Socialism is the best ideology

reply to post by DanCullen


Folks, I just read the first 3 pages on this topic. Then I skipped to page 6 and saw that the same arguing still goes on: people that defend some political system, others that attack it. No conclusion and sometimes almost religious sentiment. It all makes sense.

The constant in this waffle seems to be lack of ethics.

Either system will work and produce wealth and happiness for all if it is applied with proper ethics.

These ethics can be worded in simple phrases, like 'equality, dignity, solidarity'. Inevitably folks start arguing over the wording, for example state that 'equality is nonsense because people aren't equal'. Of course they are not, and nobody said that nor wants that. Reducing complex ethical questions to slogans is dangerous.

Now, the aforementioned slogans are the slogans of the Dutch Socialist Party. I am an active member of that party. But I can respect that others choose another path, as long as they adhere to the ethics that are behind these simple three slogans: equality, dignity and solidarity. In my country socialists and capitalists in fact share the same set of principles, simply seen from a different point of view. The one side demands enforcement of the principles by the state, the other by individuals. Alas, they abondon the ethics behind their principles as soon as they come to power. I believe it is the same in the UK, the US and everywhere else.

As long a a political party underwrites the simple ethics behind slogans like "equality, dignity and solidarity" it can be any system. It will work. It is because many people still adhere to these principles that our societies still work. Not because they are 'capitalist' or 'socialist' or 'otherist' systems.

Ugh.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by fadedface
Capitalism condemns those who do not have the competitive edge to survive in the social darwinistic order it imposes on society.

Socialism condemns the productive to have to carry the unproductive on their backs.
Socialism imposes slavery on the productive and weakens the human herd.
It goes against evolutionary history and evolutionary psychology.
It's anti-human.

The best example I can ever give is the conversation I had with the state worker back during the Carter years (off the record). My wife and I were trying to raise a newborn while living within our means. We owned a home 80+ years old and I owned and drove a Plymouth that was tens years old and had over 100,000 miles on it.

I was told that I would be called a liar if I ever quoted her...

A guy with a newer car worth more than $5,000 & lived in a furnished apartment would have his car payments & rent automatically applied to a variety of state benefits while my wife and I would have to lose everything we'd been working for before I could get anything other than unemployment!!!

The other guy was already living much better than me, but we had to make sure he didn't lose any of the crap that he didn't even own...!

When all your needs are guaranteed regardless of whether you produce anything, there is ZERO incentive to do anything but the bare minimum. You only have to look at the condition of the high rise gov't housing from the days of Johnson's War On Poverty. It wasn't long before it wasn't safe or sanitary to walk the halls and they became little cubicles of Hell on Earth rather than a place any sane person could call Home...

Originally posted by ForteanOrg
reply to post by DanCullen

 

The constant in this waffle seems to be lack of ethics.

Either system will work and produce wealth and happiness for all if it is applied with proper ethics.

These ethics can be worded in simple phrases, like 'equality, dignity, solidarity'. Inevitably folks start arguing over the wording, for example state that 'equality is nonsense because people aren't equal'. Of course they are not, and nobody said that nor wants that. Reducing complex ethical questions to slogans is dangerous.

A fresh and intelligent opinion!!! [standing and applauding]

You sum up pages and pages of discourse brilliantly. My point about human nature is one small block of your assertion. If it were possible for the man at the bottom and the man at the top to both start each day with the determination to do their absolute best to make it a better day for their compatriots, I could be more enthusiastic about socialism.

60 years of observing the behavior of others doesn't make me very hopeful. About 30 years ago I was supervisor of a department with 13 workers plus my assistant foreman. The plant manager had me in the office because he didn't think my crew had the right attitude. Every question I asked about deadlines, quotas, missed work days or quality got a reluctant acknowledgement that they either met or exceeded all points when compared to the rest of the shop.

I said, "Bill, the biggest difference between you and me is that I never miss a chance to compliment excellence and when there is a problem, I involve them in how we can go about fixing it. An employee who takes pride in their work doesn't need a supervisor looking over their shoulder to do a good job."

His response was that, "You can't treat people like that or they'll start taking advantage of you".

Bottom line was that it p*ssed him off my department didn't spend the day scared and looking over their shoulders for management.

That kind of attitude is the epitome of the capitalist attitude. It's no wonder so many are disillusioned with it...

Originally posted by CornShucker
When all your needs are guaranteed regardless of whether you produce anything, there is ZERO incentive to do anything but the bare minimum.

There is a video you might like to watch.

You are just SOO wrong.

# Capitalism and # Socialism.


Both of those things have hijacked the single best political ideology, DEMOCRACY.



Ya #ers.

Originally posted by fadedface
'The only alternative to socialism is barbarism' Karl Marx

Socialism is the fairest and most equal political ideology where wealth is evenly distributed through all levels of society and the means of production is cooperatively organised and run by the working class. Trade and manufacture is based on necessity and everyone is designated a job based on their abilities and capabilities. All industry is owned by the 'State' and constitutes a nationalised publicly owned body which encompasses everything from high tech mechanised industry to service and goods and food outlets. In this scenario private commerce and ownership as well as free enterprise and entrepreneurialism will be abolished. The socialist state system will based on equality there will be no competition and no winners or losers and no class divisions.

This socialist society will eventually transition to full communism which in its purest form has never properly existed. I consider many of the derivatives of communism which have existed in the past such as 'Stalinism' to be deliberate subversions of the ideology to discredit it which has led to the simple minded accusation that 'communism doesn't work'. Communism has been corrupted by human hierarchical behaviour whereas capitalism accommodates this and is inherently corrupt because it is based on competition.

Capitalism promotes greed which in turns leads to poverty and inequality the only people who defend capitalism are those who know how to make money and these people always go on about 'how hard they've worked' when in reality they've had the breaks given to them somewhere along the line and begrudge others who haven't been as fortunate as them.

edit on 17-5-2013 by fadedface because: amending

edit on 5/17/2013 by benevolent tyrant because: to correct spelling in thread title.

I used to believe in socialism but today I think there needs to be some sort of incentive in any system!
I believe that any system can be successful if there is accountability!
Without a fair system none will work!
There are advantages and disadvantages to all the ism's but for a society to truly flourish cooperation and success need to balance out somehow!
I don't know if enough of us will ever have the incentives to cooperate and create a society free from selfish endeavors! I hope I'm wrong but from the evidence of our present situation it seems unlikely!

I will give you an example of a country where communism was half good and half bad.

Romania during its communist years, even though what you see and hear from capitalists, it wasn't that bad.

The country had 0 debt and was working only on acumulating wealth, it was the freeiest country of the communist block, it had a lot of its infrastructure built during those years.

It had its downsides but all in all it was ok.

The bad side of communism in its true sense not the USSR style, is that people who ruled the country were peasants, tailors, welders etc. People who come from lower class, uneducated people, incapable of running a country. A communist country with a well educated upper class who can attain power will do well for a lot of years but communism is made from socialism which tells us that everyone is equal when in reality no one is equal only at the basic human rights level.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


As I have stated repeatedly, there are numerous countries that have employed socialist tactics strategically, but there have been no true socialist governments, certainly none that I would consider socialist. I have also pointed out that, for me, socialist, in it's truest form, requires proportional representation. None of the examples that you have presented do so. Proportional representation requires the active participation of the majority, not only in the election process but also in the decision making. I accept that such a socialist 'utopia' as you call it is highly unlikely because I recognise the complacency and laziness that is inherent in humanity. The vast majority of us would rather complain about the status quo than actually take responsibility for change and progress ourselves, in that way, capitalism or rather corporationism is necessary because we need to be ruled and controlled if we will not take responsibility for ourselves and our actions as both individuals and as members of a wider group, be that nationally or globally. We believe our participation and responsibility ends with our right to vote, that is not socialism, anymore than dictatorship is, be it benevolent or otherwise.

I suggest that you read some of the work of Rosa Luxemburg...

www.marxists.org...

...who, by far, developed the most superior and fully workable model of socialist ideology, and who most astutely understood the long term implications of capitalist expansionism. She recognised not only the desire for change, but the need for it.

This little film, very simply (if a little annoying generally), explains some aspects of the basis of that ideology...



As another poster later points out, Romania is an example where socialism was somewhat effective, largely due to the demographics and basis of an agricultural economy. Since the fall of the iron curtain, the capitalist have begun carving up the country, largely due to it's mineral wealth. If those minerals were mined on a small scale, supportive of artisan trade and industry, those resources will sustain the population for centuries. However, under capitalist interests, those mining operations that have been identified for exploitation will create a short term boom, creating wealth for a few, whereby the resources will be exhausted within 20 years, resulting inevitably in a bust. We have been shown repeatedly that this is how capitalism works, we remain impassive and accept exploitation of others in exchange for the appeasement offered to us of socialist tactics, such as welfare, health care, consumables etc. As long as we are better off than someone, we do not question that others are suffering. This cycle has a shelf-life, and we accept greater restrictions on our freedoms, doing little more than whining about them, as that cycle nears it's inevitable conclusion.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


Freedom of enterprise or capitalism does not equate 'corporations'.

The 'corporations' are a manifestation of evil inherent in the current human race.

We are living on a slave planet. Our controllers love slavery. Proper capitalism cannot function in such conditions. If capitalism cannot function, communism can be completely ruled out.

The real communism can be brought in only in a 'post industrial' egalitarian society. This has not happened yet.

And let me make it very clear, real communism can happen only when planet has a low population and resources are comparatively plentiful.

Communism is close to idealism. And we all know how things work on this planet.

The reason you don't see true marxist or true communist governments is that they CANNOT exist due to the human frailty condition.

As long as there is ONE SINGLE human that will subjugate others, you cannot have the Eutopia on paper that is Communism.

The best realistic govt that you can have is that envisioned by the US's founding fathers. Where no one should be able to do anything, even a large group of someones, that negatively affects the sovereignty of other individuals. You have the natural rights of free speech, assembly, redress of grievances, practice of religion, right against unreasonable search and seizure and the right to bear arms and protect all of those other rights from those that would subjugate you.

However, as has been the case with America, you see the ugly head of those who would oppress and subjugate rearing their ugly head and trying to make even that best government unmaintainable.

The only way to ensure that it IS retained is to get those lazy manipulable fools off their sorry asses and willing to get out their and fight to retain their liberties and rights and freedoms. Without that willingness, we can expect for things to always drift toward fascism, but at least with a republic where inalienable rights are acknowledged, it becomes more difficult for fascism to rear its ugly head, it is almost immediate in socialist and communist states.

Jaden

reply to post by truthinfact


Democracy? So 51% can dictate to 49%? Sorry, the mob-rules mentality is even a bigger FAIL than Marxism.

As to the OP...all Isms are a total fail. We need freedom, liberty and self-reliance. We were all created equal but what we do with our lives is up to each individual. People who work harder or have special skills or create good products should reap the rewards and have rights to their property. There is no right to material values that have to be provided by others, in violation of their rights. Without property rights, no other rights are possible.

I will say this much, if socialism were to somehow be implemented, and you had any say on how it all were to be structured, I would most definitely do myself in! It is quite obvious from all your posts that you don’t have an open mind to what anyone has to say. The thought of having to deal with the likes of you in such a situation would be the end of us all!

You would have been an AWESOME community leader/organizer in the Soviet Union back in the day!

“Capitalism has failed”

If it were not for capitalism, you surely wouldn’t be enjoying the comforts of b!tching on your computer about how everyone else is wrong, and you are right!

If you hate capitalism so much, I suggest you get rid of everything capitalism has provided for you. I have a feeling you won’t be doing that any time soon. And in saying so, I will end by saying that you’re nothing but a hypocrite.

Enjoy your sweet dreams of a socialistic utopia!!

reply to post by Propulsion


Capitalism has been sabotaged by the Banksters . The Federal Reserve has been looting the treasury of America for some time now . They have been loaning our money to people unknown and will not say who it is .

It is the plan to bring America down to a 3rd world status and move us into the NWO . This plan is the product of the plan called the Protocols of Zion . The Zionist Banksters have been working before the privately owned Federal Reserve was established to own America . The next thing is to collapse the world money system and let us starve , then offer their new system . You will not like it .

Originally posted by Propulsion

“Capitalism has failed”

If it were not for capitalism, you surely wouldn’t be enjoying the comforts of b!tching on your computer about how everyone else is wrong, and you are right!

If you hate capitalism so much, I suggest you get rid of everything capitalism has provided for you. I have a feeling you won’t be doing that any time soon. And in saying so, I will end by saying that you’re nothing but a hypocrite.

Actually that was science and engineering which gave us the computer.

Capitalism just introduced planned obsolescence, so we would need to replace them more often and the companies would make more money. One example is that some printers have a chip in them which when you've reached a set number of prints it disables the printer and you have to go out to buy a new one. The more people buy stuff and the quicker they need to throw it out again - the better capitalism does. Hence you get consumerist culture & increased damage to the environment. They also hold back software so they can release a new version each year or so - even if they could release all they got straight away they don't because they want you to keep having to update it - means more $$ for the corporations like Microsoft.

In addition to making them break easier, capitalism also makes them less affordable. In 2011, 496 billion dollars was spent on adverting, this has now well passed the half trillion mark. Most ads tell us little about the specification of the product and just annoy us, but we pay for them in the cost of our computers. Other wastes include legal costs, other marketing, lobbying, business admin and of course multimillion dollar ceo bonuses - you pay for all of these when you buy a computer in capitalism even though stuff like lobbying does nothing at all to make your computer better.

reply to post by Masterjaden


You are close to reality. The United States has been taken over by Monarchists secretly through a vast scandal that Americans simply do not comprehend.

Lack of intelligence typically leads to slavery. That is whats happening.

reply to post by polarwarrior


I have worked on EC1045 way back, a Russian computer which was analogous to IBM 360.

USSR indeed had difficulty in keeping up with USA in computer tech. There are multiple reasons to it, but the main one clearly is lack of competition and openness which is needed for development of such tech.

However USSR did develop a lot of technology under its communist system. So the issue is not that.

Issue clearly is that people want reward for effort, at all levels of society. Lack of reward makes people lazy that eventually leads to degeneration.

Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by polarwarrior

 

I have worked on EC1045 way back, a Russian computer which was analogous to IBM 360.

USSR indeed had difficulty in keeping up with USA in computer tech. There are multiple reasons to it, but the main one clearly is lack of competition and openness which is needed for development of such tech.

However USSR did develop a lot of technology under its communist system. So the issue is not that.

The USSR had a state capitalist economy so they can't really be used to compare communism to capitalism. Plus they were so backwards and underdeveloped, to compare scientifically you would need a parallel universe to eliminate any other factors at play.

Issue clearly is that people want reward for effort, at all levels of society. Lack of reward makes people lazy that eventually leads to degeneration.

Yes of course, your spot on rewards are good motivators. With fixed wages in capitalism there is no motivation to work harder at all, if you work harder then the boss makes more money.

However if the workers own the means of production then every single worker has an incentive to see it be productive. There would be no need for a boss to be on every-bodies backs all the time, and it's better if motivation comes from within rather than being imposed on you by some boss.

The problem in Russia was that the workers did not own the means of production, Stalin and his bureaucrats in the ruling class did. So technically it wasn't socialist or communist, and there was no motivation for workers to see their factories succeed.

The American government has done a great job of propaganda with the word Socialism.

I am more than a little surprised at the number of Americans who vehemently deny or understand that they live in a Socialist society. And how many of them think Socialism is a bad word