Is the ideal society socialistic?

The ideal society is a social capitalist one, where everyone is provided for but people can excel.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

Sounds about right.

I love the smell of social democracy in the morning.

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

An ideal society is one that both allows for people to live relatively comfortably but at the same time give them enough freedom so they can live their lifes as they wish, as long as they dont harm others.

Easier said than done.

edited 27th Dec '11 7:10:35 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

By the way, Tomu, any particular reason for the dismissal of Marxian economics? Since I've heard that Richard D. Wolff's four-part lecture is a good introduction to it, so...

Not to speak for Tomu but I pretty much try to avoid most "classical" economics. The models and social situations they were working under were entirely different than what they are today. I simply don't think the writings of Marx (or Smith, for that matter) are all that relevant. Not that they're worthless. They just don't interest me.

And yeah, it's all about "social democracy" which is basically just actively trying to maintain a working balance between capital and labor/society. Ideally, a pure capitalistic structure that achieved the same goals might be best in terms of maximizing freedom, however, as I said earlier, I think that basically this is impossible.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

Well, I'd say that Marx and Smith are still relevant, but only as a generality. Their specifics are obviously outdated and have been for some time, but many concepts put forward are still plenty good, from Marx's theories on social conflict to Smith's warning against allowing business interests to pollute political and legislative processes.

I personally have yet to read Marx. I probably will eventually for sociology, but...

I do know the basic idea behind his writings, however.

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

Marx basically believed the middle class would be gone in a few decades. Needless to say, it wasn't, which created a flaw in his plans.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

Well, the only thing he was wrong on was on how long it would take.

Seeing as the middle class is rapidly going extinct in the US, thanks to horrendous policy on the part of the government and exploitation of the cracks in the system by the corporations...

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

That's...unfortunately kinda true. I really hope nobody notices that, because I'd rather not deal with an attempted communist revolution.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

Nah. Communism's reputation has been seriously tarnished by the Cold War here in the US. People like Savage would get just about zero traction in the US, thanks to our history with communism.

Now, I could definitely see a gradual shift towards social democracy, but we'll be way behind the rest of the First World on that count, and the general lack of progress of movements like OWS makes me doubt the likelihood of that...

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

Unfortunately we're not going to head anywhere except away from social elements because of our history with communism.

Heck, if you listen to some of the talking heads out there, basic stuff like unemployment and food stamps are evil communist ideals that we need to get rid of.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

Well, as the older generations pass on and generations like my own, which never lived under the looming shadow of the Cold War and the vicious, ridiculous anger over the culture war between capitalism and socialism, begin to come into the positions of power, socialist principles may become more accepted in the US.

Communism, though? Probably not within any of our lifetimes, if ever. The Cold War effectively killed any chance of communism working in the US.

Not that I'm complaining...

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

The Cold War has some weird effects on the world because one would have assumed that us Europeans would have more hate to towards communism as the USSR could hit any European City with Nukes in under 5 minutes.

Dutch Lesbian

Ah, but see, the hate for communism and socialism in the US is two-fold.

First, was the Cold War.

Second, however, was our success.

All else being equal, successful societies will trend towards capitalistic systems (as the people in power get more money, power, and control that way), and unsuccessful/strained societies will trend towards socialistic systems (as the people in power stave off revolution that way).

Europe was in shambles after World War II, and so it took on a socialistic trend (see: Britain adopting UHC). Conversely, the US was rolling in money, and so we took on a capitalistic trend (see: UHC being rejected by Congress under Truman; union-busting; etc.).

Now we can use modern Germany as an example, with its strong Right-wing government and extreme success with trade and exports, etc.

Of course, there are blips, but that's usually how it goes. Note that this does not mean that capitalism causes success or socialism causes failure; they are in fact reactions, and in fact usually cause the opposite of what causes them (socialism, success, capitalism, failure), if one trends too far in one direction or another.

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

"Now we can use modern Germany as an example, with its strong Right-wing government and extreme success with trade and exports, etc. "

Have you not been here for the past 12 months? Does the phrase European debt crisis mean anything to you? And Merkel's government is neither strong nor really that right-wing.

Also, communism isn't an ideology, it's the final stage of society in Socialist ideology. And you underestimate the popularity of Leftism among the people of the US.

And last of all, if you haven't read Marx's books, I recomend them, not all are like the manifesto if that's not your thing.

Unless you're an economist, it's probably more useful to read Engels: He was a titan of Marxist sociology.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

In this instance, I was talking about Marx's economic work. You're right, though, Engels is good to read.

Now we can use modern Germany as an example, with its strong Right-wing government and extreme success with trade and exports, etc

Centre-right government.

edited 28th Dec '11 11:00:41 AM by Erock

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

Merkle is Christian Democrat Union, which is as Erock says, centre-right. It is not right-wing. What kind of right-wing government are you picturing that gives unions so much power and leeway? :P

Really, I think that essentially, the "ideal" society is along the lines of people being able to benefit from any improvement in the fruits of their labour. This is both the individual benefit (I worked harder than the next guy and thus earn more fruit) and also the communal benefit (I invented a new machine that lowers the production costs of a product, therefore everyone can get more of that product). While the "individual" benefit is simple, government need not do much except protect private/personal property, the "communal" part is what I believe to be difficult. That is where socialism rolls into the mixture.

Plus you'd like to have no mental illness, crime or government corruption.

@stripes: Uh, no, no he doesn't. Communism is really, really unpopular in the United States. There were witchhunts for it. Even the word socialist is still an insult. Nobody is even willing to admit it.

Apart from bits of South California and a handful of college kids elsewhere, nobody at all supports communism. The US is just more conservative, simple as that. It's not (IMO) good, and it'll gradually adjust as demographics shift and we get younger voters, but it's the way things are.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

AFAIK, things are changing rapidly, as the Average Joe (rightfully and correctly) slowly learns to hate the rich and mistrust the government.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Can the world really sustain any form of government other that state-capitalism at this point? I agree with you socialists on principle, but I tend to take the long view.

It would be nice if workers managed their own workplaces. But you could accomplish pretty much the same end with protectionist policies (which even the hallowed Reagan approved of) and divorcing yourself from competing in this loony global "market", where nobody follows the free market rules unless they intend to hold them up like a warrant and rob another country.

In short, capitalism works within a certain ceiling. As long as workers are allowed to unionize and banks can't gamble with everyone's money, it's the best of both worlds as far as I can see.

edited 28th Dec '11 11:40:47 AM by johnnyfog

I'm a skeptical squirrel

It wouldn't accomplish the same goals at all: Worker ownership and self-management give the common man the means of production and spread the wealth among the people, from each according to his work.

On the other hand, protectionistic capitalism keeps the wealth disparity and the socioeconomic domination of the burgeoisie intact: It would probably improve wages at the expense of prices, which isn't much of a change at all.

edited 28th Dec '11 11:48:11 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

The OP's question is silly. In such a totally altruistic society, terms like "socialist" become meaningless. So in a way, no - the ideal society is ideal, not socialistic. Now, you could classify it as socialistic, but I don't know how much sense that makes...

And who would organize the labour on a mass scale? Who would organize the logistics of the goods and services going where they are needed?

edited 28th Dec '11 11:54:09 AM by Octo

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic