A moderate take on socialism and communism etc..

I only ever hear people say how naive these ideals are or some extremist babbling about evil capitalists, so I have studied and thought deeply about the subject to form the most rational opinion I can rather than a kneejerk emotional reaction.

In a nutshell socialism is the fruits of some abstract objective thought about society, meaning you strip down all the excess baggage you have and look at people's thoughts and decisions themselves. For instance when socialists looked at kings they did not take it in the context of 100s of years of tradition, they saw only a guy sitting on a decorative chair in a funny outfit and proceeded to wonder why everyone thinks he's all that. There are tomes of observations and conclusions based on this type of thinking, some are rational, others are irrational, but all this ideology does not serve the business end of socialism.

The selling point of socialism is to unite the negotiating power of the workers in response to the easily united negotiating power of the small clique of political and business leaders in society. In western democracies they had to compete with apolitical trade unions and growing middle classes so the most they could do is serve populist agendas like setting up welfare, however in despotisms where trade unions were stamped out there was enormous demand for their brand of political philosophy.

So...

1: It cannot be said that the basis of socialism is unrealistic head in the clouds garble, there is nothing wrong with taking a step back and looking at society objectively and some of their assertions are logical. What is wrong is declaring the works of Karl Marx, or some other cult icon, to be completely infallible and stifling possible alternatives.
2: You need a certain level of freedom before the worker's negotiating power can be united and unfortunately freedom usually contradicts socialist ideology. Property rights are indeed a social construct, but so is liberty and justice, unfortunately people do not want to be at the mercy of the state or a commune and will always want private property. Religion is sometimes misused but if you allow some infringements of people's free speech it will be misused aswell, there is no choice but to allow complete religious freedom.
3: You don't need socialism and related ideologies to unite worker's negotiating power anyway.

My conclusions are generally anti-socialist but I do not dismiss the logical elements of the ideology. Much like most religions consist of charitable and noble virtues mixed up with silly superstition, socialism at first has an objective outlook on the world but degrades into logical fallacies after a few steps.

 

Any political thinker should be studied for insight, rather than doctrine. One should not expect to find in political philosophy, or political science the kind of near certainty that exists in physics, chemistry, or even biology.

Adolph Hitler had valid insights into social psychology; he was mistaken about the Jews.

Karl Marx was right that the natural tendency of laissez faire capitalism - which was the only kind he knew - was to build wealth while spreading poverty. Per capita GNP goes up; median income goes down. He was also right that laissez faire capitalism causes economic down turns of increasing severity. When he wrote The Communist Manifesto in 1848 he accurately predicted the Great Depression.

Marx was wrong in believing that laissez faire capitalism could not be reformed without a violent revolution, but when The Communist Manifesto was written the only country where blue collar workers could vote was the United States, Even there one had to be a white man. Toward the end of his life Marx began to hope that necessary reforms could be achieved through the ballot box. To an extent they have been.

Marx was also wrong in believing that loyalties of class are stronger than loyalties of race, nation, and ethnicity. Among working class people the opposite is usually the case.

During the twentieth century socialism was a disappointment; it was a popular ideal. By calling themselves "socialists" of some sort or other dictators like Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Saddam Hussein acknowledged the popularity of socialism in their countries, while betraying the ideal. The spread of democracy throughout the world has been a positive development. Socialism may yet be voted into existance.

A dictatorship is an unacceptable government for a socialist economy. The contrary assertion was the most serious mistake that many socialists made during the twentieth century.

 

I'm impressed. It sounds like you've put some real thought into this, and I generally agree with your conclusions.

 

no, hes 100% right on that one.

 

absolutely true.

property rights have no basis for existence outside of capitalism. when socialism arises, there is no need to claim your "property" because there is no capitalist money machine requiring constant payment.

yes, you absolutely do. trade unions can only do so much because, currently in capitalism, there are employers, and wages. how can worker democracy be socially managed if were still operating on backward scarcity economics?

 

Socialism is just legally-enforced monopoly capitalism -- everything controlled from one source. It's actually worse, simply for the fact that it is legally-enforced, and therefore cannot be fought when those in charge start to abuse their power.

 

The only socialism worthy of the name is democratic socialism. As long as ultimate power remains in the hands of the electorate socialism can be modified or reversed.

Democratic socialism exists nowhere in the world, but it may come into existance if capitalism continues to increase income inequality.

 

There is no "ultimate power" in the election process as the election process is controlled. Democracy as the average person believes in it is a joke. Even if it wasn't, they always give you the candidates to choose from.

So basically democracy is the illusion of going to the polls to pull the lever for the person the public thinks is the "candidate of their choice" every 2-4 years and expecting "change," even though it's always more of the same.

 

There have been elections in the United States that changed the course of American history. 1932 changed things in a positive direction. 1980 changed things in a negative direction. If Al Gore had been elected in 2000 we would not be fighting the stupid war in Iraq. There would probably still be a budget surplus every year. If John McCain is elected in November things will keep getting worse. If the Democrats do well things might get better, but it will be hard to undo the damage George W. Bush has done.

 

I disagree with most of that. Things will continue in the direction they are, regardless if McCain or Obama is elected, because these are just puppets. So is George Bush and every other president. These people make none of their own decisions, they only serve to make the public think they do. Again, it's all about maintaining the illusion of democracy. The people who wield the real power from behind the scenes never leave power. It's these people who set foreign and domestic policy. This is why I do not vote, and really, I could not care less who wins in November, if the elections even take place (and they may not).

 

Who are those people? What is the source of their power?

 

The international power brokers... the banks, the transnationals, etc..

Do you really think presidents are the ones who makes the rules? I mean, seriously.

 

Of course, they must be! Why wouldn't powerful people stand up and show everyone their faces? What could they possibly have to gain from staying behind the curtain? I think you're full of shit.

 

Of course I do. Just because you don't get your way politically does not mean that the United States is not a democracy. You don't get your way because most Americans disagree with you.

Most Americans disagree with me, too. Most Americans like cars, guns, and rich people. I don't.

 

Yes, and the reason most Americans disagree with me is because their reality has been molded by the television. If people could break out of their slumber and maybe listen to some of the things myself and others are saying, they might not disagree with me. They might realize they're being had and quickly identify with what I tell them.

Another thing... do you know what democracy even means? It's Greek for mob rule, and is one of the absolute WORST forms of government. The US was never intended to be a democracy, but that's what we're taught to believe from a young age by the public schools and the media. And why is a democracy bad? Because under a democracy, 51% of the dumbed-down public has the ability to oppress the 49% that has an idea about what's going on. Under a constitutional republic, however, the leader of a country is held accountable based on an outline such as the Constitution.

So really, the US is neither a republic or a democracy. It is a neo-feudalist, fascist state where people believe they are free only because that's what is drummed into their heads. People are free -- free to do as they're told, as Bill Hicks would say.

 

i get the fascist part but not the fuedalist part, please elaborate. we dont have lorrds, vassals, and serfs (well we kind of do, but not in those forms)

 

you would understand if you knew marxist theory - that we are simply a very fine-tuned system of masters and slaves

 

i do know marxist theory. but a very fine tuned system of masters and slaves does not imply feudalism specifically. capitalism is a more advanced form of feudalism yes, but the US isnt organized feudally.

 

hence the term "neo-feudalist"

 

i see that now . i just think its a flimsy term to use.