Socialism is selfish.

reply to post by sovietman


That's not entirely true. The entire system would simply adjust without those workers. Those workers are merely the cheapest means of production available. Those systems would only then have to utilize technology to a greater extent than they even need to today. There would be significant investment in automotive robotics, ultimately alleviating the deficit in production caused by lack of manual labor. Of course, if every single one of those manual laborers and factory workers were to quit their jobs immediately today, there would be significant devastation. Then again, such a scenario will NEVER happen. They will be replaced in time.

Socialism is not selfish at all. It is the idea that everyone should be equal and that is a great ideal.
It's not altogether practical and would be very hard to pull off.
I don't think you a) have to worry about America becoming a socialist state or b) that if it did become a socialist state, that some random people would take all your money away because they are 'selfish'
In a true socialist society everyone is happy because no one wants more than they need, and in the socialist society, there would be enough that nobody would want because everyone would have enough to live comfortably.
It's a nice idea.
It would never work.
Not unless humanity had a huge revamp and the selfishness that PREVENTS socialism disappears.

Well I spend 8 to 9 months a year in the gulf of mexico to be able to take care of my family. I have to give up all of my freedoms just to be able to bring the bacon home. I have to go without things such as sex, beer, friends, choice of what to eat, freedom to go to walmart, & spending time with my child. I get the hell taxed out of me and to be honest if taxes were less I would only work 6 months a year. I have a 4 year old daughter that I have only been around for 1 year of her life. So I will say socialist are selfish and I hate them to the bottom of my core. Why should I have to sacrifice everything while these people on welfare can't even control their bodily functions. So I will say socialist are selfish thieves and they are to lazy to steal so they get the government to do it for them.


For all the people that are liberals there is always two sides to every story. What You people don't realize life is about choices and where you end up is your choice. People whom make bad decisions should not be helped in my opinion while people whom didn't have a choice should be helped.

Hi There,

truthquest:

Socialism involves taking someone's money without their permission. Taking without asking is an act of selfishness. Taking without asking is an act of greed. Therefore, socialism is selfish.

I fear you are being overly simplistic in your definition of 'socialism'. All political systems, without question, arise out of man's social instinct, which then become politicalized. Your particular view is just one of the many vistas of socialism politicalized, and like any other political system, each have their pros and cons...some being worse than others.

The problem with the word 'socialism' is that it has become connotated with failed totalitarian regimes, and unfortunately, the mud that has been thrown upon it has stuck. If I were to define a measure of mine own political stance, I would say that I would tender towards 'liberal socialism'. By this, I view the individual as being wholly sovereign and responsible for his/her own life, but extended socially by his/her interface with other individuals. By this view, I accept that I am responsible for my own life, the happiness within it, and its quality. Although I remain individualised throughout my entire life, choices I make impact upon others, and thus, I am equally responsible for those effects. So, because I interface with others throughout my life, I must bear a responsibility for that interface.

The happiness and success we bring into our own lives by our own efforts, must by necessity (because we are not born with knowledge apriori) arise out of the efforts and mentorship we receive from those that went before us (for instance, our parents and older siblings, and our education tutors). It helped to shape who we were into who we are. It is a socialistic thread running through the individual tapestry of everyone, and codified around the social instinct of our species. Even other species have a socialistic nurturing instinct. True socialism is based upon 'nurture' for the good of the group, family, tribe, nation, and we can never unencompass it. We are by nature...social animals.

I do not agree wholly with politicalized socialism of any denomination, although I do agree that certain national industries, such as those that provide energy, food, and health requirements do, to some degree, necessarily come under the regulatory auspices of governmental control...some industries are just too impactful upon the whole of the diversity of society to be autonomous and immune from state watchfulness. So, my stance is one in which I express certain socialistic concepts as holding a requirement for regulatory control, not state ownership. The individual must be allowed free reign upon his/her own ideas and thoughts. His/her creative imaginings must not be stifled, lest social progress becomes stagnant and rancid with anachronistic creeds. Ideas must be allowed to flow and be expressed freely...their rightness for society debated.

