Why Socialism Fails

reply to post by JohnJasper

It was a waste of my time reading his excremental rants and I ceased except where it was necessary to follow your replies.

If this statement were true, then how could the previous statement of which I will quote below have any validity at all?

Frankly SugarCube, I'm not sure why you're putting up with this provocateur? At first, I thought you just enjoyed the sport of it but by now you must realize that Zodeaux is just wasting your time either for pay or pleasure. For every intelligent response you provide, Zod just returns with another vile spew of at best irrelevant argument, heavily laden with arrogance and venom, putting words in your mouth and accusing you of actions that Zod himself is actually guilty of.

Honesty and truth are the last thing you and the other collectivist are interested in. You sadly have no valid arguments to make so you waste your time engaging in ad hominem attacks, ironically pondering why another would waste their time arguing with me. Just imagine what your followers must be like.

reply to post by JohnJasper

It was a waste of my time reading his excremental rants and I ceased except where it was necessary to follow your replies.

If this statement were true, then how could the previous statement of which I will quote below have any validity at all?

Frankly SugarCube, I'm not sure why you're putting up with this provocateur? At first, I thought you just enjoyed the sport of it but by now you must realize that Zodeaux is just wasting your time either for pay or pleasure. For every intelligent response you provide, Zod just returns with another vile spew of at best irrelevant argument, heavily laden with arrogance and venom, putting words in your mouth and accusing you of actions that Zod himself is actually guilty of.

Honesty and truth are the last thing you and the other collectivist are interested in. You sadly have no valid arguments to make so you waste your time engaging in ad hominem attacks, ironically pondering why another would waste their time arguing with me. Just imagine what your followers must be like.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by JohnJasper

 

From the libertarian perspective, the Zeitgeist movement should be allowed to flourish in its own domain.

The key is voluntary interaction of individuals.

I'm not sure about you, mnemeth1. Maybe a review of some of your other thread postings will shed some light or perhaps you'll explain your point of reference directly at some point. In reply to your points here, please do take some time to review the ZeitGeist Movement documents to get a better idea of what it's about.

The whole point of TZM is that the current economic system is leading to the destruction of civilization (not the world because it will eventually spit us out when it decides we're too much of a nuisance.) As with the Socialist movement(s,) it is recognised that the current capitalist/imperialist/call-it-what-you-like system is failing and it's up to the world's population to force a change. Unlike the Socialist movements, TZM is not politically active but instead is intended to educate people about a system that could replace the current system when it does fail however that comes about.

Neither TZM nor Socialism/Communism can exist within the Capitalist system as the former systems are incompatible with the latter and true change requires a complete change. None of this is intended to be forced on people except by the people. It is not expected that the elite will readily endorse either TZM or Socialism/Communism but the survival of the many depends on revolution. They are both democratic systems although TZM doesn't support the normal concept of government.

However, they should NEVER be able to force their view of society on to someone else.

I disagree. BP should NEVER be able to force their oil drilling priviledge over the rights of others to have an unpolluted ocean.
Monsanto should NEVER be able to destroy centuries of seed husbandry so that they can profit from their few, unproven patented seeds.

The people of the world MUST be able to determine democratically how to structure society for the good of all and then defend that structure against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Government is evil.

Government of the people (all the people,) by the people, for the people should actually work if the people have the stamina to make it stick. I don't think that it's ever been done before especially not in the USA so maybe one day we'll find out.

reply to post by JohnJasper


So you favor the use of violence to impose your view of a Utopian society on everyone, even if they disagree with you?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You are contradicting yourself.

First, you say that I assume all students want to work for the collective good, and that this is a wrong assumption.
Then you say humans will help each other out.
Which is it buddy?

I concede the point that SOME humans help SOME other humans out, but the fact remains that the students in this example DID NOT. And that a vast majority of people, in this situation, would do the same. They would be selfish.

And yes, I would help out my class. I have the choice to, and I am not a selfish person, and although I sometimes make selfish choices, I more often than not make the choice that helps more people. These students could have done that, and they didn't. The reason socialism fails is because humans, especially in America, say "It's my money, I should get to keep it for myself. It's my land, I should get to keep it for myself. Those poor people brought it on themselves, no one should support them. Everyone should be individual and work to support themselves." My point is that THESE ATTITUDES are what makes socialism fail, NOT socialism itself.

reply to post by SugarCube



You will have to give me a little bit more to work on,
your feudal system idea seems interesting,
I just need to hear more from you before I can start
developing a realistic view of your ideas.

For what it's worth, I'll try to argue as best as I can with what I understand.

- There wouldn't be money, rather a form of quantity vs demand value,
the more of a certain good you have per city, the more each individual can consume out of it. I wouldn't plan it like in communism where you have one car and one car only, creativity would be supported, there would be inevitable waste of products obviously, but isn't there any now anyways? Besides, with better equipped recycling centers, no waste is too wasteful.
As long as each individual feels like they have choice, they are happy. The ability to choose and shape one's life is true freedom. Cannot have a monotone society, it becomes worse than hell.

- There's not many problems technology cannot solve when it comes to self sufficient cities.

- I agree with widespread mass public transit, albeit taking away people's ability to own their own cars is a bit drastic, it limits freedom, people do not like having things imposed on them. The system would be based on choice.

- No money = infinite production possibilities. No taxation, government can maintain anything as long as there is willing labor.
What does no money mean? Every individual has the chance to create things without being constrained by the lack of money, how many Teslas are out there waiting to be discovered I wonder? Science would progress at light speed. You cannot have anyone in power, this is why I chose a purely bureaucratic system. Military is an issue and could be fixed with the modern feudal system idea, albeit it gives the one in charge of the military ultimate power and ability to consolidate it. So what to do? That is a question I have been working on for quite some time.

reply to post by Radekus


Radekus - have you been working with the ZeitGeist Movement? If not, then you've independently arrived at many of the same conclusions. Either way, it shows that so many people believe that a better system is needed and are thinking along the same lines.

That implies that there is hope for us yet!

[edit for spelling correction]

[edit on 14-7-2010 by JohnJasper]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by JohnJasper

 

So you favor the use of violence to impose your view of a Utopian society on everyone, even if they disagree with you?

I get the feeling that you are wasting my time but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the moment.

I DO NOT favor the use of violence to impose anything upon anyone.

I AGREE that force is required in some situations but that it must be justifiable and reasonable.

Neither TSM nor Socialism/Communism have anything to do with my view of a Utopian society nor have I made any reference to my view of said society. As a small hint, in my Utopia, beer and pizza would be health foods!

Should I suddenly become King of the World, I would not hesitate to use force to prevent anyone from destroying the environment for personal gain, attempting to profit off the enforced labor of others, hoarding wealth and therefore depriving others of their due, etc. The world society would be structured in such a way that none of the above would be rewarded as it is in today's society so people would have no incentive to do so.

But getting back to real life...

Bill Gates (formerly of Microsoft until he realised that charity was where the real money is at,) as an example, is purported to be worth $50 billion at last reading. Assuming that there is only so much wealth in the world, that means that Bill is hoarding not only his share of the wealth but that of a huge number of other people. With my personal wealth being in the vicinity of $300k which is mainly the inflated value of my house, Bill could be said to be hoarding the wealth of 166,000 people like me. No big deal because I'm getting by.

More importantly though, he is hoarding wealth that DOES mean the life or death of millions of people around the world. And Bill is just one of 1000s of ultra-rich people who live extremely well on the decaying bodies of the world's poor and the crumbling quality of life for millions everywhere.

The problem is the money-based economy. Fixing it requires losing money and managing the world and its resources for the good of all, not for the people in power. Enforcing that management is a necessary part of the program.

I think that we have to accept that we need a 'money' system. Ultimately, it gives freedom of choice and facilitates trade of disparate goods. Now, this is where a change of comprehension needs takes place. Consider 'money' as a verb rather than a 'noun'. In this case a noun denotes a name for an abstract object since money is not definitive as such when considered as fiat currency. It doesn't actually represent anything of value in itself, rather, it represents a notional share in future taxation via the state.

As a noun, perceived as an object, it becomes something we can accrue, like collecting books or stamps. However, if we consider it as just a 'verb', then money only becomes relevant in terms of its action in a transaction, i.e. it enforces the concept of facilitating trade or exchange - it simply becomes buying potential rather than an object of expression in itself.

We have to face the fact that fiat currency essentially speeds up of the process of financial development, it makes us 'richer' quicker (or the perception of being 'rich') and provides a quick way of massively increasing investment which leads to the development of society.

However, I think we've seen that society cannot cope with this speeded up version of trade, not to mention the almost mystical shenanigans that it supports, so we must consider whether fiat money is actually worth the bother. Do we agree with the old fable that has the moral, "Slow and steady wins the race?" as per the hare and the tortoise?

If so, why use a fiduciary system as a panacea for all trade facilitation. Can we not organise better methods of facilitation at appropriate levels of society. For instance, barter is a much under rated system of trade and is especially useful at 'citizen' level in local communities. Services and goods can be exchanged directly by agreement. Brock refers to this as 'double-coincidence of wants' in his video but 'barter' seems much easier to say!

As we get into much complex levels of transaction, so we have to transact our services and goods for money. However, ask the average person whether their money is 'worth' something and they will say 'yes', but, they are using fiat currency... it is effectively worth nothing. It is a 'perceived' value in terms of society. I think that people would be much more appreciative of 'real' worth. Money that is actually backed by wealth rather than just a confidence in wealth.

As an aside, consider a company that is doing very well, it has many employees and the order books are full and they have a share distribution. Suddenly, somebody wants to sell their shares for personal reasons, but they happen to hold a large number of those shares. When they start selling in bulk, the share price starts going down, the market is being flooded and supply is outstripping demand. Then people start paying attention to the share price - which is dipping, so they start to think that 'something is wrong', the 'perceived' value of the company is dropping, so they start selling their shares and make the problem even worse. On paper, the company has hit rock bottom, the shares are worth one tenth of the original value and the company cannot attract investment in order to fulfil the orders in their books, in terms of buying materials on credit, maybe some new machinery. The orders are taken away and given to someone else, the company starts to collapse. Why? In terms of the 'real' generation of wealth, the company was as good as it ever was, the order books were full and given the right amount of confidence it would have gone on to bigger and better things. Can this be right?

This problem, and that of fiat currency, is solely concerned with 'confidence', not with real wealth per se and is surely nonsense? Of course, confidence plays a part in the success of anything, you don't bet on a horse unless you think it will win or place, but confidence should be based on a reality - the recent performance of a horse rather than whether somebody else has also placed a bet on it.

Our society needs this change of perception, it needs to get back to understanding the inherent worth of people, of companies that actually create wealth and of course, in the currency that people 'perceive' actually represents their wealth. That is 'real' confidence.

Capitalism does not preclude this system and there will be situations where society's wealth is outstripped by demand. If you suddenly find that the coffers are empty, how do you pay for anything if nobody pays any heed to the fact that you will (in all likelihood) earn something in the future. So, there is a need for confidence of the 'future' as well, but we shouldn't be building our society based solely on the promise of tomorrow. You might bet on the same horse for tomorrow since it won its race today, but in the mean time it breaks a leg...

Societies have natural disasters that befall them, they go to war... how can that be paid for if you have a currency system that only facilitates 'real wealth' rather than including 'confidence wealth'.

It is a question of balance and at the moment, we veer too much toward 'confidence wealth' and have forgotten about real wealth and potential. Society tries to create wealth through the manipulation of confidence, not through the production of tangible wealth, something that you can touch and feel.

we can correct this by devolving responsibility. Once people become directly involved in the process of 'confidence' then they start to take note. People apply this common sense in their daily lives (e.g. making a bet on a horse) but do little to deal with the more complex issues of 'confidence wealth' (e.g. selling shares in a company just because the price is dipping).

You can hardly blame them as they are worried about their individual financial concerns, whether they will lose their money - not whether a company will go bust and the unemployment figures rise - that is a problem for 'society'.

This needs to change, by bringing the reality of these systems to our doorstep, by making them relevant to our everyday transactions and life in our locale. This is why I think a 'feudal' system (with the caveat that it is not 'feudal' as per the medieval period) can produce benefits. We become much more interested in our local environment, in the success of our local society. We want trade 'locally', because we can then see the direct benefit.

Unfortunately, because society has relieved itself of these concerns through companies that are 'global' and have no vested local interest, we are at the whim of markets that are across the other side of the world regardless of how much potential for creating wealth we have right on our doorstep. Again, this is directly due to 'perception' rather than the reality of what can be achieved.

We certainly do need a change of focus. Society should be built from the ground up, not from the top down. I starts with individuals who recognise that community exists, that society surrounds them and gets progressively larger. Success at the bottom feeds success at the top. Our local society becomes the driver for success for our entire nations. At the moment, we are at the whim of the trickle down effect... failure at the top affects everybody!



[edit on 14-7-2010 by SugarCube]

[edit on 14-7-2010 by SugarCube]

The OP's reason for Socialism failing is a bit of a fallacy. The real reason that Socialism fails was laid out by Mises and later by Hayek, and is explained by a blogger here:

When Socialism was all the rage, Friedrich Hayek had two key insights into why it would fail. First, Hayek said that the knowledge needed to make good economic decisions is very detailed and resides deep within the enterprise. For instance, consider a simple piece of aluminum strip that might run along the side of a product. An engineer might specify a width of 1 and 5/32 inches, because that’s the minimum size needed for structural support. But the purchasing manager may have an opinion about whether using a slightly larger but standard size would be cheaper. And a designer might have some thought about esthetic proportions, and how they would impact consumer perceptions. The shipping manager might also weigh in on weight issues.

The best decision may incorporate very detailed knowledge from several people, none of whom are particularly high up in the organization. Central planners have no way of knowing this level of detail. That’s an important insight for public policy, and also for corporate strategy. If too many decisions are made at the highest levels, the detailed low-level information will not be used, resulting in poor decisions. This is one reason why smaller companies frequently grow to challenge the big boys.

Furthermore, Hayek argued, this detailed, low-level knowledge is continually changing. The standard sizes may change over time; production tolerances changes; esthetic preferences change. New materials are developed, and new ways to process old information are found. A Soviet Five Year Plan will be hopelessly out of date when finalized, as will be your corporate strategy.

seekingalpha.com...

Another, more fundamental problem with Marxian economic theory is that it was built around the labor theory of value (in this sense, Marx was building on the work of Adam Smith and David Ricardo). Very few modern economists still accept the labor theory of value, because it doesn't turn out to make a whole lot of sense. One of the outcomes of the LTV is that, if it takes equal labor to turn a tree into either lumber or sawdust, then workers should be paid the same wage either way, and the end products should be equally priced; regardless of the fact that the lumber is obviously more valuable and useful than sawdust.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by theWCH]

reply to post by Radekus


The traditional Feudal System from the Medieval period consisted of the kind of hierarchy shown below:

King
+ Nobles
+ Knights
+ Freemen & Serfs

This represented a 'noble' hierarchy but it also basically reflected the structure of the land, something we still see in Europe even now in terms of folks that live in towns and villages being located within geographic regions overseen by a controlling body right up to central government. This is much the same all over the globe, however, we see a divergence from the old system of what is considered to be 'locale' simply by virtue of the county, national and international infrastructure.

The key issues for our modern societies centralise on:

* Power redistribution - Reduction of centralised authority in the form of central or 'federal' government and appropriate redistribution of these powers to 'authorities' at the more granular ends of society (i.e. putting power back within the grasp civilians in our own villages, towns and wards of cities, let alone our counties)
* Wealth Redefinition - As mentioned before, we must veer away from the concept of 'entirely' virtual wealth and bring it back to reality as appropriate to the here and now, without compromising confidence in the future.
* Social Awareness - By virtue of the two previous points, increasing awareness and integration into our own locales, being able to directly influence our our communities in a wide range of infrastructure areas, public and private (i.e. not at the whim of central government or powerful but abstracted private enterprise).

The thing is, many of these things can be abstracted and can actually use existing models for services and good provision, it is just that we need to change the way that we perceive and do things.

The first thing is to understand that we do not need to simply be cogs in a single machine (i.e. the nation). Our nations should be the sum of its parts by virtue of ensure success at local levels which combines through natural processes to provide a strong national community.

We need to understand where we can abstract our local communities from the global race for the accumulation of 'virtual' wealth - the chain is made up if individual links - no matter how impressive the chain looks, when the links fail then everything fails!

A common complaint is that we import and outsource too much - but think, we also do this locally. Now this is not to say that every village town and city must be self-sufficient - that is not practical, but clearly we should be able to revise our operating methods even at the lowest level to ensure that we conserve wealth locally first. The conservation is simple prudence.

It starts with the definition of communities - by nature a geographic starting point since we are but habitants of the earth itself. Let us start by looking around us. Do we need to use a national currency locally? Do we need to even use a currency for some local services and goods? Barter may suffice, especially now that we have the technology to provide real-time market places to satisfy the 'double-coincidence of wants' conumdrum.

Beyond that, industry, providing employment and creating wealth at a slightly higher level. Seeking reward for oneself in the establishment of a business does not preclude the attraction of reward for a locale. If open a cafe or bar, I may attract visitors that in turn go to other shops in the area. We have to take a more balanced view of how we build our communities. Market forces do not always favour the 'best' approach for society itself.

As mention, we must also reassess of authorities, from the lowest level to the highest. Determining whether they should be 'authoritative', or merely 'ombudsmen' that act as a conduit to normalise our infrastructure. This is about understanding how 'parent' bodies talk to each other in ascending groups.

Using the example of the Medieval structure, the freemen and serfs talk to each other and the knights. The knights talk to each other and the nobles, the nobles talk to each other and the king. This need not be an authoritarian relationship, it is merely about a 'chain of communication'. What is missing? The 'church'. That is to say, in the Medieval system the church was outside of this system and provided a kind of divine ombudsman who could intercede. Now, separating the secular from the spiritual, it can be seen that an external ombudsman to oversee this process would still work.

You can probably already see where these bodies already exist in one form or another, such as the President instead of a King, however, are they operating as they were originally envisioned to operate? My suggestion is "No", that is why a realignment is necessary. Power has migrated to the top away from the citizens and just as importantly, damaging society just as surely as an entirely individualistic approach would.

This roughly outlines the concept - it has to be an evolutionary process in order to work but the fundamental aspect is to recognise the decentralisation and the importance of individuals in their locales, from the street they live on to the area of town to the town itself and onward. It is about energising that model and radically changing the 'default' approach to how we build our communities and create wealth.

I would love to see a simulation, much like the online games that we see, that allow us to fine tune the financial model to understand how it can operate to support the defined requirements and the general model!

reply to post by JohnJasper



One must define the system one wants before one decides to change it.
A blind rebel is merely a pawn of the system.
I heard of the zeitgeist movement, I have trust issues when it comes
to such things, many have been lead astray in the past
when it comes to socialist ideology.









[edit on 14-7-2010 by Radekus]

reply to post by SugarCube


Noun and verb distinction, what you are asking is an impossibility.
Money separates people because it is an object, even if you make it
virtual, the concept of hoarding virtual money continues to be an issue.
For what it's worth, most people won't be able to make the distinction,
you can't expect everyone to follow your method of thinking, it's unfeasible.

My system works primarily on barter, albeit imposed barter trade, as you see, as long as one works, one can consume. Must produce for society to gain from society. Trade between cities works also on barter, no money required. We seem to be agreeing on the barter idea somewhat, albeit you wish to keep the idea of money and merely back it up with precious metals. This impedes humanity's progress due to the fact that eventually, through only a few generations, you will end up with yet another wealthy elite that aims at consolidating power. What we need is an uncorruptable system, and for such a system to work, there cannot be anyone in power, nor can there be any way to achieve and/or consolidate such power. Long story short, if you implement your idea, we merely turn the clock back a few centuries, nothing gets solved.

It seems we differ in opinion, I dislike the idea of having a feudal system, or any system that involves a dictator. everything now runs on bureaucracy, we don't even need the leaders anymore, the country runs itself, all that our dear leaders actually DO is pass new authoritarian laws that consolidate their power, it can be seen with the patriot act, it can be seen in Europe with the push for a European government, it can be seen everywhere, even in north Korea with the short guy with dark glasses, do you not see that power is the aphrodisiac of psychopaths? Even if you have the most benevolent dictator ever, he will die one day, then what? How do you know his kids won't become wack jobs? how bout the next popularly voted in person, are we really ready for another Stalin or Hitler? You see where I'm going with this?
Democracy doesn't work, and authoritarianism doesn't work, what we need is a computer to make the least decisions as possible, and a bureaucratic system to run it all. No federal government, no territorial government, everything runs city state wise. In your scenario, even if you manage to bring power back to the people, nothing prevents the ones in charge from consolidating power back, it may take generations if need be, but you can bet they'll do it, look at the Rothschilds and Rockefellers, family monopolies.
You must think in terms of centuries and millennias, not in terms of decades.
Learn from past mistakes and avoid repeating them.
In my system, nothing prevents private enterprise, there is no government to nanny you around, private enterprise is what the system is composed of. As you can imagine, my system is a cross between capitalism and socialism, minus money. Of course, there will be laws in place preventing enterprises from becoming too big (to prevent consolidation of power), but one can still own a fairly prestigious enterprise if one chooses. My problem with socialism is, I very much dislike the idea of "everything is everyone's", people need personal possessions, people need goals and hobbies, but most of all, people require choice, and my system grants them that.
What your system grants people is a temporary status quo, a restart.
I, on the other hand, grant them choice for eternity.




[edit on 14-7-2010 by Radekus]

reply to post by JohnJasper


So you think Bill Gates has 50 Billion stuffed under his mattress?

You say he is "hording" that money.

The only way to "horde" money is to keep it under a mattress or to buy commodities and leave them unused.

If he puts it in a bank or investments, he's making all of it publicly available for lending.

If he uses it to expand his investment portfolio, he's creating 50 billion in private sector jobs.

So, would you use violence to expropriate the 50 billion Bill Gates has and put people to work digging ditches in Montana? Do you think you know how to spend that 50 billion better than Bill?

reply to post by mnemeth1


To answer your question, even if it's not aimed at me,
I sure would!

Give me 50 billion and I give you paradise on earth.
That is if i don't get assassinated during my campaign...

reply to post by Radekus


I think that the Devil is in the detail. For instance, barter works well when you have something that somebody else wants and they have something that you want in return, otherwise it doesn't go anywhere. If I have a farm and basically need to exchange eggs, I have to be able to trade with people who want eggs in order to get everything else.

I do not believe that we can do without 'currency'. If you take away all of the evils associated with it, it is not inherently bad. It is perfect for what it does, providing versatility of conversion.

Now, if you wish to exchange services for goods, (i.e. work for produce), you have the same issue. If you specialise as an electrician, you have to ensure that you can find people who want an electrician in order to be able to get goods, assuming that you want those goods. This gets worse as skills become more specialised (i.e. an artist or a mathematician).

The other point is 'durability'. If you wish to have a holiday, you have to accrue enough of your barter goods to be able to barter through that period. if you happen to produce food, you are restricted in your ability to maintain that trade system without converting to a non-perishable form as such. It means that you have to barter for non-perishable goods during the rest of the year and then barter with that during your holiday.

The point is, you end up using non-perishable goods as a bartering commodity and this essentially assumes the role of 'money' i.e. a non-perishable commodity that has a (supposed) intrinsic value. People would revert to what comes naturally and start to use gold or silver in readily available forms (i.e. coins) to make life easier.

Ultimately, barter is a form of currency, except with commodities representing the dollars and cents. As such, you would have the same issues as now, people would hoard certain wares and of course, speculate on the abundance of wares. If there is a glut of certain foodstuffs, its barter value will go down, just as commodities devalue against the currency we call money.

The point is, if there is trade, the commodities or services become "money" anyway, you cannot do away with it as such, you can only try to change the way it is perceived by making it better and easier to "use" money in benefit of society.

If you try to alleviate this behaviour by having central exchange centres where 'credits' can be swapped for goods, you are essentially making the 'credits' the same as 'money'

As for the hierarchy in the proposed 'feudal' system sorry, I didn't make it very clear in my original post... This is not about putting in a dictator at the top of the tree. The various levels of the hierarchy provide the relevant levels of geographic 'administration' according to a normalised set of rules that do not restrict the individual per se, apart from clear behavioural rules - e.g. defining murder as a crime.

Those administrations have to operate at the right structural levels, it is no good the macro levels trying to dynamically control the micro levels or we end up in the situation we have now.

The point is, this is about gradually change the perspective of people so that money does not become the object of working. Instead, it is relegated back to simply being a 'tool'. It is about changing perception by creating the type of environment where everybody feels intrinsically integrated to their community rather than just "somewhere that you live".

It uses both 'capitalist' and 'socialist' ideas but for expediency rather than pure ideology.







[edit on 14-7-2010 by SugarCube]

First off, Socialism was created to be the first stage in a transitioning democracy from Capitalism to Communism. According to the Communist Manifesto, Socialism was never intended to be an end onto itself. It's failure is evident thus far in it's inability to Decentralize
I think Marx had it nailed. Communism is supposed to be pure democracy from the grass roots up. There is the story that after WW1 and the fall of the Tzars of Russia, Lenin got his hands on a Communist Manifesto and thought it may be an answer for his home that was at that time in shambles. He contacted Marx to ask what he thought about Russia adopting this philosophy and Marx replied: Your attempt will never develop past Socialism (the first stage) due to the fact it must remain centralized to fight off Capitalist influence on the society.
As we have seen, no country that has claimed to be Communist has been able to become a decentralized Democracy just like Marx said. As long as there are greedy people offering payoffs and greedy people taking them, we have a problem.
Real communism like Marx intended can't exist in competition with Capitalism which is a system that will destroy itself on it's own.
People hoard for the sake of hoarding. the productive capacity of our resources and efforts are wasted.

Originally posted by Radekus
reply to post by JohnJasper

 

One must define the system one wants before one decides to change it.
A blind rebel is merely a pawn of the system.
I heard of the zeitgeist movement, I have trust issues when it comes
to such things, many have been lead astray in the past
when it comes to socialist ideology.

I'm relatively new to socialist ideology and socialist history is an even newer subject for me. Having finally started to study socialism from the socialist viewpoint, it would appear that the biggest problem has often been infiltration by intelligence agents from the PTB or the local Stalinist group. After being caught off guard by the October Revolution, any socialist party big enough to get noticed has been steered off course by planted agents or the beheading of the party leadership (either by defamation, imprisonment or execution.) Allegedly the first of these was used by Thatcher against Arthur Scargill during the 80s to undermine his leadership of the Mineworkers' Union.

Complete, unquestioning trust in any political party is unwarranted and dangerous. Questioning leaders and their motives at every juncture and ousting those that cannot secure your trust is our right and responsibility. Remaining inactive and impotent while the world crumbles around us, however, is not a great option.

Good luck in your quest!

Source

reply to post by Mumbotron


LOL

where do you people get this stuff?

reply to post by Mumbotron


I think that the biggest issues facing our modern societies are:

(1) Fiat currency
(2) Hoarding of virtual wealth - (i.e. measuring the ownership of debt as wealth) based on promissory futures, relating directly to (1) above.
(3) Disintegration of society (at local through to national levels) through the abandonment of localised 'real' wealth growth (we've become dependent on mega-corps and public sector spending) directly as a need to maintain the status quo for (1) and (2) above.
(4) Globalisation as part of (1), (2), (3) above, leading to an increase in imports and outsourcing.
(5) Collapse of quality of life (balancing work and private life, quality of foods and even products) purely to feed the requirement for growth to maintain (1)-(4) above.

I believe that most concerns can be seen to be derivatives of the 5 points above since they are not necessarily ideologically specific - this is why we need a change in perception rather than a changing the tools we use to achieve certain things.

Money itself is not a bad thing. The desire to create wealth (real wealth!) either by the accumulation of wares or the currency equivalent is not bad! The biggest issue is illusory wealth - ownership of debt!

Debt inevitably destroys society since it is based on a promissory future that cannot be assured or accurately measured!

You ever start to do a job and then somebody interrupts and says, "Can you just...?" You do them the favour and until somebody else says, ""Can you just...?" Eventually, you realise that you do not have enough time to finish off the original job. We only get time at a measured pace, we cannot get 'more of it' as individuals as such.

So we create illusory wealth 'today' by promising that we'll earn the real wealth to 'back it' tomorrow. Fiat currency is simply an IOU! We keep swapping IOUs with each other, we trade them for goods but they mean nothing. As long as you have Fiat currency then you are forced to pay taxation.

ATS has a history of proclaiming that taxes are bad... until societies return to backed currencies, either by clear relatively direct links with 'real' wealth creators (i.e. producers) then we will always be crushed by the yoke of government through taxation.

Taxes will inevitably only go up... since more and more IOUs are in circulation, the economy demands it. Those taxes may shift from individuals to businesses, even to other countries via import taxes, but the fact is they need to rise to keep pace, especially since birth rates are falling.

Reducing the reliance on IOUs solves a lot of issues, it gives a level playing field. This should be the first step in reclaiming our societies!




[edit on 14-7-2010 by SugarCube]