevitable”. He was right! It happened. That is why we have labour unions. The Industrial Revolution is
over. Marxism is over. Communism is over. Time to move on to new ideas. Marx would agree.
Jamie, you make three basic contentions, some of which I agree with and some of which I disagree with. I would like to briefly discuss each in turn.
First, you write that democracy has been a success.
On this front, I do agree that democracy, as an idea, is indeed a success. The only problem I have with democracy is that it is not more expansive and ubiquitous in our western lives (i.e., While I’m happy to have the democracy we’ve got, I’d be happier to see democracy expand even further than it is now, and expand into the economic realm to allow for democratic control of the economy).
Is there something specific which has caused you to believe that Marx was anti-democratic or have you just not read him and have uncritically taken the default trope that you’ve been fed by other equally ignorant people on this matter?
Second, you write that capitalism has been a success.
Allow me to ask you, Jamie,
-If you learned that in the European Union, every cow received $2.50 every day in government subsidies all the while 75% of Africans live on less than that — would you say the system is working alright?
-If you learned that over 1 billion people lived on less than $1 per day and over 2 billion people lived on less than $2 per day all the while the richest 1% owned more than all of these 2 billion people combined — and that this inequality was INCREASING not decreasing — would you say the system is working alright?
-If you learned that more than 70% of the world’s population has never heard the dial tone on a telephone all the while Canadians were bitching because their income trusts just got taxed at rates comparable to other businesses — would you say the system is working alright?
-If you learned that over 30,000,000 people in Africa alone are living with AIDS, and that there ARE pills which can help them, but that there is more money for pharmaceutical companies to give a North American an erection than there is to save an African life — would you say the system is working alright?
I think it’s clear that capitalism ISN’T a success.
Thirdly, and most importantly, you write that “today’s world has made Marxist thought obsolete… Marxism is over. Communism is over. Time to move on to new ideas. Marx would agree.”
On this front, you are certainly not as ignorant as your contention that somehow Marxism stands in opposition to democracy when it actually seeks to radically expand it.
On this front, you do have some good — and reputable — academic company. For instance, I imagine that you’d agree with this quotation:
This quotation wasn’t made by you, obviously. Nor was it made in your lifetime. Nor was it likely made in your parents’ lifetime. This quotation was made by the famous Itallian thinker Croce in the year 1907 – ten years BEFORE the Russian Revolution. And Croce wasn’t even the first to prematurely dig a grave for Marxism either.
Alan Maass sums this up far better than I could, so I’ll conclude with him:
Marxism is a “thought”; it is a “theory”.
It cannot be tested. The only way to find out if it works is to put it into practice which requires a revolution by the working class.
The working class will not revolt in democratic / capitalist countries because the working class is satisfied with the status quo which already includes protection of the working class through labour unions PLUS democracy / capitalism also provides redistribution of wealth through taxation.
Time for some new thinking. Marx would agree.
So, Paul, what are some of your new thoughts?
Jamie, you merely restated your original asinine comment using different words. If you’re interested in asking something else, I’d be happy to entertain you, but since you haven’t brought up anything new, I’m just going to direct you to my comment above.
I noticed that you had no rebuttal to any of my points. Am I to take that to mean that you agree? (Or should I merely take that to mean that you’re way out of your league and have never read any serious amount of Marx?)
comment deleted
eimaJ – just to let you know that I’ve set your IP for moderation for a period of one month. This is essay season for me as a university student and, while you’ve demonstrated that you can waste an inordinate amount of your time (and while I will be happy to allow you to waste an inordinate amount of my time once essay season is finished), I simply do not have time in the month of November to go around refuting the most ignorant of claims.
I especially liked your claim that “Africa does not have a Capitalist system.” That one was by far the best. It made me chuckle. Thanks for that. I see that when you can once again continue commenting, we’ll have to backtrack a bit to basics and and go over the fact that capitalism, by definition, is a system of production wherein the means of production are owned primarily by private/non-governmental interests.
I should emphasize that I’m not being disingenuous here. I AM truly more than happy to let you troll my blog all you want and I’ll patiently respond to all your comments as of December 1st when my last essay is due.
As evidence for this, you can search through my LENGTHY discussion with the troller known as “the-antisocailist” on this blog.
I’ll see you in one month.
Give a Man a fish he will eat for a day.
Teach a man to fish he will eat for a lifetime.
Socialism. Does. Not. Work.
It is a theory.
Looks good until you actually do it.
I. Guess. Merely. Forcefully. Stating. Something. Makes. It. True.
I. GUESS. HAVING. A. BLOG. MAKES. YOU. AN. AUTHORITY. ON. EVERYTHING.
Socialism cannot work because economic calculation is impossible. The great economist Ludwig von Mises proved this in 1922 with his great work entitled: Socialism. Without prices, there is no way to figure out what to make, how many to make, what color, etc. That’s why all socialist states, where the govt. owns the means of production, have shortages in basic needs and surpluses in stugg nobody wants. Read the book. End of discussion.
Professorchris1 – you raise a very important concern about state-managed economic calculations. Indeed, I agree with much of what you wrote, the only problem is that what you were criticizing was not socialism but rather state capitalism (i.e. what they had in the Soviet Union what with all the shortages and 5 year plans, was state capitalism).
So, you’re quite right to point out, as you so succinctly do, that that’s the “End of discussion.”
Socialism never works because socialism is slavery.
You can not impose a system on others without making them slaves to whatever it is you impose.
Socialism has been tried and every trial has ended in failure because too many people refuse to be slaves. Go back thousands of years to the Spartans, who got the works done? The Helots who were their slaves. This is the reality of socialism.
Wow, I’m truly speachless. I must say I’m used to getting ignorant comments here and there from people who think the USSR was socialist or what not. But this takes the cake. I don’t even know where to begin.
“Socialism never works because socialism is slavery.”
Care to elaborate on that argument at all in order to enlighten us ’slavery supporting types’ over here?
Quite frankly, the statement “Socialism has never been tried in a western society”, is a fallacy. In fact, in 1945 the British voted out Mr. Winston Churchill and replaced him with Clement Attlee (Labour Party). Mr. Attlee WAS a socialist. He installed many nationalized services, including health care, coal mining (which was hugely important to Britons), as well as creating an economy which was, to a fair extent, centralized. Socialism was the prevalent train of thought in Britain pretty much up until Thatcher took over during the Reagan/Thatcher/Pope John Paul II era, in which the world saw the free market and capitalism defeat communism and the notion that a centralized economy was stronger. In conclusion my friend, socialism and policies which tend to lean towards the welfare state have in fact been tried, and they failed. During the period which socialism was accepted in Britain, living standards decreased. Inflation rose, creating some serious economic troubles for the “West” in general (the U.K.’s downturn impacted the U.S. just the same).
Anyways, to sum it up, Adam Smith and David Ricardo’s theories on the free market work. Simple as that. It works better than socialism, as proved by the enhanced trend of globalism we are now seeing worldwide. Globalism and the theory of “comparative advantage” and all that, simply put, works and increases living standards more so than socialism and welfare states ever have.
Ah, sorry about my paraphrasing there: “Socialism has never been tried in an industrialized society”. In any case, the point still stands =]
“socialism doesn’t work in real life”
Especially when it’s been undermined by crapitalist imperialist scumbags, their agents and camp-following ignoramuses!
Any other dominant ideas of the Masterclass the little brainwashed parrots want to expectorate?
GOP Mess Americon
– GP
====
Norway is not a good example of socialism at work. Less than half of the industry is state owned, so there is free market competition for goods and jobs, not controlled by the state. The natural resource sector is the predominant part of the Norwegian industry controlled by the state, which in turn ends up competing on the world market anyhow (demand and supply with no price controls). Even socialist can make money selling energy (oil,gas, etc.), and even a socialist scheme can pay good wages under these circumstances.
“How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”
— Ronald Reagan
Yeah, like the rest of the world cares what Bonzo Goes to Washington thought.
it was great reading all this… though i have not read as much but i think socialism will work when everybody works together towards it.
I would suggest that Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Tories, Communists, Socialists, Conservatives and Labourites are concerned with preserving the institutions they created to manage an industrial mass society. They defend the giant corporation, the mass trade union and the centralized nation state. The concern about workers is reminiscent of the agricultural age when the establishment was concerned about the serf. Without the serf the aristocracy found itself without a role. In a post industrial age the worker becomes redundant and the industrialists and related institutions find themselves with a limited role. Rather than clinging to victorian age principals its time to free ourselves from wage slavery.
