What does the socialist utopia look like?

Dogs are not very interested in redistribution.

My local canal tow path begs to differ...

One huge reason why Socialism hasn’t worked in a lot of places (South/Central America) is because the US (capitalists) directly intervened and overthrew democratically elected left leaning governments and replaced them with right wing capitalist authoritarians because they didn’t want Socialism to succeed.

That's not really true though, socialist leaders were living in palaces, with foreign bank accounts filled to the brim, whilst people in their country were starving, we can blame the US for a lot of things, but breaking socialism is a bit of a stretch, they didn't like certain regimes though.

we can blame the US for a lot of things, but breaking socialism is a bit of a stretch

Hmmm, they interfered in elections in Greece, Italy in 47, 48, 49, Iran, the govt of Alvarez in Guatemala , Cuba (still) Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, propped up the terrible regimes of both South Vietnam and Korea as the northern halves of those countries tried to adapt socialist policies, Chile, Iran, Hawaii is a state now because they invaded it in 189o or so Philippines...There's something every one of these countries has in common, if only I could put my finger on it.

Capitalism isn't the opposite of socialism, Libertarianism is.

It is quite possible to have regulated capitalism within a socially orientated economy - which, broadly speaking is what we have at the moment. Most capitalist progress wouldn't be possible with socialism type regulation and organisations such as publicly funded universities and research organisations.

Interestingly, Libertarianism and free-market economic thinking are just reactionary ideologies thought up by Hayek et al to create a narrative that could counter the rise of communism in the early 20th century.

Socialism is complete fantasy and has never been a success anywhere ever. I have noticed that they’re very good at spending other peoples money, but rarely generate any.

A fundamental part you are missing is the fact that the money is everyones distributed fairly so there is no "other peoples" money by which I assume you mean the rich peoples money who have all the money at the sake of the majority who don't.

"There’s something every one of these countries has in common, if only I could put my finger on it"

Theres something deeply ironic in the US's proclivity for massive state intervention where it thinks the free-market is at risk.

That’s not really true though, socialist leaders were living in palaces, with foreign bank accounts filled to the brim, whilst people in their country were starving

Citations needed.

Also, interesting how you wanted to point that out while ignoring all the capitalist countries with leaders living in palaces, with foreign bank accounts filled to the brim, whilst people in their countries are starving? It's almost as if elites are the problem, and redistribution of wealth would actually benefit the majority, instead of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer thanks to late-stage capitalism.

Capitalism isn’t the opposite of socialism, Libertarianism is.

Depends on your definition of libertarianism. If its how it is used in the US then yes but otherwise its a lot more messy. You can have libertarians of all flavours and if you look at Marx's idea of what the final stage of communism would look like most people would slot it into the libertarian bracket. Its just the means to get there varies. In communism you have Engels "withering away of the state" because its no longer needed vs the Republicans "Starve the beast"

I think that a lot of people on here are conflating socialism with totalitarianism and authoritarianism, which is more about an independent judiciary and the rule of law than the underlying political ideology IMV. Both right and left are susceptible.

The problem with this thread is the title, because it's an oxymoron. If we're taking utopia to mean a state where everyone lives in peace, is free to do what they want and has their core needs provided for, then socialism (by any definition) doesn't meet these requirements. Historical examples (eg the Soviet Union) have only ever satisfied one or two of them and even that was temporary and incomplete. For true utopianism you need to look further afield at tribal societies which implemented decentralised economies and power structures. There are examples in North America such as the Huron-Wendat in the 17th century which could claim to look utopian but then even they were involved in wars and external threats.

Maybe better ask is socialism more utopian than capitalism? I think the answer to that is pretty obvious.

It is quite possible to have regulated capitalism

The problem with it though is regardless of whether its shareholder or stakeholder capitalism, its still a terrible way to run the place. I mean if you compare shareholder capitalism to just regular drug dealers on the street corner: They don't give a shit, they'll shoot you if you interfere, they're just in for themselves and they don't give a single shit about how you feel about it all. Stakeholder capitalism is just the Mafia version of the same thing. They come in and they get rid of the drug dealers, everyone's in suits, they talk nice and soft, they may even do up the place a bit, but they're still selling drugs on your street corner and keeping the profits, only now they've said "As we've done up the place all nice and thing, you're not going to the cops, right?"

It is quite possible to have regulated capitalism

Quite possible? I wasn't aware that there was any other form of capitalism.

Unregulated capitalism sounds like a total nightmare.

Every legislative election, anywhere in the world, boils down to just one question......"how much socialism would you like with your capitalism?"

Capitalism is a seemingly logical but failed theory.

"socialist leaders were living in palaces, with foreign bank accounts filled to the brim, whilst people in their country were starving"

I'm not here to defend corrupt people, but you're gonna have to be more specific about who and what you're talking about here.

There are examples in North America such as the Huron-Wendat in the 17th century

And Nestor Makhno's anarchist movement in Ukraine at the turn of the 20th C

I’m not here to defend corrupt people, but you’re gonna have to be more specific about who and what you’re talking about here.

I'm being as specific as the original argument and the evidence provided on how these places were socialist democracies, if you want specifics, google is good for that, wikipedia has info, they even have citations if you want to click through.

Hold on everyone.

There is no such thing socialist or capitalist in a broad sense that you can apply to an entire country. Socialist, capitalist and indeed democratic are attributes that you can have more or less of. So whilst say Finland isn't a 'socialist' state, it is more socialist than some other places which are more capitalist.  It's a spectrum, not a label.

Also, socialism does not cause dictators. I think dictators cause socialism because they often use socialist ideas as a way to gather or maintain support, and then justify their regime.

Anyway. The real problem we face at least in the West is that any political system has to have support from the electorate.  Therefore, proposing some great system of equality has to be approved by the public, and they are fickle and easily swayed as we know and can certainly be persuaded to vote against their best interests.  And here's the thing: people are nearly always generous to those who they consider 'us' and stingy towards they consider 'them'. This is basic human tribalism. The difference between socialists and capitalists is where they draw the boundary of 'us'.  If you think 'us' includes everyone in your country or even in the world then that makes you more socialist; if you think 'us' just means your family then that is likely to make you more right wing which will make you more capitalistic - c.f. Thatcher saying there's no such thing as society.  If you see yourself as one of the working classes that means you're more likely to vote for a government promising to return control of industries to 'the people' who do the work; if you are one of the rich middle classes you're more likely to see this as appropriation.  The reason that some places are more accepting of wealth redistribution is that they were more equal to begin with, so more people view each other as 'us' and therefore are more inclined to want to share.

Thanks for listening to my TED talk.

Capitalism is a seemingly logical but failed theory.

I've always thought the problem with capitalism is the attempt to turn what is natural economic activity (trading) into some form of defined ideology which is implemented universally. Same goes for socialism, as that tries to codify the natural urge of people to cooperate and help each other. If we need a state at all (which is highly questionable) then its role should be limited to enabling and supporting the natural activities we all partake in whilst protecting people from exploitation and oppression. Trouble is in most societies today the state seems to do the opposite in that it enables and encourages exploitation and is actively involved in oppression.

The definition of socialism is the public ownership of the means of production.
Not quite. The definition says that there should be public ownership or regulation of production.

Absolutely not. The core insight of socialism is that capitalism alienates workers from the means of production, so the means of production must be publicly owned. A system with private ownership of capital, but regulations to protect the poor from the rich is not socialism, it's progressive liberalism. Sorry to disappoint all the people who thought they were socialists, you're not, you're a liberal like me.

If we need a state at all (which is highly questionable)

I really really don't think it is.  Without a state, we'd be reduced to defending ourselves against thieves Max Max style.  No thanks.

Sorry to disappoint all the people who thought they were socialists, you’re not, you’re a liberal like me.

Well done, you've won the semantic pedantry argument. Now, back to the real discussion, why do you think capitalism is more successful than 'socialism' when to any casual observer it seems to generate comparable (maybe more) amounts of misery, exploitation and limits on individual freedom?

Also, socialism does not cause dictators. I think dictators cause socialism because they often use socialist ideas

The point about socialism is that it requires a high level of state Intervention. The drawback is that  it therefore allows  people who want to exercise control to do so in the interests of equality. You could then argue that this then leads to the corruption of power. The more power you give an entity the more likely it is to abuse it.

Without a state, we’d be reduced to defending ourselves against thieves Max Max style. No thanks.

We have to do that now pretty much. Have you seen the rates of prosecution for theft and burglary? The state doesn't protect us from criminals, shared economic wellbeing and basic morality does that mostly, and where it doesn't people naturally form their own defence mechanisms.

You're assuming that without the state we'd descend into a chaotic free for all, but in places where the state ceases to function that simply doesn't happen unless there are other drivers such as famine or extreme poverty. People on the whole are extremely resistant to screwing over their fellow humans.

Sorry to disappoint all the people who thought they were socialists, you’re not, you’re a liberal like me.

Sorry to disappoint you but your personal definitions are not the ones everyone has to obey as surely a liberal should recognise?

That you switch from "progressive liberal" to the broad "liberal" is rather telling. Not all strands of liberalism contain "regulations to protect the poor from the rich". Almost all contain equality under the law but that at the most basic level means no more than as the quote says "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread" It doesnt mean I cant use my power to disadvantage you at which point we get into the iron law of wages which some liberals were keen fans of.

We have to do that now pretty much.

No, we don't at all, don't be ridiculous.

You’re assuming that without the state we’d descend into a chaotic free for all, but in places where the state ceases to function that simply doesn’t happen

A non functioning state is not the same as not having a state.

basic morality does that

And where does that come from?  You surely can't be this historically unaware?

that simply doesn’t happen unless there are other drivers such as famine or extreme poverty

And that would never happen, would it?  Blimey.  I thought I was a naive idealist but holy cow 🙂

 why do you think capitalism is more successful than ‘socialism’ when to any casual observer it seems to generate comparable (maybe more) amounts of misery, exploitation and limits on individual freedom?

The best places in the world to live in are liberal countries, which allow people to make their own choices about how to live. Part of that is economic freedom, but unregulated capitalism gives too much power to the rich and makes it impossible for poor people to actually do anything with the legal freedoms they have. The successful countries have capitalist economies, but also good public education systems, low levels of corruption of judges, police, and public officials, and welfare safety nets that assist people who fall on hard times, all paid for by taxation.

The UK and many other democratic countries used to have a fair element of socialism, with major industries publicly owned. That proved to be a long-term drag on the economy - it turns out that letting people start companies and try new ideas, then go bust if they were wrong is a better economic model than propping up inefficient public enterprises. The socialist leaning countries that abandoned public ownership and shifted to progressive liberal economies have done well. The authoritarian socialist countries that persevered with socialism have done terribly - North Korea is the starkest example, it's a hellish place, much, much worse than any capitalist liberal democracy.

Sorry to disappoint you but your personal definitions are not the ones everyone has to obey as surely a liberal should recognise?

The term "socialist" is a technical term in political science, it refers to a particular type of economic system. It's not my personal definition, it's the definition you will find if you read a book about political ideologies. The core definition of socialism is that the means of production is publicly owned. If you believe that regulated capitalism is the ideal type of economy, you are not a socialist according to the standard definition used in political science. Not my personal definition, the definition that socialists chose when the ideology was developed.

The core definition of socialism is that the means of production is publicly owned

"Socialism" and "Socialist" are different words.

The authoritarian socialist countries that persevered with socialism have done terribly – North Korea is the starkest example, it’s a hellish place, much, much worse than any capitalist liberal democracy.

That's not what we're asking for when we talk about socialism, I'd have thought that was blatantly obvious.

A non functioning state is not the same as not having a state.

Ok fine, there are plenty of places in the world where a formal state doesn't exist or has no real influence on daily life. In those places are they all thieving from and killing each other? No, they aren't.

And where does that come from?

Eh? Are you seriously suggesting that morality comes from the state? I don't know about you, but if the UK state disappeared tomorrow I wouldn't suddenly go and kill someone I don't like, because you know, that would be a pretty shitty thing to do. It's got bollocks all to do with the state. In fact you can easily argue that the only reason the state has laws to deal with criminals is because the state creates the conditions (poverty, inequality, oppression etc) which creates the criminals in the first place.

What does the socialist utopia look like?

Argumentative.

In those places are they all thieving from and killing each other? No, they aren’t.

Historically, this happened a lot. Not having a state works when population density is low OR resources aren't scarce.  As soon as tribes come into conflict with each other for land or resources, then there will be a lot of thieving and killing yes. Historically, there was , and this is exactly why we evolved states - to protect ourselves.

Eh? Are you seriously suggesting that morality comes from the state?

No I'm saying security comes from the state.  However the point about morality is that it is VERY flexible, and people have always considered it acceptable to pillage from other groups because they are 'them' and they are savages, or evil, or whatever.  And generally speaking only education or managed interaction addresses this and these things generally do come from the state.

the state creates the conditions (poverty, inequality, oppression etc)

So everyone was living in perfect harmony before states?  You're having a laugh surely?

That’s not what we’re asking for when we talk about socialism, I’d have thought that was blatantly obvious.

Exactly my point. You're not actually talking about socialism, you're talking about liberal democracy. Socialism failed, all the countries that are nice to live in abandoned it. The remaining socialist countries are terrible places to live.

For me, Socialist Utopia looks like capitalism but with limits to dampen inequality. For example, society agrees on what is an acceptable level of inequality (Gini coefficient, say). Each year, a proportional wealth tax is applied if (and only if) inequality has moved beyond the acceptable bound. The whole concept is accepted by the population as just being the way things work, and nobody gets hysterical about the government taking away their hard earned wealth.

So some inequality still exists, and individuals are still incentivised to prosper, but there will be a rubber band mechanism to pull everyone back together a bit if needed.

It'll never happen though.

Socialist Utopia looks like capitalism but with limits to dampen inequality.

That's not socialism, it's liberal democracy. If you learned what words mean, you wouldn't be so confused.

You’re not actually talking about socialism, you’re talking about liberal democracy. Socialism failed, all the countries that are nice to live in abandoned it.

You're torpedoing the argument by quibbling over semantics.  Socialism is a noun, socialist is an adjective. That means you can be a bit socialist, or a lot socialist.  The common usage of the term socialist applied to countries refers to the use of ideas and strategies that are socialist in nature e.g. public ownership of industries etc. The UK after WW2 did not adopt pure socialism as an ideology, but it adopted a lot of ideas that were socialist.  See what I mean?

Not my personal definition, the definition that socialists chose when the ideology was developed.

I was questioning your personal definition of liberalism. Why did you decide to answer a completely different question?

Also you are still using a very limited definition of socialism vs an extremely wide one for liberalism. That is your personal definition and selection.

We should be addressing the issues, not bickering about definitions.  Words evolve and change and have different meanings in different contexts.

The remaining socialist countries are terrible places to live.

Because of their authoritarian regimes, not because of the socialism.

It was interesting to read about Star Trek a few pages back - I've never seen if but what's been described is essentially fully automated luxury communism, which is a potential future (if greedy people could get over themselves). Solar power installed around the equator at a big enough scale will give us power so plentiful and with such low overheads that power will be essentially free. The future can be both green and almost resource unlimited but, as I said, people are awful and it'll never be allowed.

Socialism does have a PR problem. It doesn't help that it's at its worst in the US, who are big and powerful enough to intervene any time anyone has a go at socialism. My Republican in-laws thought Obama was a socialist for goodness sake. Socialism has such a bad rep in the world's most powerful capitalist country that it'll not gain traction in the west any time soon - they think of authoritarian regimes, not the socialism itself because of the information they're fed, so will never be on side with it.

sorry to jump back to p.1

"perhaps socialism has a PR problem"

agree, its like the vast majority of the media is there to turn a profit.... rather than to educate

We should be addressing the issues, not bickering about definitions.

I've often observed that the political Left have a tendency/weakness to descend into petty internecine bickering, and I don't really know why.

As someone who spent a year studying the history of political philosophy at uni I am always impressed about how people think its ok to interpret stuff how they like. I have noticed, especially lately on here, that there are quite a large number of people who cheerfully admit to paying no attention at all to history at school, who nonetheless seem to be perfectly happy to pontificate on the subject.

Personally I have absolutely no knowledge at all about IT for example, I therefore recognise my limitations when discussing matters computer. It would be nice if there was a teensy weensy bit of recognition from some people that you might be arguing from a position of considerable ignorance

So everyone was living in perfect harmony before states? You’re having a laugh surely?

No of course not, but there are many examples of people living in harmony without states, and it's probably true to say that before administrative states became a thing, more people were living in harmony than they are now. States didn't evolve and weren't created to bring about harmony, they came from the conflicts and power struggles of Kings and conquerors who then created bureacracies to exercise their power and collect taxes. States by design are coercive, exploitative and repressive entities. The only reason people think they are necessary is because we've never experienced anything different.

"That’s not socialism, it’s liberal democracy. If you learned what words mean, you wouldn’t be so confused."

(Where has the block-quote menu gone?)

Alright, sorry for trying to contribute. I'll piss off then.

In my defence, you edited out my preface of "for me".

Also I was defining my idea of socialist utopia, not socialism.

Also if you re-read the opening post, I think it was reasonably reply to the spirit of the thread.

But I'll consider myself schooled. Have a good day.

The UK and many other democratic countries used to have a fair element of socialism, with major industries publicly owned. That proved to be a long-term drag on the economy

Its difficult to know where to start with this one. The obvious starter for ten is "long term" is being rather subjective here. Considering its been compressed into a few years announcing the new approach is superior is premature to put it mildly.  The UK publicly owned companies often were those which had failed in private ownership with the government wanting to retain some strategic capability.

Most other countries, of course, still hold a lot of companies in public ownership and the UK is particularly suffering from the stupidity of selling off strategic industries.

The socialist leaning countries that abandoned public ownership and shifted to progressive liberal economies have done well.

I think we would need the list and then compare them against the non progressive liberal countries which have done really well.

When we look at history the one thing which stands out time and time again is to be successful there needs to be massive state intervention whether this is directly via government firms or indirectly by favoured firms.  Now various free marketeers publish reports saying the growth would have been far higher without that intervention but the problem with that is they cant point to any real world examples outperforming those countries.

USA is a great example of this with the massive funnelling of state aid via military contracts which pretty much created its air industry and also a lot of computing.

Then you have SK, Singapore, Japan and Taiwan all of which were autocratic during the periods of fastest growth and used a lot of state intervention (especially defensive protecting new industries).

China, of course, is another great example. Where the lines really blur between private and public.

The authoritarian socialist countries that persevered with socialism have done terribly – North Korea is the starkest example

NK cant really be described as socialist any more than it can be described as a peoples republic. It is "junte" aka a one man rule.

Also you are still using a very limited definition of socialism vs an extremely wide one for liberalism.

Because liberalism is a very broad ideology. The core of it is that liberty is an individual right, but defining "liberty" is tricky. The classical idea (negative liberty) is that liberty means the absence of constraints (this is the libertarian end of the spectrum). The progressive end of the spectrum recognizes that the absence of constraints doesn't mean we can actually do anything useful, so you the idea of "positive liberty," which is similar to the notion that it is the value of liberty that we should maximize, not liberty itself.

So, progressive liberals are in favour of progressive taxation to fund state services such as education on the grounds that these promote positive liberty (or increase the value of liberty). Libertarians believe that taxation, especially progressive taxation, is an attack on individual liberty, and therefore unjustified.

So, the word "liberal" is harder to define because the concept of liberty is a contested term. Socialism is much easier to define because it was developed explicitly on the view that private ownership of capital is inherently unjust. Socialists despise liberals because liberals believe in capitalism. If you believe in capitalism, you are not a socialist.

Some interesting observations from this thread (and wider society) IMO:

'Socialism' has obviously become a bit of a loaded/dirty word because of the sustained narrative seeking to conflate socialism with various flavours of communist state (and by extension authoritarianism) and thus "anti-democratic" (and often Anti-capitalist) beliefs.

There seems to be far more discussion about the merits of Capitalism rather than the health of modern Democracy or even wider social needs whenever "Socialism" is brought up. To me that feels like the Neo-Libs winning at the narrative game again. Another front in the culture wars isn't it, label anyone focussed on social impacts or the plight of the vulnerable rather than the interests of Capital as a "socialist" and by extension a closet "authoritarian".

People now seem to see capitalism as a more important component of a functioning Democracy than how that society makes provisions for the most vulnerable. IMO That is one of the most broken aspects of current public discourse. Everyone deserves help... Unless it has a cost (which of course it does).

I think its partly the Thatcher/Reagan legacy, Neo-liberal economic thinking became the default in western democracies by the late 1980s, and States increasingly went from regulating trade and industry while deriving some funds to support social needs, to being seen as responsible for ensuring an environment where business and finance could thrive.
Governments have increasingly been drawn into "creating opportunities" for private capital, rather than "regulating and policing" to prevent capitalists unfairly exploiting the public (insert picture of Barroness Mone).

As already stated a rebalancing our country towards "Social Democracy" should be the goal, part of which is facilitating trade and entrepreneurship, but not being beholden to it.
Governments that don't make sustained social progress, provision of public services and overall improved/maintained standards of living (measured more by health outcomes and mental wellbeing rather than bank balances) are not really governments, they're just Neo-liberal insurgencies.

It all starts with the people we choose to put in power, and needs a deeper examination of their motives and associations by the public (and of course the press). Democracy only works if the people you elect to enact it are there because they want the best for wider society, not just the members of that society who've horded more money...

USA is a great example of this with the massive funnelling of state aid via military contracts which pretty much created its air industry and also a lot of computing.

If state ownership is so bad and private ownership so good then the US military would've been privatised a long time ago.

and it’s probably true to say that before administrative state became a thing, more people were living in harmony than they are now

I would say that is controversial to say the least.

