Is Socialism the consolidation of wealth and power in the hands of an all-powerful st

The question was raised in another thread and it seemed a nice one to throw out here for a general debate.


**
This certainly isn’t my definition of socialism, but then I’m not an ideological socialist, more of a pragmatic social/green hybrid.

In my Concise Oxford Dictionary, socialism is described as: "Political and economic theory of social organisation which advocates that community as a whole should own and control the means of production, distribution and exchange; policy or practice based on this theory."

To me the idea of a system designed to benefit the ‘whole community’ is important. In pursuit of that I’m willing to be a lot more pragmatic with the terms of ownership as long as that ownership is not running contrary to the goal.

The idea of the community as a whole is also directly opposed to the idea of consolidation it is about its opposite, distribution, and the widest possible distribution.

Any thoughts?

 

In theory and on paper socialism sounds like a good answer to the world's problems, in theory. It may start off well, but the human factor always seems to come into play. man/women's lust for greed & power.

 

I don't think it's just about the "greed and power" thing.

Socialism,especially state-scocialism doesn't work well because it's just bad economics. How do you decide how much of something to produce or what to cut back on without market prices as a guide?

 

Balbus It doesn't matter look at what socialism and communism have done to countries of this century bro, it completely destroyed them and their economies, and their government got out of control, capitalism isn't perfect but atleast EVERYONE has the ability to make their OWN money somehow and then put it towards what they want, that's how you get things accomplished, and that's what saves our democracy because people have their own money to give to organizations like Moveon.org, or aclu.org or whatever sites people on here look at and love so much, with socialism or communism we would just see control of Media & Consumerism at an even larger scale than any capitalist country, our country is actually moving more towards socialism than a real capitalistic free market country.

 

"I also made it quite clear that Socialism means equality of income or nothing, and that under Socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well."

-- George Bernard Shaw

"The New Deal is plainly an attempt to achieve a working socialism and avert a social collapse in America; it is extraordinarily parallel to the successive 'policies' and 'Plans' of the Russian experiment. Americans shirk the word 'socialism', but what else can one call it?"

-- H.G. Wells


There is a huge difference between the way socialism is sold to the masses and how it is used by governments throughout history. Anyone who believes that governments were created for the people's well-being and prosperity have not adequately studied history and should probably go back and take another look.

Socialism is about state control. I believe in personal freedoms, and I don't want the state involved in every aspect of my life, which is why I am opposed to socialism and all other forms of statism. It's that simple.

Like I said once before, socialism has never led to prosperity, only poverty. It has never lead to freedom, only enslavement.

Socialism was a creation of the same central banks that gave us capitalism, and socialism is a form of capitalism where all the people's wealth and power is consolidated by the all-powerful state, who then allocate this money to the causes they see fit, which are usually not for the people's behalf. It's nothing more than monopoly capitalism for the Elite, by the Elite.

The reason for the Constitution was to prevent the centralization of power that we see under socialized government, which is why the Constitution is being shredded by tyrants like George W. Bush today, who is setting up a big-government police state to control the population and usher in a totalitarian government.



Here is an excellent article I recommend people take the time to read.

 

I think it is a tribute to US right wing propaganda that even the slightest mention of left wing politics causes a hysteria in some Americans that causes them to bypass all rational thought as they scream ‘Stalinism’.

**

OK

LdyNimue

In theory and on paper many things sound good, but in fact everything and anything involving humans, political or otherwise that is or has been tried in practice is open to the same problems that you highlight.

Hell I’ve seen high school chess clubs fall apart for the same human frailties.

Does that mean humans shouldn’t do anything?

To me if something seems better than what we have why not try and get it to work, rather than give up before even starting?

Any system has to have checks and balances, procedures and regulations that kept those human frailties in check. It might not always work but what frankly is the alternative.

**

Motion

First nominee for the communist scare, reds under the beds hysteria award.

In my opinion just supporting social programmes and a degree of wealth and power distribution does not mean the end of the ‘market’, it just means that any market is regulated so that it works more for the community as a whole rather than for one group of that society.

**

Angel

Second nominee for the communist scare, reds under the beds hysteria award.

And what a doosy of a rant it is, a 130 word sentence no less.

In it he goes on about left wing politics bringing about economic Armageddon, of governments “out of control” and of it ending all chance of democracy.