Our industrial economic model and supporting government systems are unable to cope with either the demassification of markets or the collapse of consensus. The government debt being accumulated to maintain consumption for the benefit of an economic system that supports government, capitalists or unions as intermediaries is no longer affordable but more importantly is inefficient.
It is the recognition that we are changing into a Knowledge based economy that prompts me to suggest something that couldn’t work before is now feasible. The explosions in Self Serve and DIY are only the beginnings of a trend toward an economy where the consumer and means of production are directly linked. We bank, order and design items, assemble goods and collaborate on projects while the intermediaries that performed these roles have been displaced due to information and automated manufacturing systems being directly linked to the consumer.
Historical and current examples of self-sufficiency do not differentiate tasks into work and leisure. They term what they do as living. The term “economy” is defined to exclude all work or production not intended for the market. Perhaps a new system will on a collective basis provide the infrastructure and support to be largely self-sufficient. Think of the explosion of DIY (Do It yourself), which is only constrained due to the demands of the exchange network that requires that most of our time, is spent at work. Is the decline in the protestant work ethic simply a shift in production for others to production for self? Are we not working when doing renovations, planting gardens, attending courses, volunteering, writing stories and politically active on the Internet? Some of us can’t afford to work full time and others just need to be shown the way. The profit-based capitalist market only became necessary when the task of consumption was separated from that of production. This elaborate money based system could mostly be replaced by new forms of barter in a DIY society. This will minimize the demands on the state; shrink government and most importantly reduce the role of the economy in our lives. This was the system that we lived by before Industrialization. It didn’t work because we didn’t have the science, technology and lessons gained from industrialization. Now we only need the political will to make it happen.
It is no longer about the political left or right.
The technical community that built today’s digital infrastructure did so around a certain set of cultural values, among them openness, sharing, personal expression, and innovation. These were core values of the early digital pioneers (the hackers), embodied in what we proudly call the “hacker ethic.”
Todays revolutionaries recognize the issue today is about ……
Open or Closed.
Have any of you guys read “the socialism of the XXI century” by Heinz Dieterich Steffan? Its really interesting and explains perfectly what the New Historical Project is about, as well as the dynamics of global politics in the XXI century. Im reading it in Spanish , because Im not sure if it has ever been traslated to english. I got the book on a Adobe file, ( its short its about 80 pages or so) ,so if any of you is interested just let me know, I ll send it to you free.
cheers
elpirado2@hotmail.com
Oh, you little democrat kids are so entertaining – praising socialism – teeheehee…
People surviving with the wealth they earned in a society whose government allowed them to do so, can get an education and work where they want. My democratic parents taught me this. They also taught me to give to others. Our family lives on less so that we can do this. The government does not need to get involved in our personal lives in order for us to start sharing our time and our money. You all put forth lofty academic thought and argue about the depth and content of what you’ve read and therefore somehow believe you’re experts. ( I would have a field day with your spelling and grammar if I had the time.) I went to this site to increase my understanding of current social and ecclesiastical tensions. What I see is the problem itself. Everyone wants to be heard in regard to what they feel is unfair and unjust, fewer people actually go and do something about it, of their own volition, without waiting and hoping the government will intervene. The wealth of the world is unbalanced because people are selfish and like to argue and point fingers. Model that to society and see what you get.
Isn’t the reason why there has never been any truly socialist society because human beings, being what we are, aren’t capable of true socialism? It would work I suppose, if those in charge of instituting the policies weren’t subject to corruption, but to think that’s possible is akin to believing in the utopian socialist dream! As far as I can tell, socialism would work if we were all God but, listen sweetheart, we ain’t. Your argument for socialism is the same old rhetoric I hear all the time…”It’ll work this time, we’ll do it better than those other guys!”. It doesn’t work, it never has, and until we become infallible, it never will.
We have been slowly adding socialism for the last 100 years. “They are our failed policies.”
I site the American education system as a prime example.
Why is it that 1913 when we really started using national socialism our country started to decline steadily?
The great depression was created by a centralized banking system not a free market.
It is only because of complete ignorance about the economy would anyone support such a move,
Our current financial crisis was created by a centralized banking system, again not the free market (we haven’t had a free market for decades)
I guess all I could say to you would-be socialists and communists is, read history you are nothing more than followers and lemmings.
