Socialism: state bureaucracy or breaking down power structures?

Question

Socialism is a word that leaves a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. When people describe socialism, they seem to refer to the massive state bureaucracies that we saw developed under the Soviet/Stalinist leaderships of history. So, Sweden is called socialist, because they offer their citizens a wide safety net to deflect the forces that cause poverty.

However, for a long time I lived under the impression that the goal of socialism was to break down power structures. Not NECESSARILY to hand over the control of capital and the means of production to the state, but to break down the barriers that exist between workers and their means of production. So, in my mind, socialism is linked with trade unionism, or an enhanced power of the trade union, which is an institution, or are institutions, that exist outside the state. In other words, "Socialism: handing the means of production to the state, or democratizing the workplace?"

The responses are really interesting so far, but not exactly what I'm looking for. I guess I'm not good at explaining myself. Let me try: more precisely, I see it as a misconception to say that socialism is about expanded state social programs, and has more to do with the organization of the workplace. Is there any reason that I don't see for me to believe that socialism is an ideology of state-ism (statism?) and not independent "union" or "democratic" control?

Answer 1

Well, it's a great question. It can actually best be answered by Lenin in State and Revolution (see below), but you have a pretty good idea to start with. Increased bureaucracy is totally incompatible with socialist theory as laid out by the founders. Unfortunately, democratic socialism (Sweden) and whatever you call the Soviet Union and other command economies have led to this distortion.

Under socialism organs of workers' power emerge (like the soviets in the early days of the Russian Revolution). This are certainly less bureaucratic than large governmental structures and are organized workplace by workplace to coordinate what needs to be produced.

Lenin discusses how the state actually exists for one class to repress others (this can be seen through its organs like the police). Under an equal society where things were produced for peoples needs and wants other than for profit, the state would eventually wither away and eventually not even exist at all!

Answer 2

Well it almost sounds like you're saying that more structures and organizations at the labor level would counter-balance the growth of statist power structures at the national level.

IF you agree with the individuals who represent the organization of labor, it is true that collective action would be beneficial. However, all experience has shown otherwise. In the current system, labor is less organized than ever because of a recognition in the market that these terms were not truly to anyone's best interest.

The statist structures currently idealized by the left are also showing evidence again and again that they work counter-productively to the ideals they claim to benefit. Since all legislation occurs at the governmental level, socialism in politics is effectively relegated to bureaucracy, big-state inefficiencies, and widespread corruption.

If you're trying to think of the next "new way" more power to you, but you also have to realize the established powers define the nature of the game. The current agreements automatically ally the union to the big state philosophy (most unions are public jobs anyway: teacher, police, firefighter)

Answer 3

Do you have a point?

Labor unions are an anachronism from the ancient past. A time when thugs would break your kneecap (or worse) if you dared to cross the picket line. So called "scabs" were attacked, threatened, intimidated and even had their famalies harmed by labor thugs. Labor unions have a long history of corruption and fraud. They have well-documented links to organized crime (i.e the Mafia).

Labor unions have long since outlived any of their previous marginal usefulness. Child Labor isn't likely to make a comeback. We have things like OSHA and the Dept. of Labor now. It's high-time we abolished Organized Labor in the USA.

Many states have adopted Right-to-Work laws which prevent some of the more egregious abuses by labor unions. All US states should pass this common-sense legislation.

Answer 4

The only problem is that Trade Unions are the reason our Manufacturing costs are so high, and that those jobs go overseas now. Blame whatever polititian anyone wants, but the real deal is Supply and Demand.
To make socialism an effective socio-business model, that would mean high tarriffs on imports. And rising prices on products built here. Our Economy is to big, and complex for that.

Answer 5

State bureacracy.

Implementing socialism may well break down existing power structures - you have to do that to build the new, centralized, power structures of a command economy.

Answer 6

State bureaucracy!

Answer 7

The main problem I see with socialism (or any other "ism" for that matter) is that someone usually ends up in charge and there, my friend, is the seed of corruption.

Answer 8

If enough Americans become conscious to the inhumanity of our leaders and join a non-violent movement comprised of the poor, the working class, the middle class, minorities, intellectuals, those in the government who are not a part of the corruption, and artists, sheer numbers of people demanding change could overwhelm the ruling plutocracy, who are clearly a numerical minority.

We the People need to form a third political party of the people which will have the support of enough Americans that it can rival the corporate-controlled Democrats and Republicans. This party will need to base its principles on the needs and desires of the common people rather than on those of corporations and the elite.

Unions need to fight to regain the strength they enjoyed during the Twentieth Century. This will unite workers and restore their power in negotiating with giant corporations. Despite what they would have America 's citizens believe, corporations are not "kinder and gentler" entities with the interests of their workers and customers at heart. They are merely wolves who have donned sheep's clothing to make it appear so. They are motivated by profit and the fear of lawsuits. The will of the people imposed through organized labor needs to motivate corporations to take a deeper interest in the welfare of employees and customers.

Writers with a social conscience need to continue to publish books and essays advocating social justice, spreading truth, and dissenting against our corrupt oligarchy by any means we can find.

Christian Churches need to spend less time and money squabbling over seemingly eternal and irresolvable issues like abortion and focus their efforts on demanding the social justice Jesus Christ would have insisted upon.

Educators need to stop teaching the white-washed history of the United States, which virtually ignores the genocide of Native Americans, barely scratches the surface of the depth of the cruelty and immorality of slavery, maintains silence on the topic of the American apartheid system which Katrina brought into the spot-light, and which glorifies an imperialistic, war-mongering government. It is incumbent upon educators to teach their students the truth about America , past and present.

We the People need to boycott major corporations like Wal-mart and McDonalds as frequently as possible by shopping at local businesses owned by individual entrepreneurs. Hit the insatiably greedy corporatacracy where it hurts them the most: in their wallets. My wife and I have not spent a penny at Wal-Mart or McDonald's for over a year.

Progressive taxes on the rich and on corporations need to be increased while regressive taxes on the poor and working class need to be decreased to move the US toward a society with a more equitable distribution of wealth.

The US government spends $600 billion per year on defense, including funding for the Iraqi Occupation and money for ancillary functions. It is time to truly bring the troops home from Iraq (over a period of time to allow stabilization to occur) and from the 700 military bases in over 56 countries around the world. We will save $64 billion over twenty years by closing 33 domestic bases under Donald Rumsfeld's plan. Imagine the money we would save (besides the $5 billion per month from ending the occupation of Iraq ) in closing 700 bases. To my knowledge, there are no foreign military bases on US soil. If We the People are intent upon retooling the US into a nation focused on the needs of its people with enough military simply to defend our nation rather than enough to dominate the world, it is time to remove the US military from foreign soil. Removing US military bases from their nations is one of the legitimate demands of those the US government has labeled as "terrorists".

Answer 9

OKAY WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!