News:

if there were no need for 'engineers from the quantum plenum' then we should not have any unanswered scientific questions.

Main Menu

What's your opinon on Socialism?

Started by KebertX, July 31, 2010, 07:21:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Tank

Interesting comment Laser. I live in the UK and feel I could defend myself if I wanted to. Our criminals don't normally carry guns and neither do our police so we don't need guns for self defence.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

humblesmurph

It seems to me that none of the Socialists that I have met have thought it out very well.  Many of them (a few of them my good friends) imagine a lovely utopia where we all share and share alike.   I've seen what I believe to be a microcosm of Socialism when as a youth I worked in factories.  

When I worked in a factory, I was a member of a union.  Our wages were determined by years spent on the job--not quality of work.  Of course you could be reprimanded for bad work in theory but in actual practice all you had to do to keep your job was show up on time and do a passable impersonation of somebody doing work (we simply called it "looking busy").  I found myself working shoulder to shoulder with men and women who were intentionally put forth less than an honest effort and making the same amount or more as me.  It was called "sandbagging" and I was openly teased for not doing it.  This is obviously an anecdotal example but it speaks to the larger issue in my view.

Socialist admit that there would be some slackers in the system.  What they fail to realize is that competition at it's very essence, is inescapable.  It's why we even exist. We wouldn't be here if our ancestors failed to compete.  In socialism or any system that throws a blind eye to individual excellence the competition shifts form who can do the most to who can do the least.

Tank

Has there ever been Utopia anywhere on Earth? Will there ever be Utopia anywhere on Earth? I think the answer to both these questions is no. So what would one consider the least worst regime/society/culture to live in?

Winston Churchill once said (approximately) 'Democracy is the worst form of government, until you consider the alternatives.' Dictatorial or autocratic (insert preferred political alignment) governments are bad. So it not the alignment that's the issue it's the mode of governance that's the problem. That's why democracy is important as it makes the power mad bastards at least pay lip service to the proletariat.  

As humblesmurph points out, there will always be competition,if any party gains power to the point where they can dictate the rules then the system is flawed. One has to appreciate that rights are not given, they are taken and held, but should not be abused. Effective processes can cope with reasonable union involvement, one just has to involve the union and have management that wants to function with its work force as opposed to just dictate. Been around tables with all sorts of mixes.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Thumpalumpacus

All good points above; thanks to all who replied to my post.  In economics, I'm not very highly versed, and this thread has given me much to chew on.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

KebertX

Quote from: "Tank"Interesting comment Laser. I live in the UK and feel I could defend myself if I wanted to. Our criminals don't normally carry guns and neither do our police so we don't need guns for self defence.

Well of course you could defend yourself: You're a Tank!  lol

Sorry, I can't resist the urge to make bad jokes... Back to the topic.

~

Quote from: "humblesmurph"It seems to me that none of the Socialists that I have met have thought it out very well.  Many of them (a few of them my good friends) imagine a lovely utopia where we all share and share alike.   I've seen what I believe to be a microcosm of Socialism when as a youth I worked in factories.  

When I worked in a factory, I was a member of a union.  Our wages were determined by years spent on the job--not quality of work.  Of course you could be reprimanded for bad work in theory but in actual practice all you had to do to keep your job was show up on time and do a passable impersonation of somebody doing work (we simply called it "looking busy").  I found myself working shoulder to shoulder with men and women who were intentionally put forth less than an honest effort and making the same amount or more as me.  It was called "sandbagging" and I was openly teased for not doing it.  This is obviously an anecdotal example but it speaks to the larger issue in my view.

Socialist admit that there would be some slackers in the system.  What they fail to realize is that competition at it's very essence, is inescapable.  It's why we even exist. We wouldn't be here if our ancestors failed to compete.  In socialism or any system that throws a blind eye to individual excellence the competition shifts form who can do the most to who can do the least.

See, that always makes me laugh. When people make this argument backwards and say: "The guy who does the better job shouldn't be paid the same as the guy who does the worse job!" What? It hurts your ego to make the same amount of money as someone you think you are better than?
I know they can be construed to mean the same thing, but the argument is better phrased: "The guy who does the worse job shouldn't be paid as much as the guy who does the better job." That turns it into a matter of reward, and whether or not the guy who does the worse job deserves it. The former is making it seem like the guy who does the better job is being punished by not having the satisfaction of being paid more than the other guy.

I see your argument about slackers, but that's the thing: if we see a legitimate problem with reducing competition, we could just... not eliminate competition. It's a democratic process, we could make it whatever we wanted!
"Reality is that which when you close your eyes it does not go away.  Ignorance is that which allows you to close your eyes, and not see reality."

"It can't be seen, smelled, felt, measured, or understood, therefore let's worship it!" ~ Anon.

humblesmurph

Quote from: "KebertX"
Quote from: "Tank"Interesting comment Laser. I live in the UK and feel I could defend myself if I wanted to. Our criminals don't normally carry guns and neither do our police so we don't need guns for self defence.

Well of course you could defend yourself: You're a Tank!  lol

Sorry, I can't resist the urge to make bad jokes... Back to the topic.

~

Quote from: "humblesmurph"It seems to me that none of the Socialists that I have met have thought it out very well.  Many of them (a few of them my good friends) imagine a lovely utopia where we all share and share alike.   I've seen what I believe to be a microcosm of Socialism when as a youth I worked in factories.  

When I worked in a factory, I was a member of a union.  Our wages were determined by years spent on the job--not quality of work.  Of course you could be reprimanded for bad work in theory but in actual practice all you had to do to keep your job was show up on time and do a passable impersonation of somebody doing work (we simply called it "looking busy").  I found myself working shoulder to shoulder with men and women who were intentionally put forth less than an honest effort and making the same amount or more as me.  It was called "sandbagging" and I was openly teased for not doing it.  This is obviously an anecdotal example but it speaks to the larger issue in my view.

Socialist admit that there would be some slackers in the system.  What they fail to realize is that competition at it's very essence, is inescapable.  It's why we even exist. We wouldn't be here if our ancestors failed to compete.  In socialism or any system that throws a blind eye to individual excellence the competition shifts form who can do the most to who can do the least.

See, that always makes me laugh. When people make this argument backwards and say: "The guy who does the better job shouldn't be paid the same as the guy who does the worse job!" What? It hurts your ego to make the same amount of money as someone you think you are better than?
I know they can be construed to mean the same thing, but the argument is better phrased: "The guy who does the worse job shouldn't be paid as much as the guy who does the better job." That turns it into a matter of reward, and whether or not the guy who does the worse job deserves it. The former is making it seem like the guy who does the better job is being punished by not having the satisfaction of being paid more than the other guy.

I see your argument about slackers, but that's the thing: if we see a legitimate problem with reducing competition, we could just... not eliminate competition. It's a democratic process, we could make it whatever we wanted!


Ok, I'm still trying to get the hang of this quote feature.  In any event ours seems to be a disagreement about the very nature of man.  Utilitarianism is a fact in my view.  That is not to say that our governments should be utilitarian, just that generally are utilitarian.  

First, stating the contrapositive of an argument still leaves you with the same truth value.  Neither argument about equal pay for equal work is "backwards".  No it doesn't hurt my "ego" to get paid the same as the guy next to me and do more work.  I did it for years.  However, over time, what it does hurt is production because I am being actively motivated to work less.

Second, competition is by definition necessitates winners and losers.  You simply cannot have a system that rewards people equally and have competition.

KebertX

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Ok, I'm still trying to get the hang of this quote feature.  In any event ours seems to be a disagreement about the very nature of man.  Utilitarianism is a fact in my view.  That is not to say that our governments should be utilitarian, just that generally are utilitarian.  

First, stating the contrapositive of an argument still leaves you with the same truth value.  Neither argument about equal pay for equal work is "backwards".  No it doesn't hurt my "ego" to get paid the same as the guy next to me and do more work.  I did it for years.  However, over time, what it does hurt is production because I am being actively motivated to work less.

Second, competition is by definition necessitates winners and losers.  You simply cannot have a system that rewards people equally and have competition.

...I know it's the same truth value, I should have not even brought that up, I was just being nitpicky.

I'm not meaning to say anything your ego specifically, I was just using your quote to make a general point. I mean no offense.

Everyone doesn't need to earn the exact same pay. Like I said, it's a democratic process, and we can make what we want out of it.  The free market can provide the most efficient allocation of resources, for most people.  But when dealing with the extremely rich and the extremely poor, this is not the case.  I, personally, don't think Democratic Socialism entails equalizing everybody, simply narrowing the gap.  It simply isn't fair that we have poverty while there are multi-billionaires who just keep getting richer.

No one needs to have a motivation to work less. I think the government should provide Public Services to its people, and enact fiscal policies to narrow the gap between the Ãœber rich and the Ãœber poor.  America's already semi-socialist, but there's still more to be done. And currently there's so much anti socialist fear mongering and propaganda...  I just wanted to make a point that Socialism's not necessarily something to be afraid of.
"Reality is that which when you close your eyes it does not go away.  Ignorance is that which allows you to close your eyes, and not see reality."

"It can't be seen, smelled, felt, measured, or understood, therefore let's worship it!" ~ Anon.

humblesmurph

Point taken.  I was mistaken by the heading.  I've already stated my opinion on Socialism.  I can't form an opinion on Democratic Socialism because I don't know what that is.  Yes I have looked it up.  I still don't know what it is. I know what democracy is, and I know what socialism is--I just don't know what you get when you combine the two.

Laser Sailor

Quote from: "Tank"Interesting comment Laser. I live in the UK and feel I could defend myself if I wanted to. Our criminals don't normally carry guns and neither do our police so we don't need guns for self defence.

Not wanting to hijack this thread, I've created a thread where we can discuss this, see ya there.

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=5507
When I was little, I prayed to God for a new bike.
But then I learned that God doesn't work that way.
So I stole a bike and prayed for forgiveness.

The Magic Pudding

Quote from: "humblesmurph"When I worked in a factory, I was a member of a union.  Our wages were determined by years spent on the job--not quality of work.  Of course you could be reprimanded for bad work in theory but in actual practice all you had to do to keep your job was show up on time and do a passable impersonation of somebody doing work (we simply called it "looking busy").  I found myself working shoulder to shoulder with men and women who were intentionally put forth less than an honest effort and making the same amount or more as me.  It was called "sandbagging" and I was openly teased for not doing it.  This is obviously an anecdotal example but it speaks to the larger issue in my view.
This does not seem to illustrate socialism just poor management and perhaps unionism of a previous age.
I doubt such a factory would survive in the age of globalisation.
Union leaders have come to see their interests are served by an efficient competitive business.
I don't think the workers versus owners battle is very important now.

It is not a question of socialism or capitalism, it is a matter of balance.
The world provides many examples of different approaches to the problem.

humblesmurph

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"
Quote from: "humblesmurph"When I worked in a factory, I was a member of a union.  Our wages were determined by years spent on the job--not quality of work.  Of course you could be reprimanded for bad work in theory but in actual practice all you had to do to keep your job was show up on time and do a passable impersonation of somebody doing work (we simply called it "looking busy").  I found myself working shoulder to shoulder with men and women who were intentionally put forth less than an honest effort and making the same amount or more as me.  It was called "sandbagging" and I was openly teased for not doing it.  This is obviously an anecdotal example but it speaks to the larger issue in my view.
This does not seem to illustrate socialism just poor management and perhaps unionism of a previous age.
I doubt such a factory would survive in the age of globalisation.
Union leaders have come to see their interests are served by an efficient competitive business.
I don't think the workers versus owners battle is very important now.

It is not a question of socialism or capitalism, it is a matter of balance.
The world provides many examples of different approaches to the problem.

The factory was an analogy for pure Socialism.  The US Post Office is such a "factory" that continues to survive.   What exactly are some of these approaches? and what do you see as the problem?

Kylyssa

I'm all for democratic socialism.  How is it in any way acceptable that 1.5 million American children experience homelessness in any given year?  That's one in fifty American kids, not counting discarded and runaway teens.  How is it acceptable that 40,000 Americans die from from lack of healthcare?  An uncounted number of others die because their insurance refuses to pay for treatment for their injury or illness.  How is it acceptable that the number one cause of bankruptcy in America is medical bills and that over half of those in medical bankruptcy have or had health insurance at the time the bills were incurred?