The problem is that many countries have had left leaning governments, greens, socialists and communists have been in the governments of Italy, Britain, Spain, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Germany (and many more). All those countries mentioned have some level of socialism, from welfare programmes and national health services to labour laws and education.

And guess what, they are all prosperous, I believe that Germany, Britain, France, Italy and Spain are third, fourth, fifth sixth, and seventh in the list of wealthiest nations according to the world bank.

They also all appear in the top 20 of the Human Development Index of most liveable countries

All of them have mixed their socialistic tendencies with capitalism.

All of them are democracies.

Angels post ends with his dire warning “our country is actually moving more towards socialism than a real capitalistic free market country”

Well on the evidence above it might not be a bad thing.

PS: Angel I’ve tried to talk to you about this with you before, (but like rat you seem very unwilling to be involved in open and honest debates), what do you mean by “a real capitalistic free market”.

**

And so we come to Rat our favourite for the ‘Reds Under the Beds Hysteria Award’.

Oh and we get the same old empty rhetoric again.

I believe in personal freedoms,

Socialism has never led to prosperity, only poverty. It has never lead to freedom, only enslavement.

Socialism was a creation of the same central banks that gave us capitalism

I don't want the state involved in every aspect of my life,

It's nothing more than monopoly capitalism for the Elite, by the Elite.

I am opposed to socialism and all other forms of statism. It's that simple.

Yes Rat it is that simple, simple minded, it’s just words with no substance, I mean come on you say these things over and over but you are completely unable to back them up or defend them, every time someone tries you run away.

Why are you so afraid of any form of honest and open debate?

You them recommend we read an article on a conspiracy theory website, written by a far right commentator about a fervent anti-Communist. An article in which it seems left wingers are accused of many things including turning kids 'queer' and “telling us that we must teach that which God said is an abomination, is now acceptable. We must "tolerate" difference in people. Promote and condone the deathstyle of the queers or be charged with a hate crime. I guess God will have to be charged with a "hate" crime”

WOW, I guess you get the award Rat, that really is hysteria.

 

As I’ve already said I’m not an ideological Socialist, but socialist ideas and thought have influenced my own views as have many others political philosophies. But even amongst those that definitely call themselves socialists there is a wide degree of diversity

As the wikipedia writer on socialism says “It is difficult to make generalizations about the diverse array of doctrines and movements that have been referred to as "socialist." The various adherents of contemporary socialist movements do not agree on a common doctrine or program. As a result, the movement has split into different and sometimes opposing branches, particularly between moderate socialists and communists. Since the 19th century, socialists have differed in their vision of socialism as a system of economic organization. Some socialists have championed the complete nationalization of the means of production, or decentralized ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers councils. Others have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies. Stalinists insisted on the creation of Soviet-style command economies under strong central state direction. Others advocate "market socialism" in which social control of property exists within the framework of market economics and private property”

Communism even Stalinism have supporters on the left but they are parts (and for Stalinism a very small part) of a larger idea.

One of the problems that I detect in many Americans is that they seem to believe any type of socialism is akin to full blown Stalinistc communism, however patently silly and illogical that viewpoint is. It means that for some they fear and loath any politics that is to the left of Anne Coulter or leads them up the rather dangerous cul de sac of right wing libertarianism.

I have and do call myself a ‘pragmatic socialist with strong green influences’ for want of a better term.

 

Socialism seems to refer to a lot of economic docterines. It usually means the dissolvment of means of production from private ownership.

I'm not really for forcefull redistribution of land in most casses. While their are issues in some African nations with the white minority owning the vast majority of farmland, which should be redistributed. Although the means in which it has been reditributed have often been cruel.

Elements of social welfare programs are certainly nessecary, and theres nothing wrong with skimming money from the top of wealthy individuals and businesses.

I think most people would agree with social programs, but to what extent is arguable.

Most of the Nordic countries have very high standards of life, but low immigration and very high taxation.

Canada and the US have lower taxes, but also have very high standards of living. There are degrees of lack of competition in cases such as the nordic countries which can lead to monopolistic control of resources, and perhaps not the most clear or wise use of such resources.

In terms of economics, Canada has in my view the best economic system, which is built as a profit driven economy, yet all the nessecary healthcare and social programs seem to be made.

