|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
posted May 16, 2010 12:33 PM |
|
|
See here is the problem. It is all about the single individual now, that is why socialism is 'bad'. Lets call this single individual 'me', and I will explain.
Right now, in this world, it is all about 'me'. What 'I' can get, what benefits 'me', the person with the most 'toys' when they die wins. Because inheritently we are still animals. Looking out for only number one. That is why 'socialism' is bad, because it goes against that. Helping others? Nah, no thanks. Unless it is a tax write off or makes others see just how awesome I am..there is nothing in it for 'me'.
There are pluses and minuses to everything of course. On one hand the idea of a safety net bugs me. You try something stupid, you get what you deserve, but basic neccessities for our fellow human beings is a good thing also. Medicine, food, basic shelter? Yeah. All for that. Cause I've been as poor as dirt. Beyond that..people should be on their own.
I won't get into the mis conception about businesses having people's best intrest at heart. That is a joke. They are about profit, they don't care about their workers or anybody else..as long as they make money.
We are a flawed people, so we can not come up with a perfect system. It takes perfection to produce perfection, so we will NEVER get there. We might hit amazing, awesome, even almost perfect..but never perfect.
So socialism itself is not a bad thing. It has good and bad things like every other system out there. Some can't see the good, some can't see the bad. That's all.
____________
Message received.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted May 16, 2010 12:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Right now, in this world, it is all about 'me'. What 'I' can get, what benefits 'me'
Who else is going to look out for you, mytical? I think everyone can look out best for themselves and I'm pretty convinced of this statement. I mean, you can do whatever you wish to get what you want, aside from hurting someone else in a capitalist system. Do you have those freedom in a state where the economy is controlled by the state (I'll call it this, because some people seem to confuse socialism with utopia or social liberalism)?
And don't you see there's something inherently bad in that pararaph of yours? You are forcing others to think like you. You think you're right! What gives you the power to force others to give up their property in order to help others? I thought you of all people would understand that everyone has the freedom to think the way they want to, right? And you shouldn't force others to do what goes against their ideas, as long as they don't hurt others. What? Do you think we somehow transcended the need for freedom in this society? Is it a kiddie, selfish dream, now? I know your life is riddled with duty and self-sacrifice, but you can't make others live according to these principles, because it may not make them as happy and enlightened as you are.
On to your next paragraph:
Quote:
There are pluses and minuses to everything of course.
Really? Didn't know murder had plusses.
I don't actually quite get this paragraph, though... Are you saying the individual is important, then? Because 'people should be on their own' isn't a statement that fits the first paragraph.
Third paragraph:
Businesses are more profitable if their workers remain healthy. And workers profit from the businesses who employ them. Quid pro quo, Clarice!
Well, I disagree with your next paragraph in principle. On one hand, perfection is unattainable, but on the other hand, I disagree that something bad can't make something better. Tools craft better tools and so on, until we reach a certain paradigm. Same with institutions and philosophies. My understanding of Hegel's dialectics would claim there one day will be a perfect system (Marx thought it was communism and Fukuyama thought/ thinks it was/ is social liberalism)
Also, I appreciate the neautral diplomatic statement you made at the end.
Sorry, I felt like attacking your reply. I hope I didn't offend you.
EDIT: I feel my reply to be rather silly. But then again, this entire discussion was already kind of silly to begin with.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 16, 2010 01:10 PM |
|
|
@Mytical
Here are some of my thoughts upon what you wrote.
Quote:
It is all about the single individual now, that is why socialism is 'bad'.
I agree it's about the single individual, but you make it sound, in my view, like when it's about you, then all you want is also something about you.
For me, it's about what I want, but what I want is not solely for me.
I think that's a huge factor that should not be forgotten. That wants of people are not always focused around themselves.
Quote:
That is why 'socialism' is bad, because it goes against that. Helping others? Nah, no thanks.
I think the kind of thought, if I'm rich, then I can do for myself whatever needed, so I don't help others, only shows a limited thought towards the future.
There's always the risk of getting poor. However the wants we've on the other hand most likely only require a maximum amount of ressources. In principle it means, unless what you want is actually having more than others, then it's a clear advantage to:
A) Both have what you want + a security net if something fails
Rather than
B) Have what you want + extra ressources you can't use for anything
Quote:
We are a flawed people, so we can not come up with a perfect system. It takes perfection to produce perfection, so we will NEVER get there.
I disagree with this part, every want of everyone can be achieved by a given amount of ressources, every perspective of everyone can be ordered to fit ones wants, in general, everyone can get what they want, if they choose, and the ressources and technology is available.
Since that's what it's about, in my opinion, what we want, then the system is 'perfect'.
@Dagoth
Why do you call your reply an attack?
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 16, 2010 01:24 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 13:25, 16 May 2010.
|
Quote:
And don't you see there's something inherently bad in that pararaph of yours? You are forcing others to think like you. You think you're right! What gives you the power to force others to give up their property in order to help others? I thought you of all people would understand that everyone has the freedom to think the way they want to, right? And you shouldn't force others to do what goes against their ideas, as long as they don't hurt others. What? Do you think we somehow transcended the need for freedom in this society? Is it a kiddie, selfish dream, now? I know your life is riddled with duty and self-sacrifice, but you can't make others live according to these principles, because it may not make them as happy and enlightened as you are.
And you got it all wrong. Nowhere did I say "This is how everybody has to think" or even "this is how people SHOULD think". Also, my life is hardly all about duty and self-sacrifice. Yeah I help people when I can, but only what I can afford to do. Socialism just isn't the dirty buzzword people think it is.
Quote:
Really? Didn't know murder had plusses.
Well, to play the devils advocate here...what about killing somebody who is shooting up a school or a mall. No pluses to that ... at all?
Quote:
I don't actually quite get this paragraph, though... Are you saying the individual is important, then? Because 'people should be on their own' isn't a statement that fits the first paragraph
As I tried to say..socialism isn't the perfect system, but there IS no perfect system. Yes the individual IS important, and to a point people SHOULD be on their own.
Quote:
Third paragraph:
Businesses are more profitable if their workers remain healthy. And workers profit from the businesses who employ them. Quid pro quo, Clarice!
No..because they can always get more workers that are healthy. Yeah, they have some interest in keeping people healthy, but EVERYBODY is replaceable.
Quote:
Sorry, I felt like attacking your reply. I hope I didn't offend you.
It's all good. Not offended, but do think you missed what I was actually saying 
Quote:
EDIT: I feel my reply to be rather silly. But then again, this entire discussion was already kind of silly to begin with.
I disagree, your reply was not silly. It was a good reply. Discussion is good.
((Will reply to oforf when next I can, time is up for now  ))
____________
Message received.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted May 16, 2010 04:07 PM |
|
|
The principles of both systems are problematic. Thus, neither pure capitalism, nor pure socialism can work.
If forced to pick, I'd pick the "left" part of the politics over "right" any time of day, however.
Socialism's ideas are cool: to get rid of social inequality. After all, why one child has to suffer from being poor while the other has everything AND a great job because daddy is rich and wants to help his kid...
We can't forget that life ain't equal itself, though. We are born intelligent and dumb, for instance. Healthy or crippled. If we can't be equal at the basis of all, equality at getting a good job at the age of 18 seems marginal anyway.
Socialism left alone may become communism, capitalism leads to corporatism without any frontiers. Both systems try to make things equal (first by laws, other by fair competition), but without some sort of management, you can't achieve that. Either a strong group of leaders will emerge to dominate all (communism) or the groups of intelligent people will form groups that will survive while others will fall, and, in time, block all new people trying to enter the market with their cash, connections and long-term reputation.
What I find distasteful in capitalism is that it offers no protection from forming those inequalities. Corporations WILL rise, and WILL dominate. Capitalism can't exist without becoming corporatism, where the employing side is many times more powerful and significant that the employed side.