In the first and last analysis, true socialism is simply an ethic of co-operative endeavour, beyond this it becomes a political system, and that the socialism the 'OP' is discussing is one of socialism's many political derivatives.

best wishes


[edit on 11/11/08 by elysiumfire]

Originally posted by sovietman
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

...

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.

Your argument is that socialism doesn't take stuff away from people. It takes away stuff from aristocrats and managers. But what is your implication? Aristocrats and managers are not people. To believe what you are saying, I must believe aristocrats and managers aren't people. I know how important equality is, and socialism values it. So let us apply this equality now, to aristocrats and managers too! They are people like you and I are people.

There was a time where your argument was very common: the time of slavery. It would go like this.. "Oh it is grossly wrong, to enslave people, but blacks aren't people, so its okay to enslave blacks." Those of us who love the principle of equality are expecting an admission you are at least wrong on that point, if not the other. Will you?

When someone is being selfish, they care only about #1, and nobody else. You make a point. Socialism involves, in every instance I saw at least, taking means of production, and also taking means of distribution. More specifically, socialism involves 95% of the people (for example) taking means of production and distribution (without asking) from the other 5%. These 5% are actual people we are taking from. Some of them are capitalist monsters, others are socialist monsters, and some of them are friendly everyday people, that you and I would get along with beautifully.

So you have a situation where 95% of the people, are taking from 5% of the people, for financial gain. I'd call taking someone's property, without asking, for the purpose of financial gain, to be selfish, while you call it socialism.

The problem with the concept of socialism is that it attempts to force fairness in the way a community handles its affairs. This works fine on a small scale given the fact that the community can put pressure on nonperformers and make allowances for the weak, infirm or those unable to function. This type of society has the ability to exist and even thrive in small communities.
This same argument can be said of capitalism. It works well in a small community but the community still takes care of its own.
The two extremes of socialism and capitalism tend to become more problematic in larger society. One allows the wealthy to reap an inordinate share in comparison to what they actually do. The other allows the lazy to reap an inordinate share in relation to what they do.
Both have advantages and disadvantages.
A society that was able to integrate both of these concepts and make allowances for each point of view might look something like the USA would look if we hadn't lost control of what has become an extermely polarized political system that actually is doing the worst parts of both systems right now. Both sides of it are attempting to take our country away from us and are succeeding because they have split us down the middle.
We need a new plan.

Originally posted by difsjf
Socialism is not selfish at all. It is the idea that everyone should be equal and that is a great ideal.
It's not altogether practical and would be very hard to pull off.
I don't think you a) have to worry about America becoming a socialist state or b) that if it did become a socialist state, that some random people would take all your money away because they are 'selfish'

Your basic idea of socialism is an incomplete sentence. How should everyone be equal? You you just leave it at equal, you are saying nobody should be any different than anyone else. difsjf = truthquest. Well I don't want to be equal to you. Sometimes being unequal is good, while other times it is not.

I'm very worried about America being a socialist state for obvious reasons. Nearly every country in the entire world has moved closer and closer to socialism over the past few decades, and over the last century. I don't see what is going to stop that trend from continuing at all.

In a true socialist society everyone is happy because no one wants more than they need, and in the socialist society, there would be enough that nobody would want because everyone would have enough to live comfortably.
It's a nice idea.
It would never work.
Not unless humanity had a huge revamp and the selfishness that PREVENTS socialism disappears.

You really wrote that backwards in a way that makes it difficult to understand. What you clearly meant to say, is that:
"In a world where no one wants more than they need, everyone is happy in a true socialist society."
Well I wouldn't be 100% happy as I would know that the society I lived in was into the idea of taking people's things without their permission, such as their means of production and distribution. And then you follow up with "everyone would have enough to live comfortably". Now you've switched from having just enough to live (what we need), to a life of comfort (what we want). No offense, but I would not be so sure that if all production was distributed equally right now we would all be living a comfortable lifestyle.

[edit on 11-11-2008 by truthquest]

reply to post by cognoscente


You are right, but as you mentioned if they were to quit immediately, the system would collapse. I'm sure they will be replaced by machines, but we're talking about the today's situation. The world needs them. So as it needs managers to sign documents and manage business. But why should managers have 10000 times the pay of workers (the asian workers)?? It's just not fear, It's the exploitation of men by men. I think we, as civilised people (not an animal community where the stronger rules) could end exploitation for ever and so prove we are civilized. Also if we take american worker, he gets 500-1000 times the pay of asian worker but still 1 tenth the pay of manager. You'll say manager is educated and worker isn't. That's right, but did you think maybe a worker didn't have a chance to educate? And after all the education doesn't matter at all. We need workers and they should be fairly payed. As well scientist are highly educated (more than many managers) and have half of manager's pay. We can talk about it, but I've read a lot about that and I doubt you'll change my opinion. And you're saying they are the cheapest mean of production. That's right, but is it fair that living man with family is cheaper than f****** machine? And I guess you're living in a developed country and never worked for a whole day at the age of ten. Thanks god you didn't, I didn't as well, but what did we do to have that privilege? Nothing, absolutely nothing, we can say we were born under the lucky star.

And Truthquest: I'm afraid you didn't understand me well, or maybe I wasn't clear enough. I didn't want to say managers and aristocrats (I just wanted to point at some of such jobs) aren't people. If I was understood so, I apologize. With the word "people" I wanted to point at people who work every day and don't make nearly as much money as "managers and aristocrats" do. And I also think your comparison with slavery was a bit too much. If you read my posts you can know I'm a socialist and socialism in it's idea (not Soviet or eastern European "socialsim") is against slavery of any kind (slavery as it was in USA and industrial exploitation). So I'm against slavery and I didn't want to say managers and aristocrats are not people. I'm also sure some of them are great people, but I disagree with the system in which they have privileged role.

reply to post by truthquest


One more thing. Truthwuest you stated:

"No offense, but I would not be so sure that if all production was distributed equally right now we would all be living a comfortable lifestyle."

That's the whole point!! Why would we live comfortably, while others would be practically enslaved, or if you want nicer expression, exploited? Why would we live comfortably and others would work 12 hours a day of hard work and still wouldn't get nearly as much as needed to have a comfortable life? As I stated in previous post, we did absolutely nothing and that's not fair!!

reply to post by sovietman


Why? Because that's the selfish way, which is ironic considering the thread title.

Capitalism is the definition of selfishness. In fact, the entire system is driven on the assumption that people are selfish, and will work as hard as possible because of it.

This thread sums up the basic misunderstanding the American public has due to indoctrination of hatred of communism and socialism. Most people don't even know why they hate it or why they fear it, they just do.

reply to post by Irish M1ck


Didn't you understand that was exactly what I was trying to tell? But you can't say capitalism is selfish, but it's the system made to encourage selfishness, socialism is the total opposite.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by sovietman

 

Why? Because that's the selfish way, which is ironic considering the thread title.

Capitalism is the definition of selfishness. In fact, the entire system is driven on the assumption that people are selfish, and will work as hard as possible because of it.

This thread sums up the basic misunderstanding the American public has due to indoctrination of hatred of communism and socialism. Most people don't even know why they hate it or why they fear it, they just do.

Or they are like you and think Capitalism is the definition of selfishness. Ya know what enforces selfishness? Do you have any Idea? What motivates one to be selfish? SCARCITY! as if their is only so much success to go around that if someone gets a lot that means their isn't enough for me and you so then what people like you do is COVET!

Then you want to make a mandate that socialism is the cure for that and it isn't. You know what I like about capitalism, is it affords me the freedom to substantiate what I am worth commensurate to my own efforts and it also gives me the freedom to be selfish and to have the attitude that if you don't like it too bad! It sure isn't because you have any less than I do if you don't have as much. It means that you just covet what I have and that is why you say I am selfish.

You know another reason I like capitalism because it is extraordinarily Generous!

When I want to give, I give PLENTY and no one has to tell me to do it, or who to give it to!

So when you get from me, you KNOW you are getting it because I am giving and NOT selfish. You also don't have the doubt wondering if I gave out of my own volition my own heart or was it merely a socialist rule I was forced to follow begrudgingly.

The problem with this country is they haven't allowed Capitalism to work for ages and if you think this is it you don't know what capitalism is then but anyone who would take socialism over it is someone that doesn't know how to turn a buck or is seeing the world through eyes of scarcity and minimalism. I have seen the world twice over and nowhere have I seen socialism look anything more than pathetic in comparison to even our corrupted form of capitialism
Socialism breeds a culture of do nothing neanderthals that get paid the same whether they do their job better than the cog other guy in the system next to them or not. Whether they are the best or not. That's because everyone is equal and they are all equally nothing special and nothing at all.

They end up giving up on being the best they can at what ever they can in what ever it is they do as their is no incentive for excellence. Socialism extols fairness behind the guise of an entity that knows whats best for all but I am afraid I know me better and I give when I want to and if I don't, no one can call me selfish that doesn't have the same potential to get what it is they want as I did to get what it is I got.

Spare me the mundane platitudes about greed and the rich getting richer because that has nothing to do with it when all they are are bigger customers with more money to spend on what ever I can sell them, build for them, make for them, do for them etc, I found it is easier to ask for a LOT of money then it is to ask for a little and the more money the rich have the easier it is to get it from them because they got it to spend.

The most generous people I have met have been Rich people and the most selfish people I have met have been socialists possessing only what meager incomes they have and their government subsidized utopia health services and flunky education taught by teachers who didn't give a care.

While it is people like you who vilify the rich, I see them as someone that is just dying to meet me whether they know it or not I don't dislike them because they are rich, they got something I need to know and being evil has never been what they have taught me.

They taught me that Capitalism works best is when I use to get what I want by helping enough other people get what it is they want and that is the law of universal capitalism.

I wouldn't knock it till you tried it Mick and if you think you did

did it make you selfish?




[edit on 13-11-2008 by MAINTAL]

reply to post by truthquest




socialism isn't selfishness, as to be in a true socialist society, the ideaology of socialism must be adopted by all members of said society. That being said, you can't "take" from someone, what is thiers, because in a truly socialist society, it wouldn't be thought of as belonging to any one individual, but rather to the society as a whole.

you can't take from someone if they don't "own" anything.

reply to post by MAINTAL


Hey MAINTAL, I guess you are one of the rich we are talking about and our ideology of equality really pissed you off. I know people who have too much and don't like equality, because they want to be high and if you touch their fancy car they almost beat you. I hope you aren't one of them, are you?

I think you just don't understand the ideologies well. Capitalism really encourages selfishness. In capitalist society some have plenty, others have nothing. You can't deny that, if you want to first read upper posts. And it encourages selfishness mostly in the lower classes, as you said. But why in lower classes? Because they earn 1 $ per day or even less and they can't afford to give anything to anyone else. Is it selfishness? I wouldn't say so. Again, I'm not talking about American and western workers, but Asian ones. I'm also sure rich people are most generous, but they have plenty, they can give huge amounts of money and are still no poorest!! At the same time they have already taken plenty from the poorest people. Che Guevara once stated: "The amount of poverty and suffering required for the emergence of a Rockefeller, and the amount of depravity that the accumulation of a fortune of such magnitude entails, are left out of the picture, and it is not always possible to make the people in general see this." Just think about it.

On the other hand you can't call socialist society selfish. As it was stated before in this discussion, in true socialist society people aren't selfish. They aren't materialists, the money isn't the highest value of socialist society. Think of socialist society like of carpe diem (enjoy your life). They work, but not 24/7, as many in capitalist society do, to make more (or enough) money. They don't care about money and material things, but just enjoy the life and care for values that really are important, like family, friends, society, piece (in many socialist documents peace is mentioned as a value of crucial importance for good life - one of them is Yugoslavian constitution of 1963, which is a true socialist document, only the system then didn't really work like it was written in the constitution).

You also mentioned you "have seen the world twice". Of course you have, but has the Asian worker ever left his village or town? No. He's world is 2x2 km big. Aren't you ashamed of talking like that when we're discussing equality? Also you mentioned the freedom of trade. I'm ready to give my freedom of trade for the sake of equality and consequently better life standard - you know in our language we have a saying "V slogi je moc", which means "in cooperation is power". Not in exploitation as it's practiced now. Also you stated "You know what I like about capitalism, is it affords me the freedom to substantiate what I am worth commensurate to my own efforts and it also gives me the freedom to be selfish and to have the attitude that if you don't like it too bad!". It sounds like the socialism doesn't afford you freedom and freedom to be selfish. I can't find a definition of socialism where the violation of human rights is mentioned. The socialism does NOT request any violation of freedom of any kind. Once again: don't think about socialism as the system in former USSR and eastern Europe, Cuba, or any self proclaimed "socialist" country to date. If I again quote the Yugoslavian constitution the 39. article: "Zajamčena je svoboda misli in opredelitve", which means "Guaranteed freedom of thought and (political) view". Again Yugoslavia was not a democratic country, but it's constitution (of 1963) was democratic.

Greets

reply to post by MAINTAL


I didn't even read your post. I never do. They are always long-winded, unresearched, and unnecessary. Usually they are full of attacks that discredit anything you say anyway.

Capitalism and Greed

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. (Smith, p. 14, Modern Library edition, 1937).

Greed, selfishness, and looking out for one's own interests are the driving force behind entrepreneurship.

The Pope agrees:

Pope says selfishness with money and capitalism are not the only way

"Money is not of itself 'dishonest', but more than anything else it has the power to lead man into blind selfishness. What is needed, then, is to achieve a kind of 'conversion' of economic resources: instead of using them for our own interests, we must think of the needs of the poor, imitating Christ Himself Who . . . 'though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, so that by His poverty you might become rich'."

Either way, whether you accept it as true or not, you do need to know that many do. It is a large debate that is going on currently on whether greed and selfishness are the driving factors behind capitalism, and whether not that is moral.

Just look at the google search results

Again though, I didn't read your post. Not interested at all.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck

I didn't even read your post. I never do. They are always long-winded, unresearched, and unnecessary. Usually they are full of attacks that discredit anything you say anyway.



Again though, I didn't read your post. Not interested at all.

Splendid, then I hope you didn't go to too much trouble because Ill be damned if I would read yours either then.

Thanks for the heads up and too bad you wasted all that time, but hehe you never did know how to get your point across without sabotaging yourself in the process and begging the Mods forgiveness as I think this is appropriate, but had you not been such a jerk mick,, I really would have read your post as impartially as I could in spite of all that "stuff" you felt it so neccessary to say about me




[edit on 14-11-2008 by MAINTAL]

reply to post by Irish M1ck

Either way, whether you accept it as true or not, you do need to know that many do. It is a large debate that is going on currently on whether greed and selfishness are the driving factors behind capitalism, and whether not that is moral.

And if you force something on someone, like socialism, is that any more moral? When you give something, it is a gift, when it is taken, it is theft. I earned it, I have the right to say how it gets spent. I dont get to tell a company how much to charge me for something.... If I cant afford it, I dont buy it. If I cant afford kids, I dont have them, etc...etc....

[edit on 14-11-2008 by Servigistics]

reply to post by MAINTAL


You're not even worth it buddy.

Go read a blog and come back with some more lies, and I'll still be here to debunk them.

[edit on 14-11-2008 by Irish M1ck]

reply to post by Servigistics


It wouldn't be forced. If it did occur in this country it would be because the people voted for it. But considering the socialist party only got a few thousand votes, I don't think that'll be happening any time soon.

[edit on 14-11-2008 by Irish M1ck]

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by Servigistics

 

It wouldn't be forced. If it did occur in this country it would be because the people voted for it. But considering the socialist party only got a few thousand votes, I don't think that'll be happening any time soon.

[edit on 14-11-2008 by Irish M1ck]

You didn't understand what he means Mick, you missed the point

again