Socialism

[Law]

Discuss.

I'm not a socialist, so don't really have a clue about it.

I have however had Rage Against The Machine and Rise Against lyrics enter into my head for about 3 hours each weekday during my commutes for the past month.

Would socialism work? I'm not poor, have a few nice expensive possessions, but I'm starting to see the appeal of anti-capitalism, no rat race, no oppressed poor. I don't think it's going to happen though cos I'm cynical and therefore won't do anything about it...

Have I been brainwashed by my music?

P.S. I love you all.

Maybe I'm a hippy? :flower:

[Biker Biggles]

I prefere Anarchy but I got chucked out for not obeying the rules.

[Law]

I prefere Anarchy but I got chucked out for not obeying the rules.

Aah, anarchism sounds more like it, no state as well.

Let's rebel, rebel and yell!*

*Rage against the Machine lyric

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Someone has to be in control of the money.

You can leave it in the hands of the private sector who, admittedly, may have made a few mistakes lately, but that's after many many years of growth from which everyone has benefited.

Or you can leave it in the hands of the government, who unlike the private sector have no long term vested interests, only the next election. They're also not affected by market forces so haven't got any commercial incentives to spend the money they have wisely - especially if they have lots of it. Generally the best way to make the government spend money as efficiently as possible is to give them as little as possible.

That said, paying as little tax as possible for the sake of it isn't very wise either. As much as I dislike giving my money to idiot politicians, I think the NHS is a good idea, for example. As always I think there's a happy medium somewhere - I think we probably had it right, right before Brown when nuts and spent everything.

[ArtyLady]

I dont know much about politics but I do feel that there is an unhealthy gap between obscenely rich and poor. :(

[Ruffy]

Socialism is fine in theory: Equality in everything.

Unfortunately, human nature is inherently selfish and some always want to be more equal than others!

[Kinvig]

national socialism??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

[Sid Squid]

No. It never has and it never will.

I'm a personal communist and a political realist*. I can understand the strengths and weaknesses of any given individual of my acquaintance, these are accepted much in the manner of Marx's, (much twisted), words when he said something like; "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". On a personal level this may be accommodated, try to extrapolate that to even a few thousand people and it falls right on it's botty, there is no way a functioning society can ever hope to exist for any serious timescale with the hand wringing hopes of socialism on a large scale as a social and political system. I can and do trust my friends and acquaintances to hold up their end of our social contract, (not meaning that in an exactly Hobbesian way), I know full well that not only can I not trust many persons to act in a similarly responsible manner, but that I can be utterly assured they won't.

* I'm generally to be considered as slightly to the right of Genghis Kahn.

[Law]

Someone has to be in control of the money.
....you can leave it in the hands of the government, who unlike the private sector have no long term vested interests, only the next election. They're also not affected by market forces so haven't got any commercial incentives to spend the money they have wisely - especially if they have lots of it. Generally the best way to make the government spend money as efficiently as possible is to give them as little as possible.

Maybe if we had a government that stayed for the foreseeable future then maybe that'll be better. They would then spend more on improving the country infrastructure and we wouldn't have a change of policy every 4 years or whenever. But then it'll probably be a dictatorship and that'll be bad.

I, myself, am apathetic about governments and political parties. They're all the same, so there's no point voting and having no government is asking for trouble.

Libertarian socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialist) sounds good.* :mrgreen:


*It'll never work though!

[amnesia]

Some will always be more equal than others...they can run faster, be considered better looking, more intellegent etc.

I don't think it can ever work.


...and Rage Against The Machine are about as rebelious and anti-establishment as The Spice Girls.

[slark01]

Socialism is fine in theory: Equality in everything.

Unfortunately, human nature is inherently selfish and some always want to be more equal than others!
Bingo!
Human greed out ways everything else including the lives of others.

[gettin2dizzy]

Libertarian socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialist) sounds good.* :mrgreen:



Give in to the libertarian in you..... you know you want to ;)

Will socialism work? ? Well Labour's effort hasn't!

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Maybe if we had a government that stayed for the foreseeable future then maybe that'll be better.

Sadly it wouldn't. As you've realised, the longer government actually stays in power, the more tyrannical they become.

[yorkie_chris]

Sadly it wouldn't. As you've realised, the longer government actually stays in power, the more tyrannical they become.

Case in point, "our" government.

[northwind]

Well, a capitalist-democratic model isn't incompatible with socialism... Only when allowed to run to extremes does the greed of the few become more important than the needs of many. Which is exactly what we have now.

