Author Topic: Capitalismvssocialism  (Read 1616 times)

Prometheus

  • Was God's Anointed But Took a Shower
  • *
  • Posts: 214
Capitalismvssocialism
« on: April 24, 2009, 10:19:26 AM »
The title's pretty obvious. I can't seem to stay on one side of this issue(That's a good thing I think but I'll thrash this one out nonetheless. It seems that when people start "believing" things they start to act on those beliefs, usually to the detriment of the rest of us lol.).

The cultural relevance of this is obvious what with Obama in office(He seems to be setting up a more robin-hood/socialist government than what we already have.). I like the idea of helping out those who really need it. Those who are disabled or too old to work etc but what about people who are just lazy? Why can't we just shoot them? lol . There are a lot more of them out there than anyone cares to admit.

(1)GLOBAL SOCIALISM. At times I seem to be in favor of global socialism. We should stop the genocides in other countries(Basically police them based on humanitarian values.) Feed the starving. Give vaccines and medical care to the poor in those countries as well as our own. But what about the fact that they seem to take no responsibility unto themselves? If your country was impoverished and overpopulated, would you go out and have 8 children? This really seems to be the root of their problems. Overpopulation stemming from a lack of civic responsibility. But how can we allow them to suffer(Especially the children) when we have such prosperity here at home?(Despite the economic slump we still have it pretty good here in america.) The point I'm trying to make(Besides the fact that i really don't have much of a point. I believe both sides have validity here.) is that maybe we should see that everyone on earth has the basic things they need to be healthy and happy. Food, shelter, security, etc. Could this be done? Why don't all the world powers just get together and do this. Hell I'd gladly pay higher taxes if I knew they were doing some good in the world instead of just being squandered on "pork" and other useless programs.

(2)GLOBAL CAPITALISM. The merits of this are obvious. Take care of our selves and we, personally, will have much more physical wealth(At the cost perhaps of losing some part of our humanity in that we are abandoning virtues like compassion and good will.). We'd just ignore refugees and impoverished peoples from other countries and let them take care of themselves(Or starve to death). In favor of this I state that by sending aid we force them into a state of dependancy on us(A sort of crutch). Their population will likely keep growing and after a few years be right back in its initial state of need(What if we could no longer send aid after a time? They'd be in worse shape than they were to start with.). So long as they are unwilling to stifle their population growth(Through cultural change, taking individual responsibility, or by government mandate.(This may be a very bad thing on the level of individual freedom but look at the potential gains to be made by the society as a whole.)) any aid we send is really just delaying the inevitable(A crisis point being reached. The solution(Pressure valve) usually chosen by a culture is war(Invasion of another country) or civil war(Genocides). Some ancient Polynesion cultures would actually send off young couples in a canoe(Most of them died). Its how they colonized so many far flung islands.). I'm asserting that their problems have a root in their own inability to manage their available resources(They allow themselves to outgrow them). There may not be anything we can do to help them really in the long run.

(3)INTERNAL SOCIALISM (How it might benefit/effect individual countries) The merits would be knowing that under know circumstance would anyone go wanting(Should the system manage to function). Free healthcare food shelter whatever. The state provides jobs to anyone willing to work(Definately a financial incentive to do this just not to the extremes we currently experience in our culture(I'm talking about the existence of the super rich and super poor. In my system everyone gets fed and sheltered but there is enough incentive to convince people to work labor jobs and others to seek higher education.). They'd seem to make a larger amount of money all around for this since all capital and land is state owned. No upper class milking our labor for all its worth while contributing nothing of real value. Anyone else ever wander why our social structure still resembles a despotism or oligarchy? Nothings really changed, we're still hopelessly stratified. I, born in the middle class, can't reasonably hope to reach the upper class without working my ass off till the day I retire. Then, what's the point? To pass wealth on to your ungrateful offspring?). I'd imagine though that such a system could not be achieved unless we found a means by which to regulate population growth(Preferably to stop growth.). Also, socialism as I see it is meant to be an economic system. The government would still be a democracy but imagine how easily corruptible it would become. Again I refer you to the soviet union and also Cuba. That's not what I have in mind. They seem to be monarchies of a sort which is very bad when you combine it with a state owned economy. Very bad indeed. I imagine a true democracy. Not the republic we americans live in. All bills and laws are voted on yearly by every adult in the community. Anything can be challenged with enough support. You could put together a rally and based soley on the voices of the citizens demand the impeachment/prosecution of an official be put to a vote quikly(By the end of the year or perhaps these things happen biannually or something). Presently we just have to hope the other crooks we've voted into office take the inituative to impeach. Once we vote them in theres nothin we can really do other than not vote for them again.

