Kasimax - who taught you fear, who gave you this 'gift' ..... are you thanking them now because they must have either hated you or themselves or both to do this to you.
Because we know these people it doesn't make them right ..... they knew no better, if we just mimic then then what have we learnt, where is the progression. Unless we can be better than our forefathers how can we hope to progress.
It doesn't have to be this way.....

i was merely joking, nigee, i am a socialist from head to toe. but it's always nice to get a +1 from the conservative peanut gallery! maybe it will work again?

"the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

People either want to keep what they earn (because they earned it or created the value in some way), or they want someone to give them things because its only fair that they get their share too. Socialism is the creation of government bureaucracies to aide the latter group. Politicians pander to the latter group by promising ever larger government benefits and these folks then vote the politicians in over and over. Incentives to produce are reduced each time benefits are raised. Foreigners come in to fill the gap. It's as much a disease as it is a cure.

I have always had trouble trying to explain Socialism to Capitalists in non-economic non-monetary terms as it is hard for them to see past the twin Gods of money and power but for me 'organised compassion' is beautiful.
Can an economic system really be built around more than maximising of profits and exploitation?

"Socialism is the creation of government bureaucracies to aide the latter group. Politicians pander to the latter group by promising ever larger government benefits and these folks then vote the politicians in over and over."
Politicians pander to the gun lobby, the oil lobby, the banks, the arms manufacturers who fund their election campaigns ..... are they Socialists?
See past your own propaganda ..... there are none so blind as those who refuse to look.

When does compassionate sharing become unhealthy enabling? There are many people to have to keep their reported income below a certain level in order to not lose government benefits. I'm not saying that they are worse than anyone else. They are just trying to act in their best interests (a form of capitalism perhaps?).

Doug, socialism has nothing to do with either the government nor its bureaucracies. Socialism is an economic system whereby the workers own the means of production.

Socialism does not do enough to prevent individuals at the top of the political heap from fucking things up. It creates a ladder by which powerful bureaucracies are run by political figures who don't understand what their organization does. For instance, Kathleen Sebelius, the recent Secretary for Health and Human Services in the US, was previously... Governor of Kansas! Maybe a doctor should have been running that shit.

Socialist bureaucracies do not select for competence, they select for ideological suitability. Then they try to do real things, which too often does not go well.

Now, I would say that there is a time and a place for some limited Socialist stuff, but Socialism everywhere, all the time, doesn't work.

Also,

"gun lobby, the oil lobby, the banks, the arms manufacturers"

I would argue that the oil companies, banks, and arms manufacturers are all recipients of corporate welfare and therefore part of a crony Socialist economy. The oil companies and banks should be thrown overboard and left to go bankrupt. Military manufacturers should remain "Socialized".

The gun lobby is simply a different thing, it's not a particularly economic issue.

I would suggest that Utopian Socialism and Communism might work if humans were "wired" differently than they are. Humans want to take care of "their own". When we are young, especially, we crave success and recognition. We are clever animals, but not necessarily wise. We can be jealous of others getting more than we do, or getting the same amount if they put in less effort. We place the safety and economic security of those close to us higher than people we don't know.
Also, socialism as practiced in the west is a market socialism. As you are aware, worker's don't normally own the means of production here or in western Europe. I think that the socialism you are talking about is more theoretical.

The 'capitalist' contributors to this debate have fallen into three substantial fallacies.

The first is the one contributed by Doug and rebutted by Nige. It may (or may not) be true that the beneficiaries of the state's re-distributory meaures ("government hand-outs") will continue to vote for 'socialist' parties, but it is equally true that big business does the same thing (but pulling in the opposite direction), by funding politicians and newspapers and lobby groups favouring their own ideology and interests.

The second is that socialism is at odds with liberal democracy and necessarily leads to totalitarianism.

The third (as suggested by tendmote) is that "socialist bureaucracies (note the tendentious language) do not select for competence" but for ideological suitability. If that is true at all, it is no more true than the converse, namely that capitalist systems of governance (note the neutral turn of phrase) select for ideological compliance rather than for competence.

Tendmote introduces a different issue when he criticises the appointment of a politician (rather than a medical professional) to head up health policy and delivery. (Equivalent issues arise into other public services, notably education). The politician is not elected or appointed as an expert in the professional field (Health, Education). The politician is there to determine the objectives and policy priorities of the service. That person should therefore be representative of the service users, not of the service providers.

"The gun lobby is simply a different thing, it's not a particularly economic issue."

Now this is a tad naive - imagine if gun shops could not sell guns, what would that do to the economy, imagine if arms companies could not sell guns to the gullible US citizens ..... we are talking about a huge industry here, not economic, you're 'avin a larf me ol' china.

"capitalist systems of governance (note the neutral turn of phrase) select for ideological compliance rather than for competence"

Socialism does not provide for a mechanism by which an organization can become extinct. Extinction is the process by which competence is selected for in capitalism. It is a missing process in socialism, and the reason that competence is not selected for under that system.

Now, when, for instance, the US government bails out banks and provides selective support to automobile and oil companies, it subverts the extinction process and institutes socialism for large companies. That's bad.

"The politician is there to determine the objectives and policy priorities of the service"

An organization should have at the top someone who understands what the organization does, not simply what people want. You can't always get what you want, and the person at the top needs to understand why, what actually is possible, and act accordingly. Politicians are terrible executives.

Don't just see Socialism in purely economic terms, imagine in every decision that was taken by govts and companies a key determining factor was 'how compassionate is that decision', what is the social justice impact of that decision.
Just for one minute think how different we would all operate day-to-day if we took the needs of others into account before we acted. That would be a crazy but fantastic shift in human society, in human development. We are already doing it to a certain extent with for environmental issues, minimising our global carbon footprint, would it be such a big change to do it also for social justice issues also.
Of course it would curtail war-like aggressive foreign policies which would upset the hawks and the lunatics, and Israel would be out of ammo by now.

@TENDMOTE.
I disagree with both your points, for these reasons:

I think you must be conflating two different levels of the organisms of government. As far as the system of government is concerned, the type of socialism you are describing is the type of totalitarian socialism (or 'dictatorship of the proletariat') practised in Russia between approximately 1919 and 1989. It is possible to have socialism subject to a liberal democratic process (as mentioned in my earlier contribution) and for it to be voted out of office from time to time.

If you were, however, asserting that, even in a democratic socialist model of government, there is no mechanism for the extinction of redundant or inefficient agencies, I challenge the factual basis of your assertion.

As to your second point, I think you are again conflating or confusing two different elements, a confusion which may arise from the differences between the UK and US governmental systems. Here in the UK, there is a clear demarcation between [a] policy formulation (the role of PM and cabinet) and [b] policy implementation and delivery (the role of neutral permanent paid officials familiar with the limitations of (and constraints upon) service delivery). I understand that the demarcation line between those functions is located differently in the US than the demarcation line in the UK. Policy formulation needs to be subject to political direction, not in the hands of the service provider.

All this, though, draws us away from the main thrust of the original thread, for which reason, I would suggest that, if we wish to continue this debate, we should establish a separate thread.

"Don't just see Socialism in purely economic terms, imagine in every decision that was taken by govts and companies a key determining factor was 'how compassionate is that decision', what is the social justice impact of that decision."
I don't really see how socialism prevails in this regard -- not in practice, at least. That is to say, I don't see how governments are inherently better at doing this than non-government entities. Governments operate on the basis of power; companies operate on the basis of profit. Neither one of those attributes is particularly conducive to compassion -- unless, of course, you have compassionate people running the show from top to bottom. But even then, I'm not sure why compassionate people running the government are necessarily better (or even more likely) than compassionate people running various businesses.

And as for the opening quote, add "centralized" and "compulsory" to "organized," take out the "merely," and I'm with you all the way. (Actually, if you want to leave the "merely" in for the sake of irony, I could live with that too.)

Socialism is not liberalism, no matter what Nigee, Mendax and co tell you.

They're not equivalent, no. One is an economic system, the other is a social ideal for governance. That doesn't mean that they can't, or shouldn't, go hand-in-hand though.

I don't see any mention of a planned economy here. As far as you guys would have it, socialism is just a more cuddlier version of a market economy.

Socialism is not compatible with bourgeois democracy. I will resist to my last breath the attempts to define socialism into some weak form of social democracy.

"
Socialists, at least my kind of socialists, support policies that work to guarantee the citizens of their countries basic rights, like transportation, to not be an exploited laborer (which includes ensuring safe work conditions, reasonable work hours, paid holidays, minimum wage), corporate regulation (which includes regulating product control and insuring environmental protection), disaster relief (reimbursement for losses), minority rights, infrastructural competency (quality roads, for instance), life (food, clean water, shelter and healthcare), etc.

They support a government that works in the benefit of the people and strives for each citizen to be treated fairly. Owning businesses is not at all as important a priority as many make it out to be, but basic services like the police, fire department, ambulance corps and probably certain means of transport should be state-owned.
"
JECE – 19 Nov 2011

I don't get why socialists don't just get together, but up massive amounts of land somewhere and live their communal fantasies. I'd be glad if it would turn out great and it might even make me change my views.

*buy

Because socialism isn't about a 'communal fantasy'.

Why do free market cultists insist on talking about a subject they know nothing about?

I'd like to throw an unmentioned (by name, mostly) idea: socio-capitalism (or, at least, my understanding of it). It's hard to find it by name much of anywhere. Basically, socialism and capitalism both have good ideas (socialism for the benefit of workers and individuals, capitalism for the benefit of corporations and the economy as a whole), so why not combine the two in a grand compromise? It would give socialists what they want (proper treatment of workers) and capitalists (especially corporations) what they want (money). Thoughts?

That's called a social market economy. See: Germany.

That's called social democracy, TrPRado. They've got it all over Europe.

Northern Europe, actually. I know it's called that, but 1) I prefer the name I provided and 2) even that name is scarcely seen.

Also by "I know what it's called" I meant social market economy. Putin was right.

I think we're both right. I'm describing the political position, he's describing the economic situation. Social democracy definitely exists and I'm almost positive it's what you asked about. Of course, this being the Left, there are so many names to keep track of, with only tiny variations in wording having huge consequences for meaning.


I've never heard your name, socio-capitalism, before. If you like it better, that's fine. But we can't just rename things based off of what we personally think sounds best. If that were true I'd be able to just call them all thieves.