I wanted to do a sufficient post tonight, but I have a headache that’s making my eyes feel as though they are popping out of their sockets. Suffice it to say, my concentration is lacking, so I’ll leave you with this thought, which is based on my husband’s conversations (arguments, really) with people who think that socialism is a major evil perpetrated on the world by nasty liberals.
Socialism is a fancy word for sharing.
The Woo Woo Teacup Journal 
Beautiful! I’m going to have to use that one.
yeah, it’s great… in theory. unfortunately “sharing” isn’t how it usually manifests in politics or heathcare or whatever. I’ll be honest and say it makes me nervous, but to call it a major evil would be to shut my mind from dialogue… and without dialogue there can be no progress. so while I don’t LIKE it, I promise I will never be one of those people giving your hubby a hard time!
I think their’s a noble intention behind communal sharing, but Socialism always ends up, in the government’s hands, more like forced-sharing.
But that’s just my opinion; I follow creative and fiction lifestyles more than I do actual politics, so I guess that puts me a little on the left; but really, it’s just all too adult for me…
About the headaches, I’m so sorry and I know what that’s like; I’m at the point where I may need to see a doctor; hope you’re feeling better sometime soon.
Pingback: Socialism vs. Capitalism « The Woo Woo Teacup Journal
Pingback: Socialism = Sharing « Coreys Views
Socialism is to sharing what Stealing is to giving.
Socialism is the agreed upon sharing of resources for the greater good of all people. Shall we do away with our fire and police departments and public education? Those are all socialistic institutions.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again (repeating what I’ve heard from thinkers far greater than I): No economic system in its purist, theoretical form works in the real world – not capitalism, not socialism, not communism & etc. What works is a healthy mix of all economic systems. The end.
To say “Socialism is the agreed upon sharing of resources for the greater good of all people,” is to tell a fib. At the very least it is to turn a blind eye to one of the most salient features, if not the most salient feature of socialism, and that is the use of coercion. Socialism specifically uses the power of the State to take, by force from some, and give to others. No where can this be guaranteed to be 100% voluntary and it is most often a very large % of the population that ends with no choice. So to claim Socialism is simply a matter of sharing is to elevate euphemism to a height it has never before been sent to befor.
So, Daniel, what you disagree with is the forced aspect. Well, fine, let’s do away with every institution in the United States that has to do with any sort of forced distribution of services, i.e. the aforementioned fire and police departments and public education and throw in roads, the criminal prosecution system, licensing of drivers (why can’t I drive without a license, after all?), Social Security, Medicare (don’t want to be forced to take care of those old people – they take more out of the system than they put into it), and public utilities (I want my clean water for free, thank you very much!). Not a single one of us should have to do anything by force, ever.
But, wait a second, I want to be able to drive to work on those roads, even if I don’t use them as much as UPS does. And I’d rather make sure I’m sharing those roads with people who aren’t going to crash into me, so I guess I have to be willing to go along with the whole licensing process. And, gee, I don’t want to get sick drinking untreated water, plus, I really want the fire department to show up when my house catches on fire, even if I don’t have to use the service 99.99% of the time. The list goes on for all of these “forced” socialistic services. Once I realize the benefit to me (and all those other people who refuse to see they’re getting some benefit), even though I didn’t set these services up, I see the wisdom of supporting them (although many of the services are not perfect and could use improvement). Now, it appears that I do agree with them and my attitude feels more like one of sharing than of being coerced.
As the government of the United States of America is supposed to be a representative republic, run by the people for the people, if it decides to take from some people over here to give to those people over there, it’s actually us taking and giving to us. Our government is not supposed to be some authoritarian monolith outside of us and if we, the people, feel it has gotten that way, it’s up to us to get involved and change it so that the services we choose to share truly are agreed upon for the highest good of all people.
As for your final statement about my comparison of socialism to sharing “[elevating] euphemism to a height it has never before been sent to befor,” I’d say that’s hyperbole at its finest and I’m pretty sure others have elevated euphemism higher than I’ve managed to do here.
Sometimes, in learning to share, a little force is required. Do we let one kindergartner hoard all the toys in the classroom, or do we force him to share with others?
Socialism, as with any other political system, is works in theory. But because of the human element, there will always be faults. People make these political systems not work.
