Democratic control over the means of production by workers
Yeah, it's just lacking the more global "democracy", so it'll attract all those power hungry grifters. Social democracy is not that bad.
It provides a safety net by pooling the resources of the community to support the less fortunate. This prevents people from having to sacrifice their long term goals because their short term needs may not be otherwise met.
Also in contrast to capitalism that treats society as a zero sum game ("I can't get ahead unless I take something from someone else") socialism is a benefit multiplier ("I'm part of the community. By making the life of everyone in the community better I'm also improving my own life").
Few movements self-identify as "Socialist", at best it's a taxonomical label. Attempting to talk about the finer points of socialism is akin to debating the pros/cons of "Animals" -- it's an overly broad topic and doomed to spiral into bike-shedding over semantics as soon as the conversation starts to look interesting.
With that being said, let's talk about some more concrete terms -- apologies in advance for wielding only slightly less clumsy terminology in my bullets:
- Socialized Medicine: Healthcare is a human right. I am pro human rights.
- Unions: Mostly positive. Nothing's perfect, but come on... you'd have to be blind not to see and feel for how exploited lower-class workers are without them
- Democratic Socialists of America: I'm a member -- that means I like them. I think their platform represents the ideal incrementalist approach to improving the current status quo
- European Welfare States (e.g.: Denmark): Too fuzzy to have a solid opinion on, but certainly a battle-tested template. I like most of their ideas most of the time
- Marxism: A genius body of economic philosophy, but increasingly out of place as time marches onward. I'd be for a by-the-book implementation (insofar as that's possible) in 1923, but not 2023
- Maoism/Leninism: Not exactly success stories. It's easier to appreciate their noble ideas & intentions with the distance lent by history, but that's altogether different from "liking"
- Communism: As a whole? I think the template holds promise and can be made to work in a modern context, but viability =/= realizability. The world would have to get turned upside-down first and it's questionable exactly how many of us would live through that... but never say never.
Well, the biggest political party in Denmark for my entire life is called Socialdemokratiet, which is social democracy coming from socialism.
I think it's a pretty big movement.
Marxism: A genius body of economic philosophy, but increasingly out of place as time marches onward. I'd be for a by-the-book implementation (insofar as that's possible) in 1923, but not 2023
One of the most insightful critiques of Marxism I've ever seen is that there is literally no solidly prescribed actual economic policy. Marx spoke at length about social policy and issues. Freeing the workers from the bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie from themselves. But almost never and nowhere. Did he ever go into in-depth detail about economics. Or the economies that we would specifically have to go through to achieve his social vision. Which is what allowed bastardizations like those of Lenin, Mao, and the Ill families neptocracy.
Specifically ignoring the stateless part of his stateless, classes communism. Conflating the state that shouldn't exist with the workers who were supposed to own the means and tools they used for production themselves. Etc.
FWIW: Marxists weren't blind to this obvious omission. The International was what we'd call a "big tent" coalition, so contentious questions were frequently hand-waved away in this fashion. Individual Marxists -- including those as foundational as Engels -- absolutely had opinions on the subject and they were not afraid to do the 19th century equivalent of Twitter dunking on those who would fantasize over establishing stateless utopias. Quoting Engels circa 1872 (bolded emphasis is my own, italicised emphasis preserved from original translation):
While the great mass of the Social-Democratic workers hold our view that state power is nothing more than the organisation with which the ruling classes, landlords and capitalists have provided themselves in order to protect their social prerogatives, Bakunin maintains that it is the state which has created capital, that the capitalist has his capital only by favour of the state. As, therefore, the state is the chief evil, it is above all the state which must be done away with and then capitalism will go to hell of itself. We, on the contrary say: do away with capital, the appropriation of the whole means of production in the hands of the few, and the state will fall away of itself. The difference is an essential one. Without a previous social revolution the abolition of the state is nonsense; the abolition of capital is in itself the social revolution and involves a change in the whole method of production. Further, however, as for Bakunin the state is the main evil, nothing must be done which can maintain the existence of any state, whether it be a republic, a monarchy or whatever it may be. Hence therefore complete abstention from all politics. To perpetrate a political action, and especially to take part in an election, would be a betrayal of principle. The thing to do is to conduct propaganda, abuse the state, organise, and when all the workers are won over, i.e., the majority, depose the authorities, abolish the state and replace it by the organisation of the International. This great act, with which the millennium begins, is called social liquidation.