The fact is, we're already in a potentially post-poverty world, we could supply the basic needs of the world right now- food, water, basic medicine. Yet we don't. Everyone's seen the stats like the fact that the richest 2% of people in the world control half of the world's wealth, while the 50% of the people who are in the poorer half of the world's population control 1% of the wealth. Personally, I can't see how anyone can possibly defend that, it's not even easy to comprehend let alone justify. And of course, a lot of the labour of the poorest 50% goes straight to the richest 2%.

Unrestricted capitalism is obviously a problem, it's a machine designed to condense the wealth of the world into the hands of the smallest possible minority. Unrestricted socialism I think is just as bad, since human beings just basically aren't very nice to each other a lot of the time, you can't build a system and not take into account human nature, it just won't work. So just like anything else, the best approach is probably somewhere in the middle.

Course, that's a long way from saying we should all be equal. I don't think we should personally... I don't think it's at all workable, so whether it's desirable or not doesn't matter in the slightest, but I don't think it's desirable either. But we could sustain a massive rebalancing of wealth without shorting ourselves. The best model is the famous "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"- the reason I say this is that it imposes a condition on support (to be part of the equation you have to give according to your ability), and it doesn't enforce equal division (because there is always a surplus after the satisfaction of the basic needs). It's a simple model that works. What's left over can be distributed in different ways once needs are met.

Or you can leave it in the hands of the government, who unlike the private sector have no long term vested interests, only the next election.

CEOs are essentially in the same position, they're short-term stewards whose interests don't neccesarily mirror those of the company. We've seen all too clearly lately that the idea of big business and the financial markets as self-managing and self-protecting is just a fairytale, no more real than the idea of governments as the custodians of public interest. And every company is judged by its last year or its last quarter. Companies commit acts of financial insanity daily. And when enough of them do it, it can plunge you into a world recession. Sound familiar?

[Sid Squid]

Will socialism work? ? Well Labour's effort hasn't!

Labour?

Socialism?

Some mistake surely.

[northwind]

Will socialism work? ? Well Labour's effort hasn't!

Not socialism.

<Damn, I got outrun by a squid again>

[Law]

Give in to the libertarian in you..... you know you want to ;)

Will socialism work? ? Well Labour's effort hasn't!

No thanks. I prefer being apathetic about everything.

Ooh, Utopian socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopian_socialism) sounds even better! It'll be just like Star Trek! :cool:

I know human nature means equality will never happen, but it'll be great if it did, and I have a very small glimmer of hope inside, wishing it could.

[yorkie_chris]

They seem to have taken russia in the 80's as a model though, a pointless and unwinnable war in afghanistan, going toward total control of the states subjects (we're not citizens, we're not armed.), massive bureaucracy, next ID cards, then it will be needing to show your papers to travel between counties.

Why would anybody WANT to be equal? What the hell would be the point in living? Guaranteed a long, pointless life, working for the same wage as every other bugger. The chance of a good job, being BETTER than the council estate scum, and the dead-enders is the only reason I get out of bed in a morning.

People aren't equal, get over it.

[ArtyLady]

.... being BETTER than the council estate scum,

Better than me then ;)

[yorkie_chris]

Tell you what really f##ks me off, retarded hippy types wearing che guevera T shirts and the like displaying the red star logo. Evil regime which slaughtered millions, including parts of my indirect family.... You try wear a swastika in public though, nicked for inciting racial hatred before you can say "sieg heil"

[northwind]

Equality doesn't mean being the same though, does it?

[Flamin_Squirrel]

CEOs are essentially in the same position, they're short-term stewards whose interests don't neccesarily mirror those of the company. We've seen all too clearly lately that the idea of big business and the financial markets as self-managing and self-protecting is just a fairytale, no more real than the idea of governments as the custodians of public interest. And every company is judged by its last year or its last quarter. Companies commit acts of financial insanity daily. And when enough of them do it, it can plunge you into a world recession. Sound familiar?

Very true. But it seems that no government can go longer than 10-15 years before destroying itself through infighting - obviously large firms avoid this to an extent they can still function. I can certainly see the similarities you point out, but there must be some big differences too?

[northwind]

Tell you what really f##ks me off, retarded hippy types wearing che guevera T shirts and the like displaying the red star logo. Evil regime which slaughtered millions, including parts of my indirect family.... You try wear a swastika in public though, nicked for inciting racial hatred before you can say "sieg heil"

The red star predates russian "communism" though, and isn't just a symbol of communism let alone that fascist variety. It's not really the same as the swastika since the traditional use of the swastika has been completely abandoned, and now it's almost only associated with naziism in the west, where the red star is still a much wider symbol. And it's kind of hard to blame Guevera for stalinism considering he was still in school at the time.

