Is the ideal society socialistic?

And I don't mean "is socialism the ideal economy", I mean, in a perfect state, where everyone did the greatest thing for the greatest number and loved each other and all that nonsense, would they be socialists?

I'm just curious to see whether anyone thinks they wouldn't be, and their argument to back that up.

As invisioned by Marx?

No, I don't believe so.

As implemented in Eastern Europe for 50 years? No thank you.

Taking the question more seriously, I don't think that in a society where "everyone did the greatest thing for the greatest number and loved each other" ownership of the goods and corporations would matter that much. As individuals would aim for optimizing for the greatest number of people, on the long run things would be pretty good. (Not necessary equal, it depend on how we perceive an optimal distribution. :) )

See, there's two different things here.

Is the ideal society socialistic? Well...probably not. But, here's the question. In the long-term, is the best, most realistic society socialistic. I think that's the more accurate question there, and to be honest, I have to say yes. Not strictly so, of course. But generally speaking dealing with technology and ever-increasing productivity will in the end result in a requirement that said fruits of that productivity are spread among the populace.

I'm a big fan of free markets, and maximizing their freedom. However, I believe that in the long run, without...quite frankly...faster than light drives, (Yup. Dead serious on this) in order to maximize the free market there will have to be limits placed upon it. What I envision is basically limited work weeks to spread the work and employment to as wide a portion of the population as possible.

(FTL drives change this as it opens basically infinite possibilities in terms of exploration, colonization and production. It turns our limitations off.)

FTL isn't a fix-all. Just because you can get there doesn't mean you can strip mine and deforest it all yet.

The problem with this is the question. If it's "does the ideal society have socialistic qualities," then, yes, it does. If the question is "is the ideal society perfectly socialist," then I'd say no, for myriad reasons...

A grand ideal of socialism would be that of a liberal democratic socialist collective.

The idea of a liberal socialist society is that of combining the rights of individual of a liberal society and the rights of the group in a socialist society.

Many ways socialism has been about equality and ensuring that authority be not of the tyrants.

The biggest mistake is to lump all socialism with communism especially that of the Soviet Union, for that would be to mark to the Vocal Minority of Socialists.

The economic notion is important for economic power is one of the most powerful forms of power. The current status of the world is dominated by capitalist systems. Capitalism can be regarded as economic anarchy, permitting disgraceful and ignorant actions that make our economies unstable, for the drive is of the short term (profit) as oppose to the long term (value.) However planned economies are not only unliberal; they are inefficient, not granting the flexibility needed to allow progress... especially since socialism is in many ways a cult of progress. Merchants have been amongst the first great explorers... such must not be banned.

As a liberal socialist I in many ways strive for balance. A liberal socialist society is not of perfection for perfection is of the immortal; not to be achieved by our hands. What is offered is a system where the economy allows freedom of enterprise while having enforceable laws or regulations to crack down on immoral economic practices such as the exploitation of the workforce. It must also however encourage diversity and development of the population; all are equal but some are equaller.

In the end the best systems are that which blends the notions of all ideals. Socialism is the ideal of equality. Liberalism is of freedom. If we were to combine these... a collective of individuals may prove more efficient then the individual collective or a ragtag of the selfish.

I really don't like socialism. For me, a society would need to reach that lofty "American Dream" ideal to excel to be remotely perfect. If that position could be attained without inhibiting a portion of the population, I think I could grow to like such a place.

Inhibiting a portion of people?

Well, without allowing that opportunity for some people at the expense of others. I suppose some would say you couldn't do that without socialism, but what I want to avoid in a society is holding back people with the potential to succeed. Otherwise, how is technology going to progress?

You mean taxes? .-.

Well... no. That's too shallow.

How's this then? In an ideal society, no one would die if they lacked capital. Due to new hypothetical ultra-technology, people no longer starve or die of thirst, and living space is pretty much unlimited. In such a society, socialism would lose all of its "ethical" appeal, hence allowing society to be completely focused on the individual.

Socialsm is not about holding people back! That be the Vocal Minority.

The ideal of socialism is about allowing people to push forward as oppose to the fruits being avaible to only a tiny pocket of the population.

As for taxes (since I see this coming) they be needed to feul the goverment and the main importance is to enforce taxes. In Britain our public heathcare is reguarded as a treasure so grand that even the Conseratives reconsie the value of not having our heath system driven by profit. That shows the virtues of socialism.

Noooo, I mean how does socialism "inhabit" success of successful people? .-.

^eeeeeeexcactly :3

edited 27th Dec '11 2:47:43 AM by SpookyMask

"True socialism" and "true anarchy" both sound like really cool things to be part of. I guess part of ideal humanity means not being resentful and stultified because others support you, but I'd go for "true anarchy" because I think it'd support more introverts.

Narrowing the curve never turned the poor into the rich. They're still poorer than everyone else, so if they're not actually starving, you haven't changed their comparative social status an ounce. Moving the curve to the right is what makes everyone better off. Do you really want to help the poor, or do you just want to see the fruit-hogging companies taken down a peg?

Also, yeah, America realized it needed taxes back in the 1780s. The elimination of taxes isn't a position for political factions, it's the position of miscellaneous kooks.

edited 27th Dec '11 2:55:43 AM by DomaDoma

No, the ideal society as it turns out is Nordic Capitalism.

I thought its pretty close to socialism anyway .-.

It has been my experience that socialists believe in defying authority and that the law does not apply to them, so I would be very wary of any of their actions.

The economic model of the Nordic countries is called "Mixed Economy" because it's exactly that: a mixture of Socialism and Capitalism. Together with the idea of the Welfare State, we've created societies that are generally seen as some of the best places in the world to be born. The goals are basically these:

• Everyone gets a good chance to succeed, which means that no one gets inferior healthcare or education or other services that they simply need out of necessity or that are needed to have a good chance of staying in or rising to the middle class. Ideally, no one would have to pay for any of it, but in practice there are small costs for medical services, and in post-mandatory education you usually have to buy your own books (which are affordable if you get the full student benefit, which you get if your parents aren't very wealthy or if you are a legal adult - ideally.)

• In principle, business is allowed to flourish and the state goes a long way towards ensuring that doing business is as easy as it can be. You're only held back by taxes, regulation (which is based on the idea that one person's business shouldn't decrease the quality of life of another or the welfare of nature) and fair competition laws, which are meant to prevent monopolies and other unfair competition.

• Because the state is supposed to take care of your necessities (or at least to give you easy access to them,) you're going to pay heavy taxes.

You can complain but when you get sick, no matter what disease you have, a hospital visit always costs the same, relatively small sum and if you have to go see a doctor often, there's a limit on how much you can pay a year before everything after that is free. Same for medicine. You can complain, but you've been given top-quality free education that includes classes on social and political activism. You can ride your car to the protest where you're gonna complain because the state paid for the roads, and if there's trouble, the police and rescue personnel will be there, free of charge. Etc.

This is a system that I would hail.

The key this system processes is ballance. Ballance is the key to a stable free society.

edited 27th Dec '11 4:15:40 AM by Ailedhoo

I wasn't going to point out that "balance" is spelled with a single l, but since it took balls to build our system, I'm going to have to call ours a "ballanced" society.

That does genuinely sound like a pretty good system.

According to Wikipedia, even Cuba and the US are sometimes called "Mixed Economy" because they both have features of the other system (Cuba, of course, is geared towards planned economy, while the US is more closely modeled on the free market; if you ask me, "Mixed Economy" should only refer to economies where the balance is set pretty close to the middle, like the Nordic states. This is why I mentioned the Welfare State before describing the results: I connected the Welfare State to Mixed Economy to limit the definition of Mixed Economy to close to the centre.)

Depends on what you see as "ideal".

As a person who cares about the safety of the population, I'd say socialism is the best way to go. Peace, in my opinion, is sufficiently worthy in order to pay some prices.

For people who care more about freedom than peace, then capitalism is the way to go.

The problem I have with capitalism is that it is inherently hypocrital; it wishes to give everyone a chance at exceeding, yet in the end those that fail invariably die, either of poverty in the streets or at home, incapable of paying for operations.

Socialism, while admitely easy to create tyrannies from, at least gives a chance to the majority with smaller consequences for failure.

Yes. Capitalist exploitation is far from ideal: To achieve a society that we can call just, We need to stop people getting rich off other people's labor: The executive, the banker and the businessowner will have to go extinct on the way there.

Socialism doesn't require a powerful, authoritarian State: The coercion necessary to crush and loot the burgeoisie can be applied by the working class itself, on its own terms, without building a repressive apparatus to do it. That way, we can avoid giving policians any power they could turn against the People.

edited 27th Dec '11 5:25:38 AM by SavageHeathen

Yes. It's the only society that can last. It also would guarantee wellbeing for the people.

edited 27th Dec '11 5:29:55 AM by stripesthezebra