I find it difficult to explain to people why socialism isn’t evil, except to people who already have socialist views to begin with. I personally do not find that discussions like that are valuable considering its all just a bunch of agreeing with each other. I enjoy a little disagreeing, it spices things up. Which is why I love to find well-educated, understanding people with differing political viewpoints from my own. I just want someone who has the ability to understand why someone feels a certain way, but has the integrity to stand by their own viewpoints.
I agree with you, Mary, 100%. And Erik too!
I guess the headache is gone…
The only way socialism works in theory is by ignoring salient aspects of what it is to be a human being. To live as man qua man, to live up to the best within us in impossible under a political theory that starts out with State violence and coercion. To ignore that is to believe in Unicorns and faeries.
As I said before, sharing is fine but when it’s coerced it’s stealing and for a system to work that requires everyone to share when you know at the outset that isn’t going to happen and just on the other side of the curtain is the man with a gun, is less than honest or moral.
Daniel – I think you’re ignoring the fact that I said no economic theory works in its purist form in the real world.
Did our forebears start fire departments and public education under the threat of state violence and coercion, or did they start these socialistic systems with a vision of trying to meet a greater good?
Sure, if you have an authoritarian government that decides when and how things are going to be done for the greater good of keeping that authoritarian government in power, that’s not sharing, but I’d also argue it’s not socialism either.
The U.S. government was not founded as an authoritarian government, but as a representative republic, which means the people have the say, which means those who came before us decided it was in the country’s best interest to set up certain services in a socialistic way. The fact that you may not like those services offered that way now does not mean that those who set them up were coerced into accepting them.
I would argue with your use of the term ‘socialism.’ So before we dance on more keys why don’t you tell me your source for your definition. Socialism as part of the last 100 years of political philosophy doesn’t seem to look like what you’re calling socialism – but I’m willing to be proven wrong. Words have both connotative and denotative meanings and your use of the word seems dishonest in light of the last 100 years of history in which every implementation of socialism that I’m aware of was done with coercion: Was founded on coercion.
Visions are fine but where the rubber meets the road is what really matters or do you think a rapist should be let go because his ‘vision’ was one of giving great pleasure and his intent was to have a good time.
My definition of socialism comes from looking at the success of countries such as Sweden and Denmark and from observing the systems we have set up in the U.S. that we call socialistic – i.e. the building of roads, public schools, and etc. In seeking a clearer grasp of this idea we’ve been arguing about, I see from Wikipedia that there are many flavors of socialism, including Democratic Socialism, which is what I’ve been espousing.
The basic definition of Socialism, according to Wikipedia, is as follows:
“Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.[1][2][3] A socialist society is a social structure organized on the basis of relatively equal power-relations, self-management, dispersed decision-making (adhocracy) and a reduction or elimination of hierarchical and bureaucratic forms of administration and governance; the extent of which varies in different types of socialism.[4][5]”
A partial definition of Democratic Socialism from Wikipedia includes the following:
“Democratic socialism generally refers to any political movement that seeks to establish an economy based on economic democracy by and for the working class.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
The definition of democracy, as found on WordNet, is “a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them.”
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=democracy
In putting those terms together, when the citizens of a country are responsible for running that country, as opposed to a dictator, oligarchy, or some other form of authoritarian government, and they choose to build systems owned by the public for the public good, they are engaging in a form of Socialism in my way of thinking.
Wikipedia also discusses how Socialism has branched from the founding concepts and includes the modern criticisms of the system.
Perhaps I’m arguing for the idea of Socialism as conceived prior to 100 years ago, but while that notion may have been skewed within the last 100 years, I still think we see the original definition enacted through our public services.
I think your understanding of socialism…quaint. In your ignorance you equate socialism and sharing but only in your ignorance do those two concepts equate. This is from an article printed in American Scholar in 1943. A time in the world when these competing philosophies were killing people and the need to know and understand what was being said and meant was paramount. If you want I’ll give you the url to the whole article.
