Are there any socialists here?

[Reverend Rick]

Are there any socialists here?

A better question would be, is there anyone here who is not a socialist.

 

[Darkness]

I don't even think that is an objective.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Socialism about eliminating classes. That is what I read on Socialist web sites.

 

[Katzpur]

Early Christianity was kind of some sort of socialism. Believers lived together within little communities and would share the wealth among each other, thus demolishing the extremes between rich and poor within their small communities.

So was early Mormonism.

I'd bet socialism would work great in a small community like the one you describe.

You'd think so, but when the Mormons tried it, it didn't. (It wasn't technically "socialism" but a similar system called "the United Order.")

 

[Yerda]

Let it be known that Libertarian Socialism is different from Libertarianism, despite the name. (I believe it is technically a form of Socialism, not Libertarianism) I am a Libertarian and Libertarianism believes in freedom of the people; freedom to have possessions of your own. Libertarian Socialism is the belief that all people should be forcefully equalize. That is repugnant to us Libertarians. We believe everyone should have an "equal" opportunity to better themselves, which is vastly different to forced equalization.

You've posted in the wrong thread then.

 

[Faminedynasty]

Socialism isn't generally about creating classless society. Modern democratic socialism is more about seeing to it that hard work is rewarded with fair wages and that children don't starve on the street. Extremely radical stuff a lot of people aren't ready for.

 

[uu_sage]

Democratic Socialist, or Libertarian Socialist. Largely influenced by reading and studying the works of Upton Sinclair, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, and Marx.

 

[Tigress]

I'd bet socialism would work great in a small community like the one you describe.

Early Christianity was kind of some sort of socialism. Believers lived together within little communities and would share the wealth among each other, thus demolishing the extremes between rich and poor within their small communities.

There are still some Christian groups that retain this lifestyle; groups like the Hutterites, for example, as well as the Amish, and some Old Order Mennonites, etc., and it works well for them. I like the idea of being accountable to, or for one's community in said respect, and I think we could really learn a lot from these groups.

 

[PureX]

That depends on the socialist. Not all socialists think alike. I find the idea of all professions receiving the same wages ridiculous. People need a selfish incentive to work. That might seem wrong, but it is a great affirmation of life.

But your argument against socialism seems to hinge on your defining it in the most extreme way. And in fact the socialism that you are objecting to doesn't actually even exist. I know of no socialist government currently existent that is promoting or implementing the idea that all professions be paid the same.

The basic tenets of Socialism/Communism is that the economy is equalized, everyone gets paid the same, whether or not it is based on career class. But is not the idea of socialism to remove classes?

Apparently you are quite wrong, and this is not a basic tenet of socialism at all, because no socialist government in existence is practicing or promoting such an ideal.

Removing the poor from our society may seem like a good thing, yet it is a double-edge sword. It removes a core element which makes us human. It removes the need to succeed in life. If one is creative enough start a successful business, he cannot command his own destiny under Socialism. He has to follow the wishes of the collective whole. This destroys a "sacred" part of individualism -- a part I am not willing to give up.

I think you are wrong here in several ways. One is that you're assuming that because YOU have a need to succeed in life, that so must everyone else, and in fact this is not true. There are millions of human beings on this planet that are not the least bit interested in "succeeding". And the evidence for this is the simple fact that they are not trying. There are vast numbers of human beings in the world who are content with surviving, procreating, watching their children grow up, and then dying in peace. They are not driven to succeed at anything. They are not driven to do better than anyone else. They are not driven to change things. They will do what they must to survive, and to raise their kids, beyond that they just want to be left in peace.

You speak of the sanctity of individualism, yet you presume all the other individuals in this world want what you want, and think as you think. And they don't. And why should they all have to suffer just because you want the freedom to "succeed"?

And anyway, they aren't demanding that you give up your right or ability to chase success. All they're asking is that your pursuit of success not unduly burden them, which in a capitalist system it most certainly does.

 

[Faminedynasty]

I think that it's worth pointing out that (in regards to the fear that socialism is a system that stops you from pursuing your dreams of success) Socialist Sweden has much greater upward social mobility (ie rags to riches) than the United States does.

 

[Yerda]

There are millions of human beings on this planet that are not the least bit interested in "succeeding". And the evidence for this is the simple fact that they are not trying. There are vast numbers of human beings in the world who are content with surviving, procreating, watching their children grow up, and then dying in peace. They are not driven to succeed at anything. They are not driven to do better than anyone else. They are not driven to change things. They will do what they must to survive, and to raise their kids, beyond that they just want to be left in peace.

It seems to me that people in every society strive to be a valued member of the group. That's possibly analogous to the commercial success or search for celebrity that we find in our developed cultures.

No?

In any case, I expect you'd agree it's still a fruitless criticism of socialism. What compels people to 'succeed' is not always financial reward.

 

[PureX]

It seems to me that people in every society strive to be a valued member of the group. That's possibly analogous to the commercial success or search for celebrity that we find in our developed cultures.

No?

In any case, I expect you'd agree it's still a fruitless criticism of socialism. What compels people to 'succeed' is not always financial reward.

Yes, you've anticipated my response. I do believe that most people wish to be valued and respected as human beings, among their immediate groups (family, friends, community). But this is not commerce. And it's sociology rather than socialism. I don't think it's "success" that these folks are after, it's inclusion.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

For years and years I was socially very liberal but fiscally conservative. Then I started working in adult education and charities. That changed me and my political views now fall under the banner of socialism.

There was a time the UK had public services to really take pride in. Privatisation has eroded our infrastructure. The unions used to have power to protect workers. Now we're a nation of wage slaves. There's no balance.

 

[lombas]

I reject nationalizations and "public companies", but privatization is just a nicer word for the rise of economic fascism.