Socialism and it's reality

[airavata]

Marx has been hailed as a genius for his ideas on socialism.
Do any of you truly believe that socialism as a economic system is better than capitalism? Capitalism definitely has several flaws, but in the end, the good outweighs the bad. The biggest flaw of socialism is that each individual is rewqarded according to a general policy, not according to his own innate abilities. If an individual has the capacity and the capability to sustain a much better standard of living than his neighbour, why shouldn't he be allowed to do so?

Marx failed to take into account the innate human quality of survival. If the capitalists had not brought about reforms a revolution would have surely started. Yet in the end, humanity was smart enough to realise this discrepancy, and was able to adapt. Minimum wage laws etc were passed, unions were formed and the situation of the worker was improved.

I would rather have a system where an individual is rewarded according to his ability.. rather than one where his salary is not decided according to his ability.
The system has it's flaws, but it seems to be superior to socialism.

[synthesis]

I would rather have a system where an individual is rewarded according to his ability.. rather than one where his salary is not decided according to his ability.

So would any socialist.

A couple quotes from the Manifesto.

"Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that is does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriation."

"In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."

By the way... I realize this is rather tangential, but you do realize the man quoted in your signature was quite socialist, right? Wilde's The Soul of Man under Socialism was really just the Manifesto made easier to read and with added emphasis on the artist.

[LSD]

Capitalism definitely has several flaws, but in the end, the good outweighs the bad. The biggest flaw of socialism is that each individual is rewqarded according to a general policy, not according to his own innate abilities. If an individual has the capacity and the capability to sustain a much better standard of living than his neighbour, why shouldn't he be allowed to do so?


Firstly, you are confusing capitalism with meritocracy. Capitalism is not a system in which what one recieves is based on one's abilities or capablilities. Rather it is based on a myriad of wholly arbitrary determinations. These include the issue of inheritence, that the majority of the wealthy today are that way because their parents were. Their abilities do not matter and they do not need to work at all yet they live better than 99% of society. Furthermore, under capitalism, determination of value is made by what are called "market forces." Effectively these "forces" are what rich people will buy, or what rich people can get others to buy. Thereby although you cannot deny that a foundry worker works a hell of a lot harder than, say, Keannu Reeves, he has a far greater standard of living than the poor foundry worker. In addition those who make the most amount of money, those with the greatest living standards in capitalism are not those who work the hardest, but those who are able to exploit the hard work of others. The system you speak of it one in which those who put the most amount of effort in, would get the most amount out, but that is not what capitalism is.

Secondly, the meritocratic system you describe is meaningless in a true communist environment. Under communism you, as a member of society, have access to everything society has to offer. This means, yes, your neighbour has everything you have, but you both have everything that that society could provide. You are not living better than him and he is not living better than you. Your fears that your ability would not be rewarded is moot now because there is nothing more that society could give you.


Marx failed to take into account the innate human quality of survival. If the capitalists had not brought about reforms a revolution would have surely started. Yet in the end, humanity was smart enough to realise this discrepancy, and was able to adapt. Minimum wage laws etc were passed, unions were formed and the situation of the worker was improved.

Yes, capitalism is clever, and yes the worker is (for the most part) living better than 100 years ago, but in fact the discrepancy has risen. If the worker is living 5 times better now than in 1900, his boss is living 50 times better. And it is the dichotomy between worker and capitalist that is the problem, not the difference between now and 1877.


I would rather have a system where an individual is rewarded according to his ability.. rather than one where his salary is not decided according to his ability.


Again, that system ("where an individual is rewarded according to his ability") is not capitalism, but even if it where, why must you be rewarded because you happen to be smarter or stronger or better at welding. If you are good at something, good, do it and bennefit society, but your claim that society should give you extra because of your "ability" is ludicrous. Socieity must aim to give everything it can to everyone and not pick favorites, not give you 5 houses because you happen to look good, and starve him because he doesn't.


The system has it's flaws, but it seems to be superior to socialism.