Gee with such a convincing argument from such a learned individual as you appear to be Socialism Bad, you’ve totally won me over. Wow, thanks for such insight. You must be an economy God. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Perhaps you could read a book or study something other than your own navel lint before you post again. Just sayin!!
if you look at china they appear to be doing very well, but they also rely on a capitalist governments to generate a substantial revenue, by selling us many of our goods we take for granted.
Before we started purchasing our cloths overseas, most people in America made their own cloths because the cost was so high. At the time we were more of an agricultural society and supply was for less than real demand making clothing far more expensive.
What is decisive…. is the envious man’s conviction that the envied man’s prosperity, his success and his income are somehow to blame for the subject’s deprivation, for the lack that he feels…. A self-pitying inclination to contemplate another’s superiority or advantages, combined with a vague belief in his being the cause of one’s own deprivation, is also to be found among educated members of our modern societies who really ought to know better. The primitive people’s belief in black magic differs little from modern ideas. Whereas the socialist believes himself robbed by the employer, just as the politician in a developing country believes himself robbed by the industrial countries, so primitive man believes himself robbed by his neighbour, the latter having succeeded by black magic in spiriting away to his own fields part of the former’s harvest
-Mises
and may I remind you that America and it’s capitalist pigs brought this world out of barbarism, and all your fancy homes, medical advancement, iPods, cars (even environmental cars) and all other gadgets of vanity.
Were brought into this world from our “evil” system.
What has any socialist or communist country ever done to better the world? Nothing!
people believe that socialism could work because it has never been tried in a modern society,
that doesn’t make sense to me because if socialism cannot create a country how would it be possible to sustain one?
National socialism or communism may not create
Hitler’s, Stalin’s, and Lennon’s
but the people in those societies were powerless to stop them. why you ask? the 1st thing all of those men did was disarm the masses.
“The end of freedom will come with thunderous applause”
sorry to Interrupt your red party
i shall say goodnight,
Go to Cuba and then you will see why socialism doesnt work ask them..ask the cubans, “spread the wealth” is the very definition of socialism.
Actually Canadians do go to Cuba quite regularly (as do most European nations). It is Americans that feel they are experts on a place that they never visit. By the way, what the hell are you afraid of anyway? The worlds last remaining super power, able to blow up the entire earth many times over and you live in fear of a tiny poverty stricken island off your southeastern coast. If you are so sure you are right and they are all wrong, why don’t you get your boot off their neck and resume relations with them so you can show them the error of their ways by your stellar example?
I’m sorry but you sound like an idiot. First of all, Marx was a Communist, not a Socialist, comrade. Maybe you should reread all of his works if you didn’t pick that up. Secondly, Socialism is used in most of Europe in countries that are considered industrialized. Today, ignorance regarding the horrors of communism and socialism (which both reside on the left of the political spectrum, but sorry to break it to you aren’t the same thing, Paul) prevails in the US and we are reversing evolution by slowly adopting a system that historically has been proven to be flawed, whereas the system that we have used in the United States for hundreds of years, capitalism, has been proven to be the most unique and poignant examples of success. We have had numerous examples of why socialism doesn’t work (the soviet bloc being one of them but there are many present examples in Europe and throughout the world as well ) but because our economy fell apart under a pseudo-conservative president (Bush adopted many socialist domestic programs, gave more foreign aid than any president in history, and spent more than any president in history-not exactly consertative economically) the American public elects a communist this time around. Smart. Ask any economics scholar why socialism is a bad idea. Anyone who knows anything about sound economic principles will tell you socialism sounds good on paper but is flawed when executed. Obama has even admitted he doesn’t know a thing about economics and his presidency is a learning experience for him. How scary is that?
Of course, Marx didn’t intend for communism to be corrupt you idiot; corruption is just a product of this “ideal system”. (if you consider punishing success ideal, that is) When you give sooo much power to a single body ie government, it is bound to result in corruption. Marx thought we could all just live happily together, trading goods with no authority dictating that trade. This is naive at best. It is a utopian state, but highly unrealistic. With socialism and communism, it is necessary for us to adopt big government and to put it in terms you people can understand: government is just like any corporation, when it gets too big and money hungry, it often results in corrupt individuals high up. The only diffence between government and a big corrupt corporation like Enron is that big government much more frightening. No one is regulating it but itself, they’ve got the military and all the guns (if they take away our right to bear arms that is), they make all the rules, they don’t have any competition to destroy them, we don’t have a choice to boycott and put them out of business, lol, because we will be highly dependent on them in all aspects of our life and it is the government after all. Privatization is the only thing that truly works. Laissez-faire economics is the way of the future, if we fail in this we are doomed. Read the book “Atlas Shrugged” for some good philosophy. Sorry for any grammatical errors, this was a quick rebuttal.
