What does the socialist utopia look like?

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

No of course not, but there are many examples of people living in harmony without states, and it’s probably true to say that before administrative states became a thing, more people were living in harmony than they are now. States didn’t evolve and weren’t created to bring about harmony, they came from the conflicts and power struggles of Kings and conquerors who then created bureacracies to exercise their power and collect taxes. States by design are coercive, exploitative and repressive entities. The only reason people think they are necessary is because we’ve never experienced anything different.

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

(Where has the block-quote menu gone?)

Alright, sorry for trying to contribute. I’ll piss off then.

In my defence, you edited out my preface of “for me”.

Also I was defining my idea of socialist utopia, not socialism.

Also if you re-read the opening post, I think it was reasonably reply to the spirit of the thread.

But I’ll consider myself schooled. Have a good day.

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

Its difficult to know where to start with this one. The obvious starter for ten is “long term” is being rather subjective here. Considering its been compressed into a few years announcing the new approach is superior is premature to put it mildly.  The UK publicly owned companies often were those which had failed in private ownership with the government wanting to retain some strategic capability.

Most other countries, of course, still hold a lot of companies in public ownership and the UK is particularly suffering from the stupidity of selling off strategic industries.

The socialist leaning countries that abandoned public ownership and shifted to progressive liberal economies have done well.

I think we would need the list and then compare them against the non progressive liberal countries which have done really well.

When we look at history the one thing which stands out time and time again is to be successful there needs to be massive state intervention whether this is directly via government firms or indirectly by favoured firms.  Now various free marketeers publish reports saying the growth would have been far higher without that intervention but the problem with that is they cant point to any real world examples outperforming those countries.

USA is a great example of this with the massive funnelling of state aid via military contracts which pretty much created its air industry and also a lot of computing.

Then you have SK, Singapore, Japan and Taiwan all of which were autocratic during the periods of fastest growth and used a lot of state intervention (especially defensive protecting new industries).

China, of course, is another great example. Where the lines really blur between private and public.

The authoritarian socialist countries that persevered with socialism have done terribly – North Korea is the starkest example

NK cant really be described as socialist any more than it can be described as a peoples republic. It is “junte” aka a one man rule.

Also you are still using a very limited definition of socialism vs an extremely wide one for liberalism.

Because liberalism is a very broad ideology. The core of it is that liberty is an individual right, but defining “liberty” is tricky. The classical idea (negative liberty) is that liberty means the absence of constraints (this is the libertarian end of the spectrum). The progressive end of the spectrum recognizes that the absence of constraints doesn’t mean we can actually do anything useful, so you the idea of “positive liberty,” which is similar to the notion that it is the value of liberty that we should maximize, not liberty itself.

So, progressive liberals are in favour of progressive taxation to fund state services such as education on the grounds that these promote positive liberty (or increase the value of liberty). Libertarians believe that taxation, especially progressive taxation, is an attack on individual liberty, and therefore unjustified.

So, the word “liberal” is harder to define because the concept of liberty is a contested term. Socialism is much easier to define because it was developed explicitly on the view that private ownership of capital is inherently unjust. Socialists despise liberals because liberals believe in capitalism. If you believe in capitalism, you are not a socialist.

Some interesting observations from this thread (and wider society) IMO:

‘Socialism’ has obviously become a bit of a loaded/dirty word because of the sustained narrative seeking to conflate socialism with various flavours of communist state (and by extension authoritarianism) and thus “anti-democratic” (and often Anti-capitalist) beliefs.

There seems to be far more discussion about the merits of Capitalism rather than the health of modern Democracy or even wider social needs whenever “Socialism” is brought up. To me that feels like the Neo-Libs winning at the narrative game again. Another front in the culture wars isn’t it, label anyone focussed on social impacts or the plight of the vulnerable rather than the interests of Capital as a “socialist” and by extension a closet “authoritarian”.

People now seem to see capitalism as a more important component of a functioning Democracy than how that society makes provisions for the most vulnerable. IMO That is one of the most broken aspects of current public discourse. Everyone deserves help… Unless it has a cost (which of course it does).

I think its partly the Thatcher/Reagan legacy, Neo-liberal economic thinking became the default in western democracies by the late 1980s, and States increasingly went from regulating trade and industry while deriving some funds to support social needs, to being seen as responsible for ensuring an environment where business and finance could thrive.
Governments have increasingly been drawn into “creating opportunities” for private capital, rather than “regulating and policing” to prevent capitalists unfairly exploiting the public (insert picture of Barroness Mone).

