Socialism

[Worldbystorm]

Socialism, in various guises, was tried several times, cost 100s millions of lives, and should be consigned to the dustbin of history. Any misshapen individuals [and they almost always are for some reason] who still harbour a fondness for this filthy doctrine are either inbred, criminally insane, wilfully ignorant, or a combination of all three.

Surely capitalism has cost and continues to cost millions of lives, two world wars over markets and profot for example?, devastaion across Africa as a result of decades of rape by imperialism, millions around the world condemned to poverty as a result of the relentless pursuit of profit.

I don't just harobour a fondness for socialsim I belive it is the only alternative to capitalism and indeed the next progeression of society, I don't believe after thousands of years of human development and many economic structures that capitalism is the be all and end all - that would conradict history?

Despite my support for socialism I am not inbred (to the best of my knowledge), not criminally insane nor ignorant.

While I agree with much of what you say, it seems likely that capitalism could and will adapt into forms we can't envisage as time progresses - note how it managed to assimilate welfarism and largely move beyond overt forms of imperialism. That also seems to be a lesson of history.

[Batman]

Socialism is inevitable.

[campbeca]

I've come to the conclusion that socialism no longer has a place in Irish society and those who are still clinging to such ideas may as well be trying to find Mr. Enda Kenny's personality or Dr. Ian Paisley's secret stash of rosery beads.

I think socialism is on the up and up

Socialism was supposidly a dirty word in ireland until a few years ago. Profit has clearly taken that place

[Fiacc]

Socialism is as elastic a term as democracy. You need to define what you mean. If you are talking about marxist regimes like the old USSR, Cuba or North Korea, then you are right, West Brit. This system had its chance on the historical stage and failed within a human lifetime. If you are talking about social democracy (and many, if not most social democrats describe themselves as socialist) then the picture is much more complex. It was social democracy which rescued capitalism from total collapse in the 1930’s (principally Roosevelt in the USA). If it wasn’t for him and an English economist called J.M. Keynes we would probably all be speaking German today.

There are social democratic societies (France and Germany may be run by Conservatives but they are constrained by a prevailing social democratic ethos) which are not doing spectacularly well but they are not doing too badly either. Sweden is far more ‘socialist’ than these two countries and is doing far better in terms of unemployment stats, GDP growth etc.

And if you look at a regime like that of Chavez in Venezuela (both democratic and socialist), we see that for the first time in the history of that country the people are getting decent health and educational services and the economy is doing well, and not just because of oil prices. This is a country where the wealthy elite have been waging economic war on the rest of the population for centuries. Chavez has turned all that around through socialist or social-democratic policies and as a result the lot of the people has immensely improved – and the rich still enjoy a comfortable lifestyle.

Engels, I think WBS has the better analysis here. Capitalism (as distinct from socialism or even Christian Democracy) is not an ideology. It grew organically out of normal human instincts - competition, greed, team-work, selfishness, individual innnovation. Marxism, much as I admire the morality and intellectual rigour of its founders, could not and never can succeed because it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. Marx cannot be blamed for that because it s only in the last two decades that we have begun to have a scientific understanding of what human nature really means. It doesn't change the fact that he was wrong.

[Worldbystorm]

Socialism is as elastic a term as democracy. You need to define what you mean. If you are talking about marxist regimes like the old USSR, Cuba or North Korea, then you are right, West Brit. This system had its chance on the historical stage and failed within a human lifetime. If you are talking about social democracy (and many, if not most social democrats describe themselves as socialist) then the picture is much more complex. It was social democracy which rescued capitalism from total collapse in the 1930’s (principally Roosevelt in the USA). If it wasn’t for him and an English economist called J.M. Keynes we would probably all be speaking German today.

There are social democratic societies (France and Germany may be run by Conservatives but they are constrained by a prevailing social democratic ethos) which are not doing spectacularly well but they are not doing too badly either. Sweden is far more ‘socialist’ than these two countries and is doing far better in terms of unemployment stats, GDP growth etc.

And if you look at a regime like that of Chavez in Venezuela (both democratic and socialist), we see that for the first time in the history of that country the people are getting decent health and educational services and the economy is doing well, and not just because of oil prices. This is a country where the wealthy elite have been waging economic war on the rest of the population for centuries. Chavez has turned all that around through socialist or social-democratic policies and as a result the lot of the people has immensely improved – and the rich still enjoy a comfortable lifestyle.

Engels, I think WBS has the better analysis here. Capitalism (as distinct from socialism or even Christian Democracy) is not an ideology. It grew organically out of normal human instincts - competition, greed, team-work, selfishness, individual innnovation. Marxism, much as I admire the morality and intellectual rigour of its founders, could not and never can succeed because it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. Marx cannot be blamed for that because it s only in the last two decades that we have begun to have a scientific understanding of what human nature really means. It doesn't change the fact that he was wrong.

Marxism has hugely influenced me, to the point of being self-consciously Marxist or Marxian, but I recognise it's limitations which you outline above. Two major aspects of it strike me as limiting it's utility as a predictive tool as distinct from an analytical tool. Firstly for all it's rigour the emphasis on the proletariat as an engine of change is not based in any empirical evidence. The very definition of the proletariat is ambiguous. Not once has a proletariat been the engine of a Marxist revolution (even Russia in the pre-October Revolution period doesn't really cleave to that model), instead we've seen vanguardist parties take up the flag and instigate little more than coup d'etats in societies undergoing catastrophic ruptures which again weren't ripe for a classic Marxist revolution. Secondly he wrote almost a century and a half ago. Since then developments he couldn't envisage have come to pass, and as we've noted capitalism itself has altered almost beyond credibility. On the other hand his critique of capitalism clearly was part of the reason it changed and his influence through socialist and social democratic parties ensured that his broader thinking remained relevant.

