Socialism is the best ideology

Originally posted by GargIndia
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.

Go to hell, I'm not talking to fascists.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by GargIndia
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.

Go to hell, I'm not talking to fascists.

Oh well - wishing a guy to hell because he politely suggests a system you disagree with is a bit rough, don't you think?

Actually, fascists don't have a requirement of 'graduation' for the electors - as long as the electors vote the only party there is and don't doubt the leader(s), the electors can be smart or dumb, it does not matter.

GargIndia hence, in my opinion, is not a fascist (or at least his post does not suggest it). The system he proposes somewhat resembles the system in use in England, before 1832. Very few people had the right to vote in those days and you might say that it were the 'graduated' (educated) people - well, okay, the people that had most of the money, actually. In 1780 less than 3% of the total English/Welsh population was allowed to vote: only males, over 21, in possession of a substantial amount of property.

These systems can only exist as long as there are classes in society. If you are born into such a class, you are destined to be wealthy, your parents will have the means to educate you and you will be given the right to govern. By saying that it were the Gods (or God) that intended it to be like this, the wealthy class sustains itself and their (so called God given) right to rule.

GargIndia's proposal at least would have the benefit that IN THEORY everybody that had the wits / education to read a complex document would be entitled to vote (assuming, of course, that you feel that being educated is a necessity to be allowed to vote). However, as the possibility to educate yourself typically will be limited to those that are born in the right class, it is not really an option in my book.

Socialists are opposed to such class-systems, because at least the principle of equality is not honoured in such societies. In many such class-based societies it is not even possible to work you way into a "higher" class, presumably because it is against the will of the God(s). And even if it is possible to do so - as it was, say, in England before 1832 - it is VERY hard.

So, GargIndia, I don't like the system you propose. However, it is an improvement over chaos, and if the ruling class sees it as its duty to educate the people and gradually change the society into a more equal society, it may be a short-term intermediate solution. Let's not forget that even socialism is just a step toward the goal of anarchy

reply to post by ForteanOrg


Thank you very much for your kind thoughts.

One must learn about other political systems also to understand the current one better.

My proposal can work in a just and fair society where education opportunities are available to everybody. You are right that it will not work if education is limited to a privileged class.

Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by ForteanOrg

 

Thank you very much for your kind thoughts.

One must learn about other political systems also to understand the current one better.

My proposal can work in a just and fair society where education opportunities are available to everybody. You are right that it will not work if education is limited to a privileged class.

The assumption within such systems is that you'd need to be educated to be able to vote - which implies that those that aren't properly educated aren't allowed to vote either. Again, I'm not in favour of such systems.

In my opinion every person should be allowed to vote and be entitled to one vote. It should be considered an honour to vote and a privilege to be able not to. Education, in my opinion, is something that everybody with sufficient talents for the field should be able to obtain, and when there is doubt about somebodies capacities to be educated, he or she should always get the benefit of the doubt. It is better to have lost a student that tried but simply was not able than a student that was able but simply not allowed to try. .

reply to post by ForteanOrg


I perfectly understand the problem of dis-enfranchising due to denial of opportunities. Unfortunately we have a society today that is built on a lack of trust. A good society should be built on trust.

This is where morals, duties, and compassion comes in. Vedic tradition is very heavy on donating to the needy. Vedic tradition is against hoarding of goods and wealth. Ramayan says King Rama regularly donated excess treasury to the poor. The administration of the king was so lean that King spent less than the taxes he took. Veda allows only one-sixth of income as taxes. It calls a King a thief who takes more than one-sixth.

If the educated and enterprising work for betterment of society untiringly, it is very likely that they will be trusted.
So if learned ones choose a King, it will be alright.

Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by ForteanOrg

 

Veda allows only one-sixth of income as taxes. It calls a King a thief who takes more than one-sixth.

Well, in a true socialist state the King would be just another person who holds no special rights nor does he deserve to earn more than the rest of the population. You might have a King in a socialist country - like you have actors, doctors, or architects. It is a rare occupation then, a role that somebody has because the people at least allow it, not because the King wants it nor deserves it by right of birth.