As already stated a rebalancing our country towards “Social Democracy” should be the goal, part of which is facilitating trade and entrepreneurship, but not being beholden to it.
Governments that don’t make sustained social progress, provision of public services and overall improved/maintained standards of living (measured more by health outcomes and mental wellbeing rather than bank balances) are not really governments, they’re just Neo-liberal insurgencies.

It all starts with the people we choose to put in power, and needs a deeper examination of their motives and associations by the public (and of course the press). Democracy only works if the people you elect to enact it are there because they want the best for wider society, not just the members of that society who’ve horded more money…

USA is a great example of this with the massive funnelling of state aid via military contracts which pretty much created its air industry and also a lot of computing.

If state ownership is so bad and private ownership so good then the US military would’ve been privatised a long time ago.

and it’s probably true to say that before administrative state became a thing, more people were living in harmony than they are now

I would say that is controversial to say the least.

It is strongly contested how peaceful society is before we started developing states and so forth. There is a lot of evidence showing violence in prehistoric times but obviously its hard to assess how much exactly.

At most I would go for when population levels were low and supplies were plentiful then things were probably relatively peaceful (even if you win a fight you risk injury so like most predators its best not to actually fight unless you really need to eat that dead deer)  but as soon as populations increased, for whatever reason, or climatic changes reduced supplies then it would have changed quickly.  The introduction of farming would have also made this more likely since its harder to abandon those crops in the ground.

‘Socialism’ has obviously become a bit of a loaded/dirty word because of the sustained narrative seeking to conflate socialism with various flavours of communist state (and by extension authoritarianism) and thus “anti-democratic” (and often Anti-capitalist) beliefs.

The only surviving socialist countries are highly authoritarian. Communism was socialism taken to the extreme, and it failed terribly.

It is strongly contested how peaceful society is before we started developing states and so forth

It is. In fact most of the established narrative around this has been shown to be false and no more than a humanity origin myth. Probably off topic though, I strongly recommend the following book if you’re interested. Probably the most interesting thing I’ve ever read..

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/oct/23/the-dawn-of-everything-by-david-graeber-and-david-wengrow-review-inequality-is-not-the-price-of-civilisation

Because of authoritarian regimes.

and it’s probably true to say that before administrative state became a thing, more people were living in harmony than they are now

would you care to cite  a scintilla of evidence for this?

Up until recently there was academic agreement that Bronze Age Northern European society was a peaceful one, based on the lack of defensive structures, weapons etc. Then they discovered the Tollense valley….

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tollense_valley_battlefield

The only surviving socialist countries are highly authoritarian

What about countries that have some socialist policies?

there are many examples of people living in harmony without states, and it’s probably true to say that before administrative states became a thing, more people were living in harmony than they are now

Yes, but population density is a key factor. You must appreciate that.  What worked when there were 1m humans isn’t going to work when there are 8bn.  Do you have any evidence for your suggestion that ‘more people lived in harmony’ before states?

States didn’t evolve and weren’t created to bring about harmony

They evolved for security – to organise the defence of a group of people.  And later to ensure the co-operation of those people.

Communism was socialism taken to the extreme, and it failed terribly.

To play you at your own game, what you describe as ‘communism’ (ie the soviet system) was very different to how it was defined by Marx and Engels. If you’re going to bang on about the definition of socialism at least practice what you preach.

Socialism is much easier to define because it was developed explicitly on the view that private ownership of capital is inherently unjust

Socialism isnt any easy since, leaving aside your simplistic definition, it is about “social ownership” which is itself difficult to pin down and covers a wide range of options.

Going back to what a socialist utopia would look like. Matt Levine jokes that investment banks tick that box since the the employees cream off a large share of the surplus rather than the shareholders.

I strongly recommend the following book if you’re interested

Ooh, the review is so full of straw men it makes me cringe.  Anything that is marketed as ‘shattering the myths’ and ‘everything you thought you knew is wrong’ then citing things that no-one with half a brain has believed since the 50s is very much starting off on the wrong foot.

They evolved for security – to organise the defence of a group of people. And later to ensure the co-operation of those people.

That is also debatable. Some will have done but some without any real neighbours would have evolved for different reasons.

A major factor in some regions would have been the need to cooperate for agricultural purposes especially under irrigation. There is a school of thought claiming that those societies growing rice have traditionally had a tighter knit structure due to the cooperation needed for the rice fields.

some without any real neighbours would have evolved for different reasons.

Right – so not having neighbours is the key point. Who doesn’t have neighbours now?

Fukuyama’s book is worth a read.  It’s a bit dry but extremely interesting.

There is a school of thought claiming that those societies growing rice have traditionally had a tighter knit structure due to the cooperation needed for the rice fields.

