Something I don't understand about socialism

Jump to Last Post 1-5 of 5 discussions (92 posts)

67
innersmiffposted 10 years ago
Bob, Peter and Lucy all own land of an equal size, and respect each other's right to it. Bob grows apples on his land, Peter breeds cows on his land, and Lucy grows wheat.

1. - Bob trades a basket of apples with Peter for a pale of milk.

2.- Bob trades a basket of apples with Peter for a pale of milk, who in turn trades half of the apples with Lucy for a sprig of wheat.

3. - All three agree to use a common medium of exchange for all of their trading (money).

4.- Bob pays Peter to pick apples for him.

In which scenario is it acceptable to use aggressive force to prevent the actors from participating in the transaction?

The only coherent answer is either 1, or none. By choosing 1, you're rejecting the premise, i.e. you don't believe in property and property rights. If your answer is 'none', you're a capitalist.

Any other answer doesn't make sense. What about these scenarios is significantly different from scenario 1 that it justifies violence?
reply report
1. 78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You are saying aggressive force will be used to prevent Bob from trading a basket of apples with Peter for some of his cow's milk in a socialistic system? Why and how? This is completely over my head.... or I have not been paying attention.
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Well this is what I'm trying to find out. Marx suggests that scenario 4 is an authoritarian one, and the proletariat is justified in using violence to prevent it from happening, or at least significantly change the relationship. But I do not find it a sufficiently different scenario than any of the others to agree.
  reply report
2. 61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Answering none does not make you a capitalist, it's that simple.
  
  Actually it's the capitalist system that stops Bob trading with Peter and Lucy. Think about companies like Monsanto, thoroughbred capitalists and plenty of violence..
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  - what form does the aggressive force and violence take in either case? (I'm feeling so mentally inferior right now.) I trust you are right innersmiff... but could you please make it more clear?
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I presume, probably incorrectly, that when Innersmiff talks of violence and aggression he doesn't mean visits from guys with baseball bats, rather aggressive use of laws and regulations, pretty much as used by capitalists.
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  probably correctly. thank you.
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  BTW I would be for socialism if it worked, John. Based on human nature it cannot work, but you STILL think it could work! You think human nature is good and flawless? You think Mary would want to share her sprigs of wheat with Jane over there who now has so many children she doesn't know what to do? No. So, Mary decides Jane doesn't deserve any more of her sprigs. Mary feels that Jane and her brood can just reap the consequences of her over-indulgence in making love to her way handsome husband! (who, alas, is a musician and refuses to get his hands dirty.) In a socialistic system Mary would indeed be forced to go against her better judgement. She would be forced to help Jane and her lazy musician husband. Mary would not be at all happy being forced to share her sprigs with such an irresponsible couple. She would be steeped in resentment. She would become depressed. She would start taking anti-depressants and Zoloft. Then she would start taking Zanex and smoking Pot. Then she would become a burden to the health care system. Her kids would find themselves in an unhappy home and become teenage hoodlums, drop out of school and be forced into lives of crime. (Because the dole just doesn't provide enough. And the dole takes away their pride and sense of dignity.) No. Socialism is not for humans. So stop already!
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Oh no she wouldn't!
  Remember, socialism says that if you don't work, you don't eat. It is capitalism that pays people not to work.
  reply report
  57
  Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Denmark a socialist country? People who do not work in Denmark still eat. Here's what the New York Times had to say about Denmark:
  
  "Denmark has long held the title of the best place on earth to be laid off. With an expensive, generous welfare state, and the world’s most lavish unemployment insurance scheme, virtually no one falls through the cracks upon losing a job." I guess unemployed people do eat in some socialist countries.
  
  http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/ … afety-net/
  
  In another article, the New York Times reports about Denmark again:
  
  ". . .It turned out, however, that life on welfare was not so hard (in Denmark). The 36-year-old single mother, given the pseudonym 'Carina' in the news media, had more money to spend than many of the country’s full-time workers. All told, she was getting about $2,700 a month, and she had been on welfare since she was 16."
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/world … wanted=all
  
  Again, I guess some people in socialist nations do eat when they do not work.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  OK, I'll correct you. Denmark is not a socialist country. It is a mixed economy with strong socialist elements.
  reply report
  80
  jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  You've hit the nail on its head. Let's hope everyone gets it before we turn into Venezula or Greece.
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Yet today others think that Bernie Sanders is so wonderful!
  He wants to raise taxes.
  
