#

[Lark]

I think I get what you're saying here. Early socialism wasn't so much about economics. As you say, there was a social vision there as well, a desire to turn back the clock, escape the urban slums and the sweatshops, and "recreate the pastroral, village, small township communities." Early Socialism theory contained a huge component of idealism about the perfectibility of man, and how mankind could be brought to an ideal state of happiness if we could just escape the shackles of capitalism.

In fact, the same could be said about Capitalism--Capitalism is in fact a theory about the perfectibility of man. It's about more than just money and profits. Capitalist theory contains a big idealistic component as well: new technologies and labor-saving devices lifting the masses out of poverty, bringing transportation, leisure, cleanliness, and better health to the people, creating a stable, healthy, educated middle class to act as both high-tech workers and willing consumers, etc.

Same with early theories about Democracy, the division of power among the three branches of government, federalism, etc. If you read the original papers of the U.S. Founding Fathers, you see that same idealism: The perfectibility of man, if you can just find the right political formula.

Capitalism, socialism, democracy: All talking about achieving the same goals. The perfectibility of man, the betterment of mankind. So what's the common thread here? Answer: Romanticism.

The Romantic movement started with Rousseau in 1750 and officially lasted about a century. It was all about the perfectibility of mankind if you could just find the right formula that would allow mankind to flourish: Small peasant communities, nature, democracy, whatever. The Romantic ideal was alive and guiding the thinking behind all the great documents and movements of the 1700s and 1800s. Capitalism, Socialism, Democracy, and so on.

In many ways, the Romantic movement is still alive today. The title one of Ayn Rand's books is "The Romantic Manifesto," where she talks about how her political theories are outgrowths of Romanticism: Give man his economic freedom, and he will flourish.

The trouble with Romantic ideals is that they are mostly just ideals. Romantic ideals are very tough to translate into reality. So when you say that Capitalism is a failure, you are correct: It's a failure of early 1800s Romantic theory. Socialism is similarly a failure. Democracy is a failure at times as well. All three systems are Romantic theories that don't work very well when you try to translate them into real life.

So in the end, you have to jigger them a bit, make adjustments, find compromises, etc. No single theoretical system is going to work and bring mankind to Nirvana all by itself. It's all just Romantic theorizing. Reality says: Find compromises between Socialism and Capitalism so that you can curb the worst abuses of each and enjoy some of the benefits of both. Same with Democracy: Sometimes it works; other times (like right now with COVID-19), emergencies arise and democratic principles get thrown out the window in order to deal with those emergencies.

No theory is perfect. They are just guidelines. Ideals. Ultimately it's compromises that win the day. You tinker about and try to find a workable compromise that gets you a consensus, a daily system that everyone can live with.

So I agree with you: Capitalism fails in some ways. And so does Socialism. But if you make some compromises between the two…

Again, just theorizing off the top of my head. Just some brainstorming on a Sunday afternoon.

I am familiar with the arguments that Marx was part of the romantic movement, or socialism rather than Marx maybe, but I'm not entirely sure about it. The romantics didnt like capitalism, called it the dismal science, but largely because they disliked abstract reason a lot, they championed practical reason if they championed reason at all (a lot of them didnt). Their motive in doing so, however, was seeking to approximate an ideal but rather to challenge or cast down an ideal, which they considered out of keeping with true reality.

A course has to be steered, for sure, between so called realpolitik and idealpolitik but where you draw the lines, anyone's guess, I'm not sure what you describe is realism or reality so much as its pragmatism and pragmatic compromise. Which is fine BTW, its no criticism.

 

[Lark]

For me that is irrelevant, authority is authority (laws are just subtype of authority). After all the wet dream of every mafia is that they will eventually become some kind of government in the end. Through which they will protect their "business".







Over the years I told him that a number of times. Maybe in his country he is but not toward mine.

I do not recall you asking if I was a socialist in your country.

I kind of think its amusing that the American extreme capitalists and you eastern european socialists are in total agreement as to what socialism actually is.

 

[Lark]

I understand that communism and socialism are actually different, although related, pointed in the same direction. Communism takes the concept of socialism much further. Every society has shared, public goods that by their nature don't fit with individual ownership. How much of a society's resources that are defined that way would result in degree of socialism, but every society almost has to have some socialist programs. Socialism also does not indicate that there is no individual ownership of property, but that production is community owned. It sounds like it extends the idea of commerce and production to the notion of public good because the efforts engaged in it are community oriented.

