Qwerty Dvorak
31st January 2007, 23:06
I was just thinking and it seems to me that as a revolution is not likely or even feasible for a good long while yet, and considering that material and social conditions (and hence the way in which society is run) are changing at a more or less constant rate, it is pretty much impossible to predict specifically how things will be run in a Socialist society. Thus any previous questions (or answers) regarding the specifics of how a Socialist society would be run are utterly moronic.
So it may seem to some of you that, since Socialists are unable to provide specific details regarding the running of a Socialist society, Socialism is inherently infeasible. (I will take 2 particular examples, although the following argument should apply to a broad range of issues.) First of all, it must be pointed out that a lack of detailed blueprints for a society does not logically imply that such a society cannot exist. More importantly however, it should be pointed out that thus far, we Socialists have only been able to provide vague answers to your demands for specifics, such as "it would be determined by a state-run body" or "it would be decided on by a vote of the people", and our opponents have claimed these answers to be indicative of the unrealistic nature of Socialism. However, this is not the case. There is nothing unrealistic about something being determined by state-run bodies, or things being decided upon by votes of the people. Indeed, there are plenty of things determined by state bodies (or even more common, bodies in general) today, and of course the same applies for things being decided by popular vote!! So how are your arguments consistent? We say "the people will vote on it", you say "impossible", and yet you continuously point towards democracy as a governmental model. We say "the state will decide", you say "impossible", despite living in a society run by a state that decides things on a regular basis. So here we have 2 important facts which have been shown to be true:
1. States have the ability to set up and run socially-based programmes, and
2. Certain issues can be decided on by a democratic process.
The only 2 entities necessary for the above 2 processes are the government and the general population. It should be noted that I tend to argue for a Socialist government, and thus both the aforementioned entities would be present in a Socialist society. So there is nothing to suggest that the above processes could not take place. Any attempt to claim that the above processes could not take place in a Socialist society therefore constitutes a positive assertion, and thus the onus is on the claimant to provide detailed specifics and proof as to how such processes could not be undertaken.
My apologies if this post is somewhat hard to read, it's been a long day. Also, as I stated in the title this is a passing thought, just something I'm putting on the table for capitalists and communists alike to dissect. So you can argue, but no flaming :)
So it may seem to some of you that, since Socialists are unable to provide specific details regarding the running of a Socialist society, Socialism is inherently infeasible. (I will take 2 particular examples, although the following argument should apply to a broad range of issues.) First of all, it must be pointed out that a lack of detailed blueprints for a society does not logically imply that such a society cannot exist. More importantly however, it should be pointed out that thus far, we Socialists have only been able to provide vague answers to your demands for specifics, such as "it would be determined by a state-run body" or "it would be decided on by a vote of the people", and our opponents have claimed these answers to be indicative of the unrealistic nature of Socialism. However, this is not the case. There is nothing unrealistic about something being determined by state-run bodies, or things being decided upon by votes of the people. Indeed, there are plenty of things determined by state bodies (or even more common, bodies in general) today, and of course the same applies for things being decided by popular vote!! So how are your arguments consistent? We say "the people will vote on it", you say "impossible", and yet you continuously point towards democracy as a governmental model. We say "the state will decide", you say "impossible", despite living in a society run by a state that decides things on a regular basis. So here we have 2 important facts which have been shown to be true:
1. States have the ability to set up and run socially-based programmes, and
2. Certain issues can be decided on by a democratic process.
The only 2 entities necessary for the above 2 processes are the government and the general population. It should be noted that I tend to argue for a Socialist government, and thus both the aforementioned entities would be present in a Socialist society. So there is nothing to suggest that the above processes could not take place. Any attempt to claim that the above processes could not take place in a Socialist society therefore constitutes a positive assertion, and thus the onus is on the claimant to provide detailed specifics and proof as to how such processes could not be undertaken.
My apologies if this post is somewhat hard to read, it's been a long day. Also, as I stated in the title this is a passing thought, just something I'm putting on the table for capitalists and communists alike to dissect. So you can argue, but no flaming :)