How Fake Socialists Might Lead to Real Socialism

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: HarryJoy
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well in my own mind I think the problem comes with the labeling.... I think in the minds of people socialism equals people working together for the common good.... capitalism equals every man for himself.

Let me ask you a question would capitalism exist if currency did not exist ?

Not much would exist if currency didn’t exist. We’d surely be living in caves and mud huts.

I agree with you on that point.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Baddogma
Oh nos ... society making sure we have safety nets, institutions and a watchdog so that successful private enterprise doesn't enslave?! The horror... the horror.

But I think you are picking at definition of terms... when most Europeans and United Statians say "socialism" they are thinking of capitalism with assurances... not a fascistic gulag mixing Stalin and Orwell.

At some point capitalism will have to be anachronistic due to ubiquitous wealth via tech, if nothing else.

Capitalism was/is a handy, quick tool to get to a cooperative, planned society brimming with material wealth, but a tool is what it is, not the goal. It's also making a mess that could end up exterminating us.

I think we're smart enough to pick and chose economic modes and methods ... but pure capitalism is horrible, and pure socialism has never been done, but has potential for hell, too.

Let's hope we find a happy balance between cowboy and borg.

Government providing safety nets is a lot different than society providing safety nets. The former is centralized, bureaucratic, and unsustainable.

In a democratic state government provision is how society provides a safety net.

Government provision is also inherently no more centralised, bureaucratic or unsubstantial than private provision.

Family and community have been the traditional way of providing safety nets. Government provision and welfare are fairly recent phenomenon.

Some forms of safety nets go back as at least as far as the Roman empire.

The current level of safety net and welfare exists largely due to the failure of private provision to provide an adequate level.

Just because something was traditional doesn't mean it was better.

Doesn’t mean it wasn’t better either.

The current level of safety net and welfare exists because of the private wealth of tax paying individuals, generated by capital. It is funding all levels of welfare.

The level of private generation of tax is made possible by the system in which it operates. This includes infrastructure, education and health of the people. You can't separate them and say one is dependent on the other, they depend on each other.

One is entirely dependent on the other.

Any evidence or argument to back up that assertion?

Yes, governments have to extract revenue to provide governing and public services. They do that mainly through taxation.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I don't see the rationale behind your statement. Would creativity be lessened in the minds of people without the existence of currency ?

Would certain vegetables and plants not grow because currency did not exist ? Would the trees not grow would machines not work ? I'm not really following your logic here.

originally posted by: HarryJoy
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I don't see the rationale behind your statement. Would creativity be lessened in the minds of people without the existence of currency ?

Would certain vegetables and plants not grow because currency did not exist ? Would the trees not grow would machines not work ? I'm not really following your logic here.

Sure, we’d be creative and vegetarian tribesman, I’m sure.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yes... I can see you like to dodge the subject.. because the reality is everything that exists now could exist without currency.

The only thing that could not exist without currency is the huge imbalances within Society. Where some people have very much and some people have very little.

originally posted by: HarryJoy
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yes... I can see you like to dodge the subject.. because the reality is everything that exists now could exist without currency.

The only thing that could not exist without currency is the huge imbalances within Society. Where some people have very much and some people have very little.

Well, everything that exists now includes currency. That’s the reality.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But the only purpose that currency serves is to provide a leveraging factor for an individual....so that they might Leverage the labor of other individuals. Because the cold hard fact is...everything that exists only exists because of the labor of men and women.

So....the "Reality " is we could enjoy everything that we currently enjoy.....without currency. Everything that is....except for Capitalism

originally posted by: HarryJoy
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But the only purpose that currency serves is to provide a leveraging factor for an individual....so that they might Leverage the labor of other individuals. Because the cold hard fact is...everything that exists only exists because of the labor of men and women.

So....the "Reality " is we could enjoy everything that we currently enjoy.....without currency. Everything that is....except for Capitalism

For a little while, maybe. Life is often very difficult for tribes people. Where I live, the native tribes kept slaves from neighboring tribes. Their currency was violence and kidnaping.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I don't think the proliferation of kidnapping and slaves and violence has been lessened by the existence of currency.... if I had to take a guess I would say it has been greatly increased.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Baddogma
Oh nos ... society making sure we have safety nets, institutions and a watchdog so that successful private enterprise doesn't enslave?! The horror... the horror.

But I think you are picking at definition of terms... when most Europeans and United Statians say "socialism" they are thinking of capitalism with assurances... not a fascistic gulag mixing Stalin and Orwell.