My cause is homelessness so these are the things I'm familiar with - many homeless people are homeless due either directly or indirectly to lack of healthcare often due to untreated illnesses or medical debt.  Some of the healthcare bill may be helping - insurance providers must now cover mental illness to the same degree as physical ailments. It used to be that most insurance companies only paid half with a very low cap on what they'd pay out for mental health care.  That meant that a person would still have to lay out more than most can afford.  I was paying $115 a visit for mental health care when I had insurance.  

In my opinion, America is simply the world's richest third world country.

Will

I like socialism in moderation. Some jobs are better suited to the market and some jobs are better suited to the public sector. I'd never trust the market to wage war or plan out and build roads or run healthcare just like I'd never trust the government to regulate what news I have access to or who I can or can't marry or what I can or can't smoke.
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.

The Magic Pudding

Quote from: "humblesmurph"The factory was an analogy for pure Socialism.  The US Post Office is such a "factory" that continues to survive.   What exactly are some of these approaches? and what do you see as the problem?
The US Post Office, if it remains as you describe, sounds like an anachronism.
Public utilities in my country used to be considered inefficient.
Since the 1980s they have been squeezed, management is expected to continually increase productivity.

The problem is finding the balance between public and private activity in the provision of goods and services.
Different countries illustrate different approaches.
Australia has public health, education, post, water, railway.
Used to have public telecommunications, owned a bank which competed with private banks, airports.
Declining public share of electricity utilities.

The government sold its Telecommunications company, creating a private monopoly.
On creation this company was given obligations to provide basic services.
These basic services our now inadequate and the government is now investing in a fibre network in conjunction with the private sector.

If you are interested you could look at Canada and the UK.
Various European countries are held up as models of efficiency, balancing the role of government and private sectors.

humblesmurph

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"
Quote from: "humblesmurph"The factory was an analogy for pure Socialism.  The US Post Office is such a "factory" that continues to survive.   What exactly are some of these approaches? and what do you see as the problem?
The US Post Office, if it remains as you describe, sounds like an anachronism.
Public utilities in my country used to be considered inefficient.
Since the 1980s they have been squeezed, management is expected to continually increase productivity.

The problem is finding the balance between public and private activity in the provision of goods and services.
Different countries illustrate different approaches.
Australia has public health, education, post, water, railway.
Used to have public telecommunications, owned a bank which competed with private banks, airports.
Declining public share of electricity utilities.

The government sold its Telecommunications company, creating a private monopoly.
On creation this company was given obligations to provide basic services.
These basic services our now inadequate and the government is now investing in a fibre network in conjunction with the private sector.

If you are interested you could look at Canada and the UK.
Various European countries are held up as models of efficiency, balancing the role of government and private sectors.

The US Post office as I described is as it is today not an anachronism (my mother works for them, and I have worked for them in the recent past).  She's a nice lady, but she admits she does very little at work.  She makes $27 per hour and overtime is ample.  I could teach you how to do her job in one day. As a matter of fact, college students do her exact same job for one third the pay and no benefits. Also, the US Post Office is not a public utility, it is a self sustaining non-profit that serves the public good as I understand it.  

I looked up more successful democracies.  What they all seem to have in common is much smaller populations and much less cultural/ethnic diversity.  The US is a very unique situation.  

In any event, in the US we do have Socialism.  We have welfare, and child protective services and unemployment insurance.  If you are sick, you go to the hospital and they treat you, if you can't pay then they write it off (I've been a person that didn't have insurance and was treated for free).  If the US is so bad, why hasn't there been a mass exodus to Canada?  

Homelessness and poor people dying from curable diseases suck.  I give a significant portion of my income to charity to help.  It seems to me that if everybody who was so concerned about these issues did the same, the problem wouldn't be so bad.  

My only problem with socialism is the word "socialism".  If all you really want to do is take money from the very very rich and give it to the very very poor, then just call it something else--"Robin Hoodism" perhaps.  It's a noble inclination, but associating it with a political term that many people consider to be a mid-wife to communism seems counterproductive.