Will Socialism change anything at all?

[Mahatma Gandhi]

There have always been two classes -- the exploiter and the exploited. Even in pre-capitalist societies.... Besides, a person could be sexist/racist/homophobic even if the means of production were to fall into the hands of the workers.

Workers' control of MoP won't change people's hearts and minds; it will only shift capital and authority from one section of the society to another. People will continue to be hateful and envious, as always.

So I wonder whether socialism -- should it succeed at all -- would be any different from capitalism in this respect.

[Zanthorus]

No previous revolutions have ever been made by an exploited class. They've always been made by small minorities attempting to impose a new system of exploitation. In contrast the proletarian revolution is the first revolution made by the immense majority in the direct interests of the immense majority.

As for sexism/racism/homophobia... well that is why we constitute ourselves into a political movement instead of fighting on purely economic issues.

[Hit The North]

Marx says that people change themselves when they engage in changing their social conditions.

He also argues that 'human nature' is the ensemble of an individual's social relations. In other words, that particular societies promote particular types of human behaviour.

Socialism is not a cure-all for all human traits; it is a social system which is based on the common ownership, control and distribution of material goods. However, it is reasonable to suggest that the equality of access to resources that this system will achieve, will diminish the need for individuals to be aggressive and competitive with each other and instead foster a broad sense of human solidarity between individuals.

[Blake's Baby]

EDIT: Oh, ninja'ed by Bob the Builder... but the point stands.

Furthermore, people's beliefs and ideas are in some ways reflections of their material reality. Once we begin to make the world a better place, then people will have more capacity and freedom to develop themselves. The liberation of the productive forces at our disposal would result in a society of abundance. What need of greed and envy? Why label others as outsiders or a problem when we're all in it together?

[Kléber]

There have always been two classes -- the exploiter and the exploited. Even in pre-capitalist societies....
Primitive societies (before slavery) were classless. They were not necessarily egalitarian, but leaders were chosen by the community based on their own actions and personal fitness, rather than how much property they owned or what family they were from.


Besides, a person could be sexist/racist/homophobic even if the means of production were to fall into the hands of the workers.Yes but the material basis for those prejudices will be gone. The first human being was not classist, racist, sexist or homophobic, those kinds of thinking were all conditioned by social relations. What was created can be destroyed.

[Ocean Seal]

When there is equity then are no longer two classes and as for discrimination all we can do is propagandize against it, but discrimination is slowly losing its vicegrip on human relations.

[mikelepore]

There have always been two classes -- the exploiter and the exploited. Even in pre-capitalist societies.... Besides, a person could be sexist/racist/homophobic even if the means of production were to fall into the hands of the workers.

Workers' control of MoP won't change people's hearts and minds; it will only shift capital and authority from one section of the society to another. People will continue to be hateful and envious, as always.

So I wonder whether socialism -- should it succeed at all -- would be any different from capitalism in this respect.

You're missing the point of socialism, which is the fault of socialists, because we socialists have almost never explained this subject correctly.

All socialist claims about future improvements to the human character should be dropped, because such claims cannot be verified in advance, and they are not necessary anyway.

Socialism would simply remove the position of power that any would-be oppressor would like to occupy. The person who wishes to be an exploiter and oppressor of others may still be there, but will be deprived of any opportunity to fulfill the desire. Let the person who would like to oppress others suffer from great frustration because institutions no longer provide any channels for carrying out the wish.

That is the great advantage of socialism.

Nothing more about that subject is knowable, and nothing more about that should be asserted.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Socialism would simply remove the position of power that any would-be oppressor would like to occupy.

How so? In socialism, the accumulation of capital (or the need for it, rather) may come to an end. But wouldn't authority still exist? So what's stopping the would-be oppressor from 'using' this authority to abuse people?


The person who wishes to be an exploiter and oppressor of others may still be there, but will be deprived of any opportunity to fulfill the desire. Let the person who would like to oppress others suffer from great frustration because institutions no longer provide any channels for carrying out the wish.

I've considered this point before, but I am still not convinced. Wouldn't the oppressor use 'socialism' itself as a channel in this instance?

Besides, the problem is not restricted to just a few people who are power-hungry: most humans are. Even so-called victims become aggressors once they get their hands on power. Isn't this always the case?

And that's why I wonder whether authority is more dangerous than (the accumulation of) capital....

