Fall back on, Gestapo

[Peron]

“ . . . a socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the abject worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance.[90]”

 

Winston Churchill. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism)

 

I always understood socialism as "the means of production owned by the people" I never read anywhere were socialism was about destroying social justice or civil liberties. In fact, socialism was always for it.

 

"There will be no war, no crime, no administration of justice, as it is called, no government. Besides there will be neither disease, anguish, melancholy, nor resentment. Every man will seek...the good of all. "

-William Godwin, "Political Justice".

 

Could we have a socialistic government without the need of a political police?

[Mokele]

Yes, it's called "Europe". Pretty much every country there is 'socialist', or at least much closer to it than the US. No political police, better standards of living, more economic stability, etc.

[Peron]

But Europe is not a "true" socialism, that true socialism was tried in the Soviet Union and it suppressed it's people. And finally fell apart.

[bascule]

But Europe is not a "true" socialism, that true socialism was tried in the Soviet Union and it suppressed it's people. And finally fell apart.

 

Russia was not "true" socialism or communism. Russia was a militaristic oligarchy that enslaved its people. A country like Sweden is much closer to "true" socialism than Russia ever was.

[John Cuthber]

The Soviet Union was anything but socialist. It was, at best a parody of socialism.

The "means of production" were owned by a political elite who were a bunch of heartless greedy bastards.

While I don't think that true socialism can really work, it's not a fault of the system per se, it's because people are greedy.

[timo]

I'd consider not really working a pretty significant fault of a system.

[padren]

"From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his needs."

 

The fatal flaw is someone, somewhere as to determine what a person's ability is, and what their needs are. Unfortunately one of the biggest challenges on a personal scale for anyone is answering those questions for themselves. People go from captains of industry to Buddhist monks trying to answer it. People struggle with continuing education or remaining in their current employment all the time, or should they try to become an actor, singer, writer, artist.

 

And a state is supposed to answer that question for everyone from shore to shore? Even if the state could generate the perfect answer for each person it doesn't mean each person would agree or be happy with that answer. Being able to try things and fail is critical to self determination - but when the state needs you to succeed they can't afford you to take risks, even if that's what's most important to you.

 

 

Now, that is of course regarding socialist governments, not socialist policies. Even the fire department is a socialist policy. It's important to differentiate.

[Moontanman]

I have to ask, please excuse me if I seem dense, but isn't everyone equating socialism and communism as the same or at least similar things? Here in the US people are saying socialist in the same way they used to say communist. I used to think there was a real difference between the two but now i wonder if i ever knew anything. Aren't all governments by definition to some extent socialist? If the government takes care of the people in any way at all isn't that at least socialist in a small way? And with the big government bail outs doesn't make government at least partly communistic? What is going on? disinformation? Or simply a game who can call who the worst names?

[Peron]

The Soviet Union was anything but socialist. It was, at best a parody of socialism.

The "means of production" were owned by a political elite who were a bunch of heartless greedy bastards.

While I don't think that true socialism can really work, it's not a fault of the system per se, it's because people are greedy.

 

I always wondered about that, because Soviet Russia wasn't really controlled by the people. Communism was supposed to be a suppression free society, yet Stalin suppressed Christians and men of other religions.

[CaptainPanic]

"From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his needs."

 

The fatal flaw is someone, somewhere as to determine what a person's ability is, and what their needs are.

Indeed. Except that it is not a flaw. It actually works:

 

I live in a socialist country (the Netherlands). Our government currently consists of 3 parties. Labour (the socialists), the Christian democrats and another small Christian party. We have strong worker's unions almost everywhere, and a social backup if you get fired. Employers must have a good reason to lay down someone. Lots of qualifications to fit in the "socialism" category... although socialism isn't the only category that European countries fit in. "Democracy" is another one... and strangely, "capitalism" also fits.

 

So,

 

The "person who determines my abilities" is my boss. He evaluated me before hiring me.

And our government has established a number of minimum "needs" (a house, food, some energy and water, education, and a little extra for the kids). If you're unemployed, all those who do have work will pay for it through social taxes.

 

That's socialism.

 

The system works, and has worked for several decades. I really don't see what the fuss is all about.

 

Unfortunately one of the biggest challenges on a personal scale for anyone is answering those questions for themselves. People go from captains of industry to Buddhist monks trying to answer it. People struggle with continuing education or remaining in their current employment all the time, or should they try to become an actor, singer, writer, artist.

Eh? People just search for a job. You're free to search, you're free to apply, you're free to send your CV and to write a letter. But socialism does not suggest that you can just pick any job you like. Nor does it suggest that the dictator or central party must decide. The standard methods like we are all used to will do fine...

