The Fear of Socialism

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:51 pm

Many of my countrymen (U.S.) have this abject fear of SOCIALISM due in part to the definition of socialism that they get out of the dictionary or encyclopedia. As a dyed in the wool capitalist and strong believer in the free enterprise system I too shared this fear at one time. Take New Zealand. Because they have pretty much womb to tomb social welfare programs and from time to time government ownership of telecommunications and subsidy and control of their main airline (Air New Zealand), most Americans would say that the country is SOCIALISITIC. New Zealand is a Constitutional Monarchy with a Parlimentary Democracy with a open economy and is known for being one of the world's most free market CAPITALIST economies. Sounds conflictive doesn't it? New Zealand is a good country to study, i'ts small, both main islands about the size of California but only 4 million people (one million out of the country at any given time). One of the advantages of being a small country is that when they pass a law, it goes into effect quickly and the results, good or bad can be seen quickly as well. So If you are wondering if I like that system better the answer is no. Would their system work in the U.S.? I doubt it, we are too big and unwieldly. New Zealand has some pluses and some minuses just like our government, but socialism is not the Boogey Man that many have made it out to be. By the way-----------Australia is pretty much the same as NZ except they are 20 million in population.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:09 pm

4 million people (one million out of the country at any given time

Cant be that good if a quarter are absent............most of the time

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:17 pm

Bruv;1008591 wrote: Cant be that good if a quarter are absent............most of the time

Ha---they are traveler's as I am sure you know, off the the UK, Europe, Canada, U.S., coming and going. All my my Kiwi relatives have traveled extensively abroad.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:25 pm

Lon;1008596 wrote: Ha---they are traveler's as I am sure you know, off the the UK, Europe, Canada, U.S., coming and going. All my my Kiwi relatives have traveled extensively abroad.

Exactly.....Why ?

(I am on a wind up)

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:29 pm

Bruv;1008605 wrote: Exactly.....Why ?

(I am on a wind up)

Strange question--------why does anyone wish to travel?

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:39 pm

They travel because they feel an affinity with Britain and other places in Europe, but they are on the other side of the planet and they get lonely. Thats my theory anyway, any Kiwi's or Aussies here can of course completely disown that opinion.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:42 pm

Lon;1008608 wrote: Strange question--------why does anyone wish to travel?

To get away from where they are ?

Most Americans dont travel.......because they are happy to stay at home

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:46 pm

Bruv;1008620 wrote: To get away from where they are ?

Most Americans dont travel.......because they are happy to stay at home

How about adventure and curiosity-----those have been my main reasons for world travel.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:49 pm

Galbally;1008617 wrote: They travel because they feel an affinity with Britain and other places in Europe, but they are on the other side of the planet and they get lonely. Thats my theory anyway, any Kiwi's or Aussies here can of course completely disown that opinion.

You are right of course--------all of my wife's family have roots in Scotland and many rellies living there. Also, the geographical location of NZ keeps them somewhat isolated.

Kathy Ellen · Post by **Kathy Ellen** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 7:01 pm

Bruv;1008620 wrote: To get away from where they are ?

Most Americans dont travel.......because they are happy to stay at home

Most Americans do travel Bruv...where do you get the idea that they don't??

double helix · Post by **double helix** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:45 pm

Lon;1008608 wrote: Strange question--------why does anyone wish to travel? Umm, I just guessing but if a quarter of the population is out of the country at any given time I thinking they went of to find wealth and happness.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 2:33 am

Those who can will. Only finances stop folk from travelling. If i had mega money, i would go to as many places as i could before i die. Except A certain touchy area of the middle East.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 2:40 am

Bruv;1008591 wrote: Cant be that good if a quarter are absent............most of the time

The Kiwi is a migrant bird but usually goes home to roost.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:34 am

The quality of life in New Zealand is amazingly high. I'd love to have spent some time living there.

I'll have a try at swinging the thread back to Socialism but I doubt whether anyone's going to want to play, Lon. It's all about vocabulary before people can even start to engage in discussing what they'd prefer and why they'd prefer it. I'll try to put some words here that, if we all used them the same way in the thread, would allow a discussion.

Socialism has nothing to do with what type of government a country has, it's to do with the distribution of resources. Nothing else, just that. Not the type of government, or the degree of government, or whether government can itself hold and manipulate society's resources or not. Those are all entirely independent issues.

A given society at a given moment has a level of resource. That has nothing to do with the political system, that's a part definition of resource and society which indicates the association between the two. For the average person a resource is either wealth or income, the one he holds, the other he acquires.

In some political systems there's no government at all to distribute any resource. In other political systems only the government is allowed to distribute resources. Neither of those is socialism.

Socialism has two legs.

One is that no person within society is left so unresourced that those with an average share of the resources consider themselves to be significantly better resourced. I'm not talking degree here, I'm talking kind. If the average isn't starving then neither can the least resourced person be. The same goes for shelter, schooling, access to whatever the average consider fundamental elements of existence. In western society today that undoubtedly includes, for example, Internet access.

The other leg is that socialism regards lower wealth differentials to be healthier for society. For any state of financial distribution, a socialist would prefer that the wealth differential between the richest band and poorest band were narrower.

Now, anyone numerate can design a perfectly good system for distributing income and wealth in such a way as to progressively bring about greater degrees of socialism. Anyone numerate can create an achievable starting condition and set rules in place for the starting condition to progress in the right direction.

Is that helpful?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:06 am

spot;1008906 wrote: The quality of life in New Zealand is amazingly high. I'd love to have spent some time living there.

I'll have a try at swinging the thread back to Socialism but I doubt whether anyone's going to want to play, Lon. It's all about vocabulary before people can even start to engage in discussing what they'd prefer and why they'd prefer it. I'll try to put some words here that, if we all used them the same way in the thread, would allow a discussion.

Socialism has nothing to do with what type of government a country has, it's to do with the distribution of resources. Nothing else, just that. Not the type of government, or the degree of government, or whether government can itself hold and manipulate society's resources or not. Those are all entirely independent issues.

A given society at a given moment has a level of resource. That has nothing to do with the political system, that's a part definition of resource and society which indicates the association between the two. For the average person a resource is either wealth or income, the one he holds, the other he acquires.

In some political systems there's no government at all to distribute any resource. In other political systems only the government is allowed to distribute resources. Neither of those is socialism.

Socialism has two legs.

One is that no person within society is left so unresourced that those with an average share of the resources consider themselves to be significantly better resourced. I'm not talking degree here, I'm talking kind. If the average isn't starving then neither can the least resourced person be. The same goes for shelter, schooling, access to whatever the average consider fundamental elements of existence. In western society today that undoubtedly includes, for example, Internet access.

The other leg is that socialism regards lower wealth differentials to be healthier for society. For any state of financial distribution, a socialist would prefer that the wealth differential between the richest band and poorest band were narrower.

Now, anyone numerate can design a perfectly good system for distributing income and wealth in such a way as to progressively bring about greater degrees of socialism. Anyone numerate can create an achievable starting condition and set rules in place for the starting condition to progress in the right direction.

Is that helpful?

And discuss

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:02 am

As a reference point this is what people in New Zealand look like.

Attached files

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 am

Nomad;1009113 wrote: As a reference point this is what people in New Zealand look like.

They also look like this.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:58 am

Lon;1009165 wrote: They also look like this.

Thank you !

I was trying to be politically correct.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:03 am

spot;1008906 wrote: The quality of life in New Zealand is amazingly high. I'd love to have spent some time living there.

I'll have a try at swinging the thread back to Socialism but I doubt whether anyone's going to want to play, Lon. It's all about vocabulary before people can even start to engage in discussing what they'd prefer and why they'd prefer it. I'll try to put some words here that, if we all used them the same way in the thread, would allow a discussion.

Socialism has nothing to do with what type of government a country has, it's to do with the distribution of resources. Nothing else, just that. Not the type of government, or the degree of government, or whether government can itself hold and manipulate society's resources or not. Those are all entirely independent issues.

A given society at a given moment has a level of resource. That has nothing to do with the political system, that's a part definition of resource and society which indicates the association between the two. For the average person a resource is either wealth or income, the one he holds, the other he acquires.

In some political systems there's no government at all to distribute any resource. In other political systems only the government is allowed to distribute resources. Neither of those is socialism.

Socialism has two legs.

