Is this Socialism

[Regiomontanus]

Perhaps this just proves that it is large societies that are the problem?

Yes! I think Gandhi was on to something (though I disagree with some of the details):

Objects of Sarvodaya Movement:

"The Sarvodaya Movement has as its target the establishment of a whole network of such self-supporting village communities. The family relationships which are confined at present to the blood group will be extended to cover the whole village where distinctions based on race, creed, caste, language and so forth will completely be eliminated. Agriculture will be so planned that all the people will have enough to consume. Industry will be conducted on a cottage basis till all the people in the village are gainfully employed. The needs of the village will be determined by the people of the village themselves, through Village Council, representative of the whole village."

Gandhian philosophy of sarvodaya and its principles | Articles - On and By Gandhi

 

[metis]

As mentioned in the OP, there are various forms of socialism so it's pretty difficult to come up with one definition that fits all.

For one to say that "socialism doesn't work" misses the mark in that all societies today use some socialistic programs as each are what we call "mixed economies", namely a blending of capitalism and socialism to varying degrees. Here in the States, for example, we have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, UPS, and even the United States Armed Forces that are government-run programs.

 

[rocala]

@metis I am glad that you mentioned the military. It is a superb example of an organisation that; serves a common good, has promotion based on merit, considers inheritance as irrelevant and has frequently achieved standards of excellence in multiple fields.

 

[PureX]

This is true IF the boss is appointed by the community.

If all enterprise is owned by the community, who else would appoint the "boss"? Unless it's owned by the community in name, only, but controlled by some other entity. (Which is nearly always the case with any commune of any significant size.)

Perhaps this just proves that it is large societies that are the problem?

The problem is not the size so much as it's our innate human desire to control and exploit everything and everyone round us, for our own gain. There are plenty of dysfunctional families out there. So social dysfunction is not more prevalent in large scale groups then in small ones. It's prevalent is all human groups. And so far, humanity has not managed to enact a social system that is capable of mitigating this.

 

[Spiderman]

USSR stands for " United Socialist Soviet Republics".

It is a manifestation of one of the interpretations of socialism.

I was hoping @Sunstone would see how my understanding of socialism is growing in leaps and bounds!

 

[PureX]

USSR stands for " United Socialist Soviet Republics".

It is a manifestation of one of the interpretations of socialism.

I was hoping @Sunstone would see how my understanding of socialism is growing in leaps and bounds!

View attachment 24475

Just because some dictator calls himself a "socialist" doesn't mean he is, or that his government is. What was called "communism" was in fact just another fascist dictatorship in both the Soviet Union and in China. And it's currently where we are headed in the U.S., even as the others have been forced to moderate.

 

[Spiderman]

Just because some dictator calls himself a "socialist" doesn't mean he is, or that his government is. What was called "communism" was in fact just another fascist dictatorship in both the Soviet Union and in China. And it's currently where we are headed in the U.S., even as the others have been forced to moderate.

So who am I to say that Stalin's interpretation of socialism/Marxism is wrong and yours is right?

 

[PureX]

So who am I to say that Stalin's interpretation of socialism/Marxism is wrong and yours is right?

If you are unable to determine the meaning of these terms for yourself, and must rely on the "honesty" of historical despots like Stalin, then I think you may as well just stop thinking about it all together.

The term "socialism" has it's meaning built into the word: as decisions controlling the well-being of the society would be in the hands of the society effected (not some individual despot and his cronies). The term "communism" would then imply that the control and ownership the social enterprise is in the hands of the community engaged in it (not some local despot and his cronies). While "capitalism" implies that the control of social enterprise is in the hands of the capital investor (again, not some despot and his cronies). When the control of society rests in the hands of a despot and his cronies, and is being maintained by force, we call it a dictatorship, and they are usually totalitarian in that they accept no criticism or resistance. Dictatorships often like to call themselves "socialist" when they are anything but. And some even like to call themselves "communist" when they were anything but. As, in neither instance are they allowing the society or communities they controlled to have any say at all in how they were being controlled, and by whom. Saying that "you own your own home" when you have no say whatever in what home you own or how you are allowed to live in it is not real home ownership. What has often been called "communism" has never really been communism at all. Just as what has often been called "socialism" never really gave their societies any control over their own destiny or well-being, either.