Why socialism FAILS
Offline Quite simply, it disregards the ostensible fact that I owe nothing to any of you except the modicum of respect that I would have you give to me, as a non-criminal human being. ("you" and "me", in this case, refers to the 1st and 2nd parties of any social interaction imaginable)
The only socialist utopia in the World right now is Cuba. A lot of people try to move out of that place for some reason... 
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
- Login to post comments
Offline Here we go with the same old story again. I actually believed that the root problem is population, untill I grew a brain.
With your giant brain then, explain the math. We allow people to have large families, so many of them do. The amount of natural resources to sustain the population doesn't increase. So why isn't human misery(war, disease, poverty) going to be the limiting factor in controlling the populations? Isn't every political system without mandatory birth control going to reach the limit of what the environment can sustain?
That is an extremely crappy way to look at politics, because it destroys your ability and will to exert influence on the system.
Politics is the way we organise.
You're living in a fantasy land. Politics is all about deciding what the men with the guns force people to do an not do. It's like the health care bill, the only way it had any meaning was to give more power to IRS agents to force the citizens to do things against their will.
Because individuals knowing that they can lose a job, have a child etc. without having to fear for their health benefits and education is of great value to the society.
But then individuals also know they don't have to work hard or educate themselves in some field like healthcare. They can have kids and the state will take care of them. So you more than negate any benefits with guaranteed entitlements.
I just told you what the society gets back - performance and satisfaction of an end goal accomplished - an end goal that justifies it's existence: healthcare, housing, food etc. for all. Whatever comes on top of that, moon landings, space stations and all that, is what we obtain by spending the profit generated from investment in society.
But there is no guarantee people will pay it back. It a loan that people don't have to pay back, so they don't.
So people behave just like the corporations you despise so much. They take and never give back, because they can. The major flaw in your thinking is that somehow a single mother with no income is less 'selfish' than a oil company CEO. They're all selfish bastards. They all want a free lunch, but you can not have a system that allow this.
This would be true, if we weren't huans. Even if I just laid back and jerked off 24/7, I would have all my shit covered. Instead I work 100 hours a week, just like many other people I know. I enjoy having younger and older people consider me to be an example, which makes me look for unacceptable traits about myself very intensively. How the fuck can that happen according to your theory? It can't. According to your theory I should be floating in my own refuse watching sitcoms.
I would say you are an anomaly. People like you that don't mind subsidizing the rest of society usually don't have many children. You are too busy to have kids. Which is another reason why over time the system becomes unsustainable.
No, they are not the same. Corporations have nothing in common with conservatives and socialists. Conservatives and socialists agree on much more than you think.
Corporations are not human, but are simply mechanical structures designed for centralisation of power. Capitalists are not ideologues in service of human society at all, while both socialists and conservatives very much are.
I somewhat agree. Corporations are just organizations of selfish bastards(same as unions and socialists). The problem with the current system is that the individuals that own corporations can reap the profits, while not paying for their responsibilities. Look at AIG, when times were good these individuals made massive profits, when the company owed people tons of money, they claimed corporate immunity. Same with corporate polluters.
Just don't tell me that people that work the entitlement welfare system are in any way morally superior.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
- Login to post comments
Offline Here we go..
When in doubt, go straight for the dictionary:
......
Well, I digress a bit...
Yes, you do.
....
So you assert haplessly....
Again, you make the same mistake of confusing an informed opinion with an assumption or perhaps even a factual declaration. As well, you can't seem to keep your hands out of the 'ad hominem jar', which is fine because I've spent enough time on the internet to know how to counter ad homs and the logical errors that result in such highly fallacious debating strategies: "fight fire with fire."
You demonstrate a great deal of projection in your posts, your attempts to deconstruct my opinions and beliefs (not just mine, either) regarding socialism show a great deal of generalization, you seem to want to broadbrush the opponents of socialism together (you've done so quite a few times already), you tend to oversimplify the nature of other people's posts until they arbitrarily agree with you, and you apparently tend to use the term "we" far too much.
My argument being based on my perception of your state of mind, I can imagine how it might seem ad hominem. I am really claiming that your perception of human is very close to the worst of non-secular views and that in my book spells blinded. Where does it come from? Tunnel vision of your own limited experience, too much mainstream TV and too little proper history. What does it do? Cripples you intellectually. Is it ad hominem? Yes, it is. I could begin to recite the actual history of American labor throughout the last more than a century as recodred by late Howard Zinn, or talk about the constant pressure from below that has transformed our societies from direct tyranies to rule by deception with significant limitation to tyranical power even in the past 40 years - all these extremely significant and perfect examples for why your "people are flawed" bullshit is just that. Why do I procede with ad hominem instead? End conclusion is the same and I didn't feel particularly diplomatic last couple of days towards the original-sin argument against communal cohesion.
Now, since I've stated some ad homs of my own making, I perceive only two possibilities with regards to your intent in this thread: to "shoot out of the sky" the ideals and concepts opposed to socialism while subtly flaunting your ability to do so, to make counterarguments and suggestions about executing a system of an economics, or to simply poke holes at the arguments and points of view of others against socialism without a readily discernible goal in doing so - other than simply stroking your ego.
I am attacking your implicit narrow view of the world. We both might have been better off if I talked about the striking difference between what Kennedy could do in Vietnam and what Clinton, Bush and Obama could do in Iraq and how this is direct result of OUR human (yes, I really like plural, it has gotten us civil, women, minority, children, labor and many other rights) action, but I didn't. While I certainly do enjoy bashing cretins, I do not consider you one. If you insist, I can turn this from argument to just simple 'flaunting of' my 'ability', but I will lose interest fairly quickly.
I believe what I said was:
kap wrote:The dilemma your system of economics faces, imo, is that it is so readily sabotaged by the selfish impulses and desires that every human will inevitably exhibit at some point in their lives, regardless of intellectual limits, defect of psychology, and regardless of the circumstances such a person lives in.
Simplified:Human psychology as well as evolutionary psychology and recorded history suggest that humans ("we", as you call it) are equally willing to damage and destroy each other (in a myriad of ways) as they are willing to give "mutual aid" to each other. The modern, developed world exemplifies such behaviors in the form of "passive-aggressive" behavior, on behalf of... well, nearly everyone at some point.
Yea, I heard you the first time. I answered you as well: you simply lack education when it comes to what most of "we" have been doing for the past couple of 100 years. The power structures everywhere are horrified by the threat of organised population and with good reasons. WE have transformed tyranical regimes into a sham of a democracy - a significant move from overt to clandestine violence, limiting OUR power crazed leadership (which includes the corporate top) severely in how much damage they can do. Every step in human history is littered with progress towards pushing "leadership" towards "administration" role and viscious resistance from the few powerful intent on keeping the power. Your state of mind is the direct result of their resistance - lack of knowledge about WE.
"Syndicalism" can not function universally along such parameters, but on the microscale such a system of economics could actually function...
..and sometimes the little details do matter.
This is a hypothetical discussion about systems. I can not contribute to the crap discussion of "this can work, but this can't". I can only tell you what history says about organising and what I can see happening today - organising works and has brought fucking awesome results. Socialism not only works, but is alive and well and the reason why there is any protection for the population. Sure, there is resistance to it and your apathy is a symptom of that resistance, but it's a far cry from your "can not function".
For example... the strawman army you attempted to set up earlier:
ZuS wrote:I hear this argument against anarcho-socialism fairly often, which is strange considering complete lack of validity. We are what we are, that's true. So are monkeys and primates in the jungle.
I can watch Chimpanzees and instantly identify faults: hierarchal social structure, leaders hoard recreation and luxuries to themselves, females are often highly submissive to males, practice of medicine is imperfect, they are often riddled with animal parasites, and their ability to form social units is limited by the fact that there is only 3 or 4 roles for between the sexes.
Quote:When we watch primates, we don't have any moral judgement about how their society should function, because we accept them as they are."We" do?
Yes, we do. We watch them, examine their society, try to find rationale for why this is like this and not in some different way, we compare behavior of different species and try to identify reasons for why some groups of monkeys or primates are extremely non-violent and non-hierarchical and why others are just the opposite.
Going for faults off the bat is crippling and will blind you to subtle mechanics which constitute everything that happens around you.
Quote:When we look at ourselves, we suddenly identify "faults"."We"? Who is this "we" that you keep talking about? And how did simians become involved in this debate?
"We" in this case is all the mainstream debate you get to hear on our respective social systems - no history or genuine interest, just bullshit. Discussion of "inate faults" is perfect bullshit material, because it's so eazy to come up with and it makes people effectively politically catatonic. My mention of primates was an attempt to shake you out of this catatonic state, since we are much more matter-of-fact about their societies than our own. I failed miserably.
Quote:There is generally only one reason to classify things that exist as being a mistakeSomeone classified "things that exist" as a mistake? That's news to me...
What I meant is things in actual existence, like aggression, anger, selfishness, you know - the stuff you buff up your apathy with, without assuming, as you should, that you really have no idea what these things do for us. If it wasn't for anger and aggression on the part of a huge resistence movement both foreign and domestic, WE would now be napalm carpet bombing Iraq, like we did in Vietnam, you ignoramus. If it wasn't for selfishness, we wouldn't even be able to get angry and aggressive on issues like these, because empathy for others feeds on our knowledge of how we would feel given their position. Having these "faults" removed, you would be worse than a sociopath - non-human.
Quote:and that is only and exclusivelly because you have a vision of how things are "meant" to beAd hom=FAIL
Fail to convince maybe, but not fail to be correct.
Quote:a very religious notion.More ad homs... not terribly wise. It seems your point in discussion is passively attacking the position and viewpoints of others.
Quote:Religion turns this into the "man is flawed and needs guidance" doctrineStill strawman-ish, but I agree.
Quote:while the atheistsic version is more in the lines of "it's all fucked up by design, there's no changing it"Something is "being" designed here? By who? Or more astutely... by what?
Oh, right. A highly complex series of chain reactions involving organic molecules. That's not what I would term "designing", however.
Quote:- but in it's core there is a religious notion that some things are determined by devine decree.[sarcasm=Kapkao]Right. Atheists as individuals who have "religious notions"... I better go ahead and pass that to Hambydammit. He'd have a field day with it.[/sarcasm]
Dude, where do you think religion came from? God? Of course not. It came from us (yes, the plural again), atheists. There is no other option, buddy. There is no God, no Holly Spirit, no Divine intervention. WE did it all. If you think that you are allowed to feel exempt from our historical heritage because suddenly you're the enlightened atheists who doesn't produce religion, you are about as far gone into fantasy land as an average atheist has been since the begining of man. Now if you really want to talk about our "faults", I suggest you start right here: religious people are not religious, they are atheists that went just one illusion further. You might think I am stealing material from RD, but he said "God", not illusion - crucial difference. Once illusion is in there, the focus is no longer on how crazy religious people are, but just how religious atheists are.
While it is true that atheists generally tend to adopt a cynical attitude of artifice and existence, I'd argue that they (or "we", as you say) are also quite romantic when it comes to theists landing flat on their asses with regards to their inconsistent behavior and hyperillogical beliefs- particularly so in the case of 'fanatics'.
No, atheists do NOT tend to adopt a cynical attitude. Atheists tend to sleep in history class, which is why they invent bullshit pocket-theories to excuse their inaction. Not all blame is on atheists, they are plenty helped in the apathy department by the power structure keeping them away from knowledge and political action, but this doesn't change that bullshit is bullshit, regardless of it's shape. God almighty is one shape, man-is-flawed is another, all of it just pure pile of stinking crap based on lack of knowledge of where we come from and how we got here in purely social terms. All of it perfectly useless and perfectly atheistic.
Quote:Of course, both these conceptions are completely invalid when talking about the primates.Discussion about simians again? The mind reels.
Quote:Why do primates kill eachother some times? We list reasons having to do with teritorry, power structure, influence and social interaction and we try to discern what they do about it.Oh, I imagine it has a lot to do with the general biological impulse found amongst all animals with a central nervous system to destroy the weaker members of a given species, and sometimes the 'weaklings' of an entire clade (usually on the basis of instinctual behavior, but not always.)
Quote:Why do people kill each other some times? Oh, it must be the intrinsic fault of human nature - utter nonsense.Indeed, being an apex predator and realizing how this fact expresses itself in a particularly destructive manner throughout civilization, is certainly utter nonsense. failx10
I belive we have established that my attempt at comparing our societal discourse with a field of societal study less bullshit-infected failed.
Quote:Same goes for the few industrious and amoral individuals that will always fight to reach the top ranks of power by any means necessary.Well, that would include an overwhelming majority of our human ancestors then, as the only consistent virtue in human prehistory is survival. By the dawn of early civilization, it was 'survive and prosper' while still annihilating any threats to continued prosperity (including the 'weak' members of a species.)
We have some industrious and amoral individuals, but the combination is rare. They do a bit of good when controled, a lot of damage when not controled and are certainly not representative of any kind of majority. Most people I know still call me a conspiracy theorist when I tell them about stuff actually happening in the US banking sector, simply because the level of industriousness of the people I talk about totally boggles their mind.
Quote:There is no reason to see this as anything else than a consideration on our course of action, never an excuse for our inaction.I thought that's what my thread was attempting to do: create a speculative look at idyllic models of economy (albeit in a trollish and somewhat attention-seeking manner.)
You certainly convinced me of the total opposite.
Quote:This can not be an argument against anarcho-socialismIt can't? A person should not strive for personal excellence, even at the cost of the excellence of others? Well, your suggestion sounds idyllic... but is ignorant of quite a bit of recorded history and natural history.
(Hint: your posts in this thread indicate a strong pattern of seeking 'personal excellence', at the cost of dissing the ideas of others. I could demonstrate this if necessary.)
I think personal exelence is awesome - and quite the opposite of predatory powermongering. My attack on your position was not personal excelence of any sort, but the opposite - even more so when I know that an alternative way might have been both more effective, less aggravating and even enlightening.
Quote:it can only be a shaping factor of how to get to and maintan anarcho-socialism and perhaps even an argument FOR anarcho-socialism. How so?In summary, the argument that we shouldn't attempt to move towards some system because human nature doesn't allow it is akin to the argument that we shouldn't have universal healthcare because corporations don't allow it.
Sorry; absolutist pursuits of political determination do nothing to convince me of another person's viewpoint. Yes, I realize I'm going to sound like a huge hypocrite with that remark and several others, but I don't need to be perfect to understand enormous flaws in the arguments of others.
Actually, here I am not advocating for anarcho-socialism, but against the notion that our "inate faults" should have some barring effect on OUR man-created goals - plural, because most agree on most issues. I am an absolutist only in one aspect of social theory: atheists are the creators of all religions, kings of illusion, self-deception and excuses; WE should remember this and fight it every step of the way.
Quote:Well, if you wanted to limit influence by a few amoral industrious powermongers, fractioning power could be an essentual part of your strategy.For this to happen, it must be done on the basis of disempowering money lending and finance law. That is, in a more idyllic economic world, a person shouldn't have to be lent money in order to be educated, have a place to live, be treated for illness, purchase expensive consumables well within their means, have mobility, and be able to ensure a solid future for their offspring (that they consciously decide to bear!)
Secondly... I don't act on strategies, I simply try to make them. The whole 'deeds, not words' routine... I leave that up to everyone else.
For you to be able to even speculate on stuff like this, people in 18 and 19 hundreds were dieing in the streets fighting for political influence. Labor, citizen movements, women rights movements, all kinds of what is called "special interests" which constitute the entire population confronted the "national interest", aka. the few rich, and they got results streaching until today, despite enormous resistance and regression efforts from the former power holders. In early 1960es US just invaded Vietnam, no one bothered to mention it for years. By the time anti-war movement formed, Vietnam was destroyed. In 2003, before Bush even annonced invasion, world wide protest and condemnation followed on the heals of US domestic convulsion of revolt, resulting in huge constrains on violence in middle east - compared to Vietnam, Iraq is a paradise.
You won't learn this in your main stream history books, TV or main stream anything else. The world celebrates 1st of May as international labor day, honoring amongst others the 1930es American labor activists, while in US Reagan wiped it out from history and instituded Law Day, irony in it's finest. US educational institutions wiped any trace of political activism from history and filled the books with battle dates and "our forefathers" bullshit scriblings that today would be considered fascistoid.
Every time you get this feeling that communal cohesion is futile, you should consider how much bullshit you are being fed on minute-basis, smack yourself and get back on track. History does not stand still for respect of our "inate flaws" and it doesn't care much for our ignorance of it. While I recognize and take into consideration the danger of some aspects of human, I also recognise that these same aspects create communal cohesion. Socialism is really just communal cohesion elaborated, stuff that allowed us the huge leaps in past and can be expected to do no less in the future.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
- Login to post comments
Offline I don't understand capitalism.
When people talk to me about capitalism, they talk about how if you work really hard, you will become successful, the american dream and all that crap.
But surely the hardest working people on the planet are african people, walking miles and miles everyday just to get enough water to survive. Yet they don't have anything...
How is that fair, and how is that tolerated?
There is no god up in the sky tonight
No sign of heaven anywhere in sight
- Login to post comments
Offline
I thought to myself that there's no such thing as pure capitalism. In Cuba the socialist farmers sell their produce by the road side and get their lovely daughters to hold up fruit and veg as a highly effective form of marketing. Socialism has to be paid for or worked for, one way or another. It is interesting that capitalist societies do so much more work than they need to do in order to buy status items. Maybe we should work just hard enough and use only what we need. 6 months holiday a year would suit me fine. Some other sap can do my job the rest of the time while I go sailing in the islands, courtesy of the state (money earned by the the hard work of some one other than me).
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
- Login to post comments
Offline
I thought to myself that there's no such thing as pure capitalism. In Cuba the socialist farmers sell their produce by the road side and get their lovely daughters to hold up fruit and veg as a highly effective form of marketing. Socialism has to be paid for or worked for, one way or another. It is interesting that capitalist societies do so much more work than they need to do in order to buy status items. Maybe we should work just hard enough and use only what we need. 6 months holiday a year would suit me fine. Some other sap can do my job the rest of the time while I go sailing in the islands, courtesy of the state (money earned by the the hard work of some one other than me).
those cuban farmers by the side of the road have NOTHING to do with capitalism. They don't sell their fruits for profit, they sell them to survive, using their daughters to help them achieve that goal. And if they are selling them for profit, they are not socialist farmers, but capitalist farmers in a socialist society.
There is no god up in the sky tonight
No sign of heaven anywhere in sight
- Login to post comments
Offline
I can't help feeling those farmers could not sell produce for less than it cost them to grow it without starving. In any event, even in socialist societies transactions must take place, yes? Not every person can manufacture everything by themselves and an individual skill not shared by all others is no less vital than it would be in a nominally capitalist nation. Whether you are trading wheat for beef, work for work, work for food and lodging, there is trade going on and hopefully profit on the side. I did find Cuba odd. The government owned all the restaurants and retail was not existent as we know it but the markets were fantastic and in small towns everyone's home was a restaurant.
Strictly speaking capitalism is defined as plus signs on the P & L, with the bulk of profit going to the few but such things vary hugely. In Australia where I am, 60 per cent of total business is done by SMEs. Sure, there are big corporations but there are hundreds of thousands of sole traders, small business people, alternatives, farmers, tradesmen and women, contractors, whatever. I'm just not sure that in capitalist societies - this term generally being used to describe the sorts of societies we mostly live in - all levels of society are strictly capitalist as the dictionary defines it and the socialist abhors it, that all possible business models are classic capitalism. And in societies that are defined as socialist, there's a good deal of business being done.
You are not saying this by any means, but I think the Standard Oil model of capitalism while it still exists, cannot be used to colour any nation's entire economy. Then there's China. A socialist state that is ripping the economies of the developed nations of the world to pieces on a so-called Chinese socialist model that involves the generation of massive profit to government and private contractors who pay the biggest bribes. Thing are not cut and dried in a real economy is all I am saying.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
- Login to post comments
Offline
I can't help feeling those farmers could not sell produce for less than it cost them to grow it without starving. In any event, even in socialist societies transactions must take place, yes? Not every person can manufacture everything by themselves and an individual skill not shared by all others is no less vital than it would be in a nominally capitalist nation. Whether you are trading wheat for beef, work for work, work for food and lodging, there is trade going on and hopefully profit on the side. I did find Cuba odd. The government owned all the restaurants and retail was not existent as we know it but the markets were fantastic and in small towns everyone's home was a restaurant.
Strictly speaking capitalism is defined as plus signs on the P & L, with the bulk of profit going to the few but such things vary hugely. In Australia where I am, 60 per cent of total business is done by SMEs. Sure, there are big corporations but there are hundreds of thousands of sole traders, small business people, alternatives, farmers, tradesmen and women, contractors, whatever. I'm just not sure that in capitalist societies - this term generally being used to describe the sorts of societies we mostly live in - all levels of society are strictly capitalist as the dictionary defines it and the socialist abhors it, that all possible business models are classic capitalism. And in societies that are defined as socialist, there's a good deal of business being done.
You are not saying this by any means, but I think the Standard Oil model of capitalism while it still exists, cannot be used to colour any nation's entire economy. Then there's China. A socialist state that is ripping the economies of the developed nations of the world to pieces on a so-called Chinese socialist model that involves the generation of massive profit to government and private contractors who pay the biggest bribes. Thing are not cut and dried in a real economy is all I am saying.
The point I was trying to make about the farmers is not that they don't sell their goods for more than what they cost. Even if they sell something 50x deerer than what it cost them, as long as they need to do that to make ends meet, that is not capitalism. Capitalism is when you sell your products for more than they are worth, so you can afford a second car, or a flatscreen tv, ie things you don't need.
I believe in trade ofcourse, it is vital to our wellbeing, but I don't see why there should be profit. And by profit I mean this: take a farmer that farms wheat, and goes to the market to start trading, he trades all the wheat he needs to trade, buys everything he needs to buy with it, and at the end of his trading, he has something left, for which he has no direct use. It is explained simplisticly, but that is what I think of profit: something you don't need, which other people DO need. If everyone gave what they Don't need to someone who needs it, the world would be a far better place. That is my vision of socialism, as a humble musicologist who has no real knowledge of economy. It may be naïve, but it's way more fair than everyone for themselves.
There is no god up in the sky tonight
No sign of heaven anywhere in sight
- Login to post comments
Offline
I think such a world could exist in a western country - or you could live a life such as the one you're espousing quite readily. I'm a bit more selfish that you seem to be but even so I do contribute to some charities as well as to my jesus-loving mother who insists I am hell-bound. This latter is a great trial to me. Maybe we all need to try a bit harder. I haven't succumbed to a flat screen TV yet. The 80cm CRT is too heavy to get down the stairs...
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
- Login to post comments
Offline My view of the world is also the main reason why I don't bother with religion: it is something we don't need, and costs the world a ridiculous amount of money, which could be spent on poor people.
There is no god up in the sky tonight
No sign of heaven anywhere in sight
- Login to post comments
Offline I don't understand capitalism.
When people talk to me about capitalism, they talk about how if you work really hard, you will become successful, the american dream and all that crap.
But surely the hardest working people on the planet are african people, walking miles and miles everyday just to get enough water to survive. Yet they don't have anything...
How is that fair, and how is that tolerated?
(Native) Africans mostly have only themselves to blame for their current hardships. Unless you count South Africa, or the recent genocide in Darfur: with most of the sub-saharan lands over there, it has been one black, crooked shithead or another in charge of their various government(s) for at least the past 70 years (since WWII and the end of Europe's colonization of the rest of the world.)
You can't force western living on a foreign culture, and a person rarely has freedom unless they demand it, first. The natives of sub-sahara Africa have (as a collective culture) repeatedly demonstrated they want neither.
As far as "tolerated"... how is any hardship tolerated? The industrial era has brought about *quite* a few luxurious means of living, but that's all it is: luxury.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
- Login to post comments
Offline
I just read through this entire thread, and I am surprised by how many people equate capitalism with the idea that people who work the hardest will become the richest. This is just simply not true. Capitalism does not say or imply that.