All those systems without healthy balance lead to oligarchy of those who where successful in one way or another (politics, finance) and passed it on their successors who could dominate their peers even easier, because their peers had 0 starting funds while the successors of the rich had XXX. Which is enough.
Imho the only healthy option is a mixture of socialism and capitalism.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted May 16, 2010 06:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
socialism and capitalism.
Which is called...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted May 16, 2010 07:06 PM |
|
|
Well, no official name, I guess 
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted May 16, 2010 07:10 PM |
|
|
If you can't follow the conversation, then I suggest you don't participate any longer 
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted May 16, 2010 07:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
socialism and capitalism.
Which is called...
Social capitalism.
____________
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted May 16, 2010 07:12 PM |
|
|
Gah! *walks out crying*
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 16, 2010 07:41 PM |
|
|
Mytical:
There is no conflict between helping others and looking out for yourself. Helping a friend feels good, so you are helping another and yourself. Self-interest =/= consumerism.
You think people will want to work for businesses where conditions are bad? Businesses will have to compensate for the danger with higher pay, so it works out.
DF:
The problem with "abolishing inequality" is that under socialism it's achieved by dragging the top down rather than brining the bottom up. In the year 5000, when each poor person has 12 mansions and each rich person will have a micro-planet, socialists will still be complaining about inequality.
As for corporations, they are themselves a creation of the government and would not exist under true capitalism.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 16, 2010 07:42 PM |
|
|
I see disagreement upon the use of the term socialism in this thread, at least as I understand it.
Some seem to link socialism with safety net provided through taxes.
Others seem to link socialism with owning means of production (not sure exactly if it means that all production pr. default is owned by the government, or if that government competes in producing).
Anyway, my point is just that I think it's probably hard for people around the world to agree if socialism is desirable if they as well might use different meanings for the word.
Maybe we should, in stead of using the term socialism, just simply say what we connect it with when using it, so there's no doubt what we're talking about? [Like most already have done.].
Anyway this is my opinion of each of them:
Safety net, I think is a good idea, but people should only be part of it (and thereby pay to it) if they want to. I.e. you can choose if you want to be part of society or not (pay taxes and get back what it can offer you, or choose not to pay taxes).
Though I do somewhat understand the big problems this can lead to. Among others, I believe that if money flows well in a system, the total amount of money present will determine the price of stuff to buy. If someone suddenly decides to keep all money to themselves, it's required to reinvest more money into the system to avoid prices dropping (as the total have been reduced as a large part isn't in flow anymore) however if said person(s) suddenly use a lot of these money, money in general will loose value as now the total have increased. When paying taxes, people with lots of money in general give more to society than others (because taxes are a percentage, which is fair because it should not be about an actual value, but about how much work you can do), when these people decide not to be a part of it, i.e. not paying, and to avoid the loss of an income, in general I think it could rapidly lead to a government falling apart. Of course one could try to force those persons who don't pay taxes out of the system of the flow of money (don't buy what they offer), but then you've just done even worse than forcing them to pay taxes. I think it's a problem that must be solved without using any kind of force, and I think it's to a large degree a problem of the free market. After all, we're all born with different talents and in the end, on the free market, some of us are going to make more than others, a lot more. If market would regulate itself freely many would go down simply because they would not make enough in response to what they need. In my opinion what is needed is the most basal stuff of life to be taken out of the flow of money, that means stuff like food and shelter, creating an automatic process that makes this possible.
After all, it's not money that create progress, money motivates to progress. Progress is made by creating a better technology upon doing certain tasks. With money people are motivated to create this technology. Thereby eventhough the amount of money are the same (or rather, have increased as money are less worth today), the possibilities have increased, because money have been a motivating factor to improve technology (among other things). That's also why I think capitalism is great, however it's a big problem when one starts to think the goal in itself is progress and money. Money is used to gain progres and progress is used to gain what you want for less ressources invested.
With the most basic stuff being automatical produced without requiring an investment to get, a big problem of the free market, the people who doesn't have enough to make it, dissapears and a safety net in this area is not needed (as it automatic, independent of money, exists). If extrapolated into all this type of needs (health, education, transport, etc.), then government would need less and less to require taxes, as progress have almost made government unnecessary. However to get to such a progress a good money flow is required, without it, progress is harder to achieve. Yet then we're back at the initial problem, because it's not that the free market only means people lacking 'luck' and 'talent' are in a big trouble without help, it also means that those who've the 'luck' and 'talent' can really ruin everything for everyone else, unless forced to give a share of their wealth.
Though in my opinion, banks should be able to solve this problem rather well. The great thing about banks is that they give profit by taking in money, in return they can basicly put all those money to flow on the free market. Thereby, if banks were run by the government, in principle, one could imagine the government could inves the money into progress in relevance to the purpose of the government (among other, said safety net made automatic), without ever forcing anyone to pay taxes. However there're three major concerns:
1) People aren't going to put their money into the banks, i.e. no money flow from anything than how people let the free market go (and not how banks choose to invest and thereby defines how the free market goes)
2) People who want a lot of money paid back. It means, to not increase the total amount of money in the system, progress must be halted, money set in rest, and new money given back to the owners.
3) Money in general loosing value, because everyone gains money on putting it into banks, if it ever happens that people want more money back than total invested, i.e. increasing the total money in flow, banks can't use negative flow money and thereby make the total back to normal, rather money in general would loose value.
Those are my thoughts upon the idea of socialism as a safety net.
About socialism as meaning it's goverment that owns the means of production. I understand this in two ways:
1) Whatever you produce, government owns (a form of communism?), which is a way I disagree with, since one should have private property, in my opinion.
2) Government, in stead of investing in producers who produces whatever is the governments function/purpose, then creating own coorperations that focus on progress in these areas. Honestly I see no problem in this, yes it'd make the free market very hard for private coorperations, especially when forced to pay tax (i.e. forced to pay to their competitors), however there are two things to consider:
1) I think no one should be forced to be part of society (i.e. not pay tax, not get the positive stuff back). Removes the problem of unequal competition.
2) It's not the purpose of government to make money, but to use money in term of progress in the areas of which is its function. Which means those coorperations would only be for research and since it's governemnt it should all be public, in turn meaning it's impossible for there to be any kind of competitions against these types of coorperations at all, because they don't sell anything at all. Only do research that's public available.
Those are my thoughts on socialism as government owning the means of production.
Edit: *To note* about the 'government coorperations don't create progress as they give people jobs for doing nothing productive' is in my opinion not something that shows anything is wrong with socialism (unless defining socialism as needing this feature), but something wrong with government that seems to have an "odd" purpose.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 16, 2010 07:51 PM |
|
|
Ohforf:
Quote:
If someone suddenly decides to keep all money to themselves, it's required to reinvest more money into the system to avoid prices dropping
One person can't make nominal prices drop by themselves. I assume you mean a large number of people hoarding cash.
As for banks, I really don't understand what you're trying to say.
As for how socialism would work, just imagine everything that can produce anything of value is owned by the government. That includes all factories, mines, railroads, land, cars, hammers, blenders, etc. (Basically, almost everything except for your clothes and food.) And everyone is employed by the government and forbidden to work for anybody else.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 16, 2010 07:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
One person can't make nominal prices drop by themselves. I assume you mean a large number of people hoarding cash.
On the matter of making prices increase, due to hoarding money, I was considering the richest of the rich guys, the people who in general probably might get more out of not paying tax than paying it, if they had the choice. People like those who own MacDonalds, Gates, and what else on can think about.
Quote:
As for banks, I really don't understand what you're trying to say.
My point/idea about banks are that they help letting there be a flow of money in the system, by using money put into the banks that the person who put into the banks might just have not used and thereby they'd not have been a part of the flow of money.
Quote:
As for how socialism would work, just imagine everything that can produce anything of value is owned by the government. That includes all factories, mines, railroads, land, cars, hammers, blenders, etc. (Basically, almost everything except for your clothes and food.) And everyone is employed by the government and forbidden to work for anybody else.
My problem with this is that it's a tyranni (as it seems forced, what you produce should be something you own in my opinion). Not to mention, you make socialism sound a lot like communism when claiming everything of any value is owned by the government, and I think it's not how Xerox used the term in the original post.
Seeing that it's how you percieve socialism I understand and agree with you that such a system is not something we should try to achieve. Thanks for making it clear what you meant earlier.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 16, 2010 08:04 PM |
|
|
If the top ten richest people decided to stop spending money, the macroeconomy would not feel a single hiccup. Yes, they have a lot of money relative to any other person, but relative to how much money there is total, it's nothing.
As for the flow of money in the system, banks can participate in that, but it can happen without them too. When people exchange money for goods/services, there's a flow of money.
And yes, socialism is indeed tyrannical.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 16, 2010 08:21 PM |
|
|
I probably had the wrong impression of the total amount of money currently in and outside of flow (I extrapolated in my head from a very simply system).
Anyway about banks:
Quote:
As for the flow of money in the system, banks can participate in that, but it can happen without them too. When people exchange money for goods/services, there's a flow of money.
My idea is that banks can make the money flow go to what's progress in the eyes of the state (stuff like health, transport, education, etc.) without regulating the market, by investing in improving technology on these areas in specfic.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 16, 2010 09:35 PM |
|
|
Huh? Banks have nothing to do with that. They just take people's deposits, then lend a fraction of them out. Sure, they can invest in bonds and such, but they have nothing to do with investing in "what's progress in the eyes of the state".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 17, 2010 02:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Making profit isn't useful? Huh? Under true capitalism, the only reason anyone makes profit is because it does something that is valued by someone. They wouldn't be making money if someone didn't value what they were doing. (Under the current situation, of course, it's possible that they're being paid by the government, and thus may indeed be doing nothing useful [but not necessarily], but that's the government, not the market.)
animals don't need to make profit to live, so it is useless
Quote:
Right now, in this world, it is all about 'me'. What 'I' can get, what benefits 'me', the person with the most 'toys' when they die wins. Because inheritently we are still animals. Looking out for only number one. That is why 'socialism' is bad, because it goes against that. Helping others? Nah, no thanks. Unless it is a tax write off or makes others see just how awesome I am..there is nothing in it for 'me'.
weird that I didn't post that. and I agree with what mytical said. but I'm not sure we are naturally egoistic and individualist, I think it's the system which learns us to be that way.
Quote:
All those systems without healthy balance lead to oligarchy of those who where successful in one way or another (politics, finance) and passed it on their successors who could dominate their peers even easier, because their peers had 0 starting funds while the successors of the rich had XXX. Which is enough.
actually, I agree with that too. as long as there will be egoistic people there will probably be no perfect system.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 17, 2010 05:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
animals don't need to make profit to live, so it is useless
I want you to think good and hard about whether you are serious about this. If you are, then we have nothing to talk about.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 17, 2010 07:35 AM |
|
|
I tend to RADICALLY differ from what is said.
Humans are nothing as a matter of fact. They are born with certain instints, and the rest is a matter of education and learning. The parents and society (or absence of it) and its structure determine what general course humans take. The leadership - you might say the political, economic and spiritual elite - of a society is important as well.
It's simple, really, because there are two kinds of feeling good. One is the individual way: *I* got me something new, *I* got a fantastic job that pays a fortune, *I* am the best.
And there is the collective way: *We* won the cup final; *we* are the Champions, *we* are the country with the best educational system, *we* have fewest crime, and so on.
And of course there is leadership. Good examples inspire people just as profoundly as bad ones.
Within this frame the individual is set and has margin for giving things their own spin.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