Stuff like this is just nonsense. What about societies that had to cooperate because they needed to maintain dykes to prevent flooding, or societies that had to cooperate to build fortifications to protect themselves from outsiders. Every society has myths about their uniqueness, these mostly serve to maintain the existing power structure.

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.

“History is a set of lies agreed upon.”

I strongly recommend the following book if you’re interested

Even the very sympathetic review in the Guardian that you quote is pretty sceptical about the claims of an anarchist anthropologist who seems to have discovered that you don’t need a state.

Ooh, the review is so full of straw men it makes me cringe.

Whatevs. 🤷‍♂️

You can persist with the simplistic interpretation that how we organise society now is the only way it is possible, or you can open your mind to the fact that the evolution and organsiation of human society is much more diverse, complex and nuanced than we currently experience. Given the shitshow that represents our current ‘civilisation’ I for one am open to alternatives.

The only surviving socialist countries are highly authoritarian. Communism was socialism taken to the extreme, and it failed terribly

So you’re saying “Socialism” IS Communism?

I’ll accept I’m not a political scientist but I see “Socialism” or “socialist concepts” as being focussed more on the duty of care a given state owes the individuals living within it, rather than necessarily dictating the mode of government they adopt to deliver that.

Communists might use the terms “Socialist”/”Socialism” but that doesn’t necessarily mean Socialists ARE Communists, unless of course you’re trying to construct a bit of a narrative to whip up simpletons.

Hence myself and others have referred to “Social Democracy” several times already in this thread…

“History is a set of lies agreed upon.

Up to a point Lord Cooper.
But the history of political philosophy is the history of ideas  & how they underpinned the way societies have been arranged. You don’t have to go far to ascertain the facts, because by definition they are contained in the books by the people who came up with these ideas. The ideas themselves  may have been based on an agreed set of lies, but that’s another matter.

Even the very sympathetic review in the Guardian that you quote is pretty sceptical about the claims of an anarchist anthropologist who seems to have discovered that you don’t need a state.

Go and read it then come back and comment, otherwise don’t bother. Do you also comment on films that you haven’t watched or music that you haven’t listened to?

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.

School isn’ the only place to learn things.  I didn’t learn anything about computers at school or university yet I know a fair bit about them.

Go and read it then come back and comment, otherwise don’t bother.

I wasn’t commenting on the book, I was commenting on the review.  It really doesn’t make me want to read it though, nor do you. It looks biased as hell which might be why you liked it.  The fact that the author was a ‘leading anarchist’ reeeally doesn’t fill me with confidence that it’s worth £30.

Have you read any books that pose a narrative counter to that one?

I wasn’t commenting on the book, I was commenting on the review.  It really doesn’t make me want to read it though, nor do you. It looks biased as hell which might be why you liked it.  The fact that the author was a ‘leading anarchist’ reeeally doesn’t fill me with confidence that it’s worth £30.

+ 1. In any case, even if it has any merit in its arguments, what possible relevance would it have to modern political society? The social  environment of the time is just too far away from our era. It’s a fantasy which can’t be applied to the situation we now find ourselves in.

You can persist with the simplistic interpretation that how we organise society now is the only way it is possible

How the hell did you come up with that? I’m absolutely 100% against the status quo at least here in the UK, it’s shit.  My point is that anarchy is not the solution and would in fact be very much worse.

I’m saying that a state of some kind is necessary to ensure the mutual cooperation of people.  I reject the idea that the concept of a state is the result of an evil elite wishing to enrich themselves. However an evil elite wishing to enrich itself can use the state to do it.

Please please please don’t put up these horrible straw men to take shots at.  It really ruins what would otherwise be an interesting debate and gets people annoyed.

Have you read any books that pose a narrative counter to that one?

Yup, I read the Sapiens book long before this one, have also read Jared Diamond’s book on collapsing civilisations. The author is/was primarily an anthropologist, one universally acclaimed in his field. The fact that he’s an anarchist is neither here nor there (although the story of how he came to be one is quite interesting) and it’s mainly the media (and his critics) that mention this rather than himself. Also you’ll note his co-author isn’t an anarchist (to my knowledge anyway), he’s just an archeologist who has uncovered some new evidence that the established narrative of human societal evolution isn’t as safe as is often portrayed.

Funny how no one ever questions the political leanings of authors/academics who write stuff which agrees with the established consensus?

Please please please don’t put up these horrible straw men to take shots at.

Suggesting that we don’t need nation states, or questioning their impacts isn’t a straw man. In fact the ideas, writings and theorists of this train of thought long pre-date any modern concepts of socialism, communism or capitalism. Funny isn’t it that – as this thread proves – both socialism and capitalism have in the past century both proven themselves to be sub-optimal forms of political and economic organisation and yet we still cling on to the concept that they are the only things possible?