Capitalism is a system in which the factors of production are privately owned. It means nothing more than that. It is true, that in this system, there is an incentive for hard work. However, this incentive is not necessarily a monetary reward, there are incentives for other things as well, and there are other factors which influence wealth.
Saying that you disagree with capitalism because the hardest working people are not the richest is not an argument against capitalism because capitalism does not imply that the hardest working people will become the richest.
I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.
- Login to post comments
Offline Fishman wrote:I don't understand capitalism.
When people talk to me about capitalism, they talk about how if you work really hard, you will become successful, the american dream and all that crap.
But surely the hardest working people on the planet are african people, walking miles and miles everyday just to get enough water to survive. Yet they don't have anything...
How is that fair, and how is that tolerated?
(Native) Africans mostly have only themselves to blame for their current hardships. Unless you count South Africa, or the recent genocide in Darfur: with most of the sub-saharan lands over there, it has been one black, crooked shithead or another in charge of their various government(s) for at least the past 70 years (since WWII and the end of Europe's colonization of the rest of the world.)
You can't force western living on a foreign culture, and a person rarely has freedom unless they demand it, first. The natives of sub-sahara Africa have (as a collective culture) repeatedly demonstrated they want neither.
As far as "tolerated"... how is any hardship tolerated? The industrial era has brought about *quite* a few luxurious means of living, but that's all it is: luxury.
That comment really blew my mind. Are you implying that the troubles for Africa started around WWII or what? It may have been one black crooked shithead or another in charge for at least 70 years, but it has been one WHITE crooked shithead in charge the centuries before. A white shithead that has no business being there in the first place! How can you say that african people only have themself to blame? If there is no soil to farm on, and no water to irrigate, you just can't farm, how is that the african's fault? Then the white people come and steal all the diamonds, so they sure as hell can't make money from that...
And yes, hardship is tolerated: When I see a guy in a expensive suit walking out of his house, thinking about WHICH car he's going to use to go GOLFING, I see hardship being tolerated. Give one of those cars to an african, so he can DRIVE to the nearest water source, damnit!
There is no god up in the sky tonight
No sign of heaven anywhere in sight
- Login to post comments
Offline I just read through this entire thread, and I am surprised by how many people equate capitalism with the idea that people who work the hardest will become the richest. This is just simply not true. Capitalism does not say or imply that.
Capitalism is a system in which the factors of production are privately owned. It means nothing more than that. It is true, that in this system, there is an incentive for hard work. However, this incentive is not necessarily a monetary reward, there are incentives for other things as well, and there are other factors which influence wealth.
Saying that you disagree with capitalism because the hardest working people are not the richest is not an argument against capitalism because capitalism does not imply that the hardest working people will become the richest.
True, but I'm still a little irritated with how this thread got bumped up over some newbie who has pre-occupation with "Social Justice".
"Social Justice" is primarily why I find socialism disgusting at multiple levels.
Life isn't fair, you're not special, shit sucks, deal with it and get used to it...
(AKA "The Athropic Principal", at least in underlines, when Answers in Gene Simmons still had it. 
)
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
- Login to post comments
Offline Communism - can't work
Socialism - in the purest economic sense - can't work
Capitalism - not a place we would want to live. For eye witness accounts of the effects of a "free market" society, see any Charles Dickens book, many novels of the late 19th - early 20th century, Free to Choose especially the chapter on Hong Kong, or Adam Smith's discussion of the "captains of industry" colluding to form monopolies.
What we need is a blended society. Not too much of any one idea, but a reasonably comfortable blend of all.
And I have no intent of continuing to argue about this.
Im very interested in politics lately. IT has been my battle because I really believe that where are going to destroy civilization if we continue on this path. What do you mean by "blended society"?. Please elaborate
BTW - I believe the best politics in the world comes from Denmark and Norway
- Login to post comments
Offline Kapkao wrote:Quite simply, it disregards the ostensible fact that I owe nothing to any of you except the modicum of respect that I would have you give to me, as a non-criminal human being. ("you" and "me", in this case, refers to the 1st and 2nd parties of any social interaction imaginable)
The only socialist utopia in the World right now is Cuba. A lot of people try to move out of that place for some reason...
The reason is mainly overpopulation. It's an island with finite size and finite resources. People like to have lots of children, so do the math, any system is going to run into resource limitation problems without mandatory birth control.
The problem with socialism and any other political system is that it is not based on a rational social contract. Politics is all about one group of people getting something for nothing, not something for something. About one group getting a subsidy or a special privilege at everyone else's expense. Politics is just war by other means.
The socialist want guaranteed health care, housing, food, etc..., and they are not willing to give anything of equal value back to the society that gives them these things. So it is unsustainable. They want free health care with out a requirement to get an education or work. This is not a rational social contract. You end up over time with more people looking for a free subsidy and fewer people willing to subsidize.
Then there are corporations and conservative individuals that demand special ownership land and resource rights that they don't have to pay for. And they end up monopolizing these resources.
So it seems to me the socialists and capitalists are pretty much the same. They all want something for nothing, something they don't have to earn. The only difference is what they want for nothing.
Essentially, the most astute post I have come across in this thread.
Anarcho-syndicalism made sense to me, too, save for the fact that its proponents (apparently) want it applied at a global scale.
My main 'gripe' with Atheism, is that it's just so leftist-dominated.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
- Login to post comments
Offline Im very interested in politics lately. IT has been my battle because I really believe that where are going to destroy civilization if we continue on this path. What do you mean by "blended society"?. Please elaborate
Well, technically this thread is not about politics, it is about economics. Socialism (and capitalism) is an economic system which can function under many different political systems. Our decisions about which economic system to use are influenced by politics, and economic systems do influence the power a government has, but they are still separate ideas from political systems.
As for what a "blended society" is, I can't speak for what cj meant, but I would have to assume that she was saying some parts of the economy should function in a capitalist way while others should function in a socialist way. In capitalism, the factors of production are privately owned, and in socialism, the factors of production are publicly owned. A blended society would be one in which some factors of production are privately owned, and some factors of production are publicly owned.
BTW - I believe the best politics in the world comes from Denmark and Norway
That is interesting because both of those countries have parliamentary systems of government. It would seem that this is a statement of support for a parliamentary system of government. (Unless by "politics" you were referring to the culture which leads to the actions of politicians from those countries. Then this wouldn't be a support for any system of government, but it would be a way of supporting the cultures of Denmark and Norway.)
I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.
- Login to post comments
Offline Teralek wrote:Im very interested in politics lately. IT has been my battle because I really believe that where are going to destroy civilization if we continue on this path. What do you mean by "blended society"?. Please elaborate
Well, technically this thread is not about politics, it is about economics. Socialism (and capitalism) is an economic system which can function under many different political systems. Our decisions about which economic system to use are influenced by politics, and economic systems do influence the power a government has, but they are still separate ideas from political systems.
As for what a "blended society" is, I can't speak for what cj meant, but I would have to assume that she was saying some parts of the economy should function in a capitalist way while others should function in a socialist way. In capitalism, the factors of production are privately owned, and in socialism, the factors of production are publicly owned. A blended society would be one in which some factors of production are privately owned, and some factors of production are publicly owned.
Teralek wrote:BTW - I believe the best politics in the world comes from Denmark and Norway
That is interesting because both of those countries have parliamentary systems of government. It would seem that this is a statement of support for a parliamentary system of government. (Unless by "politics" you were referring to the culture which leads to the actions of politicians from those countries. Then this wouldn't be a support for any system of government, but it would be a way of supporting the cultures of Denmark and Norway.)
Read my reply towards EXC- the main fault of socialism is the "Something for nothing" aspect of it, and the asinine bleeding hearts who favor it.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
- Login to post comments
Offline Read my reply towards EXC- the main fault of socialism is the "Something for nothing" aspect of it, and the asinine bleeding hearts who favor it.
I disagree with this criticism EXC offers of socialism. EXC says that socialism is flawed because it often leads to the practice of giving people things like health care housing and other necessities for free. This is getting something for nothing and an irrational social contract in his(her?) opinion. I think that this is not the case because many prosperous people often willingly give up their resources to help others. These people do experience a benefit from the feeling that they have performed a moral action. So, when a government decides to implement a plan of giving people something such as health care, (ideally) it is only taking an action which reflects the collective will of the people it represents. The people who this government represents do receive something in return because they get an increase in happiness from the feeling that they have fulfilled their perceived moral obligation of helping those who lack necessities.
