Please define socialism for me and explain how it works

@stockwellpete said in #26:

No, I meant what I said originally. It is in humankind's self interest not to turn the planet into one that cannot support its current population. And it is in humankind's self-interest to find a more equitable way of living together. The early hunter-gatherer humans were also products of genetics and socialisation and I am fairly certain that they thought in completely different ways from us about the world they inhabited.

Eh? Self-interest is a focus on the selfs needs, desires, wants. Humankind means all people. What you are saying makes no sense. You can't say 'human-kinds self-interest'!

Of course hunter-gatherers thought in different ways. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

@betternever said in #31:

Eh? Self-interest is a focus on the selfs needs, desires, wants. Humankind means all people. What you are saying makes no sense. You can't say 'human-kinds self-interest'!

Of course hunter-gatherers thought in different ways. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

I mean it is in the interest of all of us to change our behaviour. Collectively, not individually. And I am saying that there is no such things as "human nature". We are primarily products of our socialisation.

@stockwellpete said in #29:

If we are able to make socialist revolutions again, the vast majority of our societies now are made up of working class people.
Now the largest sector of the economy in developed countries is the service sector. And Marx wrote about factory workers. When I first got to a large metallurgical plant, I immediately understood everything: there is higher discipline there than in the army. That is, it is a ready-made army, which only needs to be given weapons. And today such workers are not the majority of you. It is good if you recruit a handful)

Ants and Bees are Socialists...Hornets and Yellow Jackets are Fascists - :]

The solution is obvious -- we need more leaders with no self-interest!

Can anybody name a communist or socialist country, either currently (or historically) existing, that was run by leaders who are (or were) not self-interested?

It's a serious question. And if we can't name one -- what makes ANYBODY think that suddenly nations are going to find a fresh crop of saints to run them?

Oh, but I suppose we could have a dictatorship of the proles! Sure, that sounds delightful! Very learned!

We can do that! When you come home from work, just be prepared to work for the next four- or five-hours reading proposals for the design of that new public works project so you can make informed recommendations.

Of course, if you don't have time -- or really don't feel like working another four or five hours at the end of the day -- you can always just, you know, follow the recommendations of some, uh, leader. But don't tell anybody. Remember, the proles are supposed to be running things!

Unfortunately, it's more likely that you'll soon be seeing Commissars emerge. As we ACTUALLY did. Will they all have no self-interest? No desire to hire a relative, or get just a BIT more bread for their own families?

The American system started out with an effort to minimize government. Government is clearly necessary, but in America it was originally meant to be the tail, not the entire dog. The Americans constructed a constitution that gave individual freedom and general individuality a high priority -- and they MEANT it.

Yet, somehow, this is now thought by many to be just ICKY 'cause it allows, you know, self-interest and individual, non-standard decisions to thrive. Many now want to "help the people" by trying to make them all think and act the same way in a variety of settings.

When somebody gets into government and hopes to enlarge its power and reach, ask yourself if they are saintly and seem to lack self-interest. Don't just listen to them to make that determination: watch what they do when relatively few are watching.

@stockwellpete said in #32:

I mean it is in the interest of all of us to change our behaviour. Collectively, not individually. And I am saying that there is no such things as "human nature". We are primarily products of our socialisation.

Maybe its not in the interest of the people benefitting from the chaos. That is kind of the point.

"We are primarily products of our socialisation."

You just need a basic understanding of twin studies to know this is not true. Genes and environment both play a role. Say what you want about 'human nature' but socialists ALWAYS downplay the role of genetics.

@PTX187 said in #33:

Now the largest sector of the economy in developed countries is the service sector. And Marx wrote about factory workers. When I first got to a large metallurgical plant, I immediately understood everything: there is higher discipline there than in the army. That is, it is a ready-made army, which only needs to be given weapons. And today such workers are not the majority of you. It is good if you recruit a handful)

White collar workers are still working class, unless they are part of the management structure, or are owners of the business itself. Class is primarily a social relationship and today the working class is huge compared to what it was in 1917.

@stockwellpete said in #29:

This was not true in Russia in 1917, which was predominantly a peasant society. In Classical Marxism, the peasantry and the working class are two quite distinct social classes.

Thank you for your reply. I agree with what you said in this message, but I believe that Stalinism could only have succeeded in the USSR because of a bureaucracy already being established under Lenin, with his agreement or against it. People like Dzerzhinsky had already begun to lay the foundations for the ruthless political repression and its insane administrative speed that would inspire Stalin.

Regarding the percentage of the peasant population at 1917, I remain a little skeptical about the "majority". It should not be forgotten that during the time of the Russian Empire, a solid mining industry had developed almost everywhere since the 18th century, from western Siberia to Donbass (which is also the origin of the region's name) for coal, to the Urals, particularly for iron. To a lesser extent, Altai, with its silver and gold deposits.

Also, a lot of factories, especially metallurgical ones, were practically everywhere, and the industrial revolution in the Russian Empire was no less successful than in other countries, notably causing waves of immigration to the east of the empire (Siberia and the Far East). Moreover, in rural areas after the abolition of serfdom, it was common for the same person to do several jobs for economic reasons. For example, a person could be a farmer on his plot of land and also work in a metallurgical factory at the same time.

It wasn't uncommon for people to move and change professions as they did, as was the case with Khrushchev's family. And in the case of a large family, part of the family might be in the city while the other remained in the countryside cultivating their land. The abundance of arable land, or the promise of having the possibility of having arable land, certainly established a lasting agricultural culture, but we mustn't forget that many cities were also built in record time around a factory or a mine, which was rather rare at the time in countries of the Old Continent like England or the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Industrial revolution in the Russian Empire was quite similar to the Industrial revolution in USA at the same time.

So, unless you have any figures (I'd appreciate any specific information on this), I'm a bit cautious on this point.

Best regards

@CSKA_Moscou said in #38:

Thank you for your reply.

I'll have a go at answering this tomorrow. Turning in now. Cheers.

Do y'all realize that getting into the "ruling class" can be done by hard work? The only difference between the "ruling" class and "working" class is how risky and hard working a person is. Entry into the "ruling class" is open. Capitalism rewards work ethic and grit. I knew a guy once who grew up on a farm. He skipped college. He is now a multimillionaire who employs hundreds of employees at age 25.