“A socialist party always tries to achieve its own brand of socialism, not the simple victory of any socialist group. The socialists do not advocate socialism and planning in general, but only a system of socialist planning in which they themselves are supreme. They regard the rule of another socialist party not as a partial success for their own aspirations, but as a greater evil than the capitalist market economy. The mutual animosity of Stalinists and Trotskyites, of the Marxian socialists and National Socialists, is in a class by itself. It is easy to see the reason for this hatred: as long as there is still a market economy, socialist minorities enjoy civil liberties and are free to propagate their doctrines; in a socialist community they are deprived of this opportunity. Where all assembly halls, newspapers, periodicals, and printing offices are in government hands, and where every citizen depends on the whims of the rulers, there is no room left for opposition activities. It is mechanically impossible to criticize those in power publicly; dissenters are exiled or driven underground.”
My “quaint” definition of socialism happens to be a textbook definition. From the McGraw-Hill Sociology Glossary:
Socialism is “An economic system under which the means of production and distribution are collectively owned.”
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072435569/student_view0/glossary.html
Obviously, those who were arguing about socialism as referred to in the 1943 article were attempting to have more control over the masses than is inherent in this textbook definition.
Daniel Hofford…I wonder if you would be so kind as to share your definition of socialism.
Aside from discussions of what socialism is or is not, I find your ad hominem attacks against the writer of this blog distracting and distasteful. Terms such as “quaint” and “ignorance” do not further your argument. Quite the contrary, actually.
I say quaint because your knowledge of socialism that you equate with sharing is a Disney version. At best you’ve looked up the definition of it but that doesn’t tell you any of the substance. What does it mean “in practice’ to be collectively owned? How does that work out in people’s daily lives? You seem to think the the relatively homogeneous populations of the Scandinavian countries should be a shining example but only if you know nothing about the instability in those societies and what’s happening on the ground their in real economic terms and not from a travelogue.
Shadowrider – you need to look up ad hominem.
As we’re into definitions tonight, here’s the definition of ad hominem from Dictionary.com:
“attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument. ”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad+hominem
Daniel – You have insinuated that I’m ignorant, quaint, telling a fib, “believe in Unicorns and faeries,” “less than honest or moral,” and living in some sort of Disneyland with my definition of socialism. I’d say that fits the definition of ad hominem.
As I’ve given the definition of socialism that I’m working from, a definition which does not include force or coercion, perhaps you can be a pal and give me (and Shadowrider) your full definition and how you came to believe that definition is more valid than the one that’s currently on the textbooks.
Daniel – I do not think so. In arguing against the point of this blogger you have made personal insults which do not relate to the point at hand. If you cannot present a cogent argument without resorting to such tactics, it comes across as you not having a clue what you are talking about.
Daniel – I would still like it if you would share your definition of socialism.
Shall we go back to Robert Owen, or Charles Fourier or Henri de Saint-Simon? Do you want to use the half baked notions of Charles Dickens or should we refer to Das Kapital. Or Mein Kampf? Shall we take the small, homegeneous populations of Northern Europe and use what they do? How about China or North Korea? Are we going to say ‘Socialism’ is any political system that doesn’t use coercion? Socialism has a history on this planet and as far as histories go, it’s pretty ugly.
Socialists generally do not have a high regard for individual rights. You’re rights are established by the collective, by
mobocracy or what is politely referred to as ‘democracy’ in the better ones. In the worst you are the property of the state.
At one time ‘socialism’ referred to nothing more than the ‘idea’ of social organization. Would it be salient to use it that way today? The word ‘socialism’ today carries the heavy baggage of history connotatively and implies State coercion. If someone were to say ‘I mean socialism without coercion,’one would have to immediately ask what that means. What would be an example of it? If one were then to say, ‘Well I mean sharring,’ then one would ask, ‘Why use the word ‘socialism’ with all of it’s baggage?’ It seems inappropriate.
Does every act of sharing consist of being socialistic? If I share my apple with my child am I being a ‘socialist?’ If I give my neighbor a beer, am I being a ‘socialist?’ In both cases I’m sharing but how does that qualify as socialsm?
If I give a million dollars to charity we usually identify that as philanthropy, not socialism, but I’ve certainly shared my wealth.
Was the simple act of kindness and generosity that ‘sharing’ calls to mind ever the dominant notion behind
the implementation of socialism anywhere? Has it ever worked to create a free and prosperous society on a consistent long term basis or has it lasted only as long as there were those with sufficient surplus to keep feeding the ‘system?’
