Quote:
Originally Posted by hairymarx
You say: "In the real world of a socialistic society, all wealth is controlled by central planners, as is all workforce efforts and results."
Under socialism, all aspects of procedure and planning will be organised democratically - that's the point you are missing.
Secondly, you say that: "socialism is a system where the need of the individual is subordinate to the well being of the masses."
Under socialism, individualism and creativity, suppressed under capitalism, will flourish not be 'subordinated at the expense of the well being of the masses'. In this sense, individualism and the well being of the masses are not in the Marxist conception of socialism, mutually exclusive concepts.
|
Again, I commend your presentation here as appetizing to those overcoming their aversion to the term "socialism." But, let's be real for a moment.
No socialist society can ever place the desires of the individual at it's pinnacle, nor can it ever be supported continually by the democratic process. These things are mutually exclusive of the entire concept of socialism. Democracy by definition requires individual input into the decision-making process, with those misguided individuals generally believing that what's good for them is good for the masses. Socialism, by contrast, requires a certain amount of fascist enforcement to secure obedience from the individual for the good of the masses (see "income tax" or "universal entitlements"). You simply cannot pay homage to individual rights or desires, for example, in allowing people to choose their own vocations, as we could easily end up with too many auto mechanics and not enough botanists. How would your "worker owned" businesses possibly survive without central planning?
A great example of successful socialism was Germany. Socialism brought them out of their raggedy and pitiful existence into the powerful society they became................nearly one capabale of conquering the world. Individual rights were replaced with directives from planners who sought efficiency and excellence of efforts in their nation-building. Their only pitfall was in letting things get a bit out of control when their "planners" applied too much of the fascism fuel they tried to inflict on too many other countries too soon.
Ironically, another example of successful socialism is the United States. Although currently forced to endure seemingly endless infighting with individualist capitalists, our society grows more and more into our socialist destiny with each successive administration in Washington. Even as far back as the 30's, Roosevelt recognized the superiority of the German socialism, and stayed out of its expansion until forced to step in to save the lives of the British. With social security, income tax, and other social programs, he established our format for socialism growth we've steadily continued to this very day. Universal healthcare and universal environmental controls prelude the coming of the remainder of "universal entitlement rights," each and all requiring individual desires be set aside for the betterment of the masses as a whole.
No, folks.........while I admire your "packaging" of socialism through use of symantics and directed comprehension, your definitions come only through theory books and blogger dreams. Socialism is the saviour of the masses by means of the "directive," not the "selective."