[Conscript]

A better question is, why does a fascist care about socialism?

[Malatant of Shadow]

What is your definition of socialism?

"A socialist economy is one in which economic decisions are made so as to create an egalitarian outcome benefiting, as an ideal, all participants in the economy equally. While this ideal outcome is almost certainly unachievable, it may be approached through any of various methods facilitating the democratic control of resource allocation decisions by all members of the community, “community” here being loosely defined so as encompass the workers at a company, or the people living in a more conventionally-defined community, as the specific situation may warrant."

http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-Socialism-Democracy-Recovering-ebook/dp/B00990ITQY/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1351017428&sr=1-1&keywords=reclaiming+socialism

And why was the USSR not socialist?

Because 1) it was not an economy in which economic decisions were made so as to create an egalitarian outcome; and 2) it did not attempt the democratic control of resource allocation decisions.

[Andropov]

it was not an economy in which economic decisions were made so as to create an egalitarian outcome

Of course it was. The divisions between rich and poor were massively less than they were anywhere else in the world at the time. What an absurd statement.

No one can live very long in Russia without gaining an impression of leveling in the everyday life of the people. Not that absolute material equality, or anything like it, has been achieved. There are marked variations in the standards of living, not only among the people as a whole, but among the members of the Communist Party. But, whereas in other countries there is a tendency to display wealth, in Russia there is every impulse to hide it. The Communist or Soviet official who is observed to spend more freely than his modest salary would seem to permit is likely to be called on for an explanation, either by some Party tribunal or, in especially serious cases, by the secret police. Flaunting of wealth by the harassed private trader is likely to invite new visitations by the tax collecting authorities.
Chamberlin, William Henry. Soviet Russia. Boston: Little, Brown, 1930, p. 50

The question is often raised as to whether or not Party members occupy a privileged position in Russia as compared with ordinary citizens. The answer to that must recognize first the fact that Party membership carries responsibilities far greater than those of an ordinary citizen. A member's life is controlled by the party. His job, salary, outside activities, are all subject to orders like a soldier in an army. Members can be counted on for service as outsiders cannot....
But the picture so often painted of a ruling political class above and over the people of Russia, enjoying the privileges of greater wealth and position, is pure invention, originating probably in a comparatively few exceptions, some of them, it is true, flagrant enough to arouse public scandal. But the Party is severe on all those who seek personal privilege in goods or position out of office or Party membership. The Party constantly cleanses its membership by expulsion, getting rid of those who are not devoted, or who try to use the Party for their private interests, or whose "ideology" is not Communist. The Communist Party is hard to get into and easy to get out of.
Baldwin, Roger. Liberty Under the Soviets, New York: Vanguard Press, 1928, p. 59

When I first went to Russia, the managing staff in industry were underpaid according to our standards, considering the heavy responsibilities they carried. This was especially true of those who were members of the Communist Party, who at that time agreed to accept maximum salaries considerably lower than the non-party staff, as evidence of their unselfishness and devotion to the cause of communism. Nearly all the chief managers of Soviet industry at this time received very small cash incomes. Even then, however, the managing staff had perquisites which ordinary workers could not get. They had the use of automobiles, special restaurants, better "closed stores," and better houses.
After 1930, this system was gradually changed, and managers of all kinds, including Communists, were paid according to their position, with about the same relative differences as in this country. Some people in Russia today receive from 10 to 20 times as much cash income as ordinary workers.
Littlepage, John D. In Search of Soviet Gold. New York: Harcourt, Brace, c1938, p. 209-210

The communists except nominal managerial salaries for their labor. These salaries are minuscule. Communists, as a rule, get much less than non-communist technicians whom they hire. The theory is that all fruits of production are pooled for redistribution to the common good.
Gunther, John. Inside Europe. New York, London: Harper & Brothers, c1940, p. 565

2) it did not attempt the democratic control of resource allocation decisions.

This does not mean that the local branches of the Communist Party attempt to decide every petty detail of the work of the Soviets, trade unions, and cooperatives. As a matter of fact they are expressly warned not to do this, but to leave to the above-mentioned organizations the maximum liberty and spontaneity of action consonant with the carrying out of the general lines of Party policy. But these general lines must always be carried out.
Chamberlin, William Henry. Soviet Russia. Boston: Little, Brown, 1930, p. 58

Stalin believes that inasmuch as all the basic means of production and distribution are owned by the nation, and that unemployment has been abolished, there is more genuine economic democracy than in the West."
Stalin expressed this to me in the following words: "The fact that the factories and workshops of the USSR belong to the whole people and not to capitalists, that the factories and workshops are managed not by the appointees of capitalists, but by representatives of the working-class; the consciousness that the workers work, not for the capitalists, but for their own state, for their own class, represents an enormous driving force in the development and perfection of industry. It must be observed that the overwhelming majority of the factory and works managers in Russia are workingmen, appointed by the Supreme Economic Council in agreement with the trade unions and that not a single factory manager can remain at his post contrary to the will of the workers or the particular trade union.
Davis, Jerome. Behind Soviet Power. New York, N. Y.: The Readers' Press, Inc., c1946, p. 67

But who cares about all this bullshit, "Malatant of Shadow" obviously knows more about Soviet Society than thousands Westerners who traveled there and spent huge parts of their lives living in the new Soviet state.

[stsoc]

What is socialism? In ~ 10 minutes:

[Malatant of Shadow]

Of course it was.

No, of course it wasn't.

The divisions between rich and poor were massively less than they were anywhere else in the world at the time. What an absurd statement.

That's because the Communist Party preferred to spend its own massively lopsided share of the country's economic production on security (internal and external) to address its own paranoia, rather than on lavish personal lifestyles. Soviet military spending from the end of World War II on ranged from 12 to 20 percent of the country's GDP. We don't have any good estimates for what was spent on internal security (NKVD/KGB etc.) but it was almost certainly very high.

The bottom line here is that the Soviet Union had a state-owned economy and an undemocratic, oligarchic government (post-Stalin; under Stalin it was a dictatorship). That. Does. Not. Work. Not for socialist purposes. Ever.

[Andropov]

Yeah, it's not like the country faced meaningful internal and external threats- the invasion of Soviet Russia in the '20s by the combined forces of the capitalist West, Operation Barbarossa, the plan to invade the USSR after the war (Operation Unthinkable), and constant hostility by the West during the Cold War were a hallucination.

I provided evidence that in the USSR, workers controlled the means of production, and that the "lavish lifestyles" of the Communist Party are overblown by Western media. Your response is a baseless refutation of the eyewitness testimony of people who actually spent time in the USSR and wrote about what they saw. Surely you have better things to do than spout nonsense on the Internet?

http://www.red-channel.de/the_real_stal ... ociety.htm

[Malatant of Shadow]

Yeah, it's not like the country faced meaningful internal and external threats

From time to time, it did. Note that I'm not talking about spending on the military during World War II, for example; when the country is invaded you do what needs to be done. Likewise, I recognize that military spending had to be high during the Russian Civil War.

But for most of the country's history, the country did NOT face meaningful external threats that in any way justified the levels of military spending that occurred. Please note that Russia's military spending today is much lower than the Soviet military budget at any time in its history, and I have not observed Russia being invaded lately. If you think that the U.S. was going to mount an invasion of the Soviet Union at any time from 1917 to 1991, you are as paranoid as the Communists were.

As for internal security problems, again those were not anything that could justify the internal security apparatus that existed. Actually, nothing could justify that -- it is the single most offensive thing about the entire Soviet Union from start to finish.

I provided evidence that in the USSR, workers controlled the means of production

No, you provided people's opinions to that effect. Not evidence.

[Populus]

I just have a couple of questions about socialism.

What prevents somebody from leaching off the state?

The state would prevent that, via its laws. Contrary to what many have been told, socialism doesn't mean "giveaway to everyone". It merely means that the country's land, resources and industrial capacity are every citizen's birthrigh. It means that you are the rightful owner and beneficiary of the output of your work. That's socialism.

How will we move forward without any personal incentives?

Maybe the media portray socialism as taking away individual incentives, but socialists don't offer removal of incentives in their platforms and proposals.

Prosecuting crime, instead of rewarding it--Doesthat take away some personal incentives? You be it does.

The people who actually do the work would (as I said above), be the owners and beneficiaries of the output of their work. Do you think that isn't incentive? Working people would be fairly and rightfuly rewarded for a change. That's a lot better incenive to work than today's exploitation of the working poor. Socialism wouldn't have working poor.

How can a government effectively take control of the lives of each of its citizens?

You're implying that socialism would do that. On the contrary, workplaces would have much more democratic management, with the employees having a large role in operating the workplace. And, on the larger scale, the public, via vastly expanded and improved initiataive powers, and via referenda, and newly genuinely democratice election of (immediately majority-recallable) representatives--the public would have a degree of control of the economy that is unheard-of today.

Who told you that socialism would control the lives of each of its citizens? Socialism would let citizens, in their workplaces, and in their neighborhoods, and in their government, directly control their lives at every level. That includes public ownership and control of the economy, as described above.

Is there any form of private property or ownership of anything?

Of course. Socialists don't want to take away your right to own your clothes and personal effects. But someone who wants to own what others can't afford, someone who want special privileged ownership that isn't available to everyone--That person would be disappointed.

As for exactly how much you could own, various socialist proposals differ on that matter. Many socialist parties wouldn't object to Mom-&-Pop corner grocery-stores or genuine family-farms (No outside employees. No use or owneship of assets greater than what is available to everyone).

Private cars? Private cars are an environmental abomination, in addition to unfairly making transportation unnecessarily difficult for those who can't afford them, or who don't qualify for a driver's license. Most or all democratic socialist parties, and probably most communist paraties too, would probably not seek to ban private cars. But I'd suspect that every socialist party would incentivize public transportation and walking.

Certainly true-cost-pricing shoul be applied to private cars. Drivers, and purchasers of shipped goods, should pay the full cost of driving and hauling. That would include road construction, maintenance and policing. Highway emergency-services. Rent on the land occupied by roads and parking-spaces. Payment for the full cost of automotive-air-pollution-caused illnesses, and other pollution harm caused to people, directly or indirectly, by the use of private cars. That includes compensation to every pedestrian injured by a car--if the driver himself/herself can't afford to pay the compensation, then it should be paid by drivers as a group.

A good way to collect this money is via fuel-taxes.

You asked about private possessions, and I wanted to say something about cars.

Speaking for myself, I'd require the strictest feasible emission-controls, if it were up to me. For a start, no car should be allowed on the road if it doesn't meet the emission-standards currently required for new cars (or maybe for cars of some specified age of one, two or three years, or whatever). If you can't afford a car that desn't harm, than you can't afford to drive.

Retrofitted emission-controls would be offered. You'd be surprised how much emission-cleanup could be accomplished by adding air-injection (if there are still any cars allowed on the road that don't have it), or better catalytic conversion or afterburning.

Some people object that public transportation is govt-subsidized. But not as heavily as car-driving (see above). Public transportation could pay for itself if we stopped subidizing cars, and permitting the harm that they do.

Things like that are said by people who aren't socialists too, like the nonsocialist Greens.

Anyway, in general, I don't think that any socialist wants to take away everyone's possessions, provided that your possessions aren't doing harm, and that they're things that are equally available to all.

Is there room for a private sector?

Tha depends on which socialism proposal you're referring to. As I was saying, I suspect that all or nearly all democratic socialist parties, and at least most communist parties too, would permit Mom-&-Pop corner grocery stores, and genuine family farms (As I said, provided that no outside employees are used, and that the business not use assets in value, amount, or nature, not available to everyone).

That said, there might be some communist parties that would want to nationalize even the corner stores, eventually, with the former owners becoming employees who would have as high a lifestyle as all working people can afford. But maybe it would depend on those particular owners' history in business. Maybe if they'd always conducted business equitably and humanely, they could keep running and owning the business.

Speaking for myself, though, I don't think they should be allowed to amass profits beyond what is earned by others who work as hard as they do.

People whose "incentive" depends on being able to live better than others who do as much work as they do--I don't feel a need to provide them that incentive.

How do government jobs provide economic growth when employees are all paid in tax money?

[/quote]

What's the difference? There could be a lot of jobs in the area of making people's lives better, in lots of different ways. The money that we waste, to kill families in small poor countries could instead provide jobs that deliver necessary services and environmental improvements at home.

As i said, there are many diverse socialism proposals. In some proposals, the public-owned economy is a player in a free marked. The existing forces that influence wages and prices would still exist. The only difference would be that we the public would be, collectively, the owner of the ecomomy--as well as its employees.

"Economic grownth" is taken as necessary, in capitalism. ...even if it requlires ridiculous unnecessary military spending--just to provide an assured, guaranteed customer for corporations. ...even if it requires committing attrocities around the world, to satisfy capitalism' voracious appetite for more cheap labor, and more rescources (never mind if they're someone else's resources).

That need for "economic growth" is a diastrous result of capitalism, and we all pay for it in one way or another, as do our victims everywhere.

Populus

[BATIK]

What prevents somebody from leaching off the state?

To each according to his contribution is a defining principle of socialism (contrary to what you might have read): It refers to an arrangement whereby individuals receive compensation based on the amount the contribute to the total output of society (also known as the "social product") in the form of effort, labor and productivity. This principle is held in contrast to the method of compensation in capitalism, where those who own capital receive compensation regardless of their individual contribution to the social product.

The socialist principle, "He who does not work shall not eat", is already realized; the other socialist principle, "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor", is also already realized. But this is not yet communism, and it does not yet abolish "bourgeois law", which gives unequal individuals, in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labor, equal amounts of products.

How will we move forward without any personal incentives?

The moral and social incentive to be a productive and responsible member of society would be reinforced by the knowledge that one's efforts would truly be benefiting all society, and not merely an idle class of social parasites.

The material incentives to be productive, and to improve productivity, would be strengthened as well. With capitalist exploitation abolished, workers would receive the full social value of their labor. The rewards of their own labor, and of improvements in efficiency, would accrue to them, and not to a separate class of owners. Thus, they would have "the possibility" of becoming well off materially -- a far greater possibility than they have today -- from their own labor. And the more efficiently they produce, the more they could enjoy, with a shorter and shorter workweek.

How can a government effectively take control of the lives of each of its citizens?

For individuals, socialism means an end to economic insecurity and exploitation. It means workers cease to be commodities bought and sold on the labor market, and forced to work as appendages to tools owned by someone else.

Is there any form of private property or ownership of anything?

Personal property will exist; private property will be immediately abolished. Read: here for more on this important conceptual difference.

Is there room for a private sector?

If based on private property, then no.

How do government jobs provide economic growth when employees are all paid in tax money?

Sorry?

I'm not sure if this 'critique' makes sense analytically; a planned economy dodges the fatal bullet stuck to capitalism like moss on a wall: cyclical fluctuations. A well organized economy based on ever-increasing production targets and further increasing productive forces would have no problem with economic growth.

[otokage]

I just have a couple of questions about socialism.

What prevents somebody from leaching off the state?
How will we move forward without any personal incentives?
How can a government effectively take control of the lives of each of its citizens?
Is there any form of private property or ownership of anything?
Is there room for a private sector?
How do government jobs provide economic growth when employees are all paid in tax money?

Almost every country is under socialist legislations. You must understand that, although socialism is a type of colectivism, it is not necesarily communism (which is esentialy the abolition of private property, and "extreme" type of colectivism we could say). Most socialist countries have private property, but still have socialist laws like using tax for education and health to make them public.

This said, I would take it as you are asking about communism. So, "leaching" from the state is human nature, not something that happens under communism alone. More or less every country has "parasites" to some degree, and even every family has parasites (the typical cousin that refuses to work and insted is sucking momma's money ). And so on. So there's no way to prevent leaching effectively, it just can be reduced by creating an inspectorate that search and saction the "parasites". This inspectorate is present in every western country and well known for being higly incompetent though

About moving forward without incentives. It is something every communist country should figure out how to do it. Societies are all different, what motivates spanish ppl is clearly not the same that motivates germans. Incentives can be economical even if the country is communist, but also better work conditions, closer to home destinations, priviledges of various types, and so on.

About private property, it depends of the communist country. But it is always private property of things like clothing and other personal stuff. But in practice, your home, land and car, etc. are actually yours, I mean, they are managed by the state but it's not like you are going to lose them at any time or strangers will suddenly come to live in your home or take your car because they need it. The abolition of private property simply prevents you from trading with said property, but it is really yours because it will be you who uses it throughout your life.

About private sector. It depends on the country. Practicaly anything that is considered essential to the population or to the country, is not allowed to be private, IE energy, agriculture, housing, etc. But for example china allowed textile and many other sectors to be private. Other things like, say alcohol, which is not essential, is also private (though alcohol is probably not a good example since it could be banned for being considered a drug ).

About economic growth, the country produces wealth because it is the owner of almost every business. It produces food, housing, and various stuff. Part of this goes to citizens, and part can be, for example, sold to other countries that need it. Being communist doesn't mean being against trading. IE if a comunist country has uranium in its territory, it either uses this uranium, or sells it to another country and thus increasing the wealth. When the country is wealthy, it can pay more to citizens so economic situation of families increases.

Hope it helped

[Ahovking]

I just have a couple of questions about socialism.

What prevents somebody from leaching off the state?
How will we move forward without any personal incentives?
How can a government effectively take control of the lives of each of its citizens?
Is there any form of private property or ownership of anything?
Is there room for a private sector?
How do government jobs provide economic growth when employees are all paid in tax money?

Great questions, coming from someone who's interested in socialism but skeptical,

Today in Australia there are thousands of people leaching off the state in the form of welfare payments. Its just so easy and every time labor gets elected payments go up and requirements go down. Im 21 and yet i choose to be on welfare because i get payed more on welfare than if i actually bothered working. And a lot of my fellow friends are the same.