Socialism

[pjkeeley]

I favour the collective approach, which I agree is still possible under capitalism. I think the disagreement between myself and someone like SteveS ought to be cultural rather than political. SteveS,

If collectives are the best approach in the end, and they are allowed in our current system, why aren't there more of them and why aren't they more successful?

I think you answered your own question quite adequately here:

On the other hand, perhaps the collectives that exist now feel they are successful. Maybe they don't generate as much wealth, but the members feel they are better off because of a more satisfactory/assured life style.

This seems to be the case, based on encounters with collectives that I've read about. But I believe it's also because of the "capitalist mindset" Willravel described. If people aren't in any way informed about the benefits of a collective approach, if they have had few encounters with collectives and are their whole lives taught to favour a competitive and individualist system, that system will quite obviously dominate. Especially since it's the way we've been doing things for the past two centuries...

Okay - but then why force this on everyone else? Why not just enjoy the good life they have, that is allowed for, in our current way of things? Why must they force everyone else to agree that the collective approach is best for everyone, just because they feel it is best for them?

They shouldn't force them, in my opinion, which is why I don't consider myself a socialist. But whether people continue to follow a competetive, individualist model or move to a collectivist one is a cultural dialogue that I feel ought to be given much more consideration than it has. I firmly believe more people would be better off if they moved towards the latter. Eventually capitalism would disappear: if nearly every company was collectively owned, who'd want to work in one which wasn't -- one in which they had very little share of the profit? But since very few collectives exist, and very few people know about or understand their benefits, it's impractical to expect someone to choose or be able to join one over simply 'getting a job' and working at a normal business under the normal conditions that that entails.

[Will]

"Flavour"? Loves socialism?

A fellow Labour! Are you one of the good old labours who can't stand Blair's "New Labour"?

[SteveS]

Hey guys,

I think the disagreement between myself and someone like SteveS ought to be cultural rather than political.

Yes - actually, I agree with this completely.

They shouldn't force them, in my opinion, which is why I don't consider myself a socialist. But whether people continue to follow a competetive, individualist model or move to a collectivist one is a cultural dialogue that I feel ought to be given much more consideration than it has.

I agree with this as well.  My primary objection to socialism is what I perceive to be institutionalized socialism.  I don't see how that can function without embracing a degree of authoritarianism that I am uncomfortable with.

If we're talking about a "hearts and minds" issue (the "capitalist mindset" vs. a "socialist mindset") - I am completely open to exploring this.  My "political" aspect comes out in the "They shouldn't force them" part.  The difference in mindset is the "cultural" part.

Here's where the political parts strikes me: if I feel I need a "safety net", and in many cases I do, I buy insurance.  I don't get a choice on Social Security, though.  In fact, if I refuse to pay for this, because I don't want it, I'll be put in prison.  This is a requirement that is backed up by threat of force.

Culturally, on the other hand?  Well, if we're making collective behavior voluntary, I have no bones with this at all.  Why would I?  If it works better and we can demonstrate this, I could certainly see myself agreeing.  I don't think it will work - but I don't really know.  Why not determine this empirically?  Then, there would be little left to argue about.

The only problem is that "works better" is a concept that I think will always be open to personal interpretation (individual interpretation).  I could easily foresee a case where many people would voluntarily join collectives and feel they made the right choice, while others would remain "rugged individuals" and feel they have made the right choice.  Again, this comes down to my individualist personality - I think only an individual can evaluate what is best for themselves.  They should have this right, but it does come with responsibility.

Politically?  I would certainly never argue that I should enact, through authoritarian means, a system which prevents people from forming collectives.

Culturally? Show me how it works and I'll join in if I want to.  There's really nothing stopping me from emigrating to a more socialist nation right now, in fact.  But --- I'm not doing it, because I very strongly do not desire to.  Am I foolish?  Some will say yes, some will say no.  Who's right?  Is there an objective "right" answer, or is this evaluation necessarily subjective?

I would make one comment about things like unions, though, that we're viewing as collective enterprises:

In a capitalist system, one is essentially taught from birth to fend for him or herself, and while collectivism isn't strictly banned it's usually frowned upon. Just ask your average American about unions for more insight into that particular phenomena.

Well, in many ways I guess I qualify as an "average American", so I suppose I fit the bill  :wink:  .