In the US we have large immigration, which isn't a problem as such, but it further empahsises the need for reform of our immigration and social programs.

Different elements within economies and demographics mean social programs need to be implemented differently, but social programs need to provide basic services and chances to uplift communities, while at the same time be very clear in how that money is spent.

I don't know under who's definition of socialism that is, but that's what I believe.

 

I thought it was this

and on a lager scale this

 

You brought up an AWESOME TOPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!

REad this, and think about it:
The Peasant Commune in Russia

Matthew Raphael Johnson
The institution of the peasant commune in prerevolutionary Russia is one of the world’s unique institutions; and also one that is almost unknown. As Americans continue to work long hours for comparatively less pay, continue to see unions disappear and see any kind of job security dissipate, maybe it is time to look at other models of economic organization.

It need not be said that the commune, for American historiography, is derided. This is largely for one important reason: the architects of liberalism and capitalism in Russia were the elite; the elite political and economic forces. For them, the commune was an irritant, a set of protections that permitted the average peasant a great deal of protection against exploitation. the destruction of the commune then, was absolutely necessary for the Russian neo-Jacobins to impose constitutional capitalism on Royal Russia.

In the commune, the church calendar was the primary medium for telling time. This meant that the work year was short, for the calendar of traditional Christianity saw four fast periods as well as dozens of major feasts, whether local, national or pan-Orthodox. One of the main reasons the liberal bourgeois in Russia hated the commune was that it sanctioned the traditional agrarian practice of only working about 2/3 of the year. The rest was made up in fasting, feasting and cultural pursuits. Therefore, the protections, immunities and traditions of communal life were absolutely incompatible with capitalism, “constitutionalism” and liberalism.

A powerful and seminal article by Boris Mironov, “The Russian Peasant Commune After the Reforms of the 1860s” (Slavic Review, Vol. 44, No. 3 [Fall 1985]), is extremely important for the understanding of the peasant commune. Its significance lies in the fact that it takes its data from the survey of 816 communes between 1878 and 1880, sponsored by the Russian Geographical Society and the Russian Free Economic Society. Its results were astounding, and largely supported the claims of the pro-agrarian and pro-monarchist elements in Russia, then and now. The average peasant had it better in Russia than likely anywhere else in Europe. This data proves it.

It is important to keep in mind the structure of the Imperial Russian state around the middle of the 19th century. The tsar’s power was limited to foreign policy and general taxation. He, of course, was the chief spokesman for the nation and the defender of the Orthodox Church. However, at the agrarian level, where 90 percent of the population lived, royal authority was virtually invisible. The peasant commune was the only relevant authority the peasant had to deal with. Therefore, it is accurate to say that Russia was not a single, unitary state, but rather a collection of thousands of independent agrarian republics, held together by rather weak cords to the central monarchy. Prof. Charles Sarolea, who visited Russia regularly, wrote in the 1925 issue of The English Review:

On closer examination we find the [Imperial] Russian state was a vast federation of 50,000 small peasant republics each busy with its own affairs, obedient to its own laws and even possessing its own tribunals of starotsas (elders). The Russian state was not undemocratic, on the contrary, if anything, there was too much democracy.​

What makes the peasant commune such a unique institution is the power it had. Each commune was a completely selfcontained unit, answering to no other authority than its own body of elected elders. All police functions were discharged by the communal authorities. All legal matters were dealt with by the same. Any damage to property, any criminal offense whatsoever, was dealt with at the communal level. All public works were also within the jurisdiction of the commune. It maintained stores of grain during famines and assisted poorer members who suffered during the lean months of the spring. It controlled the cultural life of the people as well as all education. It even built its own parish churches and trained many of the rural clergy. The commune maintained all schools and hospitals. In short, it was absolute.

