In Libertarian Socialism, Im wondering who would determine who gets the "short end of the stick" and who would get the other job? The collective masses would pick every job for every human being? If so, that is highly inefficient and I believe that it will go back to the same old way, eventually, of its not what you know but who you know. And why should they get paid more than they other guy? Because they are doing a less desirable job? Wouldnt that make the job more desirable in the end?

Although it isn't exactly clear how this would work, I would imagine that life would for the most part, go on as usual with new jobs being given to those best qualified as decided by the organization providing the job. The main change would be income which would increase for some, stay about the same for most and drastically decrease for others. I don't think the masses would personally hire every citizen as this would be extremely inefficient. My guess is that the workers at a hydroelectric dam might elect a Human Resource official to interview employees.

I say that employees in undesirable jobs should get paid more because let's say you are a sewage cleaner. Why would you want your job when you could work as a food service employee and make the same living. I wouldn't say there would be that much of a difference in income, but just enough to provide an additional incentive. I think most jobs would be desirable to someone without having to provide an extra income incentive. After all some people might prefer sewage cleaner to food service.

I also disagree with you about a migrant worker having an equal chance of moving up the ladder. Sure they have a chance, but it sure isn't equal by any means. You are suggesting that they withhold a meal from their family in order to save up enough to invest in a company? Do you know how expensive individual shares are in some companies?

We can't keep pretending that ambition is the only thing holding people back from being successful. The real question is why should we accept a system in which poverty exists? I have heard the "equal in poverty" line about socialism before. In America, the GDP per capita is something like 47k. Does 47k /year sound like poverty to you? And if you get married that's an income of almost 100k a year: easily enough to support a family and afford a mortgage on a comfortable home.

Originally posted by drwizardphd

See my other post, this is exactly why polls like this will never be accurate. People like you have no idea what socialism is.

Please, for the love of the US, stop embarrassing our people.

Spoken like a truly "educated" American. Note that I said "educated", not "experienced". One provides cold hard facts, the other provides other folks' ideas. I'll leave it to you to figure out which is which.

After all, you're educated. You obviously read a lot, think a little.

Can you name a place where a pure socialist "utopia" has worked out?

See, the problem here is that reality has a way of getting in the way of theory. Folks game the system, raise themselves while putting others down. A socialist system makes it a LOT easier for them to do that.

At the expense of the bourgeoise "masses", who always get left to feed off the bottom.

To answer the OP, it appears that the U.S. is headed towards socialism, at a now accelerated pace. I reckon we'll see before long how most Americans are going to react when they figure that out.

Can you name a place where a pure socialist "utopia" has worked out?

Can you name a place where a pure socialist "utopia" has been tried? You can't because true socialism has never been tried.

In terms of states with socialist policies, clearly western Europe is an example of how well a balance of free enterprise and socialism can work.

This is a fascinating thread. Thanks, OP. So it seems to me that "Socialism" has become a bit of a code word. It is imbued with an almost magical meaning, adorned with countless boogeymen like fascism and authoritarianism. I think The Transhumanist has done a good job of focusing on the facts and theories. Hopefully I can help a bit. Firstly, Socialism is not Communism. Communism was conceived by Karl Marx as a transitory phase following a revolutionary phase and preceding the ideal government. It is not an end goal, it is a notion of a phase (warts and all) which might be transited on the path to the goal of Socialism. Socialism is indeed more than just the thoughts of one Karl Marx -- it's a constellation of theories from an amalgamation of thinkers. So one sort of does need to split hairs to discuss it accurately. What Chomsky advocates is a highly qualified form with aggressive protections for high output individuals. That is to say that Chomsky is actually very interested in protecting the reward structures that create incentive for great contributors. This is an important thing to understand because it takes the teeth out of the whole notion that his ideal government would destroy incentive and reduce efficiency. Beyond this, however, there is the simple fact that Socialism is primarily interested in ensuring that the means of production, which is to say the factories, the mills, the printing presses, are owned by those who use those means to produce what society needs. That does not at all preclude notions of ownership or compensation based on merit. It does preclude the preservation of royalty, which in a modern incarnation is to say the amassment of concentrated wealth over generations is not necessarily protected because it theoretically was not earned. To unpack that a bit, that's like saying that Socialism is okay with a little bit of Robin Hood action, but not wholesale unmitigated Robin Hood action. Most forms of Socialism support some form of planned economy.