At some point capitalism will have to be anachronistic due to ubiquitous wealth via tech, if nothing else.

Capitalism was/is a handy, quick tool to get to a cooperative, planned society brimming with material wealth, but a tool is what it is, not the goal. It's also making a mess that could end up exterminating us.

I think we're smart enough to pick and chose economic modes and methods ... but pure capitalism is horrible, and pure socialism has never been done, but has potential for hell, too.

Let's hope we find a happy balance between cowboy and borg.

Government providing safety nets is a lot different than society providing safety nets. The former is centralized, bureaucratic, and unsustainable.

In a democratic state government provision is how society provides a safety net.

Government provision is also inherently no more centralised, bureaucratic or unsubstantial than private provision.

Family and community have been the traditional way of providing safety nets. Government provision and welfare are fairly recent phenomenon.

Some forms of safety nets go back as at least as far as the Roman empire.

The current level of safety net and welfare exists largely due to the failure of private provision to provide an adequate level.

Just because something was traditional doesn't mean it was better.

Doesn’t mean it wasn’t better either.

The current level of safety net and welfare exists because of the private wealth of tax paying individuals, generated by capital. It is funding all levels of welfare.

The level of private generation of tax is made possible by the system in which it operates. This includes infrastructure, education and health of the people. You can't separate them and say one is dependent on the other, they depend on each other.

One is entirely dependent on the other.

Any evidence or argument to back up that assertion?

Yes, governments have to extract revenue to provide governing and public services. They do that mainly through taxation.

In most economies the purpose of taxation is not to raise revenue but that's possibly a bit off topic for this thread.

There is nothing to stop the state providing direct consumer goods and services just as there is nothing to prevent private sector providing most government services.

It's just that some things are more effectively provided by the state and some by the private sector.

They are equally dependent on each other on order to function well.

originally posted by: HarryJoy
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yes... I can see you like to dodge the subject.. because the reality is everything that exists now could exist without currency.

The only thing that could not exist without currency is the huge imbalances within Society. Where some people have very much and some people have very little.

Currency is the mechanism by which economies operate. While there is scarcity then there remains
a need for currency. Maybe at one distant point in the future we won't need it but we are no where near there now.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Well I do agree that currency is a mechanism....although I'm not sure how currency can alleviate scarcity ? At least not without human labor.

So as I see it....scarcity can be alleviated by a redirection of labor without necessarily employing the mechanism of currency/capitalism

originally posted by: HarryJoy
a reply to: ScepticScot

Well I do agree that currency is a mechanism....although I'm not sure how currency can alleviate scarcity ? At least not without human labor.

So as I see it....scarcity can be alleviated by a redirection of labor without necessarily employing the mechanism of currency/capitalism

How?

Currency, amongst its many other uses, provides a mechanism for rewarding labour.

It's advantages over other methods is that it provides a grater degree of personal freedom and choice.

I agree I am having trouble getting my point across here that's for sure.
Just don't toss all the babies out with the bath water.

I suppose I let the frustrations of work bleed through into my post. I shouldn't let my personal grievances paint my world red.

I think always hearing its the millenials fault strikes a cord with me because I can't relate,but i have peers and friends that do fit that bill to a tee.....so there's that.

After rereading my posts I feel a bit sheepish I posted out of anger without much use of my brain.
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

[e]originally posted by: ScepticScot
e]originally posted by: HarryJoy
a reply to: ScepticScot

How?

Currency, amongst its many other uses, provides a mechanism for rewarding labour.

It's advantages over other methods is that it provides a grater degree of personal freedom and choice.

Okay I agree that currency affords the ability to be converted into any commodity but the commodity did not come into existence because of currency the commodity came into existence because of human labor.

The capitalist system is good to a point but we have passed that point quite a long time ago. Under a capitalist system it is easy for monopolies to be formed and once monopolies are formed it gives a great deal of power to very few people.

And it puts the majority of people at a great disadvantage in many ways... a lot of people are great people with a good work ethic but they are not business people and they never will be....each person has a role that they can fill in society and each role should be respected equally. It is easy for a dog-eat-dog mentality to be fostered within a couple of system. That type of mentality is never good for the greater whole

.

edit on 7-3-2018 by HarryJoy because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-3-2018 by HarryJoy because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-3-2018 by HarryJoy because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-3-2018 by HarryJoy because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-3-2018 by HarryJoy because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Baddogma
Oh nos ... society making sure we have safety nets, institutions and a watchdog so that successful private enterprise doesn't enslave?! The horror... the horror.