The state’s interest in this was clear. For the commune to be self governing, yet still loyal to the monarchy, it was necessary for it to be completely independent of the state. Mironov writes, “The government did not risk appointing its own people, who would have been independent of the peasant, to official positions in the commune; that would have been too expensive and ineffective at the same time.” (445)

However, to make sure any village executive (specifically its chief executive) was loyal, he could be removed by the royal-appointed district governor. This, however, rarely occurred, largely because irritating the peasants, the great bastion of loyalty in the country, would not be in the interests of the royal state. Mironov continues in this vein:

If, however, one analyzes how these officials actually functioned, it is clear that the government did not reach its goal: elected officials did not stand above the commune but operated under its authority, and all administrative and police measures in the commune were taken only with the consent of the village assembly. Only very rarely did elected officials become a hostile authority standing above the peasantry: they had to be periodically reelected, had no significant privileges, did not break their ties with the peasantry (elected officials were freed from taxes and other obligations, except those in kind, and continued to perform all forms of peasant labor), remained under the control of public opinion of the village (and in the event of malfeasance faced the threat of retribution), and shared the common interest of the peasants, not the interests of the state. As a rule the elected officials acted as the defenders of the commune, as petitioners and organizers. Frequently they emerged as leaders of peasant disorders despite the threat of harsh punishment. (445-6)​

Many liberal Russia scholars might counter this by claiming that the elected village heads were required, after the 1860s, to faithfully carry out the will of the district authorities. However, though this is true, it was also true that no decree of the district authorities had validity in the commune unless it was approved by the village assembly.

According to the data collected by the Russian Geographic Society, the Russian peasant assembly consisted of all male heads of household. Decisions were not finalized until unanimity was reached, or, as Mironov has said, disagreement was brought to a level of silent sulking, which, at this level, was considered agreement. It is important to note, therefore, that each peasant had a specific stake in communal affairs as well as a corresponding voice. Any specific peasant, therefore, could not afford to be alienated from the community, as all decisions could be vetoed even by a relatively small group of disgruntled peasants.

In her “The Russian Peasant Family in the Second Half of the 19th Century” (Russian Studies in History, vol. 38, No. 2,[fall 1999]), Svetlana S. Kriukova sheds some more light on the structure of the family in the peasant commune. Though this article is not nearly as rigorous as Mironov’s (and is geographically limited to the black soil region), it is still very useful.

Because all legislation needed to pass the communal assembly, which was a function of direct democracy, the family became a far more important institution than the modern bourgeois understand. The structure of the peasant family was headed by the oldest male, though a woman would have that title if she was unmarried and her sons were also unmarried (39). The wife dealt with domestic affairs and supervised the female members of the house. The wife had substantial authority in ordering marriages and the timetables concerning various economic projects. The family acted as sort of a mini-commune. It was rational for the male to cast the deciding vote. However, a “mistress of the house,” that is, the mother of the wife, had relatively equal authority with the husband. Generally, disagreements within the family were solved by any elderly living within the neighborhood (41). But, regardless of who made the final decision, all functions of the household ultimately were under the scrutiny of the commune. Interestingly, the communal structure (at least in southern Russia) invented an innovation called “women’s weeks,” which were times during the year where the females of the household would be released from family or communal obligations in order to work purely for themselves. This was done both to raise more money and goods for dowries as well as provide the women in question with sufficient resources for old age or infirmity. (45)

This, in many respects, was to maintain domestic solvency, for the assignment of tax duties made it imperative that each household maintained a proper standard of living. If the head of household was a drunk, or was incapable of keeping the family money properly, he was publicly berated by the communal authorities, often beaten and, in many cases, deprived of his status as head of household. It is clear that those who developed bad reputations as head of household either reformed quickly or lost their status. Many wound up in the army, with the commune then resuming care for the family until the minor male children came of age.

Those members of the family incapable of working, such as the elderly, the mentally ill, crippled or sick, were guaranteed support. Whatever the family could not provide was provided by the commune. The communal courts rearranged debts and taxes, as well as the more important area of land allotment, for those families who dealt with sick or invalid members. No one was permitted to enter severe poverty.

If the state desperately needed the communes to pass certain forms of legislation, they were in no position to force the matter on them. Russian peasants are rebellious; they are fanatical traditionalists, the worst threat to any bureaucracy. The state, then, would resort to every sort of preaching and begging of the village males and elders in general to get things passed, largely in the realm of taxation. But even here, only the commune was capable of assessing tax burdens according to the ability to pay. The royal state, allegedly absolute, had no clue how much money each peasant was making or how wealthy any commune might be. All taxing decisions therefore, were made by elected elders and the assembly.

