Socialism

[blueeyedboy]

I've just been reading criticisms of socialism on wikipedia and it describes major flaws in the system. I just want to know other peoples opinions about this. It seems that people on here talk like socialism and other left wing theories as god-like systems. Surely they have flaws like any other system.

On wikipedia, it says things like socialist societies won't be able to produce consumer goods on demand because there's no profit and loss system, among other things. There's too many to go through and I'm sure the people on these forums have read it anyway.

If there's so many criticisms, how can we raise support for our cause if workers, the most important people, know about these criticisms. I'm just concerned that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.

Please prove me wrong.

[Demogorgon]

The trouble with Wikipedia is it is very vulnerable to people's opinions being added like facts. It is great for uncontroversial general knowledge, but the second a controversial topic arrives you are in dangerous waters.

Suffice to say there is more than one form of socialism, or at least more than one way to go about it. The flaws you describe certainly affect bureacratic socialism, but other forms of socialism could well work without those flaws.

That being said I don't think we should ignore the problemms. I don't think there are any problems with socialism that cannot be sollved, however if we refuse to recognise potential pitfalls for ideological reasons, we will fll straight in.

[RED VICTORY]

We often talk about socialist systems in such a positive way because these systems embody our hope for the future. You know I wouldn't say socialism is flawed, just incomplete. And what I mean is that the world is constantly changing and socialism has to keep up with the needs of the people. It is up to we socialists and communists to keep formulating new socialist ideas as we learn from past mistakes. Maybe incomplete isnt't the best word but I hope you understand what I am saying.

[Organic Revolution]

socialism is horribly flawed. how can you hope that replacing one government with another is a good idea? governments are inherently corrupt, no matter socialists or capitalists.

[angus_mor]

Originally posted by Organic [email protected] 25, 2006 03:35 am
socialism is horribly flawed. how can you hope that replacing one government with another is a good idea? governments are inherently corrupt, no matter socialists or capitalists.
Said the Anarchist.

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by angus_mor+October 24, 2006 10:03 pm--> (angus_mor @ October 24, 2006 10:03 pm)
Organic [email protected] 25, 2006 03:35 am
socialism is horribly flawed. how can you hope that replacing one government with another is a good idea? governments are inherently corrupt, no matter socialists or capitalists.
Said the Anarchist. [/b]
and? no matter my political ideology, its plain to see that government is corrupt. i beg of you to show me ANY government that is or was just.

[blueeyedboy]

I agree with Organic Revolution, in that every government is corrupt in some form or another because greed is the driving force in many governments, but I beleive a workers government can be installed, without corruption becoming a problem. It would need to be heavily regulated somehow, so corruption doeesn't occur. We don't want another USSR, do we?

[angus_mor]

I also agree that every government is inherently corrupt, as every governmental institution is based on a class antagonism, however we must organize a decentralized, self-governing proletarian state in order to abolish social classes. You can't conceivably create an anarchist society and fend off capitalism simultaneously, the proletariat must organize in face of these material conditions; you will need an army to fight THEIR army. The capitalists aren't going to drop their guns, disband their police forces and give up their property at the drop of a hat, sorry for being REALISTIC.

[Aurora]

and? no matter my political ideology, its plain to see that government is corrupt. i beg of you to show me ANY government that is or was just.
Thats just stupid everybody knows government in any form is repressive.We just think it is a nessesary evil.

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 03:53 pm

and? no matter my political ideology, its plain to see that government is corrupt. i beg of you to show me ANY government that is or was just.
Thats just stupid everybody knows government in any form is repressive.We just think it is a nessesary evil.
why bend over backwords for a slave master?

[cenv]

We have to realize that even in a socialist society, some degree of corruption will be present. After all, we're going to have to deal with rebellious capitalists as well. The key is that the state is structured in such a way that the workers can easily oust corrupt officials from the government. That's the point to having the ability to recall elected officials at any time: it keeps corruption in check. True, all known states have been parasitically corrupt, but lets not forget that in the past states have been the istruments of a minority to control a majority. Once the roles are reversed and the masses, namely the workers, control the state, things will be a lot different.

