Socialism is selfish., page 3

This is something else I find to be incredibly selfish -

www.finfacts.com...

unless this data is misrepresented - not that I've seen anything to counter it.

Do the CEO's of the recently bailed out mega corporations and banks ask the individual taxpayers to give them their money ? Economically, how many experts have already decreed that the acts of the Bush administration have made this country more socialist than France ? But that's OK I guess, because the socialism exists only for the upper class ? Or more accurately, privatize the earnings and socialize the losses. Unfortunately we've been living under a dual system in that regard. If the corporate world hadn't been engaged in it's own form of socialism we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.

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]

After reading the materials, I think the dictionary does a fair job of summing up socialism. The articles you refer to all seem to say there are very different branches of socialism that actually have just a few things in common. The core goal of socialism is economic equality. The method of achieving that goal under socialism consists of at the very least, according to your articles:

1. Government taking away means of production without the permission of the owners.
2. Government taking away means of distribution without the permission of the owners.

As for the other three points in the dictionary, I'll just say it does not make a difference so I'll gladly ignore them if you are saying they are incorrect.

The bottom line is still this, after all those words definition socialism:
Socialism is about creating economic equality. In order to enforce economic equality, you must take from certain people without their permission, and give to certain other people. Means of production represent wealth. So who now holds means of production? Rich people own a lot of it. So you are taking means of production from the rich and giving it to the poor.

It could very well be selfish of the 90% of people who are taking without permission from the 10% of people who had the means of production before the control was taken. I'm not saying that capitalism is less selfish. I'm saying it is socialism is at least equally as selfish.

As sure as you can transfer wealth from rich to poor out of generosity, if you are a poor person who is using the power of the people to take it by force (through collective control of government), then that poor person could easily be doing that out of selfishness, or in other words because they only care about them self and nobody else. As your documents point out, socialism is ideally done democratically, meaning most of the people doing the taking are benefiting personally from taking without asking, as the 95% take from the other 5% for example.


[edit on 7-11-2008 by truthquest]

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by truthquest

---

Socialism requires the government to take means of production...

No.

See in the definition you posted yourself where it says the whole community?

In Socialism the means of production is controlled by the workers themselves. The means of production is produced by the workers and shared by the workers. To say that model is selfish means you should have also included the definition of 'selfish' in this thread

Adding a level of Government to Socialism that is in control of the means of production makes it no longer Socialism, it becomes a utilitarian dictatorship.

Socialism does not literally benefit the whole community. The people who had their means of production taken from them are hurt, while the people it was given to are helped.

A democratic government is still a government. It doesn't make it any less selfish for one person to take something from another than say a mob of fifty people defined as a Democracy taking something from another.

I won't lie and claim I know that socialism does not benefit the community as a whole, but do claim to know that socialism does not benefit the whole community.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by truthquest]

reply to post by truthquest

---

The question you need to ask yourself is how you got that money in the first place. To accumulate money you must have taken it from others at some point. So basically it is ok to take money from others unless such actions are instituted by the goverment, then it is selfish? Nothing is as simple as it seems Francis.

Originally posted by grover
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]

I could say 1 + 1 = 2 is not math, its an equation. Math is the process by which 1 + 1 = 2 is calculated. If I said that, I would be using an over-complicated and entirely wrong argument. 1 + 1 = 2 is an EXAMPLE of using math, and 1 + 1 = 2 is an EXAMPLE of using logic.

The whole premise of the opening statement is nice and neat logic. It may be false as a blanket statement but I have yet to see why it is not true as a generality.

Originally posted by disgustedbyhumanity
reply to post by truthquest

---

The question you need to ask yourself is how you got that money in the first place. To accumulate money you must have taken it from others at some point. So basically it is ok to take money from others unless such actions are instituted by the goverment, then it is selfish? Nothing is as simple as it seems Francis.

This is not true. In nearly 100% of cases which do not concern the government, we give our money to someone else, and then they give something to us in return that we perceive as more valuable than what we are giving to them.

Would you trade your $50 for my $50? No. Because it is not of greater value. Whenever you give your money away you are getting something more in return. Win-Win. The exceptions to that are either if you are either generously giving your money as a form of charity, or if your money is being taken from you by force.

I should add it is true that one party always benefits more than the other, but they both benefit.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by truthquest]

reply to post by tribaltrip

---

Except none of the things you've mentioned are attributable to a failure of Capitalism. These are all things you would benefit from getting up off your computer desk and concerning yourself with them personally. These are all things that you as an individual can aspire to confront. These aren't the cruel endeavors of Capitalism, but merely the insufficiency of individuals such as yourself for not speaking up or acting upon your most constitutional of beliefs.

The real issue is the factor of greed, crime and embezzlement associated with any unregulated Free Market society (note I didn't say economy). O, how much ignorance there is to be spread, how misplaced your is cynicism and your conviction! And now you come to this forum to complain. Very little purpose served indeed.

There are many people attempting to address these issues, there are non-profit, non-governmental organizations that are convinced in their mission to undo these injustices and reprimand their perpetrators. There is already a vast affront against the injustices of selfish individuals such as these against the freedoms and liberties, and of the misfortunes they have placed upon their fellow men. Get yourself involved and stopped criticizing forces you know very little about! It's not a fundamental flaw of commerce or economy, rather a fundamental flaw of human nature and society, which can be observed over all of human history, whether egalitarian, utilitarian, or otherwise. There is no perfect system; only the aspiration toward such an intangible goal. The business and interactions required to get there are the worthwhile pursuits.

reply to post by smokingmonkey

---

You're absolutely right. Government just can't be bailing out large corporations. However, our banking system, especially the Federal Reserve, are much too important to allow them to fail. I completely disagree with the government's decision to finance GM and Ford. But that's an oil issue. Something we just won't be getting around any time soon.

reply to post by truthquest

---

The definition of socialism is maybe right, but not totally. Socialism doesn't mean taking stuff away from people without their permission. It means taking stuff away from aristocrats and managers (men who do practically nothing, only signing some papers, sitting in their offices and making money) and giving it to working people.

BUT, you forgot the definition of selfishness:

self·ish (slfsh)
adj.
1. Concerned chiefly or only with oneself: "Selfish men were . . . trying to make capital for themselves out of the sacred cause of human rights" Maria Weston Chapman.
2. Arising from, characterized by, or showing selfishness: a selfish whim.
selfish·ly adv.
selfish·ness n.

To be SELFish means to care only for yourSELF or oneSELF. So it doesn't go together with socialism who cares for working people, the largest in our society. Furthermore, I could say capitalism is selfish, because it, in it's concept, allows people to earn a lot of money by knowing something, which is nothing special (management), on the other hand the system wouldn't work without working people..... think about it.

reply to post by sovietman

---

Distinguishing people by class is so archaic. Those men that you say do "practically nothing" contribute so much more to society than the average manual laborer. Their wealth is directly proportionate to the amount of resources they command, and by extension, the employment opportunities they create through the utilization of those resources. The real danger is when people confuse hard manual labor with the influence that in reality advances production. Now, you might think it unfair that some are born into these positions. But it is the legacy, not the individuals who propagate it, that inherit that wealth. The great thing about America is that anyone, no matter how destitute, can achieve whatever they want in terms of wealth. Many people are lazy, however, and blame the system for all their insufficiencies. It's so easy to do. It's that ease of blame, which provided a foundation for the radical working class movement in early Soviet Russia. No other force, whether rational or otherwise, can be attributed to the success of that movement.

One can empathize with the basest of people and their common animosities when you say manual labor is worth more than pushing pens and signing documents, but that is far from the case. Firstly, it's entirely ignorant of that portion of society. It's ridiculous to assume such basic notions, but it can be expected by someone that has never even been involved in business himself. That "working class" emphasized so greatly by Marx was simply a radical movement, one so easily fueled by unsubstantiated human passions.

The self-proclaimed "working class" is by no means the foundation of society. They are simply the cheapest means of production, the labor factor of production. Soon those functions will be replaced with automata, as those processes become cheaper and the technologies more ubiquitous.

reply to post by cognoscente

---

Well we missed the course a little bit, since the original statement was that socialism is selfish and I stand on my position.

If I answer to your post I must say working class is in every mean still the fundation of society. I can't even agree in America all people are equal. They would be, if the education was free, but so the poor families can't educate their children. But forget about america. Think about millions of 10 years old children in Asia and latin america that work for 1 meal of rice per day. The whole system definitely wouldn't work without them! I wouldn't say they are lazy.
So don't think so narrow (only in U.S.), because the U.S. system wouldn't work without the rest of the workers all over the world...

Why my mind is closing towards Capitalism
  Posted 11 days ago with 79 member flags

Hippy Do-Gooders have Destroyed the World
  Posted 12 days ago with 23 member flags

Facts About Socialism
  Posted 4 days ago with 23 member flags

Are Liberals REALLY More Intelligent Than Conservatives?
  Posted 8 days ago with 18 member flags

Why conservatives . . . . . suck!
  Posted 1 days ago with 16 member flags

The "Occupy are Socialists," Megathread
  Posted 12 days ago with 8 member flags

Unpopular Opinions: Say NO to Human Rights
  Posted 7 days ago with 7 member flags

This is what needs to happen: REVOLUTION!
  Posted 15 days ago with 5 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: