What does the socialist utopia look like?

Dogs are not very interested in redistribution.

My local canal tow path begs to differ…

One huge reason why Socialism hasn’t worked in a lot of places (South/Central America) is because the US (capitalists) directly intervened and overthrew democratically elected left leaning governments and replaced them with right wing capitalist authoritarians because they didn’t want Socialism to succeed.

That’s not really true though, socialist leaders were living in palaces, with foreign bank accounts filled to the brim, whilst people in their country were starving, we can blame the US for a lot of things, but breaking socialism is a bit of a stretch, they didn’t like certain regimes though.

we can blame the US for a lot of things, but breaking socialism is a bit of a stretch

Hmmm, they interfered in elections in Greece, Italy in 47, 48, 49, Iran, the govt of Alvarez in Guatemala , Cuba (still) Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, propped up the terrible regimes of both South Vietnam and Korea as the northern halves of those countries tried to adapt socialist policies, Chile, Iran, Hawaii is a state now because they invaded it in 189o or so Philippines…There’s something every one of these countries has in common, if only I could put my finger on it.

Capitalism isn’t the opposite of socialism, Libertarianism is.

It is quite possible to have regulated capitalism within a socially orientated economy – which, broadly speaking is what we have at the moment. Most capitalist progress wouldn’t be possible with socialism type regulation and organisations such as publicly funded universities and research organisations.

Interestingly, Libertarianism and free-market economic thinking are just reactionary ideologies thought up by Hayek et al to create a narrative that could counter the rise of communism in the early 20th century.

Socialism is complete fantasy and has never been a success anywhere ever. I have noticed that they’re very good at spending other peoples money, but rarely generate any.

A fundamental part you are missing is the fact that the money is everyones distributed fairly so there is no “other peoples” money by which I assume you mean the rich peoples money who have all the money at the sake of the majority who don’t.

“There’s something every one of these countries has in common, if only I could put my finger on it”

Theres something deeply ironic in the US’s proclivity for massive state intervention where it thinks the free-market is at risk.

That’s not really true though, socialist leaders were living in palaces, with foreign bank accounts filled to the brim, whilst people in their country were starving

Citations needed.

Also, interesting how you wanted to point that out while ignoring all the capitalist countries with leaders living in palaces, with foreign bank accounts filled to the brim, whilst people in their countries are starving? It’s almost as if elites are the problem, and redistribution of wealth would actually benefit the majority, instead of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer thanks to late-stage capitalism.

Capitalism isn’t the opposite of socialism, Libertarianism is.

Depends on your definition of libertarianism. If its how it is used in the US then yes but otherwise its a lot more messy. You can have libertarians of all flavours and if you look at Marx’s idea of what the final stage of communism would look like most people would slot it into the libertarian bracket. Its just the means to get there varies. In communism you have Engels “withering away of the state” because its no longer needed vs the Republicans “Starve the beast”

I think that a lot of people on here are conflating socialism with totalitarianism and authoritarianism, which is more about an independent judiciary and the rule of law than the underlying political ideology IMV. Both right and left are susceptible.

The problem with this thread is the title, because it’s an oxymoron. If we’re taking utopia to mean a state where everyone lives in peace, is free to do what they want and has their core needs provided for, then socialism (by any definition) doesn’t meet these requirements. Historical examples (eg the Soviet Union) have only ever satisfied one or two of them and even that was temporary and incomplete. For true utopianism you need to look further afield at tribal societies which implemented decentralised economies and power structures. There are examples in North America such as the Huron-Wendat in the 17th century which could claim to look utopian but then even they were involved in wars and external threats.

Maybe better ask is socialism more utopian than capitalism? I think the answer to that is pretty obvious.

It is quite possible to have regulated capitalism

The problem with it though is regardless of whether its shareholder or stakeholder capitalism, its still a terrible way to run the place. I mean if you compare shareholder capitalism to just regular drug dealers on the street corner: They don’t give a shit, they’ll shoot you if you interfere, they’re just in for themselves and they don’t give a single shit about how you feel about it all. Stakeholder capitalism is just the Mafia version of the same thing. They come in and they get rid of the drug dealers, everyone’s in suits, they talk nice and soft, they may even do up the place a bit, but they’re still selling drugs on your street corner and keeping the profits, only now they’ve said “As we’ve done up the place all nice and thing, you’re not going to the cops, right?”

It is quite possible to have regulated capitalism

Quite possible? I wasn’t aware that there was any other form of capitalism.

Unregulated capitalism sounds like a total nightmare.

Every legislative election, anywhere in the world, boils down to just one question……”how much socialism would you like with your capitalism?”

Capitalism is a seemingly logical but failed theory.

“socialist leaders were living in palaces, with foreign bank accounts filled to the brim, whilst people in their country were starving”

I’m not here to defend corrupt people, but you’re gonna have to be more specific about who and what you’re talking about here.

There are examples in North America such as the Huron-Wendat in the 17th century

And Nestor Makhno’s anarchist movement in Ukraine at the turn of the 20th C

I’m not here to defend corrupt people, but you’re gonna have to be more specific about who and what you’re talking about here.

I’m being as specific as the original argument and the evidence provided on how these places were socialist democracies, if you want specifics, google is good for that, wikipedia has info, they even have citations if you want to click through.

Hold on everyone.

There is no such thing socialist or capitalist in a broad sense that you can apply to an entire country. Socialist, capitalist and indeed democratic are attributes that you can have more or less of. So whilst say Finland isn’t a ‘socialist’ state, it is more socialist than some other places which are more capitalist.  It’s a spectrum, not a label.

Also, socialism does not cause dictators. I think dictators cause socialism because they often use socialist ideas as a way to gather or maintain support, and then justify their regime.

Anyway. The real problem we face at least in the West is that any political system has to have support from the electorate.  Therefore, proposing some great system of equality has to be approved by the public, and they are fickle and easily swayed as we know and can certainly be persuaded to vote against their best interests.  And here’s the thing: people are nearly always generous to those who they consider ‘us’ and stingy towards they consider ‘them’. This is basic human tribalism. The difference between socialists and capitalists is where they draw the boundary of ‘us’.  If you think ‘us’ includes everyone in your country or even in the world then that makes you more socialist; if you think ‘us’ just means your family then that is likely to make you more right wing which will make you more capitalistic – c.f. Thatcher saying there’s no such thing as society.  If you see yourself as one of the working classes that means you’re more likely to vote for a government promising to return control of industries to ‘the people’ who do the work; if you are one of the rich middle classes you’re more likely to see this as appropriation.  The reason that some places are more accepting of wealth redistribution is that they were more equal to begin with, so more people view each other as ‘us’ and therefore are more inclined to want to share.

Thanks for listening to my TED talk.

Capitalism is a seemingly logical but failed theory.

I’ve always thought the problem with capitalism is the attempt to turn what is natural economic activity (trading) into some form of defined ideology which is implemented universally. Same goes for socialism, as that tries to codify the natural urge of people to cooperate and help each other. If we need a state at all (which is highly questionable) then its role should be limited to enabling and supporting the natural activities we all partake in whilst protecting people from exploitation and oppression. Trouble is in most societies today the state seems to do the opposite in that it enables and encourages exploitation and is actively involved in oppression.

The definition of socialism is the public ownership of the means of production.
Not quite. The definition says that there should be public ownership or regulation of production.

Absolutely not. The core insight of socialism is that capitalism alienates workers from the means of production, so the means of production must be publicly owned. A system with private ownership of capital, but regulations to protect the poor from the rich is not socialism, it’s progressive liberalism. Sorry to disappoint all the people who thought they were socialists, you’re not, you’re a liberal like me.

If we need a state at all (which is highly questionable)

I really really don’t think it is.  Without a state, we’d be reduced to defending ourselves against thieves Max Max style.  No thanks.

Sorry to disappoint all the people who thought they were socialists, you’re not, you’re a liberal like me.

Well done, you’ve won the semantic pedantry argument. Now, back to the real discussion, why do you think capitalism is more successful than ‘socialism’ when to any casual observer it seems to generate comparable (maybe more) amounts of misery, exploitation and limits on individual freedom?

Also, socialism does not cause dictators. I think dictators cause socialism because they often use socialist ideas

The point about socialism is that it requires a high level of state Intervention. The drawback is that  it therefore allows  people who want to exercise control to do so in the interests of equality. You could then argue that this then leads to the corruption of power. The more power you give an entity the more likely it is to abuse it.

Without a state, we’d be reduced to defending ourselves against thieves Max Max style. No thanks.

We have to do that now pretty much. Have you seen the rates of prosecution for theft and burglary? The state doesn’t protect us from criminals, shared economic wellbeing and basic morality does that mostly, and where it doesn’t people naturally form their own defence mechanisms.

You’re assuming that without the state we’d descend into a chaotic free for all, but in places where the state ceases to function that simply doesn’t happen unless there are other drivers such as famine or extreme poverty. People on the whole are extremely resistant to screwing over their fellow humans.

Sorry to disappoint all the people who thought they were socialists, you’re not, you’re a liberal like me.

Sorry to disappoint you but your personal definitions are not the ones everyone has to obey as surely a liberal should recognise?

That you switch from “progressive liberal” to the broad “liberal” is rather telling. Not all strands of liberalism contain “regulations to protect the poor from the rich”. Almost all contain equality under the law but that at the most basic level means no more than as the quote says “In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread” It doesnt mean I cant use my power to disadvantage you at which point we get into the iron law of wages which some liberals were keen fans of.

We have to do that now pretty much.

No, we don’t at all, don’t be ridiculous.

You’re assuming that without the state we’d descend into a chaotic free for all, but in places where the state ceases to function that simply doesn’t happen

A non functioning state is not the same as not having a state.

basic morality does that

And where does that come from?  You surely can’t be this historically unaware?

that simply doesn’t happen unless there are other drivers such as famine or extreme poverty

And that would never happen, would it?  Blimey.  I thought I was a naive idealist but holy cow 🙂

 why do you think capitalism is more successful than ‘socialism’ when to any casual observer it seems to generate comparable (maybe more) amounts of misery, exploitation and limits on individual freedom?

The best places in the world to live in are liberal countries, which allow people to make their own choices about how to live. Part of that is economic freedom, but unregulated capitalism gives too much power to the rich and makes it impossible for poor people to actually do anything with the legal freedoms they have. The successful countries have capitalist economies, but also good public education systems, low levels of corruption of judges, police, and public officials, and welfare safety nets that assist people who fall on hard times, all paid for by taxation.

The UK and many other democratic countries used to have a fair element of socialism, with major industries publicly owned. That proved to be a long-term drag on the economy – it turns out that letting people start companies and try new ideas, then go bust if they were wrong is a better economic model than propping up inefficient public enterprises. The socialist leaning countries that abandoned public ownership and shifted to progressive liberal economies have done well. The authoritarian socialist countries that persevered with socialism have done terribly – North Korea is the starkest example, it’s a hellish place, much, much worse than any capitalist liberal democracy.

Sorry to disappoint you but your personal definitions are not the ones everyone has to obey as surely a liberal should recognise?

The term “socialist” is a technical term in political science, it refers to a particular type of economic system. It’s not my personal definition, it’s the definition you will find if you read a book about political ideologies. The core definition of socialism is that the means of production is publicly owned. If you believe that regulated capitalism is the ideal type of economy, you are not a socialist according to the standard definition used in political science. Not my personal definition, the definition that socialists chose when the ideology was developed.

The core definition of socialism is that the means of production is publicly owned

“Socialism” and “Socialist” are different words.

The authoritarian socialist countries that persevered with socialism have done terribly – North Korea is the starkest example, it’s a hellish place, much, much worse than any capitalist liberal democracy.

That’s not what we’re asking for when we talk about socialism, I’d have thought that was blatantly obvious.

A non functioning state is not the same as not having a state.

Ok fine, there are plenty of places in the world where a formal state doesn’t exist or has no real influence on daily life. In those places are they all thieving from and killing each other? No, they aren’t.

And where does that come from?

Eh? Are you seriously suggesting that morality comes from the state? I don’t know about you, but if the UK state disappeared tomorrow I wouldn’t suddenly go and kill someone I don’t like, because you know, that would be a pretty shitty thing to do. It’s got bollocks all to do with the state. In fact you can easily argue that the only reason the state has laws to deal with criminals is because the state creates the conditions (poverty, inequality, oppression etc) which creates the criminals in the first place.

What does the socialist utopia look like?

Argumentative.

In those places are they all thieving from and killing each other? No, they aren’t.

Historically, this happened a lot. Not having a state works when population density is low OR resources aren’t scarce.  As soon as tribes come into conflict with each other for land or resources, then there will be a lot of thieving and killing yes. Historically, there was , and this is exactly why we evolved states – to protect ourselves.

Eh? Are you seriously suggesting that morality comes from the state?

No I’m saying security comes from the state.  However the point about morality is that it is VERY flexible, and people have always considered it acceptable to pillage from other groups because they are ‘them’ and they are savages, or evil, or whatever.  And generally speaking only education or managed interaction addresses this and these things generally do come from the state.

the state creates the conditions (poverty, inequality, oppression etc)

So everyone was living in perfect harmony before states?  You’re having a laugh surely?

That’s not what we’re asking for when we talk about socialism, I’d have thought that was blatantly obvious.

Exactly my point. You’re not actually talking about socialism, you’re talking about liberal democracy. Socialism failed, all the countries that are nice to live in abandoned it. The remaining socialist countries are terrible places to live.

For me, Socialist Utopia looks like capitalism but with limits to dampen inequality. For example, society agrees on what is an acceptable level of inequality (Gini coefficient, say). Each year, a proportional wealth tax is applied if (and only if) inequality has moved beyond the acceptable bound. The whole concept is accepted by the population as just being the way things work, and nobody gets hysterical about the government taking away their hard earned wealth.

So some inequality still exists, and individuals are still incentivised to prosper, but there will be a rubber band mechanism to pull everyone back together a bit if needed.

It’ll never happen though.

Socialist Utopia looks like capitalism but with limits to dampen inequality.

That’s not socialism, it’s liberal democracy. If you learned what words mean, you wouldn’t be so confused.

You’re not actually talking about socialism, you’re talking about liberal democracy. Socialism failed, all the countries that are nice to live in abandoned it.

You’re torpedoing the argument by quibbling over semantics.  Socialism is a noun, socialist is an adjective. That means you can be a bit socialist, or a lot socialist.  The common usage of the term socialist applied to countries refers to the use of ideas and strategies that are socialist in nature e.g. public ownership of industries etc. The UK after WW2 did not adopt pure socialism as an ideology, but it adopted a lot of ideas that were socialist.  See what I mean?

Not my personal definition, the definition that socialists chose when the ideology was developed.

I was questioning your personal definition of liberalism. Why did you decide to answer a completely different question?

Also you are still using a very limited definition of socialism vs an extremely wide one for liberalism. That is your personal definition and selection.

We should be addressing the issues, not bickering about definitions.  Words evolve and change and have different meanings in different contexts.

The remaining socialist countries are terrible places to live.

Because of their authoritarian regimes, not because of the socialism.

It was interesting to read about Star Trek a few pages back – I’ve never seen if but what’s been described is essentially fully automated luxury communism, which is a potential future (if greedy people could get over themselves). Solar power installed around the equator at a big enough scale will give us power so plentiful and with such low overheads that power will be essentially free. The future can be both green and almost resource unlimited but, as I said, people are awful and it’ll never be allowed.

Socialism does have a PR problem. It doesn’t help that it’s at its worst in the US, who are big and powerful enough to intervene any time anyone has a go at socialism. My Republican in-laws thought Obama was a socialist for goodness sake. Socialism has such a bad rep in the world’s most powerful capitalist country that it’ll not gain traction in the west any time soon – they think of authoritarian regimes, not the socialism itself because of the information they’re fed, so will never be on side with it.

sorry to jump back to p.1

“perhaps socialism has a PR problem”

agree, its like the vast majority of the media is there to turn a profit…. rather than to educate

We should be addressing the issues, not bickering about definitions.

I’ve often observed that the political Left have a tendency/weakness to descend into petty internecine bickering, and I don’t really know why.

As someone who spent a year studying the history of political philosophy at uni I am always impressed about how people think its ok to interpret stuff how they like. I have noticed, especially lately on here, that there are quite a large number of people who cheerfully admit to paying no attention at all to history at school, who nonetheless seem to be perfectly happy to pontificate on the subject.

Personally I have absolutely no knowledge at all about IT for example, I therefore recognise my limitations when discussing matters computer. It would be nice if there was a teensy weensy bit of recognition from some people that you might be arguing from a position of considerable ignorance