What is wrong with Socialism, or Marxism?

[Debater Slayer]

Oh, no...not the oxymoronic "libertarian socialism" again.
There is too little common ground for discussion based
upon using such terminology.

I was saying that my position has more common ground with social democracy than with libertarianism. If you think libertarian and market socialism are "oxymoronic," though, you're free to bring up that objection with socialists who subscribe to either (partially including me) and ask them why they use either label.

Do you think it's better to ask those people questions and understand their positions or to just dismiss the beliefs as "oxymoronic" right out of the gate merely based on the labels?

 

[Revoltingest]

I was saying that my position has more common ground with social democracy than with libertarianism. If you think libertarian and market socialism are "oxymoronic," though, you're free to bring up that objection with socialists who subscribe to either (partially including me) and ask them why they use either label.

Do you think it's better to ask those people questions and understand their positions or to just dismiss the beliefs as "oxymoronic" right out of the gate merely based on the labels?

It doesn't portend productive discussion.
We've tried before.

 

[Left Coast]

I don't believe that most utilities and means of production should be privately owned, but how to achieve public ownership thereof is the question. I don't believe the state can be trusted to act "on behalf of the people" and seize private enterprise and property as in a Marxist-Leninist system, for example.

Makes it tough to achieve socialist goals sans a state. Marx understood that.

According to whom is opposition to private enterprise a central tenet of socialism (which, as you correctly pointed out, is an umbrella term)?

The dictionary:

pri·vate en·ter·prise
/ˌprīvət ˈen(t)ərˌprīz/

noun

business or industry that is managed by independent companies or private individuals rather than by the state.
"a boom in private enterprise"

Socialism

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.



Now, you can argue for shades of grey between the two, but the basic ideologies are in conflict at opposite ends of the spectrum. One advocates for public ownership, one advocates for private.

It is a central tenet of Marxism-Leninism

Ie, Socialism Classic. Yes I know.

and some other socialist schools of thought, to be sure, but not all socialists are of that disposition.

You're really trying to split hairs to avoid the obvious here. Socialist ideologies oppose capitalism. That's what makes them socialist, instead of capitalist. We can discuss shades of grey, but let's at least get fundamentals down.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Makes it tough to achieve socialist goals sans a state. Marx understood that.

That has been a subject of debate for at least a century, but I'll stand by my position because I don't believe that giving the state enough power to seize property and micromanage the economy could ever turn out well. Human nature simply precludes that idea from being workable without causing immense suffering and abuse.

The dictionary:

pri·vate en·ter·prise
/ˌprīvət ˈen(t)ərˌprīz/

noun

business or industry that is managed by independent companies or private individuals rather than by the state.
"a boom in private enterprise"

Socialism

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.



Now, you can argue for shades of grey between the two, but the basic ideologies are in conflict at opposite ends of the spectrum. One advocates for public ownership, one advocates for private.

A dictionary definition couldn't possibly be exhaustive of the various schools of thought within a political ideology as diverse and as old as socialism, although I have already said this, which touches on the above:

I don't believe that most utilities and means of production should be privately owned, but how to achieve public ownership thereof is the question. I don't believe the state can be trusted to act "on behalf of the people" and seize private enterprise and property as in a Marxist-Leninist system, for example.

I also believe that public (not state, but public) ownership of certain utilities and means of production is a good goal to strive for, but that would be parallel to the availability of private enterprise rather than exclusive of it.

In many cases, I don't see the existence of private and public ownership as mutually exclusive. Does this explain why I haven't engaged in that dichotomy of choosing between either? A state could provide health insurance to citizens as a basic right, but a private company could also exist and offer its own insurance plans to those willing and able to pay.

Ie, Socialism Classic. Yes I know.

I care little what you call it as long as you recognize that it doesn't represent the position of all socialists.

You're really trying to split hairs to avoid the obvious here. Socialist ideologies oppose capitalism. That's what makes them socialist, instead of capitalist. We can discuss shades of grey, but let's at least get fundamentals down.

I "oppose capitalism" in the sense of believing that society should try to move toward public ownership of utilities and specific means of production as well as far more equitable distribution of wealth (while still allowing private enterprise and not preventing individuals from becoming wealthy through it), which is why I don't call myself a social democrat or any other form of capitalist. My opposition doesn't mean I support using the force of the state to seize property, micromanage the economy, or ban private enterprise, though.