One is that no person within society is left so unresourced that those with an average share of the resources consider themselves to be significantly better resourced. I'm not talking degree here, I'm talking kind. If the average isn't starving then neither can the least resourced person be. The same goes for shelter, schooling, access to whatever the average consider fundamental elements of existence. In western society today that undoubtedly includes, for example, Internet access.

The other leg is that socialism regards lower wealth differentials to be healthier for society. For any state of financial distribution, a socialist would prefer that the wealth differential between the richest band and poorest band were narrower.

Now, anyone numerate can design a perfectly good system for distributing income and wealth in such a way as to progressively bring about greater degrees of socialism. Anyone numerate can create an achievable starting condition and set rules in place for the starting condition to progress in the right direction.

Is that helpful?

Well written and I agree, but I am not sure how this confusion re: socialism has come about in the U.S. Just yesterday some one said to me "Well if we let the government get into controlling health care we'll be just a step away from socialism and then it will be communism".

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:06 am

Lon;1009172 wrote:

Well written and I agree, but I am not sure how this confusion re: socialism has come about in the U.S. Just yesterday some one said to me "Well if we let the government get into controlling health care we'll be just a step away from socialism and then it will be communism".

Why?

Having a social conscience does not automatically lead to the state ownership of all means of production. I do not see why one is thought to lead inevitably to the other.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:11 am

Bryn Mawr;1009175 wrote: Why?

Having a social conscience does not automatically lead to the state ownership of all means of production. I do not see why one is thought to lead inevitably to the other.

I don't understand the thinking either. Maybe it harks back to the days of the MaCarthy Hearings where they were looking for commies in every closet, and the John Birch Society's paranoia.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:18 am

Kathy Ellen;1008683 wrote: Most Americans do travel Bruv...where do you get the idea that they don't??

Until recently, only 27 percent of eligible Americans had passports. The new requirements set off a rush, with a record 12.1 million passports issued last year and as many as 17 million expected this year, the State Department said. Some 74 million Americans have valid passports.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:45 am

Since I'm probably most vocal about the subject, I expect this is at least partly about me. If not, I spose I win my Ego Scout badge.

To change our form of government at the federal level is to decide that our actions of the past 232 years have brought us to a dead end. I vehemently disagree and would love to participate in a discussion on the subject when time permits.

At the state level, however, I couldn't care less what kind of government the citizens of that state adopt. That's the beauty of America, all are welcome under the federal umbrella of freedom. But that umbrella is critical to our existence. Without our beloved Constitution as a reference point and anchor, rather than a relic of times barely remembered, we toss our grand and pockmarked history over for something ... less.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 11:05 am

Accountable;1009319 wrote: That's the beauty of America, all are welcome under the federal umbrella of freedom. But that umbrella is critical to our existence. .

Would i be welcome in America Accountable? :-6

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 11:09 am

oscar;1009328 wrote: Would i be welcome in America Accountable? :-6Absolutely!

We're talking about a short escorted visit, right? :-3

:D

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 11:15 am

Bruv;1009300 wrote: Until recently, only 27 percent of eligible Americans had passports. The new requirements set off a rush, with a record 12.1 million passports issued last year and as many as 17 million expected this year, the State Department said. Some 74 million Americans have valid passports.If you read further into the New York Times article it makes it quite clear that the reason so few Americans used to have passports is that they were allowed to travel to so many places abroad without one. "only 27 percent of eligible Americans had passports" didn't imply that only 27 percent of eligible Americans travelled outside of the USA.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 11:19 am

Accountable;1009319 wrote: To change our form of government at the federal level is to decide that our actions of the past 232 years have brought us to a dead end. I vehemently disagree and would love to participate in a discussion on the subject when time permits.

At the state level, however, I couldn't care less what kind of government the citizens of that state adopt. That's the beauty of America, all are welcome under the federal umbrella of freedom. But that umbrella is critical to our existence. Without our beloved Constitution as a reference point and anchor, rather than a relic of times barely remembered, we toss our grand and pockmarked history over for something ... less.