The way you put it suggests that "The King" is given the right to rule by those 'educated people'. But as he is just one individual, if, say, he goes mad the entire nation suffers. The State on the other hand (ideally..) is the representation of the voices of all people. It only goes beserk if the majority of the people decide it should - okay, ideally..

About taxes: even the Bible speaks of 'tithing': the amount you should donate to the community. Actually: for service to the Lord, but as He, to the best of my knowledge, has no banking account, the Church gladly will provide one you can use instead

Anyway - that's a special type of (voluntary) tax that some pay to their Church. It has not much to do with socialism: if you want to donate money to whatever, you are free to do so under a socialist system too.

It is an interesting question if a truly socialist State requires money or taxing. If all that is being produced is owned by all and distribution of wealth is done honestly and equally, in the end everybody can simply take what he needs (and more) as there is plenty. You would not need money anymore. Nor a State that taxes anybody. Nor a Church that demands tithing.

But there we go again: anarchy is the final end to the means of Kingdoms, democracies and socialist states.

If the educated and enterprising work for betterment of society untiringly, it is very likely that they will be trusted.
So if learned ones choose a King, it will be alright.

Again: if it is a step away from chaos towards anarchy, I'm not against it. But in the end, anarchy should prevail.

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.

Where verybody is designated a job.. hmmmm. nope....that's where you lost me...

Originally posted by syrinx2112
Where verybody is designated a job.. hmmmm. nope....that's where you lost me...

Your "job" is simply what you do to contribute to society. Under socialism (and to a lesser degree this also is tru under capitalism) it is common to stimulate talent and try to make people do what they like to do - often that is what they do best, after all, and we all benefit. Any system should make the people happy and people that feel trapped in a job they don't like aren't happy for at least a part of their day.

In an ideal situation, there is just the right type of work for the right type of person. But the world is not exactly an ideal place, so there will probably be work left that we all feel needs to be done, but nobody really wants to do it.

It seems common sense to me to either have machines do that work or create a situation in which it does not need to be done at all. Worst case, if it can't be automated away or avoided you'll HAVE to assign it, preferably to people that can bear to do it ("volunteers first!") and if possible everybody should do some of that 'unappreciated but necessary work'. That, to me, seems more honest than the capitalistic system in which unappreciated work is done (all day long) by the same people - and to add insult to injury, often badly payed too.

I believe that the assignment of work that needs to be done is what is meant by "assigning a job".

Socialists excel at spending the underclass's limited funds in order to give the appearance of fairness to everyone, all the while ensuring that the world they have made is more fair to they, the few.
Therefore one must conclude that Socialism devolves quickly into Capitalism.
The wheel of life grinds slowly on.

Originally posted by Cynic
Socialists excel at spending the underclass's limited funds in order to give the appearance of fairness to everyone, all the while ensuring that the world they have made is more fair to they, the few.
Therefore one must conclude that Socialism devolves quickly into Capitalism.
The wheel of life grinds slowly on.

This is the most disjoint and logic- and fact-free post on ATS I saw in a long long time.

reply to post by buddhasystem



Are you actually reading what I posted, or are you simply unable to comprehend the obvious.
Witness the U.S.S.R.. devolution from Socialism to Capitalism. Even China has a minimal small c capitalist component,
I would say that your post in response to mine is simply uneducated drabble,

Originally posted by ForteanOrg

Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by ForteanOrg

 

Veda allows only one-sixth of income as taxes. It calls a King a thief who takes more than one-sixth.

Well, in a true socialist state the King would be just another person who holds no special rights nor does he deserve to earn more than the rest of the population. You might have a King in a socialist country - like you have actors, doctors, or architects. It is a rare occupation then, a role that somebody has because the people at least allow it, not because the King wants it nor deserves it by right of birth.

The way you put it suggests that "The King" is given the right to rule by those 'educated people'. But as he is just one individual, if, say, he goes mad the entire nation suffers. The State on the other hand (ideally..) is the representation of the voices of all people. It only goes beserk if the majority of the people decide it should - okay, ideally..

