Socialism is the best ideology

reply to post by ForteanOrg


So what is it that you personally want from communism?

for example I'm assuming you are for:
1. equality
2. basic necessity, etc?

any others that you care to list that socialism would be able to provide?

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I was just about to post something similar to what you said. I believe in my country and her people should be great once again and that we have to shut out the undesirables who have turned us corrupt and broke.

Thank you for your input.

Originally posted by interupt42
reply to post by ForteanOrg

 

So what is it that you personally want from communism?

You puzzle me. Communism? I thought we were discussing socialism? Anyway, I don't necessarily want anything personally from any system - I want the system to work for all of us in the sense that it should help all of us to live fuller, happier lives. If a system provides that, it will benefit me too.

for example I'm assuming you are for:
1. equality
2. basic necessity, etc?

Yes. Of course. Anybody would be. It are the definitions of 'equality' and 'basic' that differ wildly.

any others that you care to list that socialism would be able to provide?

Happiness. Less illness. No poverty. Well educated people. People that are judged by what they give, not by what they take. Longer life. Mastery instead of slavery. Well supported sciences and arts. Culture becomes more important. More free time. Less boring jobs. Oh, well, need I go on?

Originally posted by ForteanOrg

Originally posted by interupt42
reply to post by ForteanOrg

 

So what is it that you personally want from communism?

You puzzle me. Communism? I thought we were discussing socialism? Anyway, I don't necessarily want anything personally from any system - I want the system to work for all of us in the sense that it should help all of us to live fuller, happier lives. If a system provides that, it will benefit me too.

for example I'm assuming you are for:
1. equality
2. basic necessity, etc?

Yes. Of course. Anybody would be. It are the definitions of 'equality' and 'basic' that differ wildly.

any others that you care to list that socialism would be able to provide?

Happiness. Less illness. No poverty. Well educated people. People that are judged by what they give, not by what they take. Longer life. Mastery instead of slavery. Well supported sciences and arts. Culture becomes more important. More free time. Less boring jobs. Oh, well, need I go on?

I used communism and socialism loosely in my post since socialism is envisioned by many to be the first step to communism. I'm also not aware of to many socialist who are hell bent against communism.

So lets roll with Socialism and a typically accepted description of it:

Wealth redistributed so that everyone in society is given somewhat equal shares of the benefits derived from labor, but people can earn more if they work harder. Means of production are controlled by the workers themselves.

So I ask you the same question that I asked a previous poster. Why don't you start your own virtual socialist society ? Prove it successful and then others will flock to it.

All you need to do is create a private corporation where everyone turns their assets over to the corporation? The corporation (board/ Stock holders) control how the money (resources,food,homes,etc) are distributed.
What socialist ideals couldn't you implement in a private corporation that would require gov't intervention?

Originally posted by interupt42
I used communism and socialism loosely in my post since socialism is envisioned by many to be the first step to communism. I'm also not aware of to many socialist who are hell bent against communism.

Well, actually, there are many socialists that are 'hell bent' against communism. And many communists that are 'hell bent' against anarchy. I'm an anarchist, actually, and to be more specific, you might label me an anarchist communist.

But - I am also a realist. Hence I ended up supporting the Dutch Socialist Party. I hope to see the day that Party can be dissolved as anarchism prevailed - but given the current state of our species and my age.. I don't think I will

So lets roll with Socialism and a typically accepted description of it:

Wealth redistributed so that everyone in society is given somewhat equal shares of the benefits derived from labor, but people can earn more if they work harder. Means of production are controlled by the workers themselves.

So I ask you the same question that I asked a previous poster. Why don't you start your own virtual socialist society ? Prove it successful and then others will flock to it.

Well, actually, that's what I do, my friend. I am, as said, an active member of the Socialist Party in my country. You can't rebuild society on your own, nor in a week. One step at a time, and alas, even socialism is already a bridge too far for many.

All you need to do is create a private corporation where everyone turns their assets over to the corporation? The corporation (board/ Stock holders) control how the money (resources,food,homes,etc) are distributed.
What socialist ideals couldn't you implement in a private corporation that would require gov't intervention?

Well, first of all, the Laws that would apply are still the Laws of the current Government. The company would still be obliged to pay taxes to that Government, for example, which could use it to finance big commercial corporations, buy weapons to suppress their own people etc.

But it is a good idea to create democratic organisations. There actually are a number of cooperations (not corporations) that more or less work like you say, for example the Mondragon cooperation. I have studied the Semler approach and like that too.

As a final note, socialists, nor communists (well, not all of them..) are against personal property, so the need to turn over your assets to a corporation is absent. You might even discuss if, say, a house is private property or personal property.. anyway

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. Capitalism inherently favours privilege and entrenches class divisions which creates poverty and inequality.

So you can keep your social darwinistic capitalist rhetoric.

