Is Socialism is for Arrogant Bullies?

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Maybe somebody can help me and explain how the theory of socialism is applied in practice.

Let's say there's a socialistic, communal farm, and people on the farm go out and pick apples everyday. These apples are sold at the market, and the entire commune shares in the benefits of selling apples.

Then one day one of the apple pickers realizes it doesn't matter if he picks 100 apples or 80 apples, his life style doesn't change.

Pretty soon other people realize this, and take longer and longer breaks, pick less and less apples.

The hard workers are concerned that if this keeps up their lifestyle WILL change, so they work overtime to make up for the slackers. Then the hard workers realize they can sell their own apples at the market themselves and keep all the money.

Pretty soon complaints are coming in to the leader of the commune. He needs to get the lazy workers to pick more apples, and stop the other workers from selling their apples on the black market, otherwise his entire communal system is in jeopardy of falling apart.

How does can he accomplish this without coercing both sets of workers by ultimate threat of enforcing the rules by a use of force?

Or, if a force isn't used to coerce the workers, he could simply reward people based on how many apples they picked.

But then that wouldn't be socialism. That would be capitalism, right?




posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Very good analysis. This is exactly why socialism will never work even though it only touches on one narrow aspect. S&F



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
no system is perfect as in captialism the owner of the orchard would just sack the lazy pickers and hire new ones for less money to make more money so like most things in life a healthy balance is required but its getting that balance that really is the problem



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
I like your metaphorical analogy.

I wouldn't necessarily say socialism is for arrogant bullies but I can see how people can feel that way. Socialism simply cannot exist without force. In many instances that force will be against independent free will. How can the force be justified? Do ends justify the means? I guess many people seem to think so.

Prosperity at gunpoint. Where I am in the good ol usa, If States acted more like individual countries (as I feel they were intended to and have in the past) the socialist could have their states and the individualist could have theirs as well, with a federal government whose only job was to keep the states from going to war with each other.

Human nature will always be the best reason why socialism is not practical, among many and I think your analogy illustrated that well.

edit on 7-6-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1
 


I don't think the bullying has anything to do with socialism, more human nature. If a company pays their employees a low wage, it keeps them perpetually on the brink of insolvency or bankruptcy. In effect that company "owns" that person, as they aren't any more free to quit their job than if it was forced labor. That's what frequently is the case today and is a modern day way of imposing share cropping.

No system is designed to be fair. They are just different ways of making sure the more intelligent (or wealthy) have the power.
edit on 7-6-2012 by KnawLick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1
 


Your analysis is inherently flawed in the sense that you expect some folks to work harder than others. This breakdown that your are discussing is hypothetical an would not take place in at truly well organized and well operated socialist economy.

The reason being is that the Apple picking is the communities prime resource for income, however the invividuals would have skills and other assets that they were using to make income on the side in various other communities or what have you.

Socialism doesn't really mean that EVERYTHING is split completely equal, only the things that make the most sense, like the profit from everybody's day jobs.

Where in a commune/socialist community ( small scale) there would be very very well placed checks and balances to make sure that everybody was doing their fair share.

If they weren't then the whole system falls apart. You can't have a " leader" in socialism or it becomes totalitarianism.

Either way, it's a total pipe dream. No 1 system is effective on it's own, it takes a complex hybrid of our different political ideas to make a system that works in harmony with itself as well as it's citizens.

~Tenth



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Very good analysis. This is exactly why socialism will never work even though it only touches on one narrow aspect. S&F


Thank you, I appreciate your compliment.

Yes, it only touches on one narrow aspect, and if it's a flawed model within a simple example, the flaws can only increase exponentially as more variables are added to the model.

Bottom line is for socialism to work, a bureaucrat's plans must be enforced by gun point.

Not so amazingly, history has proven this to be true, don't you think? Has there ever been anything close to a socialist state that wasn't suppressing freedom?



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxatoria
no system is perfect as in captialism the owner of the orchard would just sack the lazy pickers and hire new ones for less money to make more money so like most things in life a healthy balance is required but its getting that balance that really is the problem


Yes, this is why capitalism is a system that allocates resources efficiently. A wage/value equilibrium point is reached. Balance is not the ultimate goal. Efficient use of resources is the goal. Anything less than an efficient use of resources means that there is a smaller pie to be divided up by everybody.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by KnawLick
reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1
 


I don't think the bullying has anything to do with socialism, more human nature. If a company pays their employees a low wage, it keeps them perpetually on the brink of insolvency or bankruptcy. In effect that company "owns" that person, as they aren't any more free to quit their job than if it was forced labor. That's what frequently is the case today and is a modern day way of imposing share cropping.

No system is designed to be fair. They are just different ways of making sure the more intelligent (or wealthy) have the power.
edit on 7-6-2012 by KnawLick because: (no reason given)


This is simply parroted socialist dogma, detached from anything in the real world. People quit their jobs everyday..

Define fair. Does fair mean everybody gets equal amounts or everybody gets amounts proportional to the value they produce?

Who determines what is fair?



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

Socialism doesn't really mean that EVERYTHING is split completely equal, only the things that make the most sense, like the profit from everybody's day jobs.


~Tenth


hahahahahahahahahahaha......

#. You made me spit out my diet coke laughing when I read this line.

Please explain how it makes sense to split the profit from everybody's day job??????

Have you ever had employees? Does it really make sense to split the profit equally between two employees who don't provide equal value?

Seriously? Do you really believe this?



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

Socialism doesn't really mean that EVERYTHING is split completely equal, only the things that make the most sense, like the profit from everybody's day jobs.


~Tenth


hahahahahahahahahahaha......

#. You made me spit out my diet coke laughing when I read this line.

Please explain how it makes sense to split the profit from everybody's day job??????

Have you ever had employees? Does it really make sense to split the profit equally between two employees who don't provide equal value?

Seriously? Do you really believe this?



Actually I owned and operated a business for many many years my friend, which is now a cooperative owned by my former employees.

Do you know how a COOP works? Most people get paid the exact same ammount, for differing jobs. There is other ways of determining value other than a $ ammount.

That's the problem with capitalists, they see no value outside of the dollar.

And how would you determine two employees provide equal value?

~Tenth



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1
 

What you describe isn't socialism. On a real socialistic farm everyone would be paid for the number of apples that they picked.

Socialism isn't about equality. Yes that is what many governments called themselves and equality is what they promised, but it doesn't mean that what they implemented was, in any way, true to the original meaning and ideas.

edit on 7-6-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1
 


Your analysis is inherently flawed in the sense that you expect some folks to work harder than others. This breakdown that your are discussing is hypothetical an would not take place in at truly well organized and well operated socialist economy.

~Tenth


Bunkus! Not only would this take place - it does take place in every socialist stronghold in the world. Hence, Socialisms continued failure everywhere it is tried.

Here is another metaphore:

A college Economics professor, during his first day of class, argues that one of the things they will explore in his course was Socialism versus Capitalism. This leads the class off onto a tangent where all of the students agree that Socialism blows away Capitalism, hands down. In an effort to gain control of his class, he offers to grade his class on Socialistic principles where he takes the average of all scores and each student receives that score. There is unanomous agreement and he hears students snickering as they leave the classroom saying how easy it would be to get an "A".

The first test comes and, predictably, there are some "A's", a few "B's", A majority of "C's" and few "D's" and even "F's". In keeping with his agreement, he averages out the scores and determines that everyone in the class will receive a "C" grade. Obviously, this enrages the few students who received lower scores than what their actual perfromance should have earned them. While at the same time, those who didn't study as hard actually received better grades than their efforts would have warranted and they were quite happy.