(4)INTERNAL CAPITALISM. We get to see this one in action so I won't say much. Making a comfortable living is doable in most cases and the free market system encourages innovation and hard work. I imagine a flaw in socialism where with out competition, service and innovation really start to decine. Why cook good food in a school or military cafeteria? They can't go anywhere else to eat.

So there are a few points laid out. I can't really decide where I stand. I could easily see socialism as the downfall of humanity. Again, why work hard or create anything new if theres little or no profit in it for you? But from observation I've seen how corruptible and cutthroat capitalism is. Look at how wal mart and other franchises treat their employees. They wanna get the most work for the least pay possible while pocketing all the profit for their investers. Again I see little reason for employees to work hard in this system other than avoiding getting fired. Innovation must occur at the management level here. And we've all seen the terrors of a truly free market system. Everyones looking out for themselves and no one else. Federal regulations(Watchdogs stopped paying attendion or something I'm not sure.) have went lax this past decade or so and look where its gotten us? The whole real-estate catastrophy stems from fraudulent ratings on the loans themselves. Free market encouraged this fraud simply because it was profitable(For everyone involved except the investers it seems. They trusted the ratings and got screwed.). Without regulation(A very socialist idea I think) our economy is dog eat dog chaos. Maybe I have the right idea, the sort of melting together of these two extremes seems to me to be our best option. I'd vote for a cap on hereditary wealth(Say one million per citizen to be passed on to descendents.). It would seem to keep the super rich from hoarding wealth for their descendents and leave more to go around while still encouraging innovation and hard work. And definately no state owned land/capital. That has dark utopia written all over it lol. I'm still for my true democracy idea but thats a little off topic here. It would definately allow us as citizens to wrest control of the government back from the aristocrasy and their special interest groups. Those groups put our leaders in office.(We can't tell what their gonna do based only on what they say. Plus there are so many crooks a good guy just couldn't really make a significant impact in office.) The leaders protect the interest of said groups and all we can do is complain. Its not like we're really gonna revolt or anything. Before our outrage gets anywhere near that point it is already time for a new crook to be sworn in. And we blame the scapegoat puppet when its really the aristocrasy pulling the strings. We just can't stop them they've got us thinking we're free. And we're given enough freedom and wealth to keep us from really revolting or anything. Nothings changed. We live in a stratified oligarchy posing as a republic. They've finally gotten it down to a science such that we don't even realize we're being herded like cattle rofl. I think I'm on to something here. I might get "silenced" by said conspirators but its too late. :hide2:  I've already spread this plaque bitches rofl! But seriously our social/economic system is a scam designed to rob us of most of the fruits of our labor. The upper class just sits back and watches the money role in just like they've done since the dawn of civilization. I should really write a book about this and wake people up. Viva la revelution!
"There's a new, secret hazing process where each new member must track down and eliminate an old member before being granted full forum privileges.  10 posts is just a front.  Don't get too comfy, your day will come..."-PC

liveyoungdiefast

  • Made of Star Stuff
  • *
  • Posts: 79
Re: Capitalismvssocialism
« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2009, 03:08:06 PM »
I would be considered a socialist, but the actual economic principle that I believe in is all humans realizing that the economy is man made and something that can be controlled. Essentially the economic downturns of early civilizations were caused by a lack of resources. Today, we have the technology and manpower to produce the food, water, housing, and energy that we need. So why don't we? Because people have turned the economy into something that has to be complicated, something that has to be even random. This is the mistake that has been made so many times.

My points of progress-driven socialism would include

- Humans are entitled to healthy food, clean water, necessary medicine, and sanitary living conditions.
- Technology should be constantly advanced, to keep a steady workforce and increase the standard of living.
- The potential and abilities of individuals should be discovered in childhood education and helped to be maximized.
- People should live a life of diversity, pursue multiple goals, and seek productive tasks outside of their job.