The commune, through its assembly and elected elders, decided on a periodic land redistribution, where peasant families with many children were granted more, while those with fewer were granted less. The point of work for the communal peasantry was to reach a balance, to maintain a standard of living that could provide all objective needs of the family itself. Profit was unknown, distrusted and, even until the revolution, scorned. Need was the key, and all forms of exploitation were condemned not only by law, but also by the common law of communal custom.

The communal system was based around basic subsistence agriculture as well as the periodic redistribution of land, tax duties and public works. All of this was done within the village assembly in respect to the state, the informal structure of older men in the village who exercised quite a bit of moral authority (men retired at 60 and all dues were forgiven at this time) and the elected executives. This constitutional structure permitted the wealthier peasants to pay the dues of the poorer, which was considered a moral obligation taken from Byzantine times. Poorer households were maintained in lean times largely due to the communal virtue of charity, a virtue maintained not necessarily by law, but by the strong hand of communal custom, which, if it might be said, was actually the basis of the constitution of any commune. In other words, if such ancient virtues were violated, it was not uncommon for severe punishments to me meted out by the people as a whole. Chronic violations were usually punished by banishment or, if the criminal was of the proper age, induction into the army.

As Mironov reports, one of the astonishing and revisionist aspects of communal life as the 19th century began to draw to a close was its amazing vitality. It is common in the Russian history literature in English to paint a picture of the oppressed peasants chafing at the commune (when they mention it at all), waiting to escape to take advantage of the money economy. This is nothing more than bourgeois, Whig history.

There is every reason to believe that the peasantry looked upon the bourgeois with disdain, as well as their competitive money economy. When the reforms of Petr Stolypin made it easier for peasants to remove themselves from the commune and enter the bourgeois economy, very few actually did. According to the data, by the end of the 19th century, almost 90 percent of peasants were functioning within the communal structure. By Stolypin’s reforms in 1905-06, “only an insignificant number of peasants found an alternative to the commune in trade, industry or in the sale of their labor. As in the past, the great majority placed their hopes for a better life in the commune and a new agrarian reform. . . .” (464) This shows, without question, that the peasantry had no use for the liberal capitalist parties, Westernizers or Western socialists. It was the commune that maintained the peasant’s loyalty to tradition and the tsar. It was only those at the extremes of the communal structure who actually left the community for the city. Those who became wealthy and sought even more wealth moved away, and those extremely poor who, for whatever reason, could not function were the two elements that left, but these never amounted to more than 4 or 5 percent. Those that were criminal, slow or just plain uncooperative were inducted into the army, where the famous harsh discipline in the pre-Bolshevik Russian infantry would solve those problems.

The peasant commune is likely one of the greatest supporters of family liberty devised. But its superiority to Western models exists not merely in the results of such organization, but also because it was not “devised.” It was perfected over 1,000 years of often hard experience. The communal structure, the tightly organized extended family and the traditional peasant love for communal and family liberty kept the state at bay right up until the revolution. The destruction of the communes, naturally, came immediately under Lenin’s rule.

The dishonest “radicals” saw the communes as a threat. Many Russian populists (narodniks), such as Alexander Herzen, believed the communal system to be the means whereby a native Russian socialism would challenge the Western, Marxist brand. However, for these liberals, the communal structure was to be completely denuded of traditional culture and became largely a dependency of the new state. All that the socialists said they wanted had already been part of peasant life for a millennium, but the socialists simply lied as to what they wanted.

They sought a non-Christian, secular state run by urban elites who treated communes as departments of state. Ultimately, this is largely the reason the Bolsheviks liquidated large segments of the peasantry. Comparisons of the peasant communal system and modern socialism are pedestrian. They have nothing in common. This is why the Russian New Men of the 20th century ultimately destroyed the commune while publicly professing devotion to it. The commune was a Christian anarchist collective, based around ethnic tradition, the church and the extended family, all interacting on the level of basic equality.

Anarchists sounded ridiculous to the peasantry largely because their secular ideas, to be imposed by force, already existed, and where the virtues of charity and mutual self-government not only existed, but were part of the traditional mindset of the peasantry. The catch was, however, that their new society was to be run by them, on secular and materialist principles with the state, of course, being all-powerful. Peasants then would be truly goyim, mere chattel, at the service of the New Men.

 

Topolm

What’s you point?