4 ms·

As someone who is genuinely interested. Can you point to any examples of a socialist society? If no, can you explain how such a society might come to exist?

rdl 13y ago
Weren't the kibbutz in early Israel essentially socialist (or even possibly communist)? It doesn't seem hard to come up with functioning examples at a small scale (families, groups of families, etc.) with high group-cohesiveness and shared identity. It seems to break down at the nation-state scale, except perhaps during wartime or other emergency. It's interesting to think about whether socialism works in a society with extreme abundance ("post-scarcity"), at least for certain kinds of assets -- I could see cheaply-made material goods being essentially distributed in a socialist way while services performed by humans and "status" goods were highly capitalist.
- jacoblyles 13y ago
  Families are socialist. So are some small native tribes. Large scale socialism by force tends to be a bit dystopian, though. They don't build walls to keep people out of socialist states.
- mseebach 13y ago
  Socialism/capitalism primarily deals with the question of how to distribute scarce resources - which, by definition, is irrelevant in a post-scarcity society.
  - sageikosa 13y ago
    No, neither deals with scarce resources. Capitalism deals with investment and return on investment (via profit) as the directing agent of production. Socialism deals with distribution of "goods and services" according to some socially defined value system. The various socialisms may vary on how this value system is aimed or directed, but it is usually "republican" (for the people) in outer character so that popular support is maintained; even if it is benevolently dictatored for executive expediency.
    - mr_luc 13y ago
      First, great description. Second, he says "scarce resources," you say 'no, it doesn't deal with that," but then say that it deals with "distribution of 'goods and services.'" Isn't that the same thing, from a practical standpoint? Even if they aren't scarce in the sense that the society has enough to go around, their scarcity relative to the average citizen still depends on the efficiency of that distribution process. Maybe the system or theory of socialism technically 'doesn't concern itself with scarce resources', but I don't see why it makes his point less valid.
      - sageikosa 13y ago
        > but I don't see why it makes his point less valid. >>Socialism/capitalism primarily deals with the question of how to distribute scarce resources - which, by definition, is irrelevant in a post-scarcity society. If (by his point) you mean his assertion that socialism and capitalism are irrelevant in a "post-scarcity society", do not forget he is asserting that there is no scarcity. Either goods and services are abundant and meeting "market" aggregate needs (post-scarcity), or they are not. Socialism assumes that the problems of production (and presumably service delivery) have been solved, so it is quite happy in a "post-scarcity" world, since it only has to distribute according to need, or to everyone, or something like that. Socialism is only concerned with distribution and doesn't care whether the resources (goods/services, or what-not) are scarce or not. It assumes distribution is irrelevant to production or availability of anything. Practically speaking, capitalism doesn't categorically solve scarcity or distribution , and only gets involved if there is a measurable expectation of return to be made in a market.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        Socialism and capitalism are both mechanisms for distributing scarce resources (they are two extreme options for the control over the means of production and, therefore, control of the distribution of outputs produced.) While you could employ either mechanism in the absence of scarcity, that's not really what they are designed for—each is a answer to the question "given limited useful production possibilities, how do we decide what is produced and how the output is distributed"
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  You might enjoy mutualism.
falk 13y ago
Socialism is essentially when the worker's own the means of production, so I'd look into worker owned companies. Here's a list of worker owned companies that have a Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_employee-owned_companies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_employee-owned_companie...
steveklabnik 13y ago
1. The Paris Commune 2. Revolutionary Catalonia 3. kibbutz-es 4. The Free Territory Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities (anarchism is a form of socialism) (Also, actual Marxists do consider the USSR as Real Socialism (tm))

rdl 13y ago

Weren't the kibbutz in early Israel essentially socialist (or even possibly communist)? It doesn't seem hard to come up with functioning examples at a small scale (families, groups of families, etc.) with high group-cohesiveness and shared identity. It seems to break down at the nation-state scale, except perhaps during wartime or other emergency. It's interesting to think about whether socialism works in a society with extreme abundance ("post-scarcity"), at least for certain kinds of assets -- I could see cheaply-made material goods being essentially distributed in a socialist way while services performed by humans and "status" goods were highly capitalist.

jacoblyles 13y ago
Families are socialist. So are some small native tribes. Large scale socialism by force tends to be a bit dystopian, though. They don't build walls to keep people out of socialist states.
mseebach 13y ago
Socialism/capitalism primarily deals with the question of how to distribute scarce resources - which, by definition, is irrelevant in a post-scarcity society.
- sageikosa 13y ago
  No, neither deals with scarce resources. Capitalism deals with investment and return on investment (via profit) as the directing agent of production. Socialism deals with distribution of "goods and services" according to some socially defined value system. The various socialisms may vary on how this value system is aimed or directed, but it is usually "republican" (for the people) in outer character so that popular support is maintained; even if it is benevolently dictatored for executive expediency.
  - mr_luc 13y ago
    First, great description. Second, he says "scarce resources," you say 'no, it doesn't deal with that," but then say that it deals with "distribution of 'goods and services.'" Isn't that the same thing, from a practical standpoint? Even if they aren't scarce in the sense that the society has enough to go around, their scarcity relative to the average citizen still depends on the efficiency of that distribution process. Maybe the system or theory of socialism technically 'doesn't concern itself with scarce resources', but I don't see why it makes his point less valid.
    - sageikosa 13y ago
      > but I don't see why it makes his point less valid. >>Socialism/capitalism primarily deals with the question of how to distribute scarce resources - which, by definition, is irrelevant in a post-scarcity society. If (by his point) you mean his assertion that socialism and capitalism are irrelevant in a "post-scarcity society", do not forget he is asserting that there is no scarcity. Either goods and services are abundant and meeting "market" aggregate needs (post-scarcity), or they are not. Socialism assumes that the problems of production (and presumably service delivery) have been solved, so it is quite happy in a "post-scarcity" world, since it only has to distribute according to need, or to everyone, or something like that. Socialism is only concerned with distribution and doesn't care whether the resources (goods/services, or what-not) are scarce or not. It assumes distribution is irrelevant to production or availability of anything. Practically speaking, capitalism doesn't categorically solve scarcity or distribution , and only gets involved if there is a measurable expectation of return to be made in a market.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        Socialism and capitalism are both mechanisms for distributing scarce resources (they are two extreme options for the control over the means of production and, therefore, control of the distribution of outputs produced.) While you could employ either mechanism in the absence of scarcity, that's not really what they are designed for—each is a answer to the question "given limited useful production possibilities, how do we decide what is produced and how the output is distributed"
steveklabnik 13y ago
You might enjoy mutualism.

falk 13y ago

Socialism is essentially when the worker's own the means of production, so I'd look into worker owned companies. Here's a list of worker owned companies that have a Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_employee-owned_companies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_employee-owned_companie...

steveklabnik 13y ago

1. The Paris Commune 2. Revolutionary Catalonia 3. kibbutz-es 4. The Free Territory Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities (anarchism is a form of socialism) (Also, actual Marxists do consider the USSR as Real Socialism (tm))