Yes, it sounds like an unrealistic utopia. I think the first thing the left needs to do though is recognize that Marx and Lenin are outdated. Rather than a violent revolution to seize the wealth of the ruling class, we need peaceful cultural realizations that society as a whole can declare the wealth of the ruling class illegitimate and non-existent if need be.

Tanker

  • Immune to Question Begging
  • ***
  • Posts: 739
Re: Capitalismvssocialism
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2009, 01:11:06 AM »
While I agree that socialism is in many way supirior to capitalism, what it comes down to for me is that the ideal of communism/socialism require an ideal poulation. one in which individuals hold themselves accountable. Sinve people in general are not ideal pure socialism won't work outside ofa small group where the group has the ability to hold the individual accountable. While a mix of some socialist and some capitalist ideals can make an effective system I don't think a pure system of either will ever be perfect.

I read an article recently (sorry I can't find a link, I looked) where a professor and his students were having an argument about the usefulness of communism. They eventually decided that the class grade would be decided based on the communist system Against some A students wishes. Individual grades would be averaged and the total would be the shared grade. The hard workers did their normal hard work the lazy people did thiers. The grades came out to a high C. Everyone argued and placed blame on everyone else. The hard workers realising no matter how well they did their grade would be poor did not work hard. The next grade average was an F average. More argueing and blaming and people were getting pissed leaveing the class. The moral of the article was basicly that communism does not work.

(I'm sorry I really looked I couldn't find the article so I can't share it. I was under the immpresion when I read it that it was a real case, though reading my own paragraph it almost sounds like a parable)
"I'd rather die the go to heaven" - William Murderface Murderface  Murderface-

I've been in fox holes, I'm still an atheist -Me-

God is a cake, and we all know what the cake is.

(my spelling, grammer, and punctuation suck, I know, but regardless of how much I read they haven't improved much since grade school. It's actually a bit of a family joke.

Will

  • Global Moderator
  • Touched by His Noodly Appendage
  • *****
  • Posts: 2698
Re: Capitalismvssocialism
« Reply #3 on: April 25, 2009, 02:52:45 AM »
I think it's a bit of a false choice. No one really wants pure capitalism, because it would mean that we'd have an oligarchy—a select few would control most of the wealth and the vast majority would live in abject poverty. No one really wants pure socialism—you'd never earn anything, you'd simply contribute to what society as a whole wants regardless of your personal feelings on that direction. We all want some happy middle ground; a functional middle ground. We want the government to run certain things and the market to run other things. I think all of us, liberal, conservative, or whatever, would be pretty disappointed by a private military (*cough* Black Water *cough*) or government controlled media (*cough* Fox News *gag*).

Different economic, social, and governmental models each bring different strengths and weaknesses with them. It's a matter of piecing different systems together to create a patchwork of each of their strengths. I don't expect everyone will ever agree on what that patchwork should look like, but I think we can at least agree that pure forms of ideology don't work in practice.

Unfortunately, over the past 30 or so years, neoliberals have pushed their laissez faire style of economics and government on us, and this particular strategy simply doesn't work. The key to smart policy is throwing your ideology—your biases, prejudices, preconceptions, and selfish wants—out the door. You have to be a strict pragmatist, choosing whatever answer works regardless of how you feel about it.
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.

Prometheus

  • Was God's Anointed But Took a Shower
  • *
  • Posts: 214
Re: Capitalismvssocialism
« Reply #4 on: April 26, 2009, 03:00:47 AM »
I love whats been posted so far. I wonder why we haven't yet and probable never will reach a social state which will free us from such extreme stratification? I think that's the real enemy here, nothing justifies the few(About 10 percent in america in 2001) having 70 percent of the wealth and the many having whats left. I think the goal of each nation should be to look after its citizens first and it seems that america, the UK nations, and all other nations fail to do this.

