So, what would a pure socialist society be like? How would leaders, if needed, be chosen, or put in power?

Question

Would there be leaders? If so, for how long? What would be expected of them? Would society in general be fair and equitable ?

Communism made all kinds of great promises, but usually ended up in brutal dictatorships: Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao. I know that communism and socialism are not the same, but aren't there similarities?

Perhaps communism was never practiced in its true sense, but maybe it just can't be, maybe it just makes things easy for dictatorship.

Answer 1

Several countries had socialism and democracy. The economic system was socialist and the political system was democratic. Sweden would be an example. For a time the UK was this type of country. Now it is mostly reversed in the UK.

There is a massive amount of ignorance in the USA regarding the various systems.  Some socialist states were at least as democratic as the USA.

Answer 2

I don't know of any country that has true democracy not even the United States. We was founded as a republic.  

Answer 3

You failed to mention "cooperation." How do you get millions of people to agree on anything. The only thing close to socialism is a commune. Do people still live in communes. They were a fad in the sixties.

Answer 4

It depends on the socialism...

I am an anarchist, specifically a mutualist, but most forms of anarchism are considered forms of socialism. I imagine a combination of different modes in different spheres.

An anarchist FAQ leans towards a combination of anarchocommunism with anarchosyndicalism: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/193...

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's *General Idea of the Revolution* offers an early look at mutualism: http://fair-use.org/p-j-proudhon/general...

Dyer Lum's *On Anarchy* offers another: http://praxeology.net/DL-OA.htm

In anarchism, leaders, or organizers, facilitators, etc. are all possible, but would have no special power, nor any political authority.

Answer 5

Your right, maybe the devil we know is best after all.

Answer 6

first the socialist would change the name to the democratic socialist party and get the 3 largest tv. media channels to back them and then they would raise all the taxes to like 85% so that it could pay for health, schools, and power up the new socialist police that would take care of any who dared to be free from government intervention control  and creative thinking. Leaders would stay in power by destroying the constitution and self emposing their rule over government through smoke filled back room deals and greasing the palm of the influencial money launderers with out scutiny.

  

Answer 7

Socialism, communism, democracy all seem to be valid constructs on paper. However, there will always be "those in power". These people invariably abuse that power and confuse "power / responsibility"  with  "power/ ego". And the whole thing collapses.

Answer, there is none.

People are greedy

People that lust for power are greedy egomaniacs

People that achieve power are nasty, calculating, manipulative, greedy egomaniacs and these are the people that today are leading all of us and the planet to whichever h**l your religion favours.

And it will always be that way, because nice people don't make a fuss, don't want to impose, and dont believe that they have the right to tell other people how they should live their lives.

"The meek shall inherit the earth"

As in, the meek will end up face down eating dirt under the jackboot of the "not so meek"

Answer 8

A pure socialist society would have no economy and would be at the level of hunter gatherer and so would not be too big.  It would have fewer thugs since the group could gang up on one who tried to rule by force.  The only leaders really would lead by persuasion.  but it is not possible since it goes against the grain of the human personality.  People want to be best in something and socialism main tenet is that human beings are in fact interchangeable cogs.  

Answer 9

Firstly I would like to point out that implementing socialism will never succeed. For true socialism to work it would require social evolution and not revolution. It would require people to be socially aware which is frowned upon in democracies, where group think is encouraged for the 'greater good'. When I find a way to overcome this I will get back to you.

A pure socialist society would have an economy but it wouldn't be monetary based. In fact it would be so far removed from a capitalist economy that it would appear unrecognisable. The economy would consist of pooling resources and products and distributing them equally. This is the clever thing about socialism where leadership isn't required. The community would recognise what is needed and so allocate production efficiently. The people who are good at something would be delegated to perform a certain role.

For a fair, true socialist society we would have to downgrade population sizes in order to allow everyone a fair say. This would blow a lot of people's minds and is why the idea would have to arrive naturally. A true socialist system would lead to a more basic society where everyone's needs were addressed. All crime icluding theft, murder, suicide, fraud etc would essentially be a thing of the past but some things like healthcare might suffer.

I mentioned that for socialism to succeed it would need a social evolution. Like life society evolves when environmental pressures force it to. Now I hope this doesn't happen but it looks as if capitalism is taking us down a road of destruction and socialism may have to be the way we recouperate afterwards.