I’m sorry, but I do think you’re ignorant of history and political philosophy and of the history of socialism in particular and wonder at your attachment to this term. And I do think your notion of it is ‘Disneized.’ Or I could say your mistaken. But it amounts to the same thing. There may be people for whom sharing is the most important virtue they can imagine and for them it might be uplifting to call it ‘socialism’ but I can only believe that would be true if they were totally unfamiliar with the history of ‘socialism’ in practice.
Think as you wish. I disagree with you.
A very nice history lesson. Could you please share your definition of socialism?
Pingback: Eleven Benefits of an Online Pissing Match « The Woo Woo Teacup Journal
I’ve been rereading a book that answers much of what you’re wondering about vis-a-vis ‘socialism.’ It’s not a book on socialism but on social organization. “Simple Rules for a Complex World.” by Richard Epstein. I think you might enjoy the book – the best summary I can give of it here in the context of this conversation is this: Complex social norms whose costs are high but can be hidden will be adopted sooner than simple social norms whose costs are low but cannot be hidden. It’s my take and there is so much more but I don’t want to write what you can read in more eloquent language by getting this book.
Thanks for the suggestion, Daniel. I’ve long been interested in sociology and the various ways groups of people arrange themselves in order to create societies.
Hard to take seriously anyone who uses the word “socialism” as an epithet; even less possible to take anyone seriously who uses the word “socialism” or its various forms to describe the current president of the United States (or, for that matter, ANY past US president).
That said, I had a fascinating conversation with a Swede on my flight to NYC from Detroit a couple of weeks ago. He spoke favorably about the system there, acknowledging that the high tax rates were a reasonable price to pay for the social network provided. And he is a young (late 30s – early 40s) entrepreneur who has a branch of his business in greater Detroit. He also spoke to the fact that Sweden is considered the least religious country on the planet.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the conjunction of its social system (which is not exactly pure socialism, of course, but much more realistically close to socialism than this crazy country, regardless of the absurd rhetoric from the right about Obama (or Clinton, or any president to the left of. . . that great corporate socialist, Ronald Reagan. Of course, conservatives don’t acknowledge that tax breaks are welfare for the rich and the corporations they own and/or control), and its lack of overall religiousness is no coincidence. Western religion has always been much happier partnering with fascism and capitalism than with democracy or socialism (as long as the particular religion in question is given free reign to operate and profit). It’s hardly a shock to learn how closely tied Christian fundamentalism is to the most conservative elements on Capitol Hill. Well, not a shock to me, at least.
I am sure Sweden isn’t paradise, but it has made the principled decision, as a nation, to not let people get filthy rich on the backs of a huge, ever-growing under class.
All of the above said (and I really don’t care who is harelipped by anything I’ve written, nor do I intend to go rolling in the mud with any of the trolls here), the basic notion that sharing is socialism with a quick descent into the alleged evils of “forcing” people to act fairly (like it or not) is so typical of a certain sort of American ignorance. It’s been pointed out repeatedly that we need social cooperation to survive in any sort of system. If we let certain folks have their way, they’d only pay precisely for the roads they use, the fire fighters who come to their house, the police who patrol their neighborhoods, and just as little as they can conceivably get away with while still feeling safe. Ditto for water and power, the environment (at which they generally scoff, all the while benefiting from the work many people do to preserve it and keep us from being routinely poisoned by unregulated food (not that we still don’t seem to have problems there, but then government cut-backs on such regulatory agencies really do tend to have consequences), and much else. I won’t even bother to mention education, given how much of a hot button that is for typical fiscal conservatives and libertarian types.
A society that is predicated on “Me first, me last, and me every single time” is ultimately doomed to collapse under its own selfishness. It can be a small group, like a family, or a large one, like a nation. We daily seem more and more inclined to sell out to the rich and powerful in the vain hope that we’ll be allowed to get a bigger piece of the pie, maybe even become one of the bigwigs. And every black kid I know in Detroit doesn’t need school because he’s going to play in the NBA or become a rapper. What a country!
Can you hear it, Michael? I’m giving you a standing ovation. Bravo! And bravo again! You have stated so beautifully what I think about the issue of sharing the goods of a nation so that all may have a decent quality of life, rather than allow select people to hoard the wealth to the detriment of the masses. My hat is off to you, sir!