[...]
Now as, according to Bakunin, the International is not to be formed for political struggle but in order that it may at once replace the old state organisation as soon as social liquidation takes place, it follows that it must come as near as possible to the Bakunist ideal of the society of the future. In this society there will above all be no authority, for authority = state = an absolute evil. (How these people propose to run a factory, work a railway or steer a ship without having in the last resort one deciding will, without a unified direction, they do not indeed tell us.) The authority of the majority over the minority also ceases. Every individual and every community is autonomous, but as to how a society, even of only two people, is possible unless each gives up some of his autonomy, Bakunin again remains silent.
I've lived in a country with socialism for my entire life, and have studied the laws in my own and other countries without socialism.
I will talk about socialism as it is in Scandinavia, more specifically Denmark. Here's a few things other than paid education and free healthcare:
-
Getting paid to study: You get paid to study as soon as you turn 18. In that way you don't need a job while you studying. Basic salary when living away from parents: 1.000 USD/month.
-
UBI: In Denmark we have UBI for people being poor, basically. If you don't have a job, is sick and can't work, or any other reason you might be screwed, you get paid by the government to... well yeah, exist basically. You have to meet some requirements and actively trying to get better or find a job though, which seems fair I think. If the government thinks it's not possible to get better, you can get the money permanently for the rest of your life without doing anything. (this is used for people with disabilities, both mental and physical, both born with it or obtained later in life)
-
Shared heating system: This is maybe the biggest "socialism" thing I can mention. In Denmark your house or apartment can be hooked up to a country wide heating system, which means we all share the same heat. This is a way to make heat distribution centralised, which has major advantages such as; price, availability, maintenance. (Fun fact: every data center build in Denmark needs to be hooked up to this system, as they will "donate" all their excess heat from their servers to the central heating system)
-
Flex jobbing: If you are no longer able to work 37 hours a week, you can be a flex worker. This basically means that you can work 15 hours a week and still get paid a full salary. The government will cover the rest of the pay and also cover some expenses for the company having the flex worker. This system is great for peoples mental health, as they still can feel a part of society even though they can't work full time. While they still can live a worthy life because their pay is fine. It's a win-win for the country, the companies and the people needing this.
I could go on, but I don't want to be that guy praising my own country all the time. We Scandinavians tend to do that.
Sounds like the Danish welfare system is more robust than the one we have here in Sweden - however, I would like to point out that what we have is not socialism. The central ethos of socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production (usually through the government), and our economies are first and foremost rather successful capitalist mixed market economies with strong regulations and a certain degree of government ownership in limited (usually critical) areas of society. With the help of our capitalist economies, we create and tax the wealth and productivity needed to fund a rather robust welfare system.
In general Sweden and Denmark is mostly run the same way. Non of the countries are pure socialism, but they are sure very successful on physical and mental well-being for their citizens, and giving them a high living standard because of this welfare driven from ideologies of socialism.
Yeah but it's scary seeing the radical stuff starting to creep in the cracks. I moved to Denmark from the US and reading the news sometimes on politics raises an eyebrow or two.
-
I like working and feeling like I'm helping others or working towards a larger goal without the constant ever present exploitation of myself and others.
The concept of helping people.
It's one of the better -isms currently available.
Workers owning the means of production is the way it should be. Until we can mature further.
The part where the workers own the means of production.
A friendly reminder that socialism is not communism. The latter is closer to capitalism as it's just state-owned instead of privately owned. However, socialism and capitalism can coexist, which cannot be said the same about communism.
