Socialism for Beginners

[DocWatts]

Just thought I'd highlight this video from Second Thought as a useful resource worth a recommendation.

It does an excellent job of articulating what socialism is in easy to understand language, and why socialism is relevant to an average person's day to day concerns.

Considering how misinformed most people are about Socialism, having a basic understanding of the essentials will at least allow someone to evaluate this ideology from a more informed perspective (if they're willing to listen that is).

 

Edited May 6, 2022 by DocWatts

[zurew]

Great, thanks for the share!

Do you have any other video sources where i could see good debates between socialism and capitalism? (i know there is a bunch, but i would be curious if you have one or a few that you consider good debates or discussions)

[Rokazulu]

It is very useful to learn about any new idea. But, to hold it as a part of one's identity, is a human hand grenade.

Even those who are misinformed use it as munition.

[Husseinisdoingfine]

The only real way to know about Socialism is to do the physical reading for yourself.

There is also other economic texts I’ve looked into.

You’re never going to learn the nuances of economics from YouTube.

[zurew]

4 minutes ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

The only real way to know about Socialism is to do the physical reading for yourself.

There is also other economic texts I’ve looked into.

You’re never going to learn the nuances of economics from YouTube.

thanks for this share, i will check this out!

I see that people commented on your thread that those books are very hard and tough to read. Would you recommend and easier book to start with?

Edited May 7, 2022 by zurew

[DocWatts]

1 hour ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

The only real way to know about Socialism is to do the physical reading for yourself.

There is also other economic texts I’ve looked into.

You’re never going to learn the nuances of economics from YouTube.

True, but I don't think handing someone who's curious about socialism a very long and difficult that's text full of anachronistic 19th century references, as helpful for the vast majority of people.

Similiar to how it wouldn't be helpful for someone who wants to learn the basics of Idealist philosophy to have Hegel's Phenomenology of Sprit dropped in their lap. 

Someone like Richard Wolff would be a better recommendation, as he does a good job of updating the insights of Marx for the modern world we actually live in. And in a way that's far more accessible and immediately relevant to contemporary conditions.

 

Edited May 7, 2022 by DocWatts

[DocWatts]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

thanks for this share, i will check this out!

I see that people commented on your thread that those books are very hard and tough to read. Would you recommend and easier book to start with?

Richard Wolff has a number of books on socialism that are far more accessible and directly relevant to contemporary conditions.

Edited May 7, 2022 by DocWatts

[zurew]

@DocWatts thanks!

[Bobby_2021]

21 hours ago, DocWatts said:

Just thought I'd highlight this video from Second Thought as a useful resource worth a recommendation.

It does an excellent job of articulating what socialism is in easy to understand language, and why socialism is relevant to an average person's day to day concerns.

Considering how misinformed most people are about Socialism, having a basic understanding of the essentials will at least allow someone to evaluate this ideology from a more informed perspective (if they're willing to listen that is).

 

I used to be an avid viewer of this channel. Later I had to unsubscribe as he was getting more ideological in his defences.

[Dryas]

Why would you read on socialism before the classical stuff taught in universities and such? It feels a little backwards to me. People (including myself) are clueless about how the economy functions in general, its not just socialism.

Edited May 8, 2022 by Dryas

[Hardkill]

That was a very informative and useful video@DocWatts . I mostly agree with everything the guy said in the vid and I thought he did a really good job of clarifying the differences between the kinds of the economic systems that have occurred throughout history. Every country around the world needs to improve their economic systems by finding a better balance for kind of economic system that works best for them depending upon the stage of development each country is at. For example, America still needs to have a lot more advanced socialistic policies mixed in with its current long-establish capitalistic policies. 2nd world countries which have less developed mix capitalistic/socialistic economies need to incorporate more capitalistic policies. 3rd world countries which are not yet ready for some kind of more developed capitalist/socialist mix economy will need to add more of a mix of socialistic and capitalistic policies to their feudal style economies.

Edited May 8, 2022 by Hardkill

[mostly harmless]

Socialism is about centralized allocation of all resources. Personal property and freedom is incompatible. 

[DocWatts]

5 hours ago, mostly harmless said:

Socialism is about centralized allocation of all resources. Personal property and freedom is incompatible. 

Socialism is not necessary synonymous with central planning (if I'm understanding you correctly).

What most contemporary socialists are advocating for is a form of market socialism, where markets are still used to allocate a large portion of goods and services, but workplaces are arranged much more democraticly than under Capitalism.

The 'personal property' that Marx was talking about specifically referred to forms of property that are used to exploit other human beings.

Namely things like rent seeking (ie becoming a landlord), and businesses being set up in a way that excludes the vast bulk of the population from owning the means of production.

What 'personal property' wasn't referring to was the ability for an ordinary person to own a computer or a car, which is a common misunderstanding of Marxism.

Edited May 10, 2022 by DocWatts

[mostly harmless]

@DocWatts Socialism is a totalitarian ideology. Totalitarian means there are no compromises. The individual is nothing, owns nothing. The collective is everything. Not advertised but consequential: There is an elite, an oligarchy, who control the entire things.

As a result, socialism in practice is neo feudalism.

Klaus Schwab wrote in his book 'The Great Reset': 'You will own nothing and you will be happy.'

Schwab has a statue of Lenin in his office. There is an article on the WEF website that discusses wether capitalism could use a little bit of Marxism. That of course, is incompatible: Socialism is absolute. You either have a totalitarian rule or you have something else. You can't add a little bit of a totalitarian system. Schwab knows that of course.

It's appeasement. It wouldn't be very appealing to people if you tell them that you want to take all their rights, including ultimately all property and right to live.

It is not a mistake, misunderstanding, or coincidence that Nazi is short for National Socialists. Hitler's party was the NSDAP which in English means National Socialistic German Workers Party.

 

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/06/could-capitalism-need-some-marxism-to-survive-the-4th-industrial-revolution/

 

Language is German. But you can see the statue of Lenin

 

Edited May 10, 2022 by mostly harmless

[DocWatts]

24 minutes ago, mostly harmless said:

@DocWatts Socialism is a totalitarian ideology. Totalitarian means there are no compromises. The individual is nothing, owns nothing. The collective is everything. Not advertised but consequential: There is an elite, an oligarchy, who control the entire things.

As a result, socialism in practice is neo feudalism.

There are salient criticisms that can be made of Socialism, but in order to criticize an idea one needs to put some actual effort into understanding the thing they're criticizing.

Knee-jerk ideological responses of this sort may fly on other areas of the Internet, but on this Forum we expect people to contribute to discussions in a more productive and informed way.

As a demonstration of this, Leo's talked plenty on the limitations of socialism, and he does so without just calling it Evil in a really reductive way that conflates all of Socialism with Stalin-esque style Communism.

Edited May 10, 2022 by DocWatts

[mostly harmless]

 

[mostly harmless]

34 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

There are salient criticisms that can be made of Socialism, but in order to criticize an idea one needs to put some actual effort into understanding the thing they're criticizing.

Knee-jerk ideological responses of this sort may fly on other areas of the Internet, but on this Forum we expect people to contribute to discussions in a more productive and informed way.

As a demonstration of this, Leo's talked plenty on the limitations of socialism, and he does so without just calling it Evil in a really reductive way that conflates all of Socialism with Stalin-esque style Communism.

it is not my job to lay out all of my previous education and thinking of and about the topic.

It is presumptuous to assume superficial analysis or lack thereof because i don't spell everything out for you. I make an effort to communicate concisely, and do not intend to spoon feed you insights and information. 

Last not least, I don't think that it is helpful for a real dialogue to dump everything you have to say about a topic in one post. Instead, I want to leave room for a discussion. I intend to post a few videos that you can watch and process if you want to form an opinion. 

Communism is the unrealized ideal. Socialism is the practical form. 

 

Edited May 10, 2022 by mostly harmless

[mostly harmless]

 

Frédéric Bastiat

 

 

 

[zurew]

48 minutes ago, mostly harmless said:

There is an article on the WEF website that discusses wether capitalism could use a little bit of Marxism. That of course, is incompatible: Socialism is absolute. You either have a totalitarian rule or you have something else. You can't add a little bit of a totalitarian system.

Why can't socialism use aspects of capitalism? Why is it inconceivable to have a sort of hybrid system? You don't have to call that socialism if you don't want to, but i think a hybrid system is possible.

[DocWatts]

Also, the problem with labeling ideologies that you have a personal distaste for as 'Totalitarian' or 'Evil' in a reductive way is that it becomes a circular definition which doesn't explain or illuminate anything.

Even calling something like fascism Totalitarian and leaving it at that isn't helpful, because it doesn't help explain anything. There are reasons why fascism appeals to people, and there's an internal logic to fascist ideology that can be articulated for the purposes of understanding what role it fills in a community and why certain people are drawn to it.

Likewise, socialism is a broad spectrum of  ideologies that differ in all sorts of ways, and range from Libertarian to Authoritarian. In this respect it's not so different from Capitalism, in that Capitalism can exist both in democratic and authoritarian contexts. And hybrids can exist between any of these.

Taking a Reductionist approach to any of these ideologies is intellectually very lazy.

Edited May 10, 2022 by DocWatts