As per EXC's criticism of capitalism, I'm not sure I understand it. I don't think we ever give corporations ownership contracts for free...
edit: On second thought, some corporations that are involved in producing goods/services which create positive externalities are given things for free. However, this is just a method of correcting market failures and is clearly not a very good argument against capitalism.
I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.
- Login to post comments
Offline (Unless by "politics" you were referring to the culture which leads to the actions of politicians from those countries. Then this wouldn't be a support for any system of government, but it would be a way of supporting the cultures of Denmark and Norway.)
Touché!! I speak of politics as I speak of economy. These things are so intertwined that I can barely see the difference!
Yes I came to the conclusion that you can't have an optimal socio-economic system without a mature and highly educated community. I support the socio-economic cultures of Denmark and Norway. I think we need to redefine the needs and the search for happiness thing. That's why I put that movie on my previous post. I vividly recommend it.
I don't agree with that critic of socialism. Both countries I've mentioned ARE sustainable, they HAVE been so for many years with free health care, education, etc. They are not purely socialists, they are mixed systems. And that's their secret! With a strong sense of justice. People GIVE high taxes and RECEIVE free welfare.
I've just heard that in Mondragon (the biggest cooperative corporation in the world) the top manager earns ONLY 3 times more than the janitor! Can you imagine if this where true for ALL enterprises?! There would be a unprecedent economic boom on Earth! Isn't this Anarcho-syndicalism? I don't know much about political theory unfortunately but Anarcho-syndicalism seems like a branch of socialism... semantics again...
I'm also a supporter of mandatory population control... we're going to have a serious problem on our hands very soon if we don't do something about it... it's already happening... if we solve population problem is halfway to make Earth a better world to live in.
- Login to post comments
Offline As for what a "blended society" is, I can't speak for what cj meant, but I would have to assume that she was saying some parts of the economy should function in a capitalist way while others should function in a socialist way. In capitalism, the factors of production are privately owned, and in socialism, the factors of production are publicly owned. A blended society would be one in which some factors of production are privately owned, and some factors of production are publicly owned.
That is exactly what I meant. To use common sense to determine what is most profitable for all concerned.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
- Login to post comments
Offline Whatthedeuce wrote:As for what a "blended society" is, I can't speak for what cj meant, but I would have to assume that she was saying some parts of the economy should function in a capitalist way while others should function in a socialist way. In capitalism, the factors of production are privately owned, and in socialism, the factors of production are publicly owned. A blended society would be one in which some factors of production are privately owned, and some factors of production are publicly owned.
That is exactly what I meant. To use common sense to determine what is most profitable for all concerned.
That pretty sums up the Skandinavian model 
- Login to post comments
Offline But people I seriously think the welfare states of northern Europe and western world in general are under a serious threat now!
You see... we have unequal globalization! Any corporation can go anywhere in search for maximum profits. To countries with no regulations, with cheap energy and cheap labour. Western world is getting stripped of its means of production. When I talk about unequal globalization it's because the Chinese can't go freely to any country, as a corporation, in search for better living conditions.
Unfortunately I only see 2 solutions for this... closed borders for all or same rules for all (same wages, same regulations)
What's more nightmarish is that some groups are claiming that the fault of the system failure is too much regulation... when it's the exact opposite
You may say that you have no faith, but the economy has! Economy has a blind faith on growth! That's irrational and is going to destroy Earth!
- Login to post comments
Offline Whatthedeuce wrote:Teralek wrote:Im very interested in politics lately. IT has been my battle because I really believe that where are going to destroy civilization if we continue on this path. What do you mean by "blended society"?. Please elaborate
Well, technically this thread is not about politics, it is about economics. Socialism (and capitalism) is an economic system which can function under many different political systems. Our decisions about which economic system to use are influenced by politics, and economic systems do influence the power a government has, but they are still separate ideas from political systems.
As for what a "blended society" is, I can't speak for what cj meant, but I would have to assume that she was saying some parts of the economy should function in a capitalist way while others should function in a socialist way. In capitalism, the factors of production are privately owned, and in socialism, the factors of production are publicly owned. A blended society would be one in which some factors of production are privately owned, and some factors of production are publicly owned.
Teralek wrote:BTW - I believe the best politics in the world comes from Denmark and Norway
That is interesting because both of those countries have parliamentary systems of government. It would seem that this is a statement of support for a parliamentary system of government. (Unless by "politics" you were referring to the culture which leads to the actions of politicians from those countries. Then this wouldn't be a support for any system of government, but it would be a way of supporting the cultures of Denmark and Norway.)
Read my reply towards EXC- the main fault of socialism is the "Something for nothing" aspect of it, and the asinine bleeding hearts who favor it.
let's say taxes are increased, so that everyone can receive free dental care: everyone pays for it, even though not everyone will need to receive the benefits for it. You could say it's unfair to those who never need dental care. But say that this tax increased isn't there, and you need an expensive treatment, and you cannot afford it, because you have to pay for it all by yourself -> no dental care for you.
My point is: you cannot predict the future, you will not know if you're going to need it or not, and that tax increase gives you the insurance, that IF something happens to you, you will have the means to overcome it.
Why would you not want that?
There is no god up in the sky tonight
No sign of heaven anywhere in sight
- Login to post comments
Offline Read my reply towards EXC- the main fault of socialism is the "Something for nothing" aspect of it, and the asinine bleeding hearts who favor it.
Kap - you are confusing social welfare with socialism - the economic theory as proposed by Karl Marx. The two are not the same. Socialism is "the state owns the means of production". And can not and does not work for all "means of production" however defined. It works well for some "means of production" where we are talking about essential services - clean air, clean water, perhaps health care and so on.
Social welfare is an ongoing adjustment of resources vs costs vs benefits. Is there a benefit to having free public schools? I believe so as many people could not afford to educate their children at private schools. And there is a need for people to be educated well enough to do business in our economy. Is there a benefit for publicly-funded libraries? I believe so. Not everyone can afford to buy new or used books and videos and CDs and DVDs and again, information is always beneficial to the general public. And so on.
We can if you wish, argue about health care. But it is a moot point as what was implemented in the US is a regulation of the existing privately held for-profit health insurance industry. No socialism was implemented. Even the health exchange is privately held - the government is going to contribute money but is not taking over health insurance.
Or we can discuss SSI and food stamps and housing assistance and so on. Didn't you once say you can not work and you are unemployed? Is your family independently wealthy? Are you a trust fund baby? Who pays for your life? Or not, I really don't care if you are on SSI and get housing assistance and health care through your state's Medicaid system and food stamps and ..... You don't need to tell me. I am willing to contribute what little bit I currently pay into taxes to help support people who are unable to work or unable to find work. When I finally get a job - and I will get one one of these days - I'm willing to pay more. Sure there is some abuse of the system - and I think it is more than what many democrats say but less than what many republicans say. That doesn't mean there aren't plenty of people who would prefer to support themselves but due to circumstances they can not control are unable to do so. I'd rather see the crazies in housing and medicated and fed than roaming the streets yelling at the lampposts.
There are lots on the forum who disagree with me - I really don't know how you can say with a straight face that most atheists are liberals. Seems to me there are plenty of all points of view.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
- Login to post comments
Offline ShadowOfMan wrote:Haha. Thanks. And great response. Generically assertive hit it right on the head. But it all makes sense in my head.
My point is that Socialism is like Ranch dressing. It has it's place and certainly shouldn't be put on everything.
My point is that anarcho-syndicalism sounds workable... up until you consider the inherent selfishness and xenophobia of our species. E.g. Look at the history of 'civilized' commercial activity... someone always rises up, with an inner cadre of supporters to monopolize wealth and sometimes, even power. This happens, because EVERYONE wants to be 'Emperor' of a political unit of some sort; a province, a kingdom, a nation, an 'Action Commitee', a lobbying effort, or sometimes.... the leader of a theocratic (Papal?) state.