But I think you are picking at definition of terms... when most Europeans and United Statians say "socialism" they are thinking of capitalism with assurances... not a fascistic gulag mixing Stalin and Orwell.

At some point capitalism will have to be anachronistic due to ubiquitous wealth via tech, if nothing else.

Capitalism was/is a handy, quick tool to get to a cooperative, planned society brimming with material wealth, but a tool is what it is, not the goal. It's also making a mess that could end up exterminating us.

I think we're smart enough to pick and chose economic modes and methods ... but pure capitalism is horrible, and pure socialism has never been done, but has potential for hell, too.

Let's hope we find a happy balance between cowboy and borg.

Government providing safety nets is a lot different than society providing safety nets. The former is centralized, bureaucratic, and unsustainable.

In a democratic state government provision is how society provides a safety net.

Government provision is also inherently no more centralised, bureaucratic or unsubstantial than private provision.

Family and community have been the traditional way of providing safety nets. Government provision and welfare are fairly recent phenomenon.

Some forms of safety nets go back as at least as far as the Roman empire.

The current level of safety net and welfare exists largely due to the failure of private provision to provide an adequate level.

Just because something was traditional doesn't mean it was better.

Doesn’t mean it wasn’t better either.

The current level of safety net and welfare exists because of the private wealth of tax paying individuals, generated by capital. It is funding all levels of welfare.

The level of private generation of tax is made possible by the system in which it operates. This includes infrastructure, education and health of the people. You can't separate them and say one is dependent on the other, they depend on each other.

One is entirely dependent on the other.

Any evidence or argument to back up that assertion?

Yes, governments have to extract revenue to provide governing and public services. They do that mainly through taxation.

In most economies the purpose of taxation is not to raise revenue but that's possibly a bit off topic for this thread.

There is nothing to stop the state providing direct consumer goods and services just as there is nothing to prevent private sector providing most government services.

It's just that some things are more effectively provided by the state and some by the private sector.

They are equally dependent on each other on order to function well.

Yes, the purpose of taxes is to raise revenue. There is no government without it, and government is wholly dependent on taxation from private wealth to function...that is unless it nationalizes industries Etc.

This is why the voting age must be raised.

Assault voting is far more dangerous than any firearm could ever be.

To be honest, voters should have to demonstrate some general level of competency/intelligence/knowledge of the issues before casting a vote.

Government/politics isn't something that can be "winged" - if you have no *real* knowledge of the issues, you shouldn't have the right to vote on them.

Socialism is no different. It isn't a religion, and regardless no person or group has the Constitutional right to subvert a Constitutionally lawful nation.

Needs to be a watch-list for this socialist/communist BS.

a reply to: Athetos

Happens to the best of us buddy

(if the members here held that against you, I'd have been run out of town years ago)

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think terminology has evolved to the point that if one doesn't understand it, maybe they never will. I don't know anyone that wants the government to own businesses - They just want CAPITALism to be more responsible, more SOCIAL. When a society cares more about $$$ than they do the citizens, things go downhill fast. We know a lot of politicians are bought and paid for, we know the impact that lobbyists have on this nation...Why is it so hard to extrapolate from there, and say that businesses are using their money in corrupt, unethical, anti capitalistic and free-nation ways?

A Millennial can be talked to and reasoned with, believe it or not - They aren't completely against business and aren't entirely for the welfare state. They simply know that they're getting paid less than we have been getting paid in decades, to be more efficient than ever. They know that social security will run out before they're old at this pace. They know that the ability to save, invest, etc, on a regular full-time job is near impossible these days... "Safety nets" is more a plea for things to be as equal as they were - Some decades ago when our nation was prospering, the ability to afford housing, food, etc was a lot easier. A father without a college education could support a small family - Now, two parents with or without that education, working full time can hardly do so ( in some circumstances )

Corporate corruption can only run so far before an entire generation realizes that "trickle down economics" has only been "trickle-fed" to them from their elders, and that it's nothing but lies. I'm trying to find the statistical evidence showing that more and more money is funneling UPWARDS, and not coming back down into the hands of those that were told these lies their entire lives.

I'm a Millennial, and I'm quite sad that my entire generation leans so far to the left - On the other hand, I can't blame them. When those on the right spoon-feed them bullsh*t and lies their entire lives, there's every reason to rebel against that regime, and no reason to stick around.

a reply to: Athetos

There is almost an equally large percentage of millennials that believe the opposite, so I wouldn’t fret too much.