[northwind]

Very true. But it seems that no government can go longer than 10-15 years before destroying itself through infighting - obviously large firms avoid this to an extent they can still function. I can certainly see the similarities you point out, but there must be some big differences too?

There are, yup. Both systems have their advantages. Strong government and strong industry could be a good combination if they were in balance, which they never are. But they're both power-gathering structures, so that's a pipe dream. But even in imbalance one can check the other, we've done not too badly here on that IMO (yes, we fail at it, but we don't fail disasterously at it, which makes us among the best ;))

[yorkie_chris]

I'm not trying to blame him at all, that's just an example of where you see it.
Similar political ideals, so same context, and IMO distasteful.

Just like you wouldn't blame mosely for nazi germany, but me wandering about with a mosely T shirt on would be seen as unpleasant.

[northwind]

Yeah, fair point. Guevera's stalinism seems to be largely forgotten, the fact is he didn't practice Stalin's approach but he definately seems to have approved of it. But it doesn't really seem to have been borne out in his actions- I wonder how much he knew... A lot of the truth of stalin's reign wasn't well known til later I think. Not sure on that. But whatever, he achieved a lot of good, helped overthrow Batista (his critics say "He authorised the execution of 700 of Batista's men". Yup, and Batista killed 20000, and those 700 were accused of it). Moseley can't say that. Sometimes you have to support the lesser of two bas***ds. Anyway, getting off the point. Most people who wear a guevera t-shirt don't know an awful lot about the man, because he's not a man now, he's a brand.

[yorkie_chris]

Exactly, so I stand by my opinion that they're a bunch of hippy muppets who know f##k all. Showing unwitting support of a brutal and unjust "equal" regime...

[northwind]

I think he had a net-good effect on the world, and wasn't part of the stalinist regime which was over when he was in medical school. Lets agree to disagree ;) Stalinism wasn't communism. Gueveraism if you like was more marxist than stalinist but he was a leader at war so he tended to the warlike.

[yorkie_chris]

The way I see socialism is rather than most people living in $hit and a few being well off ... everyone lives in $hit.

[northwind]

Nice :) Wrong I think, but who knows. Maybe if ever have a succesful socialist state instead of another rebranded fascist one we'll find out. But like I say, why swing to extremes, there's space for a lot more socialism in our democratic-capitalist system without causing any real pain for anyone.

[martianskippy]

I've been brought up in socialist Poland... one of the nice things I remember was queuing up with my sis and parents for toilet paper.. You could only buy 5 rolls per head so whole families queued up for hours at -5 degrees... It was not strange to see someone walking down the street with a "necklace" of toilet paper rolls and a big grin on his face... and instead of putting him in a straight jacket everyone would be thinking: lucky b*stard ..

Want to hear any more examples of how good a system socialism is ? ;)

[northwind]

That's not socialism, that's market scarcity. Not cause and effect. Poland's economy crashed long before the socialist government took over (under the soviet system, which obviously isn't socialism)

[martianskippy]

That's not socialism, that's market scarcity. Not cause and effect.

It is a direct cause of the socialist regime. Somehow socialism when employed in real life always ends up this way.. All my friends who have grown up in socialist countries have expereinced the same.. The only thing you could readily get in the shops was vinegar for some reason.. and apart form that .. nothing..

Look at North Korea nowadays? Kids who managed to escape from there with their parents have to undergo special classes now that "teach them how to be kids"....

[cb5_keith]

Let's rebel, rebel and yell!


Fave rise against lyric;

If we're the flagship of peace and prosperity
We're taking on water and about to ****in' sink
No one seems to notice, no one even blinks
The crew all left the passengers to die under the sea

Countdown, to the very end,
Equality, an invitation that we wont extend
Ready aim, pull the trigger now,
in time you firmly secure your place in hell

State of the union address,
reads war torn country still a mess
the words: power, death, and distorted truth
are read between the lines of the red, white, and blue

'Guilty' is what our graves will read,
no years, no family, we did
nothing to stop the murder of
a people just like us

[yorkie_chris]

That's what northwinds trying to say about having proper socialism rather than rebadged fascism, however marx obviously was more of a philosopher than psychiatrist. The fundamental flaws in the system always lead to just as much inequality as any other system.

[Law]

Fave rise against lyric;
State of The Union :thumbsup:

Currently have the new album in the car, I like the new Re-education (Through Labor) video (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FHv_1Jct9NA&feature=channel_page)

Communist Socialism is really bad. The state just takes everything and apart from the politicians and secret police, the majority are live in s***.

I want a Star Trek like utopian equal society, where everyone lives and works to advance the human race. That's not going to happen so I'll take this system rather than the communist/fascist governments/dictatorships that other countries have/had.

[northwind]

It is a direct cause of the socialist regime. Somehow socialism when employed in real life always ends up this way.. All my friends who have grown up in socialist countries have expereinced the same.. The only thing you could readily get in the shops was vinegar for some reason.. and apart form that .. nothing..

Look at North Korea nowadays? Kids who managed to escape from there with their parents have to undergo special classes now that "teach them how to be kids"....

North Korea isn't socialist. And Soviet Poland wasn't socialist. This is the trouble with these conversations, someone always says "Socialism doesn't work, look at (non-socialist country X). The post war soviet era owed nothing to socialism.

[cb5_keith]

A little off topic, but I personally find interesting at the moment, is Athens...anyone ever been? I love the city, times i've been its been so peaceful and such cool place, everyone is so friendly. always had problems, with youth, and such a strong democratic power, and police going too far etc. Taking this oppurtunity to go all out, fairly anarchistic situation, trying to attract the rest of europe to show up the police. Plenty of vids on youtube of police hurtling rocks back at people.

Another interesting thing, anyone watch louix theroux in johannesburg? an philedelphia? He aint half got some balls

[Ceri JC]

Nice :) Wrong I think, but who knows. Maybe if ever have a succesful socialist state instead of another rebranded fascist one we'll find out. But like I say, why swing to extremes, there's space for a lot more socialism in our democratic-capitalist system without causing any real pain for anyone.

Ah, that old chestnut, "The reason socialist states always fail is that we've never seen a real one, they've always been something else badged as socialism and that is why they've failed." Well, we've seen capitalistic democracies and regardless of whether or not they're really capitalistic democracies, whatever they are, they work better than those things we call socialist states.

Although not the same as communism, socialism is not a million miles away and fails for the same reasons. People often cite the kibbutz as a successful form of communism and a "proof of concept" that it'd work. The problem is, as Sid Squid says, I can generally rely on people I know, or even just have a fair degree in common with myself, to behave in a reasonable manner and uphold their end of the social contract. I cannot rely on people I'll never meet/have nothing to do with to do so.

So, communism might work in a community where you know almost every other person personally (as all sort of social moral codes come into play when you actuallly know the other people- even most chav scum won't steal from their mates, unless they have a heroin habit to feed), but it cannot be relied upon when it gets big enough that you don't know everyone personally, never mind at a state level where you don't even see them. I don't give two hoots about a chap I've never met and never will, who lives two towns away, let alone at the other end of the country. Nor, do I expect him to care about me.

[Ceri JC]

Oh incidentally, I take it anyone here in favour of socialism would happily surrender their bike and travel on public transport?

[EssexDave]

Nothing works 100% to please everyone 100% of the time.
Capitalism is a load of crap, but its the best option right now.

[martianskippy]

North Korea isn't socialist. And Soviet Poland wasn't socialist. This is the trouble with these conversations, someone always says "Socialism doesn't work, look at (non-socialist country X). The post war soviet era owed nothing to socialism.

Strange that throughout my whole education I was told that I was brought up in socialist country (till 1989 that is).. The denomination: Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa which translates as People's Republic of Poland does bring socialism's equality concept to mind , doesn't it?

Socialism and comunism such as described by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels are impossible to implement and, as per some of the above posts, were just a philosophical concept. Therefore, although I can agree with you that Poland was not a socialist country in the pure, philosophical sense of the word, it was the closest you could get to it in real life. The economy was fully nationalised and belonged to everyone apparently.. Everyone was supposed to be equal and have equal chances of social progression. In theory that is.

It is easy to say that "someone always says "Socialism doesn't work, look at (non-socialist country X). The post war soviet era owed nothing to socialism". It is also easy to sympathise with a ideological concept of a perfect society where everyone is equal.
It is not that easy to leave in a country with a political system inspired by those lofty ideas...

Ps. I do love Rage Against.. :)

[martianskippy]

Poland's economy crashed long before the socialist government took over (under the soviet system, which obviously isn't socialism)

Polish economy did not crash before the socialist government took over... But again I have probably been mislead all of my life ;-)

[Law]

Oh incidentally, I take it anyone here in favour of socialism would happily surrender their bike and travel on public transport?

