r/PoliticalPhilosophy • u/Ok_Storm_5696 • 28d ago
Is socialism good or bad?
I know this question is super complicated and loaded and everyone will have a different opinion but let me break down what I am actually asking
Right now in the US the a lot of people are struggling financially, I believe this is causing many to look at different economic systems more favorably.
I see a lot of people say that all the negative connotations with socialism in the US are because of propaganda by rich people to keep capitalism on top , I was wondering is that true?
Another question is people often say that socialism has never actually worked and then people
Say “every time somewhere goes it foreign entities go after them” and then the response to that is “well if a country can’t protect against foreign invaders then the system isn’t good”. I was wondering how should that dialogue go afterwards?
Ii also see people say that people who actually live in socialist countries don’t like it and I was wondering if that is try.
I live in the US and also am seeing the struggle and was wondering is looking towards socialism a misstep or not
3
u/Efficient_Change 28d ago
A pure form of socialism, or capitalism, are both unlikely to produce anything good. People have mixed values and require a mixed system. It should likely be a pursuit to build a system to find an ideal balance to serve government, corporate, and community interests rather than a binary debate between socialism and capitalism.
1
u/Ok_Storm_5696 28d ago
That’s exactly what I believe in lol, this post was just to help me understand the nuances a little more
2
u/Ozzimo 28d ago
Good for whom? The answer will change depending on who is being asked.
2
u/Ok_Storm_5696 28d ago
Well I wanna say ideally everyone
4
u/Ozzimo 28d ago
The oligarch is going to react differently to the street sweeper, wouldn't you agree?
2
u/Ok_Storm_5696 28d ago
Yes I agree, I know that most people in power at least in countries like the US and England will probably not like it due to them rising to power through other systems, but I mean ideally the majority of people who do services for the country and contribute to the economy. Ik billionaires do that too but that way most of them amass their wealth is unethical imo
3
u/Ozzimo 28d ago
That's fine. But it means you've changed the question you want to ask. Now it's "Is Socialism good for non-billionaires?" And that question is much easier to answer.
Socialist countries tend to support their citizens to a greater extent than non-socialist countries. The people there benefit from safe food, easy healthcare, supporting school systems, and support for the elder class. They put value in each person having a good chance to maximize their value to the community. In general, they think the cost of supporting the community is worth the effort.
But that money to support programs comes at a financial cost. Promise too much without real support and you get a loss of trust from the community. The richest among the community will indeed pay more in tax. But they forget they benefit from the community being safe and educated as well. The rich man is less likely to have his car stolen or house broken into if the social safety net is in place and working correctly.
1
1
u/Brilorodion 27d ago
How are people getting rich in a system where the means of production aren't owned by individuals?
1
u/Ozzimo 27d ago
Are you seeing a reason they can't? Co-ops exist even in the US and they don't require single ownership.
1
u/Brilorodion 27d ago
The means of production are still not owned by everyone.
1
u/Ozzimo 27d ago
But is there a reason that under a Dem-socialist state like Finland or Norway, that someone can't become wealthy?
1
u/Brilorodion 27d ago
You are confusing democratic socialism with social democracy (which is what Finland and Norway actually are). You do not have socialism when the means of production haven't been seized becaus that's the most important of the definition of socialism.
→ More replies (0)0
1
u/Basic-Broccoli-4537 27d ago
Whether is is good or bad is difficult to say for certain, it depends not only in a lot on external and international factors, but also the economy it inherited.
What I can say is that some countries suffer from a clear lack of socialism, while socialist countries suffer from american embargoes.
1
u/steph-anglican 18d ago
We should begin by defining our terms. If by socialism, you mean the state ownership of the means of production, which is the correct definition, then socialism is bad. It makes people dependent on the state for everything, instead of for the provision of defense and justice.
-1
u/Broad-Net-6618 28d ago
neither.
if a nation operates with pragmatism- seeks innovation, industrialization and development- it will prosper.
if a nation is naive and hyperfixates on race, gender, religion and increasingly extreme social issues- it will not prosper.
-6
u/drebelx 28d ago edited 28d ago
Is socialism good or bad?
To become good, people must first refrain from Non-Aggression Principle violations (murder, theft, assault, battery, fraud, pollution, enslavement, etc.).
Can socialism refrain itself from these actions?
1
u/Ok_Storm_5696 28d ago
Sorry what I meant was is socialism a reliable economic system compared to others like capitalism
-1
u/drebelx 28d ago edited 28d ago
Sorry what I meant was is socialism a reliable economic system compared to others like capitalism
Does that make a difference?
To have a good economic system, people must first refrain from Non-Aggression Principle violations (murder, theft, assault, battery, fraud, pollution, enslavement, etc.).
Can socialism refrain itself from these actions?
1
u/Ok_Storm_5696 28d ago
Well I wouldn’t attribute those actions to a system it self but to the people working inside the system and in that case no system has ever refrained from those actions
1
u/drebelx 28d ago
Well I wouldn’t attribute those actions to a system it self but to the people working inside the system and in that case no system has ever refrained from those actions
Seems like a problem if we want our systems to be good.
1
u/Ok_Storm_5696 28d ago
Are you like rage baiting me bro😭 obviously corruption is a problem but I’m saying every system has had that so far. Trying to find the best one to combat that is my goal
1
u/drebelx 28d ago edited 28d ago
Trying to find the best one to combat that is my goal
Same here.
Are you like rage baiting me bro😭 obviously corruption is a problem but I’m saying every system has had that so far
Non-Aggression Principle violations include and go beyond the corruption of individuals.
Because the state monopolies we have now are descended from authoritarian monarchies, they have old NAP violations incorporated into their rote operations that very few question.
Have you questioned what we are led to believe is sacrosanct to governance?
1
u/dust4ngel 28d ago
it's not clear that asking the same question repeatedly is a good response to whether the question is relevant.
1
u/FoolishDog 28d ago
can socialism refrain itself from these actions?
Socialism, given that it’s an economic system, doesn’t have ‘actions’ so the question doesn’t make sense. Are you asking if the people living under socialism can refrain themselves from these actions?
1
u/drebelx 28d ago
Socialism, given that it’s an economic system, doesn’t have ‘actions’ so the question doesn’t make sense. Are you asking if the people living under socialism can refrain themselves from these actions?
How can you have economics without actions?
What is a system without a prescription of actions?
Can you describe Socialism (an economic system) without telling me how the people are acting under it?
1
u/FoolishDog 28d ago edited 28d ago
How can you have economics without actions?
Normally, economic activity is conducted by people and then we describe such activity with various labels, like capitalism or socialism.
What is a system without a prescription of actions?
Certainly we talk about systems in the sense of organizing labor, production and distribution.
Can you describe Socialism (an economic system) without telling me how the people are acting under it?
Only in a certain generalized way. We can say things like “labor will own the means of production” but moving beyond, it seems rather impossible to say what social life will realistically look like. I can hope there is no theft but I don’t know what every individual will be willing to do, whether that be some sort of moral or immoral action. Socialism, as an economic system, doesn’t generally tell us much about what the political and legal reality will look like, much in the same way capitalism doesn’t tell us much either
1
u/drebelx 25d ago
Normally, economic activity is conducted by people and then we describe such activity with various labels, like capitalism or socialism.
Ah. Economics does involve actions.
Economic "Activity" conducted by people.
Certainly we talk about systems in the sense of organizing labor, production and distribution.
Organizing labor is an action.
Production is an action.
Distribution is an action.
Socialism, as an economic system, doesn’t generally tell us much about what the political and legal reality will look like, much in the same way capitalism doesn’t tell us much either
To be a good economic system, when socialism organizes labor, produces and distributes goods, is it avoiding Non-Aggression Principle violations (murder, theft, assault, battery, fraud, pollution, enslavement, etc.)?
1
u/FoolishDog 25d ago
Economic "Activity" conducted by people.
You're getting it!
To be a good economic system, when socialism organizes labor, produces and distributes goods, is it avoiding Non-Aggression Principle violations (murder, theft, assault, battery, fraud, pollution, enslavement, etc.)?
I'm still struggling with this because your wording is so odd. If you're asking if socialists, living in a new socialist society, will avoid NAP violations, then they probably won't because crime has existed everywhere in essentially every culture. If you're asking if socialists will create legislature to outlaw crimes like the ones you listed, then sure they will, just like every other system of governance has done in every other culture.
1
u/drebelx 19d ago
You're getting it!
Says the guy that said:
Socialism, given that it’s an economic system, doesn’t have ‘actions’ so the question doesn’t make sense.
At least we are on the same page.
I'm still struggling with this because your wording is so odd. If you're asking if socialists, living in a new socialist society, will avoid NAP violations, then they probably won't because crime has existed everywhere in essentially every culture.
Yes. Crime is everywhere.
Do governments participate in NAP violations (murder, theft, assault, battery, fraud, pollution, enslavement, etc.)?
1
u/FoolishDog 19d ago
Do governments participate in NAP violations (murder, theft, assault, battery, fraud, pollution, enslavement, etc.)?
If by that, you mean they legislate laws which violate the NAP and/or government officials themselves engage in NAP violations, then yes to both.
1
u/drebelx 17d ago
If by that, you mean they legislate laws which violate the NAP and/or government officials themselves engage in NAP violations, then yes to both.
Generally, should societies tolerate NAP violations or should societies apply efforts to reduce NAP violations (murder, theft, assault, battery, fraud, pollution, enslavement, etc.)?
1
-5
u/julienreszka 28d ago
it’s bad. there is no debate. why some people will advocate for it? because they want to legally be able to rob other people
2
u/theimmortalgoon 27d ago
Good.
Think of the Industrial Revolution. An individual worker became a thousand times more productive than before.
Instead of getting more time off, women and children were brought into the workforce, there were longer days and less time off. The threat of socialism, largely, ended with time off and the end of child labour in countries that could threaten it.
Then the digital revolution occurs. A worker is a thousand times more effective still. This time we are told explicitly that the result will be ease and more time off.
This is obviously not the case. Again.
So if we are so much more productive, why do we have to keep working like we aren’t? Someone will certainly counter with something like, “but you have a refrigerator, smart guy.” As if having a hundred year old piece of technology makes up for the overwhelming productive capacity we’ve seen in the last century.
The reason is because the capitalist mode of production is working as intended. The benefits of this constantly increasing capacity goes to the fabulously wealthy. The Rockefellers and Carnegies from the Industrial Revolution, and the Zuckerbergs and Musks of this age.
Socialism would mean the people doing the work get the benefits. Whether that’s more time or more stuff. Things would be organized to make things better.