About taxes: even the Bible speaks of 'tithing': the amount you should donate to the community. Actually: for service to the Lord, but as He, to the best of my knowledge, has no banking account, the Church gladly will provide one you can use instead

Anyway - that's a special type of (voluntary) tax that some pay to their Church. It has not much to do with socialism: if you want to donate money to whatever, you are free to do so under a socialist system too.

It is an interesting question if a truly socialist State requires money or taxing. If all that is being produced is owned by all and distribution of wealth is done honestly and equally, in the end everybody can simply take what he needs (and more) as there is plenty. You would not need money anymore. Nor a State that taxes anybody. Nor a Church that demands tithing.

But there we go again: anarchy is the final end to the means of Kingdoms, democracies and socialist states.

If the educated and enterprising work for betterment of society untiringly, it is very likely that they will be trusted.
So if learned ones choose a King, it will be alright.

Again: if it is a step away from chaos towards anarchy, I'm not against it. But in the end, anarchy should prevail.

1. Vedic system is closer to 'capitalism' as individuals drive the economy.
2. Lending of money is allowed with interest rate at min 5% per year and max 16% per year.
3. The currency is gold and silver coins. There is no concept of paper currency.
4. The State can sponsor enterprises directly or indirectly through investment.
5. The Vedic society would be similar to current one with a number of big trading houses, industrialists, renowned doctors, architects etc. along with a large working class.
6. Cities played key role in Vedic civilization. It is a misconception that Vedic society was village based. It was not.
7. A key difference is property rights. Fundamentally all land is 'owned' by the State, so agricultural land and industrial land must have been given by the King to a family as 'title'. A king must be able to revoke this title in certain cases. This means our concept of ownership of property and inheritance will not work in case of land in Vedic system. However house and gold etc. will be transferable through inheritance.
8. King can be removed by the same system that elected the King. A Vedic King is more like US President.
9. King has council of ministers to advise him just like today in a democracy. The number of ministers is limited to eight.
10. Veda does not have concept of tithe. I have researched this very carefully and I did not find a specific % to donate. Donation is direct to the needy and not to an organization.
11. A Vedic King would have regulated the prices of commodities as 'economic' offenses (read profiteering) were quickly punished. The King maintained granaries which collected grain during harvest and distributed the grain in subsequent months.
12. Veda tells humans to live in harmony with nature and to respect the right to life of other life-forms (like animals) on this planet. There are rules about killing animals. Veda does not allow killing animals for food.

Originally posted by Cynic
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Are you actually reading what I posted, or are you simply unable to comprehend the obvious.

Or maybe neither, or both, or maybe it is not obvious..

Witness the U.S.S.R.. devolution from Socialism to Capitalism. Even China has a minimal small c capitalist component,

Yes, but neither the USSR nor China ever were socialist states. They will get there, eventually.

In my opinion the logical path towards enlightement is:

0 chaos - 1 strong leaders - 2 democracies - 3 socialism - 4 communism - 5 anarchy

Note the missing 'capitalism' phase :-)

Actually you can have a Good Life under all these 'systems'. As long as the people are all happy, frankly, I don't give a dang. Only if the people are not happy, they should change their system. And if a system change is necessary, I believe you should always try to 'upgrade' your system to the next level: from chaos to strong leaders, from strong leaders to democracy etc. - strive for more equality, dignity, solidarity, better chances for everybody, more healt, wealth etc. - in short (ahem) the pursuit of happiness for all.

Strictly spoken, 'chaos' is not a system. Also note that I don't recognise 'capitalism' as a valid system. It isn't. It can only exist alongside and governed by other systems (or under chaos). In the US, for example, you are currently experiencing a fall-back to phase 1 and occassionally even phase 0 rears its ugly head, and capitalism thrives under such circumstances. Capitalism in a moderated form also exists under democracy and traces of it exist even under moderate socialist systems. You might argue that the Swedes and Danes have (had?) a moderately socialist system. It seems that the more equal a society is, the lesser the role of money becomes.

