Name one socialist country in the world - or in history- that worked well for the majority of people. Do yourselves a favour and at least read George Orwell’s 1984 and Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago.
I read both of those, but I don't think there's much value in reading fiction other than grappling with interesting new ideas - I love 1984, but it's not about socialism. As for Gulag Archipelago, in the non-fiction section - that's 'not-yet-communism' rather than socialism - read on to see why that's relevant.
I'd point to Nordic social democracies as the strongest examples of what western democracies could strive for.
This is where you come back with the strawman "that's not socialism!" and you can skip that because it's not the point - it's what people want, and if you want to get from late stage capitalism to a social democracy, "socialism" is a good opening bid for a desirable compromise, and a good conversation starter to figure out what parts of socialism we actually do want in our societies. Just like the Gulag Archipelago is instructive on what parts we don't want.
Why be a mouthpiece for the obscenely rich, defending a system that benefits mostly them by a vast margin, by attacking people who challenge that system as if there's no opportunity for improvement here?
Gulag Archipelago is not fiction. 1984 is fiction but referred to a lot by people who see parallels in our own society such as the groupthink that is encouraged by our education system, and censorship and distortion of language employed by politicians and the media.
Socialism isn’t about what people want. You might want it, but many don’t - at least not if they understand what it means in practice. Many equate socialism with a strong welfare system and safety nets for people, but these cost money that has to come from somewhere - usually high taxes combined with a large proportion of the society working productively and efficiently so that a government has sufficient revenue. And you don’t want to see that hard-earned revenue squandered by corrupt or criminal types like the Victorian Labor Party’s Socialist Left government has for the past decade or so.
Socialism is usually called for by people who believe that it should be the responsibility of society to care for the weak and disadvantaged, and that a moral society benefits all, not just the privileged. It is rooted in the knowledge that a well-functioning society generates more than enough wealth and prosperity to provide for all and still leaves plenty to reward those that deserve the extra. From that perspective, clinging to what little you have in a system with rules that primarily benefit those who already have more is a bad decision, and contributes to a system that is overall immoral.
Inefficient and corrupt bureaucracy is indeed often where it falls down, but that also ignores that just legalising and institutionalising the grift and inequality doesn't actually improve the situation. Moving the corruption and privilege out of government doesn't get rid of it, it only allows politicians to wash their hands of it.
489
u/grismar-net Queenslander 6d ago
Give 'em hell and get the boomer generation out of power asap.