......thats gotta hurt

Socialism can best be understood in the way that Karl Marx conceptualized it 150 years ago. Most American's confuse a mixed economy with socialism. Genuine socialism can be best understood as a situation where the mass of the working class who are the producers in society actually collectively own the means of production from which that wealth is created. Under the capitalist system however, the means of production remains under the control of the ruling class minority who are motivated purely by their need to make profit.

It is hardly surprising given the myths that surround socialism that people condemn it largely as a result of the fact that they don't know what it is. The truth is the world is dominated by the capitalist mode of production and the crumbs the capitalists throw from their tables is effectively the various forms of welfare programmes that people on this site describe as "socialism" or "communism" But as the revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg famously said: "It is not possible for an island of socialism to exist within a sea of capitalism". Never has a truer phrase ever been spoken.

Now, whilst it is true that most capitalist societies in existence today contain elements of a socialized economy, this in truth is underscored by the capitalist mode of production. As I said in my previous post, capitalism is the necessary stepping stone in the development of socialism. In pre-capitalist societies productive capacity was insufficient to overcome scarcity. But under capitalism the system is far more dynamic, productive forces and the technological advances that underpin them, are now so advanced that we are in a position to thereotically feed the entire world. But the problem is the productive process is necessarily anarchic under capitalism where profit motivation over-rides the necessity for social well-being.

Unlike in pre-capitalist societies, food production under capitalism far exceeds human reproduction, but because the system is motivated by the need to make profit, the very poor go hungry. In pre-capitalist societies the poor went hungry because there wasn't enough food to go round, now there is abundance but people still go hungry. So in essence socialism really means the re-organization of the productive forces of the economy so as to satisfy in the first instance basic human need.

Marx understood that the dynamism of capitalism is the precursor to its own downfall. This is because as capitalism matures the workplaces of the world correspondingly intensify in terms of the numbers of workers working cooperatively together in unison. So the growth and concentration of the working class opens up new possibilities. Workplaces like supermarkets and call centres represent the concentrated power of the capitalist system which for socialists is both a blessing and a curse. Its a curse for the people who have to work in them in the sense that they are effectively treated like machines, but on the other hand a collectivised and highly organised and unionised workforce represents a threat to the capitalists and ultimately their system.

Theoretically, within the perfect world of the written word, perhaps. However, in the real world of a socialistic society, all wealth is controlled by central planners, as is all workforce efforts and results. Simply stating that the "workers" own the businesses is a politically correct falsehood.............it's simply not possible. "The People's Republic" never belongs to the people, nor should it.

Socialism is a system where the need of the individual is subordinate to the well-being of the masses. Workers function to provide sustenace to the group as the individual is expected to sacrifice everything necessary for the betterment of the many.

Universal healthcare is an example of this concept as individuals must sacrifice their preferences for the good of the masses as a whole. Socialism is the only fair and equality based system ever devised. As government becomes the decision maker and distributor of needs, the masses must accept having fewer liberties to insure their common welfare.

There is no, nor should there be, irreconcilable contrast between the individual and the collective, between the interests of the individual person and the interests of the collective, There should be no such contrast, because collectivism, socialism, does not deny, but combines individual interests with the interests of the collective. Socialism cannot abstract itself from individual interests. Socialist society alone can most fully satisfy these personal interests. More than that; socialist society alone can firmly safeguard the interests of the individual. In this sense there is no irreconcilable contrast between "individualism" and socialism. But can we deny the contrast between classes, between the propertied class, the capitalist class, and the toiling class, the proletarian class? On the one hand we have the propertied class which owns the banks, the factories, the mines, transport etc. These people see nothing but their own interests, their striving after profits.

They do not submit to the will of the collective; they strive to subordinate every collective to their will. On the other hand we have the class of the poor, the exploited Class, which owns neither factories nor works, nor banks, which is compelled to live by selling its labor power to the capitalists and which lacks the opportunity to satisfy its most elementary requirements. How can such opposite interests and strivings be reconciled?

One of the more intelligent and lucid posts, although my conceptualization of socialism by-and-large differs from yours. This is not to say that your conception is less or more valid then mine, its just different. Your conception is I think closer to the Utopian socialist tradition rather than the Marxist tradition, a view which in common with many American's, is, I would argue, more aligned with somebody like Michael Albert who runs the website Znet at www.zmag.org. I say this in the sense that you appear to fail to grasp the centrality of Marxism, viewing it in a rather mechanical way, thus forgetting the spirit of activism that underpins the philosophy.

That said, you make some good points. However, I want to pick you up on a couple of them. You say: "In the real world of a socialistic society, all wealth is controlled by central planners, as is all workforce efforts and results." In my previous two posts, I alluded to the fact that socialism in the Marxist-Leninist sense, bar the odd historical exception, has rarely materialized in actuality, which rather negates your assertion. In other words, since there is in fact no existing 'real world of a socialistic society' makes the second part of your sentence a misnomer.

Marx never intended that his words ought to be interpretted mechanically like a biblical text. So the 'central planners' that you refer to are not some kind of group that exist external to the working class, but rather function as its heartbeat. 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." Again, this is not an understanding of socialism that I concur with. 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.

Absolutely on the button comrade

Capitalism does not "suppress individualism and creativity." I think what you are referring to is the economic ability of a person to contribute whatever they want to a collective economy whether or not it's worth it. Capitalism lets people be free individuals, so long as they can support themselves doing something economically valid so that they contribute enough to the economy in order to receive food, clothing, shelter, ect. If people in a capitalist system try to contribute something that is not wanted, no one will pay for it and they won't be able to support themselves that way; it is a form of suppression.

However, in a socialist system, people have to be forced to contribute to the collective instead of focusing on themselves. This has to be dictated by a government agency, and it is one small step from telling you what to do for the group to telling you how to live your life and how to think, therefore suppressing all thoughts and individualism that do not support the authoritarian system.

If you think that human nature allows people to hold this kind of power in government without leading to abuse or corruption, I suggest you find a reason why the Soviet Union fell or why China, Cuba, and various other Communist (read, "applied socialism") countries.

__________________

"You are just stuck in a box."

--Zaro

You folks make me so proud. Whether you actually believe the theoretical you describe, or are doing your duty to the cause by continuing campaign process to others..................you show the success of our indoctrination efforts through our friends in the media and academia for furthering our great quest. Quotes like:

" Socialism cannot abstract itself from individual interests. Socialist society alone can most fully satisfy these personal interests."

most certainly have a helpful effect on fence-sitting "moderates" and "centerists," and help draw them into supporting our agenda of "change."

I get it.

Socialism is retarted. How does it fulfill my interests? what if i want to work harder than everybody else? and try and make more money? Nobody will be motivated to work without some kind of reward and thats why capitalism wins.

Except it is important to note that in modern economies, a majority of the workers are white collar and consider themselves middle class (regardless of income). Their tendency is more to the preservation of the status quo as they see themselves as vastly different from the poor and the blue collar/service job working class.

The result is that in most things political, they will side with the super-rich over the poor... even when their economic interests are in conflict.
Ever wonder why they fight with the poor over the income tax while mostly ignoring the taxes that actually affect the rich.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III