Why Socialism Is The Inevitable Social Structure, Anthropological Perspective

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 01:56 AM
link   
I find it very interesting that everyone seems to equate capitalism with the American way...
which is not accurate.
Our founding fathers knew the evils of big government,and I would assume the evils of big money too.

Those of you hell bent on fighting socialism need to remember that free enterprise is not a capitalistic goal.
The ultimate goal of capitalism is monopoly.
Monopoly plus big government means fascism.

Yes Big Business has its uses--kind of hard to build mega defense projects from mom n pop shops,or a space program in your basement.These require massive capital and huge contracts.

BUT-as we progress beyond the manufacturing stage--think 3D printing, decentralized energy production--
the Capital needed for new projects,ideas,and breakthroughs diminish.

Those of you on either side of this argument must realize that the future will not be limited to the concepts of the past. As a conspiracy theory believer I tend to think that TPTB see the shift coming,and are trying to maintain as much power as possible.

Please have no doubt that your freedoms are intrinsically related to your wealth.Hundreds of years ago most of your ancestors were serfs under the thumb of a king or prince. You are now under that same yoke-but instead of prince your ruler is called CEO-however you are given the illusion of freedom by voting for a preselected muppet.Yet what changed from your vote?

The rulers of capital continue to own your existence. Technology may help undo that with time.Or,if we allow it,it will ensure the slavery of our kids forever.




posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by doctornamtab
 


OP has it backwards, its capitalism that is the way people choose to live.
Stars did not pop into existence just because we noticed them, they always existed, same with capitalism.
Its the growth of govt that created "socialism", a fake system of doing things, all socialism is is a transitory
phase towards communism, or some other form of dictatorship.
This is because when socialism improverises a country, its easy for a dictator to take over.
Sometimes a country goes straight to communism, but a socialist country always winds up either communist
or the people come to there senses and throw the socialist bums out.
So socialism is the "natural" way of doing things? Not natural law? When given a choice, does a productive,
working, creative person give the fruits of his labor over to some bum that has never worked a day in his life?
Why do they sue for damages, child support, etc, why do they care about being ripped off?
Is't it the "socialist way" to work hard for nothing so some toxic waste of a human being can lay around all day?
Socialism is, like other govt systems, imposed from above by govt, which is in turn controlled by the elites.
For the first couple of centuries the govt in America was relatively weak, and controlled by the bill of rights, and the constitution, and people, being free to choose, worked for themselves, and as a result built the richest country ever.
Which is now marching down the dead end road of socialism.
And if op thinks that he can sit around all day looking out the window, well, when the socialist countries finish
their current collapses, because the American tit they have been living on runs dry, I can guarentee the
op will be working then.
What, never heard of a labor camp?



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Socialism, even in Russia is different, God forbid you get through our 1917-1929 1941-1945 by at once 1937 to start immediately arrested Trotskyites or their www.perevodika.ru... do not have at you? by 1961 and 30 years without inflation



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 03:54 AM
link   
I do not care what ism you want to live under but if you want to impose it on me against my will I may be inclined to kill you.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by doctornamtab
 


Don't get me wrong; I don't like capitalism either, but I don't think you're right about this.

Capitalism is about the private ownership of resources and resource allocation by price competition. Socialism is about the public ownership of resources and resource allocation by government decisions.


Capitalism is brand new. It's only come along after 200,000 thousand years of socialism. Capitalism stands on the work done by socialism and claims it was doing the work all along.


Both capitalism and socialism are modern economic structures. Before that, we only had traditional economy. Capitalism did not come along and claim it was doing the work all along. Capitalism developed after the rise of international trade and the Industrial Revolution. Socialism developed after Marx and Engels.

Traditional economies do everything in a, uh, traditional way. For example, in Ancient China, division of labour is done in a traditional way. If your ancestors have been farming all along, then most likely you'll farm. if you're a male, or get married to your father's friend's son if you're a female (and then you'll be responsible for raising the kids, knitting, housework, etc.). There are also doctors and merchants. None of these jobs give you high social status. The only way to achieve high social status is to study a lot and become a jinshi. Then you'll get to be a government official. The was both private and public ownership of property - probably a bit more than capitalist economies, but much less than socialist ones.


Do you really think competition is a viable long term survival strategy? Try it in your family, no one sharing food or water or helping each other or anything. Doesn't work because it's not how humans are meant to live. It's not how we've ever lived. Until recently. And its not working.


In the circular flow, the 'household' and the 'firm' are the two sides of the coin. As the household is seen as a 'unit', clearly, you need to share resources, even under capitalism.