Point being: we are hard-wired from the moment of developing a centralized nervous system to be fearful of foreign ideas, fearful of change, and disgusted with people who become aggressive around our family members. We have the 'village mentality' in us since our birth... it is not possible for the common person to consider the entire human race in the very limited scope of their actions.
And this is a bloody shame... since Mutual Aid is also not just a theoretical means of economy, but also a desire that is easily instilled in us, if done early enough in life. However, since the only morality in people becomes more and more like "every man for themselves" as the decades roll onwards, it is still an ideal that can not be acted on.
One that is doomed to inevitable failure.
I don't like to agree with you on this... but I do 
How can we overcome this?! We need a mentality change! Quickly!!!!!!
- Login to post comments
Offline I've just heard that in Mondragon (the biggest cooperative corporation in the world) the top manager earns ONLY 3 times more than the janitor! Can you imagine if this where true for ALL enterprises?! There would be a unprecedent economic boom on Earth! Isn't this Anarcho-syndicalism? I don't know much about political theory unfortunately but Anarcho-syndicalism seems like a branch of socialism... semantics again...
I don't know about the specific company you are referring to, but in most corporations, the salary of the CEOs and other management personell are very misleading. Most of their money comes from stock options and bonuses.
I'm also a supporter of mandatory population control... we're going to have a serious problem on our hands very soon if we don't do something about it... it's already happening... if we solve population problem is halfway to make Earth a better world to live in.
I disagree with you here. I think that population problems are only going to be serious at isolated local levels and could be more humanely solved by relocation programs. Even without some sort of Malthusian disaster, the total population of the world is not going to increase indefinitely. This is because fertility rates fall as standard of living and female empowerment increases. By the best estimates we currently have, the world population is not likely to ever get significantly higher than it will be in 2050. See the UN's population projections if you are more interested.
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf
I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.
- Login to post comments
I would have to agree with Tapey to a point. As an anti-capitalist, I would view all capitalist institutions as part of the overall system, which I think is one based on exploitation of other people's labor. Yet Mom-N-Pop shops, if organized in a way in which no other people are renting their labor hours to them for undervalued wages, are not the most pressing issue at hand compared to global capitalist organizations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proudhon
Pierre Proudhon was the first person to use the moniker of "anarchist". He created the idea for the first credit unions, which, sadly, were then watered down to point where they would no longer endanger capital. I think what was so important about him was his seminal work "Property is Theft". What may seem as a contradiction at first glance, is that the first part is "Property is Theft" which is then followed up by "Property is Liberty".
Property is theft is about the use of privately owned land and factories, where people must rent their labor to another for wages, the owner getting far more then the people doing the work of production. Yet property is liberty is about the people who own personal possessions, like tools or small time crafts, which enable them to make a living off of them without using other people's labor for their own accumulation of capital. I think the distinction is very important. The difference is when that property, like small personal possessions, is used to make your own living, instead of having others work for you for wages, and in turn get less out of it then you.
So, in my opinion, Mom-N-Pop shops are not necessarily evil for practicing under the organizational structures of capitalism, the problems come where they start leasing human bodies for their own accumulation of capital.
This reminds me, back in 1999, living in the Seattle area and growing up with bedtime stories of the I.W.W. and labor struggles, I went to help stop the WTO meetings. The Black Bloc, completely demonised in the press, made it their mission to actually protect the small Mom-N-Pop shops, since their enemies were the multinationals. I remember seeing them smash the windows of McDonalds, NikeTown and the different banks, then completely bypass the small shops around it, going as far as to tell the owners standing at their doors that their shops were safe while they were there. Then I saw the news coverage and it was totally different. I went to school the next day and heard this completely different story from my social studies teacher, who I then preceeded to argue against from my personal prospective of being there. It was an interesting and sucessful time in my life seeing as we shut the meeting down, and however bad media coverage was, it got people around the country thinking about what was getting 75,000 people so agitated. Then seeing the opposite of what I saw in the streets in the media, it got this, at the time 13 year old kid, to really think hard about exactly who was behind the media and their agenda.
Here is a great song by a Seattle area folk singer named Jim Page called "Didn't We". He was there as well and wrote the song about the historic event. He used to play a lot at the Pike Place Market with Artis the Spoon Man, who is the influence for the Soundgarden song "Spoonman".
Or if folk isn't your thing, here is a song by the Blue Scholars called "50k Deep". They are the kind of hip-hop that even those who are not fans of hip-hop can get into. Intellectual hip-hop.
EDIT: Added second video i didn't think of before I stupidly hit the "Post comment" button. XD
"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!
The argument over which economic system is perfect is moot. Economies are living and evolving systems which should encompass all of the best traits available. At this point in your history, a hybrid version of capitalism and socialism is necessary. Governments should not be making Playstations and private interests should not be handling welfare interests like healthcare. Such vital interests should be not-for-profit. Bottom-line! The people should own and control national resources including the airwaves and the internet, their availability to shelter, food, doctors, police, fireman, teachers, etc. If we all need it to survive, we should collectively share the burden. If you want the latest and greatest widget, that is a private matter. If IKEA put your local mom and pop out of business, it's because they where not strong enough. Oh well. We can't stop that from happening ever, ever, ever.
There a reason to not trust managerial skills of the government. Our private schools could certainly use some work. But thats just because Americans don't demand better services like other, more patriotic countries do. We prefer shoddy government so our lone wolves can say, "Told you government doesn't work!" But with public demand, you could have the greatest school, the healthiest people, and be loved around the world for your good will. Haha. Instead your people choose to be the largest manufacturers and exporters of terrorism and then claim to be ignorant of this.
A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce
Of all the illogical arguments/rants I've heard over the years against the world's Sole Remaining Superpower, this easily ranks the most nonsensical and generically assertive.
You'd have done a MUCH better job pointing out how petulent, selfish, and arrogant we have become as a Nation with two distinct factions readily to grind each other's foundations to dust (because we have)
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Haha. Thanks. And great response. Generically assertive hit it right on the head. But it all makes sense in my head.
My point is that Socialism is like Ranch dressing. It has it's place and certainly shouldn't be put on everything.
A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce
i wonder why
My point is that anarcho-syndicalism sounds workable... up until you consider the inherent selfishness and xenophobia of our species. E.g. Look at the history of 'civilized' commercial activity... someone always rises up, with an inner cadre of supporters to monopolize wealth and sometimes, even power. This happens, because EVERYONE wants to be 'Emperor' of a political unit of some sort; a province, a kingdom, a nation, an 'Action Commitee', a lobbying effort, or sometimes.... the leader of a theocratic (Papal?) state.
Point being: we are hard-wired from the moment of developing a centralized nervous system to be fearful of foreign ideas, fearful of change, and disgusted with people who become aggressive around our family members. We have the 'village mentality' in us since our birth... it is not possible for the common person to consider the entire human race in the very limited scope of their actions.
And this is a bloody shame... since Mutual Aid is also not just a theoretical means of economy, but also a desire that is easily instilled in us, if done early enough in life. However, since the only morality in people becomes more and more like "every man for themselves" as the decades roll onwards, it is still an ideal that can not be acted on.
One that is doomed to inevitable failure.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Man, I agree with everything you said. Now if we can just get the rest of the nutjobs in the US to be sensible, we'd all be better off.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
As someone who feels and is acting a good bit like a nutjob atm,
I resemble that remark!
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Everything about such debates and the decisions which must be made is arbitrary. But as a democratic society, we must deal with the majority decision. There is most definitely a tyranny in this model. With the incredible populations we have we need government, although it would be ideal to have a direct democracy sans "leaders".
There is no reason in the world that our economic system has to be one way or the other. Certain institutions are better handled by the government and others better handled by private interests. We are better able as people to handle failures dealing with the government, than we are with failures of private institutions where our only option is to change brands.
If Blue Cross won't pay for your surgery, all you can do is appeal the board all by yourself or change providers to another company that will also deny you. If the government run healthcare system is failing patients, it is the collective responsibility to take to the streets and shut the system down until it is fixed. If the doctors aren't making a living wage (haha!) then they unionize and do the same. Government is the best system to deal with the public welfare.
If American school systems are not up to par, then it is the fault of American citizens for allowing schools to go unfunded. It is a problem with the secular majority for allowing creationism in science class. The answer is certainly and clearly not to privatize schools and to further cut public school budgets.