[Hit The North]

For someone taking the name of Ghandi, you seem to be troubled with a deep pessimism about human beings - although, conversely, your adoption of a religious character as your avatar coincides with your knee-jerk pessimism of humanity which is essentially a religious one - as if the essence of man could be isolated in the abstract and determined as fundamentally bad. To whit:


Besides, the problem is not restricted to just a few people who are power-hungry: most humans are. Even so-called victims become aggressors once they get their hands on power. Isn't this always the case? No, it's not always the case. Look at South Africa. However, your analogous use of the concept of "hunger" is apposite and indicates the unequal distribution of power in existing society, in that, if hunger for anything exists it is usually because there is a deficit of that thing in people's lives.

Under capitalism, a mode of production based on private ownership of means of production and the consequent alienation of the mass of producers from those means, power and authority is necessarily distributed in clumps of centralisation. Under socialism, which will guarantee the extension of democratic control over the reproduction of society, power and authority will necessarily be distributed widely and equally - and this, as Mike points out, will be guaranteed in the new institutions of popular control upon which socialism is established. Otherwise, it is not socialism.

[ContrarianLemming]

So I wonder whether socialism -- should it succeed at all -- would be any different from capitalism in this respect.

When you livei n a society where greed gets you far, don't be so surprised if people are greedy.

If we create a society where altruism get you far, you will be proven wrong

[mikelepore]

How so? In socialism, the accumulation of capital (or the need for it, rather) may come to an end. But wouldn't authority still exist? So what's stopping the would-be oppressor from 'using' this authority to abuse people?

Authority with always exist, as long as human beings exist, until the sun becomes a red giant and incinerates the earth. Without authority, murder would be considered a permissible response to disagreeing with your neighbor. Authority is necessary also for simple cooperation, such as cars yielding at a road intersection. The only question worth considering is the best procedure to determine the form of the authority.

[AK]

Besides, a person could be sexist/racist/homophobic even if the means of production were to fall into the hands of the workers.
You have to look at why it is that discrimination exists. Every single form of discrimination that we have ever seen has always been contrived by a ruling class to ensure their wealth and property.

Modern racism has its roots in European colonialism and imperialism from the medieval ages onwards. They claimed they would "civilise" the indigenous populations of the lands they invaded - in doing so, this gave them justification and, soon enough, racist rhetoric was embedded into the minds of the ruled classes. You know what this did? It gave the ruling classes free reign to invade and conquer foreign lands and the support of the lower classes.

Sexism and homophobia have similar roots.

Today's tactics aren't that different. The ruling class regularly spits out all this bullshit about how great our troops are and how the Iraqi and Afghani people are in urgent need of Bourgeois democracy. So the cycle continues, and we end up hating these "terrorist sand-n******" and inherently supporting imperialist wars and our rulers.

Now that we understand why discrimination exists, the question that remains is "What use would discrimination even be in a society based on genuine common ownership of property?". The answer is, it wouldn't be any use. Unless property somehow manages to change hands, discrimination will never exist. Discrimination is incompatible with our movement and the societies which we seek to establish. There is simply no need for discrimination; there are no property rights to be protected. And besides, as Zanthorus said:

As for sexism/racism/homophobia... well that is why we constitute ourselves into a political movement instead of fighting on purely economic issues.
I see our movement as one that is being fought, in part, to end discrimination. Why a communist of any sort would impose discrimination on a section of society, I have no idea. Whilst the Soviet Union may not have been a shining example of a socialist state, it has been noted that discrimination was far less prevalent - in tune with the communist ideals of internationalism and working-class unity.

Discrimination against minorities is just a way to ensure the ruling class' wealth and property whilst distracting the lower classes from the real causes of problems (i.e., the greed and failure of the ruling class) and the real issues; like that of class struggle. The fact is, the ruling class, as a minority, is inherently weak and must always attempt to preserve its own existence and gain allies within the classes they lord over.

The members of the ruling class are as useless and as parasitic as they ever were - and it says alot about them that they need to divide us and get us involved in petty squabbles over land in order to maintain their rule, wealth and property.

Authority with always exist, as long as human beings exist, until the sun becomes a red giant and incinerates the earth. Without authority, murder would be considered a permissible response to disagreeing with your neighbor. Authority is necessary also for simple cooperation, such as cars yielding at a road intersection. The only question worth considering is the best procedure to determine the form of the authority.
This.