Is Socialism an Utopia?

Ron_Tomkins

Satan's Helper
Ron_Tomkins
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
44,024
The reason I ask is because I recognize that I have a lack of knowledge on many aspects of politics and economics, and this seems a crucial aspect.

So it all started with a conversation between me and a friend. This friend of mine is a socialist and I greeted him with this joke I have about an imaginary Bus that goes around putting burglars behind bars.

He said something in the lines that the real people who need to be put behind bars are the people in charge of corporations that exploit workers. He also added that he didn't support Private Property as a mechanism that works, because Private Property is always about exploitation. He said that in all types of work that are salary based, the "boss" (the one who pays) is taking ownage of part of the work that the workers do; and that the only thing that makes this possible is the Private Property industry.

I asked him if there were any Countries that had already reached this type of Socialism, that he considered role models and he said: The Soviet Union until 1953, Cuba, Yugoslavia and Hungary.


It is my belief that trying to come up with a system in which there are no differences in class is an utopia. However, I agree, it would be great if there were no such differences. It would be great if there were no rich people exploiting poor people. And I understand that that's where the rationale starts from: Since there has to be a difference of classes for the rich man to exploit the poor man, then we must eliminate such differences. There must be no ranks. But I think this is an utopia.

I don't know.

Thoughts?
 
The problem I can see is that Socialism can only be a Utopia if it is something that everybody agrees to.

And the other problem is that even in Socialist countries, you still have class division. The people who control the wealth are the ones who have the most power and are often far wealthier than the people they say they are spreading the wealth to.
 
Eyeron said:
The problem I can see is that Socialism can only be a Utopia if it is something that everybody agrees to.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand why. Maybe I was using the wrong word. What I meant by Utopia was "an ideal". Such ideal, I think, may or may not be shared by everybody. That wouldn't change the fact that it's still nothing but an ideal (more specifically a non realistic ideal).

In fact, I would think that the closest thing a non realistic ideal could ever come to becoming materialized is precisely if everyone agreed on it. Then, perhaps everyone could agree to live a fantasy together. A sort of shared delusion (and the history of myths and religion certainly has proved that that can be the case).

Eyeron said:
And the other problem is that even in Socialist countries, you still have class division. The people who control the wealth are the ones who have the most power and are often far wealthier than the people they say they are spreading the wealth to.
Click to expand...

That sounds interesting. Is there any material where I could read more and expand on that? Because that's the kind of things I wanted to communicate my friend: I think that no matter what, there are always going to be such differences. You cannot have a completely homogenic society, in terms of social classes (or anything for that matter). I also believe that there has to be ways that someone can make more money without having to exploit other people. But my friend insists that you can't have it both ways: That there is absolutely no way you could end up having more capital than other people, without having become an exploiting capitalist. That issue seems to be at the core of Socialist thinking.
 
any society where no one is homeless, everyone has a job, everyone has health-care, everyone can pay their bills, and everyone has relatively happy....sure is Utopia.

but thats not socialism. its Social-democracy with a strong welfare state and a social-market economy/mixed economy.
 
parky76 said:
any society where no one is homeless, everyone has a job, everyone has health-care, everyone can pay their bills, and everyone has relatively happy....sure is Utopia.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I saw that episode of Star Trek...;)

It could actually work, as the means are there, but I seriously doubt if it will happen in today's political landscape. People want to have the opportunity to actually be Bill Gates, even when they are purchasing their next lotto ticket on the way home from the liquor store to their mobile home, getting ready for the next "tea bag" rally...:confused:
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
He also added that he didn't support Private Property as a mechanism that works, because Private Property is always about exploitation.
Click to expand...

Ask him for his car keys for a minute.

Sit in his car's driver's seat and tell him you're taking the car for a ride.

When he asks, "where?", say, "What do you care? Thanks for the keys!"

When he says, "but it's my car, you can't just take it", remind him that he just said that private property is always about exploitation, and he doesn't want to be an evil exploiter, does he?
 
Skeptic said:
Ask him for his car keys for a minute.

Sit in his car's driver's seat and tell him you're taking the car for a ride.

When he asks, "where?", say, "What do you care? Thanks for the keys!"

When he says, "but it's my car, you can't just take it", remind him that he just said that private property is always about exploitation, and he doesn't want to be an evil exploiter, does he?
Click to expand...

He probably doesn't own a car, you know, those evil fossil fuels and all...
 
I think we need to define "socialism", first.
A completely classless society (one definition of "socialism") is doomed to failure, IMO. Humans do, in fact, respond to incentives with productivity.

But if "socialism" is defined as having stuff like single-payer healthcare, progressive taxation, and a strong communal "safety net" for people in times of misfortune? Then sure. That works. And is comparatively Utopian in a good and plausible way.
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
He said something in the lines that the real people who need to be put behind bars are the people in charge of corporations that exploit workers. He also added that he didn't support Private Property as a mechanism that works, because Private Property is always about exploitation. He said that in all types of work that are salary based, the "boss" (the one who pays) is taking ownage of part of the work that the workers do; and that the only thing that makes this possible is the Private Property industry.
Click to expand...
This is a really nefarious way of looking at things. People are paid market wages for their work. Iam an employee for a company. By allowing my capitalist bosses to "exploit" me, i.e., work for wages, I am able to afford a very comfortable middle-class lifestyle. I have no doubt that I would be much poorer if I didn't have access to a capitalist who wanted to exploit my labor.

I asked him if there were any Countries that had already reached this type of Socialism, that he considered role models and he said: The Soviet Union until 1953, Cuba, Yugoslavia and Hungary.
Click to expand...
Your friend seems to be a fan of Stalin, who died in 1953. I think that it is almost universally agreed that Stalin was a terrible dictator and the Soviet Union under Stalin was an awful place to live. There were massive famines and gulags.
 
Your friend is not a socialist. He is a communist. And private property rights are not exploitation: they protect the little guys, the people who don't have political connections or lots of money. Those guys can always come out on top, and they can exploit the little guys far more in the absence of property rights than they ever can with it. If you have no property rights and no connections, people can do anything to you, and there's nothing you can do to stop it. The history of the nations your friend cites are living proof of the lie that abolishing property rights protects anyone.
 
According to the proponents of any ideology the end result is a utopia. The problem of course is that no ideology is an accurate model of how the world actually works so in practise following the dictates of an ideology will not result in an utopia.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
According the proponents of any ideology the end result is a utopia.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Only ideologies which posit the perfectibility of man consider utopia as their end result. If you think man is inherently flawed and can never be made perfect, then while you may think that the world can reach a best state by following your ideology, it still won't be a utopia.

And yes, the difference between ideologies which posit the perfectibility of man and those which do not is quite real, quite profound, and has massive real-world consequences.
 
Ziggurat said:
Nonsense. Only ideologies which posit the perfectibility of man consider utopia as their end result. If you think man is inherently flawed and can never be made perfect, then while you may think that the world can reach a best state by following your ideology, it still won't be a utopia.

And yes, the difference between ideologies which posit the perfectibility of man and those which do not is quite real, quite profound, and has massive real-world consequences.
Click to expand...

Not nonsense, however if you want to use a definition of utopian which simply means "perfection" then please feel free to do so, it's a not a definition I will be using.
 
Darat said:
Not nonsense, however if you want to use a definition of utopian which simply means "perfection" then please feel free to do so, it's a not a definition I will be using.
Click to expand...

I'm using a definition which matches the origin of the name. Which doesn't require perfection, but does require a view of human nature which not all ideologies share. If you want to redefine it as meaning merely the best achievable result, well, you've stripped it of its significance.
 
Well, the problem is that it's not an all or nothing situation. At least a certain kind of typical USA propaganda seems to be an OCPD exercise, i.e., suffer from an excluded middle: you're either right wing all the way, or it's the worst stalinist redefinition of socialism.

In reality, most of western european socialism has moved towards a more mixed model. Sometimes called "social democrat" rather than "socialist".

Can it work? Well, Germany seemed to work OK ever since WW2 with a "social market economy" model, which is just such a hybrid. France is a major economic power too, and it's pretty left wing. And I don't just mean wellfare and health care. The government of France owns extensive chunks of key industries, like railway, and is a major investor in a lot of companies and funds a lot of their research. And not just weapons and military: they own a chunk of TFT patents, for example.

And neither ended up hanging CEOs or whatnot.

In fact, in some aspects you just have to wonder. For example one of the most waved around aspects of unrestricted all-out capitalism is that it motivates people. Well, France has the highest productivity per hour worked of the G8 countries. Hmm...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom