Utopian Socilaism - What exactly is its problem.

[Invader Zim]

Many people seem to have major issues with utopian socialism, especially those in favour of scientific socialism, after reading up on it, it seems really a great idea, could someone plaese explain why you guys have issues with it.

I have even heard it refered to as closet capitalism, when any one who has read the works of individuals lke Robert Owen can see that to be just a foolish statment.

I would really like to here your opinions on it.

[redstar2000]

Well, AK47, during its "glory years" (19th century) it just didn't seem to amount to very much.

A few dozen people here, a few hundred people there...buy some land and grow some stuff or make some stuff and sell it in the market place, get into some internal squabbles (often personality-driven)...the enterprise is dissolved and that's it.

New ones come into existence for a while and then go out of existence. There are some around today; I believe the most successful maker of surgical instruments in England is worker-owned and operated on a utopian-socialistic basis.

The problem is, I think, a small-scale version of what afflicts countries like Cuba and Vietnam: constant exposure to the capitalist free market is rather like constant exposure to environmental carcinogens...sooner or later, you're going to come down with terminal cancer.

Without necessarily ever saying so explicitly, the ideology of the capitalist free market is personal enrichment above all else. Even capitalists in positions of trust cannot evade this message...that is why corporate corruption is a normal phenomenon under capitalism.

"Islands" of socialism are thus constantly being eroded by bourgeois ideology...and they sooner or later succumb.

Only a socialist country or countries large enough to ignore the "free market" can exist for any length of time in my view.

:cool:

[MJM]

Read Engels. Socialism, Utopian and Scientific.
What was the resulting impacts that Robert Owen suffered as a result of what his views became later in life?
Basically complete ruin, a handfull of people showed up at his funeral and he was shunned by the world.
This is whats wrong, no real change can result.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from AK47 on 10:15 pm on April 19, 2003
Many people seem to have major issues with utopian socialism, especially those in favour of scientific socialism, after reading up on it, it seems really a great idea, could someone plaese explain why you guys have issues with it.

I have even heard it refered to as closet capitalism, when any one who has read the works of individuals lke Robert Owen can see that to be just a foolish statment.

I would really like to here your opinions on it.



The problem is in the Utopian part.

sure it sounds nice...but do you honestly think you can achieve a utopian socialist society?


Everyone shares?


I do't even think i need to explain why this wont work.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 2:15 am on April 20, 2003
Well, AK47, during its "glory years" (19th century) it just didn't seem to amount to very much.

A few dozen people here, a few hundred people there...buy some land and grow some stuff or make some stuff and sell it in the market place, get into some internal squabbles (often personality-driven)...the enterprise is dissolved and that's it.

New ones come into existence for a while and then go out of existence. There are some around today; I believe the most successful maker of surgical instruments in England is worker-owned and operated on a utopian-socialistic basis.

The problem is, I think, a small-scale version of what afflicts countries like Cuba and Vietnam: constant exposure to the capitalist free market is rather like constant exposure to environmental carcinogens...sooner or later, you're going to come down with terminal cancer.

Without necessarily ever saying so explicitly, the ideology of the capitalist free market is personal enrichment above all else. Even capitalists in positions of trust cannot evade this message...that is why corporate corruption is a normal phenomenon under capitalism.

"Islands" of socialism are thus constantly being eroded by bourgeois ideology...and they sooner or later succumb.

Only a socialist country or countries large enough to ignore the "free market" can exist for any length of time in my view.

:cool:


"Islands" of socialism are thus constantly being eroded by bourgeois ideology...and they sooner or later succumb.

That is probably true to a point, however are you commenting on the ideas of government officials having there ideals erroded, by capitalism, or the entire population?

Read Engels. Socialism, Utopian and Scientific.
What was the resulting impacts that Robert Owen suffered as a result of what his views became later in life?

I have read it, CirianB gave me a link earlier. The reasons engles gives however are flawed.

In your referance to Owen you are entirely correct, however you enjoy his legasy even today. This shows that disgrased he may have been, but he still continues to influence your life, so he mus have been doing something right. And thats a fact which no person can deny.

sure it sounds nice...but do you honestly think you can achieve a utopian socialist society?