Economically there is the question of individual ownership, but that extends to the question of whether an individual can own the efforts, production, and property of another individual. Capitalism allows for individuals to exert ownership over other individuals to some extent - like Walmart's treatment of its employees which includes taking out life insurance policies on them without their knowledge, and not providing benefits like health insurance. That is a kind of exertion of ownership and rights of one individual thwarting another individual's rights.

I would say the opposite of socialism would be in the direction of libertarianism and the opposite of communism would take it further to anarchy. Both Libertarianism and anarchy allow for individual thwarting rights of other individuals because it does not put into place society level safeguards.

There are some brilliant ways in which some writers have tore up that particular script.

Samual Brittan for instance, in his book Capitalism With a Human Face (I think that's the title, he's wrote a few) he writes about a "capitalist road to communism" which I found kind of interesting, he asks what did Marx consider to be communism, well, people have complete command of their labour, were not compelled or coerced by any means to work for anyone else, well, says Brittan, if you had a universal basic income every individual has that freedom, no state ownership, no central plan, not even a welfare state as we know it in sight.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I understand that communism and socialism are actually different, although related, pointed in the same direction. Communism takes the concept of socialism much further. Every society has shared, public goods that by their nature don't fit with individual ownership. How much of a society's resources that are defined that way would result in degree of socialism, but every society almost has to have some socialist programs. Socialism also does not indicate that there is no individual ownership of property, but that production is community owned. It sounds like it extends the idea of commerce and production to the notion of public good because the efforts engaged in it are community oriented.

Economically there is the question of individual ownership, but that extends to the question of whether an individual can own the efforts, production, and property of another individual. Capitalism allows for individuals to exert ownership over other individuals to some extent - like Walmart's treatment of its employees which includes taking out life insurance policies on them without their knowledge, and not providing benefits like health insurance. That is a kind of exertion of ownership and rights of one individual thwarting another individual's rights.

I would say the opposite of socialism would be in the direction of libertarianism and the opposite of communism would take it further to anarchy. Both Libertarianism and anarchy allow for individual thwarting rights of other individuals because it does not put into place society level safeguards.

Yes, this is a way more articulate version of what I was thinking. I want to say I think the opposite is libertarianism, but the aspect that's "opposite" is more like a component of them rather than the whole. Because they're both essentially about protecting individuals, so in that regard they're not opposite. But specifically, the influence they're protecting individuals from is opposite. Libertarianism protects individuals from 'big government' (as I understand it), whereas socialism protects individuals from social Darwinism (where people basically exploit the labor of others to a sociopathic/psychopathic extent).

 

[ceecee]

Yes, this is a way more articulate version of what I was thinking. I want to say I think the opposite is libertarianism, but the aspect that's "opposite" is more like a component of them rather than the whole. Because they're both essentially about protecting individuals, so in that regard they're not opposite. But specifically, the influence they're protecting individuals from is opposite. Libertarianism protects individuals from 'big government' (as I understand it), whereas socialism protects individuals from social Darwinism (where people basically exploit the labor of others to a sociopathic/psychopathic extent).

We there.

 

[Norexan]

If socialism isnt anything other than statism then I'd say you're right but its not, so....

Socialism is statism. All others are form of anarchism. LOL even Social-Democracy is statism.

I kind of think its amusing that the American extreme capitalists and you eastern european socialists are in total agreement as to what socialism actually is.

American capitalists are anarchists too. They don't know anything what the state is and what state can do for the sake of society.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

Just following up on something I said earlier…

I mentioned the "opposites" of Collectivism vs Individualism in one of my posts above. Meanwhile, some posters have said that Individualism is the "opposite" of Socialism.

Carl Jung actually had a lot to say about the "opposites" of Collectivism vs Individualism. (He is pretty much where I got that "opposition" from.) He said that the two extremes of Collectivism vs Individualism have a lot of ramifications for both the individual and society. Remember that he lived through both World Wars and saw the rise of the Nazis, the Communists, and other mass craziness.

Anyway, he saw both extremes as unhealthy. Too much Collectivism, and you get unhealthy mass movements like Nationalism, Nazism, and Communism (political movements that don't follow "rule of law"). To counteract those things, you need independent, free-thinking individuals who are willing to question and challenge those unhealthy ideas. On the other hand, too much Individualism is also bad: Humans are ultimately social and tribal beings, and you can't get too far away from that without hurting yourself.