I don't have a problem with a union in many ways - but here is a way that I don't think unions function well.  If a union is enacted by authoritarian backing, say by making a law:  "If you want to work on plumbing, you must be a member of the plumbing union.  Not optional, "plumb" ( ) without being a member and we adjudicate you as guilty of a crime", well, this appears to me to be a "special interest" group manipulating the market more than a collective enterprise serving the "common good".  Suppose the plumbers say "We've got all the cards - nobody can be a plumber but us, so let's set our new price for plumbing work because nobody really gets a choice, do they?".  This is an attempt to create artificial value --- there's nothing about being a member of the plumbers union that makes me a better plumber --- we've just declared that nobody can be allowed to do the work without belonging, and we've used our monopoly to corner the market and set high prices that aren't really backed up by anything real.  This enterprise is destined to failure, because we've agreed that we can't really create artificial value.  The union, in this case, is operating no differently than a capitalist monopoly.  They're not collectively serving the common good after all.

The capitalist monopoly is one of the failures of a pure, unregulated capitalism, which is why I qualify my "pure libertarian" idea.

Anyway, Will, I thought these were worthwhile and interesting thoughts:

A socialist system would and wouldn't be forced collectivism because, as I said, there's no way a true socialist system would work today with our massive populations and scarce resources. It will work within a more complex framework, though. When it comes to certain necessities in a societyâ€"military/police, fire/ambulance, roads, schools, etc.â€"pooling resources becomes more than an option; it becomes a necessity for necessities. But that doesn't mean there aren't alternatives or add-ons. (don't worry, I'll get to property in a sec...) If the military/police isn't enough, there are private security forces. Schools not good enough? There are private schools.

Now on to property. Collective property can only exist in an abundance or a small population. In many cities around the world, the local government provide bicycles for pedestrians to use. They have more than enough bikes, so people can use them as they please. It's a very successful program and it's often seen a reduction in carbon emissions. This is collective ownership in the modern world that's successful. Why? Because they have a shitload of bikes. Can you still buy your own bike? Sure, but lock it up. And if you do have your own bike, you can modify it or do whatever you want to it because it's yours, but the collective option is still always available to you.

Seems like we agree in so many ways on the practical, or applied, aspects of these differing philosophies.  Maybe our discussion is just an argument of the degree and instance of regulations.  In which case, if we're going to adopt a blended technique, this discussion is very healthy.  Trying to find the right balance......

Anyway, here's some personal experiences I thought of, that I offer as food for thought.

In college, I had two very different lab partners.  For one class, we had to work on a semester long project with a partner.  I was paired with one of the other students.  This guy, quite frankly, was terrible.  I view his grade as a total gift from me.  He did absolutely nothing to further or better the project.  Every part of the design, and the implementation of that design, was performed by me while he conducted ultimately fruitless "library research".  It was still in my interest to succeed because my grade was tied into the shared enterprise, but if I wasn't forced into this collective, I'd have opted out in a heartbeat.  Honestly, the guy was shockingly incompetent, and I don't think he deserved his degree.  Pity to whoever ends up hiring him.

Another course, in this case programming, I had a wonderful lab partner.  We got along very well, divided up the work, debugged together, and we were very successful.  In fact, I think we did much better together then we would have done apart.  The fact that both he and I actively planned further courses to take together and partner in makes me feel he believed likewise.  This was a very healthy collective, and we pursued it voluntarily.

My personal experience, then, is that collectives can work, but they have to remain voluntary.

[Tom62]

In Germany we now have nowaday a big discussion about privatizing the public railroad company Deutsche Bundesbahn. Should it get into private hands then first thing we expect to happen is that many trainstations will be closed because they are not profitable. Should they also privatize the maintainance of the railroad tracks then we could endup in a similar situation like England, where trains can no longer run full speed due to bad tracks. Privatization is also unfair towards the taxpayer, because the taxpayer doesn't get his money back when the company changes hands. In general it is a good idea to run a tight, lean company, which is unfortuately not the case with a lot of old public companies. Privatizing such companies will therefore mean that a lot of people are thrown on the street.  Another problem is that when the state-owned company doesn't have any competition the private company that takes over the company has a monopoly in its hands and therefore no reasons at all to lower their prices or to improve their services. In the end we may well be better off by keeping these public companies public.

Some "socialist" experiments are very interesting to watch and are extremely succesful. The bicycle plan that Willtravel mentioned is one of them. Another one is the introduction of free public transport in some Belgium and Dutch cities. In the city of Tilburg alone this caused a reduction of 24% of cars on the road. Less polution in the air but, what most people find more important, also far less trafficjams.