On small scale communitys yes, New Lanark is an example, of how in small communitys it can work. If a country splits into small communitys, run by small councils, elected by the local people. These people control the inputs and out puts of the community. On a county scale if a minister controled the input and output of recorces into the countys. Then a team of ministers who are elected once a year control the over all recources movemnets to countys.

Im sure you can pull that to pieces with ease but i would perfer to hope. Being an idealist never hurt any one after all.

Everyone shares?


As to that that is the basis of all socialism, every one gets the same amount of every thing, with out sharing you could not run any socialist community.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from AK47 on 5:31 pm on April 20, 2003

Quote: from redstar2000 on 2:15 am on April 20, 2003
Well, AK47, during its "glory years" (19th century) it just didn't seem to amount to very much.

A few dozen people here, a few hundred people there...buy some land and grow some stuff or make some stuff and sell it in the market place, get into some internal squabbles (often personality-driven)...the enterprise is dissolved and that's it.

New ones come into existence for a while and then go out of existence. There are some around today; I believe the most successful maker of surgical instruments in England is worker-owned and operated on a utopian-socialistic basis.

The problem is, I think, a small-scale version of what afflicts countries like Cuba and Vietnam: constant exposure to the capitalist free market is rather like constant exposure to environmental carcinogens...sooner or later, you're going to come down with terminal cancer.

Without necessarily ever saying so explicitly, the ideology of the capitalist free market is personal enrichment above all else. Even capitalists in positions of trust cannot evade this message...that is why corporate corruption is a normal phenomenon under capitalism.

"Islands" of socialism are thus constantly being eroded by bourgeois ideology...and they sooner or later succumb.

Only a socialist country or countries large enough to ignore the "free market" can exist for any length of time in my view.

:cool:


"Islands" of socialism are thus constantly being eroded by bourgeois ideology...and they sooner or later succumb.

That is probably true to a point, however are you commenting on the ideas of government officials having there ideals erroded, by capitalism, or the entire population?

Read Engels. Socialism, Utopian and Scientific.
What was the resulting impacts that Robert Owen suffered as a result of what his views became later in life?

I have read it, CirianB gave me a link earlier. The reasons engles gives however are flawed.

In your referance to Owen you are entirely correct, however you enjoy his legasy even today. This shows that disgrased he may have been, but he still continues to influence your life, so he mus have been doing something right. And thats a fact which no person can deny.

sure it sounds nice...but do you honestly think you can achieve a utopian socialist society?

On small scale communitys yes, New Lanark is an example, of how in small communitys it can work. If a country splits into small communitys, run by small councils, elected by the local people. These people control the inputs and out puts of the community. On a county scale if a minister controled the input and output of recorces into the countys. Then a team of ministers who are elected once a year control the over all recources movemnets to countys.

Im sure you can pull that to pieces with ease but i would perfer to hope. Being an idealist never hurt any one after all.

Everyone shares?


As to that that is the basis of all socialism, every one gets the same amount of every thing, with out sharing you could not run any socialist community.


I think you missunderstood where I siad everyone shares.

i mean everyone shares entirely. Thats impossible.

The division of wealth is feesile. But to share everything including labor isn't.

Society is to far gone, to many jobs, to many things produced, to many things to be done for labor to be totally divided eqaully.

[MJM]

I have read it, CirianB gave me a link earlier. The reasons engles gives however are flawed.


Anything specific, or will you just generally dismiss one of the great thinkers of the last few hundred years at a whim.



In your referance to Owen you are entirely correct, however you enjoy his legasy even today. This shows that disgrased he may have been, but he still continues to influence your life, so he mus have been doing something right. And thats a fact which no person can deny.


Who's denying anything? Not me.
Owen was a great man, but we still have classes, a large unemployed population, children working for capitalists etc.


We may have many things in the west thanks to people like Owen, but the world isn't just what we have.
If you look outside your comfortable existence, you'll see many people suffering even in the first world. Prison populations rising rapidly, imperialist wars going on everywhere, racially divided societies.
It's not all Melrose Place and Friends out there.