Where things get sticky for most people is how we ensure the means of production are owned by the producers. While it's true that some forms of Socialism advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, many forms of Socialism advocate only state control of capital. While this might sound galling at first, consider that the US dollar was state controlled until it was turned over to the Federal Reserve in the early 20th century. The Federal Reserve, despite it's name, is a corporation and largely a representative of major banks. When we talk about pegging to a gold standard, we are implying state control of capital in truth. The state makes the decision to peg the currency. So Ron Paul, for example, does not disagree with this particular flavor of socialist economic policy. In conclusion, I think, we can say that there are several reasonable arguments that Socialism suffers practical issues in application, but the arguments which suggest Socialism is some insidious conspiracy to create totalitarian government and attack civil liberties are essentially scarecrows. They might be exciting to poke at, but they are a distraction from the real issues worthy of debate.

Originally posted by The Transhumanist

Can you name a place where a pure socialist "utopia" has been tried? You can't because true socialism has never been tried.

There must be some REASON for that. It's been around for a while, so it can't be the fear of the new or unknown. I'm guessing it's because there is no workable way to impliment it that does not lead to a totalitarian (communist if you prefer) viper's nest.

In every case of an attempt, "ownership of means by the producers" has shaken down to ownership of means by the government, alleged to be acting as "agents" for the proletariat. This creates a huge bureauocracy, which in itself is unsustainable without further degradation of the masses. Power is then centralized in the government, instead of the people, and you have totalitarianism as a result.

The same path, and same result, as fascism. The only difference is the beginning point.

ANY form of "collectivism" inevitably leads to totalitarianism in practice, in the real world.

In terms of states with socialist policies, clearly western Europe is an example of how well a balance of free enterprise and socialism can work.

That's good. I'm happy for them. I note that they appear to be on a downward spiral, but you may not have noticed, since the entire world seems to be on the same trajectory, for variant reasons.

I note also that these countries are not socialist, they have merely implemented SOME socialist policies, as has the U.S., some countries more than others.

Be that as it may, if the europeans are satisfied with what they have, I have no quarrel with them over it. It's THEIR countries, they should run them as they see fit, and can become an object lesson for the rest of the world, for better or for worse.

Having seen the products of socialist thinking overseas, however, I am EXTREMELY dismayed to see it's acceleration in the U.S. of late. It's really no place we want to go, however rosy you can make "theory" appear, however many of America's young that can be brainwashed by pretty words. Theory, in a book, only appeals to those who haven't seen the reality of how it all shakes out in the real world, on the ground. With that in mind, I stand by what I said previously:

To answer the OP, it appears that the U.S. is headed towards socialism, at a now accelerated pace. I reckon we'll see before long how most Americans are going to react when they figure that out.

[edit on 2009/11/1 by nenothtu]

I think, we can say that there are several reasonable arguments that Socialism suffers practical issues in application, but the arguments which suggest Socialism is some insidious conspiracy to create totalitarian government and attack civil liberties are essentially scarecrows. They might be exciting to poke at, but they are a distraction from the real issues worthy of debate.

Excellent point. What do you consider to be some of the practical issues with the application of Socialism or certain socialist policies? I think it's important to keep in perspective that capitalism or corporatism both have their share of issues as well, and that a few practical problems aren't exactly a reason to condemn an entire spectrum of political philosophy.

Originally posted by The Transhumanist

I say that employees in undesirable jobs should get paid more because let's say you are a sewage cleaner. Why would you want your job when you could work as a food service employee and make the same living. I wouldn't say there would be that much of a difference in income, but just enough to provide an additional incentive. I think most jobs would be desirable to someone without having to provide an extra income incentive. After all some people might prefer sewage cleaner to food service.

I also disagree with you about a migrant worker having an equal chance of moving up the ladder. Sure they have a chance, but it sure isn't equal by any means. You are suggesting that they withhold a meal from their family in order to save up enough to invest in a company? Do you know how expensive individual shares are in some companies?

