At last, the first real article on VogueFascin. You voted for socialism, you got it!
Let’s
begin with the basics. Socialism is an economic system. It was established as a
response to capitalism, yet is generally confused with Communism. Let me clear
this up briefly with one major point.
Socialism
and Communism are very similar because socialism is like an underdeveloped
Communism. It’s the bridge between capitalism and Communism. It aims to
establish the cooperation amongst individuals and the necessary production
which Communism requires.
Socialism’s
ideology is, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds.” Distribution is done according
to quality and quantity of work. As a bridge to Communism, socialism aims to
produce as much as possible and promote as much cooperation as possible in
order to meet “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
Further
comparison will come in an article after I write about Communism. Let’s return
to socialism.
As
I mentioned earlier, socialism is where society
controls the production. This is the first benefit of socialism – you have an impact on the direction of
the economy. The economy can go in the direction the people want, not the
government. This democratic concept sounds appealing, but an issue with
democracy is that everyone has voting power, even those who are unfit to do so.
In socialism, the direction is reached by a consensus. What if those who are
deciding are unfit to make a decision? Depending on in which direction the
economy would tend towards, the socialist society would either improve or
worsen. How would we be able to ensure
the progression of the economy in the right direction?
The
first benefit connects to the second benefit; all production is done in favour of the common good of society, and not
for individual gain. This means that society tends to improve overall when
there is production. However, all distribution of wealth is supposed to be
equal, so wouldn’t worker incentive be reduced? There would be no competition
because the idea is that everyone has equality in terms of wealth and
commodities. No competition means a lack of development of technology. How can we equalize incomes and resources
while preserving competition for development?
An
exception to this, however, is that socialists strive to advance economical technology (or in other words, creating a more
diverse/effective economical framework/structure). This is a good benefit, but
again, the issue is that there is little balance – too much focus is being
placed into economics and not in other areas.
Moving
on to the third point: total equality.
Everyone has access to an equal portion of resources; everyone has an equal
amount of income; etc. This is good, because it eliminates poverty as well as the different classes in society
(everyone is treated equally; again, democracy), yet it also eliminates the
higher incomes of the former high-class citizens and large industries. This
brings the national gross domestic product (GDP) down. We can use some examples
for this, mostly Communist ones. That’s fine, since the two economical systems
share this same idea anyways.
On
average, Communist countries have a low GDP. These statistics were taken from
the CIA World Factbook (2008).
> Cuba: $55,180,000,000.00
USD (#70)
> Laos: $5,187,000,000.00
USD (#140)
> Moldova:
$6,197,000,000.00 USD (#138)
> Nepal:
$12,640,000,000.00 USD (#121)
> North Korea:
$26,200,000,000.00 USD (#89)
> People’s
Republic of China: $4,222,000,000,000.00 (#3)
> Vietnam:
$90,880,000,000.00 (#61)
Let’s
focus on China – it’s an outlier since it has the third largest GDP in the
world. Interestingly enough, China is also a socialist republic, and is only
referred to as a Communist state because it is led by the Communist Party of
China. It is unmistakeable that China is the world’s largest manufacturer of
items – almost everything you buy will have a “Made in China” sticker on it. So
it seems that the Chinese have properly managed to apply socialism to their
society. Apart from poor living
conditions, could China be the prime example of successful socialism?
Returning
to the GDP issue, a low GDP impedes a country’s ability to interact with other
countries, mostly in terms of commerce, since we are averaging all incomes and production.
Now, this creates a sort of paradox. How
can we eliminate poverty and promote equality while maintaining a decent GDP?
One
a final note, socialism and Communism are usually regarded as the right idea
for a prosperous society, but impossible for mankind to master. It is our human
nature that prevents the complete, correct execution of socialism. Do you agree with this, or is there something
else preventing us from living in a fully economic and equal society?
Although
the questions I’ve listed seem impossible to answer, think about answering
them. They are meant to stimulate discussion. Feel free and do not hesitate to
comment and initiate debates! But remember, no flaming. I will be moderating
the discussion.
I
hope you enjoyed this post. If you have any comments/feedback/suggestions,
e-mail me at voguefascin@live.com! I’ll try to respond to all the messages I
get if I can. If there isn't much discussion in the comments or votes in the poll, I will extend the time to two weeks.
P.S.
In other news, the next poll is now up! The following article will be about one
of five political ideas/issues. Again, you
are in control of the blog’s direction. Thanks for all the support (i.e. votes
and comments) on the welcoming post. ^^
P.P.S.
Because there was no actual logo for socialism, and I wanted to save the Soviet
logo for the Communism article, I created my own. I hope you found it somewhat
appropriate. If you would like an icon/wallpaper with this logo, e-mail me the resolution
you want it in and I’ll send it back.
Posts
Congrats on your first article :) I didn't really know anything about socialism before I read this lol, so I found it very interesting. I find it too bad that scocialism doesn't seem to work with most scocieties, I really like the concept, but is it too sketchy for me, especially since the general population controls the economy >.> That could lead to bad things very easily if everyone isn't educated properly lol. Maybe if they had restrictions on the type of people who could vote, like they needed a certain level of education? But then of course that does not make everyone equal.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't think people can ever be equal, we all have our natural strengths and weaknesses that make us better over someone else. For example, a normal person can work more effieciently than someone who is mentally or physically disabled, which would lead to them being able to perform certain things better, therefore not equal. So to answer your final question there, I think the thing keeping us from being economically and socially equal is in our nature.
Very interesting article, well-written and appropriate terms. What I find unsettling though, is that it lacks any sources. Even if this is the production of your own musings, it makes your argument far more coherent when you have sources behind it.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, your bolded phrases were generally nice touches that made me think. I think it would have felt more complete, however, if you answered them according to your own opinions/understanding. I understand that you may want to be objective, but the joy of reading blogs and articles like this is seeing someone argue their opinions and feelings. This is particularly important with the question you raised about China being an outlier. PLEASE elaborate :).
the anon above has a point, being indpendant and unbais is very good to outline what socialism is and how it works, and whatever other points you can cover about it, but afterwards, maybe answering some of your own questions using r own opinions and beliefs, raising your own arguments etc. and showing which side you are on(so to speak) may help stimulate some argument, as people would be able to help support/argue against/show how they think differently in relation to your own view(takeing your points, and changing correctly them to suite thier own beliefs)
ReplyDeletegenerally i support socialism, although i prefer a veriation that as far as i can tell is pretty unique, it would allow people to improve their lot through working harder, however they would keep the same job/same type of job, however people who are less productive are "demoted" to make room for those who work harder and achieve more, all citizens are required to do community service, for a set amount of time each week etc, people who work less are given less favorable jobs etc. i still have alot of issues to work out in this idea and to actually write it down, but i would like to get feedback on it when i have finished from a political/social debate site/blog such as this
also, zepr, do u think we could have debates on the pastel forum thread as it would be a lot easier than haveing it in the comments on this page :P, idk, just a though
Thanks for all the suggestions, everyone! I had been planning to post my opinion right away, but I got too caught up in work at school. University physics in Year 11 is not fun!
ReplyDeleteI didn't include sources because I didn't want this to seem like a boring and structured essay. Rarely do you see works being cited in blogs all over the internet, even professional ones. I don't think solid knowledge needs to be cited, only opinions and quotes.
Also, responding to the comment above, I unfortunately won't be promoting discussion on other forums. How will my blog prosper and spread? I need more traffic here if my audience wants me to continue blogging. Otherwise, I'll be quite discouraged.
As for my opinion on socialism, I believe it is a system with much potential. Again, I refer to the People's Republic of China, which is a socialist state. It produces most of the world's manufactured goods and is the third richest nation on the world. The general drawback seems to be poor living conditions. Yet, the people want to work (obviously to attempt to improve their living conditions - it seems to be a motivational factor), and now because they have become the most prominent international workforce, they have to continue working to maintain that status.
Could this be an indication that with socialism comes with poor living conditions? This seems to also parallel socialist Russia before the wave of Communism, which was known for its terrible living conditions (although that could also be attributed to Stalin's rule). When we attempt to equalize everyone, we cannot equalize them at the high-class level of luxury. This requires immense production, which is generally unachievable for a long period of time. And so, people must start out low, and grow as production increases (remember, society improves as a whole). However, this seems to take very long periods of time.
Like everyone else has said, socialism barely works with human nature, and with this new point to consider, not many people would be willing to lower their living conditions in order to work so that everyone improves slowly, especially those who are higher in power and would prefer to retain their wealthy status.
I'll soon write again, with my personal answers to the questions that I posed! Thanks for your responses and suggestions. Keep checking!
Coolness.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's that we can't master Communism and socialism, it's that we don't want to. It's a human drive to want more. More this, more tha; it's the basis of the "Grass is always greener" saying. Many could not accept a society that does not award hard work, even if it is more beneficial.
i think that there have to be some limits, so that everyone('s living standerds)is rising at the same rate, but have some small seperations at the level, allowing hard workers to be rewarded, however most people dont like the idea as they automatically think of places like soviet russia that had low living standerds, and manage to ignore the fact that most of these countries just came out of civil war, if not several perlonged and costly wars over a long time period, i would like to see a state peacefully move to communism or socialism without the massive social, political and economic upheavels that tend to be caused by revolution, maybe that would allow people to start with a decent living condition?
ReplyDeletesame anon as above voguefascin, sz, forgot to set mi name :P
Lolz, good job Z, :D Keep it up!
ReplyDelete"Do you agree with this, or is there something else preventing us from living in a fully economic and equal society?"
ReplyDeleteThis question is poorly phrased, but here's my answer:
Generally speaking, the issue people seem to have with socialism really comes down to what mankind is capable of. Very few people disagree with the underlying idea behind communism and socialism, they simple argue that it's too good to be true. You gave a good example of this: is mankind really capable of mastering it?
I argue, and have always argued, that socialism (and I'll throw in communism because they are fundamentally tied together), only work when mankind reaches a significant level of technological advancement far beyond what we are yet capable of.
It's almost impossible to argue with any degree of certainty that socialism/communism would work in a modern society. "The People's Republic of" China is a piss poor example of a socialist state in action, as it still has not eliminated a crucial key part of its economy. True socialism is not operated using money. True socialism is also not run by a party which claims to be communist.
That said, this is not a particularly new idea. If you look at religion, if you look at the honour system, even systems of morality. Today, because of the technological age that we live in, the three things that I just listed, in many situations, have been eliminated. Religion in the conventional sense (church), honour codes, and certain systems of morality (ex: extort people to make money is a perfectly ok thing to do in many poor countries, it's a part of survival) have already been generally removed from some elite societies (ex: Many areas of Canada). That's not to say I am ignorant of the fact that these systems are still used, but I am simply saying that they have been drastically reduced in use. Now, if you go to places like India, all of the above systems (religion, honour, certain morals) still exist. Why do they exist? Because the technology in India is not powerful enough to support a society that is not regulated by those three fundamental systems of social cohesion and regulation.
By "still exist" I mean "are still rampant"
ReplyDelete-Myddryn