 

[Left Coast]

That has been a subject of debate for at least a century, but I'll stand by my position because I don't believe that giving the state enough power to seize property and micromanage the economy could ever turn out well. Human nature simply precludes that idea from being workable without causing immense suffering and abuse.

On that we agree!

A dictionary definition couldn't possibly be exhaustive of the various schools of thought within a political ideology as diverse and as old as socialism, although I have already said this, which touches on the above:

A dictionary definition provides a basic, fundamental starting point. If your understanding of a concept opposes even its most basic dictionary meaning, we're in trouble if we hope to have a coherent conversation.

In many cases, I don't see the existence of private and public ownership as mutually exclusive. Does this explain why I haven't engaged in that dichotomy of choosing between either? A state could provide health insurance to citizens as a basic right, but a private company could also exist and offer its own insurance plans to those willing and able to pay.

Yes, I do understand. That's what happens today in mixed market countries.

I care little what you call it as long as you recognize that it doesn't represent all socialists.

It represents the vast majority (particularly if we're looking at how socialism has been tried historically). And again, it represents a basic feature of the ideology. If socialists don't oppose capitalism in favor of public ownership, what is it they espouse?

Imagine someone saying that being Republican doesn't mean you must support Trump. Yes, that's true technically. But we all understand the on-the-ground reality that the vast majority of them do.

I "oppose capitalism" in the sense of believing that society should try to move toward public ownership of utilities and specific means of production as well as far more equitable distribution of wealth (while still allowing private enterprise and not preventing individuals from becoming wealthy through it), which is why I don't call myself a social democrat or any other form of capitalist. My opposition doesn't mean I support using the force of the state to seize property, micromanage the economy, or ban private enterprise, though.

If you want the public to own the means of production of some industry, that means micromanaging that sector of the economy (literally). It also means banning private enterprise in that sector, unless you're talking about public ownership of just part of the means of production. So again, in practice this sounds less and less like any orthodox classic Marxism and more like a modern mixed economic model.

 

[Yerda]

Oh, no...not the oxymoronic "libertarian socialism" again.
There is too little common ground for discussion based
upon using such terminology.

...In the mid-20th century, American right-libertarian[35] proponents of anarcho-capitalism and minarchism co-opted[13] the term libertarian to advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources.[36] The latter is the dominant form of libertarianism in the United States.[34] This new form of libertarianism...

This is what happens when you take the dictionary as political philosophy.

 

[Colt]

I would like to ask all the staunchest defenders of Laissez-faire and neo-liberism, why they think socialism is a bad idea.
But also defenders of Socialism and Marxism can express their take and strengthen or correct the OP.

Also from a spiritual point of view.
I think that we live in a over-exploited world. And Capitalism has pushed people to over-exploit the planet, so we need to re-think of ourselves as co-workers of social justice.
And not makers of inequality and injustice.

This ephemeral life is meaningless if it's all dedicated to over-exploitation of resources, which is fomented by greed.

Thank yous for your answers

Socialism relies first on the success of Capitalism! The state confiscates and redistributes the production of capitalist enterprises and workers in order to subsidize its idealism. Eventually the parasitical state becomes a cancer, choking off the lifeblood of its revenue streams!

 

[Stevicus]

I have noticed a considerable resurgence of Cold War rhetoric following the rise of "communist" China (which now has some of the world's biggest corporations and private enterprises; go figure!) as a peer to the US and the relative popularity of Bernie Sanders and AOC among many voters, whose level of popularity might have been unthinkable a few decades ago. I expect this kind of rhetoric to intensify and help develop the current US-China tensions into a second full-blown Cold War.

I don't think the US will have a self-identified socialist president anytime soon, if ever, but it's clear from surveys and election results that the label currently doesn't immediately put off as many voters or potential voters (e.g., Millennials and Gen Z'ers) as it did decades ago.

The funny thing about it is that, during the McCarthy era and a time when there was practically a national panic over "godless communism," the thing that bugged people the most was the "godless" part. However, people still supported better wages and working conditions, and overall, the standard of living improved for working people during this period. The U.S. was far more supportive of labor unions back in the 50s and 60s, too. When I was a kid, our family didn't have to pay a dime in medical bills or insurance, since employers paid for everything back in those days. Schools were also far better, relatively speaking.

So, back in those days, America was very decidedly anti-communist and actively engaged in global containment of international communism, yet far more friendly and decent towards working classes and was far more amenable to reform (such as the Civil Rights Act and LBJ's Great Society). But by the Reagan era, capitalists did a 180° turn and made a concerted effort to try to undo most of the reforms of the previous 40-50 years.

America was doing fine, and capitalism was doing fine, until Reagan, Greenspan, et al., decided to screw it all up - and for no other reason other than blind, unmitigated greed. That's why I oppose capitalism now. A Keynesian, liberalized model of capitalism (such as under FDR) would still be capitalism, but capitalists won't even compromise on that. They won't even agree with minor tweaks, like wage and price controls. From my experience, many (if not most) capitalists have become far too stubborn and intransigent in the past several decades, unwilling to accept even moderate reforms.

 

[lukethethird]

The funny thing about it is that, during the McCarthy era and a time when there was practically a national panic over "godless communism," the thing that bugged people the most was the "godless" part. However, people still supported better wages and working conditions, and overall, the standard of living improved for working people during this period. The U.S. was far more supportive of labor unions back in the 50s and 60s, too. When I was a kid, our family didn't have to pay a dime in medical bills or insurance, since employers paid for everything back in those days. Schools were also far better, relatively speaking.

So, back in those days, America was very decidedly anti-communist and actively engaged in global containment of international communism, yet far more friendly and decent towards working classes and was far more amenable to reform (such as the Civil Rights Act and LBJ's Great Society). But by the Reagan era, capitalists did a 180° turn and made a concerted to try to undo most of the reforms of the previous 40-50 years.

America was doing fine, and capitalism was doing fine, until Reagan, Greenspan, et al., decided to screw it all up - and for no other reason other than blind, unmitigated greed. That's why I oppose capitalism now. A Keynesian, liberalized model of capitalism (such as under FDR) would still be capitalism, but capitalists won't even compromise on that. They won't even agree with minor tweaks, like wage and price controls. From my experience, many (if not most) capitalists have become far too stubborn and intransigent in the past several decades, unwilling to accept even moderate reforms.

Exactly, deregulated capitalism sucks.

 

[Revoltingest]

The funny thing about it is that, during the McCarthy era and a time when there was practically a national panic over "godless communism," the thing that bugged people the most was the "godless" part. However, people still supported better wages and working conditions, and overall, the standard of living improved for working people during this period. The U.S. was far more supportive of labor unions back in the 50s and 60s, too. When I was a kid, our family didn't have to pay a dime in medical bills or insurance, since employers paid for everything back in those days. Schools were also far better, relatively speaking.

So, back in those days, America was very decidedly anti-communist and actively engaged in global containment of international communism, yet far more friendly and decent towards working classes and was far more amenable to reform (such as the Civil Rights Act and LBJ's Great Society). But by the Reagan era, capitalists did a 180° turn and made a concerted to try to undo most of the reforms of the previous 40-50 years.

America was doing fine, and capitalism was doing fine, until Reagan, Greenspan, et al., decided to screw it all up - and for no other reason other than blind, unmitigated greed. That's why I oppose capitalism now. A Keynesian, liberalized model of capitalism (such as under FDR) would still be capitalism, but capitalists won't even compromise on that. They won't even agree with minor tweaks, like wage and price controls. From my experience, many (if not most) capitalists have become far too stubborn and intransigent in the past several decades, unwilling to accept even moderate reforms.

That's quite the pollyanna view of 50s & 60s....all rainbows
& unicorns. Now it's Hell on Earth. I see almost the opposite.

 

[Revoltingest]

Exactly, deregulated capitalism sucks.

Suffocating socialism is even worse.

 

[Debater Slayer]

A dictionary definition provides a basic, fundamental starting point. If your understanding of a concept opposes even its most basic dictionary meaning, we're in trouble if we hope to have a coherent conversation.

Sure, and I have explained why I use the label and how my support for public ownership of specific means of production doesn't preclude private enterprise.

Yes, I do understand. That's what happens today in mixed market countries.

As far as I know, most of them have no plans or goals to move toward expanding public ownership of utilities or means of production. They're also currently operating using unsustainable and highly exploitative systems, and the Global South has been footing a large part of that bill for decades (France and the US being prime offenders in this regard).

It represents the vast majority (particularly if we're looking at how socialism has been tried historically). And again, it represents a basic feature of the ideology. If socialists don't oppose capitalism in favor of public ownership, what is it they espouse?