To get back to the original point, I think as communists, our main challenge is to spread communism to the masses. Communism only works when the workers are united and fighting against the capitalists as a majority, and considering the negative connocations of communism and socialism, it's currently very difficult to try to explain to someone what communism and socialism really are. People are in anti-communism mode by default regardless of whether they actually known what communism is or not. This is definitely not an insurmountable obstacle, but one that will require lots of work. A socialist society itself will no doubt have flaws, none of which I can see that will be big enough to prevent it from functioning though. I think that because of the democratic and cooperative nature of a socialist society, the workers will be able to deal with issues effectively.

[LoneRed]

Organic Rev. your posts are usually more thought out than that one. the way you wrote that, it looks like you're equating the two states, which is drastically wrong.

Another thing, you fail to take into account the process of change, as in going from Capitalist State-Communism, is more than a flick of the wrist.

[blueeyedboy]

Replying to cenv's reply, yes some degree of corruption would be present in a socialist society. What I'm worried about is what level this corruption would be at, or to put it another way, how dangerous this corruption would be to a socialist society. I also agree with the point about the majority of people being in a anti-communist mode, without even knowing anything about it. I believe that this is one of the hardest tasks facing the left, because it's hard to change someone's thoughts if they're 100% convinced they are right. Personally, I can't see how we can do it. There are no real-life examples to show these people what communism and socialism is, and I think this would have been the best way to show people it can work.

[uber-liberal]

Originally posted by Organic Revolution+October 25, 2006 04:12 am--> (Organic Revolution @ October 25, 2006 04:12 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2006 10:03 pm

Organic [email protected] 25, 2006 03:35 am
socialism is horribly flawed. how can you hope that replacing one government with another is a good idea? governments are inherently corrupt, no matter socialists or capitalists.
Said the Anarchist.
and? no matter my political ideology, its plain to see that government is corrupt. i beg of you to show me ANY government that is or was just. [/b]
If you're talking in terms of absolutes, you won't find one that was just, nor will you find one that was completely corrupt.
A true democracy has that capacity, but in a populous nation such as the US, UK, India, China, et al, a democratic-republic is the best idea. The problem you run into is the representatives see their jobs as possitions of privelage, hence the newe aristocracy is born. It happened in Stalinist Soviet Union. Nikita Kruschev did a lot to rectify it, but not enough; the goulags never closed and Siberia was dangled over the heads of "disidents".
And the problem with anarchy is that, as soon as someone says "hey, let's go gather firewood", and someone else says "okay", your anarchy has gone the way of the dodo.

Socialism is flawed, but only insofar as how it is interpretted by the majority in western society.

I agree with Organic Revolution, in that every government is corrupt in some form or another because greed is the driving force in many governments...
That's the point of socialism and communism; it's time to evolve. Human nature dictates that we get greedy. That's okay, thatt's a part of who we are. We should be able, though, to go beyond our nature, using logic as a tempering plate, to do what is necessary for the common good.
Remeber what Hunter Thompson said; "He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being human."
I liken that statement up to saying it's so very easy not to try.

In a nutshell, if you want a system free of corruption, start praying to whatever God/s you wish. Heaven/Nirvana/whatever seems the only place you'll find it.

[Son of a Strummer]

"I've just been reading criticisms of socialism on wikipedia and it describes major flaws in the system. I just want to know other peoples opinions about this. It seems that people on here talk like socialism and other left wing theories as god-like systems. Surely they have flaws like any other system."

Yes there are flaws in socialism, more in certain versions than others... more on the flaws later...

"On wikipedia, it says things like socialist societies won't be able to produce consumer goods on demand because there's no profit and loss system, among other things. There's too many to go through and I'm sure the people on these forums have read it anyway."

