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.

 

Socialism is selfish.

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   
I'd say all economic systems are selfish. Capitalism is the best for a world though. If you had a pure communist system of government how is that country supposed to progress?

If all the means of production are owned by the people how do you start a new business to further the advancement of technology?

So if all the means are owned by everybody that means you have to get everybody's approval to start a new business because everybody would have donate the land and workers. Then what if the idea sucks and it fails or is futile and the guy is just good at selling it.

Capitalism on the other hand one person can gain the capital to start the own business then it is up to the people if they like it or not and the business either succeeds or fails.

I think of it like this Socialism/Communism is a big complicated blundering beast that takes a while for it too adapt and change with the environment.

Capitalism is streamlined and able to adapt faster to changes in the environment.

So yes, I completely get what the OP is saying about Socialism being selfish. I never thought about it that way. The only thing that changes is who the selfish one is.

With socialism the government becomes the selfish one, and as population grows so does the budget which means they require more money, then the people that never worked for anything and lived their lives on government hand-outs always want more because they don't know what it is like to have to work for it.

Selfishness is human trait, socialism just switches who the selfish ones are.




posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   
oohhh noooes the evil socialists are comming.

now those dirty commoners are going to have access to healthcare and education and woe to us when us elite dont want to employ them because we need a new mercedes, then they will get money to feed their brood they call children.

woe is us how dare these people not know their place in life (under my heel licking my boots).

when will these people learn their place capitalism is about me (the elite) and them the slave i pay them a wage below the cost of living so they have no ability to rise above their station so me and my friends can maintain our lives of excess how i so love capitalism the only system where 5% of the population can control the other 95%


[edit on 6-11-2008 by Demandred]



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


Socialism is not communism. Socialist policies such as socialized healthcare and education, can coexist with a capitalist economy. Socialism does not "divide the wealth", or encourage popular ownership of industry. Those are communist policies, and are different from socialism.

Socialized healthcare, for example, exists in Canada, France, and Britain, and they all have capitalist free markets. Its payed for by taxes, which I beleive to be better than privatized healthcare. A person receiving healthcare in a socialized system doesn't suffer a financial crisis if they get their arm or leg crushed by machinery at work, and spend weeks in a hospital raking up massive debt, while losing their job because they can't show up for work. (in a socialized system they would have no debt)

It also means our taxes are spent on us, rather than on wars and the elite.

[edit on 11/6/08 by peskyhumans]



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 08:35 PM
link   
extraordinarily sloppy logic based on blatant ignorance of the facts. Very juvenile in fact.

This is the intro to my thread "What is Socialism"

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society. Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs; Libertarian socialism (which includes Socialist Anarchism and Libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy.

In the 1970s and the 1980s, Yugoslavian, Hungarian, Polish and Chinese Communists instituted various forms of market socialism combining co-operative and State ownership models with the free market exchange. This is unlike the earlier theoretical market socialist proposal put forth by Oskar Lange in that it allows market forces, rather than central planners to guide production and exchange. Anarcho-syndicalists, Luxemburgists (such as those in the Socialist Party USA) and some elements of the United States New Left favor decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers' councils.


With these verifying links:

en.wikipedia.org...
www.worldsocialism.org...
www.google.com...:Socialism&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
www.wisegeek.com...
www.socialistaction.org...

If you read those you will know more than you did when you posted this thread.


[edit on 6-11-2008 by grover]



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


You think a mistyped wiki article proves me wrong? Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto, a blueprint for communism, not socialism. He may have included socialist policies in with his political blueprint, but thats what socialism is - a policy, not a form of government.

Socialist policies DO exist in capitalist countries, and work well, whether you like it or not.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by peskyhumans
 


I get all that.

What is not mentioned though when comparing those countries to America is like trying to compare apples and oranges.

All those countries produce a lot of their goods, in most cases they drill for their own oil, and the kicker they all have populations under 100 million, they also have the highest tax rates in the world.

All those programs are not free. Who pays for them? We the tax payer pays for them. Then the system is going to be over burdened with people and cost way more than what the are predicting.

Take for example Hawaii they had universal health care for 7 months they had to scrap the program because they are being taxed for it so they are going to use it.

What I'm trying to get at is that the middle class is going to get taxed to death because all that money has to come from somewhere.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by peskyhumans
 


I was addressing the poster of this thread.

