The common core of all versions of socialism is the common good, which must be understood as individual bc otherwise it's only special interests. Socialism is universal reciprocity, the foundation of human rights, which are the minimum to enable civilization.
As for historicity, if a system doesn't actually care for the common good - at least every citizen in it's jurisdiction, as individuals, it's not socialism. But the common good is the common excuse for tyranny.
As someone who lives in a former socialist/communist country (Romania), I can confidently say that you’re glamorizing a movement that just doesn’t work. Why? Because it’s a sophism: it sounds appealing on paper but it just doesn’t work in the real work because it ignores fundamental truths about human nature: human beings can be and are tribalistic. There’s always someone who wants more than others. Under socialism, some receive less than they work for, while others gain more than they work for. George Orwell’s Animal Farm perfectly exemplifies why socialism doesn’t work. I also recommend Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies by Kristian Niemietz, which debunks the claim that the countries that fell under communism weren’t “true” socialist states (though I know you’ll just dismiss it as anti-socialism propaganda).
I would never glamourise Leninism or Stalinism or Maoism. Do you know of anything in my writings that does? Their authoritarian systems quickly gave up trying to establish Socialism, except keeping around the word when it suited them. So I agree with you that their system (which they called 'State Capitalism') does not and cannot achieve Socialist or Communist ideals.
I am not a state Socialist, and have no reason to defend something I don't believe in. But I reject Capitalism for a similar reason - because under capitalism, almost all receive less than they work for, while others gain far more than they work for. Isn't this the basis of all Capitalism? (including Soviet / Chinese State Capitalism)
Animal Farm, written by devout Socialist George Orwell, is one of my favourite books. Like all of his books it was written (to use his own words) 'directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism.' Is it possible that you misunderstood the pro-Socialist message Orwell was trying to make with this book?
If you would like to write a post about why you believe that Socialism doesn't work I'll happily write a reply as to why I believe it can and does, and leave it to readers to decide. But first we'd have to agree on what Socialism is to have a basis to begin from.
Do you agree in the Oxford Political Dictionary definition that, 'socialists also typically support common ownership or some form of social, democratic control over the bulk of the means of production.'? If we can stick to a definition like this then there might be a chance at constructive dialogue about this issue. Would you like to do that?
1. When I said that the post glamorises socialism, I meant all forms of socialism, which I maintain is a sophism, regardless of its form.
2. I reject capitalism for many reasons, but as I see no better third alternative system, I see it as the lesser of two evils.
3. In regards to Animal Farm, works have the power to have multiple interpretations, regardless of the author’s political views. The fact that we interpret it differently is a testament to that.
4. I do take the Oxford definition of socialism into consideration, and like I said, I think it’s a noble idea that’s not (easily) applicable in real life. I might write that post you suggested in the future, but for now we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Thank you for taking the time to prepare and present these important illuminations regarding the real meaning of the oft misused and misunderstood term of “Socialism.”
The common core of all versions of socialism is the common good, which must be understood as individual bc otherwise it's only special interests. Socialism is universal reciprocity, the foundation of human rights, which are the minimum to enable civilization.
As for historicity, if a system doesn't actually care for the common good - at least every citizen in it's jurisdiction, as individuals, it's not socialism. But the common good is the common excuse for tyranny.
As someone who lives in a former socialist/communist country (Romania), I can confidently say that you’re glamorizing a movement that just doesn’t work. Why? Because it’s a sophism: it sounds appealing on paper but it just doesn’t work in the real work because it ignores fundamental truths about human nature: human beings can be and are tribalistic. There’s always someone who wants more than others. Under socialism, some receive less than they work for, while others gain more than they work for. George Orwell’s Animal Farm perfectly exemplifies why socialism doesn’t work. I also recommend Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies by Kristian Niemietz, which debunks the claim that the countries that fell under communism weren’t “true” socialist states (though I know you’ll just dismiss it as anti-socialism propaganda).
I would never glamourise Leninism or Stalinism or Maoism. Do you know of anything in my writings that does? Their authoritarian systems quickly gave up trying to establish Socialism, except keeping around the word when it suited them. So I agree with you that their system (which they called 'State Capitalism') does not and cannot achieve Socialist or Communist ideals.
I am not a state Socialist, and have no reason to defend something I don't believe in. But I reject Capitalism for a similar reason - because under capitalism, almost all receive less than they work for, while others gain far more than they work for. Isn't this the basis of all Capitalism? (including Soviet / Chinese State Capitalism)
Animal Farm, written by devout Socialist George Orwell, is one of my favourite books. Like all of his books it was written (to use his own words) 'directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism.' Is it possible that you misunderstood the pro-Socialist message Orwell was trying to make with this book?
If you would like to write a post about why you believe that Socialism doesn't work I'll happily write a reply as to why I believe it can and does, and leave it to readers to decide. But first we'd have to agree on what Socialism is to have a basis to begin from.
Do you agree in the Oxford Political Dictionary definition that, 'socialists also typically support common ownership or some form of social, democratic control over the bulk of the means of production.'? If we can stick to a definition like this then there might be a chance at constructive dialogue about this issue. Would you like to do that?
1. When I said that the post glamorises socialism, I meant all forms of socialism, which I maintain is a sophism, regardless of its form.
2. I reject capitalism for many reasons, but as I see no better third alternative system, I see it as the lesser of two evils.
3. In regards to Animal Farm, works have the power to have multiple interpretations, regardless of the author’s political views. The fact that we interpret it differently is a testament to that.
4. I do take the Oxford definition of socialism into consideration, and like I said, I think it’s a noble idea that’s not (easily) applicable in real life. I might write that post you suggested in the future, but for now we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Thank you for taking the time to prepare and present these important illuminations regarding the real meaning of the oft misused and misunderstood term of “Socialism.”