Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Starver]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  That's nothing like Socialism at all!!!!1111oneoneone1111!!!!!

j/k

[PremierMeridian]

In short, no Socialism isn't that bad. Here in England we had a very good socialist government after the second world war. Just as the economy was in recovery the Conservative party gets back in power due to a bizarre turn of events due to our FTTP system.

Labour even had more votes than the Tories. How is that fair/democratic? That government could have been a MAJOR evidence in support of Socialism.

PURE Communism is possible too, in small communities. After the Franco-Prussian war the Commune d'Paris liberated Paris for a few weeks before the Imperialist French army moved in and destroyed it.

Which is a shame because the Commune was EXACTLY what Marx wanted. People working together, working for the greater good, not for themselves. It's because people were determined for Communism/Anarchism, they, in their purest form, are the same in many ways. I suppose it was because they had a dream of a perfect society and they weren't alienated from their Labour.

[mainiac]

Even accepting the premise that pure communism is possible, is it desirable?  After all, not even Marx was a fan of the idea:

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

I agree with Marx on this one.  Pure communism would be great if we were living in a Star Trek world without scarcity.  But we don't live in a world without scarcity.

[thobal]

But we don't live in a world without scarcity.

Been inside a walmart lately?

I mean, sure, we cant all have servants 24/7. But people keep talking about scarcity without actually doing the math. The truth is, we could feed, house, and clothe everyone on the planet. There are enough resources, the money to do it is just in the hands of a few people who aren't willing to share.

I mean, just think of what would happen to the armaments industry if everyone had all the food, water and shelter they needed!

[mainiac]

Sure, I'll agree that we live in a world of abundance.  But that's not exactly the same thing as a world without scarcity.  It still takes quite a bit of sweat to make the things that we do have and there are thing that we don't have as much of.

[thobal]

But things were scarce on star trek. I mean, strips of gold pressed latinum dont grow on trees, you know.

[mainiac]

Well, I think there's a difference between gold pressed latinum (a currency) and good living conditions, unlimited medical care and personal autonomy.  If mankind has everything that it needs except for money, it doesn't really need money now, does it?

[Another]

Well, I think there's a difference between gold pressed latinum (a currency) and good living conditions, unlimited medical care and personal autonomy.  If mankind has everything that it needs except for money, it doesn't really need money now, does it?

Some people don't. Mankind as a whole does.

Ever heard about such things as pride, envy and sloth? They are inseparable from mankind and together would cause any perfect no-scarcity society to degenerate in 1-2 generations at max. And that is before taking into consideration people who actively seek harm to others. Mankind can never have everything it needs.

Of course satisfying all the basic needs of every individual will greatly improve quality of living in such society for everyone. That is a socialistic goal no matter what the people implementing it call themselves. But there are quite a lot of not so basic needs (called luxury in simple 2-side economic theories) with no clear line between basic and not basic. Satisfying every need of every person (or organizing for no persons with unsatisfiable wishes to exist in the most extreme cases - historically it was attempted) is an officially stated communistic goal and will IMHO never be even close to happening for sufficiently large groups of people (100+?) or for sufficiently large time (20+ years?).