Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on May 30, 2006 6:25:02 GMT -5
This will be a short and vague thread, but the basic premise is twofold. Or perhaps, on seeing the first point, you might say that part two is null and void.
1) Is socialism possible? 2) How is it achievable?
Obviously, something needs to be done with this profit before people mentality, and it seems to me that socialism may be the exact answer.
I don't want to lead this topic too far down any particular road to the exclusion of others, but I feel if we discussed this properly, we would easily make it to a thread #2.
|
|
|
Post by ExtraCheeZ on May 30, 2006 7:08:32 GMT -5
1) Socialism is possible when every single human becomes perfect and incorruptable... so... basicaly... never...
2) Its not, see answer to question one.
Anyways, governments are deisgned to govern, not control. Captialism works on what the majority thinks, as soon as we turn to socialism we will be 100% controlled by our government which all I can see is the poor being exploited and the rich getting richer. I know all you hippies out there will be saying "zomg, but thats capitalism", no, capitalism works on the pretence that the poor can become rich if they work hard enough.
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on May 30, 2006 7:36:36 GMT -5
I'm not saying for government control. I'm arguing for public ownership of companies.
The land from which I hail, there was a high profile case where indigenous workers were laid off, and replaced with foreign workers for 1/2 of the minimum wage.
The trade unions aren't doing their jobs and were too fast in giving in to the demands of the employer, and the newspapers were as biased against the employees as they could get away with.
The Proletariats don't really have a chance to do much. They give their labour in return for wages, and usually end up struggling to even keep up enough money to put food on the table.
Meanwhile, the bourgeouis fat cats are reaping in all the profits by exploiting the workforce. Which can be seen clearly by the sweatshops for places like Nike.
Clearly, corruption is a big part of capitalism, as its not just in the third world i've seen exploitation of workers, its in developed countries too.
|
|
|
Post by ExtraCheeZ on May 30, 2006 7:55:27 GMT -5
I'm not saying for government control. I'm arguing for public ownership of companies. The land from which I hail, there was a high profile case where indigenous workers were laid off, and replaced with foreign workers for 1/2 of the minimum wage. The trade unions aren't doing their jobs and were too fast in giving in to the demands of the employer, and the newspapers were as biased against the employees as they could get away with. The Proletariats don't really have a chance to do much. They give their labour in return for wages, and usually end up struggling to even keep up enough money to put food on the table. Meanwhile, the bourgeouis fat cats are reaping in all the profits by exploiting the workforce. Which can be seen clearly by the sweatshops for places like Nike. Clearly, corruption is a big part of capitalism, as its not just in the third world i've seen exploitation of workers, its in developed countries too. Yes your talking about government control. Your saying because forign workers work for half the amount (which is also an issue in my country) that we should force companies to employ people from their company... I dont see why we need to give a government such control when we already have the ability to make our government pass a bill to make companies pay forien workers the same they would pay normal workers. We need to get our asses and use our control rather than give it all to an easily corruptible government... but alas, we are lazy and the rich people who work hard get all the money. Gotta love capitalism.
|
|
|
Post by Hunessai on May 30, 2006 17:09:31 GMT -5
"but alas, we are lazy and the rich people who work hard get all the money."
I couldn't disagree more. The working poor is usually not lazy at all- they have to work all the time just to survive. Some rich people actually do work, and some just inheret the money. That leaves the poor with a net value of less laziness compared to the rich.