[ravengod]

i think it s all a matter of wanting
if people will achieve aa superior mentality as to share everything and to sacrifice individual success for general hapiness then socialism would have reached its goal

i mean everything is possible
i still believe in the romantic part of socialism-utopia

[Ian]

Scientific socialism preaches a classless society accomplished through class struggle, revolution etc... Utopian socialism preaches harmony between the classes a la Fourier's ideas of capitalist funded collectives that would spread and eventually the whole world would be some kind of capitalist socialist paradise... it's bullshit, after awhile the capitalists saw they were spending too much money on workers and reverted back to wage slavery.

[CubanFox]

Utopian socialism would work on a little scale. Say I led a socialist revolution on South Georgia, with a population of 20. Assuming they all turned socialist, there'd be few problems sharing out the food and so on. The only thing you'd need to share is seal, whale and fish, that being mostly what one gets around Antarctic islands like South Georgia.

However, in a huge country like China? No way in fuck socialism will work. And history has proved me right in this fact.

[nz revolution]

here you can borrow my wife if she consents to it.

[redstar2000]

"Being an idealist never hurt anyone after all." -- AK47

I completely disagree, whether you're using the word in its common meaning or its philosophical meaning.

Its common meaning--one who is motivated by ideals--is insufficient both to understanding the world and to changing it.

The "garden-variety" idealist is nearly always played for a sucker by those with less lofty motivations...his/her energies are mobilized to protect the prevailing social order even while s/he is being reassured that real change "will be coming along any day now."

The philosophical idealist is in even worse shape...since s/he believes that ideas "rule the world", they find themselves continually bewildered by the refusal of the powerful to consider rationally the idealist prescription for a more just and fair society.

If the ordinary idealist understands just enough to be made a fool of, the philosophical idealist understands nothing at all.

Idealism hurts quite a bit.

:cool:

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 10:02 pm on April 21, 2003
"Being an idealist never hurt anyone after all." -- AK47

I completely disagree, whether you're using the word in its common meaning or its philosophical meaning.

Its common meaning--one who is motivated by ideals--is insufficient both to understanding the world and to changing it.

The "garden-variety" idealist is nearly always played for a sucker by those with less lofty motivations...his/her energies are mobilized to protect the prevailing social order even while s/he is being reassured that real change "will be coming along any day now."

The philosophical idealist is in even worse shape...since s/he believes that ideas "rule the world", they find themselves continually bewildered by the refusal of the powerful to consider rationally the idealist prescription for a more just and fair society.

If the ordinary idealist understands just enough to be made a fool of, the philosophical idealist understands nothing at all.

Idealism hurts quite a bit.

:cool:

Well here is a pesamistic post if i ever saw one, anyway Marx was an idealist, so cheer up.

[redstar2000]

Marx was not an idealist, he was a materialist.

What do they teach in British schools these days?

:cool:

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:24 am on April 23, 2003
Marx was not an idealist, he was a materialist.

What do they teach in British schools these days?

:cool:

What do they teach in British schools these days?

Evidentaly more than you were taught in a US school.

Any fool can see that.

Extract from the Oxford English dictionary 97 edition.

i·de·al·is·tic
adj.

1. Of, relating to, or having the nature of an idealist or idealism.
2. Of or relating to the philosophical doctrine of the reality of ideas
3. Noble Ideal but often Impractical, perfect world ideals.



It goes on like that

As you can see Marx's theorys fit very nicely into description No 3.

:cool:

[redstar2000]

"As you can see, Marx's theories fit very nicely into description No. 3" -- AK47.

What I see, AK47, is that you are a perfect candidate for a brain transplant.

What I also see is someone who belongs in Opposing Ideologies.

:cool:

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 11:17 pm on April 24, 2003
"As you can see, Marx's theories fit very nicely into description No. 3" -- AK47.

What I see, AK47, is that you are a perfect candidate for a brain transplant.

What I also see is someone who belongs in Opposing Ideologies.

:cool:

What I see, AK47, is that you are a perfect candidate for a brain transplant.

Make an argument, not flame please.

Any way, back to the point, why are you always so pesamistic. I know the saying, "lifes a *****, then you die." But you really are way to negative.

:cool:

(Edited by AK47 at 11:54 pm on April 24, 2003)

[synthesis]

Um, AK, Marx's entire philosophy was based around materialism.

Like I've said before, AK... you really ought to read more Marx.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from DyerMaker on 3:23 am on April 25, 2003
Um, AK, Marx's entire philosophy was based around materialism.

Like I've said before, AK... you really ought to read more Marx.

So was the Leauge of nations, but Woodrow Wilson, was still considered Idealistic for creating the idea. Again because it fits point three rather well.

So do you deny that Marx's theorys need a perfect world, or "ideal" conditions to come about? He may have based his beliefs around materialism or realism etc etc. That does not however alter the fact that you need a perfect world to operate his theorys. Sounds very like idealism.

i·de·al·ism
n.
The act or practice of envisioning things in an ideal form.
Pursuit of one's ideals.


Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

A web page saying the same stuff as i am (http://polywog.navpoint.com/sociology/cst/arg_papers/node1.html)

[redstar2000]

"So do you deny that Marx's theories need a perfect world or 'ideal' conditions to come about?" -- AK47

Yes, dummy, I deny that!

:cool:

[Palmares]

Personally, I think Marx was a little idealistic, but by no means an adherent to the fundamental definition. Most of this was inspired from Hegel. But remember, Marx himself criticised Hegel for this very thing.

BTW, I believe RedStar2000 (myslef included) is not a pessimist, but infact a realist.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 2:39 am on April 28, 2003
"So do you deny that Marx's theories need a perfect world or 'ideal' conditions to come about?" -- AK47

Yes, dummy, I deny that!

:cool:


Then how do you explain, that it has never been realised??????????????????????????????

[redstar2000]

Marx pointed out that a new social order could not come into existence until all the potentials of the old social order had been exhausted.

It took a rather long period of time from the initial emergence of the capitalist class (c1300CE) until it was able to conquer political power and become a ruling class (19th and 20th centuries).

The modern working class emerged in the 19th century...so clearly political power is some distance yet into the future.

The current stagnation of modern capitalism, globalization notwithstanding, may well be signalling the end of the road for that social order...it is too soon to say for sure. I think it can be safely said that a combination of imperialist wars, falling standards for the working classes, fascist repression, and ecological crises set an "upper limit" for the duration of capitalism...my guess is that capitalism will be history by 2200 CE if not considerably sooner.

Meanwhile, AK47, have you given any thought to your position on America's next imperialist war?

:cool:

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:14 am on April 29, 2003
Marx pointed out that a new social order could not come into existence until all the potentials of the old social order had been exhausted.

It took a rather long period of time from the initial emergence of the capitalist class (c1300CE) until it was able to conquer political power and become a ruling class (19th and 20th centuries).

The modern working class emerged in the 19th century...so clearly political power is some distance yet into the future.

The current stagnation of modern capitalism, globalization notwithstanding, may well be signalling the end of the road for that social order...it is too soon to say for sure. I think it can be safely said that a combination of imperialist wars, falling standards for the working classes, fascist repression, and ecological crises set an "upper limit" for the duration of capitalism...my guess is that capitalism will be history by 2200 CE if not considerably sooner.

Meanwhile, AK47, have you given any thought to your position on America's next imperialist war?

:cool:

Those are good points RS2000, however Marx i think goes way to far into the relms of anarchism, which i can see know way of working on a national level never mind a global level. Anarchism is a fantacy which will never be realised.

Meanwhile, AK47, have you given any thought to your position on America's next imperialist war?

Actually yes, i have made like 4 posts on that subject when the USA said syria was next, but i will repeat my self again, just for you.

Syria as far as i am aware do not have a homisidal maniac in power, who has not yet killed 3,000,000 people. So i am not for a war with them. Unlike Saddam, which is why i was for a war with him in the first place. I will save this thread for further use if you "forgett" what i have said again.