People have been brainwashed to believe that socialism is evil...

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShinerI would almost guarantee that if a computer program was designed to control the distribution of wealth and resources in a country without greedy little humans being considered in the programming, a system to appropriate labor and control inventory and distribution....It would look different than it does now.

You would have misgivings with such a system because people were involved in writing the code?

Don't you feel the same way about banking, financial and accounting software now?

Also, no one person would develop the software. No one person ever could. No one person can write modern software for aircraft and spacecraft avionics, financial institutions.

Heck, even modern computer games.

Everyone writes a specific piece that provide a small amount of functionality, does certain things. And other people have access to the code and can review it.

Also, it would be a bit difficult to get away with exploiting a backdoor you left somewhere in the code for you. A patch would be issued and that would be that.

And you'd go to jail, of course.

a reply to: Chiftel

So.. we would place the responsibility for equal distribution in whose hands? The govt? Because they do so well at everything (read: nothing) they do now? Because they have done sooo well with the country's education system. Cause they have done soo well with Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security etc etc?

I would not trust the govt to do any such crappola and do not. If we want to create a Utopian Society we will have to destroy the current govt we have in place.

a reply to: bbracken677

No one's.

Computers and robots don't have hands.

And we already do it. Inside of insular corporations. Power companies, shipping companies, manufacturing giants, JIT, KANBAN etc.

Corporations are insular centrally planned quasi-socialist economies (socialist in the way they are administered and run, not in the way the proceeds are distributed). The proof is in the pudding. Socialism works a treat. Just ask any successfu corporation.

How about we made the whole of society into one giant, global corporation and every human being on earth could and would own exactly one piece of stock and one vote?

a reply to: Chiftel

Who would be responsible for the program and the computers running it this program who would decide how this society is to be run?

Nice idea, but not really practical.

Has everyone truly been brainwashed? Or is it a case of, in general, better the devil you know? Or is it, perhaps, those attempts at socialized flavors (for example: wealth redistribution in the US) have left bad tastes in people's mouths? At least, those who work, resenting those who live off the fat with zero contribution to society let alone productivity? I, for one, do not care to support perfectly healthy people who are just too lazy to work.

Given that, from what I have read, there has never been a true example of socialism, it seems more pie-in-the-sky than anything. If I am wrong and there has been a true example, please correct me.

Given that those meager attempts at socialism have been perverted before they even came close to the ideal is it really practical to propose instituting a Utopian Society that ignores basic human nature?

a reply to: Chiftel

I see this thread has come back to life again, good to see people are still thinking on this matter, as for computers and an artificial government you must remember that it would therefore be a government under the control of the programmer and though we need social balance we actually need to compromize between socialism and capitalism as either system as a total means leads to failure, greed is bad but a little luxury you can work toward is a great incentive and society has to go on and evolve but in a society were the state takes care of everything like in a communist system the genuine incentive to do well in your job is taken away but likewize in a capitalist only system you work or die.
So people need at least the illusion of freedom and the illusion that they can get out of the rat race but they also need a safety net and the top of the capitalist world need's to reigned in and thoroughly chained down so that they know they too have to pay there part and are not owners of the world but also members of the same society the little man they have working on there production lines is.

The truth is we in britain acheived such a workable tollerant and genuinely practicable system which protected our people in the 1950-60's in the uk but through the 1970s it was run down then attacked through the 1980-90 and through to today by wealthy moneyed people whom lacking the empathy which should be a requirement of government and also lacking the ethics which we were once proud of as a christian nation these people usurped the governance of this country through fair means or foul and saw to it that the system was destroyed.
In britian it should only ever have been for our people and this is not a racists statement but a statement of practicality as our people work to support it, pay there taxed to maintain it, there forefathers died to establish it and should therefore be the recipiants of it in there time of need.
But one country established a better system for it's people than us and that was sweden, it was destroyed almost instantly when they entered the EU and is now overburdened by ethnic migrants mainly from outside the EU whom have trashed there system and even rioted burning down historic parts of there second city stockholm, from entering the EU they now have a massive percentage foreign population of mainly muslim immigrants, this remember was a country which never had colonies and never invaded anyone, they were the most tollerant of nations as well but not now.
www.express.co.uk...
one-europe.info...
The country's these immigrants headed for where the ones with socialist policys so they could milk them and at the expense of the people for whom those systems were set in place, mastricht needs to be brought down for what it has done to europe as only a few wealthy men have benefited from the corrupt system.
Socialism is good when tempered with common sense and charity begins at home you look after your family and friends first.
Sadly it is way too late to reverse the damage done to europe and because of this abuse of our social welfare systems we now have a fear of those same systems as dug abusers, foreign migrants and areas of high crimes seem to be the main areas which are dependant on them but the alternative is to let our own people die on the streets and starve, to let our own soul die.

