What are the Major Advantages and Disadvantages of Socialism?

[lewisnotmiller]

Under pure Communism (not to be confused with the "communism" of Stalin, China, N. Korea, etc.), the farm is not owned by the government but by the proletariat, who also hold most of the power in society. Also, the farm would be farmed by people who want to farm. This individual who does not want to work hard farming would have the opportunity to find work she finds gainful and fulfilling. It would be partly farmed by people who would farm one year, do something else the next, and then farm again later on.

At the risk of heading a little OT, how do you spread labour amongst the requirements of society? Who supports the arts, and (conversely) what is to stop no talent hacks who have a love for a particular form of the arts working their backsides off to no great effect or value?

(sorry, that's just supposed to be an example, not a literal argument)

 

[Reverend Rick]

I agree. Why should some lazy CEO be allowed to sit in his office and collect the profits the workers produce. We should cut off these parasites and give the rewards to the producers.

A good CEO earns every penny. He answers to the shareholders. To say a CEO does nothing is ignorant. Do you really believe in a greedy society shareholders would not hire a cheaper CEO if they could achieve the same results spending less money?

A CEO is a rainmaker. Without this person no one would have a job.

 

[nazz]

What are the major strengths and weaknesses of Socialism?

well it's interesting that the term "socialism" was originally coined to contrast with "individualism" (as opposed to "capitalism"). So the socialist view is that society as a whole and its welfare outweighs the interests of distinct individuals. That can assure the least advantaged in a society are not taken advantage of by the most advantaged but it can also mean that the freedoms of individuals are unfairly curtailed. In my view we need a balance between the two. Which is why I am a libertarian socialist. Libertarian socialism maintains that the maximal freedom of the individual is just as important as the general welfare of society.

 

[Revoltingest]

well it's interesting that the term "socialism" was originally coined to contrast with "individualism" (as opposed to "capitalism"). So the socialist view is that society as a whole and its welfare outweighs the interests of distinct individuals. That can assure the least advantaged in a society are not taken advantage of by the most advantaged but it can also mean that the freedoms of individuals are unfairly curtailed. In my view we need a balance between the two. Which is why I am a libertarian socialist. Libertarian socialism maintains that the maximal freedom of the individual is just as important as the general welfare of society.

You gave me an idea for a thread.
(You'll regret doing this.)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

At the risk of heading a little OT, how do you spread labour amongst the requirements of society? Who supports the arts, and (conversely) what is to stop no talent hacks who have a love for a particular form of the arts working their backsides off to no great effect or value?

(sorry, that's just supposed to be an example, not a literal argument)

By need. If I had my way, there would be very little manufacturing and mass production, and the needs of society would be legitimate needs.
As for supporting the arts, everyone would be a patron of the arts, both creating their own works and enjoying the works of others.

A good CEO earns every penny. He answers to the shareholders. To say a CEO does nothing is ignorant. Do you really believe in a greedy society shareholders would not hire a cheaper CEO if they could achieve the same results spending less money?

A CEO is a rainmaker. Without this person no one would have a job.

I've worked a few jobs where I have worked so much harder than the CEOs that it isn't even comparable.
And do we really need CEOs, or are they a needless aspect of society that serves to maintaine the status quo and continue class exploitation? If society needs to get something done, we have always managed to get it done, even before suit-wearing CEOs who "work" in an cushioned, climate-controlled office while the workers bust their asses under boiling suns, in freezing winters, all while putting their own health at risk.
CEOs are useless. The proletariat makes the world go round. Without us, a CEO literally has nothing.

 

[Reverend Rick]

SW, if you could stop hating for just a second you would realize both sides need each other. Someone has to pay for the brick and mortar. There is more to production than just labor.

 

[Tarheeler]

SW, if you could stop hating for just a second you would realize both sides need each other. Someone has to pay for the brick and mortar. There is more to production than just labor.

That's true, but there is no requirement for the supplier to be a private individual/corporation making a profit.
The "brick and motor" could just as easily be provided by the community benefiting from the building.