 

And a state is supposed to answer that question for everyone from shore to shore? Even if the state could generate the perfect answer for each person it doesn't mean each person would agree or be happy with that answer. Being able to try things and fail is critical to self determination - but when the state needs you to succeed they can't afford you to take risks, even if that's what's most important to you.

 

Now, that is of course regarding socialist governments, not socialist policies. Even the fire department is a socialist policy. It's important to differentiate.

As I wrote before - socialism does not mean that the government decides where you work, or what you are.

There is no conflict between socialism and freedom.

 

The main idea of socialism is that the working class, mostly employed, but possibly also unemployed, get a proper share of the wealth that is generated by themselves.

[Peron]

Indeed. Except that it is not a flaw. It actually works:

.........

That's socialism.

 

The system works, and has worked for several decades. I really don't see what the fuss is all about.

 

 

But economically it's still capitalistic.

[CharonY]

I think the definition of socialism has become really fuzzy over time. As mentioned earlier the original sense was that the means of production are owned collective by the people and communism. According to Marx and Engels this eventually would lead to the creation of a egalitarian democratic society where decisions were not made by a government, but directly by the people. Needless to say, it never happened.

That being said none of the European countries is truly socialistic (or was, for that matter). Most adopted some flavors of social democracy, which emerged from the socialist movement and therefore have a mixed economy.

[Peron]

Basically, what Robert Owen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen) originally planned, a system where humans work together in a mutual way to support all of society.

 

One of the biggest problems I find with politics, is that it always seems to be based on opinion. Republicans have their opinion and Democrats have their own. I think politics would be better if politicians communicated like scientists do, using facts.

Engineers wouldn't be able to build a plane if the welder stood up and performed a filibuster.

 

Every society should be built on scientific principles. One of he main goals of science is to acquire knowledge so we can benefit ourselves.

[padren]

Indeed. Except that it is not a flaw. It actually works:

 

I live in a socialist country (the Netherlands). Our government currently consists of 3 parties. Labour (the socialists), the Christian democrats and another small Christian party. We have strong worker's unions almost everywhere, and a social backup if you get fired. Employers must have a good reason to lay down someone. Lots of qualifications to fit in the "socialism" category... although socialism isn't the only category that European countries fit in. "Democracy" is another one... and strangely, "capitalism" also fits.

c

 

I thought we were talking about this kind of socialism.

 

Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.

 

 

The "person who determines my abilities" is my boss. He evaluated me before hiring me.

And our government has established a number of minimum "needs" (a house, food, some energy and water, education, and a little extra for the kids). If you're unemployed, all those who do have work will pay for it through social taxes.

 

That's socialism.

 

The system works, and has worked for several decades. I really don't see what the fuss is all about.

That is a mix of capitalist and socialist policies, which simply has a greater percentage of socialist policies than say, the United States. I agree Holland is better for it. The state regulates, but does not control the means of production, nor compensation.

 

Eh? People just search for a job. You're free to search, you're free to apply, you're free to send your CV and to write a letter. But socialism does not suggest that you can just pick any job you like. Nor does it suggest that the dictator or central party must decide. The standard methods like we are all used to will do fine...

 

 

As I wrote before - socialism does not mean that the government decides where you work, or what you are.

There is no conflict between socialism and freedom.

 

The main idea of socialism is that the working class, mostly employed, but possibly also unemployed, get a proper share of the wealth that is generated by themselves.

 

Which is fine and a measure of good socialist policies as a regulated capitalist economy. To find your own employment, negotiate your own wages, own private property and accumulate an uncapped amount of wealth (albeit taxed, but not capped) are all traits of capitalism in your society.

 

 

My point however, is "a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended" is best handled by capitalist aspects of the society with socialistic regulations to help prevent abuse. This is because "labor expended" is a subjective evaluation. Scientific research alone could either be frivolous waste or arduous labor based solely on whether those in charge of compensation see the research as valuable or not.

[JohnB]

CaptainPanic, I doubt that the Netherlands could be classified as a "Socialist" state.

 

From your description it is similar to Australia. A Democratic, Capitalist state with many "Social Justice" policies.

 

We see things like Universal Health Care as the logical extension of Fire Brigade, Police and roads. We believe that the individual should not be exploited, either by unscrupulous employers, power hungry unions or by profit hungry Insurance companies and that it is the job of government to ensure a level playing field. Many Americans simply do not understand this way of looking at things.

 

I came to the conclusion years ago that good governance relies on the balancing of three different forces.

1. Government

2. Capital

3. Unions

 

If any one of these three gains too much power, disaster for industry and/or oppression of the people is invariably the result. To each of those three we say "You can do what you want, provided you stay within the set limits". These limits will vary over time depending on the political needs and will of the people as expressed in elections.

 

In a similar fashion as the American right of "Free Speech" does not extend to yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre.

 

So I would say, social justice yes, but socialist no.

 

The problem in discussions is that many Americans cannot distinguish between the two.