As an earlier poster mentioned, people (often white conformist cyber-libertarian ideologues) tend to present opinions representing narrow viewpoints as if they are indisputable facts. The particular criticism you refer to is one of the arguments associated with the Austrian school of economics in the economic calculation debate.
The acolytes of the free market ideologues tend to recount a very skewed history of the debate and in my experience rarely can demonstrate first-hand knowledge of the arguments of various socialist economists who participated. Because of this ignorance the account that the acolytes give is woefully biased; they are typically ignorant of uncomfortable facts such as that at the time a great many important mainstream economists felt that the socialists had successfully answered the challenges of Mises and Hayek, or that Hayek's arguments in particular shifted, in fact backpeddled, over time. Even more importantly both mainstream socialist, neoclassical and Austrain accounts of the debate typically ignore the contributions of the two economists who were arguably the most prescient. Although Maurice Dobb's largely centralized model of socialist economy is flawed, his critique demonstrating the significant inefficiencies of the market mechanism for economic allocation were devastating, and years ahead of their time. Finally the contributions of Karl Polanyi positing a socialist economiy based upon decentralized planning by industrial guilds (echoing G.H.Cole) was in retrospect a valuable contribution that went a long way towards answering the Austrian objections. The Austrians never directly considered socialist alternatives to central planning. They just insisted by force of assertion (rather than argument) that any complex of institutions that claimed it was socialist should be reduced to centralized planning without even having studied the proposed mechanisms for acquiring knowledge and the structures of consumption, production, and allocative institutions of the alternatives. Both economics in general and socialist economics in particular have evolved significantly since that time, but in listening to the acoltyes (regurgitating arguments made in times before essential concepts like (social) opportunity costs, and ideas about institutions of social ownership, were refined) you would never know it.

Probably the most detailed historical account and update of the debate has been provided by Pat Devine.

http://www3.sympatico.ca/bernard.leask/renewal.html

Incidently Devine correctly ackowledges particular insights the Austrians made with respect to the deficiencies of both capitalist and socialist models based upon static equilibrium. However, just as importantly Devine provides incisive critiques of the Austrian myths of the institution of the private entrepreneur- which is far more grossly inefficient and destructive than the Austrian's believe. From the correct perspective of the efficient allocation of social opportunity costs, decentralized- democratic socialist models like Devine's model of negotiated coordination (which uses embedded markets for consumer goods), Albert and Hahnel's Participatory Planning and Takis Fotsopoulos's Inclusive Democracy all perform economic calculation better while meeting the requirements of economic justice and democracy. As Devine notes in the essay below decentralized socialism with participatory institutions both generalizes the entrpreneurial function, mobilizing the tacit knowledge of a wider range of the citizenry, and has the natural attribute of being more inclusive, so that for instance the views of ecologists will be more effective in such a framework.

For a detailed analysis of insights and myths associated with the Austrian view of the entrepreneur see the following:

http://les1.man.ac.uk/ses/staff/pd/bir.htm



Now it is time for a short note on at least one of the flaws. Historically, socialism, born as it was out of the same Western enlightnement tradition as capitalism, has tended to attach itself too uncritically to a Western notion of progress, and more particularly a variety of anthropocentrism that is largely blind to our interdependence with the natural environment. So it is true that when socialist movements took power they competed with capitalism by, as Robin Hahnel has memorably described it, "mindlessly aping" Western industrial processes. This is not a fatal flaw, but it requires bringing nature back to the center of our concerns, and not only implementing a socialist society, but an eco-socialist society. It is a question of internalizing ecological values alongside our humanist values, and then implementing institutions reflecting those values. But because socialism is essentially a proposal for an inclusive and active citizenry, rather than an exclusionary proposal giving power to a minority in pursuit of profit as capitalism is, the obstacles to an eco-socialist society are far less daunting than the impossibility of an eco-capitalist society. The environment-economics relationship as it is applies to models of neoclassical, Austrian, Marxian and participatory socialist economics is discused in the following essay by Adaman and Ozkaynak.

http://www3.sympatico.ca/bernard.leask/adamanenviro.html


Finally here are more resources on the economic calculation debate from my rather primitive website:

http://www3.sympatico.ca/bernard.leask/ecal.html

[blueeyedboy]

Son of a Strummer, thanks for these articles. Whenever u read this post, I was too tired at the time to read them, but I will get round to it.