"as soon as we turn to socialism we will be 100% controlled by our government" Socialism exists. Look at Canada and Costa Rica for examples. Between those two, healthcare, water, and electricity are owned by the government. Everything else is private.
|
|
|
Post by Britney on May 30, 2006 17:14:48 GMT -5
Obviously, something needs to be done with this profit before people mentality Why?
|
|
Twitchmonkey
Gallant
Dragonzord Hooker
I like hookers
Posts: 2,979
|
Post by Twitchmonkey on May 30, 2006 20:07:59 GMT -5
In practice, capitalism seems to work just fine. I think it really depends on how far you want to take socialism and how ready the people are to handle it as far as how well it does.
|
|
|
Post by ExtraCheeZ on May 30, 2006 20:44:59 GMT -5
"but alas, we are lazy and the rich people who work hard get all the money." I couldn't disagree more. The working poor is usually not lazy at all- they have to work all the time just to survive. Some rich people actually do work, and some just inheret the money. That leaves the poor with a net value of less laziness compared to the rich. "as soon as we turn to socialism we will be 100% controlled by our government" Socialism exists. Look at Canada and Costa Rica for examples. Between those two, healthcare, water, and electricity are owned by the government. Everything else is private. Yeah I have to say that is a generalisztion, but no corperate billionair got their by messing around, he spent all his time studying for buisness school and making smart and risky choices. I'm not saying rich people work hard, I'm saying they work hard to get rich. Canada and costa rica? You picked very great examples to show how effective socialism is
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on May 30, 2006 20:46:10 GMT -5
1) Yes. 2) By incorporating some aspects of capitalism, but only a few non-Marxist ideals are actually needed to produce a socialist economy that can be effective.
Let me give you some plans for a workable communist (I use the Marxian view on socialism as being a step below communism) state. Firstly, you should be encorporating the major parts of the Marxist model, with the minor exception of the elimination of money, as it is vital to the incentives system with freedom of choice. So private property is abolished, the state takes over all factors of production, a democracy is set up, etc. Now you might have done a double-take at the "a democracy is set up," but let me explain: Marx called for a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" which, to me, means "Rule by the People", which is called "democracy." Therefore, despite the moronic and clearly non-Marxist Leninist model which has become the staple of "communist" (not really communist, they just like to call themselves that) states, Marxism really calls for a democracy. Furthermore, despite popular belief, communism does not have to come about due to a revolution. In fact, Marx himself commented that while many states would require a full blown revolution, some very democratic states (mentioning specifically the United States and Britian at the time) could develop a communist state without bloodshed, which would be preferable. Also, unlike the highly centralized and clearly not communist Leninist model, the economy should be very, very decentralized. This will provide the advantage that capitalism has over communism, using the entire collective knowledge of the nation instead of relying on the impossiblity of all the knowledge being concentrated in a few hundred bueracrats and politicians. This will allow individual situations to be dealt with effectively and efficently on a local level where the knowledge of the actual situation and circumstances exists. Also, despite what you might think, Marx had no problem with unequality in wealth, so long as it was earned and not "stolen" (by oppression of workers, unethical business practices, with little real work, with political manuevering, etc, etc). He said, and I quote, "Communism deprives no man of the ability to appropriate the fruits of his labour. The only thing it deprives him of is the ability to enslave others by means of such appropriations." Thereby, calling for an incentives system. Engles in fact, recognized the impossible nature of an economy running without incentives, and said that they must be implimented for any economy to function without oppression of workers. So now is where we split from Marxian theory and use money as the incentive. It works well for capitalism and will work well for communism. The government will decide, based on your work, how much you should be paid. Of course, corruption may result from this. To combat that, a system should be devised where managers (ones who would decide how much payment a worker deserves) is paid based on output of his entire managed group, thereby making him want to only give extra pay for extra work, as to keep incentives as a driving force to work hard. Money is only used to provide more freedom to workers, as they can choose to use it however they desire instead of being told what to buy. Speaking of that, as long as a worker is working I believe the government should provide them with basic shelter, food, clothing, and water so that people who are working will never have to worry about going hungry. Of course if they slack too much they can get fired and lose their right to free necessities, thereby giving another incentive to work hard. Sorry for the rambling I may have done, this is kinda just thrown together.
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on May 30, 2006 21:35:44 GMT -5
Morty, stop describing Capitalism when you're talking about socialism.
This already exists in the Capitalist economy. A business owner makes more money based on the output of his workers. He then distributes this money to his workers/more resources in an attempt to make more money. If he doesn't pay enough, the workers leave. It is the exact same system, except you don't have to pay for the governmental oversight. This make Capitalism more efficient.