Thank you Acc. That totally ignores every word I wrote, most particularly "Socialism has nothing to do with what type of government a country has, it's to do with the distribution of resources". Implementing Socialism in the USA has no connection with changing your form of government at a federal level, a state level or any other level. Your Constitution is ideally suited to administering Socialist values. If you think otherwise then do, please, highlight the areas in the Constitution which in your opinion bars Socialist values from being pursued and implemented within American politics.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 11:33 am

spot;1009338 wrote: If you read further into the New York Times article it makes it quite clear that the reason so few Americans used to have passports is that they were allowed to travel to so many places abroad without one. "only 27 percent of eligible Americans had passports" didn't imply that only 27 percent of eligible Americans travelled outside of the USA.

Another factor I believe, is the size of the U.S. and it's proximity to Canada and Mexico and the fact that until recently, coming and going was a snap.

Hawaii and some Caribbean Isles were easy to access as well. The closeness of European countries has not only facilitated fluency in more than one language, but awareness of different cultures, without having to travel very far.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:09 pm

While a socialist society can be formed within any type of government, I think the type of government will greatly influence the socialist 'environment'.

A liberal government would allow citizens to create a structure according to their needs, environment and resources. a communist government would seek to control the same, particularly resources of importance to the country or state.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:50 pm

OpenMind;1009450 wrote: While a socialist society can be formed within any type of government, I think the type of government will greatly influence the socialist 'environment'.

A liberal government would allow citizens to create a structure according to their needs, environment and resources. a communist government would seek to control the same, particularly resources of importance to the country or state.

The words you're looking for are Liberal and Totalitarian, not "communist". There are Communist governments in Representative Democracies at the moment - I offer Nepal as an example. Communism, Socialism and Capitalism are different political theories with different solutions to running societies in a more or less virtuous way, they're independent of the type of government structure a society chooses to live with.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 2:31 pm

spot;1009493 wrote: The words you're looking for are Liberal and Totalitarian, not "communist". There are Communist governments in Representative Democracies at the moment - I offer Nepal as an example. Communism, Socialism and Capitalism are different political theories with different solutions to running societies in a more or less virtuous way, they're independent of the type of government structure a society chooses to live with.

Thanks for that, Spot.

At least I got one right.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:09 pm

spot;1009343 wrote: Thank you Acc. That totally ignores every word I wrote, ....

'kay.

I wasted a lot of time trying to explain my thoughts, but I'm just not good enough. So instead I ask a question:

Why is socialism desirable? From what I see, if socialism is forced upon me I don't have to contribute anything at all to society and I can still live quite well. In fact, everyone can. Why wouldn't we? Where's the motivation to contribute to society, if anything extra I do goes to the sloths?

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:26 pm

Accountable;1009680 wrote: 'kay.

I wasted a lot of time trying to explain my thoughts, but I'm just not good enough. So instead I ask a question:

Why is socialism desirable? From what I see, if socialism is forced upon me I don't have to contribute anything at all to society and I can still live quite well. In fact, everyone can. Why wouldn't we? Where's the motivation to contribute to society, if anything extra I do goes to the sloths?

Because you'd be a sad mockery of a person if you had so little interest in achieving your potential. Why on earth do you think financial reward is the sole motivation people have for excelling? I can see why capitalism would claim it to be true but it simply isn't. Look around you, you're surrounded by people who are bursting with things they'd love to be getting on with and succeeding at. I would have worked at the jobs I've had just as eagerly - quite possibly more eagerly and I could explain why if you insist - if it had been a contribution to the common good rather than a means of economic survival.

I'm not the problem. The problem is the guy who delivers the post, for example, because that's what he's good at, it suits him, he enjoys doing it. He deserves just as much creature comfort as I do but this capitalist society doesn't value his work as highly as it values mine. That's what needs changing. The problem is the shop worker who can't afford to live independently, to rent a room and feed himself and plan to marry and bring up children. Tolerating poverty is a dreadful consequence of personal greed. That's why Socialism is desirable.

I'm sure there would be people, as you say, who'd slouch back and contribute nothing. So what? They're the ones whose labour in today's society is negligible anyhow. Whether they clock on for a 40 hour week or sit on their sofa and rot they're doing nothing much for the common good. For as many as would slack off there'd be those who'd use their time creatively, their time freed from their current pointless employment. The whole approach forces employers to make jobs desirable and interesting if they want to get staff to fill the places. It's all positive.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:42 pm

The only way that socialism can possibly avoid being a form of government is if it were practiced completely voluntarily. That ain't happenin' nowhere nowhow.