Here is what he said about the extreme of Collectivism:

"It is a stopgap and not an ideal, either in the moral or in the religious sense, for submission to it always means renouncing one’s wholeness and running away from the final consequences of one’s own being. [...] How could anyone but a god counterbalance the dead weight of humanity in the mass, with its everlasting convention and habit?" He said that if the individual wants to self-actualize and reach their full potential, it entails "the conscious and unavoidable segregation of the single individual from the undifferentiated and unconscious herd. This means isolation, and there is no more comforting word for it."

On the other hand, here is what he said about the extreme of Individualism:

He said, "But individualism is not and never has been a natural development; it is nothing but an unnatural usurpation, a freakish, impertinent pose that proves its hollowness by crumpling up before the least obstacle. What we have in mind is something very different." Instead, he said that the self-actualized person remains a part of society: "In the first place he is part of the people as a whole, and is as much at the mercy of the power that moves the whole as anybody else. The only thing that distinguishes him from all the others is his vocation."

So in the end Jung makes an argument for the middle ground: Compromise. Ultimately the self-actualized person has to find a balance between collectivism and individualism, that is, between the two extremes of becoming such a social butterfly or networker or enabler that you lose yourself in society versus becoming such a total loner that you end up isolated and living in your head. That's why neither extraversion (which tends toward collectivism) nor introversion (which tends toward individualism) is the answer by itself. The answer is in the middle, that is, in finding a balance between the two.

Again, there are political ramifications for this as well. The argument can be made that neither Socialism (collectivism) nor Capitalism (individualism) by itself can provide what man needs. You need a measure of both for wholeness.

Anyway, carry on…

 

[Norexan]

Anyway, he saw both extremes as unhealthy. Too much Collectivism, and you get unhealthy mass movements like Nationalism, Nazism, and Communism. To counteract those things, you need free-thinking individuals who are willing to question and challenge those unhealthy ideas. On the other hand, too much Individualism is also bad: Humans are ultimately social and tribal beings, and you can't get too far away from that without hurting yourself.

Wrong. Socialism cherish science and art so you can be yourself in socialistic state a lot of more INDIVIDUALISTIC (yourself) then in capitalist state where you're simple pawn of some corporation agenda where the system push you to work job you don't like sometimes two or more jobs. I don't see any individualism when you for sake of surviving in the concrete jungle lose yourself.

You just can't do anything what the state consider destructive for the society. Gangs don't exist in socialism.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I do not recall you asking if I was a socialist in your country.

I kind of think its amusing that the American extreme capitalists and you eastern european socialists are in total agreement as to what socialism actually is.

Actually they don't, HC Capitalists mark social-democrats as socialist, what is both simplistic and wrong. While on the extreme left there can be similar hate towards the middle ground since they make "market workable". Not too long ago I was reading one random internet American that thinks that Switzerland is a socialist country due to some social programs. What in my book is ignorant beyond salvation. However typical east European far left surely wouldn't define the country in that way.



I simply find it "wrong" to claim socialist card when here socialists have killed something like hundreds of thousands of people with similar worldviews as yours through decades. For me all of your talking points are social-democracy at best. Although my local social-democrats that are reformed Socialists are still openly hostile to church. They want to undo all deals we have with the Vatican. They want to prevent any tax money going towards church. They want to delete any traces of religion from public education. I mean this is how they acted through years. While on the other hand most of local religious people are horrified of them coming to power, they will even vote for all kinds of shit just to keep them out of power. Therefore long story short if you are going into political theory books too deeply you will miss certain empirical data. Which in my book are very important part of the story. While on the other hand I think you know what the Marx said about religion. It really isn't personal but in my book you have labeled yourself in a wrong way over the years (and constantly bump the topic). However just because you don't want to be a textbook English speaking Capitalist (for valid reasons) that doesn't make you automatically a Socialist by definition.



You asked what is socialism and I answered from my experience and cultural standpoint.

 

[Lark]

Socialism is statism. All others are form of anarchism. LOL even Social-Democracy is statism.

American capitalists are anarchists too. They don't know anything what the state is and what state can do for the sake of society.

How do you define this society you speak of and how does the state do anything for the sake of it?

I think perhaps your thinking on this topic is limited to your present knowledge of it.

There are some books and sources I could recommend to you if you are interested. If you are not that's fine. I just would not be satisfied with some of the answers that you are and I dont think you should stop here in your reading/researches.

I dont think socialism is simply big government, that is too much like what the capitalists like to think and I also dont think that the only choices available to anyone is big government or big business or some mash up between the two. I'm pretty pragmatic but I think pandemics and similar crisis are also opportunities for fresh thinking.