  Don't raise taxes.
  reply report
  79
  colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, and the same looting is happening to Portugal, and is underway in Spain and in Italy, EU-style. Ireland and Latvia have been devoured along with a number of Latin American countries. The same is underway in the Ukraine.
  
  Germany thinks the IMF should lend money to Greece to be repaid to the privet banks. Then, the IMF is supposed to be repaid by forcing Greece to abolish their old age pensions, reduce employment and public services, and take the insufficient revenue funds saved to repay the IMF. Greece would have to sell their national assets to foreign investors who are the banks themselves and their big players.
  
  The Globalist plan: loot America.
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  How can they be stopped in your view, colorfulone?
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  I believe European countries are all scrambling to re-adjust themselves as capitalist economies without admitting socialism's defeat to save face ........They have that high and mighty European pride you know !........:-]
  reply report
  79
  colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  To be totally honest, I wouldn't know where to start.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Is there any real difference, in the end result, between thugs with baseball bats and cops with guns? The one breaks your bones and closes your "business", the other puts you in jail and closes your "business". Either way, the business is closed and Bob cannot trade apples with Peter as they mutually wish to.
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  No difference at all in the short term, in the long term I'd rather face the thugs with baseball bats than the cops with guns.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  No difference in the long term, either, as thugs with bats graduate to thugs with tommy guns to thugs with planes and bombs. Whether you term them "thugs" or "cops" when power is abused (by interfering in private dealings between two consenting adults for instance) they both become de facto governments.
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I'm referring to any kind of aggressive violence, whether you literally go to them and threaten them with baseball bats, or whether you vote for someone to hire a police force to do it instead. They're the same.
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Capitalism requires, by definition, widespread respect for private property rights. To prevent the three parties from trading with each other would therefore be anti-capitalistic.
  
  Monsanto uses the very public entity of the state to grant it special privilege and regulate the rest of the competition out - a very anti-capitalistic thing to do.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  But widespread respect for property does not define capitalism. You try owning a piece of land that the capitalists want to exploit!
  Preventing the three parties from trading with each other is very capitalist.
  
  Since when has the elimination of the competition been an anti-capitalist thing? I rather thought it was right at the core of capitalism.
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You're conflating the actual definition of capitalism with the state-corporatism you have decided to label as capitalism. When you get down to the nitty-gritty of what capitalism is, it is: private property rights and free trade. Anything antithesis to that is not capitalism.
  
  I know people like to label what we have now: this incestuous relationship between corporations and government, as capitalism, but it is mis-labelled. But since it is ingrained so hard into people's minds, I'm starting to think it might be a good idea to abandon the word. If you really don't believe aggressive violence is justified in preventing any of the above scenarios, we have nothing to argue about other than semantics.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The definition and purpose of capitalism is primarily the accumulation of capital. Anything else is just flim flam.
  
  It is not a relationship between government and corporations, well no more of a relationship than between a man and his head lice. It is capitalism doing what it is intended to do, and that's to accumulate capital by any means fair or foul.
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  In order to have a debate about anything there needs to be come common ground, and if you're going to displace dictionary definitions with your own personal judgment of what words mean we're not going to get anywhere.
  
  For example, feminism has a dictionary definition, and it would be unfair of anybody to argue "the definition of feminism is treading on men". That would be that person's judgment of what feminism entails, its ultimate outcome or whatever, but not its definition. This is what you're doing with capitalism. No where in the dictionary does it say: "Capitalism: noun, to accumulate capital by any means necessary, including violence, exploitation, sweat-shops and child-labour" and there's a good reason for that.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, a very good reason. The dictionary compilers and publishers are usually capitalists and don't really want to tell the truth.
  A little historical research will confirm my reasoning.
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Oh my goodness. You know, I actually imagined you might say that, and disregarded it because I thought that would be a perfect parody of what a socialist might say!!
  
