Lumifer comments on AALWA: Ask any LessWronger anything - Less Wrong

28 Post author: Will_Newsome 12 January 2014 02:18AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (611)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: A-Lurker 17 January 2014 02:57:42AM 0 points [-]

To me socialism is not an exact system but is a concept. In that way, it can be a bit vague but the general principle is that the resources of a society are best used with a coordinated effort to pool them together as opposed to spending in an un-coordinated and selfish way.

Where as some people think that socialism is a system to rival or replace capitalism, my idea of socialism works in tandem with capitalism. To begin with, a lot of industry is best left for private enterprise to deal with. There is nothing to gain from the government owning a twirly drinking straw company or being responsible for coming up with such ideas. Having said this though, these private enterprises provide for the socialist system by paying tax, as do the individual workers. Then there are the industries which are best put in control of the government. This is defined by the fundamental importance they have on society. Governance itself is one example. Other easy examples are; roads and infrastructure, police, and, fire departments. I think most people would agree that the things I have mentioned are best maintained with collective funding and government control. Where my opinion gets more controversial with some people is that I think socialism should cover health, education, power and public transportation.

Some people think that socialism is something alien and untested in the world- other than through the murderous regimes of Stalin, Mao, etc. This is not true at all. I'll point out this fact while also giving you the examples of the 'socialism' i'm talking about.

The US has a strong anti-socialist base but they have possibly the biggest socialist program in the world. I say possibly because i'm too lazy to check the fact- but it's fairly safe to assume that the worlds largest armed forces (US armed forces), which spends about as much as the next 10 biggest spenders in the world, is one of the biggest socialist program in the world. It's socialist because the money for it is raised by taxing the population. Rather than everyone having to be in a militia and own a gun or some other crazy system, money from the society is pooled together and used in a co-ordinated fashion.

Another example is the fire department. At some times and places in the world there once existed private fire brigades. When a fire happened, these private crews would arrive at the scene but if the home owner wasn't one of their paying customers- they let the house burn. While this private enterprise system could be replaced by some other type of private model, socialism fills the position very effectively instead. Again money from society is pooled together and spend in a co-ordinated way and provides a better service in both effectiveness and social morality.

Comment author: Lumifer 17 January 2014 03:26:27AM 1 point [-]

So, "socialism" means to you government ownership and control, right?

Comment author: A-Lurker 17 January 2014 04:14:28AM -1 points [-]

No not really. Like I said I think it can play a role along side and in conjunction with capitalism/private ownership. Even if the government didn't own any companies or what not, socialism can still exist in the form of taxation and social spending. It's more about regulation and distribution of a societies wealth. Once the state starts owning and controlling everything, that's when I would start to call it 'communism' or something around those lines. I am not for this total control and ownership concept as I think capitalism does play a role in innovation and economic growth. To be communist would be to destroy all the benefits of capitalism.

Comment author: Lumifer 17 January 2014 05:00:38AM 2 points [-]

Like I said I think it can play a role along side and in conjunction with capitalism/private ownership.

I did not say "complete and total government ownership and control". As you yourself point out in contemporary societies the government owns and controls a lot. For example, the army, as you said.

Under your definition, is there anything government-controlled that you would not call "socialist"? And in reverse, do you think there is anything socialist that is not connected to the government?