Honest critique of Socialism.

Watch
imtelling
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
Lets imagine that we lived in parallel universe and the planet was run by Socialists, and Karl Marx, instead of critiquing Capitalism critiqued socialism instead.

What do people think he would say about Socialism?
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
if karl marx actually lived in a communist society he'd probably be thinking "what the **** was I thinking with this ****?"
2
reply
illegaltobepoor
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
(Original post by imtelling)
Lets imagine that we lived in parallel universe and the planet was run by Socialists, and Karl Marx, instead of critiquing Capitalism critiqued socialism instead.

What do people think he would say about Socialism?
I think if human conciousness was manifestly high rather than low human beings would think that Socialism is like water. We all need water to survive and water flows freely amongst the earth. The same has to be done with wealth. If wealth flows freely just as it use to do where land was plentiful all people would have a good standard of living. Without the Strong looking after the Weak people will never be able to make full use of human potential and excel into a golden age for human kind.

I think Socialists will think of something like that.

Capitalism has had 6000+ years to excel people into a golden age. Socialism has barely existed.
0
reply
Alfissti
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
Socialized losses sounds good to me for as long as profits are private

One of the biggest downsides of socialism is none other than for it to function it needs a gigantic state to take other people's money to give it to you. Eventually the money will run out and just the same time if the state can give you something it can also take it away from you.

Big governments aren't really efficient in reality it does add to huge amounts of redtape and cost.

Relying on your own self is by far better than getting somewhere because a whole bus load of people helped you along the way.
0
reply
Martyn*
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
(Original post by imtelling)
Lets imagine that we lived in parallel universe and the planet was run by Socialists, and Karl Marx
They wouldn't be Socialists. Socialism and Marxism is not compatible. Some people choose the Marxist interpretation of Socialism. That is unfortunate. Marx has no right to claim Socialism.
0
reply
DaveSmith99
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by Martyn*)
They wouldn't be Socialists. Socialism and Marxism is not compatible.
They are. Communism is just one of the branches of socialism, albeit a fairly radical one.
0
reply
Swanbow
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
Depends on your definition of socialism. I'll presume you mean USSR style socialism, opposed to social democracy (i.e. Nordic model, ect.)

He'd probably critique the system in that that socialism caters to the state rather than the people and that the politburo and party members have essentially replaced the bourgeoisie. The socialist state cares just as much for the welfare of its peoples than industrialists cared for the welfare of their workers. Class barriers haven't been removed, just swapped around and the fruits of production do not reach the working class.
0
reply
Martyn*
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by DaveSmith99)
They are. Communism is just one of the branches of socialism, albeit a fairly radical one.
Socialism has no branches. There is only Socialism. Anything else is a re-interpretation, a *******isation.
0
reply
DaveSmith99
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
(Original post by Martyn*)
Socialism has no branches. There is only Socialism. Anything else is a re-interpretation, a *******isation.
Well that's just nonsense.
0
reply
Martyn*
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by DaveSmith99)
Well that's just nonsense.
Okay. Socialism has no branch known as "Marxism" or "Marxist Socialism". These are just interpretations of Socialism that have been forced to coincide with Communism and financial capitalism (true Marxism).
0
reply
Kanbei
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
If everybody in a country decides to play by the rule... then it's possible. Like the bees.

Unfortunately, human beings are cleverer than the bees, but also lazier and greedier than the bees. You'll have to create a solid system that people cannot take advantage of, which is pretty hard and capitalist models with some welfare provisions are the best we have so far, this includes the Nordic systems.
0
reply
PicardianSocialist
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by Kanbei)
If everybody in a country decides to play by the rule... then it's possible. Like the bees.

Unfortunately, human beings are cleverer than the bees, but also lazier and greedier than the bees. You'll have to create a solid system that people cannot take advantage of, which is pretty hard and capitalist models with some welfare provisions are the best we have so far, this includes the Nordic systems.
Interesting that you mention bees, since bee hives are a spontaneous order than emerges from the interactions and pheromone emissions of the bees, rather than a product of the design of the Queen or any other single mind. It therefore seems that bee hives are a better analogy for a market economy than a centrally planned state-socialist one.
0
reply
DK_Tipp
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
(Original post by Alfissti)
Socialized losses sounds good to me for as long as profits are private

One of the biggest downsides of socialism is none other than for it to function it needs a gigantic state to take other people's money to give it to you. Eventually the money will run out and just the same time if the state can give you something it can also take it away from you.

Big governments aren't really efficient in reality it does add to huge amounts of redtape and cost.

Relying on your own self is by far better than getting somewhere because a whole bus load of people helped you along the way.
Socialised losses and private profit are exactly what happened in many countries, especially Europe (particularly Ireland) where the people were forced to take the hit for sepculative banking. It's disgusting to anyone, a socialist or a fair minded capitalist.

(Original post by Swanbow)
Depends on your definition of socialism. I'll presume you mean USSR style socialism, opposed to social democracy (i.e. Nordic model, ect.)

He'd probably critique the system in that that socialism caters to the state rather than the people and that the politburo and party members have essentially replaced the bourgeoisie. The socialist state cares just as much for the welfare of its peoples than industrialists cared for the welfare of their workers. Class barriers haven't been removed, just swapped around and the fruits of production do not reach the working class.
The USSR was hardly a model socialist state, despite claims by both themselves and other to the contrary.
0
reply
EULawguy
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by Alfissti)
Socialized losses sounds good to me for as long as profits are private
That's neo-capitalism, amirite? Or rather, how capitalism always worked in practice.
0
reply
EULawguy
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by Martyn*)
They wouldn't be Socialists. Socialism and Marxism is not compatible. Some people choose the Marxist interpretation of Socialism. That is unfortunate. Marx has no right to claim Socialism.
Wasn't Socialism actually Bakunin's invention?

Or am I confusing him with Anarchism?
0
reply
Martyn*
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by EULawguy)
Wasn't Socialism actually Bakunin's invention?

Or am I confusing him with Anarchism?
Bakunin was an anarchist. Anarchism is more closer to revolutionary Communism than it is to Socialism. Proper Socialism is not anarchistic. For example, you cannot have anarchy if two warring factions of the whole society co-operate. Socialism is co-operation to achieve noble aims for the benefit of all. Co-operation of the whole is order, not anarchy. The breakdown of order is anarchy, and where there is breakdown there can be little or no co-operation of the whole to achieve anything...only co-operation of individuals to the warring factions, to overthrow the enemy to establish an elite, which is what Communism will do. This is also what fascism would do, establish an elite. Fascism is only a kind of anarchy, because it sets one against the other, capitalism and financial capitalism against the proletariat or the good of the people. When Hitler stormed to power, he attempted to create order through chaos. And he created chaos. Socialism is quite the opposite, a socialist would co-operate together to create order in order to diffuse chaos as much as possible. This is known as gradual or peaceful transition to Socialism. It is a form of idealism, as much as fascism is, but it is a lot less cruel. Both have the same ends: a good society for all. But the means to achieve it are very different.
0
reply
Alfissti
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by EULawguy)
That's neo-capitalism, amirite? Or rather, how capitalism always worked in practice.
Unfortunately in much of the world there are only neo-capitalism or crony-capitalism largely as a result of Keynesian economic policies.
0
reply
Alfissti
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by DK_Tipp)
Socialised losses and private profit are exactly what happened in many countries, especially Europe (particularly Ireland) where the people were forced to take the hit for sepculative banking. It's disgusting to anyone, a socialist or a fair minded capitalist.
I'm pretty sure even in Ireland everyone welcomed and loved the speculative banking when it was all going well.

Disgusting? Unfortunately that's just the way it is if you want a Keynesian economic policy, you could have let the banks fail but the state couldn't quite stomach it for some reason or another, in a real capitalist or free market economy companies no matter how big should simply be allowed to fail and if it means no more job then no more jobs it is, it did seem to me much of the bailouts which you could put it as socialised losses were primarily for public policy reasons.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
(Original post by Martyn*)
Bakunin was an anarchist. Anarchism is more closer to revolutionary Communism than it is to Socialism. Proper Socialism is not anarchistic. For example, you cannot have anarchy if two warring factions of the whole society co-operate. Socialism is co-operation to achieve noble aims for the benefit of all. Co-operation of the whole is order, not anarchy. The breakdown of order is anarchy, and where there is breakdown there can be little or no co-operation of the whole to achieve anything...only co-operation of individuals to the warring factions, to overthrow the enemy to establish an elite, which is what Communism will do. This is also what fascism would do, establish an elite. Fascism is only a kind of anarchy, because it sets one against the other, capitalism and financial capitalism against the proletariat or the good of the people. When Hitler stormed to power, he attempted to create order through chaos. And he created chaos. Socialism is quite the opposite, a socialist would co-operate together to create order in order to diffuse chaos as much as possible. This is known as gradual or peaceful transition to Socialism. It is a form of idealism, as much as fascism is, but it is a lot less cruel. Both have the same ends: a good society for all. But the means to achieve it are very different.
"Fascism is anarchy", lol next joke.

Most anarchists were socialists.

(Original post by EULawguy)
Wasn't Socialism actually Bakunin's invention?

Or am I confusing him with Anarchism?
Anarchism and socialism overlap. "All anarchists are socialists but not all socialists are anarchists" was a phrase used by Rudolph Rocker and the like.

(Original post by Martyn*)
Okay. Socialism has no branch known as "Marxism" or "Marxist Socialism". These are just interpretations of Socialism that have been forced to coincide with Communism and financial capitalism (true Marxism).
Marxism is a primarily a critique of the existing capitalism at the time. It has very little to say about socialism. Although he did support the whole dictatorship thing, or was that a just a play on words :confused:

(Original post by Swanbow)

He'd probably critique the system in that that socialism caters to the state rather than the people and that the politburo and party members have essentially replaced the bourgeoisie. The socialist state cares just as much for the welfare of its peoples than industrialists cared for the welfare of their workers. Class barriers haven't been removed, just swapped around and the fruits of production do not reach the working class.
So it isn't a socialist state by definition. In order to be so the workers need to control the means of the production. Both the west and the USSR called it socialism for Orwellian propaganda purposes.
0
reply
Martyn*
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
"Fascism is anarchy", lol next joke.

Most anarchists were socialists.
Wrong. They were Communists and Marxist Socialists.


(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
"Anarchism and socialism overlap. "All anarchists are socialists but not all socialists are anarchists" was a phrase used by Rudolph Rocker and the like.
Rocker was wrong. He, like many others, confuse Socialism with Communism (revolutionary anarchism)

(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
"Marxism is a primarily a critique of the existing capitalism at the time. It has very little to say about socialism. Although he did support the whole dictatorship thing, or was that a just a play on words :confused:
Except that Marx believed that Socialism was the means towards achieving Communist utopianism.

(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
"So it isn't a socialist state by definition. In order to be so the workers need to control the means of the production. Both the west and the USSR called it socialism for Orwellian propaganda purposes.
It is not Socialism at all. Socialist has nothing to do with the proles having control of the means of production. This is why many people slip up. Their interpretation of Socialism is that of Marx.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should the school day be extended to help students catch up?

Yes (28)
27.18%
No (75)
72.82%

Watched Threads

View All