I'd rather be free, thankyouverymuch. Free to succeed; free to fail. Freedom, Warts and all.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:48 pm

spot;1009701 wrote: Because you'd be a sad mockery of a person if you had so little interest in achieving your potential. Why on earth do you think financial reward is the sole motivation people have for excelling? I can see why capitalism would claim it to be true but it simply isn't. Look around you, you're surrounded by people who are bursting with things they'd love to be getting on with and succeeding at. I would have worked at the jobs I've had just as eagerly - quite possibly more eagerly and I could explain why if you insist - if it had been a contribution to the common good rather than a means of economic survival.

I'm not the problem. The problem is the guy who delivers the post, for example, because that's what he's good at, it suits him, he enjoys doing it. He deserves just as much creature comfort as I do but this capitalist society doesn't value his work as highly as it values mine. That's what needs changing. The problem is the shop worker who can't afford to live independently, to rent a room and feed himself and plan to marry and bring up children. Tolerating poverty is a dreadful consequence of personal greed. That's why Socialism is desirable.

I'm sure there would be people, as you say, who'd slouch back and contribute nothing. So what? They're the ones whose labour in today's society is negligible anyhow. Whether they clock on for a 40 hour week or sit on their sofa and rot they're doing nothing much for the common good. For as many as would slack off there'd be those who'd use their time creatively, their time freed from their current pointless employment. The whole approach forces employers to make jobs desirable and interesting if they want to get staff to fill the places. It's all positive.

I disagree that the Postman deserves as much creature comfort as you do, any more than someone that is intellectually challenged deserves the same intellectual rewards as the mentally gifted. We are not all equal, nor should we be. 100 people stranded on a desert island with varying skills and intellect is a good exercise to contemplate. For everyone to work for the good of all could well result in the destruction of everyone, but realistically there will be some that survive and others that will die.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm

Accountable;1009715 wrote: The only way that socialism can possibly avoid being a form of government is if it were practiced completely voluntarily. That ain't happenin' nowhere nowhow.

I'd rather be free, thankyouverymuch. Free to succeed; free to fail. Freedom, Warts and all.

That's very froody for you, you're competent, intelligent. There are people less well placed to earn well. People with low IQ, missing a couple of limbs or on dialysis for life. Your emphasis on freedom leaves them with less resource than you can command. You're tying their ability to earn with their potential to live in any comfort. I don't see the linkage. I don't see why you deserve to live more comfortably just because you can earn more, it seems to associate two things that have no logical association.

They're not free to succeed or fail - only the American Dream lie of "anyone can do it" pretends that anyone can do it. They're trapped in a system where wealth gravitates toward the economically successful, where the less interference there is in the marketplace the greater the division between rich and poor. Your country's abandoned the concept of a social contract where people agree to be governed. The US relies instead on lies and naked oppression.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:55 pm

Lon;1009719 wrote: I disagree that the Postman deserves as much creature comfort as you doThat, Lon, is because you're a capitalist oppressor and a class enemy. I note your opinion, I note that we disagree, I can't really do a lot about that. All I'm doing is describing my philosophy.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 5:06 pm

spot;1009728 wrote: That, Lon, is because you're a capitalist oppressor and a class enemy. I note your opinion, I note that we disagree, I can't really do a lot about that. All I'm doing is describing my philosophy.

Holy Smokes Spot-------Oppressor? Me? Class Enemy? I respect your thinking and philosophy even though we disagree.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 5:07 pm

Lon;1009735 wrote: Holy Smokes Spot-------Oppressor? Me? Class Enemy? I respect your thinking and philosophy even though we disagree.

Admit it, I got you to smile there.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 6:18 pm

spot;1009725 wrote: That's very froody for you, you're competent, intelligent. There are people less well placed to earn well. People with low IQ, missing a couple of limbs or on dialysis for life. Your emphasis on freedom leaves them with less resource than you can command.I'm also free to help.

You presume that I don't voluntarily help those I choose to help. You presume too much.

spot wrote: You're tying their ability to earn with their potential to live in any comfort. I don't see the linkage. I don't see why you deserve to live more comfortably just because you can earn more, it seems to associate two things that have no logical association.

They're not free to succeed or fail - only the American Dream lie of "anyone can do it" pretends that anyone can do it. They're trapped in a system where wealth gravitates toward the economically successful, where the less interference there is in the marketplace the greater the division between rich and poor. Your country's abandoned the concept of a social contract where people agree to be governed. The US relies instead on lies and naked oppression.Then why do you put on the farce of having any income at all? Why not just have everyone contribute based on his ability and let the gov't/collective/whatever provide to everyone's need?

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 6:56 pm

spot;1009736 wrote: Admit it, I got you to smile there.

True----:-6

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 3:03 am

spot;1009701 wrote: Why on earth do you think financial reward is the sole motivation people have for excelling? I don't. The financial reward is the only one gov't is currently able to "redistribute". Got any ideas for redistributing job satisfaction from those greedy bastards who have more than their fair share to the poor souls who can barely find reason to get up in the morning? :rolleyes:

Post by **spot** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:34 am

Accountable;1009779 wrote: I'm also free to help.

You presume that I don't voluntarily help those I choose to help. You presume too much.Charity is a trivial paternalistic insult often put forward as a solution. It isn't. The solution is to recognize social rights rather than force the recipients into a frame of mind where they're aided at the whim of their benevolent betters.Accountable wrote: Then why do you put on the farce of having any income at all? Why not just have everyone contribute based on his ability and let the gov't/collective/whatever provide to everyone's need?People understand money. It allows for a small gradual shift to a progressively more perfect solution. I have no use for money at all in a personal rather than a business setting, I consider it a bane. I loathe everything it implies, starting with ownership. I'm quite prepared to carry on using it universally during the redistribution phase where Socialism is introduced. Once it's fully developed it's up to the society of the time to decide how to account for goods and services. It's a great way of keeping score for businesses. For people it's a millstone.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:09 am

spot;1010001 wrote: People understand money. It allows for a small gradual shift to a progressively more perfect solution. I have no use for money at all in a personal rather than a business setting, I consider it a bane. I loathe everything it implies, starting with ownership. I'm quite prepared to carry on using it universally during the redistribution phase where Socialism is introduced. Once it's fully developed it's up to the society of the time to decide how to account for goods and services. It's a great way of keeping score for businesses. For people it's a millstone.Good for you! Then that means that we're so far apart culturally that we can't possibly communicate on this subject. Keep that in mind the next time you feel the urge, 'kay?

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:13 am

What exactly is an ideal social-economical set up. It's neither one thing or another but a mix of ideals.

It's impossible to consider every individual's needs and wants but it is possible to create a structure within which individuals can pursue their needs and wants. So, the answer requires an approach that combines individualism, pluralism and structuralism.

The position of handicapped people has been raised in the posts here. It strikes me that the current systems in the world penalise the handicapped for being handicapped. I don't believe Stephen Hawkins would have achieved the position he enjoys now if he wasn't born to at least a moderately wealthy family. In a poor environment, that brilliant mind would have gone to waste. As an aside, whether it is relevant or not, I would add that nature has a tendency to ensure that there is more than one individual capable of providing a service. Graham Alexander Bell wasn't the only person to create a telegraph/telephony system, the principle of which our modern telephone system still depends on.

The point is that every individual should have an equal opportunity, whatever their handicap. In an ideal economy, we could probably do away with currency altogether. If a person has given their best, they deserve the same rights to essential resources as everyone else. But money is now a resource, albeit a social one, so we may as well keep it - at least for now.

As for what a person wants, it would be up to them to provide it or to persuade another to provide it for them. There is no doubt that these individuals would be more politically savvy. They would know that if they were not in favour, they would not get what they wanted.

Neither would we need governments or ruling bodies as we have in the world now. An administration would be needed to oversee disputes. Essential resources need an administration to ensure everyone gets their fair share. Thus, we would only need an administration to oversee the essential aspects of the economy.

The administration would be further broken down into meaningful communities where people actually knew who their neighbours were and felt that their vote counted for something.'Communities' are too large nowadays and this not only makes them harder to police, distrust is inherent because no one knows old Joe Bloggs just a few doors down the road.

If someone felt that far-reaching changes were required, they would have to persuade people to back them. They would have to 'sell' their ideas. Thus, any political effort worthy of its goal would truly reflect the majority. There would be no case of a leadership in charge of a community based upon a minority that happened to be the greatest vote.

I would think we would also get back to the more natural type of community based on families. In the last century, this type of community has been purposefully dismantled by the British Governments. Communities would also develop individual styles and character.

From a structural perspective, it will be evident that resources and opportunities are limited. There isn't an endless supply and some communities may be completely deficient. Herein lies the first major social dilemma.

It is easy to say distribute the resources equally to everyone. But everyone's needs are different. Also, there is a built in human need to 'possess' resources so as to derive the maximum return for that resource, whether that return be economical, political, or otherwise. Neither are resources equally and evenly spread. We have moved away from the 'we found it first, it's ours and you can't have any' scenario (thankfully). But this does show that there is a need to control resources. Except where resources are plentiful, resources need to be controlled at the national or international level.

An administration at the national and international levels would exist to iron out difficulties, deal with disputes, distribute essential resources, and oversee the economies. It would require less in the way of overheads and therefore taxes would be proportionately lower. The majority of the taxes paid would be collected by and for the communities and people would possibly feel the benefits more directly and feel they have a say in there appropriation.

That's just a notion of what I think. Now do your worst.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:32 am

Despite all of the things happening right now, I am still a firm believer in Capitalism and free markets, because, (put simply) these mechanism best reflect the actual reality of human economic relationships.

Now that said, there are various types of capitalist model, and it seems to me that the Anglo-Saxon self-regulating one has more or less bitten the dust, and seeing how unsustainable it has turned out to be, thats no bad thing. That said, trying to use this as some que to reinstate command economies, would simply result in the same problems that this has resulted in in the past.

The profit motive is the driving force in human economic activity, and it always will be, unless you significantly change the physchology of human beings, you won't change that fundamental truth that men will always try to improve their own lot based on self-interest, and any system that trys to legislate this fact away will soon be subverted by that urge.

I am sure that over time, there will be a complete reassessment of the capitalist system we have been using in the west for the past 30 years, bascially what we are witnessing is the death of Reganomics and Thatcherism, but not the death of capitalism itself. I would presume that the system that will emerge will be far more state controlled, it will be global, not just based on Wall Street, safeguards will be put in place to ensure that there is some decoupling between the US, European, and Asian financial systems, but that new global standards and rules will be applied to international finance. Governments will insist on reasserting their sovereignty over capital markets as what has happened over the last few weeks cannot be allowed to happen again. High financiers cannot be allowed to hold entire nations to randsom.

The emphasis on high finance will go, and will be replaced with a more old-fashioned focus on actual productive enterprise, it will be a very difficult period, and many people and probably countries will lose significant amounts of wealth, but given what has been allowed to happen over the last few years, a massive reordering is now inevitable.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:47 am

posted by accountable

Why is socialism desirable? From what I see, if socialism is forced upon me I don't have to contribute anything at all to society and I can still live quite well. In fact, everyone can. Why wouldn't we? Where's the motivation to contribute to society, if anything extra I do goes to the sloths?

Why is capitalism desirable? socialism tends to come up from below-the people demanding things change for the better. The two are not incompatable classic capitalists accepted that some things were best provided by the state-infrastructure law and order. The debate moves on and times change what can be done has changed rather a lot-come to that we are now in the third industrial age clinging to political philosophies that pre date industrialisation isn't progress nor is it necessarily a good thing. Mix the two up as you see fit.

Ever heard of these guys-

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

Cromwell and Ireton's main complaint about the Agreement was that it included terms for near universal male suffrage, which Ireton considered to be anarchy. Instead they suggested suffrage should be limited only to landholders. The Agitators, on the other hand, felt they deserved the rights in payment for their service during the war. Thus Thomas Rainsborough argued:

â€œ For really I think that the poorest he that is in England have a life to live, as the greatest he: and therefore truly, sir, I think it's clear, that every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that government. â€

And Ireton, for the Grandees:

â€œ no man hath a right to an interest or share in the disposing of the affairs of the kingdom... that hath not a permanent fixed interest in this kingdom.[4]

Led on to the curbing of the power of the king and ultimately democracy as we now know it in the UK.

In 1776 you had exactly the same debate-even some of the language was the similar. (you know the bit about government of the people by the people) The key question is what is who runs the government and who should have a say in what it does.

In the debates round your constitution exactly the same questions were asked-who should get to vote-who had a right to vote. That why a man who stood with a musket facing the British should not be good enough to vote is an interesting question-good enough to die for the country but not run it.

Then business and property won and the idea of universal suffrage went out the window. Measures were put in place to stop populist candidates getting a seat and to protect property arguably you still have the similar measures in place.

I've asked it before somewhere-how many times has a presidential candidate won a majority of the popular vote but yet failed to win because of the electoral colleges.

posted by lon

I disagree that the Postman deserves as much creature comfort as you do, any more than someone that is intellectually challenged deserves the same intellectual rewards as the mentally gifted. We are not all equal, nor should we be. 100 people stranded on a desert island with varying skills and intellect is a good exercise to contemplate. For everyone to work for the good of all could well result in the destruction of everyone, but realistically there will be some that survive and others that will die.

So do you believe you are not all equal in law? in the eyes of god? Should some people not be allowed to vote for whatever reason?

On your hypothetical island you would not work together with everybody else to help each other? If that's the way you feel about it-survival of the fittest -devil take the hindmost look after number one are you not therefore a liability to the group survival and as should should be removed from the group as a destructive force inimical to the survival of all? What happen if you break your back and become disabled and as such a liability? Voluntary suicide or euthanasia (eugenics for an island community) ? What about if someone bigger than you wants your wife and you can't prevent it yourself. Would you want group help or would you accept it as being only fair cos he's powerful enough to get what he wants?

Should someone from a poor background be permanently disadvantaged or should one of the functions of government be to see that all are given equal access to opportunity (in education and health for example) health and if necessary takes steps to re-distribute the wealth of society so that all get a fair share?

Should those who have wealth and therefore pay most in taxes be able to have a greater say in how the place is run and those taxes used?

Or does the word and viewpoint of the common man count for as much. Put it another way-should the vote of Paris Hilton count for more than a single parent on income benefit in the bronx (or some suitably deprived area. I would say Easterhouse but that's in Glasgow)

How you answer those questions gives an indication of whether you basically agree with socialist ideals at least in principle or not.

Get over the hang up about the word. Spot puts forward a kind of fundamentalist socialist viewpoint I disagree with. Outside of the states socialism has many shades of red. It's roots go back a very long way

posted by galbally

I am sure that over time, there will be a complete reassessment of the capitalist system we have been using in the west for the past 30 years, bascially what we are witnessing is the death of Reganomics and Thatcherism, but not the death of capitalism itself. I would presume that the system that will emerge will be far more state controlled, it will be global, not just based on Wall Street, safeguards will be put in place to ensure that there is some decoupling between the US, European, and Asian financial systems, but that new global standards and rules will be applied to international finance. Governments will insist on reasserting their sovereignty over capital markets as what has happened over the last few weeks cannot be allowed to happen again. High financiers cannot be allowed to hold entire nations to randsom.

I would say it has already started at least in europe. It seems in the UK that the headless chicken is the approved choice at the moment. Mind you as to the tories, private eye says it all imo

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers.php?showme=1220&

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:32 am

Accountable;1009715 wrote: The only way that socialism can possibly avoid being a form of government is if it were practiced completely voluntarily. That ain't happenin' nowhere nowhow.

I'd rather be free, thankyouverymuch. Free to succeed; free to fail. Freedom, Warts and all.

Given your first paragraph, would you please define socialism

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:40 am

Accountable;1009779 wrote: I'm also free to help.

You presume that I don't voluntarily help those I choose to help. You presume too much.

Then why do you put on the farce of having any income at all? Why not just have everyone contribute based on his ability and let the gov't/collective/whatever provide to everyone's need?

A laudable aim but very difficult to put into practice - and nothing to do with socialism.

Post by **spot** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:45 am

gmc;1010322 wrote: Spot puts forward a kind of fundamentalist socialist viewpoint I disagree with.Just for the record, I regard the description of Socialism I gave earlier to be centrist, non-extreme and uncontroversial. I'd have thought most Socialists would find it hard to improve on, as definitions or descriptions go. By all means offer alternatives and we can see how different yours is, or how centrist compared to others.