I don't know that it represents the vast majority of socialists today, but whether or not it does has no bearing on my own position. It also represents one approach to achieving public ownership, which is to use a totalitarian state. To reduce the entirety of socialism to this would be to dismiss the beliefs of all socialists who support democracy, freedom, and individual incentives—including socialists who were purged by Stalin and other dictators, or someone like George Orwell who was a prominent critic of the USSR and also a vocal democratic socialist.

Imagine someone saying that being Republican doesn't mean you must support Trump. Yes, that's true technically. But we all understand the on-the-ground reality that the vast majority of them do.

I wouldn't automatically assume a Republican supported Trump even if the majority did; I would prefer to hear what they had to say instead of making such an assumption. Either way, though, socialists exist in many countries around the world, and their worldviews are bound to be far more divergent from one another than those of the supporters of a single political party in a single country.

It's probably moot to try to make claims about the beliefs of the "vast majority" of socialists considering how globally widespread they are and the lack of current evidence beyond anecdotes about that.

If you want the public to own the means of production of some industry, that means micromanaging that sector of the economy (literally).

Only if I treat the state as synonymous with the public, which I explicitly don't.

It also means banning private enterprise in that sector, unless you're talking about public ownership of just part of the means of production.

I've already said that I don't support banning private enterprise as an alternative option for things like health insurance—the keyword being "alternative," not practically the only option like in the US.

So again, in practice this sounds less and less like any orthodox classic Marxism and more like a modern mixed economic model.

I've called myself a socialist, though, not any sort of "orthodox classic Marxist." This is what I said about the latter earlier on in this thread:

I think it's also highly rigid as an economic and political theory, especially due to assuming that all societies will follow a similar trajectory or desire revolution. It's no surprise that Marxist concepts are currently much more relevant in sociology than they are in economics or political science.

A lot of damage has been done to the reputation of the socialist label since the 20th century both due to the policies of dictatorships based on Marxism-Leninism or an offshoot thereof (e.g., Stalinism and Maoism) and anti-socialist propaganda in the US during the Cold War. There hasn't been a single self-professed socialist state other than those, and many socialists and communists who opposed the totalitarian policies were purged by Stalin and other dictators.

 

[Stevicus]

That's quite the pollyanna view of 50s & 60s....all rainbows
& unicorns. Now it's Hell on Earth. I see almost the opposite.

Call it whatever you want, but it doesn't change the fact that real wages grew significantly during that period, along with an improved standard of living and a more union-friendly, worker-friendly culture - along with a political culture far more conducive towards reform and social justice than we've seen since.

 

[Revoltingest]

Call it whatever you want, but it doesn't change the fact that real wages grew significantly during that period, along with an improved standard of living and a more union-friendly, worker-friendly culture - along with a political culture far more conducive towards reform and social justice than we've seen since.

Just piling on the pollyanna isn't convincing.
I see positive change where you don't.

 

[Left Coast]

As far as I know, most of them have no plans or goals to move toward expanding public ownership of utilities or means of production.

Which is why I said they're capitalist systems with socialistic features.

They're also currently operating using unsustainable and highly exploitative systems, and the Global South has been footing a large part of that bill for decades (France and the US being prime offenders in this regard).

We can discuss "the Global South" another time. It really has nothing to do with the present discussion.

I don't know that it represents the vast majority of socialists today, but whether or not it does has no bearing on my own position. It also represents one approach to achieving public ownership, which is to use a totalitarian state.

And virtually the only approach ever tried beyond small-scale local efforts. To pretend this is not the case is to erase the history of the movement.

To reduce the entirety of socialism to this would be to dismiss the beliefs of all socialists who support democracy, freedom, and individual incentives—including socialists who were purged by Stalin and other dictators, or someone like George Orwell who was a prominent critic of the USSR and also a vocal democratic socialist.

To reduce the entirety of socialism to opposing capitalism is: accurate. Literally the entire point of the origin of socialism was to propose an alternative economic system that opposed capitalism. The only realistic vehicle for public means of ownership on a broad scale is through governmental ownership. Which is why socialists call for exactly that over and over and over and over again.

It's probably moot to try to make claims about the beliefs of the "vast majority" of socialists considering how globally widespread they are and the lack of current evidence beyond anecdotes about that.

It's not moot to look in history at how socialism has been tried in reality rather than in the minds of denizens of the internet.

Only if I treat the state as synonymous with the public, which I explicitly don't.