I completely agree that another major failing of socialism is to underestimate the competitive aspects of human behaviour.

[Fiacc]

I agree, WBS. Historic changes are wrought by the dominant elites in society or by forces powerful enough to overcome them. The proletariat, in Marx's time, was fairly homogenuous (manual factory workers) and in places like Germany and England they were becoming the majority of the population. They were highly concentated and became highly organised, unlike the peasants. It is not surprising that Marx and Lenin placed their hopes for social transfomation in this group. And there is some some empirical evidence that they were right. The only European communist parties which ever commanded mass support derived the bulk of their support from the proletariat (France, Italy. Portugal, Russia in the early period of the revolution.)

But because these communist parties believed, almost theologically, that only the working class could lead revolutionary change, they blinded themselves to what was happening in the real world. And what was happening in the real world of the twentieth century was that their proletariat was shrinking and becoming an irrelevent politcal force. The majority of people today are middle class or perceive themselves to be so. As well as that, huge numbers of peope work for the state. Marx described people who worked for the state in his day as agents of the oppressor. But today they are social workers, nurses, doctors, community workers etc.

Today people do not think in class terms or if they do it is a very minor influence in their decision making. If you look at the ESRI/FÁS reports on the Irish labour force you will see that the unskilled manual and semi-skilled manual sectors of the labour force have been declining in absoluite and relative terms for a couple of decades. The fastest growing sectors of the labour force are Managerial, Professional and Associate Professional groups. In order to believe that the working class, as defined by Marx and Engels, will or must lead any transformation of society, you nearly have to consciously decide to ignore the real world.

On the other hand his critique of capitalism clearly was part of the reason it changed

Exactly. Marxists don't seem to grasp the point that the reason capitalism has survived is because they (marxists, socialists, trade unionists) were so successful in forcing it to change. If you read the Communist Manifesto you will see immediately that most of its demands have been met in Ireland and in every other democratic society. The ones which have not been met are those which would turn us into a North Korea.

[sean1]

Socialists genuinely believe, that because most -or all- of them are atheists- the rest of us will convert to secularism.

Despite the drop in many parishes of people attending Mass every Sunday, over 2 million people still attend Mass every day in the South.

Over 3 1/5 million or more people people out of the 5.5 plus people on the island go to mass every Sunday.

People standing by secuarism are forever doomed on this issue in Ireland.

[Justin]

... It grew organically out of normal human instincts - competition, greed, team-work, selfishness, individual innnovation. Marxism, much as I admire the morality and intellectual rigour of its founders, could not and never can succeed because it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. Marx cannot be blamed for that because it s only in the last two decades that we have begun to have a scientific understanding of what human nature really means. It doesn't change the fact that he was wrong.

Not sure what you mean?The social and co operative aspects of human experience might be said to be as intrinsic as individualism and competition are.The modern dominance of 'scientific' discourses which stress the individual eg psychology, don't just provide a "understanding of human nature' but also reflect the ideological dominance of individualism at this point in history. Don't think there is an essential 'human nature' but would agree Marx didn't quite account for its complexity.

[Indyjoe]

You'd think Irish society is better suited to socialism than it is to capitalism. The celtic tribal system, the monastic system of the early Church, the meitheal system used by farmers: there are numerous examples to suggest that historically Irish society has traditionally been more inclined to the community than the individual.

I would agree that Marxism in its purist form has become outdated, however I believe Marx's analysis of history and the control of wealth are still important today, especially when you see the exploitation that seems to increase rather than decrease.

I'd completely disagree that socialists and atheists are one and the same. Socialists have traditionally opposed the church since it upheld the ruling elite. However socialism (which was around before Marx) is not opposed to religion. Some theologians, particularly in south America, use marxist analysis in their study of society. I am a practising Catholic and active in my Church, and I am also a socialist. I believe that it is my Christian duty to bring about a more just society. I'd encourage other practising Christians to follow suit.

[Fiacc]

Not sure what you mean?The social and co operative aspects of human experience might be said to be as intrinsic as individualism and competition are.The modern dominance of 'scientific' discourses which stress the individual eg psychology, don't just provide a "understanding of human nature' but also reflect the ideological dominance of individualism at this point in history. Don't think there is an essential 'human nature' but would agree Marx didn't quite account for its complexity.

Justin,

Modern scientifiic discourse is not the kind of babble you read in the Sunday Independent. Science, specifically evolutionary psychology, understands and explains very well the social and co-oprative aspects of human experience. It also understands and explains very well the biological bases of individualism and competition. What is most intereresting is the tension between the two and we are at a very exciting stage where very major breakthroughs are likely to be made in the very near future in this area of human knowledge.

You say: "The social and co-operative aspects of human experience might be said to be as intrinsic as individualism and competition". I agree with you there. Where I disagree with you is where you say "Don't think there is an essential 'human nature' ".

There is an essential human nature. At least for the purposes of our lifetimes. Human nature can change but only on an evolutionary timescale, which means millions of years. We need not concern ourselves with that when discussing contemporary politics.