Examples of Successful Socialistic Societies

[Commie Girl]

An Exerpt from Socialist Worker (http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-2/549/549_10_Socialism.shtml)

The brotherly sentiments of the Redskins,” wrote the Jesuit Charlevoix of the new world Indians he observed, “are doubtless in part ascribable to the fact that the words mine and thine...are all unknown as yet to the savages. The protection they extend to the orphans, the widows and the infirm, the hospitality which they exercise in so admirable a manner, are, in their eyes, but a consequence of the conviction which they hold that all things should be common to all men.”


The point is that under socialism, society’s surplus wealth would be collectively used to enhance the welfare of all rather than that of a small group. Based as it is on the collective solidarity of the producers, it would also be compelled to socialize household functions, freeing women from bearing primary responsibilities for taking care of kids and home, and create a society in which all discrimination based on race, ethnicity, nationality, religion or sex were erased.

Such a society may seem too utopian. But as Cannon said: “What’s absurd is to think that this madhouse is permanent and for all time. The ethic of capitalism is: ‘From each whatever you can get out of him--to each whatever he can grab.’

“The socialist society of universal abundance will be regulated by a different standard. It will ‘inscribe on its banners’--said Marx--‘From each according to his ability--to each according to his needs.’”

[Professor Moneybags]

society’s surplus wealth

What's that when it's at home ?

[Publius]

‘From each whatever you can get out of him--to each whatever he can grab.’

To restate this: Whatever someone gives you, you get

[Publius]

A few questions:



IMAGINE A society where all its members organize production and distribution on a cooperative, democratic basis according not to profit, but solely on the basis of need.

How is need defined? Can you accurately say how much of something someone 'needs? Isn't need hopelessly intertwined with 'want', and isn't 'want' unlimited?

Without profit, what incentive is there to do anything?

How can the democracy be prevented from turning into a majorocracy, with the majority 'exploiting' the minority? How will minority rights be upheld?

Simply because something is popular, does not make it good. If that were the case, you should adore Microsoft. The majority votes with its dollars and buys a (crappy) product.

Would consumers suddenly become 'better', under a system where the need to be an educated consumer completely goes away?



Such a society has no exploiting minority or exploited majority. All property other than personal property is held in common, for the benefit of all. Consequently, there is also no money.

Define personal property. Later on in this paper, it talks about the 'people' taking away all kinds of property that is clearly defined as personal, and distributing it.

Isn't this a blatent contradiction? If the 'people' want to take away your 'personal property' can they do it?

Define 'benefit of all'. What objective methods can be used to ascertain this? The 'majority will'? If the majority wanted to drink bleach instead of water, would that to be for the 'benefit of all'?

Under a communist society, I think so. Do you?



If you are hungry, you can eat from the collective store of food. If you want to work, work is always available, and each contributes what he or she can. When you are sick or old or too young, society always takes care of you.

Would anyone want to work? I probably wouldn't.

And since when to people contribute 'what they can'? That would mean working as much is as physically possible. Anything else would be horribly subjective, meaning 'what you want' meaning 'not at all', at least in my case.

'Too young'? What age is that? I'm sure I could find many 18-22 years olds who say they are 'too young' to work Too old? What age is that? I'm sure I could find many 45 year olds who say they are 'too old' to work. What objective definitions are there?

What happens when society is taking care of to many people? Who picks up the extra labor, when the only incentive they have is to help the lazy people down the street, who are stealing the fruit of their labor and exploiting them? Why work when the only thing it accomplishes is making it easier for everyone else not to work.

It's a backwards incentive system. Anyone who works is a fool.

In a capitalist society, if you don't work, you starve. In a communist society, you get food.

And we see how well 'social ostracization' works. Young thugs and hoodlums don't hang out with like-minded friends in gangs, in a society that, at worst permits, and at best promotes, their anti-social behavior.

Oh wait.

They do. Why wouldn't lazy people form their own social groups and networks, to laugh it up at you stupid saps?

You wouldn't have time to ostracize me, you would be to busy feeding me, slave.



Women play a prominent role, and are not the property or handmaidens of men. All decisions are made collectively, and leadership is chosen rather than imposed. There are no prisons, no standing army, and no state bureaucracy. The threat of social ostracism is sufficient pressure against anyone who threatens the collective or harms another.

Leadership is chosen?

"I think we, the majority will choose a leader that allows us to not work at all, and makes you, the minority, our slaves and servents. Show of hands? And so, we collectively make the decision, not imposing anything, that you, the minority dregs, should work 18 hour days in forced labor camps, until you propagate enough to become the majority, and force us to do the same".

Would slave labor be permissable if the majority votes for it? How can you reconcile majority rights with individual rights? You seem to maintain that both exist, and both are absolute.



It is an attractive world, but is it realizable?

It's a hellhole. Tthankfully most people aren't as ignorantly maleable as you fools, and it will never happend.



The truth is, similar societies have already existed in one form or another, in all parts of the world, in what is known as “primitive communism.”

And they were all poor and easily conquered.

What a utopia.

Destitute poverty (But we're equal) until another nation comes along and kills us.