  Well, in that case, all the more reason to abandon the words 'capitalism' and 'socialism' altogether, because we're not going to find common ground that way.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I think it will be very unlikely that we will find common ground, whatever words we use.
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Then I don't see the purpose of you attempting to refute me or even reply to the thread. Why even go on a forum if not to attempt to have intelligent discourse? At the moment it's a bit like the argument clinic from Monty Python - "That's not an argument, that's just a contradiction!"
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  What! and allow all your misinformation to go unchallenged?
  
  And is then your idea of intelligent debate total agreement with you?
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You're being deliberately obtuse. Declaring statements at each other, a debate does not make. It is akin to debating in a different language.
  
  I say: "If you support free exchange, you're a capitalist"
  
  Then you say: "No! Capitalism is all about preventing free exchange!!"
  
  We're talking about completely different things here. I'm talking about dictionary definitions, and you're talking about judgments. If we don't choose one or the other, there is no point in debating. You don't want to use dictionary definitions. That's annoying, but fine, so I propose that we continue the discussion with the above scenarios without labelling anything 'capitalist' or 'socialist', and you're still saying I'm misunderstanding the words. So make your mind up please.
  report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  No, you are using dictionary definitions, I'm using life experience.
  
  OK, carry on without using the terms "capitalist" or "socialist" - you have a way of editing the thread title?
  report
  67
  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  It may be your experience but only represents a judgment of what capitalism is, and is therefore insufficient as a debate starting point.
  
  I can't edit the title. Look at the scenarios, and then keep going: would it be acceptable to use violence to prevent Peter from working with Bob if it was specified in the contract that Bob could whip Peter if he turned up late?
  report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  In that case, your judgement of socialism is insufficient as a debate starting point?
  
  Your scenario is so loaded as to be unanswerable, especially with your restriction on using defining terms.
  
  If I agree that it was not acceptable, you would immediately jump on that as a condemnation of socialism although the behaviour is much more in-line with that exercised by capitalists.
  report
  67
  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Ah, ah, I won't, because we've given up using 'Capitalism' and 'Socialism' now. If you agree that it is not acceptable, we just agree, nothing more, nothing less.
  report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Bit of a pointless debate then!
  
  Should we both agree that it is unacceptable to beat our wives?
  report
67
innersmiffposted 10 years ago
Thought experiment: let's not use any label.

If you don't believe aggressive violence is justifiable in any of these scenarios, you agree with me. So what are we arguing about exactly?
reply report
1. 61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Your understanding of capitalism, which is just about as wrong as your understanding of socialism
  reply report
83
psycheskinnerposted 10 years ago
I have no idea why socialism is being used as an antonym for capitalism, why socialism is being equated to a barter system, or what the use of force has to do with any of this.

Socialism is any system where those in need are subsidized by those with excess capacity. As such, America is pretty socialist right now and I am all for it.
reply report
1. 67
  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Do you see what I mean? Applying labels to this is kind of a folly, because I'm not trying to do any of that. As far as your definition of socialism is concerned: there are any numbers of ways that could be applied, some that violate the above scenarios and some that do not.
  reply report
  83
  psycheskinnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  No I don't see what you mean. Calling a cat a dog doesn't mean species labels are pointless. Just that you need to get them right.
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Everyone knows what a cat and a dog are. The problem lies when people start mixing the definition with their judgment or idea about what they are, like saying a cat literally is laziness.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Or like saying socialism is violence and total economic control?
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I go by the dictionary definition: collective ownership of the means of production. Depending on your application of it, it could violate some, none or all of the above scenarios.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Doesn't collective imply "the people"?
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  "The people" are equally capable of violence or peace.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Who said that they weren't?
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Why bring it up then? What does it have to do with my point?
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Er! you said in your OP "In which scenario is it acceptable to use aggressive force to prevent the actors from participating in the transaction?"
  
  I think that means that you brought up the topic. You tell me what it has to do with anything?
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I'm talking about aggression and you say "the people". How does that relate to my point?
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Then who is using aggression? The daleks?
  report
  67
  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You've really lost me at this point.
  report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Not half as much as you've lost me! You are responding to one of your own posts!
  report
  83
  psycheskinnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Indeed. But the solution is not to give up using words to describe ideologies. But to call people on their crap.
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  But then you start to debate with people like John, who refuse to use dictionary definitions so adamantly that you can't get anywhere.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Says the man who keeps harking back to Marx, who died 120 years ago!
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So you want to have a discussion about Socialism without mentioning Marx? . . . OK
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  OK, if you want to claim that Marx is relevant to modern socialism!
  But wait! I'm only allowed to refer to 21st century ideas of capitalism and not the actual roots and meaning!
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Uhh, as the genesis of modern socialism, yeah, but perhaps not of John Holdenism, the strange type of socialism he doesn't want to define in concrete terms, only in hyperbole and exclamation marks.
  
  The definition of capitalism has not really changed since the time of the industrial revolution. 'Private ownership of the means of production' is what I am in favour of, so from now on when I mention capitalism I am referring to that, not your loosely defined version of it.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Marxism is just one face of socialism, much as state capitalism is one face of capitalism. To say that all socialists are Marxists is just as stupid as saying all capitalists are state capitalists.
  
  I suggest that you look into the background of capitalism. The enclosures, a capitalist purge, happened during the industrial revolution.
  I eagerly await your denunciation of the capitalist enclosures.
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The point of the thread was to clarify the HubPages socialists' position, and by brining up Marx I was offering an example of how Marxists might view the above scenarios. I wasn't saying all socialists think like that.
  
  If you're talking about dispossession and displacement, I do indeed denounce that. That is an example of violation of property right.
  reply report
2. 61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  No, wrong, socialism is any system where there are none in need of charity.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So now we define the perfect society as "socialism" and then declare that any specific facets you would like to see are socialistic. Talk about circular reasoning!
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Hilariously Orwellian reasoning too!
  
  "What is good is Socialism and Socialism is good, good = Socialism. Just as bad is Capitalism and Capitalism is bad. Capitalism is not just bad, it equals bad. Anything bad that happens is Capitalism and anything good that happens is Socialism"
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yep! And with such a definition, I'd want socialism, too! I just wouldn't want all the bad things that other people define as socialistic - the near total control over anything economic to start with.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Near total control over everything economic! Surely that's capitalism?
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Nope. Capitalism = control by any individual that can accomplish it. Socialism = control by the government, headed by individuals that make the rules to suit themselves.
  
  Not a whole lot of difference, except that capitalism allows individuals to climb slowly up the economic ladder, socialism does not. I realize that you put the accumulation of wealth and variable pay scales as socialistic, but few others do.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  "I realize that you put the accumulation of wealth and variable pay scales as socialistic," ???
  
  So banks aren't capitalist!
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Don't quite follow the connection here. Banks have little to do with pay scales (outside of what they pay their own employees) OR the accumulation of wealth. Large wealth is not put into a bank, after all, only small amounts required for quick liquidity. Unless you refer to ownership, or part ownership, of the business we term "bank"?
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  No connection, I should have used --------------------
  
  I was puzzled by you describing capitalist traits as socialist!
  
  Large wealth may not be put into banks, but the billions they trade every day is certainly large.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Assume you are talking about trading loans (primarily mortgages). And playing the middle man is different somehow than a distribution center, collecting specific non-loan products and re-selling them to other retailers? They are essentially selling their expertise in making loans to someone else, someone that wants that loan but doesn't want the work of investigating and making the loan.
  
  Or, if you mean "playing the stock market", that is different than individuals doing the same thing? Not that I would necessarily agree that artificially increasing the "value" of a company by such actions is necessarily a reasonable thing to do...
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I mean exactly playing the stock market. And no, apart from scale, no different to anybody else doing it.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I guess a socialistic country would not have a stock market as all businesses are owned by the state.
  
  Except that you've told me an individual can save up their excess earnings and start their own company. I assume a group of people could do the same thing, and that ownership in the company could be sold; a stock exchange.
  report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Where have I ever said that all businesses would be owned by the state?
  report
  83
  psycheskinnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I can live with your definitions, although they are skewed, but not you conclusions.
  
