Socialism

[robkelk]

As requested, spun off into its own thread.

So, exactly what is socialism?

Socialism in theory:

The dictionary definitions in Oxford and Merriam-Webster are remarkably similar (although M-W has a definition that OED doesn't), so I'll be lazy and just quote M-W's wording of the definitions that the two dictionaries have in common.

1. : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
3. : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

I think we can all agree that the Marxist definition simply does not work. Marxism fails to take into account the simple fact that people like to own things.


Socialism in practice:

"[A]dvocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"... We already have collective ownership; we call it the stock market. But there are companies where "collective ownership" means the employees are the only ones who own any of the shares, and every employee owns at least one share. And those companies are just as successful as other companies, if not more so - the employees have a tangible benefit to working there. They're making themselves rich, not toiling away for the 1%. (The less said about "governmental ownership", the better - governments are not businesses, and cannot effectively operate the way that businesses operate.)

But that isn't what people think of when they hear the word "socialist". This is, or at least it's one example:



The descriptive text goes on to say:

Finland explained himself in the comic, but in 2010 Denmark started giving heroine[sic] to drug addicts for free and it was such a huge success that it has continued until today. Because of this Norway has started experimenting with it too.

It’s a lot cheaper for society because the addicts commit less crime, they don’t have to spend money on drugs so instead they spend it on things that are more healthy for them so they don’t end up on the hospital as often, they have to take the drugs in special clinics so there’s no chance of them taking an overdose or using dirty needles and spreading diseases among each other, there’s always staff ready to help them if they want to get off the drugs, and it’s a lot more effective way to help more people because addicts come into contact with professionals who want to help them before they even think about getting help themselves.

Nobody wants to be homeless or an addict. Though they often end up getting involved in criminality because of their situation, the act of being homeless or an addict is not a crime in itself and the people deserve help like anyone else.

I happen to think that this particular example goes too far to the left. Not in providing homes to the homeless - multiple real-life case studies from both North America and Europe show that doing this gets people out of the recidivism cycle and the hospital emergency rooms, which saves tax money in the in the long run, and thus is not really left-wing at all... as long as the formerly-homeless actually find work (but they're more likely to find work once they can put home addresses on their resumes) and start paying rent on those apartments. What I'm not wild about is the giving drugs to addicts; I'd much rather see programs to help addicts break their addictions (and that's where my charitable donations go).

[Labster]

The problem with all of this, from an American perspective, is that drug addicts need to be punished for their antisocial behavior. Even if the program in Denmark is cheaper and reduces crime, it doesn't address the underlying issue that drug abuse is a character weakness that needs to be punished.

The same goes for housing. Why should we reward people who didn't work hard enough to afford a home? Being poor and living on the street was their choice. But what, you argue, about the unlucky people? The ones who just had a health care issue coincide with a job loss? Well, if they were actually good people, God wouldn't punish them that way. To those who are good, God will reward them with wealth. Economic bankruptcy can only be a sign of moral bankruptcy.

Except for the problem that this contradicts the plain meaning of the Gospels, it all works out very well for Christians who believe their place in the status quo is truly earned, and take great pride in that fact.

America's right wing is no longer economically conservative, though. You can't prove that a policy would save money, and expect votes for it. They've done giant tax giveaways rather than rein in the budget deficit. In fact, the budget deficit always decreases under Democrats and always increases under Republicans. The social issues are entirely dominant. We're long past the point where economic arguments have any effect.

[classicdrogn]

The teal deer there is looking like "Socialism works, if you have at least a plurality acting in good faith for the common benefit." Which is why it won't work with the current culture in America, acting for the common benefit means sometimes putting it at least slightly above your own interests, and no one gets into a leadership position by doing anything but advancing their own interests first, last, and always.

[hazard]

I happen to think that this particular example goes too far to the left. Not in providing homes to the homeless - multiple real-life case studies from both North America and Europe show that doing this gets people out of the recidivism cycle and the hospital emergency rooms, which saves tax money in the in the long run, and thus is not really left-wing at all... as long as the formerly-homeless actually find work (but they're more likely to find work once they can put home addresses on their resumes) and start paying rent on those apartments. What I'm not wild about is the giving drugs to addicts; I'd much rather see programs to help addicts break their addictions (and that's where my charitable donations go).

What makes you think Denmark's program isn't an attempt at helping addicts break their addictions?

It gets addicts in contact with people who want to help them, and they don't have to look for somebody willing to assist them after they've realized they both want and need the help. It just goes about it in a very different way than you are used to, trying to create the support network before the attempt is made instead of trying to build it while also going through the attempt to break the addiction.

As for the homeless and unemployed; generally people are willing to work to at least some level, and it's still cheaper for society to support those who are not willing or able to support themselves because it greatly decreases the incentives for criminal activity. When you know that you have food on your table, a house to live in and a bed to lie in you are much less likely to get yourself into trouble to support your primary needs. Even if the quality of that all is lacking.

[Bob Schroeck]

The teal deer there is looking like "Socialism works, if you have at least a plurality acting in good faith for the common benefit." Which is why it won't work with the current culture in America, acting for the common benefit means sometimes putting it at least slightly above your own interests, and no one gets into a leadership position by doing anything but advancing their own interests first, last, and always.

And not just those in leadership positions.  A fair percentage of the population -- not just the Republican base, but you can be sure they're a big part of it -- thoroughly embraces a "me first, everyone else can go to hell" philosophy, as evidenced by the ridiculously large number of people who are "rebelling" against masks.  Which caused the other is a pointless question, but it's clear the modern Republican party is encouraging, exploiting, and profiting from it.

[Black Aeronaut]

Really, I don't see why others here in the USA can't see the forest for the trees in this matter. But I guess it's like what Bob said - me first and everyone else can go to hell.

Personally, I think that it's worse than that.

I mean, we've all seen it and even acknowledged it - that the most toxic and vociferous supporters of Trump and the current regime of the GOP seem to actively desire for this country to fall into turmoil. And I don't mean that metaphorically, I mean an actually apocalyptic collapse of society.

But why would anyone want that?

Easy. Because it's the most "realistic" fantasy that can be achieved. Building something great and wonderful is a lot of hard work. But it's so SO much easier to wreck shit and make it so that no one can have nice things. And then there's the fantasy aspect of it all: everybody wants to be like fucking Dale in The Walking Dead.

So if we can't have a zombie apocalypse, we do the next best thing - divide the populace, stir up unrest, and pretty much do everything you can to get people to fight each other. Because once you start sharing your polarizing views, others will retaliate with their own, and that is bound to set off others in their adjoining circles with outcries of "How can you say such a thing!" (We see this with the backlash against BLM with Blue Lives Matter and All Lives Matter.)

So, yeah. I take back what I said on the matter. They can see the forest for the trees. Problem is they'd very much like to clearcut that forest, burn the rest to ashes, and then salt the earth afterwards, because fuck everyone else - they're out to get their apocalypse whether the rest of us want it or not.

[robkelk]

What makes you think Denmark's program isn't an attempt at helping addicts break their addictions?

Because that wasn't what the writeup said. I can only go with what I'm told.

[nocarename]

Because that wasn't what the writeup said. I can only go with what I'm told.

It’s a lot cheaper for society because the addicts commit less crime, they don’t have to spend money on drugs so instead they spend it on things that are more healthy for them so they don’t end up on the hospital as often, they have to take the drugs in special clinics so there’s no chance of them taking an overdose or using dirty needles and spreading diseases among each other, there’s always staff ready to help them if they want to get off the drugs, and it’s a lot more effective way to help more people because addicts come into contact with professionals who want to help them before they even think about getting help themselves.

The description is one of harm mitigation followed up by breaking the people out of addiction with support and trust already in place. If you want people to stop having an addiction and to instead go on to be contributors to society, it helps to keep them alive. Then you introduce them to people they can try and trust who want to help them rather than just piles and piles of shame and gnawing chemical dependency.

It is roughly the same methods as providing a home for the homeless - treat the symptom and once you have that doing better if not great, then go to work on fixing the cause.

[SilverFang01]

A lot of misconceptions about socialism in the USA are a product of Cold War propaganda. Both Hitler and Stalin were fascists but in order to differentiate ally from enemy in the minds of John Q. Public we called the Soviets communists. Once the war was over and the Soviet Union became our opponents we continued to call them communists out of convenience.

[hazard]

No, Stalin was not a fascist.

He was a murderous authoritarian asshole, but while authoritarianism does generally end up in the province of the right wing, the left is not necessarily non-authoritarian. Calling him a communist is not incorrect, even though he was really quite shit at being a communist and very good at using communism to further and maintain his power.

[Labster]

Stalin was a communist, but he was a stronger believer in Lord Vetinari's "one man, one vote" system.