It is strongly contested how peaceful society is before we started developing states and so forth. There is a lot of evidence showing violence in prehistoric times but obviously its hard to assess how much exactly.

At most I would go for when population levels were low and supplies were plentiful then things were probably relatively peaceful (even if you win a fight you risk injury so like most predators its best not to actually fight unless you really need to eat that dead deer)  but as soon as populations increased, for whatever reason, or climatic changes reduced supplies then it would have changed quickly.  The introduction of farming would have also made this more likely since its harder to abandon those crops in the ground.

‘Socialism’ has obviously become a bit of a loaded/dirty word because of the sustained narrative seeking to conflate socialism with various flavours of communist state (and by extension authoritarianism) and thus “anti-democratic” (and often Anti-capitalist) beliefs.

The only surviving socialist countries are highly authoritarian. Communism was socialism taken to the extreme, and it failed terribly.

It is strongly contested how peaceful society is before we started developing states and so forth

It is. In fact most of the established narrative around this has been shown to be false and no more than a humanity origin myth. Probably off topic though, I strongly recommend the following book if you're interested. Probably the most interesting thing I've ever read..

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/oct/23/the-dawn-of-everything-by-david-graeber-and-david-wengrow-review-inequality-is-not-the-price-of-civilisation

Because of authoritarian regimes.

and it’s probably true to say that before administrative state became a thing, more people were living in harmony than they are now

would you care to cite  a scintilla of evidence for this?

Up until recently there was academic agreement that Bronze Age Northern European society was a peaceful one, based on the lack of defensive structures, weapons etc. Then they discovered the Tollense valley….

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tollense_valley_battlefield

The only surviving socialist countries are highly authoritarian

What about countries that have some socialist policies?

there are many examples of people living in harmony without states, and it’s probably true to say that before administrative states became a thing, more people were living in harmony than they are now

Yes, but population density is a key factor. You must appreciate that.  What worked when there were 1m humans isn't going to work when there are 8bn.  Do you have any evidence for your suggestion that 'more people lived in harmony' before states?

States didn’t evolve and weren’t created to bring about harmony

They evolved for security - to organise the defence of a group of people.  And later to ensure the co-operation of those people.

Communism was socialism taken to the extreme, and it failed terribly.

To play you at your own game, what you describe as 'communism' (ie the soviet system) was very different to how it was defined by Marx and Engels. If you're going to bang on about the definition of socialism at least practice what you preach.

Socialism is much easier to define because it was developed explicitly on the view that private ownership of capital is inherently unjust

Socialism isnt any easy since, leaving aside your simplistic definition, it is about "social ownership" which is itself difficult to pin down and covers a wide range of options.

Going back to what a socialist utopia would look like. Matt Levine jokes that investment banks tick that box since the the employees cream off a large share of the surplus rather than the shareholders.

I strongly recommend the following book if you’re interested

Ooh, the review is so full of straw men it makes me cringe.  Anything that is marketed as 'shattering the myths' and 'everything you thought you knew is wrong' then citing things that no-one with half a brain has believed since the 50s is very much starting off on the wrong foot.

They evolved for security – to organise the defence of a group of people. And later to ensure the co-operation of those people.

That is also debatable. Some will have done but some without any real neighbours would have evolved for different reasons.

A major factor in some regions would have been the need to cooperate for agricultural purposes especially under irrigation. There is a school of thought claiming that those societies growing rice have traditionally had a tighter knit structure due to the cooperation needed for the rice fields.

some without any real neighbours would have evolved for different reasons.

Right - so not having neighbours is the key point. Who doesn't have neighbours now?

Fukuyama's book is worth a read.  It's a bit dry but extremely interesting.

There is a school of thought claiming that those societies growing rice have traditionally had a tighter knit structure due to the cooperation needed for the rice fields.

Stuff like this is just nonsense. What about societies that had to cooperate because they needed to maintain dykes to prevent flooding, or societies that had to cooperate to build fortifications to protect themselves from outsiders. Every society has myths about their uniqueness, these mostly serve to maintain the existing power structure.

As someone who spent a year studying the history of political philosophy at uni I am always impressed about how people think its ok to interpret stuff how they like.

"History is a set of lies agreed upon."

I strongly recommend the following book if you’re interested

Even the very sympathetic review in the Guardian that you quote is pretty sceptical about the claims of an anarchist anthropologist who seems to have discovered that you don’t need a state.

Ooh, the review is so full of straw men it makes me cringe.