A country is only as healthy as it's sickest. Only as intelligent as it's dimmest.
A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce
I don't think that so much pessimism is required. Think about this. In just no more then 200,000 years, our species went from accepting 10-20 individuals as "in group" to accepting millions and upwards of billions into that same club along lins of nation, ethnic group, religion, etc. So I don't think it would be an unnatural step somewhere down the line for humans start to, more and more, view themselves based on species and not on locality or nationality.
And mutual aid is the only reason any bands of humans survived to the point in which they could make our lives possible, so I have a great deal of respect for it.
"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!
As do I, but I don't see it getting past the generalized nature of our species (Homo Sapiens Sapiens)... from the extinction of Neanderthals, to the rise of... us, basically. We arose from savage, highly untamed cultures to make our own current (heavily globalized and often reckless) culture possible.
IMO, faulty economics will ALWAYS arise from faulty cultures and societal norms. But the thing is... you may very well have a point regarding "mutual aid". The dilemma your system of economics faces, imo, is that it is so readily sabotaged by the selfish impulses and desires that every human will inevitably exhibit at some point in their lives, regardless of intellectual limits, defect of psychology, and regardless of the circumstances such a person lives in.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I hear this argument against anarcho-socialism fairly often, which is strange considering complete lack of validity. We are what we are, that's true. So are monkeys and primates in the jungle. When we watch primates, we don't have any moral judgement about how their society should function, because we accept them as they are. When we look at ourselves, we suddenly identify "faults".
There is generally only one reason to classify things that exist as being a mistake and that is only and exclusivelly because you have a vision of how things are "meant" to be, a very religious notion. Religion turns this into the "man is flawed and needs guidance" doctrine, while the atheistsic version is more in the lines of "it's all fucked up by design, there's no changing it" - but in it's core there is a religious notion that some things are determined by devine decree.
Of course, both these conceptions are completely invalid when talking about the primates. Why do primates kill eachother some times? We list reasons having to do with teritorry, power structure, influence and social interaction and we try to discern what they do about it. Why do people kill each other some times? Oh, it must be the intrinsic fault of human nature - utter nonsense.
Same goes for the few industrious and amoral individuals that will always fight to reach the top ranks of power by any means necessary. There is no reason to see this as anything else than a consideration on our course of action, never an excuse for our inaction. This can not be an argument against anarcho-socialism, it can only be a shaping factor of how to get to and maintan anarcho-socialism and perhaps even an argument FOR anarcho-socialism. How so? Well, if you wanted to limit influence by few amoral industrious powermongers, fractioning power could be an essentual part of your strategy.
In summary, the argument that we shouldn't attempt to move towards some system because human nature doesn't allow it is akin to the argument that we shouldn't have universal healthcare because corporations don't allow it.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
The reason is mainly overpopulation. It's an island with finite size and finite resources. People like to have lots of children, so do the math, any system is going to run into resource limitation problems without mandatory birth control.
The problem with socialism and any other political system is that it is not based on a rational social contract. Politics is all about one group of people getting something for nothing, not something for something. About one group getting a subsidy or a special privilege at everyone else's expense. Politics is just war by other means.
The socialist want guaranteed health care, housing, food, etc..., and they are not willing to give anything of equal value back to the society that gives them these things. So it is unsustainable. They want free health care with out a requirement to get an education or work. This is not a rational social contract. You end up over time with more people looking for a free subsidy and fewer people willing to subsidize.
Then there are corporations and conservative individuals that demand special ownership land and resource rights that they don't have to pay for. And they end up monopolizing these resources.
So it seems to me the socialists and capitalists are pretty much the same. They all want something for nothing, something they don't have to earn. The only difference is what they want for nothing.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
This crap again eh?
Not an argument against socialism.
Cuba isn't socialist.
Yes, it can.
Mostly socialist with a touch of capitalism for growth stimulation and competition is the perfect blend.
Yeah, corporations are so much better. Wait, they're MUCH worse. Oh well.
Easily. In fact, it increases efficiency and decreases waste, making much more profit than capitalism could ever hope to.
Hmm. Absolutely no real arguments against socialism. Not that I'm surprised mind you...
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Here we go with the same old story again. I actually believed that the root problem is population, untill I grew a brain.
That is an extremely crappy way to look at politics, because it destroys your ability and will to exert influence on the system.
Politics is the way we organise. It can be the way we land on the moon, or the way we live in relative peace and stability for a long time, or generally a way to push trivialities into background, so that we can focus on more important issues. Take healthcare for example - we don't want to have debates about health care. We want it just taken care of as inexpensively as possible. It's not a business opportunity, it is a COST of PERFORMANCE. To perform at some level, you just have to be healthy enough. There is a large price attached to increase of performance of individual members. The price is whatever it takes to get to a certain level of education, health, social status and longevity. Now, you can argue that "free market" can take care of that, but I just told you: it is NOT a business opportunity, it can NOT operate with a profit by itself. Only if you look at the increase in overall performance does it makes sense and this overall performance is only something the entire society can benefit from - and should therefore pay for. You can say that individuals benefit as well, but that's why they pay taxes.
If some pople do not perform at the given level despite having all the public benefits, this should be a part of the calculation, but other than that it's irelevant. Why? Because individuals knowing that they can lose a job, have a child etc. without having to fear for their health benefits and education is of great value to the society. It relieves stress levels, which is increasingly one of the largest reasons for sick leaves in developed countries. It also brings diversity into the legislative bodies and leadership.
On top of the performance increase, the quality of life that comes from knowing that everyone has proper healthcare is an end in itself for our human society. Things like these mandate politics and there is no "war with other means" concept that will change that.
I just told you what the society gets back - performance and satisfaction of an end goal accomplished - an end goal that justifies it's existence: healthcare, housing, food etc. for all. Whatever comes on top of that, moon landings, space stations and all that, is what we obtain by spending the profit generated from investment in society.
This would be true, if we weren't huans. Even if I just laid back and jerked off 24/7, I would have all my shit covered. Instead I work 100 hours a week, just like many other people I know. I enjoy having younger and older people consider me to be an example, which makes me look for unacceptable traits about myself very intensively. How the fuck can that happen according to your theory? It can't. According to your theory I should be floating in my own refuse watching sitcoms.
I came from Bosnia a long time ago, mentally not much different than a wild animal, with only skin on my back and I almost lost that too. Free healthcare, education and a minimum of social status did 50% of what's necessary to keep me out of jail, I did the rest. If all that wasn't there, I would have been a criminal today - a very effective and dangerous one.
You might say: well some people do lie in their refuse or are criminals on welfare - I say that that's the cost society pays for the benefit of a level of performance and end goals accomplished and these are undeniable.
No, they are not the same. Corporations have nothing in common with conservatives and socialists. Conservatives and socialists agree on much more than you think.
Corporations are not human, but are simply mechanical structures designed for centralisation of power. Capitalists are not ideologues in service of human society at all, while both socialists and conservatives very much are.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
I'm going to have to grade this a 'big fat strawman army', mainly because it deals with so many things outside the scope of my post- the same one you responded to. Also, I smell quite a few ad hominems nestled in there as well. Subtle ad homs, but irrational just the same.
And yes, being a realist does not necessarily mean "generally opposed to this idea out of principle". It simply means "I don't believe this will work." Nothing more, nothing less.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
My post deals with the core of your post - the assumption of "faulty cultures and societal norms".
Except that that is not what you said. You said that it will not work because culture, societal norms and people are faulty. I pointed out that that is not an argumnet.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
Speak for yourself...
Summary, generic, and hypersimplistic dismissals !=logical argument. In your defense (or rather, against it), it's possible you don't feel like actually debating your position on the matter because you are already convinced in the superiority of your economic ideology.
After all, why should anyone be bothered to debate things if they walk into a discussion already convinced in the superiority of the logic behind their ideology? And I answer thusly; "no reason at all to do so".
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Not in the sense of the state owning the means of production, if by "means of production" you include all manufacturing and not just natural resources. I am personally a little iffy on mining, but given the problems some land owners are having out in the western US with the rapacity of the private mining companies, I am starting to change my mind on this.