This all makes me very glad that we elected Obama. He plans to increase the tax on the wealthiest bracket by 1 percent. This isn't nearly enough but the other cantidate was going to lower that same bracket by a full 10 percent. There have been threats made that such a trend in taxation will only cause the rich to put their capital into other nations. I say it would be best for us(As individuals) in the long run(Perhaps centuries from now. Like this plan'll ever gonna get off the ground rofl) if we let them. Why not gradually raise that bracket while also cutting down on government spending/corruption/waste. I say give all the excess tax money back to the lower and middle class who actually created it in the first place(This would then fuel the economy further). Initually our economy would crash(Everyone with any sense would put their capital in other nations with lower tax policies), perhaps for generations but we have the resources here(If properly funded/regulated by the government) to see to our basic needs. I really don't see how we could be all that worse off than we are now(It'd basically be like we were isolationists. I don't support that policy I'm just saying we wouldn't be importing much.). We'd have to adapt as a culture to all this. Stop wasting money on junk that we'll throw out in a few months(I'm thinking of electronics mostly but this would include many nonessential things.). We'd also learn to be less wasteful I think and more "green". Our current system is leading toward catastrophe anyway because of our excessive intake of resources. Why not make a change now?  Eventually I imagine the average income/standard of living of individuals would rise and seeing this other nations would adapt to our policies. Eventually there wouldn't be any classes left, just a big middle class with relatively minor differences in income based on education. This would be egalitarian in that education is available to everyone(We have government loans and scholarships in america). Its all based on how hard you're willing to work. I really hope that with enough pressure from the lower classes, our nations will start going in this direction. I think our aristacrasy is actively using the media and its influence over our economy to scare us away from such a movement.
"There's a new, secret hazing process where each new member must track down and eliminate an old member before being granted full forum privileges.  10 posts is just a front.  Don't get too comfy, your day will come..."-PC

SSY

  • Pretty Sure the Black Cat Isn't in the Dark Room
  • ****
  • Posts: 1181
Re: Capitalismvssocialism
« Reply #5 on: April 29, 2009, 02:25:16 PM »
Prometheus, I really dont like your ideas.

What you are talking about is a ban on being rich. If I come up with some uber new computer, and protect myself with patents, why do I not get to benefit? Do you think rich people are in some way bad?

I am, by no means rich, not even well off ( student and all ), but I I harbour the hope, that one day, if I work hard, get a little lucky and manage my money well, I could end up pretty wealthy. It is the aspiration of people like me who really drive the economy and who create wealth. If you remove my incentive to work, why would I bother putting in extra hours, being innovative, or even working at all?

The reason rich people exist is because they have something other people don't. A CEO is paid more than a cashier, becuase practically anyone could do a cashier's job, if one leaves, post a job advert and you could have 30 candidates in a week. If a CEO leaves, it entails a lengthy process of headhunting and stringent checks to find a new one, because not many people have the skills to be a CEO.

Your unsupported factoid about 10% of people having 70% of the wealth, and your objection to it, does not sit well with me. What percentage do you think would be acceptable, 10% at the top have 10% of the wealth? Why is it fair that all people have to be the same economically, despite them all being vastly different with regards to skills etc.

I think it is a fundamnetal right to benefit from your own labour. Seeing all my salary dissapear into a black hole, that I have no say over,then being allocated a stipend by the government does not sound like a very fair system to me.
Quote from: "Godschild"
SSY: You are fairly smart and to think I thought you were a few fries short of a happy meal.
Quote from: "Godschild"
explain to them how and why you decided to be athiest and take the consequences that come along with it
Quote from: "Aedus"
Unlike atheists, I'm not an angry prick

DIY 1138

  • Beginning to See the Wedge
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Capitalismvssocialism
« Reply #6 on: April 30, 2009, 01:21:34 PM »
Deleted by poster
« Last Edit: May 07, 2009, 04:35:56 PM by DIY 1138 »

Prometheus

  • Was God's Anointed But Took a Shower
  • *
  • Posts: 214
Re: Capitalismvssocialism
« Reply #7 on: May 01, 2009, 09:17:09 AM »
Quote
Your unsupported factoid about 10% of people having 70% of the wealth, and your objection to it, does not sit well with me. What percentage do you think would be acceptable, 10% at the top have 10% of the wealth? Why is it fair that all people have to be the same economically, despite them all being vastly different with regards to skills etc.

This wasn't unsupported. Those stats came from a study done by G. William Domhoff at the University of California(Just google it, I've got my browser stuck on full view and can't make a hyperlink.). Those numbers are insanely disproportianate. How can you justify such a small percentage having so much of America's wealth? As to what those number should be, I don't have the expertise to answer. I believe that there should be enough of a difference to motivate people to seek higher education and innovate, I just don't believe that the highest 10 percent should have such a large peice of the pie.