No, even if you don't, ownership and management of a sector of the economy requires "micromanagement." The bill stops with you if you own it. Particularly if you own all of it.

I've already said that I don't support banning private enterprise as an alternative option for things like health insurance—the keyword being "alternative," not practically the only option like in the US.

That's nice. Several Western nations have systems akin to that.

Incidentally: over a third of Americans have a form of public health insurance.

 

[Stevicus]

Just piling on the pollyanna isn't convincing.
I see positive change where you don't.

At least I can support it with evidence, whereas you cannot.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Just piling on the pollyanna isn't convincing.
I see positive change where you don't.

Objectively speaking, that "positive change" hasn't been economic so he is right on that front.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I am for fundamental freedoms, but not at cost of social inequalities.

Seems to me that a very inventive entrepeneur might well invent something, and do the hard work and risk of producing it, which could in fact make him rich. He now being richer than everybody else would surely be a "social inequity," would it not? And you say this is a cost you do not approve of.

One of my reasons for espousing capitalism (but with a social conscience), is that it is only through individuals doing exactly that -- the hard work of invention, creation, risk of production and marketing -- that creates general wealth and/or benefit, but at the price of allowing those individuals to reap the rewards of going further or trying harder than others.

Certainly I hate that old communist nostrum, "to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities." That's the perfect recipe for universal poverty.

 

[Revoltingest]

At least I can support it with evidence, whereas you cannot.

Those who can do.
Those who can't claim.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Which is why I said they're capitalist systems with socialistic features.

Yeah, so they're not socialist, and someone who believes that a country should attempt to move away from that system (regardless of the methods they propose such a change) is not a capitalist, at least not in a conventional sense. Do you disagree?

We can discuss "the Global South" another time. It really has nothing to do with the present discussion.

I brought up exploitation as part of my broader elaboration on my belief that current systems need to eventually change, hence my refusal to label myself a supporter of any of them as permanent rather than temporary stages. It's impossible to clarify why the economic systems of even the most prosperous capitalist countries have major flaws without touching on the exploitation of other countries, which is why I mentioned the Global South.

And virtually the only approach ever tried beyond small-scale local efforts. To pretend this is not the case is to erase the history of the movement.

That's what I've said in this thread and others, like here:

A lot of damage has been done to the reputation of the socialist label since the 20th century both due to the policies of dictatorships based on Marxism-Leninism or an offshoot thereof (e.g., Stalinism and Maoism) and anti-socialist propaganda in the US during the Cold War. There hasn't been a single self-professed socialist state other than those, and many socialists and communists who opposed the totalitarian policies were purged by Stalin and other dictators.

But just because Marxist-Leninists are the only socialists who have managed to run a state doesn't mean other socialists don't exist or don't disagree with them.

To reduce the entirety of socialism to opposing capitalism is: accurate. Literally the entire point of the origin of socialism was to propose an alternative economic system that opposed capitalism. The only realistic vehicle for public means of ownership on a broad scale is through governmental ownership. Which is why socialists call for exactly that over and over and over and over again.

We've been over this point too, specifically here (my response hasn't changed, so I'm quoting it instead of rephrasing anything):

That has been a subject of debate for at least a century, but I'll stand by my position because I don't believe that giving the state enough power to seize property and micromanage the economy could ever turn out well. Human nature simply precludes that idea from being workable without causing immense suffering and abuse.

I know many people (socialists and otherwise) believe that state ownership is the only realistic way to achieve public ownership, but again, I'm only talking about my own position here, which differs from that.

It's not moot to look in history at how socialism has been tried in reality rather than in the minds of denizens of the internet.

See above. How it has been tried in reality doesn't change that many socialists disagree with the modes of government that were used in every one of the dictatorships in question. It's a fact that many socialists were (or are) anti-USSR, anti-Maoist, etc., to the point where some of them were purged.

No, even if you don't, ownership and management of a sector of the economy requires "micromanagement." The bill stops with you if you own it. Particularly if you own all of it.

How would that fundamentally differ from a board of directors "micromanaging" a private business, then? My original point was to express opposition to having the state do the micromanagement, as in the USSR. I believe a heavily state-centered, state-commanded economy is a recipe for disaster, hence my previous comment.

That's nice. Several Western nations have systems akin to that.

Yeah, and I've never said that I disagree with everything they have in place right now. It's mainly my view of what a later goal should be that distinguishes the most between my position and that of a social democrat.