Whatevs. 🤷‍♂️

You can persist with the simplistic interpretation that how we organise society now is the only way it is possible, or you can open your mind to the fact that the evolution and organsiation of human society is much more diverse, complex and nuanced than we currently experience. Given the shitshow that represents our current 'civilisation' I for one am open to alternatives.

The only surviving socialist countries are highly authoritarian. Communism was socialism taken to the extreme, and it failed terribly

So you're saying "Socialism" IS Communism?

I'll accept I'm not a political scientist but I see "Socialism" or "socialist concepts" as being focussed more on the duty of care a given state owes the individuals living within it, rather than necessarily dictating the mode of government they adopt to deliver that.

Communists might use the terms "Socialist"/"Socialism" but that doesn't necessarily mean Socialists ARE Communists, unless of course you're trying to construct a bit of a narrative to whip up simpletons.

Hence myself and others have referred to "Social Democracy" several times already in this thread...

“History is a set of lies agreed upon.

Up to a point Lord Cooper.
But the history of political philosophy is the history of ideas  & how they underpinned the way societies have been arranged. You don’t have to go far to ascertain the facts, because by definition they are contained in the books by the people who came up with these ideas. The ideas themselves  may have been based on an agreed set of lies, but that’s another matter.

Even the very sympathetic review in the Guardian that you quote is pretty sceptical about the claims of an anarchist anthropologist who seems to have discovered that you don’t need a state.

Go and read it then come back and comment, otherwise don't bother. Do you also comment on films that you haven't watched or music that you haven't listened to?

I have noticed, especially lately on here, that there are quite a large number of people who cheerfully admit to paying no attention at all to history at school, who nonetheless seem to be perfectly happy to pontificate on the subject.

School isn' the only place to learn things.  I didn't learn anything about computers at school or university yet I know a fair bit about them.

Go and read it then come back and comment, otherwise don’t bother.

I wasn't commenting on the book, I was commenting on the review.  It really doesn't make me want to read it though, nor do you. It looks biased as hell which might be why you liked it.  The fact that the author was a 'leading anarchist' reeeally doesn't fill me with confidence that it's worth £30.

Have you read any books that pose a narrative counter to that one?

I wasn’t commenting on the book, I was commenting on the review.  It really doesn’t make me want to read it though, nor do you. It looks biased as hell which might be why you liked it.  The fact that the author was a ‘leading anarchist’ reeeally doesn’t fill me with confidence that it’s worth £30.

+ 1. In any case, even if it has any merit in its arguments, what possible relevance would it have to modern political society? The social  environment of the time is just too far away from our era. It’s a fantasy which can’t be applied to the situation we now find ourselves in.

You can persist with the simplistic interpretation that how we organise society now is the only way it is possible

How the hell did you come up with that? I'm absolutely 100% against the status quo at least here in the UK, it's shit.  My point is that anarchy is not the solution and would in fact be very much worse.

I'm saying that a state of some kind is necessary to ensure the mutual cooperation of people.  I reject the idea that the concept of a state is the result of an evil elite wishing to enrich themselves. However an evil elite wishing to enrich itself can use the state to do it.

Please please please don't put up these horrible straw men to take shots at.  It really ruins what would otherwise be an interesting debate and gets people annoyed.

Have you read any books that pose a narrative counter to that one?

Yup, I read the Sapiens book long before this one, have also read Jared Diamond's book on collapsing civilisations. The author is/was primarily an anthropologist, one universally acclaimed in his field. The fact that he's an anarchist is neither here nor there (although the story of how he came to be one is quite interesting) and it's mainly the media (and his critics) that mention this rather than himself. Also you'll note his co-author isn't an anarchist (to my knowledge anyway), he's just an archeologist who has uncovered some new evidence that the established narrative of human societal evolution isn't as safe as is often portrayed.

Funny how no one ever questions the political leanings of authors/academics who write stuff which agrees with the established consensus?

Please please please don’t put up these horrible straw men to take shots at.

Suggesting that we don't need nation states, or questioning their impacts isn't a straw man. In fact the ideas, writings and theorists of this train of thought long pre-date any modern concepts of socialism, communism or capitalism. Funny isn't it that - as this thread proves - both socialism and capitalism have in the past century both proven themselves to be sub-optimal forms of political and economic organisation and yet we still cling on to the concept that they are the only things possible?

"argee

I’m being as specific as the original argument and the evidence provided on how these places were socialist democracies, if you want specifics, google is good for that, wikipedia has info, they even have citations if you want to click through."

Which places? Specifics on what? How are we supposed to use Google to work out what you were talking about when it's not even clear you know....?