The USSR has never left the initial stages of chaos (0) and strong leaders (1). Nor has China. Nor has modern-day Russia, though some say it is now a democracy. Given the prominet role of Putin, I don't think so. Even America still craves for strong leaders, and seems to float somewhere between phase 1 and 2. Europe, in generals, seems to be the most advanced on it's way to anarchy: between 2 and 3, though the current trend in many countries suggests a fall back to somewhere between 1 and 2. I know of NO country (yet) that really has implemented 3, let alone 4 or 5.

I would say that your post in response to mine is simply uneducated drabble,

I don't think the tone of that remark really invites to a discussion in which both parties are willing to learn

Originally posted by GargIndia
2. Lending of money is allowed with interest rate at min 5% per year and max 16% per year.

So, having money is a way to earn money. The owner of the money does not actually have to DO anything for it, right, merely HAVE money. And then, because he has, he becomes richer and richer. So, in effect, more and more people will work their tails off to repay him and his interest, instead of working their tails off to create wealth for everybody. Well, that's exactly the reason we're in the mess we're in right now :-(

7. A key difference is property rights. Fundamentally all land is 'owned' by the State, so agricultural land and industrial land must have been given by the King to a family as 'title'.

The King in effect is the State. A mad king can destroy the happiness of all people. That's the 'strong leaders' phase, and a long way away from equality, dignity and solidarity. Again: if the people in such systems are happy, it's allright by me. But if they are not, it is their duty to overthrow the current system and install a better one.

Such as, say, socialism

reply to post by ForteanOrg


Lending money is necessary if an enterprise needs money which it does not have. However there are rules against usury in Vedic system. Means interest cannot be charged indefinitely.

I wrote this to show similarity between Vedic and Capitalistic systems.

There are several bad aspects to private ownership of land. I shall write that in detail later as I am busy for next two days. You may find that interesting.

I'm sick and tired of theocratic bullsh!t that unfortunately has reared it ugly head in this thread.

Really.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Where is the "theocratic bull#"?

Vedic system is a viable social system. What is your problem.

If you want to start a dictatorship, go buy an island for yourself.

Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by ForteanOrg

 

Lending money is necessary if an enterprise needs money which it does not have.

I never understood that. Say, the people see that there is lack of something, or, if there is no lack of something, see fit to improve something. They will need materials and work. Materials are either raw materials, which our planet provides plentyful and we merely have to do WORK to harvest them, or are materials that are already made before (because the people already WORKED to create them). So, all materials belong to the people and all they need to do is decide what needs to be done and then do WORK. Services are nothing else than WORK (supported by some materials, see previous remarks). In the end, all that is in a society is the result of WORK done by the people, and the fruits of their work should be theirs.

However there are rules against usury in Vedic system. Means interest cannot be charged indefinitely.
I wrote this to show similarity between Vedic and Capitalistic systems.

I know. I did not know much about Vedic systems. Which countries implement these? Or is it just a model (like, alas, socialism still is)?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I'm sick and tired of theocratic bullsh!t that unfortunately has reared it ugly head in this thread.

Really.

Well, it IS a thread about capitalism and socialism and I believe GargIndia wants to point out advantages of a capitalist system. He presents the Vedic system as a special case of a capitalist system. Simply labeling something BS without arguments is usually not your style, maybe you were in a hurry and will provide arguments later on. I hope so.

From what I read so far I don't like the Vedic system much either, but as I can't judge it until I know what it is, I'm perfectly willing to listen to somebody that tries to explain it to me.

reply to post by ForteanOrg


Nature provides raw materials but you need manpower and tools to extract and convert the raw materials to useful goods.

Vedic system has worked in India for many thousands of years before the medieval time. And if you research it, you will find that India was very rich before the Muslim invasions started in 12th century. The Muslims came primarily to due to wealth of India.

So what is wrong in examining a successful economic system? Why you want to stick to socialism which clearly is a failure?