I believe that the best system would be a right mixture of socialist and capitalist systems. Under a pure socialist or pure capitalist system only the people on the top seem to benefit.

[Will]

Well, in many ways I guess I qualify as an "average American", so I suppose I fit the bill  :wink:  .

I don't have a problem with a union in many ways - but here is a way that I don't think unions function well.  If a union is enacted by authoritarian backing, say by making a law:  "If you want to work on plumbing, you must be a member of the plumbing union.  Not optional, "plumb" ( ) without being a member and we adjudicate you as guilty of a crime", well, this appears to me to be a "special interest" group manipulating the market more than a collective enterprise serving the "common good".  Suppose the plumbers say "We've got all the cards - nobody can be a plumber but us, so let's set our new price for plumbing work because nobody really gets a choice, do they?".  This is an attempt to create artificial value --- there's nothing about being a member of the plumbers union that makes me a better plumber --- we've just declared that nobody can be allowed to do the work without belonging, and we've used our monopoly to corner the market and set high prices that aren't really backed up by anything real.  This enterprise is destined to failure, because we've agreed that we can't really create artificial value.  The union, in this case, is operating no differently than a capitalist monopoly.  They're not collectively serving the common good after all.

The capitalist monopoly is one of the failures of a pure, unregulated capitalism, which is why I qualify my "pure libertarian" idea.

Any organization or group is open to manipulation by selfish people, but I've seen the amazing things that unions have accomplished. It's about equality (as socialism often is) between the workers and the managers. When the management has too much power, the workers are exploited. Likewise, when the unions are too powerful, management suffers. I just prefer to think of them on even grounds, like the checks and balances that are supposed to exist between branches of government.

What's the old phrase? Always in moderation.

Seems like we agree in so many ways on the practical, or applied, aspects of these differing philosophies.  Maybe our discussion is just an argument of the degree and instance of regulations.  In which case, if we're going to adopt a blended technique, this discussion is very healthy.  Trying to find the right balance......

I get the same feeling. We're each arguing half of a whole. Still, it is good to know that despite the fact that we are coming from different schools of though we're ending up at many of the same conclusions. Maybe bipartisanship doesn't always mean both sides lose!

Anyway, here's some personal experiences I thought of, that I offer as food for thought.

In college, I had two very different lab partners.  For one class, we had to work on a semester long project with a partner.  I was paired with one of the other students.  This guy, quite frankly, was terrible.  I view his grade as a total gift from me.  He did absolutely nothing to further or better the project.  Every part of the design, and the implementation of that design, was performed by me while he conducted ultimately fruitless "library research".  It was still in my interest to succeed because my grade was tied into the shared enterprise, but if I wasn't forced into this collective, I'd have opted out in a heartbeat.  Honestly, the guy was shockingly incompetent, and I don't think he deserved his degree.  Pity to whoever ends up hiring him.

Another course, in this case programming, I had a wonderful lab partner.  We got along very well, divided up the work, debugged together, and we were very successful.  In fact, I think we did much better together then we would have done apart.  The fact that both he and I actively planned further courses to take together and partner in makes me feel he believed likewise.  This was a very healthy collective, and we pursued it voluntarily.

My personal experience, then, is that collectives can work, but they have to remain voluntary.

Group grading only works when done hand in hand with individual grading. Done alone it's as unfair as a bell curve. Your terrible partner should have been graded collectively with you AND separately. After all, in the "real world" sometimes you work with someone and sometime you work alone, and school is supposed to prepare you for real life.

As for it being voluntary: sometimes in life it isn't. I've had to work with complete idiots and part of being an adult in the real world sometimes means dragging someone else's weight. BUT, when you make it clear to the authorities that the person is dead weight, said dead weight is still held responsible. In socialist systems, everyone is expected to perform. Dead weight has consequences in both capitalism and socialism, but in socialism society is more motivated to help the dead weight in becoming a valued contributor to society. In capitalism, he ends up living outside a McDonalds and smelling like feet. There's  something to be said about society being motivated to help the weak.

[SteveS]

Hey Will - all I can think of to say is, "yeah".  :wink:  (shrugs)

I think we read each other okay, and I think we're in a decent place here.

As for it being voluntary: sometimes in life it isn't. I've had to work with complete idiots and part of being an adult in the real world sometimes means dragging someone else's weight.

Indeed!

Maybe bipartisanship doesn't always mean both sides lose!

I read you loud and clear.  Sometimes I think a healthy contention is preferable.  Different opinions might be necessary to find the common denominator.  Like medical differential diagnosis, for example.  If all the doctors always agreed, maybe they'd lose more patients then they do by arguing about symptoms and trying to find the common ground.  If they always agreed, how would they find out when they were wrong?

Again - cheers dude,  

You're a hell of an enjoyable, interesting, and intellectual person to have a discussion with!

[Will]

Ditto!

[SteveS]

Hey Tom62,

Another problem is that when the state-owned company doesn't have any competition the private company that takes over the company has a monopoly in its hands and therefore no reasons at all to lower their prices or to improve their services.

Keen observation.  Reminds me of the situation in Chicago right now with the city harbors.  The city park district used to maintain all the harbors in the city limit, but a few years ago they outsourced it to a private corporation.  The promise was improved services (boaters felt the facilities had become run-down and sub-standard).  In the years since, the new ownership has dramatically increased the prices without improving anything, which has gotten the boaters up in arms (reasonably so).

The company points out that all the slips and moorings are remaining as full as usual, so the harbor service had been undervalued.  Which seems true.  The boaters point out that increased income should be allowing the company to improve the services - which also seems true.  But, as per your example, all the harbors are managed by the same firm with no competition.  Monopoly.  Worse, since the city taxes boaters at a fixed percentage rate of the harbor fee (now significantly increased), the city is actually profiting as well.  With government and a private monopoly aligned, its hard to foresee how the situation is going to improve for the boaters.  I don't currently own a boat or a mooring in a Chicago harbor ($ and time), but I would dearly like to one day, so I follow these developments with some personal interest.

Of course boating (at these harbors) is a pleasure/luxury industry - hardly necessary (look at it as wealthy yacht owners whining - hard not to find some humor in it  :wink:  ).  But - this same development could be pretty ugly were it visited upon a more essential industry.

[Will]

Competition doesn't always drive quality up and prices down. Case in point: big oil. Profit driven markets are.... well, they're profit driven. It's in their interest to keep quality down and prices up so they can pocket the most at the end of the day. They often have investors to please with profit numbers and are basically legally obligated to do everything in their power to keep their investors happy.

Sometimes the free market is the answer, and sometimes it's not. Here are a few examples of when the free market doesn't work:
Healthcare
Oil
Tobacco
Blackwater
Prisons
Chinese toys


It brings up a fundamental question, something that very few people have the balls to ask: is freedom selfish?

[SteveS]

Hey Will - We're obviously going to disagree on the value of competition, but I don't see how we can resolve that.  This part is more interesting to me:

is freedom selfish?

Unhesitatingly, I answer this question: yes!

Ultimately, life is selfish.  I can't live without killing: everything I eat was once alive.  Why should I live at the expense of these other things dying?  Of course, why should they live at the expense of me dying?  There is no right answer.  I'm trying to live, everything else alive is trying to live, but nothing can live without killing (directly or indirectly).  It seems many view selfishness negatively from an abstract perspective, but I would point out that it is required to live.

The counter-question I came up with is: If living without selfishness implies living without freedom, then is living selflessly really good?

Being selfish, with freedom, doesn't necessarily imply superiority.  I'm in an Ayn Rand mood today; here's what she said about freedom:

Everyone has the right to make his own decisions, but none has the right to force his decision on others

So, I can be selfish (make my own decisions the way I want to), but that doesn't imply that I must supersede other people's rights.

Here's a more classic libertarian question: is equality fair?

[Will]

EWW, Ayn Rand? Restating simple capitalistic rationality... damn you, Bioshock. (Sorry, I'm obviously not a fan of Rand)

If living without selfishness implies living without freedom, then is living selflessly really good? This depends on your own subjective value of the abstract idea of freedom. I believe in certain freedoms and not in others. Not only that, but viewing selfishness not with the axoims of "good and bad" but rather constructive or destructive, we ultimately find ourselves returning to the question that's been bouncing around throughout the thread: serve the whole or serve one's self? If you believe a bit more in serving the whole, then a great deal of selfishness is destructive. If you believe a bit more in serving self, then a great deal of selfishness is constructive. This delves into the fundamental states of community minded vs. self minded.

Cool stuff, cept Rand.

[SteveS]

If you believe a bit more in serving the whole, then a great deal of selfishness is destructive. If you believe a bit more in serving self, then a great deal of selfishness is constructive. This delves into the fundamental states of community minded vs. self minded.

Fair enough - I think that's a decent appraisal of the situation.

Cool stuff, cept Rand.

 ( :wink: )