 

[Lark]

Wrong. Socialism cherish science and art so you can be yourself in socialistic state a lot of more INDIVIDUALISTIC (yourself) then in capitalist state where you're simple pawn of some corporation agenda where the system push you to work job you don't like sometimes two or more jobs. I don't see any individualism when you for sake of surviving in the concrete jungle lose yourself.

You just can't do anything what the state consider destructive for the society. Gangs don't exist in socialism.

What is the difference between being a pawn of a corporation and the pawn of a government bureaucracy? What is different between commissars and other sorts of officials like members of the board?

I see you like EminEm, can you tell me who the Soviet EminEm is?

The choice between capitalism and socialism should not be a matter of the same dog with a different collar.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Oh I think the difference between capitalism and socialism are night and day, on paper, in theory.

It’s in the practical application of either where we see the opportunists are always waiting in the wings to corrupt, and where any lofty ideals we hold about either system quickly fall by the wayside. Cronyism and greed always corrupt. Meet the old boss, same as the new boss.

As such, I have trouble defining capitalism as the opposite of socialism, I don’t really see them as opposite poles, rather as two problematic heads of the same beast. We see the heads nipping at one another and assume they’re at odds, while failing to see how both are attached to the same body that tramples people under its feet

 

[Lark]

Actually they don't, HC Capitalists mark social-democrats as socialist, what is both simplistic and wrong. While on the extreme left there can be similar hate towards the middle ground since they make "market workable". Not too long ago I was reading one random internet American that thinks that Switzerland is a socialist country due to some social programs. What in my book is ignorant beyond salvation. However typical east European far left surely wouldn't define the country in that way.



I simply find it "wrong" to claim socialist card when here socialists have killed something like hundreds of thousands of people with similar worldviews as yours through decades. For me all of your talking points are social-democracy at best. Although my local social-democrats that are reformed Socialists are still openly hostile to church. They want to undo all deals we have with the Vatican. They want to prevent any tax money going towards church. They want to delete any traces of religion from public education. I mean this is how they acted through years. While on the other hand most of local religious people are horrified of them coming to power, they will even vote for all kinds of shit just to keep them out of power. Therefore long story short if you are going into political theory books too deeply you will miss certain empirical data. Which in my book are very important part of the story. While on the other hand I think you know what the Marx said about religion. It really isn't personal but in my book you have labeled yourself in a wrong way over the years (and constantly bump the topic). However just because you don't want to be a textbook English speaking Capitalist (for valid reasons) that doesn't make you automatically a Socialist by definition.



You asked what is socialism and I answered from my experience and cultural standpoint.

I've read your views on this topic before and I dont think they are valid. At least not outside the narrow confines of your own country, which you have repeatedly stated is your point of reference and that's fine.

If you are referring to what Marx said about religion as the quote "opium of the people", the whole quote is "opium of the people, the heart of a heartless world". And describing something as opium at the time in which Marx was writing did not hold the almost entirely negative connotations it does now, it would be clearer if it was understood as "sedative" or "medicine". He actually wrote critically about the dissolution of the monasteries during the reformation/modernizing phase of English history. Something overlooked by the authoritarian atheists and totalitarian communist ideologues.

Anyway, as you yourself say, that is all text book sources, important as it is there is also experience. The idea that socialists killing socialists or which ones succeed in doing so and which ones perish proves the validity of them using the term or vindicates their claim to the title is simply stupid. Its a case of might makes right. You can look at any phase of history you choose and you will find people who are "in name only" supporters of some idea. Crooks exploiting ideas as a flag of convenience or who have decided that this or that popular idea is whatever they say it is and then it changes from one day to the next. That is some sort of absolutism whatever colour it chooses for itself.

The whole enmity for religion is something carried over from liberalism and liberal revolutions anyway, the earliest writers to influence socialists like Fuerbach, denied the reality of religion but they always paid some kind of tribute to it, for instance Fuerbach thought that christianity was about love. There where a bunch of socialist precursors during the French Revolution(s) who thought they were or had adopted "christianity as a secular creed".

Anyway, we've been around this discussion before and its made no impression upon you, which is fine, I just dont really see the point in repeating it as you do. I dont think your points invalidate all the writers, movements, history of socialism and socialistic opposition to oppression, in all its shapes, globally. You can try and persuade me, I'm open minded enough, but so far I've not read anything persuasive.

Like I said before I think that the opposite of socialism is individualism, its a little like the difference between extroversion and introversion, although not exactly the same.

 

[Lark]

Oh I think the difference between capitalism and socialism are night in day, on paper, in theory.

