The evolution (irony) of a socialist state.

[richi1173]

Socialism main goal is to collectivize the means of production and distribution of goods while maintaining an egalitarian society.

To accomplish this, an institution must be put in place to allow for the enforcement of egalitarianism and to manage the means of production and distribution of goods.

Members elected for these roles are of course, the most intelligent and the most popular. They are first elected democratically. However, this creates a schism between the institution and the people because they are in a better position than anybody else. After all, they own all capital in the state and control directly the distribution of goods.

However, differences emerge on what is the best way to accomplish these goals both in the people and in the institution; it is natural.

At first they are heard, but ultimately, they are silenced by the majority seeking to prevent disruption of society.

Repression and persecution sets in. Nobody is allow to differ with the institutions goals and ideas.

Although some members of society may be altruistic, others are greedy, both in the institution and the populace. Those who are greedy, intelligent, and popular, gain widespread political support and ultimately, seek to take each other out. At the end, one is left standing. As he/she is the best fit to rule, the institution appoints him/her as leader, and as he/she is the most popular, the people support the appointment.

Naturally, this man/women has friends, which he then seeks to appoint close to him/her. People who please the leader, are more likely than others to get appointed to offices and positions, both in the institution and the populace. This creates competition between the members of society, with those who are more charismatic and intelligent seeking to impress the leader and gain favorable positions.

As with the competition for leader, one is left in every position, and indicating that he/she is the most apt for that position, he/she remains there until it pleases the leader.

The positions are to manage the means of production and distribution of goods. Because of the strong bond between the leader and the person holding the position, there is no harm in taking more for yourself, even if its just minuscule. In fact, it is encouraged by the leader, with him giving ample wealth to that person in the position because they are friends.


What will one call all the members of the institution of not the new bourgeoisie.

 

[Ozymandyus]

This post is mostly devoid of information and is pure propaganda.

The process you describe is much more descriptive of a Capitalism system, where the designed goal is to transfer wealth into the hands of those with the means of production, and then allow them to pool greater and greater resources to transfer greater and greater wealth. The power and profit they gain is directly funneled into resources that will protect that power. Blah Blah Blah.

 

[richi1173]

This post is mostly devoid of information and is pure propaganda.

The process you describe is much more descriptive of a Capitalism system, where the designed goal is to transfer wealth into the hands of those with the means of production, and then allow them to pool greater and greater resources to transfer greater and greater wealth. The power and profit they gain is directly funneled into resources that will protect that power. Blah Blah Blah.

Not so, this is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union and Cuba.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Its true if you ignore all other influences on what happened in those circumstances, both countries faced the wrath of a nation that was bent on making an example out of them, and has undertaken multiple operations to undermine their societies. Big surprise, communism doesn't work when outside nations threaten you and block incoming resources or outgoing trade! Not that that is all that has gone on but still, real world cases that are hardly resemble socialism are not evidence.

How about we instead look at the rise of the socialist state in sweden or in many european nations? Working social democracies that have not undergone the sorts of degeneration that you predict. Places where despite a lack of effort to create overwhelming power or harvest other countries resources (U.S.) there is relative prosperity, low crime, great healthcare, and high citizen satisfaction. Granted they are not fully socialist, but in certain industries they are something close.

 

[richi1173]

Its true if you ignore all other influences on what happened in those circumstances, both countries faced the wrath of a nation that was bent on making an example out of them, and has undertaken multiple operations to undermine their societies. Big surprise, communism doesn't work when outside nations threaten you and block incoming resources or outgoing trade! Not that that is all that has gone on but still, real world cases that are hardly resemble socialism are not evidence.

How about we instead look at the rise of the socialist state in sweden or in many european nations? Working social democracies that have not undergone the sorts of degeneration that you predict. Places where despite a lack of effort to create overwhelming power or harvest other countries resources (U.S.) there is relative prosperity, low crime, great healthcare, and high citizen satisfaction. Granted they are not fully socialist, but in certain industries they are something close.

I'm referring to hardcore socialism, not the social democracy of Sweden and other Scandinavian countries. Besides, the Soviet Union was a superpower even when the trade embargo was put in place.