Go back and read what I wrote and btw Marx was hired to write the Communist manifesto as a side job... he did not agree with them however.

[edit on 6-11-2008 by grover]



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


You're right. As much as I would like to see socialized healthcare in the US, we don't have a poor tax base because of job outsourcing (how easy is it to find a job that pays more than minimum?). I would like to see more industry brought back to the US, and have our job market improve.

Combine that with the debt from the mortgage crisis, the war in Iraq, and credit card debt, and our economy sucks right now. So its unlikely to happen in the near future. I was just venting because of the misconceptions I'm reading all over this forum. Everything from confusion over communism/socialism to Obama being the Antichrist and I just wanted to straighten something out. Sorry if I ruffled any feathers.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


Alright I reread the article, and it states socialists beleive in a philosophy of nationalizing the means of production, distribution, and exchange.

Again, I do beleive in socialized healthcare and education, but I think combining those policies with a free market is the best combination for human advancement. If my personal beleifs do not coincide with the "standard philosophy" of Socialism, then I apologize for any misconceptions I may have created on this forum. I will make sure not to do so again in the future.

However, I have not heard Obama state he supports socialism at all. So I have no idea what you are all going on about. I would like the US to follow a similar model to say, France, but I doubt it will ever happen.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by peskyhumans
Socialism is not communism. Socialist policies such as socialized healthcare and education, can coexist with a capitalist economy. Socialism does not "divide the wealth", or encourage popular ownership of industry. Those are communist policies, and are different from socialism.


Then that is socialist policies in a capitalist system. Not Socialism.

I think you are using Marx's thoughts that socialism is the middle ground. In that it is communistic but it still has a governing body i.e socialism.

In truth, many socialist thinkers use the terms socialism and communism to be synonymous; at least insofar as it would be a classless society, where the means of production is controlled by the workers themselves, for the whole of society.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
extraordinarily sloppy logic based on blatant ignorance of the facts. Very juvenile in fact.

This is the intro to my thread "What is Socialism"

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society. Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs; Libertarian socialism (which includes Socialist Anarchism and Libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy.

In the 1970s and the 1980s, Yugoslavian, Hungarian, Polish and Chinese Communists instituted various forms of market socialism combining co-operative and State ownership models with the free market exchange. This is unlike the earlier theoretical market socialist proposal put forth by Oskar Lange in that it allows market forces, rather than central planners to guide production and exchange. Anarcho-syndicalists, Luxemburgists (such as those in the Socialist Party USA) and some elements of the United States New Left favor decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers' councils.


With these verifying links:

en.wikipedia.org...
www.worldsocialism.org...
www.google.com...:Socialism&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
www.wisegeek.com...
www.socialistaction.org...

If you read those you will know more than you did when you posted this thread.
[edit on 6-11-2008 by grover]


1 + 1 = 2 is juvenile logic. I dare say it is also correct. Unlike needlessly convoluted logic, is easy for everyone to understand. It is also something easy to argue with if wrong, which is not always true with other kinds of logic. So thank you for the compliment.

Whenever I see sloppy logic I copy & paste into my reply as a quote, and then point out how it is sloppy. This actually shows how the post was sloppy.

I will read all of your materials tomorrow. However, are you or are you not claiming that my dictionary definition is wrong? I fail to see what is wrong with arguing about socialism as commonly defined/used by the average person, as opposed to arguing about socialism as defined by an academic definition.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 



Taking without asking is an act of selfishness.


Not necessarily. If you are the arbiter of a situation, which requires immediate diacritical analysis (neither party is capable of making a decision, because they are in fact pursuing their own self interests primarily), and you have come to the conclusion that one party is at a disadvantage that they can not themselves repair (and it would be a benefit to the whole of society to assist them), or that was in fact inflicted by the other party, then you have the moral responsibility of "taking without asking" the resources necessary from one, so as to punish, and giving them to the other, so as the benefit. The extent of this redistribution is predicated on your firm objective understanding of the conflict at hand.

If the self interest is of the well being of society as a whole, then selfishness is entirely warranted in such a case.

Since this is an open discussion, don't assume these are the opinions of my political self. I'm merely responding to the logic of your statement. If you would like to apply this to a real world example and setting, then the family dynamic would be of the best consideration.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by cognoscente]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 


So any reason why you are ignoring my post to your op?