Having most manufacturing owned by private business makes more sense to me. I have worked for two different manufacturing firms and it is a complex business model. I just don't see how a government agency could efficiently run all the different models.
Works for you. Great.
Vastet, this is not my quote. I did not say that, I went and rechecked my posts to be absolutely certain. My personal opinion is there isn't a nickle's worth of difference between corps and government. They are both run by human beings for the most part, and so are both prone to the same errors. Government run agencies are better for the natural monopolies - water, sewer, roads, etc - and private corps are better for producing the junk you don't need to buy.
Socialism is a word coined 150+ years ago. From what I have read, Marx didn't understand his world's economics and just about no one understands today's world economics. I just believe we need words to describe real systems that are not emotionally charged. Hanging emotions on complex monetary policies is counterproductive to finding solutions that really do work to give us all a standard of living that has some dignity.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
To the statement that socialism can't work; It is working right now, and there is no reason why it can't be made to work more. Cuba is not the only example of socialism. Cuba is a communist country, highly crippled by American policy, and with little source of wealth. Hundreds of countries have socialist programs that have been running, some since before WWII. Some are succeeding quite well. Some are failing due to poor funding. Some wealthy nations divert funds away from valuable social programs for no good reason, and it is the duty of the people to vote in and demand better services. Socialism for social programs like education, security, health and welfare are far superior to anything that a for profit institution could provide. Natural resource management from mining to pumping oil, to even oil refinement is better in the hands of the population rather than individuals. Making computers, furniture, and hamburgers is best left in the hands of private individuals. These are not really opinions. These are observable facts.
Socialism can run the worst system ever conceived if it is poorly managed and funded. And it is no different from a corporation in this respect. People have fundamental differences in perspective. Seems to me that the right wingers wants to be able to have another opinion if the current system is failing. If one company sucks at providing healthcare, switch to another better company. That's all well and good unless you have a conspiracy of industry which will seek to maximize profits. The left winger wants the best option to get better. One government healthcare program which is as good as we demand it to be.
But my point is that there is nothing inherently flawed with socialism as the title of this thread suggests.
A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce
It is very rare that I run into a post I agree with almost fully - this is one of them. I agree that there is nothing wrong with socialism and that it is present throughout our societies in various shapes and forms. I would add that there is nothing wrong with people, no "inherent flaws", nothing of the sort - because socialism is not some perfect utopian system we got handed down from God, but end goals and instrumantal values we humans need to lead a fuller life - we define them ourselves! We need to be less worried about our healthcare and education bills, we need to be less concerned with survival and more concerned with direction of our life and society.
There is, of course, a bit I can't agree with and I think no one half sentient can fail to see this point - a socialist idea can be ran into a corporate state of affairs by extremely poor management, but a purely corporate system can NOT under any circumstances perform anything close to what, say, a Bolivian social healthcare system delivers, regardless of funds or anything imaginable - corporate goals of power centralisation are completely irelevant to human goals and will always take precedence to human goals.
The only way to make a corporation do good work is like you would a mad and agressive bull - find a way to chain it up and restrict it to a plow. You could let it run free in the field and urge it to be "creative" and "inovative", but what are the odds a single-minded creature would do any such thing? Both bull and corporations go where their respective green is and they don't care who or what they run down on the way, including your kids, parents and your high thoughts, laws and concepts of creativity and inovation - all it takes is investment in the right place to make money by decree, rather than performance.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
When in doubt, go straight for the dictionary:
Amazing how a few highly logical, straight forward, and relevant definitions can so readily deconstruct the fallacious logic behind the arguments of others, yes?
Well, I digress a bit...
So you assert haplessly....
Again, you make the same mistake of confusing an informed opinion with an assumption or perhaps even a factual declaration. As well, you can't seem to keep your hands out of the 'ad hominem jar', which is fine because I've spent enough time on the internet to know how to counter ad homs and the logical errors that result in such highly fallacious debating strategies: "fight fire with fire."
You demonstrate a great deal of projection in your posts, your attempts to deconstruct my opinions and beliefs (not just mine, either) regarding socialism show a great deal of generalization, you seem to want to broadbrush the opponents of socialism together (you've done so quite a few times already), you tend to oversimplify the nature of other people's posts until they arbitrarily agree with you, and you apparently tend to use the term "we" far too much.
Now, since I've stated some ad homs of my own making, I perceive only two possibilities with regards to your intent in this thread: to "shoot out of the sky" the ideals and concepts opposed to socialism while subtly flaunting your ability to do so, to make counterarguments and suggestions about executing a system of an economics, or to simply poke holes at the arguments and points of view of others against socialism without a readily discernible goal in doing so - other than simply stroking your ego.
I believe what I said was:
Simplified:Human psychology as well as evolutionary psychology and recorded history suggest that humans ("we", as you call it) are equally willing to damage and destroy each other (in a myriad of ways) as they are willing to give "mutual aid" to each other. The modern, developed world exemplifies such behaviors in the form of "passive-aggressive" behavior, on behalf of... well, nearly everyone at some point.
"Syndicalism" can not function universally along such parameters, but on the microscale such a system of economics could actually function...
..and sometimes the little details do matter.
For example... the strawman army you attempted to set up earlier:
I can watch Chimpanzees and instantly identify faults: hierarchal social structure, leaders hoard recreation and luxuries to themselves, females are often highly submissive to males, practice of medicine is imperfect, they are often riddled with animal parasites, and their ability to form social units is limited by the fact that there is only 3 or 4 roles for between the sexes.
"We" do?
"We"? Who is this "we" that you keep talking about? And how did simians become involved in this debate?
Someone classified "things that exist" as a mistake? That's news to me...
Ad hom=FAIL
More ad homs... not terribly wise. It seems your point in discussion is passively attacking the position and viewpoints of others.
Still strawman-ish, but I agree.
Something is "being" designed here? By who? Or more astutely... by what?
Oh, right. A highly complex series of chain reactions involving organic molecules. That's not what I would term "designing", however.
[sarcasm=Kapkao]Right. Atheists as individuals who have "religious notions"... I better go ahead and pass that to Hambydammit. He'd have a field day with it.[/sarcasm]
While it is true that atheists generally tend to adopt a cynical attitude of artifice and existence, I'd argue that they (or "we", as you say) are also quite romantic when it comes to theists landing flat on their asses with regards to their inconsistent behavior and hyperillogical beliefs- particularly so in the case of 'fanatics'.
Discussion about simians again? The mind reels.
Oh, I imagine it has a lot to do with the general biological impulse found amongst all animals with a central nervous system to destroy the weaker members of a given species, and sometimes the 'weaklings' of an entire clade (usually on the basis of instinctual behavior, but not always.)
Indeed, being an apex predator and realizing how this fact expresses itself in a particularly destructive manner throughout civilization, is certainly utter nonsense. failx10
Well, that would include an overwhelming majority of our human ancestors then, as the only consistent virtue in human prehistory is survival. By the dawn of early civilization, it was 'survive and prosper' while still annihilating any threats to continued prosperity (including the 'weak' members of a species.)
I thought that's what my thread was attempting to do: create a speculative look at idyllic models of economy (albeit in a trollish and somewhat attention-seeking manner.)
It can't? A person should not strive for personal excellence, even at the cost of the excellence of others? Well, your suggestion sounds idyllic... but is ignorant of quite a bit of recorded history and natural history.
(Hint: your posts in this thread indicate a strong pattern of seeking 'personal excellence', at the cost of dissing the ideas of others. I could demonstrate this if necessary.)
Sorry; absolutist pursuits of political determination do nothing to convince me of another person's viewpoint. Yes, I realize I'm going to sound like a huge hypocrite with that remark and several others, but I don't need to be perfect to understand enormous flaws in the arguments of others.
For this to happen, it must be done on the basis of disempowering money lending and finance law. That is, in a more idyllic economic world, a person shouldn't have to be lent money in order to be educated, have a place to live, be treated for illness, purchase expensive consumables well within their means, have mobility, and be able to ensure a solid future for their offspring (that they consciously decide to bear!)
Secondly... I don't act on strategies, I simply try to make them. The whole 'deeds, not words' routine... I leave that up to everyone else.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)