It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A perfect society?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Most scholars that I have read are in agreement as to the ultimate end result of any Socialist Experiment. That being a Communist State.


I suspect this is the result of where we draw the line between "having social programs" and "being socialist". Here in the United States we're not in the habbit of electing people who call themselves socialists because with that you often seem to get an ideological commitment as I spoke of earlier. We have however endured a over a century of progressives establishing piecemeal socialist systems where they seemed like a reasonable answer.

Education in America is socialized. National defense is socialized in virtually every country on Earth- in fact socialized defense predates Marx and has for centuries proven superior to getting your troops on the free market.
But we don't say we're socialists. We just use the socialist answer in the areas where it makes sense and it doesn't even occur to us sometimes that we have done so.

I think that's the trick to it. You have to size up how you're going to provide what your country needs and take the answer that works, without insisting that it MUST be government provided or that it MUST not be on ideological grounds.


Where as an economy governed by supply and demand completely removes the human element and allows for macro developments to regulate the micro-management of the system.


Earlier on I suggested equal pay for equal benefit socialism of the bare necessities (differing from the traditional socialist model in that the goal is to decrase cost through social gathering of capital and economies of scale, and not to spread the cost burden in a progressive manner as socialism traditionally does but is not necessarily required to do), and then making any surplus of one's equal share negotiable at the market price set by supply and demand in the private sector, which covers excess demand.

I'd be interested in what you think of that, and particularly any discussion of such ideas you may have come across in your reading.

Nice talking to you as always. I'll be looking forward to your next post.




posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 02:43 AM
link   
Looks good on it's face, however....

1. Who defines what are "bare Necessities?"

2. Who again, sets the amount determined to be an "equal share."

See that is my point exactly.

Socialism in all of its many forms "looks" enticing and on paper creates a system that would benefit all. On Paper.

In the real world though you have to insert the human element. Socialism demands a large government entity to regulate any and all of the many systems that would need to be in place just to enforce the system, not counting the everyday running and crunching of numbers.

Socialism, even in the limited form that you are describing, is anti-capitalism by it's very nature. Capitalism is the economic equivalent of the human need to succeed. Take that away and we all of a sudden become something less in the world market, technologically and in manufacture. (Although that is a dying concept anyway)

What history has shown us is that mankind's need to excel is the single most important factor in the success of our nation. Our competitive natural ability is paramount in corporate success and the overall health of the nation.

I recall reading that directly after the bombing at Pearl Harbor, the military was requesting that a certain number (I forget the exact figures) of aircraft carriers and other ships be built. The different factories all engaged in a competition and managed to double the number that was asked for.

That sort of competition will be null and void in a socialist atmosphere, even one of such limited factors as you describe. Also is the fear of the ever expanding government that would quite simply be more inherent in that kind of society.

Semper



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Looks good on it's face, however....

1. Who defines what are "bare Necessities?"

2. Who again, sets the amount determined to be an "equal share."'


We're talking about mathematics here, it's hardly subjective. Average residential electricity use is X. Cost of a power plant and grid to supply X to the population (P) is Y. Y/P= Taxes due, for which the taxpayer is entitled to X. If the taxpayer uses less than X, he recieves the market price of the unused electricity. Those who use more than X (thus using the surplus created by the previous taxpayer) are billed at the same market price that the saver was paid.
The private sector provides for industrial and commercial use, and the government also buys from them with the fee paid by over-consumers to prevent an enegy deficit. The prices set by the market in the private sector are the same prices at which the government repays those who don't use their owned share of the power or who use more than their share.


Socialism in all of its many forms "looks" enticing and on paper creates a system that would benefit all. On Paper.


I assume you don't dispute that when what is on paper is math, rather than philosophy, that it necessarily translates into reality. We're not dealing with progressive notions of fairness but with a simple matter of equal numbers.


Socialism demands a large government entity to regulate any and all of the many systems that would need to be in place just to enforce the system, not counting the everyday running and crunching of numbers.