I think this is often where the biggest disconnect in these discussion lies; many people try to imagine socialism in the context of a capitalist society instead of the context of an entirely new system. They try to find mental replacements for the structures and actors that are familiar to them, and that doesn't work well at all.

 

[Reverend Rick]

That's true, but there is no requirement for the supplier to be a private individual/corporation making a profit.
The "brick and motor" could just as easily be provided by the community benefiting from the building.

I think this is often where the biggest disconnect in these discussion lies; many people try to imagine socialism in the context of a capitalist society instead of the context of an entirely new system. They try to find mental replacements for the structures and actors that are familiar to them, and that doesn't work well at all.

Here is the thing, if people want a "new system" then go some place and start the system with willful participants.

The biggest problem with society that I see is many folks are conditioned that they must work for someone else.

As far as Capitalism is concerned, folks who find fault with the system seem to think that capital is the property of everyone.

People who have worked hard all their lives and accumulated something want a rainmaker CEO that gives them a return on their investment.

The function of the CEO is to perform. His salary is dependent on his performance not how hard he works.

People seem to think the function of a company is to provide jobs. The function of a company is to provide a return to the shareholders.

Workers whore their wares. If they ever realized the true value of their labor, they would quit giving it away at a discount.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yeah...my perspective has changed over the years. In Uni, I was definitely a socialist, if not a communist, although I like to think I was pragmatic and reasonably well-read. These days I'm a small businessman. I'll happily employ someone at some point, but the nature of my work makes that tricky. In the meantime, I honestly pay all the taxes I owe, despite my misgivings at how some of that money is used, and in the knowledge that a reduction in those taxes would directly impact on my likelihood to hire staff.

 

[BSM1]

Under pure Communism (not to be confused with the "communism" of Stalin, China, N. Korea, etc.), the farm is not owned by the government but by the proletariat, who also hold most of the power in society. Also, the farm would be farmed by people who want to farm. This individual who does not want to work hard farming would have the opportunity to find work she finds gainful and fulfilling. It would be partly farmed by people who would farm one year, do something else the next, and then farm again later on.

What if they didn't want to work at all?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah...my perspective has changed over the years. In Uni, I was definitely a socialist, if not a communist, although I like to think I was pragmatic and reasonably well-read. These days I'm a small businessman.

Aye, that's the choice I made too. I'd loathe a society wherein government prevented me from such freedom of economic association. (Of course, I like the idea of accumulating wealth too.)

"Socialism" is hard to discuss here because I regularly hear that I have the wrong definition, or that a bad example is something else. But I discern that the one common thread of all flavors of socialism is that some entity (government, the community, the workers, etc) will have the power to prevent my forming voluntary relationships with my fellows. It's always about greater control over our lives. For socialists, that's an advantage. I call it a disadvantage.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Aye, that's the choice I made too. I'd loathe a society wherein government prevented me from such freedom of economic association. (Of course, I like the idea of accumulating wealth too.)

"Socialism" is hard to discuss here because I regularly hear that I have the wrong definition, or that a bad example is something else. But I discern that the one common thread of all flavors of socialism is that some entity (government, the community, the workers, etc) will have the power to prevent my forming voluntary relationships with my fellows. It's always about greater control over our lives. For socialists, that's an advantage. I call it a disadvantage.

Actually, depending on the definition, it doesn't necessarily engender that level of control. But personally, I find the definitions I am aware of that DON'T have that sort of control more idealistic than pragmatic.
I'm a big fan of idealists (honestly) I just don't seem to be in that category to the same level I once was.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, depending on the definition, it doesn't necessarily engender that level of control.

I agree....a "libertarian socialist" could favor forming voluntary socialist relationships. This can be (& is) done within a capitalistic economy. But RF has an official definition which appears to differ....

