What, exactly, is socialism? Again this discussion seems necessary.

Useful error here! Socialism has no elite theory. It indicates how many inequalities are not natural, being independent of both innate ability and effort criteria. It appreciates that hierarchy in capitalism harms both economic efficiency and equity criteria.

And who does have a theory of the elites? Via Pareto, we have to refer to fascism. This is why fascist propaganda often fails. They always pander to the working class, but ultimately demand mere blind allegiance. Socialism, in contrast, rejects authoritarianism. Democracy within big business is an example, promotion of productivity by eliminating the hierarchy used only to accentuate rent.

 

why so arbitrary and capricious?

 

All first world economies are socialist, not capitalist.

 

why does another discussion seem necessary of a failed ideology?

 

Socialism is not a failed ideology. Socialism merely requires social morals for free, unlike Capitalism.

 

It seems necessary because:

1) it has recently reemerged as a subject of increasing interest

2) It has not yet succeeded, -which is very different from being a "failed ideology"

And 3) anti-Marxist, anti-communist, and anti-socialist propaganda of the last 80 years is still in full control of most people's minds. So given the current context, clarification is very much needed in order to clear away that propaganda so we can get to the facts of the matter. Only then can a person objectively and authentically consider the pros and cons.

So why don't you jump in by participating in a discussion of the points I raised?

 

All or nothing labels are a waste of time. The USA, and most of the world, are complex societies, with varying demands, both local and external, and these systems are not static. There is not a one-size-fits-all label for how the USA should proceed. We must be economically viable, we must function in a world marketplace, we must provide and take care of our citizens. In the USA most people claim to be a Dem or a Rep, with almost no overlap in consensus, and look how this has worked out. Things would be better if more people were independent thinkers, capable of analyzing complex issues, and doing what is in the best interest of the USA, instead of the person or political party. Forget the stupid labels...

 

That would be an assumption since I didn't mention "state socialism" (whatever that is) or "state capitalism", etc., in the OP.

Certainly a national economic system of socialism would require a government that allows, supports, and facilitates it. But that does not mean state ownership of business, property, or homes, etc. is required if that is what you mean.

The problem with past efforts is that when a revolutionary army seizes the state by force, it must immediately take full control of everything. Anything left out will remain dominated by reactionary forces to the extent that they were. So any plan to "instantly" provide democratic control of the details of the national business by the working class could not be orchestrated and guarded. Hence, the revolutionary forces took "ownership" of industry, businesses, property, and most of everything else immediately, and that is very objectionable.

But by beginning gradually within the existing system by creating worker-owned co-ops and developing them, avoids any need to seize control. Democratic control by the working class would be developed within co-ops, as they already are, and that control can expand and develop to cover more and more of society. No state force is needed.

That is how capitalism developed in many cases too.

 

What, exactly, are you referring to?

Correct. And that is one of the great advantages of beginning by forming worker-owned and operated co-ops. What you're describing is what we saw whenever state power was seized by force by a revolutionary army. And most of the Marxist world recognizes that problem and proposes new strategies to prevent it from happening again.

Then let's pool the participation of those who do the economic work of producing, and do it democratically. But I still don't know what labels you are referring to.

 

i don't think the interest has ever gone away.

it will never succeed, because it fails to account for human nature.

it goes something like this, right? "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs." who decides? i think that is the fundamental flaw in marxist ideology, that "the deciders" (to quote gwb), are required to be completely objective in the assessments of means and needs. that is an impossible standard. hence, marxism/socialism/collectivism/communism and all its -ism variants fail before they even begin.

/thread.

 

Most socialist schools of thought aren't Marxist. And when they are 'who decides?' is often not an issue. Burczak, for example, embraces Hayek's understanding of tacit and distributed knowledge to reject standard application of the socialist planner.

 

So, what is your point?
There are countless societies where socialism among the group/clan is prevalent. Without it, there'd be much more hardships and likely thieving.

 

Get off public electricity.
If you want individual liberty, put you money where your mouth is. Generate your own.

 

i was responding to the op's post referencing "anti-Marxist, anti-communist, and anti-socialist propaganda..."

 

Yes, but the quote used is still wrong.

 

take it up with the op, please.

 

What? Individual desires to succeed and excel? Certainly that is found within the socialist model. Check the history of the worker co-ops in the US or that of the Mondragon cooperative.

No. It does not "go like that." That is Marx's description of communist society. And no one has ever gotten anywhere near a transition to classless communist society, so that is really irrelevant.... especially since classless communist society cannot be imposed on anyone.

The quote you want for socialism is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work". THAT is what Marx wrote.

As I just showed, that is incorrect because it is based on erroneous notions about socialism and Marxism. It does appear in some ways to relate to past revolutions, but those failed strategies have been rejected by most Marxists today in favor of working within existing economic systems.

 

The invalid quote was yours. Sorry.

 

No. It does not. That you think that, says all we need to know. Stay off the hannity BS.

 

i see what you're saying, i misquoted marx. not something i'm going to lose a lot of sleep over, frankly. lol.

 

Nope. Your understanding of socialism was wonky. Even the Marxist schools do not necessarily need a socialist planner.

 

i got one word wrong... from memory... when i studied marx, many years ago... the point is the same. not sure what you mean by hannity bs or how it's relevant to this discussion, but nice red herring attempt.

 

how do you decide who gets what?

 

turns out that is also wrong. zam!

 

It would seem that if you're not willing to correct your knowledge of Marx and what he said, that you wouldn't logically be "qualified" to discuss the subject due to the probability of spreading falsehoods. Right?