Yes, I'd give up my car, and not have a motorbike if public transport was more like other countries. Never had a problem using the trains, underground, buses, minibuses, and once or twice the taxis for a month whilst in HK. I go there quite a lot. I despise using British public transport though.



Small confession, I don't really care much about the anti-capitalist side of Rise Against. When I got into them years ago, this was my favourite song/lyrics.




This place rings with echoes of
Lives once lived, but now are lost
Times spent wondering about tomorrow

I don't care, if we lose it all tonight
Up in flames, burning bright
Warming the air of the world

"I don't love you anymore", is all
I remember you telling me, never have I felt so cold
But I've no more blood to bleed
'cause my heart has been draining into the sea

Steps I take in your footsteps
Are getting me closer to what is left
Of the dreams of what I once claimed to know

Within my bones this resonates
Boiling blood will circulate
Could you tell me again what you did this for?

"I don't love you anymore", is all
I remember you telling me, never have I felt so cold
But I've no more blood to bleed
'cause my heart has been draining into the sea

Well still I wait with a hope inside of me (inside of me)
So still I wait until again we meet, until again we meet

Within my bones this resonates
Boiling blood will circulate
Could you tell me again what you did this for?

"I don't love you anymore", is all
I remember you telling me, never have I felt so cold
But I've no more blood to bleed
'cause my heart has been draining into the sea

And still I wait with a hope inside of me
And still I wait

I'm not an emo.

[Ruffy]

Are there any good examples of socialist principles at work?

Closer to home, is the NHS a good socialist idea? I know it's currently flawed in implementation, but the principle's OK, isn't it?

[northwind]

Oh incidentally, I take it anyone here in favour of socialism would happily surrender their bike and travel on public transport?

You wouldn't have to :rolleyes: Silly misinformation. Even communism (let alone socialism) isn't about giving only the basics to everyone, it's about ensuring that everyone has their basic needs fulfilled before you start giving trinkets to everyone else. This wouldn't be hard to do these days, it wouldn't even need a dramatic wealth redistribution.

Strange that throughout my whole education I was told that I was brought up in socialist country (till 1989 that is).. The denomination: Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa which translates as People's Republic of Poland does bring socialism's equality concept to mind , doesn't it?


Yep, and the Nazis were the Nationalsozialismus Party, does that make them socialist?

Have to admit I got my dates wrong, a lot of places talk of post-Solidarity Poland as post-soviet socialism, which looking again doesn't really seem to be borne out at all, it's a nice thought but it doesn't really seem it worked that way since that was just a new chapter in martial law. But the Polish economy was hammered from WW2 onwards, rationing never left FFS, and got worse through 1970.

No offence, but if you grew up in Poland before 1989, don't be too surprised if a lot of what you were taught in school was propaganda. Do some independant research now, see if it tallies.

[northwind]

Are there any good examples of socialist principles at work?

Closer to home, is the NHS a good socialist idea? I know it's currently flawed in implementation, but the principle's OK, isn't it?

Absolutely. As is Medicare in the states, although a much worse example. Benefits for the critically ill, child benefit, a lot of state benefits in fact. Free schooling too.

Socialism always gets lumped in with communism, it's just daft frankly, they're not 2 points on the same scale, they're totally different approaches. Just as capitalism and socialism are also not two mutually exclusive things.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Can't socialism basically be defined as the government controlling the countries money? In which case the UK and even the US are pretty much there...

[northwind]

No. Well, some people would say so but they're a) clearly wrong b) always pro-market freedom and c) almost invariably conservatives ;) That'd be a major trait of a socialist system but it's a means to the end, not the end itself- you can have a government control a country's money without the slightest element of socialism.

[gettin2dizzy]

I think the States was set up with great principles. What ever happened to anti-big government I'll never know though ;)

[yorkie_chris]

+1, but try convincing the x-factor generation of that. Obviously big brother is needed to protect us from all those nasty ragheads. Yeah, right....

[gettin2dizzy]

It's daft isn't it. The government are doing the terrorists job for them! It was interesting to see Germany announcing that it thought Britain had lost its democracy.

Even more interesting to see what the Irish government had to say about the 'no' vote in the EU referendum. They overwhelmingly voted no, but apparently they meant yes... Who says democracy is dead...