It only seems that way because you have been indoctrinated into thinking in capitalistic competitive uberambitious terms. Despite what modern society might tell you, there is no reason why all people cannot be treated equal, cannot be recognized as equally deserving.

Good. Done. There. Have fun.

[airavata]

LSD : interesting. I understand your point about the market mechanisms of demand and supply and the law of inheritance.
Interesting post with good points. I'll get back to this later.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

LSD u are afucking henius i liuv u plizz don't stop postingg, you ar brilliantt.

[LSD]

Hey, thanks man!

[Hoppe]

It only seems that way because you have been indoctrinated into thinking in capitalistic competitive uberambitious terms. Despite what modern society might tell you, there is no reason why all people cannot be treated equal, cannot be recognized as equally deserving.

So, if it were medically possible, I have to give one eye to my blind neighbour, because then we'd be equal again?

[LSD]

So, if it were medically possible, I have to give one eye to my blind neighbour, because then we'd be equal again?

Yah, thanks, that's constructive....

jesus christ, some people.....

no you don't have to give your eye. it isn't about forcing equality it's about recognizing the equality that already exists by not creating artificial class structures. some people are always smarter/stronger/fitter, the point is that you respect them and you don't reward them for natural abilities or force them into classes to exploit them.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 8 2004, 03:04 PM

So, if it were medically possible, I have to give one eye to my blind neighbour, because then we'd be equal again?

Yah, thanks, that's constructive....

jesus christ, some people.....

no you don't have to give your eye. it isn't about forcing equality it's about recognizing the equality that already exists by not creating artificial class structures. some people are always smarter/stronger/fitter, the point is that you respect them and you don't reward them for natural abilities or force them into classes to exploit them.
Yeah, I would have to agree but this does bring up an interesting point. If our societies were not explioted through capitalism, everyone could have free healthcare. Eyes are often taken along with other organs from the recently deceased. Eyes for everyone! This makes that rather insane argument irrelevant. A lot of capitalist propaganda doesn't even make sense in the present, many countries have free healthcare. It wouldn't make any sense at all to bring this up in a more developed socialist society.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 01:17 AM
I would rather have a system where an individual is rewarded according to his ability.. rather than one where his salary is not decided according to his ability.
Sounds good...

Question: How many CEOs do as much work as their employees, let alone several hundred times as much work as their employees?

Related question: What kind of work is being done by stockholders? Warren Buffet, Nebraska billionaire, claims much of his fortune through Coca-Cola. Yet, Buffet has never spent so much as an hour making, bottling, or delivering Coke.

You seek a system that rewards the hardest working and most ingenious... so why do you support capitalism when it is only a system that enriches oligarchs, marketers, and crooks?

[JustSoul]

Wow that is easy questions.

Question: How many CEOs do as much work as their employees, let alone several hundred times as much work as their employees?


All of them (explaining further). Considering the fact that even one little mistake by CEO will make all those workers loose their job. You can't afford incompitence at such a high level. And to avoid it you have to pay them a LOT. Second all of them are way more talented then any of the workers. Talent should be rewarded. And third They have spent a lot of time on education working hard and geting good grades , while workers obviously didn't.

Related question: What kind of work is being done by stockholders? Warren Buffet, Nebraska billionaire, claims much of his fortune through Coca-Cola. Yet, Buffet has never spent so much as an hour making, bottling, or delivering Coke.


His relatives did all that work leaving their's son capital that can be invested. If i earn something i sure as hell want my kids to benefit from it.

[JustSoul]

Yeah, I would have to agree but this does bring up an interesting point. If our societies were not explioted through capitalism, everyone could have free healthcare. Eyes are often taken along with other organs from the recently deceased. Eyes for everyone! This makes that rather insane argument irrelevant. A lot of capitalist propaganda doesn't even make sense in the present, many countries have free healthcare. It wouldn't make any sense at all to bring this up in a more developed socialist society.


Trust me you don't want free healthcare. It sucks so much you won't even believe this.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Marxist in [email protected] 8 2004, 07:43 PM
Question: How many CEOs do as much work as their employees, let alone several hundred times as much work as their employees?