Also you’ll note his co-author isn’t an anarchist (to my knowledge anyway), he’s just an archeologist

He may not be an anarchist but a brief look at his published work shows that he has quite a few weird and wonderful ideas. I am all for academic freedom of thought & it is good to challenge orthodoxy & prevailing schools of thought. However don’t ignore the tendentious reasoning this bloke is displaying. He’s an outlier with an agenda.

"(Where has the block-quote menu gone?)"

It's been collectivised. You can use it every second Thursday.

@molgrips: if you don't feel like spending £30 on Graeber's book, maybe you can head along to your local den of social democratic statist indoctrination ie the library.

"it’s probably true to say that before administrative states became a thing, more people were living in harmony than they are now"

What does that statement look like when you look at it through a feminist lens? Were things that idyllic?

Suggesting that we don’t need nation states, or questioning their impacts isn’t a straw man

Nono. You saying that I endorse the status quo was a straw man.

socialism and capitalism have in the past century both proven themselves to be sub-optimal forms of political and economic organisation

That's an extremely simplistic assertion.  Socialism is a pure ideology, it's an ingredient in a state along with a whole load of other ingredients.  There isn't one single set of instructions that makes a socialist country.  Just like Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy were both fascist, but they were different.  Most countries do some socialist things, and some capitalist things, and the outcomes vary wildly based on how its implemented.

Any state is a blend of ideology, power distribution, natural resources and competence.  Some of these are interdependent, and some states will succeed or fail in certain criteria or struggle based on these various attributes.

And of course, the success criteria are quite subjective. Is a state where everyone is poor but equal, and has enough to eat and are close to their families a good state?  What if the people have no money to buy labour saving devices or to travel to see the world?  I think a lot of people don't seem to realise that people want different things. For some, a peaceful agrarian life where you just do simple work on your land is desirable - but I'd find that horribly limiting.  For some, a society where you don't need to work would be heaven, others might find it purposeless, futile and boring.  IF we can't even agree on what 'good' means or see that we each have different versions of 'good' we won't really progress.

maybe you can head along to your local den of social democratic statist indoctrination ie the library.

I haven't got a local one.. **** Tories.

Re the Graeber/Wengrow book - it's still £12 on Kindle.  I get really upset when people try to push their ideas on me in a book, it makes me cringe, so I'm worried that's what this will be about.  I looked very carefully for bias in Fukuyama's Origins of Political Order and I didn't see any.

And of course, the success criteria are quite subjective.

Yes, but when you are dealing with billions of people, you can look at patterns of migration and see where people prefer to live. East Germans risked their lives to get to West Germany, but West Germans didn't rush to move to the East. Russian and Chinese elites send their kids to school in Western Europe and the U.S., but Western elites don't send their kids to school in Russia or China. The general pattern is that liberal capitalist democracies attract a lot of migrants so it's pretty reasonable to conclude that they are the most attractive places to live.

As I've been saying, there's more to that than the government's economic alignment.  A liberal democracy can have a lot of socialist policies, or few.  So you need to decide which one you like.

The general pattern is that liberal capitalist democracies attract a lot of migrants so it’s pretty reasonable to conclude that they are the most attractive places to live.

Hmm - the USA is one of the most popular countries for migrants, but most of us would agree it's a bit shitty when all aspects of the country are considered. It markets itself well.

the USA is one of the most popular countries for migrants, but most of us would agree it’s a bit shitty when all aspects of the country are considered. It markets itself well.

Being poor in America is much better than being poor in poor countries. It's fun to poke fun at America, but it's a pretty good place to live if you have a middle-class income. Wealthy Russians and Chinese don't send their kids there for no reason. Brazil has a similar population and vast natural resources, but I can't think of any Brazilian companies that have the stature of Apple, Microsoft, Google, Boeing, Ford, General Motors, etc.

Venezuela.

It’s fun to poke fun at America, but it’s a pretty good place to live if you have a middle-class income.

I have a cousin who with her husband was arrested and tortured by the Argentine military dictatorship. They weren't guilty of any crimes other being hippies seeking an alternative lifestyle and choosing to live in a commune. They were eventually released and they fled to the United States where they were granted political asylum.

The military junta would not have been successful in seizing and maintaining power had it not been for the explicit approval of the United States government. So the United States not only provided them with sanctuary but was also the reason why they had to flee persecution.

As a side note I had a couple of cousins who had to temporarily flee to Brazil after being declared wanted by the military authorities.