incentive

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Well I came out to my dad about being socialist, and we got into an argument, the onlypoint he could win on was that people would only do enough to keep the goverment off there back
E.g. Farmers only did enough for there familys + enough to keep the government off there backs
E.g. In capitalism people have the incentive to get rich, such as bill gates (we all know his story), and even though there certainly where people smart enough in the soviet union that they could have done the same thing, they just did enough to keep the government off there backs
The other point my dad made was
Why are there only two socialist countries left?

[Zealot]

Half of the world's population only own 1% of the global wealth, whether or not there's an incentive there, the statistics are telling a different story. People want a piece of the pie but they aren't getting any. As for the low number of socialist countries, that is because most of the others were overthrown through covert operations headed by imperialists, this isn't even disputed these days. So maybe the question should be why the capitalists felt so threatened that they had to infiltrate and replace socialist governments

[TheCommunist]

Why are there only two socialist countries left?

I can already tell that your dad isn't stupid - because he referred to those countries as socialist, not communist. :cool:

And I think there's a few more than 2, but I'm not 100% sure on that.

Also, I think there are only a few left because the American propagandists were good at what they did ;)

[Hebrew Hammer]

E.g. In capitalism people have the incentive to get rich, such as bill gates (we all know his story)

From what I understand, Bill Gates came from a wealthy, "well-to-do," family and crashed his fancy shmancy car in his youth (forget the exact brand/model of it), so he's not a "rags to riches," story of success. It's also interesting that you bring this up considering, he is now using his wealth for philanthropic purposes (his children don't get shit) and is trying to get vaccines and medicines to impoverished areas and is funding new research into various medicines and such.

Why would he do this? Where is his incentive? Where is the Randian spin on this? Granted, under capitalism people may be motivated by money like rats going through a maze for cheese but if you change the system, you change how people function and behave. Incentives are silly, I personally, in a Socialist system, would not be motivated by money. My ideal job would be to work in some field doing oceanographic or meteorological research or maybe even in space sattelite systems or something involving space or even the nuclear feild, I love science, this is my passion, these are my interests. I would not be motivated by that cheddar but because I genuinely have a passion for this type of work. Even with other jobs such as maintenance or farming, it could be said the same. I know people in my HS days who joined the FFA, even though, they did not come from farming families, simply because that was their interest and their passion.

Under Socialism, you wouldn't be bound by the historical things that have kept the proletariat in their place. You could go to school, you could pursue what you really would like to do as a vocation. I didn't go to school for what I really wanted to do because I did not have the money or resources to be able too. According to your father's own logic, even under capitalism, farmers solely work the land, as it were, to feed themselves and their families. Seems kind of a bleak existence, no? Wouldn't you want something better? More options? More freedom?


Why are there only two socialist countries left?

A variety of reasons, a lot of people just like to assume, for example, Russia became Socialist, no troubles, but then collapsed because Socialism doesn't work and thus the experiment failed. They assume that said Socialist states were just left to their own devices and weren't bothered in the least bit at all by bourgeois-democratic nations, that natural disasters wouldn't effect their economy, that wars both traditional and ideological (cold war), didn't have any effect on the states or their economy. There are a variety of reasons why these states became capitalist or state capitalist which can't be summed up by the usual bullshit people like to give you.

[La Peur Rouge]

Well I came out to my dad about being socialist, and we got into an argument, the onlypoint he could win on was that people would only do enough to keep the goverment off there back
E.g. Farmers only did enough for there familys + enough to keep the government off there backs

If people were producing enough to "keep the government off their backs" then they must be producing enough of whatever they were making to provide for society anyway. Plus, what reason would there be to act selfishly under socialism?


Why are there only two socialist countries left?

My personal opinion here, but there are no socialist countries.

[Geiseric]

You can tell him that after the russian revolution Comintern made every other socialist revolution end up like the U.S.S.R. because Stalin was a nationalist, and that trend continued untill everywhere where socialism was popular Degenerated into what we see as ''socialist'' china and ''socialist'' north korea. most of the countries with revolutions were 3rd world too, so they were centuries behind 1st world in industry, so while they were being assaulted by the west, or when the counter revolutionaries were being aided, they were still playing catch up. During the subsequent wars, the resources which would have been used to build strong economies were used for war materials. Also the working class's momentum gained in the revolutions was lost because of the necessity for everybody to stop fighting for socialism, and start fighting to win the war. During the wars, oppurtunist politicians planted themselves in positions of power and eventually killed the people still revolutionary.

[Geiseric]

Basically people thought that everything the bolsheviks did during and after the revolution worked to eventually build socialism, since our buddy Stalin announced that socialism was built in the U.S.S.R. and other countries called them communists. Marxism Leninism was made mainstream. Stalin's actions were seen to have worked. So people copied him since apparently what he did worked! However as we know Marxism Leninism ultimately failed, worldwide.

[jake williams]

People who control the means of production and the social surplus - ie. the working class in a socialist society - have every incentive to work hard, and enhance their collective well-being. It's a capitalist society that actively disincentivizes socially productive work, incentivizing instead rent-seeking, petty theft, and "doing enough to get by".

[Niccolò Rossi]

Rational self-interest.

Nic.

[Dumb]

Well I came out to my dad about being socialist, and we got into an argument, the onlypoint he could win on was that people would only do enough to keep the goverment off there back
E.g. Farmers only did enough for there familys + enough to keep the government off there backs

Under socialism, you ARE the government. There's no more police hassling you, there won't be any quotas to make, and whatever you have to produce will be decided upon by you and your co-workers democratically.

So, if you fail, the worst that will happen is that you yourself will dress up in thug boots, beat down your own front door and drag yourself off somewhere to subject yourself to whatever interrogative techniques you please. I suppose. Or perhaps I'm just being silly.


E.g. In capitalism people have the incentive to get rich, such as bill gates (we all know his story), and even though there certainly where people smart enough in the soviet union that they could have done the same thing, they just did enough to keep the government off there backs

Under capitalism, people do just enough to keep the boss and the landlord off their backs. So, even if we grant your father his point, then - as an absolute worst-case scenario - we'd be no worse off under socialism.


The other point my dad made was
Why are there only two socialist countries left?

People often forget that the economy of the USSR went downhill at the same time that the world economy was doing the same. Yeah, it sucked to be in the Soviet Union in the 1980s, but the US honestly wasn't much better, especially ~1982. What killed the USSR was a worldwide crisis that afflicted Keynesianism everywhere.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

There's no more police hassling you, there won't be any quotas to make, and whatever you have to produce will be decided upon by you and your co-workers democratically
So by theory, you could set your quota as 1 pound of bread? Or such a minimal amount of something, but they will still get the same as everyone else?

Grrrr, I am so confused

Really what would stop you from doing that?

[Apoi_Viitor]

rrkrvAUbU9Y

[Dumb]

So by theory, you could set your quota as 1 pound of bread? Or such a minimal amount of something, but they will still get the same as everyone else?

Grrrr, I am so confused

Really what would stop you from doing that?

The same thing that would stop you from lying in bed all day long every day. Humans are creative by nature; that's probably the only thing that I'd describe as being "human nature." Maybe you'd find yourself setting your quota as 1 pound of bread, but you'd find yourself drawn to some other endeavor - and plenty of other people would find themselves drawn to baking. Believe it or not, some people do like to cook!

Then again, my take on Marxism is predicated on the notion that human passions and talents are sufficient to provide for all our needs.

[Rafiq]

rrkrvAUbU9Y

I'm sick of this video.

It also mentions how average worker's labor does better when rewarded greater.