Socialism, here are my thoughts

Originally posted by ANOK

I don't think people should be just given those basic needs, but they should be available to everyone.

Well - - that might have more to do with the current population. Unless we set up a fenced in wilderness preserve and say: "Go for it"!

Its dangerous to those in a community - - - to have other people with no means of support wandering around.

So - - I support everyone be in some sort of housing and fed. Even if its just a cot in a dorm and a "fried bologna sandwich".

Originally posted by ANOK
In a worker owned economy, that is not profit focused even though profit can be made, anybody who can work will be able to work in order to produce for their needs. The only people who would not have to work are those unable to.

The problem I see with a worker owned economy is - - we are not clones. Someone is going to emerge as a leader - - that's human nature.

IMO - Leaders are born. Its in their genetic makeup to take charge and progress an idea. Then what?

That's basically the problem I see. Where to go with the progression - - - because nothing stands still or remains the same.

No matter how well thought out or how good intended - - - the end result always seems to be Greed.

How does one create and maintain a "circulating" social structure that puts back into its system - - - instead of rewarding the pyramid design of "over achievers"?

Originally posted by Annee
Well - - that might have more to do with the current population. Unless we set up a fenced in wilderness preserve and say: "Go for it"!

Its dangerous to those in a community - - - to have other people with no means of support wandering around.

So - - I support everyone be in some sort of housing and fed. Even if its just a cot in a dorm and a "fried bologna sandwich".

But that is not what I meant. What I meant was there should be no economic reason for anyone not having those needs met.

Socialism is not a give-away. The means to produce would be available for the community to use, not monopolized by a few for personal gain. So those able to work will have the means to do so, if they choose not to then the community would not be responsible for them. If they can survive without working so be it, that is freedom, but don't expect anything from the community if you don't participate in it.

The only reason we have poverty is because the means to produce for our needs are privately owned, and when those private owners are not making profit the means to produce are removed from the community. The community is more important than the private owner imo.

We only need social handouts because of the artificial scarcity caused by capitalism. Poverty is a lack of resources, not a lack of money. Money is an artificial commodity, used to control.

Whether today's global overcapacity is seen as cause or effect of the economic crisis, one thing is certain: it isn't easy to make a profit in a world awash with overproduction. Capitalism is born in conditions of scarcity and is unable to function outside of them. So it seems logical that the crisis creates a tendency to restore these conditions artificially. But how does this affect the chances of the global economy to find a way out of its present predicament?

libcom.org...

As far as people simply wondering around doing nothing, you should visit my city some time. People are not too motivated by minimum wage jobs.

Originally posted by Annee
The problem I see with a worker owned economy is - - we are not clones. Someone is going to emerge as a leader - - that's human nature.

Why would we be clones? In a worker owned business all the workers participate in the everyday running of the company.

IMO - Leaders are born. Its in their genetic makeup to take charge and progress an idea. Then what?

Nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is an economic system that allows one class of people lucky enough to own property to exploit those that don't.

That's basically the problem I see. Where to go with the progression - - - because nothing stands still or remains the same.

Why wouldn't we progress? Capitalism keeps us from progressing because it's about making profit, not progressing. Progress under capitalism only happens if profit can be made. This is why we still rely on oil and have not developed alternative clean energy as much as we should have. We could have ditched oil decades ago.

No matter how well thought out or how good intended - - - the end result always seems to be Greed.

Yes that is why capitalism is not the best economic system, it allows people by law to be greedy.
Under socialism the wealth created is more evenly distributed, it all goes to the workers. It's when one class of people become much more economically more powerful than the majority, that they have the power to control society to feed their greed.

How does one create and maintain a "circulating" social structure that puts back into its system - - - instead of rewarding the pyramid design of "over achievers"?

Worker ownership. That way an "over-achiever" can not monopolize the right to produce, and then use that right to exploit those that don't, and then became more economically powerful allowing them to control the state to their benefit.

Socialism won't make us all equally wealthy, but it will stop a minority class from becoming much more economically powerful than the majority, giving them the power to control the state and economy to to their own benefit.

Originally posted by ANOK

But that is not what I meant. What I meant was there should be no economic reason for anyone not having those needs met.

I got that part too.

But - do you arrest those who don't want to participate?

So those able to work will have the means to do so, if they choose not to then the community would not be responsible for them. If they can survive without working so be it, that is freedom, but don't expect anything from the community if you don't participate in it.

But that goes back to what I said.

People wandering around with no means of support or housing - - are dangerous to the rest of the community.

The only reason we have poverty is because the means to produce for our needs are privately owned, and when those private owners are not making profit the means to produce are removed from the community.

Not totally. There have always been those who let others work for them.

I think you're getting a bit too - - idealistic.