And I do believe equality exists in the context of a communist system which propagates a classless society in which decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made in the best interests of the whole of society, a society 'of, by, and for the working class', rather than one in which a rich upper class controls the wealth and everyone else works for the rich on a wage basis.

But under socialism, there will still be people who lose because what is deemed to be best for the whole may not be what is best for them. They may (or may not) be fewer in number but the fact remains that socialism treats these people as expendable every bit as much as capitalism does. It does not care what they want or if they are miserable.

Originally posted by BrianFlanders
But under socialism, there will still be people who lose because what is deemed to be best for the whole may not be what is best for them. They may (or may not) be fewer in number but the fact remains that socialism treats these people as expendable every bit as much as capitalism does. It does not care what they want or if they are miserable.

A true socialist can't treat anybody as 'expendable', that would be against all principles of socialism. Three simple slogans give a very good outline of the socialist principles: "dignity", "equality" and "solidarity". The only people I can imagine that would complain about a system that tries to implement those principles are those that that think they are entitled to more than others.

Modern socialism, like the variant employed in my country, actually accepts some differences in income. I don't think that would be necessary, but my party allows it.

But within limits. So, you might have people that earn 4 times as much as others, but that's it. Also, in a truly socialist system there are no 'poor' people anymore, as poverty is against the principles of any socialist. All should have sufficient to eat, to drink, healthcare, education, (public) transport, housing, enjoyable environments, energy etc. - say, that the poorest guy in a socialist country should still have the equivalent standard of living that a 2013 American has if he or she earns 3000 dollars each month. And the richest ones would have the standard of living that corresponds to an American that earns, say, 12.000 dollars each month.

I can't really imagine that many people would feel 'expendable' in such a system.

Originally posted by ForteanOrg

A true socialist can't treat anybody as 'expendable', that would be against all principles of socialism.

I can't really imagine that many people would feel 'expendable' in such a system.

This is just it. It isn't up to you to decide how other people should feel. You and I both know there will be people in every "system" who don't fit into the hole the system is trying to force them into. Socialism doesn't care about the people who don't want socialism. They are considered to be enemies at worst and mentally ill at best.

What happens when you come to that point where you have the communists on one side and a million people who completely disagree with communism on the other? Do you think socialists who are striving for communism are just going to leave these people alone and let them live in peace?

No. They will use brute force like they always do. They will claim their system is the greatest thing ever and you'll probably never hear about whatever they did to those "few" who were incompatible with socialism.

Furthermore, I believe it is becoming pretty obvious that whatever is going on in the US and the rest of the world at this moment, the worldwide socialist movement is deeply involved. Something has been smelling very bad. And it smells very familiar.

Originally posted by infolurker
Socialism is just like fairy tales....

It all sounds great and everyone lives happily ever after.

In practice.... Failure

If you look at things through not so traditional goggles, the country of Denmark used to be a fairly socialist enterprise. I visited there for a while and the environment was well, something to get used to. For a long time, healthcare was free (not sure what it is now) and taxes on your second car made it impractical to own unless you are filthy rich. Which was also hard since taxes were high anyhow. At the same time, there were stipends paid to babysitters which made starting a family and having babies a lot easier for young professionals (and I dare you to tell me that's a bad thing in a capitalist society). Also, start-ups were given all sort of advantages.

By and large, the Danes seemed pretty happy overall. Feel free to ignore all that, but that's one lesson that can be valuable to a country that goes to hell in a hand basket.

Originally posted by BrianFlanders
Socialism doesn't care about the people who don't want socialism.

Let's be fair and admit that capitalism doesn't care about the people who don't want capitalism.

Seriously.

Read it again if in doubt. I totally fail to see your point. You don't have a point, actually.

They are considered to be enemies at worst and mentally ill at best.

You may have not heard of periods in the US history when people suspected, just suspected of sympathies to the communist cause were declared enemies and blacklisted. Again, you don't have a point.

I find it pathetic that anyone would argue with very simple and basic statements coming from a Nederlander. That's one great country that any country can aspire to be. Great arts, great science, great music, great education, great FUN above all. If you don't like all of that, go back to your goddamn CAVE.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

If you look at things through not so traditional goggles, the country of Denmark used to be a fairly socialist enterprise.
By and large, the Danes seemed pretty happy overall. Feel free to ignore all that, but that's one lesson that can be valuable to a country that goes to hell in a hand basket.

My dog is pretty happy. She doesn't really have any idea I own her. You'd be hard pressed to see her running and playing and try to suggest she's not pleased to be my property. Guess what? At night, she gets to go in the bathroom and the door gets closed and she doesn't come back out until the next morning. At this point, she doesn't even think she has a choice. She goes voluntarily when she knows we're going to bed. She has food and water and a pad. It probably doesn't seem like a prison to her. Things were somewhat.....different when she was a puppy. For some reason she didn't enjoy her gilded cage back then. It took some time for her to stop yelping and hollering and whining and digging holes in the walls.

Of course, you're probably going to come back and tell me capitalism is the same thing. I do agree. But I do not see the value in trading slavery for slavery and topping it off with statism and all that other ugliness that comes in the box with socialism.

Originally posted by buddhasystem


Let's be fair and admit that capitalism doesn't care about the people who don't want capitalism.

Seriously.

OK. Let's do. So what's the difference? You don't fear a system that doesn't care if you disagree with the majority and has a history of mass graves?

Read it again if in doubt. I totally fail to see your point. You don't have a point, actually.

Actually, I do. I don't want socialism. That is my point. Now tell me I have a choice.

You may have not heard of periods in the US history when people suspected, just suspected of sympathies to the communist cause were declared enemies and blacklisted. Again, you don't have a point.

Actually, I have. And it was good people who believed in the principles of freedom who stood up to it. Tell me what kind of freedom you would have in a socialist country if you were believed to be an enemy of the state. Even while blacklisted in the US these people were treated far better than they would have been in Soviet Russia had they been there and accused of the same thing.

I find it pathetic that anyone would argue with very simple and basic statements coming from a Nederlander. That's one great country that any country can aspire to be. Great arts, great science, great music, great education, great FUN above all. If you don't like all of that, go back to your goddamn CAVE.

I would but I'm afraid that the sanctity of my cave may be intruded upon regardless of it's undesirability and unfitness for occupation. For some reason, socialists claim you are free to live in a cave if you wish but they will not really allow you to do so. If you live in a socialist country, you will not be allowed to decide you don't want the science, the music, the education and the great fun of being required to do what you're told.

And again, under socialism, the entire focus is upon what is deemed to be necessary. Your wishes are ignored. You're supposed to want what everyone else wants and if you don't well, too bad. You'll be OK. You have food and water and medical care and a roof over your head.

Originally posted by BrianFlanders

Originally posted by ForteanOrg
A true socialist can't treat anybody as 'expendable', that would be against all principles of socialism.
I can't really imagine that many people would feel 'expendable' in such a system.

This is just it. It isn't up to you to decide how other people should feel.

You're misreading my post. I said, see the quote: "I can't imagine that" - not "I hereby declare that nobody should". If you want to take my opinion and twist it into Law, it's by your own doing...

You and I both know there will be people in every "system" who don't fit into the hole the system is trying to force them into. Socialism doesn't care about the people who don't want socialism. They are considered to be enemies at worst and mentally ill at best.

Socialism can only work if the majority of people supports it. And yes, a socialist state has Laws and regulations, like any other system has, and yes, these should reflect the principles of socialism. However, opposition should be (and is) welcomed and cheered in a true socialist state. People are not forced to be socialists in a socialist state either. Actually, the Eastern European "socialist" states failed their people by oppressing them, and the result was that the people did not support the state anymore. In the end, the iron curtain fell. "We are the people", remember?

What happens when you come to that point where you have the communists on one side and a million people who completely disagree with communism on the other? Do you think socialists who are striving for communism are just going to leave these people alone and let them live in peace?

Of course they will. You don't seem to realise how important personal freedom is to a socialist. Dignity also implies that your opposition can speak out freely. There are Laws, and you should not break them, but in a true socialist state there can not be laws that prevent freedom of speech.

No. They will use brute force like they always do. They will claim their system is the greatest thing ever and you'll probably never hear about whatever they did to those "few" who were incompatible with socialism.

That has nothing to do with socialism. If that happens, you don't have socialism, you have an oppressive system.

Furthermore, I believe it is becoming pretty obvious that whatever is going on in the US and the rest of the world at this moment, the worldwide socialist movement is deeply involved. Something has been smelling very bad. And it smells very familiar.

Yes it does, but it has nothing to do with socialism. The US, driven by fear and opportunism, is quietly changing into an oppressive state, lead by what Eisenhower labeled 'the military and industrial complex'. Merely the suspicion that you are a 'terrorist' may be enough to put you behind bars, where you can be held indefinitely, not get legal counsil, be waterboarded, treated like cattle, soldiers are allowed to piss on you and rape you. That type of behaviour is totally and utterly against the socialist principles. Oh, and BTW: against the American principles too - but it happens. It are the watermarks of an oppressive system. Oppressive systems are hated by all but the few that benefit from them.

It is a good thing that the current President of the US is against such practices, but roughly half of all Americans seem to support it. It's a bloody shame.

Originally posted by BrianFlanders
And again, under socialism, the entire focus is upon what is deemed to be necessary. Your wishes are ignored. You're supposed to want what everyone else wants and if you don't well, too bad. You'll be OK. You have food and water and medical care and a roof over your head.