The second test rolls around and those who received worse grades than there perfromance work even harder to ensure that they increase their score. However, those who received a "C" or below during the last test study and prepapre even less. The results are again, predictable. This time, most of the "A" and "B" students get "A's" but the majority of the "C", "D" and "F" students simply get "D's" and "F's". Again, true to the deal, the professor averages the grades and determines that the class get's a "D".

The final exam arrives which holds 50% of the weighted grade in the class. Those students who had worked so hard to overachieve on the previous exams realize that no matter how hard they work, their efforts will be offset by those not willing to work as hard. So as a result, they prepare minimally. Those who had benefitted from receiving a better grade than their performance would have earned, trusted that the "A" students would come through for them again and they would all achieve passing scores - as a result, they barely prepare.

The exam is administered and scored. Predictably, all of the "A" students skated by with "C's" and "D's" with the majoirty of the class failing and receiving an "F". Again, the scores are averaged which yielded a solid "F" for the entire class on the final exam. Given the weighting of the grading system, the entire class was failed for the entire semester. This was the first time in this professor's 30 year teaching history that he had ever failed an entire class!

So my point, tothetenth, is that eventually the overachievers no longer have incentive to over-achieve and the slackers are in fact rewarded for riding on the harder effort put forth by others. This is basic human nature and has been demonstrated in thousands of behavioral psychology tests. As a result, the equilibrium finds itself at it's lowest point - or among the lowest common denominator.

So, to your point, a "Well organized and well operated socialist economy" can only occur through governance. And said governance has to have the power to compel hard work, or at least equal effort. Rarely is this accomplished through a simple reward system. Rather it is accomplished through a reward/punishment mechanism. All of the sudden, everything is compulsory. The next thing you know is that you have tyranny and a lack of freedom.

That is why Socialism is anathema to freedom and liberty. That is why Socialism always fails.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


Again I never stated that a pure socalist society would work. A well planned and well executed socialist community would have elements of democracy and capitalism intertwined in order to ensure success.

As stated above, no one system, in it's purest forum can account for all the problems and issues that occur within a complex society.

But in a hypothetical situation of socialists who all understood what they were doing, the whole slackers vs over achievers thing would not occur. Again it's a pipe dream and in a real world sense would NEVER work.

But on paper? Hell yeah.

~Tenth



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

Socialism doesn't really mean that EVERYTHING is split completely equal, only the things that make the most sense, like the profit from everybody's day jobs.


~Tenth


hahahahahahahahahahaha......

#. You made me spit out my diet coke laughing when I read this line.

Please explain how it makes sense to split the profit from everybody's day job??????

Have you ever had employees? Does it really make sense to split the profit equally between two employees who don't provide equal value?

Seriously? Do you really believe this?



Actually I owned and operated a business for many many years my friend, which is now a cooperative owned by my former employees.

Do you know how a COOP works? Most people get paid the exact same ammount, for differing jobs. There is other ways of determining value other than a $ ammount.

That's the problem with capitalists, they see no value outside of the dollar.

And how would you determine two employees provide equal value?

~Tenth


Actually ... capitalist do see outside the dollar.... Those who have the skills and the drive to work hard ... make the big bucks

"You have to pay the costs.. to be the boss.."

Having your hand out does not promote this ...



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by LeoStarchild
 


Not 100% accurate.

The capitalist will not want to pay the employee what he's worth, he'll try and pay him less for being more efficient so that his bottom line increases. Or hell pay that guy what he's worth but fire 10 under him.

This is true of any capitalist business. Profits above all. The first thing any company does when trying to increase profits and drive down costs is cut the ammount of staff. It's the easiest way of getting to where you want to be, but not the only way.

I could have done that dozens of time with my business, but I chose to not take huge returns every year on profit and I actually over spent to make my business more appealing to my customers, so that I could provide higher wages for my workers, not cut them.

~Tenth
edit on 6/7/2012 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


True , But I think your making a blanket statement regarding capitalists. OF COURSE a company wants to make money...
Why should a company not slash its staff? If you got an ACE that can do the work of say 2 or 3 .. slash the 2 or 3 and boom ... you make more money ..

It sucks people have to lose their jobs.. maybe not so much if they lack the ability... but its not the company/owners fault.

I still dont understand why people have such a beef with corporations... or even small business for that matter... Your mad if they make a profit .. your mad if they dont. Which is it?



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1
 


I don't think socialism is a realistic system in most countries as it encourages individuals not to work as hard. I'm Also not blinded to the fact that capitalism inherently favors the wealthy. As the saying goes it takes money to make money.

Don't see the contradiction in pointing out we may just not have found the best system yet.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeoStarchild
Actually ... capitalist do see outside the dollar.... Those who have the skills and the drive to work hard ... make the big bucks

"You have to pay the costs.. to be the boss.."

Having your hand out does not promote this ...


Do people actually believe this "harder work = more money" drivel?

Its just so glaringly untrue on so many levels, in so, so many circumstances, its as wrong as claiming cats bark and the sky is purple, and as broad as claiming 1+1 equals 6 (believe it or not thats a very deep discussion you can write whole books about). How do you refute such a broadly inaccurate statement?

I guess Ill just add one tiny example: Ive worked as a truck driver before, doing flatbed trucking that you need to strap down yourself with huge 100+ pound tarps, 14+ hour days, etc. The hardest working people Ive ever seen were in that profession, and they got payed diddly. 20+ year veterans would be being payed, at most, 40 cents a mile, and being worked literally 14 hours a day, not including commute (if local trucking), all the hoops the trucking industry wants a trucker to jump through, etc.

And guess what? These veterans were are being laid off or fired left and right for very BS reasons so the companies they work for can hire rookies who they can pay less for doing the same amount of work.

Your "harder workers make more money" theory is garbage on a multitude of different levels. Its a fantasy concept that is not applicable in the real, capitalist world.

ETA: The real premise of capitalism is doing as little as possible, to exploit the most money possible without being shut down.

So really, enough with the "hand out" cliches. The richest people in the world are scam artists, providing NOTHING of value. They are manipulators of DEBT (not value) who through extreme convolution of law, deceit, and deception, have become the richest, most handed to people on the planet, and have you thinking that through capitalism, YOU can also rise from being the exploitee, to the exploitER.

What they dont tell you, though, is that the chances of you actually doing so, are negligible. Money begets more money, and if you start with none (probably most or all of us)... well, odds are you are going remain with none. if you are very lucky, and in the right place, at the right time, after a life time you MIGHT make what the economic elite consider to be chump change, if *everything* goes your way, and you make NO mistakes along the way.

So drop the "hard work = lots of money" crock of #. Its bull. Sometimes the equation can be applied to certain circumstance, however the analogy "even a broken clock is right twice a day" comes screaming to mind.
edit on 6/7/2012 by CaticusMaximus because: (no reason given)
edit on 6/7/2012 by CaticusMaximus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by LeoStarchild
 


I'm not upset at corporations or small business who operate on a set of ethics. Wanting more profit is unethical way of running your business if that's your ownly goal.

You will slash the throat of anybody who comes between you and your profit. Take Walmart for example. How many communities have they destroyed?

How many small businesses have gone out of business because of their tactics of price matching and offering sub standard product at reduced prices? I understand that part of the problem is the consumer, but the business model is meant to crush your competitors and it hurts far more than just that one business in the end.

Look my company made money, good money and I NEVER had to sacrifice a single job to get that profit. I could ALWAYS find a way to make money, while running a business that provided full benefits, really decent pay, paid vacations, a 6% annual bump in pay minimum ( unless you deserved more) and host of other things that made my company a great place to work.

All corporations could be run this way, there's no excuse to not run a morally sound capitalist business, unless you are morally corrupt.

That's the problem I have, not the money, but money at the expense of human decency.

~Tenth





new topics
top topics
 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join