CEO's have a lot of meantal fatigue. You know that your decisions wil affect the whole ocmpany and hundreds or thousands of workers. they have a lot of pressure on them and GOOD CEO's get paid good money because they are good decision makers.

They also have climbed up the ladder to get to where they are (most of them). So they have also had to put in alot of work just to get to where they are.

THIS IS LIKE SAYING COACHES, general managers and players are overpaid in sports.
But you can see the difference Phil jackson makes on a team, or the difference a good GM can make, same with the player.

[D'Anconia]

it's about recognizing the equality that already exists by not creating artificial class structures. some people are always smarter/stronger/fitter, the point is that you respect them and you don't reward them for natural abilities or force them into classes to exploit them.

But if you reward the people who, by their greater abilities, produce more by giving them the same you are exploiting them. You expect them to do more for the same reward. This can only result in the loss of the productivity of those upon which your system would depend. Human beings are selfish. They care about providing for themselves. If they can still provide for themselves by doing less work, what will stop them from refusing to use those abilities that allow them to produce more. If there is no added reward, then there is no incentive to work any harder than the worst worker in the country.

[Urban Rubble]

All I want to do is thank everyone here for debating rationally. It is encouraging to see people talking rationally like humans, friends even, instead of *****ing at each other. Good job guys.

Edit: Wait, I do have one thing to add.


THIS IS LIKE SAYING COACHES, general managers and players are overpaid in sports.
But you can see the difference Phil jackson makes on a team, or the difference a good GM can make, same with the player.

You don't think pro athletes are overpaid ?

Why should someone be paid millions and millions of dollars because they are extremely talented at a sport ? I realize that they generate alot of capital and are entitled to a fair share, but why couldn't all this capital be used to benefit society ? Do you really believe that just because Alex Rodriguez is good at baseball that he should be paid hundreds of millions of dollars ?

It just seems so wrong to me. There are people who are starving to death no matter how hard they work to stay alive, and this guy is being paid enough to sustain an entire country for playing a game ?

[synthesis]

Considering the fact that even one little mistake by CEO will make all those workers loose their job. You can't afford incompitence at such a high level. And to avoid it you have to pay them a LOT. Second all of them are way more talented then any of the workers. Talent should be rewarded. And third They have spent a lot of time on education working hard and geting good grades , while workers obviously didn't.

I hold this position to be incredibly idealistic. CEOs and other executives can all inherit their positions. They are completely capable of incompetence, just as with any job. So how does nepotism connotate talent?

Also, even if the position itself was not awarded, two people born with the same degree of talent are capable of arriving at completely different places in life. A person born to a poor immigrant family - or simply a victim of generational poverty - is going to have to put all his or her time and money into supporting his or her family members. In many cases, it is a scenario of "drop out of school to work in a low-end job full-time, or starve."

On the other end, a man born into incredible wealth can have his entire education paid for, not to mention "purchase" adequate grades, and arrive at a respectable position. Just look at the president of America. Could any second-generation immigrant, however talented,arrive at such a place?

However much the supporters of capitalism wish things to be otherwise, our society is far more plutocratic than meritocratic.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 9 2004, 02:43 AM

THIS IS LIKE SAYING COACHES, general managers and players are overpaid in sports.
But you can see the difference Phil jackson makes on a team, or the difference a good GM can make, same with the player.

You don't think pro athletes are overpaid ?

Why should someone be paid millions and millions of dollars because they are extremely talented at a sport ? I realize that they generate alot of capital and are entitled to a fair share, but why couldn't all this capital be used to benefit society ? Do you really believe that just because Alex Rodriguez is good at baseball that he should be paid hundreds of millions of dollars ?

It just seems so wrong to me. There are people who are starving to death no matter how hard they work to stay alive, and this guy is being paid enough to sustain an entire country for playing a game ?
Do I think they are overpaid, some yes, definetly.

These players create huge profits for their companies, they do this by producing on the field and making a team a winning team and/or by their jerseys being sold alot. So they do deserve their fair share. the fact that its a game really does not matter that much, because they still make huge profits for their teams.