  Highly socialist countries are clearly socially mobile. Arguably more so than more free market countries that lack true public education.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  There ARE no truly socialistic countries, any more than there are any truly capitalistic ones. About all that can be said is that some are socialistic or capitalistic leaning. Neither one, it it's pure form, works at all, with the result that all are a mix of both.
  
  One could as easily say that "highly capitalistic countries are clearly socially mobile. Arguably more so than more socialistic countries that lack incentive to improve oneself." To pick and choose the best from one side against a few with known strong deficiencies in specific areas is hardly reasonable.
  
  And while those definitions are partially tongue in cheek, there is truth there as well. Understand that while a socialistic country can have a good government composed of honest people, just as a capitalistic one can, that is not the norm but only a temporary aberration in the more normal greed of mankind. While the majority may be pretty much (pretty much!) satisfied with what they have, there will always be a handful that are not satisfied no matter what they have, and it is that handful that works towards power and the ability to control others in order that they will gain more.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  If that's what you think . . .
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Not perfect, but a lot closer than capitalism.
  And what specific aspects did you have in mind?
  reply report
95
wildernessposted 10 years ago
"Where have I ever said that all businesses would be owned by the state?"

John - you did not. It is a commonly accepted definition, however.

From Mirriam-Webster:

so·cial·ism
noun \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

(Bolding added)
reply report
1. 61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  "collective or governmental ownership"
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  "Collective" as in stock ownership or as in governmental ownership? While stock could be replaced with contract (written or verbal) I'm not sure there is much else. The sugar beet factory near me, for instance, is owned by its employees and while I don't know of any actual stock shares the effect is the same.
  
  If stock, that would mean that giant corporations are socialistic - something that seems the antithesis of socialism. If not, does a collective refer to as few as two people? Maybe husband and wife or parent and child? I think not...
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Not stock ownership as you know it. Though each worker owns a share of the company it is not transferable to anybody outside the company so nobody can acquire a disproportionate share.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I confess I'm not real familiar with such corporations in the real world. I do note that they are not that uncommon, that there is a major manufacturer 5 miles from me (co-owned by the primary vendors - sugar beet farmers).
  
  Sounds like capitalism to me, and is in a (mostly) capitalistic country. A small group of people own a company, and set wages and prices pretty much as they choose. It is certainly not owned by either government OR the collective people in the local geographical area.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Again you miss the point and describe a capitalist concept.
  
  Shares are owned equally by everybody involved in the company.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  But I didn't say they were owned unequally - I said that a small group of people owned them. Not the national or regional government, not ANY collective of people from ANY geographical area. Just a small group of people that want some ownership in it and are willing to pay for it through their labor.
  
  Are you claiming the employee owned company does NOT have the right to set wages or prices? Because that's all I said...
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sorry, I thought you meant a small group of people as a sub set of the whole.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Well, yes. A small subset of the larger local geographical group or the superset of the national group.
  
  Somehow, I don't think we are communicating well...
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I'm inclined to agree with you (again)
  
  I mean of course everybody involved in a business.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So the owners of an employee owned business is a small subset of all business owners? Yes, at least in capitalism. In socialism, they could be a large majority although where the capital to start the business came from becomes quite a question. Never really thought about it.
  reply report
60
Jorge Krzyzposted 10 years ago
I believe Marx suggests violence to overthrow the standing bourgeois to make way for a completely different kind of system than you have listed here. I see the conundrum though and you pose a great point. What we have seen historically has been authoritarian regimes that use Marx's ideas as a crutch to further their own personal gains. We have not ever seen a true Marxist utopia. In Marx's vision, once the corrupt bourgeois is cast off, Bob, Peter and Lucy do not have any interest in "owning" the land really but instead are happy to each do the work upon universally owned land according to their own strengths. Then they happily give wheat and the apples and the milk to one another knowing that each benefits from the labor of themselves and the other and can only flourish as such. Of course this is rife with problems of its own as regimes that have put actual socialism into practice have been. But...if we are to strip any form governance down to such bare bones simplification, we will see all kinds of terrible problems with each. Just wanted to stress that we have yet to see Marx's utopia made manifest....now for delving into it in discussion I must run from the goons. Thanks.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Something I don't understand about socialism

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Something I don't understand about socialism

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies