Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Playing the Socialist Card Is Weak Sauce

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


Socialism values individuality very much so. The collectivism parts of socialism is only concerning the means of production and the idea of maintaining the socialist state. All humans accepted and regarded as important in socialism. it is just that in socialism you are prevented from being extremely greedy and self-centered. A socialist society demands that all members of society have a duty to care for each other.

If someone becomes too old to work in socialism, they retire and are cared for as best society can. If someone become sick or injured, they are given all the healthcare they need, and society can provide, to heal them. Socialism is not some evil empire hell bent on destroying human individuality.

After someone finishes their daily work in socialism, they are allowed to do what ever they want as long they are not breaking any civic laws.




posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by freedomwv
 


So what if I just like to have say, lots of gadgets, cars, and oh say a few million dollars.

Say I have ten computers, but I have them all connected for lan parties to have people over and play games on them such as say, minecraft Dungeons and Dragons online.

And say I like to collect classic cars and airplanes and I have thirty classic automobiles and ten airplanes, including a B17 bomber, all from WW I and II.

And what if I have a huge library of say ten thousand books?

And say twenty different IPads?

What then?

And if I would have to why would I have to justify this collection to anybody? Would this stuff be taken away from me? And what if i didn't want to give it up? Would I be put in jail if I resisted?

Because personally, I see nothing wrong with having more stuff or money than another person,as long as it isn't abused or used to harm other people. I just like having lots of stuff and money.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by freedomwv
 


So what if I just like to have say, lots of gadgets, cars, and oh say a few million dollars.

Say I have ten computers, but I have them all connected for lan parties to have people over and play games on them such as say, minecraft Dungeons and Dragons online.

And say I like to collect classic cars and airplanes and I have thirty classic automobiles and ten airplanes, including a B17 bomber, all from WW I and II.

And what if I have a huge library of say ten thousand books?

And say twenty different IPads?

What then?


Why would you not be able to do that? Socialism is concerned with industry, not your personal possessions.
Socialism is an answer to production of resources that we all need. It simply removes the 'private owner' and thus the profit that is made go's to the workers themselves.

It can go two ways, either workers are paid more, or goods and services become cheaper. Either way it benefits everyone.


And if I would have to why would I have to justify this collection to anybody? Would this stuff be taken away from me? And what if i didn't want to give it up? Would I be put in jail if I resisted?


You wouldn't. Why do you think you would? Where are you getting this from?


Because personally, I see nothing wrong with having more stuff or money than another person,as long as it isn't abused or used to harm other people. I just like having lots of stuff and money.


But that is the problem, people having substantially more than others is the problem because it gives them power over others. We can never be completely equal, but we can eliminate the mass wealth made by the few that they use to control the many. Money is the power in capitalism, not government. Those with enough money control the government.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





Why would you not be able to do that?


Because when I ask that question, and I have different times over the years, I get different answers, but one that keep cropping up goes like this:




elevates the common good to the number one priority in all spheres of decision-making. Private property does not fit with the philosophy of socialism. Socialism negates private property rights altogether, & advocates the vesting of ownership and control in the community as a whole. So there is less (if any) class differences between people.


And all the stuff I put in is, essentially private property. And other socialists, or at least other people who claimed to be socialist, claim that it's not okay to have more stuff than other people and it's okay to just take it away. I've had some tell me that if one person is living in a big ten bedroom house, it's okay to take him out of that house and put a family or two or three in it.

And that's what bothers me most about socialism, is that many advocate this kind of attitude that it is okay to just take people's private property just because they have more stuff than others, because it's all about greed and being greedy is wrong.

And, here is another answer I get:

uk.answers.yahoo.com...

And the key phrase is government rations things out to people.

And i suppose you can claim that they're not true socialists, but I'm sure they'd disagree with you. They believe in this just as strongly as you.




We can never be completely equal, but we can eliminate the mass wealth made by the few that they use to control the many. Money is the power in capitalism, not government. Those with enough money control the government.


But you see, that is the biggest weakness to socialism, in any government form, those who control the money, control the government. That is what has always corrupted your form of socialism, because at least as far as I know, Socialism does not have any kinds of checks and balances to prevent people from misusing the money to their advantage/ Anybody who controls the money has power over people, regardless of the government. That is what is corrupting America now, is the wealthy elite control the money and thus they control the government, which means it is not a government for and by the people ANYMORE.

This is how Russia got corrupted into the Communist regime, too much money, not any checks and balances, and millions upon millions of people get killed or sent to the gulag. Well, at least as far as I know.

And finally, remember Karl Marx said that socialism was just a stepping stone on the path to communism.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


You have provide me with a very engaging discussion so far; I am very grateful to you for that.

Socialism does not prevent you from having stuff. If you like having a lot of things you will have to work for it; which is the same under capitalism. The difference is the manner in which you attain lots of stuff is different. In socialism, the means of production becomes collectivized and there is no private means of production. The exception would be in the case of individual artisans who own their means of production and have no workers employed under them.

When the means of production are collectivized the whole idea of money and government control totally changes. We can no longer think of government control in the same way we do in a capitalist system. Remember that in socialism the workers have full control over the means of production. This opens up many new possibilities in the role government can take in society and maintaining order.

In socialism, all basic needs are considered to be above and beyond the needs of profit or anyone`s need to have more stuff. You can have plenty of stuff but first everyone`s basic needs are going to be met, as best as society can provide, before you can start getting all that stuff you desire.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by freedomwv
 





You have provide me with a very engaging discussion so far; I am very grateful to you for that.

You can have plenty of stuff but first everyone`s basic needs are going to be met, as best as society can provide, before you can start getting all that stuff you desire.


Thank you for the kind words. I try, but you see, I have talked to many different people over the years, both on forums like this and personally, and they have different ideas in what socialism is to them. They all believe in their version of it strongly, and all thinks that their version is the only correct version of socialism. So this muddies the water for me. ?And as I've described, some of them have told me are things I just can not ascribe to.

I have no problems with this kind of a system, provided that it is a voluntary system. Many times in history, it has not been a voluntary system. And some people want to convert the entire country of America to a purely socialist system any way they can.

So what are the basic needs and how does socialism define them?

And how do we get to decide who decides who gets what and what is distributed, and how are they prevented from taking advantage of the system and misusing it for their own ends?



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


Socialism is commonly misunderstood even by a lot of those who uphold it; which is the same with capitalism. It takes a lot of study to really understand any political or economic system. With that said, I again want to thank you for challenging to me explain and defend the ideas of socialism.

We both can agree that socialism is only a temporary period on the path to communism. We might also be able to agree that socialism is the next evolutionary step in human social development after capitalism. So, let address the questions you pose.




So what are the basic needs and how does socialism define them?

And how do we get to decide who decides who gets what and what is distributed, and how are they prevented from taking advantage of the system and misusing it for their own ends?


I have always been one to stick to the basics when defining what are the basic needs as defined by socialism. I tend to hold to the things which all humans must have in order to survive.

1) Food
2) Housing
3) Healthcare
4) Basic education

These are the first things the socialist state should collectivize. The socialist state must create a situation in order to create the conditions for hyper production by the workers(who are now the owners of production). In order to achieve that goal the workers have to be able to get the basic things in order to work as hard as they can without concern for securing food, housing, healthcare or basic education(i.e. reading,writing, math and science).

We decide `who gets what` based simply on need. If you need it then we try our best to provide it to you. There is no private ownership of the means of production so everyone can get the basics as long as production is kept high enough. When production drops then we resort to focusing on what is most important; provide for the basic needs of the common people and maintain the survival of the nation state. Remember, we are still in socialism at this point so we still have a nation state to defend and maintain. When we are unable to maintain hyper production, due to any number of material conditions, we have no choice but to seek a balance of providing for the needs of the workers and the needs of maintaining the socialist state. This may require certain sacrifices on the part of the workers at large in order to maintain the socialist state. Although, we will still provide the basic needs to the workers based on how much we have to provide. In socialism we have still not totally resolved the contradictions of capitalism so it will not be an ideal situation at times. The most difficult basic need to provide, to my mind, is food due to the fact that food can be hampered by factors which we cannot totally plan for nor control; i.e. floods, droughts ect. So, the key is the ability of the leaders to be able to develop strong trading partnerships with other nations in order to provide for the basic needs in times when hyper production cannot provide for enough resources in times of domestic shortages.

Which leads into your next question of how do we do prevent people from taking advantage of the system. To give the most honest answer I can; We cannot totally prevent people from `taking advantage` of the system under socialism. As long as we have socialism there will be a certain amount of corruption we will have to put up with. Even with the workers in control of the means of production, and the socialist state regulating the basic needs of the worker and the manner in which the workers go about interacting with the product of production, we will still have a certain amount of corruption. This is something which the workers themselves, though the process of direct democracy, must find creative ways of dealing with.
edit on 25-9-2012 by freedomwv because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
elevates the common good to the number one priority in all spheres of decision-making. Private property does not fit with the philosophy of socialism. Socialism negates private property rights altogether, & advocates the vesting of ownership and control in the community as a whole. So there is less (if any) class differences between people.


When socialist talk about private property they don't mean your personal property, but property used to exploit labour, factories etc.

Socialism isn't really ownership by the community, but ownership by the workers. In other words instead of working for a private owner you work for yourself. Each worker equally owns the company, like partners.

There is no class difference in socialism, that is one of the points of it, no social privileges due to class.


And all the stuff I put in is, essentially private property. And other socialists, or at least other people who claimed to be socialist, claim that it's not okay to have more stuff than other people and it's okay to just take it away. I've had some tell me that if one person is living in a big ten bedroom house, it's okay to take him out of that house and put a family or two or three in it.


That is incorrect. Socialism doesn't mean you can't have more than others, that is all nonsense.

The only thing socialism does is put the means of production in the hands of the workers, and then it is up to the workers, you are a worker right?, to decide how they want to run their company.


And that's what bothers me most about socialism, is that many advocate this kind of attitude that it is okay to just take people's private property just because they have more stuff than others, because it's all about greed and being greedy is wrong.


Because most people don't bother to find out for themselves what it actually is, and simply believe what they're told.

No one is going to take your private property unless you use it to exploit labour, which in the eyes of the worker is a crime, theft. Capitalists have been exploiting labour for 250 years, the workers as good as own their property.


uk.answers.yahoo.com...


This the problem, you are getting someone else's opinion. To find out what socialism actually is, you need to read the original socialists, and anarchists to understand it.


But you see, that is the biggest weakness to socialism, in any government form, those who control the money, control the government. That is what has always corrupted your form of socialism, because at least as far as I know, Socialism does not have any kinds of checks and balances to prevent people from misusing the money to their advantage/ Anybody who controls the money has power over people, regardless of the government. That is what is corrupting America now, is the wealthy elite control the money and thus they control the government, which means it is not a government for and by the people ANYMORE.


Socialism is not government. No one controls the money but the workers themselves, that is the point of socialism, it removes those in control and let's the workers themselves control themselves. Full liberty from top down authority.


This is how Russia got corrupted into the Communist regime, too much money, not any checks and balances, and millions upon millions of people get killed or sent to the gulag. Well, at least as far as I know.


Russia got corrupted because it was never communist in the first place. The Bolsheviks never intended to implemented socialism, they simply used the revolution to take state power for themselves, not for the workers.


And finally, remember Karl Marx said that socialism was just a stepping stone on the path to communism.


No he didn't that is a myth. Communism and socialism are the same thing, worker ownership of the means of production. Marx started using the term communism because the liberals were using the word socialism, and to differentiate his ideas from the old utopian socialists such as Robert Owen. Later in his life Marx switched back to using the term socialism. Marx communism was working class socialism.

People get get confused because they read out of context quotes from Marx. Marx was not the first socialist, he didn't create the idea of worker ownership, he and Engels simply created a political plan to get there. Marx never wrote about what socialism will be like, he only criticized capitalism.

edit on 9/25/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   


The only thing socialism does is put the means of production in the hands of the workers, and then it is up to the workers, you are a worker right?, to decide how they want to run their company


okay, let's say somebody is not following the rules, and they are breaking many of them. How would socialist discipline this person? Who would get to discipline him or her?

And what happens if in breaking the rules some piece of equipment gets damaged and further causes injury or even a fatality on the job?

What happens then?



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I see they've given up on this thread.

Ah well.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
okay, let's say somebody is not following the rules, and they are breaking many of them. How would socialist discipline this person? Who would get to discipline him or her?


What rules?


And what happens if in breaking the rules some piece of equipment gets damaged and further causes injury or even a fatality on the job?

What happens then?


Again what rules are you talking about?

If someone breaks equipment the other workers would not be happy, and would deal with it as they see fit.

What kind of question are those? Who's going to break things, and why? I don't have all the answers to how things are going to be run, that is not up to me to decide, that is up to the workers themselves to decide.

Why did you not address what we were talking about and change the subject?
edit on 9/28/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
I see they've given up on this thread.

Ah well.


Well there wasn't anything else posted worth replying to. But to keep you happy I did.

edit on 9/28/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





What rules?


The rules the workers decide to put into place.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


It all depends on how the workers decide to run their cooperative. The point is no one makes and imposes rules outside of the cooperative. All 'rules' will be decided by the workers democratically, and be accepted by the workers democratically. All workers are responsible for the cooperative. If the workers want their cooperative to work then they wouldn't stand for anyone screwing it up.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


When workers are in control they tend to work harder and care a lot more about their job. If anyone reading this thread has ever worked at a highly Unionized work place you know exactly what I am talking about. It is expected, in a socialist system, that workers try their best and work hard. Others workers will naturally not stand for lazy workers because everyone is directly involved in the operation of the means of production.

In a managerial dictatorship workers have no control of what happens at the work place so they tend to not care about their job as much.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedomwv
reply to post by ANOK
 


When workers are in control they tend to work harder and care a lot more about their job.


Exactly. In a worker owned company the workers also earn directly from their labour, the more they produce the more they make. There is no incentive to slack, like there is when you have a fixed hourly wage with the vague potential for a raise. Why work to your max when you make the same money anyway. The hourly wage system is not a good way to motivate production, because all you do is increase the wealth of the owner/s.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join