Basic questions regarding Socialism

TheOldGreyWhistle, thanks for the reply!Your observation is actually quite similar to mine, haha.I think it's very evident that the ethical views of people do constantly change with the times, but does that make them irrelevant?I don't think so – after all, any action a person or group takes has at some level to be a consequence of a (subjective) value or preference.For example, if I want to replace capitalism with socialism, it means that I value something about socialism (in other words I find it to be moral or worth doing), while I do not value capitalism (I find it immoral or not preferable).Values guide our actions.By knowing what – in this case – a socialist values, I can infer the stance they might hold in regard to a particular political or philosophical position, or what actions they may take if x or y happens.It works a lot like a scientific theory, in that it helps to understand and predict certain things. Now, that doesn't mean that the ethical model has to be "absolute" and unchangeable in order to be valid. We wouldn't ask that of a scientific theory, either. But let me get a little more concrete. A very simplistic ethical framework that I could devise for socialism (I don't necessarily believe that any socialist actually accepts it) would be something like this:- the greatest value is economical equality. Thus, any action that furthers this ideal is moral- the least valuable thing is economical inequality. Any action that leads to more inequality is immoral From this alone, it's possible to know how people who accept this model would act most of the time. I really think it's somewhat important. Or rather, not having an ethical framework for a political ideology to me is like having biology without the theory of evolution. There's nothing to connect all the fossils, dna findings or physical traits of different living organisms. No big picture, no real understanding. P.S.: The article you linked to very correctly observes that historically, morality has almost always been used for the interests of a particular group (or class). But like I previously explained, it doesn't follow that we therefore should strive towards a valueless society. Such a proposal would be rather hypocritical, given that socialists also have interests.

No, I think that's really great for a start, ALB :)Imho it's very important to be "philosophical" (in the sense of critically examining the basic underpinnings of a concept) when it comes to political ideologies. After all, there are millions of people who are seemingly convinced of precisely the opposite of what the particular group here puts forward.It won't get us anywhere to simply say "I'm right, you're wrong", like so many people do. By examining values rather than specific propositions it is much easier to understand and compare different ideologies. I don't believe that anyone has everything right, but many are on to something  That being said, I would really like to review the values of socialism as you summarized them. I hope that you can tell me afterwards if I got it right or what I got wrong.What makes things slightly more difficult of course is the fact that there are essentially two types of socialism; the theoretical ideal socialism and our actual current mixed system (I'm hesitant to call it capitalism, as there is no such thing as a "pure" system in practice).As you explained, it has different priorities in our current system than it would otherwise have.But I think it's only fair to look at it in its proper, ideal environment and reduce the "background noise" to a minimum, just like you would in any good science experiment. That's why I would like to ignore the first value you brought up (interests of the working class). So the value I'm interested in now is the equality of decision-making power.I take it literal in the sense that every person should have the power to make all the decisions in regard to their own life, as well as their society, as far as that is possible.I say that because it obviously is very difficult to make decisions that affect a whole group of people when each and every one has equal decision-making power. Because as soon as one person disagrees, it becomes impossible to turn that decision into reality without implicitly stating that the decision-making power of the minority is less valuable than that of everyone else, thus undermining the whole value system.Moreover, government becomes impossible in the face of true equality of decision-making power.After all, a government is based on the premise that a few especially qualified individuals have certain decision-making rights that the vast majority of other people don't have.So having a government would be akin to using windows when you claim to really, really value macintosh…For all intents and purposes, a truly consistent application of this value would be limited to individuals and the decisions they make for themself.This means that most laws would also not be sensible. For instance, it wouldn't be possible to make laws against drinking and driving, since nobody can claim that you don't have the power to decide to do so.However, some laws would be possible – for those actions that attempt to take away other peoples decision-making power.In essence, forcing others to do anything that they decide against would be immoral and/or criminal; things like assault, rape, fraud, murder, etc. The last value you stated can be described as a partial negation of the concept of property rights that we have at the moment – i.e. it's good not to own things (unless you really need them).The wonderful thing about this value is that it would make theft for the most part obsolete, as there's no point in stealing something when you can just take it if you need it.However, it is necessary to limit this value to only certain, "non-personal" items, since taking someone else's computer with their personal data or other personal belongings would still be theft (as it would interfere with their decision-making power).I think it's also clear that this isn't a value that can be supported by any kind of law. For example, if you need a house, you won't be able to just go to someone and demand the keys. You either have to hope that someone has built a house and is willing to give it to you or build your own. So that's the way I would understand the values you proposed. I'm very curious to find out where my deductions are off !

ALB, don't get me wrong, I'd be happy to talk about the concept of democracy, which clearly seems to be essential for the type of socialism you advocate. But I believe that this, too, is not really the greatest value, but rather a consequence of more basic values.For example, let's imagine there are five people in a hospital. Four of them have a damaged organ which needs to be replaced lest they have no chance of survival. The fifth person only has a flesh wound. So among them, they democratically decide to kill the fifth in order to take his organs.Clearly, from a purely pragmatic point of view this would make sense. Four people live and one dies rather than four dying and one surviving.However, I don't think you would say that this is really a good thing to do.That's because in reality, you probably hold other, much deeper values than merely that every person should have an equal part of decision-making power. With that said, let me propose the greatest value that I think you hold, whether you know it or not:"The greatest value is to respect the autonomy of other people's bodies, thoughts and actions."In other words, whatever you do that increases another person's ability to freely control their bodies, thoughts and actions is moral.While everything that hinders them is immoral. You can apply this to almost any moral problem and get a satisfying result that corresponds to the intuitive moral understanding of most mentally healthy people.If you don't mind, I would like to discuss the implications of this value in relation to socialism. I was pleased to hear that there doesn't seem to be a problem in the property rights aspects. It seems that you do not really want to abolish ownership, but rather require that it is derived from usage.So for instance, it's impossible for one person to claim ownership over a large piece of land, when he or she cannot possibly use all of it in any meaningful way.Same with a factory; even if there is a founder or leader, it still is true that he or she didn't build and maintain the factory alone, hence everyone has a right to decide if the factory for instance should be closed or sold.I assume that's correct? However, there are many other parts where I'm not sure if the value I proposed would be respected.So I hope you can help me in figuring out if that is so and if yes, what other greater value could possibly override that one? First of all, since there will be no money, I assume that there will also be no taxation. Is that correct? Secondly, I assume that socialism promotes a centralized governing body with a monopoly on the use of force. Would you enforce non-violent offenses (i.e. drug-use or whatever other action that has been deemed illegal) through the police?Additionally, what if I was not in agreement with how, say, the police or justice department handles their jobs. Would it be possible for me to go ahead and create my own court or police force? Thanks, I'll be awaiting your reply!  TheOldGreyWhistle: I disagree, although it may be more of an issue of definitions. Like I said, you must have a value in order to prefer a certain action or outcome. Most people are not consciously aware of the values they hold, but they still hold them within their behavior.For example, you probably value internal consistency in logical arguments. You don't need to say it though – it can be inferred from the way you construct your arguments.That's the great thing about values – they don't depend on what someone claims, but rather on how someone acts. If a politician says that he values traditional marriage, but is found out to have slept with a gay hooker, then we know that he most certainly does not really value traditional marriage.So with that in mind, capitalists wouldn't need to consciously decide anything; their actions reflect their values. That being said, I think it's preferable to be aware of the values one holds, because it is easy to switch between differing and mutually-exclusive values when it is advantegeous to do so, without noticing that one did so.Not trying to be overly provocative, but maybe if Marx concentrated more on values rather than socio-political change, then perhaps guys like Stalin, Lenin, Mao and the like wouldn't have misunderstood him so?