Socialist: Subscribing to the ideas of public ownership of production and cooperative management of the economy. This ideology can be seen in Marxism, libertarian socialism, social democracy, and others. People who find themselves in this ideology often identify with political organizations such as: Socialist International, Socialist Party USA, Democratic Socialists of America, New Democratic Party (Canada), Social Democratic Party of Germany.

Public ownership would preclude capitalism under the RF definition....

Capitalism: An economic system based on private ownership of capital, resources, production, and systems of distribution. It functions primarily through the use of competitive markets, wage labor, and private property rights. It is affected by the political system it operates under, and can be found in many models such as laissez-faire capitalism, state capitalism, and social-market capitalism.

But personally, I find the definitions I am aware of that DON'T have that sort of control more idealistic than pragmatic.
I'm a big fan of idealists (honestly) I just don't seem to be in that category to the same level I once was.

I'm a fan or foe of idealism, depending upon what the ideals are.

 

[Revoltingest]

We can't see the RF rules with these definitions at the moment, but here's a link to Tarheeler's post introducing them....
Definitions for the restricted political areas. | Religion Forums

 

[nazz]

Aye, that's the choice I made too. I'd loathe a society wherein government prevented me from such freedom of economic association. (Of course, I like the idea of accumulating wealth too.)

"Socialism" is hard to discuss here because I regularly hear that I have the wrong definition, or that a bad example is something else. But I discern that the one common thread of all flavors of socialism is that some entity (government, the community, the workers, etc) will have the power to prevent my forming voluntary relationships with my fellows. It's always about greater control over our lives. For socialists, that's an advantage. I call it a disadvantage.

Lib socialism would not prevent you from forming voluntary relationships.

 

[Tarheeler]

Here is the thing, if people want a "new system" then go some place and start the system with willful participants.

The biggest problem with society that I see is many folks are conditioned that they must work for someone else.

As far as Capitalism is concerned, folks who find fault with the system seem to think that capital is the property of everyone.

People who have worked hard all their lives and accumulated something want a rainmaker CEO that gives them a return on their investment.

The function of the CEO is to perform. His salary is dependent on his performance not how hard he works.

People seem to think the function of a company is to provide jobs. The function of a company is to provide a return to the shareholders.

Workers whore their wares. If they ever realized the true value of their labor, they would quit giving it away at a discount.

No, we think that natural resources and land belong to the community, and labor belongs to those who provide it.
Without those things to exploit, most capital disappears rather quickly.

And capitalism is far from voluntary; your choice is to either "whore your wares" or starve.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

SW, if you could stop hating for just a second you would realize both sides need each other. Someone has to pay for the brick and mortar. There is more to production than just labor.

Brick and mortar, as in a home, why should we have to have money to have one? People had homes long before you had to buy one with money. You almost always here promises of having more with private-property based economies (from Locke to contemporary sources), yet they do not discuss the cost of more, which is that someone else will have less. People believe "owning" something increases responsibility, but it doesn't. The more we own, the more we destroy. The more we produce, the more we consume, the more we waste.
Actually, we don't need Capitalism. If anything, it has hastened our own demise.

What if they didn't want to work at all?

People tend not to like free loaders.

 

[nazz]

What if they didn't want to work at all?

then they are are on their own

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, we think that natural resources and land belong to the community, and labor belongs to those who provide it.
Without those things to exploit, most capital disappears rather quickly.

And capitalism is far from voluntary; your choice is to either "whore your wares" or starve.

It seems many do not realize Capitalist wage labor is forced labor. Even if you are a talented artist, you give yourself to a Capitalist, or starve. The working class works a menial job with no satisfaction, highly dull and repetitious, or starves. When you're only hovering above the bottom, you work jobs that are degrading and do not allow you to hold onto your dignity, and you still starve. When you are at the bottom, if the community isn't giving, your only choice is government assistance, which which can be difficult to get. It used to be we just took care of each other, and even pre-modern homo sapiens took care of the disadvantaged.
And if you have no skills to whore out, even though you still contribute to society, you are really screwed.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The biggest problems I can think of with socialism is which type to implement and how to implement it.