[gettin2dizzy]

Irish 'no' vote : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/danielhannan/3743512/Why-Eurocrats-believe-that-No-to-EU-treaty-is-the-Irish-for-Yes.html

[Sid Squid]

North Korea isn't socialist. And Soviet Poland wasn't socialist. This is the trouble with these conversations, someone always says "Socialism doesn't work, look at (non-socialist country X). The post war soviet era owed nothing to socialism.
Northy's right, (as he so often is), there have been no significant examples of a Socialist state to truly give an example - failed or otherwise. The telling thing here is that there have been many examples of an attempt to foster Socialism on a country but, whether in inception well intentioned or otherwise, they have always ended up with a circumstance at least as poor, or more commonly a greater disparity in individual fortunes, than the systems they were intended to replace.

[northwind]

Yup. Which isn't a very good sign really :mrgreen: Cuba's made a half-decent stab at it, obviously far from perfect but they've been a relatively succesful socialist/communist state despite losing their sponsor and the actions of the US. But there's more than enough Bad Stuff to condemn Castro's regime despite all that. Still, it's a step in the right direction, and you do have to wonder what would have happened without the economic constraints and other foreign interventions.

[Sid Squid]

It's certainly true that Cuba is an interesting example/experiment, but as an alternative view would it not be allowable to say that if the geography were different and Cuba weren't so near to the US, would Castro have garnered such sizeable support from the USSR? Also for all of his undoubted guerilla charisma his has not been an effective regime - Cuba's fortunes have suffered from some frankly naive economic policy, without boatloads of Soviet money it couldn't possibly have survived anywhere near this long, the US effect can only be blamed for so much. There are big changes occurring in the political and social fabric of Cuba - changes that could only be caused by the failure of the Castro system, and that limped on as long as it did solely from external support.
Politically speaking Castro's stewardship of Cuba may not truly be as upsetting as the totalitarian example of the Soviets and many Eastern Bloc countries, but it definitely has it's very own human rights problems, it can hardly be described as 'Socialist' or 'Democratic' in any convincing way.

[Ceri JC]

You wouldn't have to :rolleyes: Silly misinformation. Even communism (let alone socialism) isn't about giving only the basics to everyone, it's about ensuring that everyone has their basic needs fulfilled before you start giving trinkets to everyone else. This wouldn't be hard to do these days, it wouldn't even need a dramatic wealth redistribution.

I'm not so sure I agree; it depends a lot on what you deem "basic needs". Arguably, from a survival point of view, it's just enough water, food and shelter for an otherwise healthy person to stay alive. As you say, this wouldn't require any kind of dramatic wealth distribution and would be comparatively easily achieveable. The problem is, in today's rather more soft and fluffy world this would almost certainly be considered as needing to also include education and healthcare as an absolute bare minimum (both of which are very expensive by an order of magnitude if they are delivered to any reasonable level, compared to the cost of simply providing water, food and shelter). Many would even extend this to include recreation, self-improvement (adult education/similar), provision for retirement, an ability to travel, etc. Some people even go so far as to suggest that a socialistic state could not force people to work in jobs they didn't want to do in order to receive these basics (all these ought to be provided to all citizens, irrespective of whether or not they choose to work). It's this scope creep of what constitutes "basics", that makes it expensive to support.

As the other point, motorcycles are inherently antisocial and depending on how totalitarian the given implementation of socialism was, might be outlawed for other reasons even if from a "cost"/luxury point of view they were considered acceptable:

First and foremost, the high accident rate and related injuries place a strain on the healthcare, which in any socialist state, the cost of which would be borne by the public.
The worry it causes friends/families of riders.
The distress a bad bike accident can cause onlookers (usually looks worse than your typical car crash)
They produce more pollution per user than public transport.
They require greater concentration/skill/courtesy from other road users to prevent accidents.
Limited luggage/passenger carrying capabililty makes them unlikely to be used in a socialistic capacity- giving others lifts, helping people move house, etc.
The majority of them are effectively "motorised toys", used predominantly for recreation, rather than serious transport, yet still impose the above disadvantages on others. In many ways, motorcycles used in this way could be deemed as an almost perfect example of a decadent possesion.

That's before you even consider the noise, the scaring grannies, the pools of oil collecting under them when they park, etc. ;)

[Grinch]

That's before you even consider the noise, the scaring grannies, the pools of oil collecting under them when they park, etc. ;)

That must just be your bike from all that wheeling, mines leak free at the moment thanks.

[Ceri JC]

That must just be your bike from all that wheeling, mines leak free at the moment thanks.

Mine's leak free at the moment too, turns out my mystery "oil leak" was actually a hole in the scottoiler (which was filled with old engine oil)delivery tubing. :)