If you dont like sports you cant see how other people like it so much and spend money on apparels. I personally dont buy the 100 dollar jordan shoes, because I thinks its stupid to spend that much for a shoe, the thing is millions of morons do want to spend 125 on a shoe, thats their choice.
I dont understand how friend is still going on after 9 years, its such a crappy show, but people like it so the actors on it get paid well because the show makes a profit.

Some players are overpaid, because they have guranteed contracts(like baseball players) but they have not produced what they where paid for, but since they have guranteed contracts nothing can be done. Why do they have guranteed contracts? because of the players union.

A-rod i think is very overpaid, because he is being paid so much, yet he has not helped that team get out of last place. However the rangers made teh stupid desicion of paying him that much and they are suffering for that. But you can see since that contract that teams are paying much less now, because they know that in baseball one player cant really have a huge impact on a team.

The question is what do those players do with that money, some help alot, and others dont. I guess we can blame them for not helping more, but its their money and they can spend it however they want to.

Also many of the sports stars come from poor houses and they do help their families once they become rich.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 07:45 PM

THIS IS LIKE SAYING COACHES, general managers and players are overpaid in sports.
But you can see the difference Phil jackson makes on a team, or the difference a good GM can make, same with the player.
You picked a poor example in Phil Jackson. He has never coached a team in the NBA that wasn't already the most talented team in the league before he got there.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by SonofRage+Jan 9 2004, 03:19 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SonofRage @ Jan 9 2004, 03:19 AM)
[email protected] 8 2004, 07:45 PM

THIS IS LIKE SAYING COACHES, general managers and players are overpaid in sports.
But you can see the difference Phil jackson makes on a team, or the difference a good GM can make, same with the player.
You picked a poor example in Phil Jackson. He has never coached a team in the NBA that wasn&#39;t already the most talented team in the league before he got there. [/b]
No. He got to chicago when they had talent, but they couldnt win befor ehim with that talent, same with the lakers, they already had the talent they just needed a coach that knew how to use it.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 10:48 PM
Yeah, I would have to agree but this does bring up an interesting point. If our societies were not explioted through capitalism, everyone could have free healthcare. Eyes are often taken along with other organs from the recently deceased. Eyes for everyone&#33; This makes that rather insane argument irrelevant. A lot of capitalist propaganda doesn&#39;t even make sense in the present, many countries have free healthcare. It wouldn&#39;t make any sense at all to bring this up in a more developed socialist society.


Trust me you don&#39;t want free healthcare. It sucks so much you won&#39;t even believe this.
Well, if you say so then you probably don&#39;t even need to prove your point. I&#39;ll just assume that you arn&#39;t just lying like most of the capitalists on this forum. Tell me though how it is better to not be able to afford healthcare than getting not very good healthcare? Or do you think that people that can&#39;t pay for expensive medicines and procedures deserve to die so that medical corporations can jack up prices? Keep in mind that in a socialist society, corporations wouldn&#39;t have this power so this problem wouldn&#39;t exist.

[LSD]

But if you reward the people who, by their greater abilities, produce more by giving them the same you are exploiting them. You expect them to do more for the same reward. This can only result in the loss of the productivity of those upon which your system would depend. Human beings are selfish. They care about providing for themselves. If they can still provide for themselves by doing less work, what will stop them from refusing to use those abilities that allow them to produce more.

ah yes....the incentive debate......that&#39;a new one.......

look, the assumption that every human action is because of monetary reward is so laughable that it&#39;s painful. In a communist system everyone would have to work on essential services, needed industries, the whole point is that with that many people working, less work would be required. The society would agree on a certain amount of work that has to be done every day (which would be significantly less than now) and in return they would have access to everything that society offered. If a worker refused to work, the collective would not allow them to remain in the community, much as if they assaulted or murder a member of the communirty (every society has rules). If a worker was intentionally working poorly than his own workers collective (in whatever field he was in) would deal with it.


If there is no added reward, then there is no incentive to work any harder than the worst worker in the country.

So you equalize the work, and mandate a certain amount is required (see above).