Quote
I think it is a fundamnetal right to benefit from your own labour. Seeing all my salary dissapear into a black hole, that I have no say over,then being allocated a stipend by the government does not sound like a very fair system to me.

I agree with your first statement and in no way implied your second. My problem with our system is that the wealthy have such an outrageous proportion of the wealth. I'm willing to bet that few of the top 10 percent I'm talking about are making their money off of their own labor. These individuals likely have vast amounts of capital invested in the system(Capital which most of them were born into.). This system just encourages their wealth to increase or remain constant from generation to generation so long as they are fairly competent investers/proprietors. Their profits likely result from the work of others. They are encouraged by our free market system to pay these employees as little as they can get away with and when possible replace those jobs with automated technology or outsourcing. I imagine a day soon where there will no longer be very many low education jobs in america. If this happens the lower class will be left high and dry and will be forced to live on government assistance. I have many friends and family who are forced to live on wages close or at minimum wage and in this economic system it is nearly impossible for them(Hardworking as they are) to actually own the property and housing they deserve. I believe that they are at least entitled to an adequate wage to supply those things so long as they are willing to work 40 hours a week and do not believe our current system to be either fair or adequate simply because its failure to afford them those things.

I will admit many of my suggestions are farfetched but I'm just throwing stuff out there. Do you have a better suggestion(Our current system just doesn't cut it in my book.)?

Quote
Prometheus,
Your questions reminded me of a book by Christopher Shulgan called "The Soviet Ambassador".
Briefly, it's about one of the two main architects of perestroika, Aleksandr Yakovlev. Together with
Mikhail Gorbachev, they struggled with many of the same questions you are tackeling. What you may find interesting
is the very different perspective. Some interesting points. Yakovlev was appointed ambassador to Canada after
criticizing soviet policies re. women and jews. He developed a close friendship with Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudeau
(who later named one of his sons Sasha after Yakovlev). The Canadian experience helped shape his philosophies.
The first meeting between Yakovlev and Gorbachev took place in Canada.
You may also find a study of the Canadian parliamentary system interesting. While it's far from perfect (IMO it lacks the
balance of representation in the US system, not to mention it has fewer checks and balances), it does address one of your
concerns. In the parliamentary system the ruling government can be struck down if it fails a non confidence motion in the house of commons.
Just a few things to look into and think about. Everybody has to find their own answers, right?
Cheers.

Very interesting, I thank you for mentioning this and plan to look for that book soon. :beer:
"There's a new, secret hazing process where each new member must track down and eliminate an old member before being granted full forum privileges.  10 posts is just a front.  Don't get too comfy, your day will come..."-PC

Prometheus

  • Was God's Anointed But Took a Shower
  • *
  • Posts: 214
Re: Capitalismvssocialism
« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2009, 09:59:52 AM »
Quote
So there are a few points laid out. I can't really decide where I stand. I could easily see socialism as the downfall of humanity. Again, why work hard or create anything new if theres little or no profit in it for you?

I made a few comments throughout the post like this SSY. I am not in favor of the pure socialism that you are hinting at.(One with a "flat wage") I believe there should be enough of a difference in wages to motivate a person toward higher education(For example doctors should still be paid many times more than unskilled laborers. Why else would they spend so many years becoeming competent physicians?(Without proper pay I beleive standards would go down fast. And they aren't that great as it is.)) and innovation, I just don't believe in a system with such large difference in income and one which doesn't pay its unskilled workforce enough to live confortably on as well as protect their interests(Like always having a job and adequate healthcare assuming you are willing to work hard.).

My fiance's grandfather is on government disability. He worked from when he was 10 till he was about 55(He had several heart attacks and some other problems and could no longer work.). Now he is forced to live on less than 800 dollars a month(Keep in mind the price of medical care and prescriptions for someone who has had cancer, heart attacks,diabetes, and strokes.). I really cannot fathom how he gets by. He needed chemo about a year ago and couldn't get the treatment payed for so he had to go with a much cheaper experimental procedure(It seems to have worked but hes in the hospital now(Weakened immunity led to several dangerous infections) and his chances are slim.). I am reminded of the horse Boxer from George Orwells Animal Farm. He was promised retirement for his hard work and when the day came he was turned into glue instead. That to me sums up the american social security system.(The book was actually written against socialism/communism. However It seems to parallell our system as well.)
"There's a new, secret hazing process where each new member must track down and eliminate an old member before being granted full forum privileges.  10 posts is just a front.  Don't get too comfy, your day will come..."-PC

Nulono

  • Made of Star Stuff
  • *
  • Posts: 67
Re: Capitalismvssocialism
« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2009, 11:59:55 PM »
Communism

VanReal

  • Rides the Sonic Rain Boom
  • **
  • Posts: 535
Re: Capitalismvssocialism
« Reply #10 on: May 04, 2009, 05:46:47 AM »
True socialism would only work if everyone was able to pull their own weight and was capable of living as equal with one another.  That will never be the case among humans, there is always going to be a system of some sort.  Even before we had large and complex societies people had systems of social classes, some people being higher up in that society than the others.  (The chief and medicine man being higher on the ladder than the warriors, women or lame for example.)

I also agree with several of the posts about the vast difference in income in a capitalist society, and think that a working couple working full-time jobs should be able to have a level of comfort and should not have to live paycheck to paycheck in order to care for their families.  We need people in the service industry and manual labor market.  It remind me of Mike Rowe on Dirty Jobs saying "these are the jobs people do that make civilized life possible for the rest of us" (or something like that).  I don't think we value service and labor occupations enough.

That being said a lot of that has to do with the dredge that the lazy and worthless put on our society and government funds.  If we did not have to pay for lazy women that survive by being a baby momma, and for the prisoners that seem to be endlessly running through a revolving door we would be able to pay a fair wage to everyone more according to what they deserve.  I also think that economics and financial/money management should be taught in school k-12 because then we wouldn't have people floundering in debt to the credit card companies and foreclosing on their mortgages because they'd have a clue of what was going on and what the traps are that will keep you in poverty zone throughout your life.

Capitalism has been getting a bad rap for the last decade due to countries turning to capitalism and it failing.  It's not because capitalism doesn't work, or that the countrymen and women don't have the entrapreneur spirit or that they don't want it to work but because it's hard to explain or even model how capitalism works.  To better understand that I would highly recommend "The Mystery of Capital" by Hernando de Soto.  It's an absolutely terrific read and really is informative in explaining the idea of capitalism.

As far as Obama's tax plan, which I think was mentioned earlier in this thread that is an utter failure.  And, for any American's out here that are enjoying your "Making Work Pay" credit that you started receiving by the April 1st deadline via the tax table changing I suggest you take a look at what this actually means and what implication it may impose on your taxes when filing your 1040 for 2009.  Short info is that employers were required to implement the new tax table by April 1st.  So the credit is being given automatically.  The kicker is that you will need to file a schedule M with your 1040 next year (and you can't file it with a 1040EZ nor take the credit) in order to take the credit.  No schedule M you are not requesting the credit so you owe back any amount you received from the lowered tax table.  There are also many stipulations on eleigibility so many people are getting the credit that will not be entitled to it when filing taxes.  The new tax table was not a good idea, you don't typically decrease taxes when you are in a recession (stagflation actually) but you certainly don't do so on a temporary and involuntary basis.  Yowsers!  The IRS says it best: http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=207441,00.html

So, we definitely need work, it appears that everyone here agrees, at least those that have posted.  What to do though?  I still believe in our system even with it's shortcoming and flaws, but I also see so much room for improvement, starting with the people and them being responsible for themselves and working towards goals and propserity rather than easy money for doing nothing.  I would like to see out financial support be reduced to those that are incapable of doing so themselves, basically the elderly, mentally ill, and medically incapacitated.  If you are able bodied get off of your ass and put in some sweat with the rest of us that would love to be independently wealthy doing as we please with our days and nights:)
In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular. (Kathy Norris)
They say I have ADHD but I think they are full of...oh, look a kitty!! (unknown)

Will

  • Global Moderator
  • Touched by His Noodly Appendage
  • *****
  • Posts: 2698
Re: Capitalismvssocialism
« Reply #11 on: May 04, 2009, 05:56:56 PM »
Quote from: "VanReal"
True socialism would only work if everyone was able to pull their own weight and was capable of living as equal with one another.  That will never be the case among humans, there is always going to be a system of some sort.
One could argue that the shape society took while humans were hunter-gatherers was a type of socialism. Everyone had a job, everyone did their job, and everyone shared the fruits of everyone's labor. The contributions of each person's work helped to support the whole group. As everyone was a worker, any kind of ruling body would have been a worker's council. I'm not sure about equality that early on, humans may have adapted a hierarchical structure before the first civilizations, but necessity would have made slaves of all people, not just some. If someone wasn't able to pull his or her weight (like, say, a shaman or priest), it likely would have meant that he or she couldn't share in the spoils of the group.
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.

VanReal

  • Rides the Sonic Rain Boom
  • **
  • Posts: 535
Re: Capitalismvssocialism
« Reply #12 on: May 04, 2009, 06:06:55 PM »
Quote from: "Will"
Quote from: "VanReal"
True socialism would only work if everyone was able to pull their own weight and was capable of living as equal with one another.  That will never be the case among humans, there is always going to be a system of some sort.
One could argue that the shape society took while humans were hunter-gatherers was a type of socialism. Everyone had a job, everyone did their job, and everyone shared the fruits of everyone's labor. The contributions of each person's work helped to support the whole group. As everyone was a worker, any kind of ruling body would have been a worker's council. I'm not sure about equality that early on, humans may have adapted a hierarchical structure before the first civilizations, but necessity would have made slaves of all people, not just some. If someone wasn't able to pull his or her weight (like, say, a shaman or priest), it likely would have meant that he or she couldn't share in the spoils of the group.

I agree, and I bet there was a more functioning socialist society before humans began to think of more than survival for the entire group and moved into personal entitlement.  Individually many, many people feel entitled to luxuries and living expenses but no obligation to work for them.  I am doubtful we will erase that mindset.  That alone makes functioning and non-oppressive socialism very unlikely.  A broken attempt at socialism is much more dangerous than an open capitalist or class system because they still try to blanket everything in equality.  Kind of like how it's easier to deal with aggressive-aggressive than passive-agressive, at least with the former you know what you are dealing with at the jump.
In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular. (Kathy Norris)
They say I have ADHD but I think they are full of...oh, look a kitty!! (unknown)

Will

  • Global Moderator
  • Touched by His Noodly Appendage
  • *****
  • Posts: 2698
Re: Capitalismvssocialism
« Reply #13 on: May 04, 2009, 06:46:40 PM »
Quote from: "VanReal"
I agree, and I bet there was a more functioning socialist society before humans began to think of more than survival for the entire group and moved into personal entitlement.  Individually many, many people feel entitled to luxuries and living expenses but no obligation to work for them.  I am doubtful we will erase that mindset.  That alone makes functioning and non-oppressive socialism very unlikely.  A broken attempt at socialism is much more dangerous than an open capitalist or class system because they still try to blanket everything in equality.  Kind of like how it's easier to deal with aggressive-aggressive than passive-aggressive, at least with the former you know what you are dealing with at the jump.
We probably won't erase the mindset of wanting something for nothing, but that won't stop me from trying. If we, as a society, understood better the value in earning what we get I suspect we'd be a lot better off. Contribution can give meaning, after all.
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.

VanReal

  • Rides the Sonic Rain Boom
  • **
  • Posts: 535
Re: Capitalismvssocialism
« Reply #14 on: May 04, 2009, 07:19:13 PM »
Quote from: "Will"
  We probably won't erase the mindset of wanting something for nothing, but that won't stop me from trying. If we, as a society, understood better the value in earning what we get I suspect we'd be a lot better off. Contribution can give meaning, after all.

I know, giving up would definitely not help anything.  What's the saying "the worst action is no action" or something like that?  I try really hard with my son, he's had to pay for his own "stylish clothes and shoes" and provide for his own entertainment including gas for his car, but truly it's hard to get them to take initiative (like how many more items are you going to pile onto the garbage before you take it out) and naturally put work in.  It's a very scary generation coming up right now.  No offenseto our younger members here!  ;)
In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular. (Kathy Norris)
They say I have ADHD but I think they are full of...oh, look a kitty!! (unknown)