It’s in the practical application of either where we see the opportunists are always waiting in the wings to corrupt, and where any lofty ideals we hold about either system quickly fall by the wayside. Cronyism and greed corrupt always corrupt. Meet the old boss, same as the new boss.

There's something in that alright, I remember hearing a great quote about how in "capitalism, man exploits man, and under socialism, it is precisely the opposite"

I think that there has got to be something to the idea besides the political structures or economy that is meant to be its vehicle, at least it seems to be clearer with capitalism and individualism. That is capitalism is meant to be the vehicle or means to the end of individualism. At least that's how it "marches on paper".

 

[Virtual ghost]

I've read your views on this topic before and I dont think they are valid. At least not outside the narrow confines of your own country, which you have repeatedly stated is your point of reference and that's fine.

If you are referring to what Marx said about religion as the quote "opium of the people", the whole quote is "opium of the people, the heart of a heartless world". And describing something as opium at the time in which Marx was writing did not hold the almost entirely negative connotations it does now, it would be clearer if it was understood as "sedative" or "medicine". He actually wrote critically about the dissolution of the monasteries during the reformation/modernizing phase of English history. Something overlooked by the authoritarian atheists and totalitarian communist ideologues.

Anyway, as you yourself say, that is all text book sources, important as it is there is also experience. The idea that socialists killing socialists or which ones succeed in doing so and which ones perish proves the validity of them using the term or vindicates their claim to the title is simply stupid. Its a case of might makes right. You can look at any phase of history you choose and you will find people who are "in name only" supporters of some idea. Crooks exploiting ideas as a flag of convenience or who have decided that this or that popular idea is whatever they say it is and then it changes from one day to the next. That is some sort of absolutism whatever colour it chooses for itself.

The whole enmity for religion is something carried over from liberalism and liberal revolutions anyway, the earliest writers to influence socialists like Fuerbach, denied the reality of religion but they always paid some kind of tribute to it, for instance Fuerbach thought that christianity was about love. There where a bunch of socialist precursors during the French Revolution(s) who thought they were or had adopted "christianity as a secular creed".

Anyway, we've been around this discussion before and its made no impression upon you, which is fine, I just dont really see the point in repeating it as you do. I dont think your points invalidate all the writers, movements, history of socialism and socialistic opposition to oppression, in all its shapes, globally. You can try and persuade me, I'm open minded enough, but so far I've not read anything persuasive.

Like I said before I think that the opposite of socialism is individualism, its a little like the difference between extroversion and introversion, although not exactly the same.

This isn't about my country but the whole second world which actually got it's definition exactly due to policies such as genuine anti-religion. I don't have a problem with your views, it is just that the whole thing is labeled in a wrong way (in my opinion). However I also said in this thread that definitions aren't in sync all over the world.



So let's just say we disagree here and that is it.

 

[Lark]

This isn't about my country but the whole second world which actually got it's definition exactly due to policies such as genuine anti-religion. I don't have a problem with your views, it is just that the whole thing is labeled in a wrong way (in my opinion). However I also said in this thread that definitions aren't in sync all over the world.



So let's just say we disagree here and that is it.

I would say you have difficulty seeing beyond your borders.

Its a different story here, its a different story plenty of other places around the world too but the only experience you consider valid is your own. Still. Whatever gets you through the day.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I would say you have difficulty seeing beyond your borders.

Its a different story here, its a different story plenty of other places around the world too but the only experience you consider valid is your own. Still. Whatever gets you through the day.

That is because fist and third world didn't go nearly as far into experimenting with "socialism" and market/tradition bashing. This isn't just me it is just general social sense that we have more to say on the issue than the others. That is general culture I am afraid.


But it doesn't matter, since I don't really care about the topic that much to argue it to the last detail. As my saga threads says this totalitarian mess is coming right back and what you or me think about certain definitions doesn't matter. Influence of China and similar countries in UK is growing so in worse case scenario you will eventually realize what I was saying.

 

[Norexan]

What is the difference between being a pawn of a corporation and the pawn of a government bureaucracy?

Big. I don't trust corporations. I trust government. I trust the state. Even if my state spy on me I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with extreme individualist (read anarchist)

And for the record: the state can do everything on its territory. The state can take everything under its control without any explanation.

But CAN and WILL are two different verbs. Just because someone has gun that doesn't mean he will kill you.

Power itself is not a treat but what you do with that power

 

[yeghor]

Opposite of socialism = Anti-socialism i.e. a society made up of antisocial people = Anarchy