And I understand laissez-faire captialism is the trading of goods without government regulation, as well, before you attack me on that. BUt obviously there is a difference in perspective between Marx’s philosophy and laissez-faire capitalism. Marxism is very dependent on the good of human nature. Also, I am sorry for calling you an idiot, you are obviously well-educated but it was in response to how condescending you have been to the folks on this message board. You may have a lot of obscure facts and nitpick everything anyone says on here but you fail to see the big picture. I think you look for facts that will support your preconceived notions and overlook a lot. And actually I am not a full believer in true laissez-faire economics, I do think there should be minor government regulation, but surely you don’t think true Marxism can exist in reality.
Would you say our current president Obama is a socialist? I know someone from deviantart.com who made such a statement but I want to gather information before I make my judgment. I’m fully aware that capitalism is not functioning properly and that socialism was compared with communism, which I found out was not necessarily true and that people have that thought so drilled into their heads. But would you say that if socialism was given a try in the western culture would there be any prosperity? The United States is in fact a young country in comparison to Europe but I don’t know the conditions of Europe either. I would like to know more before I make any judgments. I would rather think things through before I make any thoughts or decisions because as I’ve learned from experience to not know anything is the same as being a fish in a tank.
Sadly that is what happens when you have communism or socialism in place. It’s a pie in the sky goal. The reason it doesn’t work is because people are by nature greedy, self centered and power hungry. It’s more than wise to keep them in check. With socialism or communism (and yes I know they are different) you’ve handed over your rights, trusting in people to do the right thing when they can’t or don’t. You leave your country open to evil people while you are at their mercy. There will always be evil people and those who support them. To think otherwise is foolishness and unrealistic.
Socialism and communism sounds like a fabulous idea – on paper like a lot of things do. In the real world it just will not work as well as capitalism where the people are not under the thumb or at the mercy of their leaders. You have to be realistic. When you are dealing with a world filled with power hungry evil people, you cannot afford to give your freedoms over to a system of government like that.
Our system is not running properly as a capitalist system because socialism is continually bleeding it’s way into it. You are foolish to give your freedom and control over to government control or majority rule etc…America is by far the greatest nation on the planet and there are those who wish to transform it into something it was never intended to be. Perhaps you are one of them?
Yes by all means. It is much better to put your freedom and control into the hands of the corporate mega-giants instead of into an institution where you actually have a voice. After all, corporate America has always acted in YOUR best interests hasn’t it???
If you Socialist/Communists all hate this Republic so much, and don’t agree with the Constitution, by all means please LEAVE NOW!!!!!!! Go somewhere and build your utopia and leave the rest of us alone! I am really amused that the argument for saying that Socialism has never worked, is always rebutted with, it has not been implemented enough. If Socialism was so great don’t you think once people got a taste of it, they would want more, not less of it? I don’t see the people here getting on raft and going to Cuba, do you? I think that just about sums up what people feel about Socialism!
So, I am doing a paper on whether socialism can work. You have anything you would like to say to defend socialism? If so, please drop me an email. Please cover economic aspects. I do not care for the nonsense history of the USSR, and so on, I want economic facts if possible.
I hope to hear from you.
So then, a consensus here might be, socialism can work, but rules of co-operation must be enforced. Does this mean socialism is limited to small societies? Can people vote to change the rules? How does the society discipline members who cannot or will not obey the rules? Can non-conformity be tolerated? What about criminals? How bad is it for the society if a member steals or assaults? Can the society punish a member for breaking rules? What are the limits of punishment? How are new members assimilated? What is done with people who are kicked out> Can a former member, who was removed by the group, be reinstated?
i like democracy and socialism.
ive only read The Communist Manifesto
and read/talked somewhat ABOUT Marx and Engels, their lives, theory and actions.
but here’s what i understand (and i’m open to learning)…
i see important distinctions between Communism/Marxism and socialism…
1)
one difference important to me, as an ex?-Christian familiar with the totalitarian abuses in China and Russia against minorities of various belief systems, is C/M is essentially atheist and anti-religious (”religion is the opiate of the masses” etc.), whilst socialism need not be (indeed some early forms of agrarian socialism were practised by Christian clergy – and, if the Bible is this far reliable, by the early Christian community.)
2)
also, the happiest places to live in the world for some time have been successful Northern European states with a blend of varying degress of capitalism (of which I am chary), democracy and socialism, and these are less extreme in their ideological, theoretical and practical demands of the Universe!
3)
last but not least Marx claimed to be setting up a scientific theory based on the evidence of human history. This is not true because this theory does not match the data in two ways…
a) to me it seems some – and only some – of Marx’ assertions offer accurate and meaningful analyses of certain periods and places of history, particularly the Middle Ages, but do not pertain to other milieux.
b) Marx claimed all states would evolve through a series of stages into Communist states. This has not happened, and is there really reliable empirical evidence to suggest it will? I lack data, but I suggest if Marx claimed the sequence of stages was fixed e.g. say feudal > capitalist > socialist, one would find states that broke this element of the theory by evolving in a different sequence. And yes I agree that perhaps there has never been a truly Communist state – only systems where individuals or groups lie Big Brother style that the system is of and for the proletariat. (Perhaps there have been truly anarchistic *socialist* states, even if only among small indigenous groups with grassroots self-governance and sharing of resources.)
4)
one of many ethical qualms I have with Communism/Marxism – even in their “pure” form – is that it is to a large degree a “gospel” of hate. Contrast the revolution supposedly preached and practised by say Buddha, Ghandhi, Jesus (rather than people who claimed to be of their “party” but violated their examples in evil or ignorance) with the sort of irrational mob revolution depicted movingly in Metropolis (before the reconciliation of “heart” and “hand”)…Consider: sweeping statements like “revolution by any means is justified” (if I am quoting correctly?) can and have been used to try to legitimise anything. ANYTHING.
(As a sub-point, I do not want a world where any one party is supported over and against the other, but a fair distribution of all power and resources to all people as much as practically possible. This may mean a world where the distinction between “heart” vs. “hand” dissolves; so be it!)
Having experienced some of the follies of purportedly religous or spiritual “faith”, I do not want to submit to or support ANY belief system that is out of line with the facts i.e. is not true…and promotes ethically undesirable extreme forces and actions – with predictable – and historically demonstrated – consequences.
Communism/Marxism as represented in The Communist Manifesto – even when recognized as catalyst polemic – in many psychosocial aspects simply replaces religion as the so-called opiate of the people with simply another belief system demanding doublethink commitment to the sometimes patently untrue, essentially encouraging, indeed requiring the hateful opposition of large groups of people, and hence extreme unethical action.
If I am in chains,
I’m certainly not going to be manipulated
by polemic and propaganda
into getting fervid
about exchanging them for another, period!
Defending socialism because it has not been properly applied while insulting capitalism for its faults is a double standard, y’know.
Additionally, weighing your political options in a utilitarian manner will undoubtedly lead to a totalitarian government and lead to socialism or state capitalism.
The purpose of government is not to regulate freedom or economy, create progress, or to make stand-up citizens; it is to create liberty and equality across every spectrum.
Laissez-faire libertarianism, rather then state capitalism, is the future of nations. This pure brand of capitalism lacks the regulations that impede the drizzle-down effect of regulated capitalism, and it’s lacks of marriage with state results in less exploitation of other nations.
I have seen communalism work in the doukhobour, hutterite and mennonite communities work to some extent around my city; but I wouldn’t necessarily call this socialism or communism. In a very small community, some aspects of various communalism work – but all governments fail when used at the provincial or federal level.
A better question is: why do we continue to laud capitalism as the superior approach to government, given the recent catastrophic failings of it?
It is somewhat telling that when the extreme free-market capitalism of American conservatives led to a global meltdown of the economy, the response was for the government to support its citizens (albeit corporate citizens, but citizens nonetheless) by giving them money.
The GOVERNMENT using taxpayers money to SUPPORT its citizens?! That sounds familiar…
Socialism exists in every country in the world.
Why doesn’t anyone protest about the bailout of the banks? Capitalism says we should let them fail. “Survival of the fittest,” anyone?
I come from a Western European country and the US has socialist elements since day one. European countries believe that Capitalism should be the general mode of operation, but there should be collectivism for the things that need it, like health care.
I agree 100%.
Soviet Russia, China and any other ‘Communist/Socialist’ state have never been truly that. They used the words Socialism and Communism in order to label themselves as being different from the Capitalist West.
Socialism has never been given a chance, and it’s about time we had some change.
There are a lot of really insightful (for me) posts here. It is nice to see people presenting their (for the most part) arguments with reasoning. Not to nice to see others label people as idiots for having different views.
The “tragedy of the commons” argument by Paulitics should be clarified. If anything, it would apply to a socialist system, where all the cows were allowed unlimited grazing. This rather describes a socialist system where all benefit, but the end result is the destruction of what supplied the benefits, leaving all far worse off. Contrast this with capitalism, where one person owns the field. That person wouldn’t dream of taking something which supplies a steady year to year income and try to maximize the output at the cost of destruction.
I work for a privately owned two-family run business that employs about 160 people. They’ve run the business for more than 40 years and have about 30 million per year of revenue. They not only own the business, but the children of the families work there and help run the day to day functions of the company. These worker/owners are some of the hardest working people I have ever known. Do they get more than non- owners? You bet they do! And when we got slapped with a 3 million dollar lawsuit last year, did they hurt more than us? You bet they did!
My point is these people have a vested interest in the company continuing to function, year after year. The wages they pay me make it in my best interest as well.
Am I defending capitalism? Yes. Am I defending unbridled capitalism? Not only no, but hell no!
If this company were made public, I have no doubt a predatory company would just love to rush in, pump it up, abuse it, and sell it as soon as they could LOOT every asset it has. THAT is unbridled capitalism.
We see this so much in the mega-corporations today. You will see it in GM’s bankruptcy, where all the assets will be sold off at profit to meet the obligation of preferred stock holders (uh, I don’t think that’s you or me, folks). The common stock holders, like me and other people who own a small percentage by way of 401K (201K?) plans, will get the screw.
The tragedy of the commons is that there is no responsibility for the individual, only the collective. The end result is all individuals eventually suffer because they ARE part of the collective.
Infogleaner
As population increases Socialism is an inevitability. It will be the only way that human civilization will be able to survive.
I think the introduction to Geoffrey Hosking’s “The First Socialist Society” gives a pretty good argument against the idea of Paul’s original post. The first paragraph reads, ” ‘The philosophers have only explained the world; the point is to change it.’ This famous dictum of Marx invites us to judge his doctrine by its practical consequences, in other words by examining the kind of society which has resulted from its application. Yet, paradoxically, many Marxists themselves will deny the validity of such a judgement. They will dismiss the example of Soviet society as an unfortunate abberation, the outcome of a historical accident, by which the first socialist revolution took place in a country unsuited to socialism, in backward, autocratic Russia.” Whether or not Marxist theory was meant for Russia or China, that’s where it was used as the ideological base for revolution.
By the by, I’m all for heavily regulated economies, but 100% state-ownership doesn’t work.
You want to be a socialist….go be a socialist. Get together with all your friends that want to be socialists. Provide 0% interest loans for each other. Pool your resources. Pay for each others’ houses. Buy group medical insurance policies. There is nothing stopping you from being a socialist.
There is a model that has worked for several hundred years. The kibutzim of Israel. They work. The reason that they work is because:
1. EVERYONE who joins, does so voluntarily.
2. If someone isn’t pulling their weight (but is able to), they get kicked out
However, you can’t do either of those two things on a national level. So, instead, what happens is there is a group of people who leeches off of “the system”. Initially this parasitical group is small. However, over time it grows and grows and grows until the parasite gets bigger and hungrier than the host.
The bottom line is that socialism is a deadly parasite on capitalism and in the end, everyone ends up being poor.
The nightmare scenario about socialism creating a state of parasites living off the hard workers is a mistake. That is not what socialism is. The industrial/capitalist society we have at present tends to disable people from being independent. Though the welfare state was a necessary antidote to the grueling inhumanity of 19th century capitalism; at the same time it often locks people into a cultural dead-end.
Both morally and environmentally capitalism is no longer a feasible economic system. It doesn’t matter what you call it : communism, socialism, anarchism. We simply need a sustainable, respectful way for humans to live.
It is not Utopian to have this philosophy . It is a plan as a guide for the future.
Wow Paula, nicely said.