Once again, this is the same as Capitalism. Those who work have money, and therefore have food, shelter, clothing, and water. Those who don't starve. Why pay for governmental oversight when the current system works?
Oh, and one more thing, if you abolish private property, why would money matter in the slightest bit?
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on May 31, 2006 3:26:41 GMT -5
Obviously, something needs to be done with this profit before people mentality Why? You should avoid this topic. It might damage the cocoon you have wrapped yourself in. Ever head of the term "Social inequality"? I'd say you have but you just don't care. This already exists in the Capitalist economy. A business owner makes more money based on the output of his workers. He then distributes this money to his workers/more resources in an attempt to make more money. If he doesn't pay enough, the workers leave. It is the exact same system, except you don't have to pay for the governmental oversight. This make Capitalism more efficient. Whatever system exists in capitalism is irrelevant. What is relevant is what is better. Now, in capitalism, there is a set minimum wage, which employees get paid, irregardless of increase in profits. In socialism, however, huge increases in profits would actually go down and pay the workers too. Not all of it, obviously. Money would be needed for the general expenses of the company, and I don't expect the employer to give money to the employee and none to himself, obviously.
|
|
Kained But Able
Aspirant
A generation standing with anger in their eyes...
Posts: 879
|
Post by Kained But Able on May 31, 2006 5:40:34 GMT -5
I don't really know how to word this...
People seem to be stuck in this capitalist paradise where money is everything and people are judged on their material possessions. Peoples happiness seems to be directly proportional to how much money they have. Until this attitude is changed socialism will remain unattainable.
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on May 31, 2006 5:43:14 GMT -5
I don't really know how to word this... People seem to be stuck in this capitalist paradise where money is everything and people are judged on their material possessions. Peoples happiness seems to be directly proportional to how much money they have. Until this attitude is changed socialism will remain unattainable. All the Proletariats have to lose is their chains. All they need to gain is that insight. The way to explain capitalism is best used in the song Civil War. "It feeds the rich while it buries the poor."
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on May 31, 2006 14:48:48 GMT -5
Morty, stop describing Capitalism when you're talking about socialism. Government control = capitalism? Interesting outlook. Also, just because something is workable doesn't mean it is capitalism, despite popular belief. Does it now? Hmm, I think not. Workers are pretty well at the whim of the employers on wages, that's why they had to "go socialist" and create a minimum wage. Fairness is still not present in the system and I do believe when a system like the one I described is put into place much more fairness will ensue. Also, this system is based more off of work done than the current system, where you often have little, if any, incentive to work hard because your extra output is worthless to you. So this may actually increase
efficency. Furthermore, there will obviously have to be checks on the power of the individual manager to ensure that workers are not being shafted, perhaps the government setting a base wage and just having the managers deciding overpay. Not really what I'm saying. I'm saying that you don't have to buy these things, they are just provided freely (at a basic level. To get a better life you will have to work and spend your money). Because it is still used to buy things and get services. It is just that you 1) buy from the government (as it controls all factors of production) and 2) actual land ("property") is all owned by the state, all the time, providing you with housing and shelter based on how much you are willing to pay for (kinda like rent in a way).
|
|
|
Post by ShadowLynx on May 31, 2006 14:48:56 GMT -5
I would really love Socialism to work now. Yet I see it has become a tad bit more difficult.
Most ordinary people can't care crap about their government if they have: a good life, security, national pride and a bit of money. When Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin introduced Marxism-Leninism the world's workers were definitely in chains. The bourgeosie and the capitalists were reeking with money while the lower classes were worse off. Nowadays it's only the poorer countries which adorn communist/socialist thoughts. Eg Nepal.
It's harder for communism/socialism to become more realistic nowadays.
"The Proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to gain. Workers of the world, Unite!" - Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto.
|
|
|
Post by Britney on May 31, 2006 15:57:28 GMT -5
You should avoid this topic. It might damage the cocoon you have wrapped yourself in. Ever head of the term "Social inequality"? I'd say you have but you just don't care. That's a really funny response, made me smile after a crappy day, thanks! But "social inequality", in fact diversity, is a beautiful and natural fact of life. Why pretend we are all equal when we aren't? The wonderful selling point of Capitalism not present in Socialism is that you have the freedom to deviate from the norm. If you want to be a millionaire, you have the freedom to be just that. If you want to be poor, go for it. A lack of legs hasn't prevented ambitious yet handicapped people from running marathons. Are people always going to be better off than you? Of course! Are others always going to have an easier time obtaining what you work your whole life for? Sure they will! But life is gloriously unfair. We are all unequal with regards to capabilities, survivability, entitlements and potential for growth. Pretending we are all the same will not make it so. Why would you want to impose a system where the person who works their butt off is entitled to just as much (or as little) as the person who sleeps all day? Where would we be as a society if such a system were imposed?
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on May 31, 2006 17:36:47 GMT -5
This already exists in the Capitalist economy. A business owner makes more money based on the output of his workers. He then distributes this money to his workers/more resources in an attempt to make more money. If he doesn't pay enough, the workers leave. It is the exact same system, except you don't have to pay for the governmental oversight. This make Capitalism more efficient. Whatever system exists in capitalism is irrelevant. What is relevant is what is better. Now, in capitalism, there is a set minimum wage, which employees get paid, irregardless of increase in profits. In socialism, however, huge increases in profits would actually go down and pay the workers too. Not all of it, obviously. Money would be needed for the general expenses of the company, and I don't expect the employer to give money to the employee and none to himself, obviously. You have a better system than Capitalism? Well, considering that the most successful economy in the world is pretty capitalist, I don't think you do. As for employees getting paid minimum wage no matter what the profits are, how many doctors do you know that make minimum? None! That argument deserves a cookie! Morty, stop describing Capitalism when you're talking about socialism. Government control = capitalism? Interesting outlook. Also, just because something is workable doesn't mean it is capitalism, despite popular belief. You saying that it isn't capitalism doesn't make it no capitalism. I'm saying that your system is just capitalism, but instead of allowing the market to provide direct feedback, you use the government to provide indirect feedback. This add needless corruption and inefficiency. Does it now? Hmm, I think not. Workers are pretty well at the whim of the employers on wages, that's why they had to "go socialist" and create a minimum wage. Fairness is still not present in the system and I do believe when a system like the one I described is put into place much more fairness will ensue. Also, this system is based more off of work done than the current system, where you often have little, if any, incentive to work hard because your extra output is worthless to you. So this may actually increase
efficency. Furthermore, there will obviously have to be checks on the power of the individual manager to ensure that workers are not being shafted, perhaps the government setting a base wage and just having the managers deciding overpay. In the United States the rate of unemployment is around 4.7%. That's about what economists call the Natural Rate of unemployment, meaning that it is impossible to force it down further, since people move/change jobs/get fired/leave school. With this low unemployment, it means that far fewer people are looking for work, so that people looking for jobs can almost certainly find new jobs if the wages of their current jobs are less than satisfactory. OMG! EMPLOYEES ARE SO AT THE MERCY OF THE EMPLOYERS! Not really what I'm saying. I'm saying that you don't have to buy these things, they are just provided freely (at a basic level. To get a better life you will have to work and spend your money). Why should society bother supporting people that add nothing to society? Because it is still used to buy things and get services. It is just that you 1) buy from the government (as it controls all factors of production) and 2) actual land ("property") is all owned by the state, all the time, providing you with housing and shelter based on how much you are willing to pay for (kinda like rent in a way). Well, if there is no private property, then wouldn't it be impossible to 'buy' things? Or were you using it in the non-economic sense? As for paying rent, I like owning where I live. It means that nobody can kick me off it. Your brand of socialism adds nothing. All it does is seperate the economy from the market. It adds a needless step of inefficient governmental oversight, and doesn't protect citizen's rights. Socialism isn't freedom, it is a baby sitter. Sure, it is safe. Sure, it changes it's citizen's diapers for them, but that isn't freedom. Freedom is Capitalism. Where I'm allowed to pay workers whatever wage we agree is fair. Where I'm allowed to drive my car. Sure, a car wreck is a lot more dangerous than diaper rash, but I the payoff in terms of economic growth is much higher.
|
|
|
Post by Hunessai on May 31, 2006 19:31:03 GMT -5
In the United States the rate of unemployment is around 4.7%...OMG! EMPLOYEES ARE SO AT THE MERCY OF THE EMPLOYERS! True, but when you reduce the number of available jobs depending on a person's skill-set or by profession, the options are considerably lower. Many jobs require previous work experience in the field and degrees. Sure, one can go back to college- but that costs a lot of money. And since the person is unemployed, they probably won't be able to afford it without burying themselves deeper in debt. Generally speaking, the easiest occupations often have little employment problems. But when a computer programmer is laid off and can't find any more work in that field, it will become incredibly frustrating for them when they have to fold tacos for a living. I realise that this is how supply and demand naturally flow in capitalism, but what I'm getting at is that there aren't as many options for the unemployed as that statistic and your interpretation of it implies. And as a general reminder for everyone: Please take special care as to not personally insult others.
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on May 31, 2006 19:47:12 GMT -5
In the United States the rate of unemployment is around 4.7%...OMG! EMPLOYEES ARE SO AT THE MERCY OF THE EMPLOYERS! True, but when you reduce the number of available jobs depending on a person's skill-set or by profession, the options are considerably lower. Many jobs require previous work experience in the field and degrees. Sure, one can go back to college- but that costs a lot of money. And since the person is unemployed, they probably won't be able to afford it without burying themselves deeper in debt. Generally speaking, the easiest occupations often have little employment problems. But when a computer programmer is laid off and can't find any more work in that field, it will become incredibly frustrating for them when they have to fold tacos for a living. I realise that this is how supply and demand naturally flow in capitalism, but what I'm getting at is that there aren't as many options for the unemployed as that statistic and your interpreatation of it implies. And as a general reminder for everyone: Please take special care as to not personally insult others. Damn you and your exposing of my one sided half-truths!
|
|
|
Post by Osama Bin Laden on May 31, 2006 21:01:22 GMT -5
In my opinion, there is no need for socialism. The current world is perfect the way it is. Yes, even with all the hate, anger, sorrow, and pointless killings.
Anyways, on topic:
1) Socialism is not possible, too many people can be corrupted easily. Maybe corrupted is too strong a word, oh well. Also, without eliminating or altering many peoples minds/ambitions, socialism would quickly be destroyed.
2) If it could be done, you would have to completely replace the whole administration with uncorruptable people, but with politicians numbering near the thousands, I highly doubt this can happen.
I highly disagree with Canada being an example of socialism, our corporations can rape our people just as much, our government is corrupt, our healthcare system can barely keep itself running, and, Ontario atleast, is buying alot of its energy from the States, from states like Ohio and New York. Though yes, our hospitals and energy companies are government owned, as much of a difference that makes. Most people still end up paying through the roof for meds and energy.
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Jun 1, 2006 9:30:24 GMT -5
I 'd. Thats getting paid for skill, nothing to do with profits. Ha ha, thanks though. You can keep your cookie. Why? Because its got "Natural" thrown in there? Here, I owe you a cookie Uh, it shouldn't. Socialism isn't about taking care of the lazy guy. Socialism is talking public ownership of big companies who tend to hire people for lengthy hours, by reducing the weekly hour of work to 35 hours per week (above that is overtime) and hiring a lot more people. Unemployment is bad whatever way you look at it, and we want more employment. However, we don't want the workers to be working only to have to pay off debts like say people with kids for a child minder. In my opinion, there is no need for socialism. The current world is perfect the way it is. Yes, even with all the hate, anger, sorrow, and pointless killings. Sorry, but whenever I see a person of this opinion I assume its someone well in with the upper class, and probably has a large sized company to own, or in the best of education, or something that particularly makes fate seem to smile on them. Also, throwing something like that out makes be already on the cynic side of where your post goes. You think workers councils could be corrupted? Think that the employees would take such corruption? No, don't think so. Public ownership would sort the corporations. Well, your people needs more sense, and vote someone else next time then. That, or all your political parties suck, and if thats the case, then I don't see why you even bother living there... Oh, wait, I think I can guess why. Health care? What system of health care do you have? Just curious. Much employment there? Just anything about it that seems to be the problem with it.
|
|
|
Post by Osama Bin Laden on Jun 1, 2006 14:40:54 GMT -5
Sorry, but whenever I see a person of this opinion I assume its someone well in with the upper class, and probably has a large sized company to own, or in the best of education, or something that particularly makes fate semem to sile on them. Im far from upperclass, at one of the worst schools in the city, and fate doesnt look upon me anymore than it does everyone else. Yes, I do think so, anything can be corrupted with enough time power and money. By publicly owned I assume you mean their shares are being traded on the market. Alot of companies already are public, and that hasnt changed them the least. We need more sense when the politicians are lying and making false promises? All our elections are choose between the lesser of two evils. Please, do a bit of research before making assumptions. Im not sure what you mean by our system. Are you asking hows its managed, how much funding it gets, or something else? If your asking about funding, the answer is far from enough. A low employment isnt much of a problem here, Id say were about the same as the States in our unemployment rate.
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Jun 1, 2006 16:35:56 GMT -5
Im far from upperclass, at one of the worst schools in the city, and fate doesnt look upon me anymore than it does everyone else. So, why so defensive of the capitalist system? And don't tell me it works. Wow. You got real smarts don't you? You think corruption can be on a global scale? Obviously not. If corruption works, there are the corrupters, and those being taken advantage of. Obviously, you aren't reading my posts. I'd suggest you reread them. Not just that. How many of them have democratic control? Just curious. Well, if you are living in a corrupt country, its up to you to decide if you want to leave or suffer under its yolk. And no, I will not research every country in the globe to its full extent just to be able to articulate points the next guy mightn't in the off chance i'm discussing some other country and their political system or parties. Anything that can be said for it. Is it private or publicly owned, for example? Just about anything that you would point out as its flaws. I'm curious if you would cite the health care in your country as the flaw in socialistic ideology, i'm curious what exactly is the case of your health care.
|
|
|
Post by ExtraCheeZ on Jun 1, 2006 20:20:13 GMT -5
If you dont think that capitalism works, take a walk to your local shopping center. On your way, look at everyones houses and cars that they bought with their jobs and the children riding their bikes or whatever, they are alive because of capitalism. When you get to the shop, look at all the groceries and think of how many farmers you are supporting, look at the hundreds of cashiers, maintainence and managers who can live off their jobs then think of the coperate suit who built the shopping center in the first place. All these people will have food to eat because of capitalism. If you dont think capitalism works, then go to russia or africa or the middle east and live there, you will be pleasently supprised on how well we live and how its a bad idea not to give a government power to control its people.
Corruption can be on any scale, you can be surprised wwhat man is like on a power trip.
|
|
|
Post by Osama Bin Laden on Jun 1, 2006 20:21:52 GMT -5
So, why so defensive of the capitalist system? And don't tell me it works. Becuase I dont like change. And I dont think humankind as a whole could change for the better. Well, you should before you start insulting whole countries about something you dont know anything about. And if you dont beleive most people can be corrupted, go and experiment with random people on the side walk. Offer a cop a thousand dollars to look in the other direction for a few minutes. Make sure none of his copper friends are around though, he might want to look high and mighty to them. What Im saying is that, with the right circumstances, the right amount of money/wealth, you can corrupt nearly anyone. NewbieZilla, you obviously dont know alot about human nature, in this day and age.
|
|