We can't keep pretending that ambition is the only thing holding people back from being successful. The real question is why should we accept a system in which poverty exists? I have heard the "equal in poverty" line about socialism before. In America, the GDP per capita is something like 47k. Does 47k /year sound like poverty to you? And if you get married that's an income of almost 100k a year: easily enough to support a family and afford a mortgage on a comfortable home.

You prefer that the person with the less desirable job have a slightly higher income to give an incentive to people to actually do the work. What is their incentive to get out of a less desirable job? Doing this, I believe that you are providing them a "bailout" in haveing them not reach their true potential. If someone had the incentive to reach a higher paying more desirable job, wouldnt people try and strive for that instead of wasting potential being a slacker? Im not saying that somebody who works in an undesirable job is a slacker, im saying that if they have the potential to do better but sit back and dont strive for it, then they are a slacker.

My great grandparents had to hold back meals and education to my grandparents. Why cant other people? They turned out fine and it gave them an incentive to work harder to get out of where they were at. My grandmother had a single mother with ten kids and dirt floors in 1930's and 40's upstate New York. My grandfather from the same area dropped out of school when he was 13. Regularly did they skip meals to try and save for the next day. People lived thru the great depression and came out allright as long as they had the perceverance. My great grandparents in Kentucky worked for the TVA forming a giant man made lake. They had many, many, many hardships and they turned out fine. Nobody has an equal chance at striking it rich. The chances get less and less as you look up the ladder. But the chance of getting to the next step increases with every one that you take.

And why cant those people who are makeing that 100k as a family be able to choose to keep their money for something that they want in the future? Yes, they would live a nice life. But, if you take money away from them then they cant afford to do the things that they love to do. Are we only on this earth to work and make a decent enough wage to live a while then pass away? Or are we on this earth to enjoy the time that we have here?

You are saying holding back food was a good decision? Holding back on vacation to save money is a good thing. Holding back on buying a new car or from buying as big of a house as you want to save money is a good thing. But NO ONE anywhere on Earth should have to compromise their basic human rights of food, shelter, healthcare, education so they can save money. Giving those basic human rights is not too much to ask. If we at the very least provided those four things, that would be a massive step towards giving everyone an equal footing in terms of finding a career they enjoy.

If a sewage cleaner works hard and works more hours than a psychologist, why shouldn't he make just as much if not more money? Of course there should be incentive for moving up the ladder. A technocrat has more responsibility than a sewage cleaner, spends more time being educated, and is probably doing something a lot closer to what they are interested in. That is incentive in itself. Power is the ultimate incentive. Their income should still be dependent on performance and output. No one should feel like they were punished for doing an undesirable job.

For example, just because some of the CEOs of the corporations that received the bailouts have probably had more education and a lot more responsibility than a sewage cleaner, does he deserve a bonus based on his atrocious performance?

While 20% think socialism is better... This is actually a win for capitalism.
The older generation knows best. Its when you actually have to pay your own bills, and try to be a successful individual that you realize what a crappy idea socialism is...

Originally posted by The Transhumanist
You are saying holding back food was a good decision? Holding back on vacation to save money is a good thing. Holding back on buying a new car or from buying as big of a house as you want to save money is a good thing.

But, buying a car, and/or a house you never really could afford in the first place, is a bad thing! This is why the housing sector collapsed along with the finanacial sectors... Banks gave out sweetheart loans to people who could not afford it.

If anything, you should be preaching about living within ones own means.

If a sewage cleaner works hard and works more hours than a psychologist, why shouldn't he make just as much if not more money?

Wow, apples to oranges... Im pretty sure one requires a degree while the other does not. Also the free market determines the demand...not government distorted statistics.

Of course there should be incentive for moving up the ladder.

In the case you presented, it would seem you would be moving down the ladder, not up. Unless your compass points to south rather than north?

Trickle up poverty anyone?

Their income should still be dependent on performance and output. No one should feel like they were punished for doing an undesirable job.

That is not the way the free market works.

For example, just because some of the CEOs of the corporations that received the bailouts have probably had more education and a lot more responsibility than a sewage cleaner, does he deserve a bonus based on his atrocious performance?

No, he deserves no handouts...period! He deserves to see his company fail and become bankrupt, and himself outta job.

And this trickle up poverty theory you are working on would destroy this nation, not help it...

Originally posted by semperfoo

Originally posted by The Transhumanist

But, buying a car, and/or a house you never really could afford in the first place, is a bad thing! This is why the housing sector collapsed along with the finanacial sectors... Banks gave out sweetheart loans to people who could not afford it.

YES it is dumb

but you failed to address the other part of the equation, which is worrisome.

You forgot to mention that lenders started insuring their own loans with money they did not have... You also forgot to mention all the ARA clauses that insured peoples rates would skyrocket so that they could payout from their own pool any defaults, which were engineered.

Originally posted by The Transhumanist
Clearly this is not correct.

Its only incorrect in your eyes.

You don't think 20 and 30 year olds pay bills? And yet a significant percentile still prefers socialism or at least a degree of socialism.

The quote is

Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided.

There is essentially 30% who are undecided. If socialism was such a "great" idea, then why are they not flocking towards it? There is a reason, and there is a reason why socialism has failed greatly in the past. Im willing to go out on a limb here and predict that a significant number of those undecideds do not prefer socialism in a center right country.

Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism.

Again, the above result is a victory for capitalism. It also validates my original point. As 30+ adults are more set on a buisness path than adults who are in their twenties. It is only when you begin to make payments on a house, a car, a mortgage, and other items that you begin to want less governmental interference in your own personal finances. I would say this sets a positive trendline upward for capitalism.

As for destroying the country...how exactly would that happen? It might mean a lower gdp growth rate, but what is the point if the only ones benefiting from the growth in gdp is the upper class?

Slower GDP growth rate means less money in the economy. It means less jobs, slower wage growth, less investment, etc.

Capitalism is based on the free market. It is where money is made. Just ask China.

France is doing pretty well for being a state with more socialist policies than we have.

France is hardly a "trend-line-setter" in economics.

Say what you want but they have a better standard of living. And they are only ranked 10.

And they have a population that is significantly less than ours. As do most other european nations.

So how much money should people doing undesirable jobs be making in your ideal system?

Bout the same as they are now, I would not change it. You pay more for what is in higher demand... Basic economics.

If you are going to throw in the damand argument, I would say that a functioning sewer system is more desirable than a psychologist.

That is a matter of opinion. I would just as soon be fine crapping in a hole out in the backyard...

A psychologist also has to go through schooling. Have you seen some of the tuition rates for college? If you do not mantain a higher than 2.0 GPA, you are out! And you could easily be paying anywhere from $40-$100,000 just to complete your schooling. With fees like that racked up, you better hope to have a high paying job lined up to pay off your college debt. So it takes considerably more money to become a psychologist. Thus the wage difference makes sense. But to you, you think you can get something for nothing.

You clearly don't have an open mind about Socialism. You seem to be the type to demonize everything about the word from the onset.

Socialism does not work. China is finding this out. The more capitalist they become, the richer they become...

It is also quite a bit easier to rise up the economic latter under capitlism, the same is not true about socialism.

Clearly rabid collectivism is just as dangerous as rabid individualism, although you still seem to advocate the ladder despite the obvious drawbacks to the rights of the working class.

I disagree. This country was founded on individualism. Individualism drives success. Individual rights, freedoms, and libertys. It is what has made America so successful.

These systems are all so strange. Like the city structure gets a new skin or model and tries it out to see how it fits. I thought the entire process was to find the best fit and that we always progress(or attempt to) with the ever fluid change of life and time. To propose that the ideology or structure of the time is perfect or the best is short-sighted I feel. I don't think any of these answers will be true given inevitable time/change and it will probably be something completely different. The idea was to, as a collective(I know, weird) build upon and improve as we met new challenges and acknowledged the need for tweeks, and as such I don't think America's long used model is so far off. On paper at least. There are aspects that do not work so well anymore, they could use some looking at. In a place so free that criminals can rise to legitimate power, imagine the good that comes of such free will? Or CAN come of it? That nebulous area is the one that needs the most attention I feel. Your laws, for one, address and are built around bad behavior and not good. It seems strange to expect something different to be produced than empowered villains and apathetic heroes.

Any conversation about this process is a good one, at the very least. Thanks OP and contributors!

[edit on 2-11-2009 by Crane4]

Well, maybe they're right. Capitalism seems to suck pretty bad to me. Then again, so does Socialism.

Originally posted by The Transhumanist
You are saying holding back food was a good decision? Holding back on vacation to save money is a good thing. Holding back on buying a new car or from buying as big of a house as you want to save money is a good thing. But NO ONE anywhere on Earth should have to compromise their basic human rights of food, shelter, healthcare, education so they can save money. Giving those basic human rights is not too much to ask. If we at the very least provided those four things, that would be a massive step towards giving everyone an equal footing in terms of finding a career they enjoy.

If a sewage cleaner works hard and works more hours than a psychologist, why shouldn't he make just as much if not more money? Of course there should be incentive for moving up the ladder. A technocrat has more responsibility than a sewage cleaner, spends more time being educated, and is probably doing something a lot closer to what they are interested in. That is incentive in itself. Power is the ultimate incentive. Their income should still be dependent on performance and output. No one should feel like they were punished for doing an undesirable job.

For example, just because some of the CEOs of the corporations that received the bailouts have probably had more education and a lot more responsibility than a sewage cleaner, does he deserve a bonus based on his atrocious performance?

As far as skipping a meal every now and then, yes it was a good idea. Remember the old saying, what doesnt kill you makes you stronger? That still holds true today. We cant alleviate everyman's problems because that would make us a society of brats and whimps and we would easily be able to be taken over by another country. Having hardships in ones lives gives us character and a sense of self. When we overcome those hardships we recieve a sense of accomplishment that gives us stronger confidence in ourselves. Socialism is just something that is going to remove that sense of accomplishment and make us rely on the state. What sense of accomplishment will you get if you are a sewage worker that gets paid more than a shrink? And do you really think that somebody would go out of their way to work hard in school for years and years in order to become a shrink but be paid less than the guy that is picking oranges? Im willing to bet that it would be the most dedicated to their jobs that do so and the ones that want to be a shrink the most, but what does that create...a shortage. What if we were talkin about real doc's instead of shrinks? If their only incentive was to become a doctor then many wouldnt become a doctor. Their has to be more of a payoff than just to become a doctor. If not, we would have a shortage and to fill that shortage we will lower the standard of what is expected in this country to become a doctor.

If we lived in society where everyone was honorable, it might work. But the reality of the situation is that most people are not. If we were an honorable people as a whole, then the incentive to become a doctor alone would be just that. But, since, like you said power is the ultimate incentive, we are not as honorable as many people would like us to think we are. How do you have power in a society? You have the most money, because with the most money you can provide for friends and family when it is needed. Through that provision you are owed a debt that must be repaid. If power is the ultimate incentive for getting a job like you say, then money would be the ultimate incentive as well...like it is now and like it is in every socialist/communist/capitalist etc country. Always has been and always will. The person that can provide the most has the most power. You are wanting to make the state the entity that has the most power instead of the individual. Whenever the state has the most power, freedoms become null and void by people that are corrupt. History proves this and it will only repeat if we allow the state to hold the most power.

The bailout bonuses. Ahh, the hypocracy. People wanted to give the companies their bailouts. You said before that the bailouts were a necessary evil. How much did AIG give out in bonuses due to having to honor the contracts that were made with the people they employed? How much did AIG funnel to other countries and banks around the world? The number is way more skewed to the corrupt side of it being a money laundering front company for banks and gov's around the world than it does to paying out contracts that were agreed upon, even in congress when the bailouts were being thought up. And were the bonuses given to people that made the company go under? No. They were given as performance bonuses, kinda like in football if you make a certain amount of td's or interceptions, etc you can earn a bonus that is stated in your contract. Just more proof that money is the ultimate incentive instead of just doing good to do good. Why do you think that the ceo of BOA is quiting? The wage czar is going to cut the wages. He didnt run the company into the ground, he was asked to take over ML. Money is the incentive and not the good will that is requried for socialism to work.

Bottom line is, I "opt out" of the collective. Does your utopia provide for that? For example, I vehemently opt out of government run health care. I'll not pay anything into it, nor take anything out of it, and will not accept any form of "penalty tax" for doing so. Where's the form I sign to opt out? "Health insurance", in common with all forms of insurance, is nothing more than a scam. I want nothing to do with it, government run or otherwise.

I'm not a part of the "collective". I'm a man, dammit, not a number. Government has no business at all forcing me to take care of myself as THEY see fit. I'll take care of myself as I see fit.