Think about it physically, simply from a flesh and bone standpoint. If humankind were meant for competition, for fighting, we wouldn't be so fragile. Humans HAVE to come together and cooperate because our skulls are thin and fragile and our bones are on the inside. Fights between two humans really mess each other up. We're not like rams or bears who can walk away after a violent battle. If we fall out of a tree, we're broken and mostly likely a goner. We're made for thinking, not competing. Physically, evolutionarily, we had to adhere to socialist values, simply for survival. Capitalism is a luxury we can only afford because of the work done by socialism.


Please correct me if I'm wrong. It seems that your point is this: humans are not made for competition -> humans are not made for capitalism.

As human wants are unlimited and resources limited, the world's resources are scarce. Unless you live in a Robinson Crusoe economy, competition must occur to allocate resources. Competition is not always about fighting. It usually isn't. The core of capitalism is resource allocation by price signals. Socialism allocates resources with a central organisation, which is usually the government. You said we're made for 'thinking', which can be used in as form of competition. People who are better at 'thinking' get great scores and get into good universities. This increases their chance of employment and salaries, and more resources are thus allocated to them through price competition.

Competition occurs in traditional economies. Farmers, doctors, etc., have low income and receive fewer resources. Government officials have somewhat higher income and receive some more resources. Nobles have very high income and receive lots of resources. All of these through sort-of price competition, depending on the amount of money you have. Not capitalist, but even less socialist.


Socialism is so ingrained our our society and our nature that we don't even notice it anymore. Cooperation is a part of every aspect of our society. Would people wait in line if we are ruthless competitors? Would we have NGOs and non profits? Would homeless people keep asking for change if people never gave it? We share. We cooperate.

There's nothing in capitalism that bans cooperation. Perhaps you're confusing cooperation and cartels. As firms in a capitalist system are supposed to pursue their self-interests, (which, regrettably, is also human nature), allowing cartels often leads to disastrous consequences. It would create a monopoly. In a capitalist system, without competition, selfishness will create a situation where the firm can do whatesoever it wants for money.

-Cooperation is important in a capitalist economy. How do you get a firm in the first place if you don't cooperate? People cooperate with each other to compete...
-How is waiting in line a socialist practice? Usually, it isn't classified as price competition, but capitalism doesn't mean doing everything through price competition. In fact, in a sense it is price competition if you consider the full price of the waiting, which is the sum of the fee and the time cost.
-I don't see how NGOs and non-profits are going against capitalist principles. By definition, they're just firms with noble pursuits instead of profit-maximising goals.
-I don't see how giving money to beggars is non-capitalist at all... You maximise get happiness from helping the guy, so you're maximising your utility.


And our capitalist leaders know it. Why do they fight so hard against leaders displaying ANY tiny speck of socialism. The West sanctions these countries and hurts the people for the actions of the leader. A leader who is just trying something different for his people. Why do Western capitalists fight so hard against socialism? Why do they fight against redistribution of wealth, against paying their fair share?

The redistribution of wealth is practiced in Northern Europe, and I don't see anyone fighting them.
edit on 11/3/13 by diqiushiwojia because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 08:16 AM
link   
I agree with you that capitalism cannot survive much longer, but the main reason for that is because it can not sustain further technological advancement. How come? I am thinking should I write it again since I already made a thread about it or should I just repost it. I am going to repost it, because I think it's very relevant for this subject. Anyway good OP, s+f!



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Something is wrong with this world. Something is deeply wrong with the society that we live in. As our knowledge grows; as our understanding of this world and our universe grows; as we are becoming technologically more advanced - we are increasingly suffering. We are suffering both physically and psychologically. Lot of members of our species are dying of malnutrition and diseases that are both treatable and preventable. Many of us are dying of stress related diseases, stress that is caused by many factors, but the main factor that lies beneath it all is fear. Fear related to self preservation.

So why is that? How is it possible? How come that instead of flourishing as a species, with rise of our knowledge and our technological advancement, we are suffering more and more?

The main reason as I can see it is that on this planet almost nothing is for free. In order to eat, drink, dress, rest, sleep, you need to have money. Money is something that you cannot use by itself. You cannot eat it, drink it, you cannot sleep on eat (well actually you can but it's not very comfortable). Although if you are cold you can burn it and warm up for a short while, so you can actually find some actual use for it although not much. It's value is symbolical, we use it as a system for exchange of goods and products. But lets move along.

In order to get money you have to "work" or inherit it, or "invest it". But since most of the people acquire money by "working" let's stick with that. So in order to "work" you need to have a "job". A "job" is kind of position where you can either produce something or provide some services. Now since all products and services are for human consumption we should be very happy and satisfied, right? But it's not so. Interestingly many of us are working more and more so we could provide ever more products and services for ourselves and our fellow humans. But instead of becoming happier in that process, we are becoming more miserable. That is very interesting, don't you think? But I have something else on my mind.

Since we are technologically advancing there is less need for any kind of "work" and from this point it's just going to continue that way. As we technologically advance, we make machines and computers that are more capable of making products that we need and providing us services that we need. Less need for human labor. That should be good news, right? Machines and computers can do some boring, repetitive and dull work so we could spend more time with people we love, doing things that we like (painting, hiking, dancing, whatever). But not so, not in the system we live. Less work in this society means less food, less clothes, less energy, less everything. Imagine if you were an extraterrestrial and if you just landed on this planet, wouldn't you think this way? Just think about it.

Also, all that talk about "job creation" is utter nonsense. Not to mention that we already have capability of producing products for at least two planets like Earth. That's where our programming trough our education, our belief system, all kind of advertisements kicks in - to boost our consumption to maximum levels. So that this system we live can continue to be in place unchanged, as long as it can.

I think that when you can identify the problem that finding a solution should be easy. Although in this case I'm not so sure... Well it would be if majority of the population becomes aware of the problem. Which we all know will never happen...



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 08:27 AM
link   
I find myself agreeing with points on both sides of this debate, but....

Capitalism has been around at least since money was invented. You could also argue that a pre money bartering economy is also a form capitalism.

In an ideal world with absolutely no corruption a socialist model is the best for humanity's long term future (star trek for example is socialist). However, man is a very corrupt being and either form of society will eventually be corrupted and result in elites and serfs.

Also pyschopathy has an evolutionary advantage, therefore the longer human society survives the higher percentage of psychopaths there will be. And the more strife and inequality will follow. Pyschopaths find it easier to climb the ranks of society because they are bereft of morals. Humanity has yet to evolve the ability to institute a fair society beyond communities of around 150 persons. In communities of that size cooperation becomes paramount and corrupt persons are easily weeded out.

Do away with the current monetary financial system and we may have a slim chance of improving things. With no money and a resource based economy, there emerges a tendency of cooperation.

It should also be noted that we live in a world of "artificial scarity" and the blame for that is in the hands of the capitalists. The earth is not over populated most of it is wilderness, and with an equitable sharing of reources it could comfortably support a population of over 20 billion. In such a moneyless sytem everyone's needs could be met, and then some! We are not running out of resources and even if we were there's an infinite universe of more resources. There's absolutely no reason why humans should still need to work to survive. We should already be served by robots and have all the free time in the world to be creative, artistic, inventive and scientific. We'd already be up there colonizing the stars if not for our current monetary and financial system.

The sad thing is the only way I can see any chance of a fair society would be one without ANY secrets and the only way that could even have the tiniest chance of becoming a reality would be to move to a hive mind society where everyone has that chip in there head and knows everyone else's thoughts. That would be a nitemare in itself but there would still end up being a corrupt elite that controlled the hive and would not be subject to the same laws and modes of behaviour as the rest of us.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by alomaha
 


Star for you. If I had seen your post before I wrote mine I could have said much less. The world we live in is in the control of monsters who are deliberately holding back progress of the speies for the sake of power and idolatry.

There's no need for scarcity in any form. The universe has provided us with a land of plenty.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   
There is one main reason why neither system will work.....greed! Capitalism is great, but the people who have the money get the money and don't send enough of it back down the pipeline. Socialism sounds great, but in the past the same thing has happened; the people with the money and power end up with all the money. I consider myself a conservative, and I don't like government involvement in our lives, but people have to stop hoarding millions and billions of dollars in the bank. Start investing in society and local communities. We are doomed otherwise!



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by doctornamtab
Here's what I don't understand about capitalists. It's a profound misunderstanding of history. History stretching back thousands of years. Capitalism is about 300 years old. Humankind is about 200,000 years old.

Humankind has ALWAYS BEEN SOCIALIST! The only way we survived this long is by living cooperatively, sharing resources and labor. Humankind did not survive this long by fighting each other for resources and hoarding resources. We are here today because we followed the hallmarks of socialist-liberal theory.





Humankind 200,000 old? Physically maybe. Socially? Not even close.

In the early days of man, no doubt people were socialistic just to survive. Hunting/gathering would have been communal activities. Also, archaeologists have unearthed badly injured skeletons with healed severe injuries. That means these individuals were cared for while they healed and perhaps even after healing. Additionally, some elaborate burials took place in pre-history (ocher/flowers/grave goods, etc) which tends to imply a communal effort. But, as I read it, socialistic efforts appear to be confined to small scale populations and activities.

When populations grow beyond small numbers, Kings and "royalty" became the buzzword of the day. This lopsided governance was the rule until relatively recent times. The Magna Carta and the French revolution were some of the first major movements toward social equality. I note with sadness that some societies today are still saddled with parasites (aka royalty).


As far as capitalism being 300 years old -- not a chance. You might to study history a little further.

Before the advent of money, man bartered for goods/services. When man invented money (seashells, coins, etc) as a store of value, we also started trading these tokens for items/services of value. Bartering goods or tokens for other goods and services is pretty much the definition of capitalism. (1)

What we have today only resembles capitalism on a superficial level. In the US, we have a cancerous variant of robber-baron capitalism combined with active state and military participation. Totally corrupt. On a macro level it resembles fascism. On a micro level, it resembles communism. Perhaps all we can say with accuracy is that the US is laboring (utterly failing) under authoritarian rule. Make no mistake though, this is not any form of ordinary commerce capitalism.








(1) re: bartering: scientists trained a group of monkeys to use coins. One of the first transactions they witnessed was a male monkey paying a willing female for sex.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Yeah I think the OP is very confused, they are equating socialism to cooperation...

The laws of supply and demand are what govern the planet, you don't need long paragraphs and fancy words to explain this.

The Human supply on this planet is far out of balance with the demand.

Throughout human history it has been in your advantage to share with your neighbors and help them live a better life as it aided in your own survival. Over the last few hundred years this has changed, and it has become more in your advantage to eliminate your neighbors to live a better life.

It's primative and quite simple. Trade and free market has been the supreme driving force in human history since the beginning on a scale from the individual to that of an empire, it is only when artificial control of markets is put into practice that things go awry for humanity on a grand scale.

Humans are a resource just like any other animal, material, or work producing structure. The world does not operate on "what if." This is the truth, no matter your personal emotional feelings.

Wars are fought over resources, whether it be women for making babies as with the birth of the roman empire, or land for producing food, or oil to power the energy of a nation.

People don't understand our current era because they choose not to accept these simple facts, the war of governments on their people is a war of population. There are more people on this planet than our current system, technology, and mentality allow and thus the market will correct its self, there is no other choice, life finds a way.

When your arm is crushed by a boulder and you are going to die, you cut off your arm, when a lizard is caught by a cat or fox, it drops its trail. This is a correction of win/loss just like the works of a free market.

The capitalism of today is not that of a free market, and it WILL be eliminated due to this.

It's sad that academia is failing our children, not equipping them with the tools they need to make a decision, and forcing them to see things on such a small level as "Capitalism is 300 years old" You need to go slap whatever college professor told you this crap.

People fail to understand that capitalism died in the 1930's, we've been living with its bastard offspring ever since.
edit on 11-3-2013 by vind21 because: Thankfully, a voice of reason posted above me



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Humanity has had both cooperation and competition in their history (estrogen and testosterone if you want to get a little biologically based regarding the behaviors - not to be confused with simple female/male distinctions - cooperation and competition exist in both sexes to varying degrees - so please don't make this about men and women specifically). Cooperation/Competition, when balanced, can create a culture that has the benefits of both, in my opinion.

But what would that "balance" look like? Have we ever seen that? Not really, imo, certainly not a harmonious balance! I think we are struggling towards it, kicking and screaming. If someone knows of a good current example - please share it with me!

The US, in its struggle to resolve these two human drives, has a near-worship of capitalism tempered by some hard-won social programs, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, food stamps, as well as worker-rights and safety standards, regulations, etc, which serve to force limits on possible exploitation/violation by the more unscrupulous players in the competitive field.

Socialism has "too much cooperation" for people who want the opportunity to break out from the pack and be alpha-dogs - they want to lead, to be known, to be 'the best.' To be fair, it is part of our drives for mating and continuing the species that creates this. So it is natural to have a system that allows this expression, and rewards achievement with a greater measure of wealth/resources, or public prestige, etc.

It is also natural and desirable to have cooperation. Our survival also depends on this, and we are psychologically and biologically wired to be in community - we are social beings.

Capitalism doesn't have enough cooperation for the people who think dog-eat-dog is a bit on the sociopathic side when it comes to our human vulnerability throughout our life-cycle (dependency as children and elderly individuals, the need to protect universal resources from becoming scraps that the alphas either destroy or grab up to make everyone else pay for them - ie. water, clean air, the earth from which our food is grown, the seeds of life, etc.)

There is inherent conflict between competition and cooperation. Merciless competitors aren't as wired for cooperation, so they don't value it as much and may even see it as weak or even unjust/unfair (can you think of any philosophies or personalities with this point of view?).

The highly cooperative are not as wired for competition and don't value the "win" or the methods of winning as highly as they value the concept of fair-dealing and shared good for all to a greater degree. They see merciless competitors as selfish and ego-driven, or immature and even destructive; the "seagulls scraping it out over the garbage" image. They tend to be less "I" oriented and more "We are One" oriented. (any philosophies oriented this way? Personalities or individuals?)

The solution? Honor both. They are both "right" in the context of what it means to be human. Work with both drives and make room for them. But that's my opinion.

peace,
AB
edit on 11-3-2013 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I always find it funny when people put "Trading goods and services" as something only capitalists do. Its actually originated from a Social structure.





*enjoys free healthcare*



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Once again this subject of Socialism is brought up and once again I am going to revert to the "Saturday Morning Cartoon" approach to maybe reach the widest audience.


Now for those who can handle a bit more stiff explanation of what has been taking place and where the wealth of the West is really going and how so many are being manuvered towards thinking Socialism is the answer:





posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Socialism, work your butt off and not get ahead in life. So whats the point in working hard if your going to get paid the same? Heck, dont work at all, get paid the same. After sometime no one works, country falls.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Problem with socialism is, you need to get everyone in on it.
Not everyone is willing to share.

But perhaps, if we survive long enough to evolve past a system based on money. I guess socialism is pretty close to whatever system there would be instead.
At least thats the best case scenario.

Worst case would be complete anarchy, mankind is not all happy and lovely and as I wrote earlier, not everyone is willing to share. Chaos everywhere. Fastforward a few hundred years and those who survived anarchy and came out rich, started there own little corrupt system. And round and round it goes.

Let me know when we can evolve past corruption and greed.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
All systems of governing would work in peoples interest if it was not for the selfish who subvert the intent for personal gain.

Democracy works when not bought and owned by ruling class.
Communism works when its objective is to benefit the community
Capitalism works when it is disciplined enough to allow for a level playing field.

But in the end we get bought and paid for representatives.
Power struggles for individual job security of officials,
and wealth leveraging weight over innovation and new business.

I believe the way of life that worked the longest is Tribalism, this however is more akin to communism at a small scale. Which interestingly enough many systems of government work best when diffused to a community level.

Imagine the sovereignty of a community, working cohesively with many other communities in trades of goods and resources, but essentially independent and self sufficient for things such as housing, energy, education, food, and medical needs. What would we call that?
edit on 11-3-2013 by nw15062 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   
OP, you seem to be distorting history. THere's a difference between State ownership and management of the economy, and the absence of ownership and collective self-management,

Actually socialism IS capitalism. A form of hyper-regulated, oligarchic, monopolized capitalism. You wanna have more privileges and power? Just climb higher in the hierarchy of the party/union! Of course, a real socialist regime should make sure that all its citizens have free access to the fundamentals for life in society... a shelter, communications, food, protection, transportation; which is almost ok for me. BUt we don't need the State for these things.

Ownership is the root of the problem. If there is no property, and no central authority to enforce rules everyone can create, produce and use the things that make them live. The necessity for stealing, taking over, or becoming paranoid over your possessions gets erased. THAT is the so-called "natural way". Because other animals don't make stupid contracts of property with the land they use.

Furthermore, your anthropological view is social darwinism, that is wrong. A social order is not the result of an evolution through natural selection. THe example being that there's been many dictatorial empires through history, which have fallen to let some republic take over, then back on to dictatorship, then there was also anarchy. Our Western conception of History is linear, ill-based and unidimensional. But History has unlimited dimensions, and cannot be drawn into one single line.
edit on 11/3/13 by Echtelion because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by doctornamtab
 


I do not know who think you are, or where you came from, but the things you have written about only deserves one thing


Got balls and I respect that.


I have had so many pointless arguments with individuals about the fundamental characteristics that humans share. You know, the very thing that has shaped our survival for over 200 000 years. You call it socialism, I call it true human nature





new topics




 
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join