It all depends on the implementation of a system. Any system, for that matter, because, as I wrote before, in principle it's lack of ethics that eventually changes any system into a an oppressive system.

How do you measure the success of how a system is being implemented? In my opionion the real measure of the success of any system is how happy the people in such systems are. People in the old 'socialist' states in Eastern Europe were not happy, though the principles that were applied were - at least in name - socialist principles. The implementation of the system failed them, it turned into an oppressive system, so it was terminated. The very same will happen in the US if the people aren't happy anymore and realise their system has turned into an oppressive system, they will terminate that system. No oppressive system can exist for very long, as the oppressors are a minority and need the services of the oppressed to oppress them. That will not work, eventually.

Bottom line: I am against any oppressive system, period.

Still a socialist though ..

Originally posted by BrianFlanders
And again, under socialism, the entire focus is upon what is deemed to be necessary. Your wishes are ignored. You're supposed to want what everyone else wants and if you don't well, too bad. You'll be OK. You have food and water and medical care and a roof over your head.

Let me just state, because I was not clear, that I'm not the biggest fan of socialism. However, everything is good in moderation and the "middle way" just might be the right way.

There is a contradiction in your statement above, which is "your wishes are ignored" and "food and water and medical care and a roof" are provided. The very basic stuff in the end is by necessity the wish of many, many people. You may have seen the statistics on how many Americans delay or forego medical treatment, often to disastrous effects, because it's just so damn expensive here. So that wish to get well is obviously ignored by capitalism, and it's a pretty goddamn important wish.

Again, you are wrong in your assessment that "you're supposed to want what everyone else wants and if you don't well, too bad" with regards to Netherlands or other such place. That's frankly nonsense, I traveled through and lived long enough in Europe to know. The only thing they make hard for an individual is being able to get filthy rich. If you think that intrinsic right (which it is, I believe) trumps the virtues of universal health care, this is your right to believe that, but I just disagree. I find money for sake of money and luxury immoral.

Originally posted by ForteanOrg

Originally posted by BrianFlanders
But under socialism, there will still be people who lose because what is deemed to be best for the whole may not be what is best for them. They may (or may not) be fewer in number but the fact remains that socialism treats these people as expendable every bit as much as capitalism does. It does not care what they want or if they are miserable.

A true socialist can't treat anybody as 'expendable', that would be against all principles of socialism. Three simple slogans give a very good outline of the socialist principles: "dignity", "equality" and "solidarity". The only people I can imagine that would complain about a system that tries to implement those principles are those that that think they are entitled to more than others.

Modern socialism, like the variant employed in my country, actually accepts some differences in income. I don't think that would be necessary, but my party allows it.

But within limits. So, you might have people that earn 4 times as much as others, but that's it. Also, in a truly socialist system there are no 'poor' people anymore, as poverty is against the principles of any socialist. All should have sufficient to eat, to drink, healthcare, education, (public) transport, housing, enjoyable environments, energy etc. - say, that the poorest guy in a socialist country should still have the equivalent standard of living that a 2013 American has if he or she earns 3000 dollars each month. And the richest ones would have the standard of living that corresponds to an American that earns, say, 12.000 dollars each month.

I can't really imagine that many people would feel 'expendable' in such a system.

We should think in terms of a minimum living standard guaranteed by the State. The max income need not be capped.

The problem of our world is different. The problem is that we have allowed a highly corrupt but very rich cabal to control our society. This cabal has sabotaged every social and economic system.

Vedic system provides for election of the King by the learned gentry of the State. It recognizes that illiterates and semi-literates do not have the capability to distinguish between good and bad. We have allowed people at large to elect rulers who have been largely swept by emotions rather than logic. Bad rulers always result in bad governance.

Originally posted by GargIndia
We should think in terms of a minimum living standard guaranteed by the State. The max income need not be capped.

Both parts of is, I donno. There are minimum standards de facto in most places. Caps, these are rarely implemented outside of Scandinavia.

Vedic system provides for election of the King by the learned gentry of the State. It recognizes that illiterates and semi-literates do not have the capability to distinguish between good and bad.

This is both bizarre and offensive.

I'm usually all for Vedic wisdom and all, but this is all f___cked up.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Why do you call it "bizarre and offensive"?

Democracies do not work well as large part of the electorate are simply not interested in the electoral process or get swayed easily by hype.

It requires a lot of intelligence to see through the dis-information.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I present a hypothetical situation:

In a presidential election, put a minimum requirement of 'graduation' for the electors, and let the President be directly elected on the basis of max number of votes.

It requires good amount of intelligence to read and understand the manifesto and the qualities of the candidate.

I am sure if you will implement this system, you will see neither Republican nor Democrat get elected. The result will be a President who is much more likely to implement his manifesto.

The current system creates a deep vested interest and long running fiefdoms which is not good for democracy.