I fail to see what is wrong with arguing about socialism as commonly defined/used by the average person


The average person doesn't know jack about socialism inside our outside of ATS.


as opposed to arguing about socialism as defined by an academic definition.


A quick definition from an online dictionary is not representative of a political philosophy from an academic standpoint. Right?

As for the definition you cited originally, I gave some thoughts to that in my post on page 1.

Socialism is purely democratic. No one outside of the working body is controlling the production in socialism. When there is a governing body outside of the working force, that controls the fruit of labor, then it's no longer socialism. That's a utilitarian dictatorship. Socialism + autocracy = utilitarian dictatorship.

In Socialism the whole community willingly shares the fruit of their labor with the whole of the community. This is with the workers 'permission'. They do it for the society, and then society rewards them for doing it. They are not forced. It is for their benefit. The whole process is from them, and for them. How is this 'selfish'?

On the contrary, Capitalism is fundamentally built with selfishness in mind. In fact I find this threads premise quite funny in this respect. Capitalism is the most selfish of the political systems. Poor, middle, and rich classes form its structure. Everyone wants to be rich , but it's at the expense of the middle and poor.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 



Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
On the contrary, Capitalism is fundamentally built with selfishness in mind. In fact I find this threads premise quite funny in this respect. Capitalism is the most selfish of the political systems. Poor, middle, and rich classes form its structure. Everyone wants to be rich , but it's at the expense of the middle and poor.


If this post is too long, read first paragraph only.

It only appears that way. Quite the contrary actually. It's not at the expenses of the lower and middle classes, but rather at the expenses of the least productive members of society. Production isn't equatable to the notion of hard work, it's a measure of the contribution that you make to society and its growth over time through the employment of every resource you are in command of, so for purposes of my argument don't take it as an insult if I say that if you work at a meat factory you are an example of the least productive member of society. Their role isn't as indispensable as many would like to believe, that in itself is a delusion. A rich social class is no need of a lower, exploitable class. All a wealthy population needs is a cheap means of production. In the very short future, this will be a technological reality, and people will be liberated of these burdens. If manual laborers all immediately refused to work, all you would see is that it would become increasingly cheap to fully automate the entire industrial process, including shipping and handling, in coordination with an extensive cybernetic delivery system. Anyway, they are willingly to work at lower wages because of two things. They might be incapable of investing in their own personal development, as any time taken away from working might inflict unnecessary financial burden on their families, and then, that they have become satisfied with their way of life through social conditioning alone. A free market economy is very daunting for the individual. Naturally, those with strong social networks and good connections are going to be more confident, and get further ahead in life than those without as many base resources. That's where a lot of the resentment of the upper classes by the lower classes originates, and it is usually unfairly expressed in the form of political dissent. You aren't criticizing Capitalism so much as you are observing the personal difficulties associated with competition in a Free Market society. It's tough, but such is life.

Capitalism involves personal risk taking and encourages individuals to invest in and assemble business ventures, experiment in and pursue profit taking. It's what makes all of modern industry viable. Otherwise, you'd see incredible stagnancy. If you don't like Capitalism you can go back in time to pre-industrial Europe and see how you like that. No technology, no modern medicine, a harsh life living off the land; no foreseeable progress. The first Capitalist ventures occurred on board European merchant vessels to Asia. You'd pay for expenses of the ship, hoping that it would return with exotic goods, which you could sell to the public. High demand for these goods would ensure the best investment of your entire life. Back then wooden ships were fairly unreliable. You could compare losing all your money on the stock market today to that ship sinking in the middle of the ocean, your life savings along with it. Back then, a loss at that amount was devastating. So only the rich took risks. The thing was back then if you weren't born rich, you wouldn't become rich in your lifetime. And that's where the beauty of Banking came in. If you could prove you were capable of making a return investment off a loan provided by a Bank, and repay that loan, you would could become self sufficient. Those were the first business ventures. Some resentment today might be reflective of that fiscal disparity prevalent at the end of the Feudal Age, between the rich and the poor. When the Age of Mercantilism came about between the 1600-1750's, the rich only got richer. They had the money to risk, where most others did not. The Banks favored them over the others. It was apparently unfair. The first business ventures ever were in the control of the Elite, usually strong religious followers, and highly influential public figures. But it's not a result of favoritism of the Banks, as it was a factor of the random distribution of wealth and the consequent solidification of those populations into distinct social classes, produced by the Feudal Age, that created this vast disparity.

Capitalism doesn't represent any political ideology, as Communism itself expresses through its egalitarian ideals. But I can see where it can be blamed. Only under highly unusual circumstances is the decline of an economy a direct result of the failure of the financial system. And that is only when is is not properly regulated, which is obviously a result of poor governance and political foresight, particularly of lobbying interests, which occlude the reality of the situation in exchange for campaign dollars but these shortcoming are NOT an intrinsic characteristic of the system itself. The U.S. government, in its ignorance, decided to ignore this on the premise that Capitalism somehow was representative of the political ideology of Democracy itself. That a Free Market economy coincided with the moral beliefs of all individuals living in a Democratic nation... Canada was impervious to this crisis, where Europe was not. Canada didn't confuse political ideology for economics, which has been the character of all of Twentieth Century history. I guess that's what you get for being such a politically and nationally docile country. Boring, but a powerful economy nonetheless.

What is unjustified is the far left liberal movement that is essentially blaming everything on an apparent divide between social classes. It has nothing to do with the systems in place, and everything to do with the harsh reality of life, though I can see where people would attack our system of government (considering most politicians have no idea how to run an economy, especially after World War I, where Communists saw that as a fundamental weakness of Democracy-that too is unjustified as it wouldn't matter what government we employed at the time, the World Economic Crisis was inevitable).

[edit on 7-11-2008 by cognoscente]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by MurderCityDevil
reply to post by truthquest
 


and your information proves your opinion is correct?


like i said

much to learn


Much to learn? are you saying it isn't selfish to think someone knows better than you whats good for you and how you should spend for it?

Have you lived in any other country? I been around the world twice guy and am probably a lot older than you and I doubt you could teach me anything where I couldn't dwarf your silly ideas about socialsm where you would be the grasshopper as I scrapped you off the bottom of my boot



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by cognoscente
 


Very well said one of the best explanations of Capitalism I have read and you couldn't have a better one to respond to as the lunatic sharing the most Ideal worldview in his or her opinion but one I doubt seriously is by experiencing it. Socialism has many great sounding aspects to it but I am afraid they only sound good on paper. When you add the human component, it does just as you say.

It Stagnates



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 07:23 AM
link   



How about if we start with the dictionary:
[edit on 6-11-2008 by truthquest]



It's a start, but social and economic development can not be studied from a dictionary alone.

I appreciate your interest in the subject though. Keep it up.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 07:27 AM
link   
What is selfish is imagining the world is set up as a quick aggressive fight for the resources and assets therefore giving the elite, who have more money, a chance to own everything under your nose and control massive populations and use them as slaves. It certainly isn't selfish for the masses to realize that their children have more options and enjoy a better life, not to mention less trauma and an almost zero chance of doing time for murder, or worse, in an equal, more cooperative, civilized system. A dog eat dog capitalist system that rewards that favors a small minority and throws billions on the planet to the wolves for the profits and control of the few is PURE SELFISHNESS.
I'd rather be living here:


Edit to add: Norway continues to shine its light to the world. Due to its more equalized state, it has almost zero murder rate and enjoys the highest standard of living many years in a row according to the UN. They also have more dollars in their pockets after taxes, in relation to the costs of necessities (ie. housing, food, utilities) than we do. They are definately doing something right, and is one of the few countries in the world that are similar that are not committing child abuse by allowing a corporate takeover.
[edit on 7-11-2008 by mystiq]

[edit on 7-11-2008 by mystiq]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
extraordinarily sloppy logic based on blatant ignorance of the facts. Very juvenile in fact.

This is the intro to my thread "What is Socialism"

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Oh yeah Grover, that's it insult the guy telling him his logic isn't just wrong but EXTRAORDINARILY WRONG Based on BLATANT IGNORANCE of Facts!

If that wasn't enough to inspire him to read that drivel you wrote, calling him JUVENILE should do the trick huh!

Jeeez where is your common sense



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by peskyhumans
 


Then we agree.

Socialism is not antithetical to capitalism or democracy... the majority of the EU is all three.

Socialism arose as a critique of capitalism and as an alternative in response to the gross inequities in both Europe and America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The whole premise of the opening statement is indeed sloppy logic and wouldn't stand 5 minutes in a high school debate.

BTW 1+1=2 is not logic its math and you can prove something logically and still be wrong. Something being logical does not automatically make it true... that is a logical fallacy.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by grover]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join