Immorality of Hyper-Standards.

[KillGreed]

My specific Socialist views might not be conducive to the normal understanding of Socialism. I will get to my potential differences within the Socialist/Communist community in a few sentences, but for not i want to describe my commonalities. I do believe in the Marxist view that Socialism is achieved gradually, but with conviction, in the sense that Socialism is one of the societal evolutionary phases, being the one after Capitalism. Once a Socialist society is established fully, i believe in implementing Worker/Consumer Cooperatives, and for them to be fully ubiquitous throughout the societal and economic structure. I believe that all social and civil discrimination within our current society should be eradicated withing a fully established Socialist society. I also believe the Socialism should not and cannot be contained into one nation, that it must be global, because an economic structure such as Socialism obeys the 2nd law of thermodynamics just like everything else in our material universe. Even my so called "commonalities" might be different, but now i will get to the ideas that i am certain are different. I believe that wages for the workers and all forms of welfare should be increased. I think most socialists are in favor of increasing wages, but not necessarily increasing welfare because, like capitalists, socialists dont go as far as to condone ubiquitous entitlements where mere existence is payed for by the workers. I however do go as far as to condone the notion of not wanting to be employed if that is your choice, and that just because some people might choose to be unemployed and be on welfare, like myself, they should not be left to rot by society. To me, disincentive to work is not the problem in our country, nor has it ever have been. I am witnessing a philosophical civil war within the middle class when it comes to this subject, which causes the middle class to sometimes forget who the real enemy is, which are the Bourgeois Capitalists that own our Country and Trivialize the well-being of the citizens who physically produce their wealth. If someone doesnt want to be employed, even if minimum wage is rightfully increased exponentially, that is an innocuous choice, and has been trivial in world history. History has proven that Greed has been much more of a detriment to the human morale and to societies than Laziness and a sense of Entitlement. And today, the vast majority of people on this planet are too worried about their social reputation to ever want to be unemployed and live off of welfare. The ratio i will for Conscious of Social Reputation to Not worrying is about 85% to the former, 15% to the latter. So, for that mathematical FACT, i believe that if Entitlements were increased, and should be, to establish a safety net for the unemployed, by choice or not, because most people would be worried about their own reputation(85%), the argument that "well everyone then would just not want to work if they knew that could get payed to exist" is illogical and not even minutely factual. So, i believe ones core human morals should decide whether they should deserve to live and be fed or not, not whether they choose to climb the "social hierarchy" or not. Laziness is one of the many facts of human nature, and people don't need to be socially or economically chastised for having a sense of entitlement. If you have commited an inhumane crime, like murder, rape terrorism, pedophilia, etc, no matter if you are a Socialist or Capitalism or how much you have or have not done for the world, you deserve nothing. So, i am for establishing a Democratically Socialist Society that truly values the lives and well-being of ALL MORALLY CORRECT PEOPLE, not just the Workers, who deserve a wage increase to at least $15/hour(starting), but for anyone who is generally a nice person. Laziness and Entitlement is not in any way a violation of human morals, deep down everyone has this mindset, think of every time you say "I don't wanna go to work today", yet you do, and power to you, but just because some people actually act on that inner thought of not working, that doesn't make them undeserving of the basic articles of survival. Anyway, i know that the past few sentences haven't been as intellectual and articulate as the earlier parts of my thread, i am typing based off pure passion and emotion at this point, but that i literally want to establish a "Nice Guy finished 1st" Socialist Society, where welfare for the poor and increased wages for the workers can exist simultaneously. Hyper-Standardism in this world must be eradicated.

[Q]

Welcome :)

If you have political questions, you can ask them in the Learning forum. That's why it's there after all!

If you have questions about your account, don't hesitate to send me a PM or ask here.

That's quite an intro you have there. I'm sorry that I can't read it right now that I'm at work.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Perhaps you could format your text using paragraphs - as it is, it's a wall of text that discourages readers.

But the main problem, I think, is in your conception of what socialism is. Socialists don't want higher wages (in the long run, in the short run we will of course take them), we want the abolition of wage labour, the abolition of the market (including any market formed by cooperatives) and the abolition of private property (including the private property of cooperatives).

[ckaihatsu]

So, i believe ones core human morals should decide whether they should deserve to live and be fed or not, not whether they choose to climb the "social hierarchy" or not.


Here's the thing, though -- and my apologies in advance for blowing-your-mind when you thought *you'd* be the one doing it here (grin) -- but what if a post-capitalist society just happened to wind up producing *more than enough* for everyone -- ?

Your way is certainly possible, with a tight social administration over all production and consumption, as for food, but it may also be the case that many -- even with such oversight -- would find ways to do what they like, farming of some kind, and would wind up making food available to the general public, without any kind of interaction or expectation in return.

So instead of looking at it from the 'supply' side as you're doing, we may want to look at it from the 'demand' side and ask if those who want food in a post-privatized world would be *able* to procure the food they need in one way or another under such social conditions. (Could there reasonably be 'gangs' or 'tribes' in such a world that would seek to monopolize food-producing territory, so as to *exclude* people from producing food for themselves -- ? By definition, *no*, it *wouldn't* be possible, because collectivization implies an equitability of free-access to all productive assets, including land. Social norms wouldn't allow any kind of proprietization, as for 'punishing' people, for whatever reason.)





If you have commited an inhumane crime, like murder, rape terrorism, pedophilia, etc, no matter if you are a Socialist or Capitalism or how much you have or have not done for the world, you deserve nothing.


I don't know how a future socialist world might handle these social transgressions, and, with these matters, I don't care to speculate, either. I think the answer from theory is to first look at what tends to motivate these actions as we know them today and to ask if such motivations would really even *exist* once (virtually) all concerns become *social* concerns, and not left to anyone individually. I think that sea-change in overall ethos would go a long way in *humanizing* everyone, rather than *alienating* them to begin with.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Welcome to RevLeft!

Echoing Xhar-Xhar:

Pagebreaks actually make a huge difference in how readable a post is. You're actually far better off erring on the side of writing in something like point form.