There is no reason that a government organization for handling these transactions need be any larger than the private organizations which handle them at present. Meter-reader for meter-reader and accountant for accountant, there is no reason that there should be any disparity. Meanwhile you're still saving in other areas, because the consumer is providing the capital and needs no interest returned on his money, only for the service he is paying for to be provided.


Socialism, even in the limited form that you are describing, is anti-capitalism by it's very nature. Capitalism is the economic equivalent of the human need to succeed.


The only significant change that I am suggesting is that the average person invest capital in the things which he needs. He is still making an investment in expectation of a return, only that return takes the form of a savings to him rather than a payment to him.

In what way does the example remove an opportunity to succeed from our society? It does not. Ot merely opens that opportunity up to a new class of investor. Where before only those of certain financial means were able to invest, in this case the people are able to form a unique type of corporation, which by virtue of gaining its capital through their payment of an existing expense makes them able to invest.

The current system essentially requires that the consumers take a loan to pay for something that they together could pay for out of pocket instead. Why should the people rely on those who control large amounts of capital and who demand high returns on that capital, when the people themselves have enough capital together to fund what they need flat out, and indebt themselves to no one?


Also is the fear of the ever expanding government that would quite simply be more inherent in that kind of society.


Do you suggest that the federal reserve system which has facilitated our capitalist system is an example of small government?

If you want a small government, forbid the government from issuing any money, from keeping reserves, from loaning or borrowing, or taking any other economic measure. Just let anyone who pleases mint coin in precious metal and really let the market do what it wants, for real. We'll all get raped six ways from sunday at the cash register, but at least we'll be free to aspire to acquiring wealth in this wonderful dystopia of unbridled competition.

Some government- a basic level of democratic redress- is vital regardless of our economic system. If the government has no say in the trade of the necessities of life, then the government has no true say in anything.
In the capitalism we now practice, that has been the federal reserve, which attempts to regulate the supply of worthless paper in order to control the flow of real goods.
I suggest that in market conscious socialism, the government could accomplish the same thing in a more tangible and beneficial way by providing a venue for the citizenry to directly influence the supply of the real goods themselves.

This is only a portion of the supply, and only in certain core industries, and the effect is to be similar to the manipulation of interest rates, but in a more direct, certain, and beneficial form. A vast realm remains for individual ambition, even within the industries which will be partially socialized.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   
I have always had the same idea about what the OP has in mind. Specially because I'm in the military and I dont think anybody would disagree that the military provides some sort of lifestyle very similar to what a socialist state will provide. Everybody knows what everybody makes, they pay you according to your knowledge, we all work towards completing a mission whatever the mission is for any particular branch, organization etc.

I think if you apply this concepts towards a civilization in the early stages of existance I might just work fine.

The leaders of that civilization will be the elders, because of their experience. And Im not talikng about one or two elders, but rather a big council of elders, like the Joint Chiefs. People of working age, will work according on how they perform at school which will be open to everybody and it will be up to the individual to acquire the level of potential that they want.

Then you create depatments to work toward goals, my civilization would have a definate goal, that can be cure of illness, space travel, free energy something like that. But you also need other deparments to take care of the people, Hospitals, Agriculture, Housing, Travel, etc.

No money just people working towards the improvement of the civilization.

As people live trough the cycle of life and take their appropriate place in society.



[edit on 25-7-2007 by Bunch]



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis

Most scholars that I have read are in agreement as to the ultimate end result of any Socialist Experiment. That being a Communist State.

Having to factor in human greed and the hunger for power inherent in us all, is of course an inexact science at best. But the social anthropologists that study these phenomenon are all almost in agreement. Much along the lines of my earlier links.

Semper


Semper, this is exactly why I said his idea or dream if you will of a perfect society is a good theory but not one that will work in real life. We all want more a better paying job, bigger house or in my case a really cool truck and 2 horse slant trailer. But the fact is for most of us we prefer to work for what we get and don't want anything handed to us. Humans typically value that which we have to work and sacrifice for.

While it would be nice if a government was neutral or altruistic enough to only operate of the best interest of the people I don't think that will ever happen because governments are made up of people. It is for that reason the hunger for more whether it be power, respect or possessions that the perfect society will most likely never happen. Still it's a nice dream.



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join