“argee

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.”

Which places? Specifics on what? How are we supposed to use Google to work out what you were talking about when it’s not even clear you know….?

Also you’ll note his co-author isn’t an anarchist (to my knowledge anyway), he’s just an archeologist

He may not be an anarchist but a brief look at his published work shows that he has quite a few weird and wonderful ideas. I am all for academic freedom of thought & it is good to challenge orthodoxy & prevailing schools of thought. However don’t ignore the tendentious reasoning this bloke is displaying. He’s an outlier with an agenda.

“(Where has the block-quote menu gone?)”

It’s been collectivised. You can use it every second Thursday.

@molgrips: if you don’t feel like spending £30 on Graeber’s book, maybe you can head along to your local den of social democratic statist indoctrination ie the library.

“it’s probably true to say that before administrative states became a thing, more people were living in harmony than they are now”

What does that statement look like when you look at it through a feminist lens? Were things that idyllic?

Suggesting that we don’t need nation states, or questioning their impacts isn’t a straw man

Nono. You saying that I endorse the status quo was a straw man.

socialism and capitalism have in the past century both proven themselves to be sub-optimal forms of political and economic organisation

That’s an extremely simplistic assertion.  Socialism is a pure ideology, it’s an ingredient in a state along with a whole load of other ingredients.  There isn’t one single set of instructions that makes a socialist country.  Just like Nazi Germany and Mussolini’s Italy were both fascist, but they were different.  Most countries do some socialist things, and some capitalist things, and the outcomes vary wildly based on how its implemented.

Any state is a blend of ideology, power distribution, natural resources and competence.  Some of these are interdependent, and some states will succeed or fail in certain criteria or struggle based on these various attributes.

And of course, the success criteria are quite subjective. Is a state where everyone is poor but equal, and has enough to eat and are close to their families a good state?  What if the people have no money to buy labour saving devices or to travel to see the world?  I think a lot of people don’t seem to realise that people want different things. For some, a peaceful agrarian life where you just do simple work on your land is desirable – but I’d find that horribly limiting.  For some, a society where you don’t need to work would be heaven, others might find it purposeless, futile and boring.  IF we can’t even agree on what ‘good’ means or see that we each have different versions of ‘good’ we won’t really progress.

maybe you can head along to your local den of social democratic statist indoctrination ie the library.

I haven’t got a local one.. **** Tories.

Re the Graeber/Wengrow book – it’s still £12 on Kindle.  I get really upset when people try to push their ideas on me in a book, it makes me cringe, so I’m worried that’s what this will be about.  I looked very carefully for bias in Fukuyama’s Origins of Political Order and I didn’t see any.

And of course, the success criteria are quite subjective.

Yes, but when you are dealing with billions of people, you can look at patterns of migration and see where people prefer to live. East Germans risked their lives to get to West Germany, but West Germans didn’t rush to move to the East. Russian and Chinese elites send their kids to school in Western Europe and the U.S., but Western elites don’t send their kids to school in Russia or China. The general pattern is that liberal capitalist democracies attract a lot of migrants so it’s pretty reasonable to conclude that they are the most attractive places to live.

As I’ve been saying, there’s more to that than the government’s economic alignment.  A liberal democracy can have a lot of socialist policies, or few.  So you need to decide which one you like.

The general pattern is that liberal capitalist democracies attract a lot of migrants so it’s pretty reasonable to conclude that they are the most attractive places to live.

Hmm – the USA is one of the most popular countries for migrants, but most of us would agree it’s a bit shitty when all aspects of the country are considered. It markets itself well.

the USA is one of the most popular countries for migrants, but most of us would agree it’s a bit shitty when all aspects of the country are considered. It markets itself well.

Being poor in America is much better than being poor in poor countries. It’s fun to poke fun at America, but it’s a pretty good place to live if you have a middle-class income. Wealthy Russians and Chinese don’t send their kids there for no reason. Brazil has a similar population and vast natural resources, but I can’t think of any Brazilian companies that have the stature of Apple, Microsoft, Google, Boeing, Ford, General Motors, etc.

Venezuela.

It’s fun to poke fun at America, but it’s a pretty good place to live if you have a middle-class income.

I have a cousin who with her husband was arrested and tortured by the Argentine military dictatorship. They weren’t guilty of any crimes other being hippies seeking an alternative lifestyle and choosing to live in a commune. They were eventually released and they fled to the United States where they were granted political asylum.

The military junta would not have been successful in seizing and maintaining power had it not been for the explicit approval of the United States government. So the United States not only provided them with sanctuary but was also the reason why they had to flee persecution.

As a side note I had a couple of cousins who had to temporarily flee to Brazil after being declared wanted by the military authorities.