Being mixed myself I assure you I am not a racist but burying our heads in the sand will never make the problem go away and the truth is sometimes less than pallatable in today's world.

Seems to me if you could get a system that allowed humans to vote for what they want you would end up with socialism except for those that are reaping the power and money from what ever system I t might replace. I THINK SOCIALISM WITH TRUE HUMAN VOTING WOULD WORK BETTER FOR ALL. No more representation. We have cell phones now. We can all vote.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Chiftel

Who would be responsible for the program and the computers running it this program who would decide how this society is to be run?

Nice idea, but not really practical.

Who is/was responsible for the design of the aircraft you flew in, the cae you drove in, the nuclear power plant next door supplying you power, the bridge you drove on?

Who is/was responsible for writing all the world's banking, financial, trading and accounting software?

The software running your car or someone's pacemaker?

originally posted by: bbracken677
Has everyone truly been brainwashed? Or is it a case of, in general, better the devil you know? Or is it, perhaps, those attempts at socialized flavors (for example: wealth redistribution in the US) have left bad tastes in people's mouths? At least, those who work, resenting those who live off the fat with zero contribution to society let alone productivity? I, for one, do not care to support perfectly healthy people who are just too lazy to work.

What about when you yourself will be out of work, displaced, made redundant by a machine or a piece of software?

Will you have the same outlook then, when nobody would hire you or pay you a living wage because a machine or computer program is simply much cheaper in the medium to long term or perhaps even in the short term?

originally posted by: bbracken677Given that, from what I have read, there has never been a true example of socialism, it seems more pie-in-the-sky than anything. If I am wrong and there has been a true example, please correct me.

You're wrong.

Socialism is all around you.

From insurance to public infrastructure, public roads, public services.

Yes, private, for profit insurance is socialism.

You can get out more than you put in. Much more. Much more than the money you put in would have reaped if you invested it.

How is that not socialism? If you paid $50.000 worth of premium your working life then become ill and the insurance company dolls out more than the total sum you've paid in over the years?

Please explain how that is not socialism, how that is not redistribution from the other insured' payments to pay for your care beyond what you yourself put in?

originally posted by: bbracken677Given that those meager attempts at socialism have been perverted before they even came close to the ideal is it really practical to propose instituting a Utopian Society that ignores basic human nature?

Who have they been perverted by?

Those with your mindset, I'm sorry to say.

People who hate the idea, dismiss it out of hand and would only do their utmost to subvert it, run it into the ground once in office. To 'prove' their prejudices to both themselves and others.

a reply to: Chiftel

So you are saying it should be a corporate endeavor? That is what I am hearing. Given the importance and the enormity of what we are talking about here, I cannot imagine a govt not being involved.

Given that the examples provided above have an economic incentive to work correctly, and that the software mentioned that would, in effect, run/control our lives there would be significantly different incentives to do significantly different things.

No chance that there wouldn't be a skew in how things are developed. No chance that even if done properly there wouldn't be widespread claims of malfeasance, conspiracy, fraud, graft, etc etc.


Too pie in the sky, too simplistic, too much rose colored glasses involved for my taste.

I agree that what we have now sucks in many many ways. I just don't believe it is the system so much as those running things that are corrupting our society. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

If you had someone with the drive and the charisma and influence to make something like what you speak of happen, you would also have the corruption that follows such. Beware those who want to lead.

No, not corporate. Because corporations are run by and for the profit motive and the proceeds are distribute very unequally and unfairly.

Profit is meaningless when there is only one employer and manufacturer in the economy. As it should have always been.

Profit is basically what you can screw (extort or defraud) someone else out of.

Either your suppliers, your employees or your customers.

For someone to register a profit someone else necessarily needs to register a loss, either present or future, whether they realize it or not.

See the purchase of Manhattan Island for an example of a voluntary exchange wherein one party clearly defrauded the other.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Chiftel
Given that the examples provided above have an economic incentive to work correctly, and that the software mentioned that would, in effect, run/control our lives there would be significantly different incentives to do significantly different things.

Your arguments don't apply to observable reality. The empirical record contradicts you.

Corporations only have one incentive: the maximization of profit. Your health or satisfaction is purely incidental.

Though you seem convinced otherwise.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Chiftel
No chance that there wouldn't be a skew in how things are developed. No chance that even if done properly there wouldn't be widespread claims of malfeasance, conspiracy, fraud, graft, etc etc.

Of course. The right wingers would complain before it even started.

See this thread, this forum, see Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare, National Highway System etc.

See the discussions before those programs were implemented. See the right's (your) arguments. See the discussion since.

See the right's ardent desire to defund these programs, run them into the ground, lie about them etc. The right was even willing to go to war (Iraq) just to have the excuse of a deficit caused by that war to slash these programs. To have bridges collapse at home because of defunding public infrastructure.

And for what?

To save money?

Those imaginary units banks conjure up billions more of each day all over the world?

For that?

We let bridges collapse, people go hungry, cold, ill, homeless?

Can you not see how deep down the wrong side of history your side is?

Again?

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Chiftel
Too pie in the sky, too simplistic, too much rose colored glasses involved for my taste.

Of course you would say that. Your side would probably have said (and likely actually did) that about just about every social, economic, cultural or scientific advancement in the history of mankind.

I am sure there were people using these exact words when the abolition of slavery, granting women the vote, labour, child labour and many other pieces of progressive legislation were discussed and enacted.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Chiftel
I agree that what we have now sucks in many many ways.

Yet you want something worse. A regression to an even worse state of affairs.

Instead of progress.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Chiftel
I just don't believe it is the system so much as those running things that are corrupting our society. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So the people running the national power grids have too much power?

www.youtube.com...

Or will you trot out that double standard again, how there can never be too much of private power but a smidgeon of collective, public power is far too dangerous to suffer?

Because, because!

Your beloved profit motive doesn't exist in the public sector!

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Chiftel
If you had someone with the drive and the charisma and influence to make something like what you speak of happen, you would also have the corruption that follows such. Beware those who want to lead.

Corruption?

Like whenever we let politicians instead of technicians and experts run things?

Or we allow the profit motive in?

You realize that with one global employer and manufacturer (the world state), profit would be meaningless and corruption impossible?

You can only profit when there is another off whose back you can do it.

So why not seek more centralization, more integration?

You're basically trying to claim that the profit motive somehow, magically makes people and institutions less corrupt and/or corruptible?

What a risible argument.

Corruption is combated by making profit impossible or meaningless.

Not by introducing it to as many fields and domains as possible.

Or are you trying to claim that the profit motive somehow makes it such that things are run more efficiently?

Efficiently? How do you measure efficiency? By the amount of profit registered?

Why would I want to pay more for a commodity/good or service just so some asshole I've never met and probably never will can appropriate the extra cost as payment for himself for owning that provider or a piece of it?

Just look at how many posts in this thread have claimed Nazi Germany was "socialist". The same people probably think Mussolini's Italy was "socialist", etc.

Just the mere fact that so many people (clearly almost all of them are Americans, or even all of them, as the comments out them), think this, is without any doubt proof of rampant psychological disorders on this issue.

Is it brainwashing? Maybe it is, but that does not really add up.

It's either that, or they are what? Incredibly stupid? Amazingly ignorant? Unbelievably uneducated?

All of the above? Or are they delusional to the point of being psychotic?

How in the hell so many people in the USA can actually believe that the black shirts and brown shirts were socialists is truly astonishing. People that believe something like that are definitely at the very least delusional, and actually by a very textbook definition, they are actually psychotic.

Can media brainwashing make you psychotic? Are we really going to make excuses as justification for such psychotic disorders as this?

These people are living in an alternate universe.

If you are completely living in an imaginary fantasy land, then there is a little more going on with you than "brainwashing", as in what you heard in school, at church, at work, on TV, on the radio, etc.

Especially considering that these sound like clear extreme right wingers talking, and that this would be anathema to far right wing talking points. Why would the extreme right wing be bashing Hitler as a socialist?

Hitler is a GOD TO THEM, SINCE HE IS ONE OF THEM. BECAUSE HE WAS A FASCIST.

So, I am not buying "brainwashing". People saying things so crazy as Nazi Germany was socialist, are simply suffering from clear mental disorders.

a reply to: Red Cloak

No you are correct the german National Socialist movement of the 1930's was based on a group of disparate hardline right wing (RIGHT WING) thug's and of course used tactics such as scapegoating ethnic minoritys to blame there country's woes upon such as the jewish people and other religio/ethnic minoritys as well as those whom espoused different political opinions to themselves.
Nazism was never socialism but a perverted conservatism taken to it's extremes and was very class centric.
True socialism only acheived any level of expression in britain when the labour movement was at it's peak but was watered down by the entrenched establishment whom still held all the purse strings, still after the war we had social housing, factorys subsidised by the state, enough nationaly owned energy and agricultural systems that we could in theory go it alone had be needed to and remember that during the war we were only 8 days from starvation then being reliant on american food supplys to keep our people alive, it was the socialist government which gave us the best education and health systems, public welfare for the unemployed which was never meant to be abused and enough jobs to keep people in work.
If is was so awful why did the ultra rich not leave the country then (though even dennis thatcher was a multi billionare but kept his assets outside the country so that he only ever paid tax on about 4 million in the country).
Mass immigration destroyed it but was aided by a right wing plan to destroy it, to break apart the social cohesion of the working class community's which were then the backbone of the labour movement, to provide new cheap labour and remember that right wing establishment has always seen the majority of british as serf and only there to keep them rich so there patrotism is only as strong as there wealth.
In the 1970's declassified american documents revealed a plan which was one step away from being enacted in which Lord mountbatten was going to sieze power from the labour government in a military coup, the weapons were to be kept at the house guards barracks and they were to sieze parliement when in session arresting the labour government, ary mountbatten actually kept a plan of it on his wall and they had the blessing of the then american government whom saw the socialist government of the 1970s britain as a threat.
www.thelondoneveningpost.com...
www.thelondoneveningpost.com...

These people held so much money that when labour would come into power they removed there assets abraod immediately causing a recession in britain and when there pet conservative party came in they would move the assets and contracts back, this thay did every time labour came to power until they had bought off and usurped the labour leadership from tony blair onward as they then had both puppet governments on there hands.

originally posted by: Chiftel

originally posted by: bbracken677
Has everyone truly been brainwashed? Or is it a case of, in general, better the devil you know? Or is it, perhaps, those attempts at socialized flavors (for example: wealth redistribution in the US) have left bad tastes in people's mouths? At least, those who work, resenting those who live off the fat with zero contribution to society let alone productivity? I, for one, do not care to support perfectly healthy people who are just too lazy to work.

What about when you yourself will be out of work, displaced, made redundant by a machine or a piece of software?

Will you have the same outlook then, when nobody would hire you or pay you a living wage because a machine or computer program is simply much cheaper in the medium to long term or perhaps even in the short term?

originally posted by: bbracken677Given that, from what I have read, there has never been a true example of socialism, it seems more pie-in-the-sky than anything. If I am wrong and there has been a true example, please correct me.

You're wrong.

Socialism is all around you.

From insurance to public infrastructure, public roads, public services.

Yes, private, for profit insurance is socialism.

You can get out more than you put in. Much more. Much more than the money you put in would have reaped if you invested it.

How is that not socialism? If you paid $50.000 worth of premium your working life then become ill and the insurance company dolls out more than the total sum you've paid in over the years?

Please explain how that is not socialism, how that is not redistribution from the other insured' payments to pay for your care beyond what you yourself put in?

originally posted by: bbracken677Given that those meager attempts at socialism have been perverted before they even came close to the ideal is it really practical to propose instituting a Utopian Society that ignores basic human nature?

Who have they been perverted by?

Those with your mindset, I'm sorry to say.

People who hate the idea, dismiss it out of hand and would only do their utmost to subvert it, run it into the ground once in office. To 'prove' their prejudices to both themselves and others.

LOL dude...seriously? You start your rant off by responding to what I didn't say. I asked a few questions, you ignored the questions and read what you wanted to between the lines. You assume you know how I think and what I think, but again, you are wrong. Dead Wrong.

The resentment was not taking care of those who have been "replaced by machinery" or whatever. I am fine with helping people out who need it, will accept it and will use the help to correct their situation. I have been displaced, as you put it. The last time I looked for a job I was 58. Imagine how many people were beating down my door to hire me lol. Never mind that I had plenty of experience, never mind that I had a track record of success... They could avoid any stink of age discrimination by not even inviting me in for an interview. If not for unemployment I would have been in much worse shape. I took the money and eventually did find a job. That job, not optimum for me, led to another job that was exactly what I wanted. So take your fantasy of who and what I am and shove it. It's pretend intellectuals such as yourself that turn people off and close minds. You tout a system that is unproven and cannot address my questions but rather make assumptions about myself and attack me. Nice rhetoric. Take your unproven system and shove it. I am no longer interested in any answers you have.

As I clearly stated "those who are too lazy to work". You don't believe they exist? If that is the case, and only if, then you do not live in the same world I do. Visit a HUD housing community. Ask some questions. Talk to people. Learn something. Some of those people there are doing their damnedest to get out. Many, unfortunately, are happy to be there and just want more "help". $25 a month for an apartment, all utilities paid, along with $650 a month from SSI and food stamps apparently are not enough, they are entitled to more. Do you think these people will go away in a socialist state? Do you think that suddenly they will be interested in contributing to society? lol Nope.

I will not even address the rest of your rant, since it does not apply to me, obviously.

a reply to: AboveBoard

Yeh see the elites don't want the worker to have a say in the executive functions of the corporate entity.
The workers are just unthinking expendable drones in the for-profit hive.

Nothing more nothing less.

Why allow for the chattel to actually collectively bargain(socialist unions) and collectively own their own labor(socialism) and compete with their power base?

No can't have that.