Socialism is a political philosophy and movement encompassing a range of economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.[3][4][5]
Hard disagree. Capitalism with a handful of social systems implemented is not socialism.
Friendly reminder that Communism isn't communism. Communism is "nominally" socialist, 100% authoritarian ideology that completely disregards most of what was supposed to actually define communism. You are accurate in calling it, especially in China's case, state capitalism.
Where as communism is 100% a type of socialism. And ultimate end goal of most socialist ideologies. Basically Communists are communists in the same way capitalists are libertarians.
You have no idea. For a society to be communist it has to have no state. Marxist states like the USSR or Cuba aspire to be communist one day in the future but believe you need a stage of state socialism first to get there without capitalism taking over again. How close they actually get to socialism is debatable. This is different to anarchists who want the state abolished after the revolution.
Socialism is not compatible with capitalism. Any communist society is socialist by definition, but not every socialist society is communist by necessity. Socialism is compatible with market economy where communism is not.
Under the definition of socialism the working class must own and control the means of production. Outside of that requirement you can have a range of different economic systems which may or may not involve a state, money, or markets. Socialist market economy has markets and possibly a state but where each worker owns a share of the company and votes in company leaders and/or decisions.
that it holds that social practices are created from social practice and not inherited from immutable law, enabling criticism of the underlying machinations of society without being hindered by the argument that such machinations are an inherited and instinctual product of nature and thus unalterable.
The idea behind it, making life that little bit more fair. It wouldn't work, but as miguided as it might be, it's born of empathy and that's worth something.
I love the idea of socialism. It unfortunately dies at the hand of human nature, but it’s great for ants and bees.
Humans being the most social and cooperative of all big animals ever?
Ever consider that what capitalism has lied to you about what human nature is for its own benefit?
Even ants and bees falls into the trap of having one tyrannical leader all the workers are serving.
That’s… not how bees and ants work tho? They don’t “follow orders” from anyone except their own biology.
What I like is that when there is progress, the progress is actually experienced by everybody and not just by a wider or narrower elite.
For instance, I love robotics but I can't stand that adding robots to society results in unemployment. You can't just let the owners scoop up all the capital gain.
I'd prefer the profits of robotics to be socialized rather than putting a limit on the jobs that can be eliminated.
Where's our utopia where we don't have to work to survive? Automation should make that a reality.
That it's anticorporatist.
I wish there was a movement called anti corporatism, literally. I feel like we need something new since anything socialism related is automatically bad to a lot of people...
Those people tend to be the ones benefiting most from socialism without realizing it. There also is a lot of confusing communism with socialism in here, they are not the same thing
Used to dismiss it out of hand because all the 'socialist countries' are complete authoritarian hellholes. But in hindsight this is a kind of thought-terminating cliche. I never really knew what the idea was apart from some vague notion about sharing or something that's well intentioned but never works out in practice. I think most people share this belief.
Turns out the idea is pretty simple: Worker ownership and control. Places like the USSR and China fail this definition because they don't have any of that. Therefore they are not socialist. Those countries replicate the worker/owner dynamic of Capitalism, so it is 'State Capitalism'. And they both have the same problem: A small group of people have all the power and they fuck over everyone else.
I had to get sold on the specific idea of 'market socialism' / ' workplace democracy ' before I learned and realised this. The general idea is that if you can run a country like a democracy, you can run a business like one too. In fact, many are. So lets do that as much as possible in order to wrestle power away from the owner class who spend all of their money bribing politicians and ruining everything.
I like that the government is financially able to provide social services above and beyond anything Americans are used to. Those services are a reliable way to help out neighbors.
There's no reason for any American to be unhoused, hungry, uneducated, or in need of healthcare. If wealth taxes were implemented, 95% of Americans wouldn't have any more money taken from them than they already do and it would do so much for millions and millions of Americans.
A socialistic society lifts up the people that need it most and doesn't hurt anyone in a way that they can't cope with. And moreover, some studies estimate that helping out those poorest Americans allows them to add value to society in ways that makes up for the wealthy people and corporations getting taxed heavier.
I like some of the goals of it (like evening out the economical inequalities), but I don’t think socialism is the right way to do it. Democratic welfare state systems found in Western European countries are much better solutions (and hasn’t turned into authoritarian tyrannies).
UBI might also be a good option, but currently there have been no large scale implementation of it yet.
You cannot even out the real inequalities without demolishing the capitalist class, pretty much by definition. If you want to make everyone equal part of the capitalist class, that is pretty much socialism by definition.
You cannot even out the real inequalities without demolishing the capitalist class
Absent that happening, you still can improve the situation quite a lot with strong, well enforced regulations on their activities.
Employment laws are usually a good place to start.
I like the idea of a deliberate and rational society. Unfortunately we need to be cautious with this kind of thing and pay attention to where others have failed in the past.
What do you like about capitalism?
I think of it as a mental disease societies can catch. I do acknowledge that is full of good intentions. it just doesn't work and ends in missery. it just fails to account for basic facts like human nature.
Not that it's necessarily what you're implying, but it's ridiculous to me that people think capitalism is an inevitable result of human nature but socialism isn't. Either of them are just ideas we made up. The benefits and flaws of each are the result of human nature, just with different influences and in different ways. Socialism may fail to account for the parts of human nature that you find relevant. Because you've been brought up in a capitalist system to believe that, OR you're directly benefiting from its exploitation. That doesn't mean those are the only relevant parts of human nature.
I don’t think it’s an inevitable result. As we get better at handling complex systems we might have a chance at a more efficient planned economy (that would still have issues but so does capitalism) we are not there yet. I do think that capitalism is the best system we can currently use. It doesn’t mean it’s not flawed
I don’t think that my opinion is about how relevant I think the economic calculation problem is or worker productivity. It’s the famines that follow its implementation that i find “relevant”.
Yes. Even a communal style of life works at small scales. But not at civilization scale. This is accepted and studied. And in particular the studies focus on the effects of the size of the group. As the groups grow larger the free riders appear. But I think what’s worse is that even if they didn’t have that problem they would still face the economic calculation problem and end up producing the wrong things instead.
edit: I should add that I think i would personally love to live in some small community in that sort of shared community setting even though I'm "white collar high earner".
reduction in suffering and increase in dignity of our whole race.
justice
It addresses the crudeness of the hand that deals some people, rather than assume equal opportunism is automatic.
To me, it's all about rational return on investment providing economic incentives to achieve what we want to achieve.
My favorite example to explain what I mean is my own personal health insurance. I have a chronic medical condition that requires constant medication, frequent visits to specialists, and expensive medical tests and procedures. There is simply zero chance that I will ever pay enough in a monthly premium to cover what I cost. Meaning I am always a net financial loss for a private, for-profit insurance company.
This gives a private company every incentive in the world to obstruct and deny my care in hopes that I'll get frustrated and give up, or maybe even die and get off their books forever.
The government, on the other hand, has a positive financial incentive to keep me healthy. If I am healthy, I am working, paying taxes, buying goods and services that contribute to the economy, and hopefully contributing something beneficial to my community. Only the government (acting as a proxy for "society") naturally profits from insuring my healthcare.
This is why I believe we should have fully socialized medical care. Because there are some specific things that only the government has natural positive economic incentives that align with what is beneficial for the general public.
Whatever those things are, they should be socialized. And generally those things are basic life sustaining things like food, housing, medicine, education, utilities.
I'm fine with privatized capitalism in a very restricted, heavily regulated niche form. But all the basic necessities should be socialized.
I've always said it like this:
"Socialism for the things we need. Capitalism for the things we want."
GOP death cult be like, "Hear me out, do you really NEED to live though?"
It makes me feel like I fit in on internet discussions!! We're on the same team :)))
Free tacos on Tuesday
