Is Socialism an Utopia?

Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...

The problem with using such a definition is that everyone will use different criteria to determine if a society is perfect or not, so the term becomes pretty much useless if you want to have a meaningful discussion regarding what different ideologists state is the "best possible" society that will arise if their ideology is followed.
 
Darat said:
The problem with using such a definition is that everyone will use different criteria to determine if a society is perfect or not
Click to expand...

Except that's not the criteria I'm using.

so the term becomes pretty much useless if you want to have a meaningful discussion regarding what different ideologists state is the "best possible" society that will arise if their ideology is followed.
Click to expand...

No, Darat. By your own admission, you definition applies everywhere. In contrast, I have given a clear ideological divide between utopian and non-utopian ideologies. The ability to make such a distinction, along with the real-world consequences of that divide, make my definition useful where yours, because it can be applied everywhere, is useless.
 
The Painter said:
"The problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people's money."
Click to expand...

That was no more funny (or true) the first time I heard it. You don'y have anything identifiabnle as "your money" until you have paid all your utility bills, made your contribution to the infrastructure that allowed you to have any income.

The bad thing about capitalism, per se, is that it appeals to the least desireable characteristic of human kind - the drive to acquire stuff, as much of it as possible, and devil take the hindmost.

Soccialism, in any of its known manifestations, is aimed at ensuring that all get a reasonable share of the resources that the environment has to offer, that all benefit from their labor, and that labor and resources shall be pooled to enhance the available resources for the common good.

This is, to my mind, in keeping with the better characteristics of mankind, especially and specificly with those that raised us up above the common animals.

There is proof in the fossil record that out earliest ancestors acted cooperativelty, rather than competitively. The collective is greater than the individual, but the individual who is part of a c0llective is greater than the soliotaire

The only self-made man is the naked savage running about the bush poking animals with a sharp stick for a living.

An ideal society takes this into account, and tries to find some way to balance the drive to acquire stuff.
 
Ziggurat said:
Except that's not the criteria I'm using.



No, Darat. By your own admission, you definition applies everywhere. In contrast, I have given a clear ideological divide between utopian and non-utopian ideologies. The ability to make such a distinction, along with the real-world consequences of that divide, make my definition useful where yours, because it can be applied everywhere, is useless.
Click to expand...

Then we shall have to agree to disagree.
 
leftysergeant said:
There is proof in the fossil record that out earliest ancestors acted cooperativelty, rather than competitively.
Click to expand...

No there isn't. Cooperation and competition are not mutually exclusive. There is strong evidence our ancestors cooperated, but NO evidence that they did not compete.
 
HansMustermann said:
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...
Click to expand...

Want to know the fastest way to increase that figure? Fire all the low-wage workers. That figure will shoot up. But things won't be any better.

France's labor laws provide strong disincentives to hire low-productivity workers. Figures like this don't mean as much as you might think.
 
leftysergeant said:
The bad thing about capitalism, per se, is that it appeals to the least desireable characteristic of human kind - the drive to acquire stuff, as much of it as possible, and devil take the hindmost.
Click to expand...
The useful thing about capitalism is that it works with a human trait that is in plentiful supply (thanks to evolution or whatever you believe)--namely self-interest. Altruism etc is perhaps a little more scarce, limiting the efficacy of doctrines that require it in its pure form (IE not combined with self-interest)

There is proof in the fossil record that out earliest ancestors acted cooperativelty, rather than competitively.r
Click to expand...
Care to provide it? To be clear you seem to be saying that they co-operated demonstrably more than they competed. I doubt that.

Ziggurat said:
No there isn't. Cooperation and competition are not mutually exclusive. There is strong evidence our ancestors cooperated, but NO evidence that they did not compete.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Moreover there is bountiful evidence everywhere that modern capitalist societies (that sanctify property and contract rights) co-operate stupendously more than folks did in any prior era.
 
Francesca R said:
The useful thing about capitalism is that it works with a human trait that is in plentiful supply (thanks to evolution or whatever you believe)--namely self-interest. Altruism etc is perhaps a little more scarce, limiting the efficacy of doctrines that require it in its pure form (IE not combined with self-interest)
Click to expand...

As evidence that altruism out-weighed self-interest, at least of the individual level, is to be seen in the many fossils available. Individuals so badly injured that they could hardly have stood upright frequently survived and recoivered, even though many of them clearly would have continued to need a great deal of community support. The Homo habilis remains found by Donald Johanson at Oulduvai showed clear indications of totally debilitating bone disease from which the individual recovered. Many of the Dmanisi remains (Homo ergaster? H. erectus?) are clearly geriatric, some to a debilitating extent. There seems only one explanation. Even at that low level of physical evolution, they cared about each other and were willing to donate a good deal of the community wealth to maintaining these people in their old age and infirmity.

Agreed. Moreover there is bountiful evidence everywhere that modern capitalist societies (that sanctify property and contract rights) co-operate stupendously more than folks did in any prior era.
Click to expand...

The record of that is spotty and, since 1980, at least, trending more toward ruthless competition.
 
Cain said:
I can confidently say socialism is NOT an utopia.
Click to expand...

Two votes.

Once again, we see the excluded middle crap again, and lack of acknowledgement of the sliding scale.

You got chocolate on my peanut butter!
No, you got peanut butter on my chocolate!
Where along this continuum does a system fall? What's the mix?

Pure Socialism..................................................................Pure Capitalism

..............↓.............↓...............↓.............↓...............↓...

100......................................................................................0
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Want to know the fastest way to increase that figure? Fire all the low-wage workers. That figure will shoot up. But things won't be any better.

France's labor laws provide strong disincentives to hire low-productivity workers. Figures like this don't mean as much as you might think.
Click to expand...

Nevertheless, France doesn't have a massive unemployment problem either. So those workers have to go _somewhere_, where apparently they're more productive.

The fact is that humans are humans, and France has to figure out a way to use X% of the Y million of people it has. Same as the USA. That figure is at the scale of the whole country, not just of one company.

So if France's laws can create that kind of optimization, yes, I think it says what I thought it does.
 
Relative to what/where? Unemployment in France is usually lower than Germany, (at least, since unification), and about the same as Italy, but generally a couple of % higher than in Japan, the UK or US.
 
Darat said:
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.
Click to expand...

QFT and definitely not nonsense. I think every politics has a vision of what society would be like if there were no ideological competitors and their ideas could be implemented in an unfettered manner: the socialist sees a world where inequality is mild and all the poor are treated with dignity and respect, the Hayek crowd sees a society bequeathed with efficiency wealth and individualism by the glories of the free market, the RedStateUSA sees America returned to a mythical golden age before all the trouble started and the lessons of the founding fathers (as they see them) were polluted by foreign ideas and corruption... etc etc

I don't think socialism therefore has anything about its particular vision that separates it from other political perspectives, in fact, it would be a pretty dry politics and a pretty unimaginative individual that doesn't have some kind of vision of the better world that would result if their particular politics were applied.
 
Considering that the goal of Socialism is to wipe out poverty, through the expectation of wealthy people to give up at least 90 of everything they have, because it is their social duty to pay for the poor because they have a lot more stuff, I'd consider it a utopia.
 
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...
"Everybody" seldom agrees with anything in politics. In best cases a direct majority over 50% agrees with something. Even that situation is rarer than you would expect, because the statistical chance that more than 50% agree with one declared option out of infinite possibilities is very small.

A solution would be giving the followers of major political trends more autonomy about their own affairs, so they would agree with their own decisions, no matter what the other political factions decide about their own economy etc.

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...
Well uhm ahh ehh. Okay, this has happened.

If this described activity is legal in the system, and not technically illegal corruption, then the legislation is not designed to be true Socialism. No Socialism, a false flag operation.
 
The main characteristics of utopia's is that they don't exist.
And there are uncountable versions of socialism.

I like the idea of a country with UHC, good unemployment benefits, and extensive government check on private companies.
Capitalism is useful, but like fire it should not be left unchecked.
 
If this described activity is legal in the system, and not technically illegal corruption, then the legislation is not designed to be true Socialism. No Socialism, a false flag operation.
Click to expand...

It may not be technically legal corruption by that definition, but capitalism has been defined by some socialists as a corrupt system because it allows for the unequal distribution of wealth and control of all wealth in the hands of a few. So whenever there is class division based on unequal wealth division, then it is corruption. If not technically legal then ideological.
 
leftysergeant said:
As evidence that altruism out-weighed self-interest, at least of the individual level, is to be seen in the many fossils available. Individuals so badly injured that they could hardly have stood upright frequently survived and recoivered, even though many of them clearly would have continued to need a great deal of community support. The Homo habilis remains found by Donald Johanson at Oulduvai showed clear indications of totally debilitating bone disease from which the individual recovered. Many of the Dmanisi remains (Homo ergaster? H. erectus?) are clearly geriatric, some to a debilitating extent. There seems only one explanation. Even at that low level of physical evolution, they cared about each other and were willing to donate a good deal of the community wealth to maintaining these people in their old age and infirmity.
Click to expand...

May I ask you if you would care for an aging, ailing disabled Republican? Would you spend money to take care of him, or does your altruism only work for people who think like you?

I see alot of belligerent competitivity in your overall behavior on this forum.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom