Socialism

[Berkut]

So, I was just thinking that the perception of my views on the issue of socialism in politics and economics is relaly out whack with what I actually think. So I thought I would start a topic dedicated to something I've been thinking about a bit lately, which is the basic idea of human socialism.


First, lets define the term.


I do not want to use the term socialism as the knee-jerk pejorative that it is typically used as in US politics. Rather, I want to use the term to more generally describe the basic idea that human societies engage in a process of ensuring that everyone has some level of their needs met as a responsibility of society in general.


Now, the dispute comes not from whether or not we should do this, but at what level it ought to be done. Modern liberal democracy is a socialist society, lets make no bones about that. We do in fact re-allocate vsat resources towards the poor, or even the not so poor. We make sure people get enough to eat, we subsidize schooling, we subsidize health care. And I don't just mean by means of the government, but by many different means we do these things.


So for me, the debate is not at all some kind of Randian theoretical bullshit about how humans perform best out of self interest - that ship sailed a long time ago.


In fact, my basic thesis is not just that that ship already sailed, but that if you really look at human history in the broad sweeps, that ship has never even been in the dock.


Here is what I mean:


I contend that human history can broadly be summed up (as it relates to this issue) as follows:


Throughout, humans have through advancs in societal organizational structures, technology, political structures, etc., etc., almost continuouly enganged in a rather long, steady process of increasing our ability to produce "stuff". All the things we produce - food, clothing, shelter, remote control cars, clock radios, whatever. Overall, we have managed to keep increasing our ability to make the stuff we need and want in a more and more efficient manner. Through most of the early human history, this advance was pretty slow.


However - even at the earliest human times, as we as humans got better at making stuff, we have always taken some of that increased productivity and allocated it towards not just increasing the standard of living of those who actually produce more stuff, but to increasing the standard of living of the society as a whole, whether they are directly involved in that increase or not. This is socialism. We figured out how to domesticate crops, and we stored our food to protect the group against famine. That is socialism. We got to the point where we could have people who don't spend all their time creating food, and we took some of them and said "You will be a teacher, here is shitty room and a bucket of coal to keep it warm - we will send the kids to you to teach". That is socialism.


Human history has always been a continuing increase in the amount and kind of things we as a society deem appropriate to make sure everyone gets. A hundred years ago, nobody ever even argued about whether the poor should have equal access to health care. 200 years ago, I doubt anyone argued that the poor should be taught to read, or that reading ina nd of itself  ought to be a basic need that should be met for everyone.


Obviously the particulars of any specific level of socialism varied greatly across different societies, but I think it is reasonable to say that if you pick any particular point in time, and compare it to some point in time significantly earlier, you would find that there is more "socialism" as time progresses.


I think this is largely driven not by increasing human kindness, or anything of the sort. I think that is mostly rather consistent.


Rather I think it is driven strictly by economics and increased human labor productivity. We get better and better over time at making stuff, and that gives us more and more ability, over time, to allocate some of that production to socialism - the desire to equalize to some extent the wealth of society by defining more and more services as "basic" to be guaranteed at some level.


My point here is not that socialism is good or bad - I think it is, in fact, self evidently good, since the only way to assume it is otherwise is to assume that all of human history is some kind of mistake, that we have been doing the wrong thing basically forever. That makes no sense to me.


The problem I do have however, is the idea behind what I see as an unwillingness to be honest about this process. The unwillingness to recognize that the drive for great social distribution of resources is not, in the end, driven by what we want, but rather by what we can afford.


People did not give the poor excellent health care 100 years ago because they were all assholes who didn't care - rather, IMO, it was because society simply did not create enough excess "stuff" to be able to afford to do so. So the poor were, relatively, fucked. On the other hand, the poor 100 years ago did get to send their kids to school, so compared to the poor 100 years before them, they were a hell of a lot better off.


Overall, human society is largely consistent in the broad strokes about how much of the excess "stuff" we are willing and able to allocate to socialism. We are talking about giving the poor universal health care now not because we are ever so much more enlightened than we were, but rather because we simply are enjoying the fact that we produce enough excess stuff that the subject can even be contemplated. However, that doesn't mean we can actually afford it at the level that can be contemplated.


So there is where I stand - I think the arc of human history is pretty clear. In another hundred years, they will be talking about socialism in a context we would find incredible, and what we argue about now will be taken as a matter of course. I am fine with that.


What I am not ok with, however, is the argument that we ought to give the poor awesome health care because they deserve it, and damn the costs. I think we should have an honest and rational discussion about what society can afford, and then decide what should be done with that level of resources. Maybe that is more health care, maybe it is more education, maybe it is more welfare. But it should never be divorced from the realization that it must be paid for.

[crazy canuck]

You have an odd definition of socialism. 

[Razgovory]

It's like watching a man trying to hang himself with a lawnmower and a ball of yarn.

[Martinus]

You have an odd definition of socialism.

Yeah. What he describes is social democracy, which is exactly what Western liberal capitalism developed in response to socialism.

Today's Cuba is socialist, same as Poland was between 1945 and 1989.

[Tamas]

TL;DR

social democracy is only better than socialism because it lets people rise above poverty, so their ultimately hopeless efforts to cling to middle class keeps the system alive longer.

[Razgovory]

Also the not starving part.  Really Berkut has described an Industrial society. Even 1840's Britain, hardly a socialist paradise, the government tried to keep people from starving.  They weren't good at it, but they made an effort.  Hell, it describes a lot of pre-industrial societies as well. 

[Viking]

Defining Socialism as having welfare policies is silly. The modern welfare state was NOT invented by socialists, it was invented by the paleo-conservatives of Bismarck's Prussia to prevent the pressure among the dis-enfranchised working classes of Germany to cause them to revolt and create a communist state. It worked. It worked so well that the Bismarckian welfare state was adopted by the SPD creating what today is known as Social Democracy. Since then all the world's Labour and Social Democratic parties have pretended the welfare state was their idea.

[Josquius]

Yeah. What he describes is social democracy, which is exactly what Western liberal capitalism developed in response to socialism.

Today's Cuba is socialist, same as Poland was between 1945 and 1989.

Social democracy has just as much right to the socialist name as social dictatorships. More in fact.

Now, the dispute comes not from whether or not we should do this, but at what level it ought to be done. Modern liberal democracy is a socialist society, lets make no bones about that. We do in fact re-allocate vsat resources towards the poor, or even the not so poor. We make sure people get enough to eat, we subsidize schooling, we subsidize health care. And I don't just mean by means of the government, but by many different means we do these things.

Its funny how often the right doesn't get this.
Yesterday's left is todays right.

[Martinus]

Social democracy has just as much right to the socialist name as social dictatorships. More in fact.

Socialism is a system characterised by planned economy and state ownership of means of production, but (unlike communism) allowing limited private ownership of smaller businesses and private property in general.

[CountDeMoney]

Berkut just doesn't like the word "social".

[Berkut]

Christ, you fuckers are so damn hung up on semantics it is impossible to have a discussion with the majority of you.

[HVC]

You start a thread to define a term, define it contrary to most people's understanding and then get mad that they disagree with you definition? Lol classic languish.

[DGuller]

Christ, you fuckers are so damn hung up on semantics it is impossible to have a discussion with the majority of you.

I don't think you know what "fuckers" means.

[Viking]

You need to define your terms is we are going to have a sensible discussion about anything. If one of us defines socialism as state intervention, the next as a welfare state, the next as control of the means of production and the last as full central planning and distribution where each gets according to needs then we are not going to have a remotely sensible discussion.

Define your terms and we can have a discussion. Just be grateful that we are not defining your terms for you.

Edit: I mean just be grateful that everybody except me is not defining your terms for you.

[Berkut]

I did define my terms. That is the point.