Log in

View Full Version : Correct me if I am wrong at any point please...



Zero
8th February 2006, 09:27
Love the site, very informitive, etc etc etc.

I come here to see if I have correctly understood what I have read over the past 3-4 months. Please correct me where I am wrong, ask for clarification when I make generalized statments, or just generaly help me fix things I have messed up.
Also, I'm gona stop sometimes in the middle of things to ask questions, hopefully they will be understandable enough so that you gracious folks can answer them :) .

Within Socialism money is optional, and generally not needed. People are educated far ahead enough so that they are rational, moral agents (Kindergarten, Grade School, High School, and College, or their equivilents.) After education they are released into the work force, and have already decided what path they wish to follow.

- How far will required education go?
- When reading Global Justice by Che himself I came across a statement along the lines of 'the two pillars of Socialism are Education and...', I am intrested in how literal he means this. I am in favor of all-age-welcome, no restriction, and all-accepting, vast educational system. Is this what he would have intended to make happen? I've read various discussions with an educational topic, and people have said things to the effect of 'If you wanted to be a Steel Worker, you could be a Steel Worker, if you want to retrain to become a Doctor, you can retrain to become a Doctor.' Does this mean to imply that you are able to rise to any position you feel you are able to acheave? Would this effectively automate sanitation? Please elaborate as far as you want on this topic, it is of intrest to me greatly.
-Could aprentincement be introduced once again?

Education being non-descriminatory among topics that would be quite touchy (reviewing history of Monarchism, reviewing the bloody history of Nationalistic Socialism, Capitalism, Imperialism, Capitalistic theory...) Along with Education being non-discriminatory, civil liberties would be respected. Complete freedom of speech would be a priority, along with expression. To the extent of burning Socialist flags, or publicly condemning Communism (remember, if we limit the voice of our resistance, we are no better then the Nazi's. Silencing them through education is boundlessly better then violating their rights as a concious being.) Once a person is finished with education they are given the option to work. If they choose to work, they are given fair compensation to the level of work they do. If they choose not to work, they are given a minimum wage high enough to live on.

- Without "bosses" or "supervisors" how could one tell that someone is doing lots of work inside cases which cannot be measured in weight? Take for instince Computer Programmers. If a man is paid in relation to the ammount of code produced, someone could write a simple program, but take the longest route. Those who deal with compensation will give him a overabundence of pay. If someone is paid in relation to how many programs produced, he could crank out smaller programs, which need eachother to function properly. This could be taken advantage of. I understand that in a long standing Socialistic, or Communistic society this wouldn't be much of a problem. However in a newly-formed Socialism (assuming the United States were to be revolutionized.) People would be used to the general idea of finding the worst product sellable. To combat these problems, the simplest solution is to instate supervisors. However by introducing a job which does none of the work, yet presides over it is against the principles, isn't it? Would supervising others be consitered non-exploitive?

- Compensation to those unemployed would suggest that a form of "money" was needed. Labor credits? Wage Coins? Could labor be tracked electronicly, and compensation be doled out according to who has done what? Physical compensation through money would promote crime wouldn't it? Albeit at an extremely low rate, but still existant?

- Unemployed wage would be given per individual in a family correct? Would familys who were unemployed be required to live off of one man's pay? If a family member started working, would the money for those who are not employed go up? Down? Stay the same? Would this be situational? Would all monitary situations be subjective and situatitive? Who would have a say in this?

Retirement would be acceptable at any age, older members of society would be treated as well as the rest of the population, if not more respected.

- Unemployment by Retirement, signifigantly increased compensation due to the unability to work? Situational compared to the ammount of work completed over the years? Inapplicable, work till you die?
-Care facilities being Government run? Older members of society to be shifted to more mind intensive work based on knowlege?

Travel to other Socialistic countries would be provided at little to no cost, as vocational schools would be a better environment for students who know what they want to do.

I could continue, but I think this first wave should be an extremely good learning experiance for me, and those who are in my shoes. :D Thanks much!

sovietsniper
8th February 2006, 10:18
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 09:52 AM
and have already decided what path they wish to follow.

Does this mean to imply that you are able to rise to any position you feel you are able to acheave?

If they choose not to work, they are given a minimum wage high enough to live on.

- Without "bosses" or "supervisors"

I understand that in a long standing Socialistic, or Communistic society this wouldn't be much of a problem.


1, We cant assume that.Thats got nouthing to do with polotics.
2, The should be entry tests or entry requrerments. theres no point letting a idiot train to be a brain surgen
3, Why should they get monly for sitting on there back-side all day?
4, Elect the bosses?
5, communistic society will have problems, it wont be a paradise.

anomaly
9th February 2006, 03:18
I don't think I need to copy/paste any bit of that, because there is one central theme I want to talk to you about.

You consistently speak of 'compensation' in the form of money; unequal compensation at that. You must realize that with the introduction of money, you have introduced class (there is no way around it). This, and other bits of your entire description, tell me that what you lay out here is not a socialist program. It is a reformist one.

You also seem rather apologetic of hierarchy in general, going so far as to suggest the existence of 'bosses'. Otherwise, you say, how could we know that the working class is doing things correctly?

Frankly, your system here sounds not too different from the social democracies of western Europe. You have money, classes, retirement, social programs, and you even assume the existence of an authoritative government.

I think we need to clarify what socialism is. It is the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is not some reformist capitalist system 'with a human face'. Socialism is the complete rule of the proletariat as a class. And it should, hopefully quickly, develop into communism.

sovietsniper
9th February 2006, 15:15
Was that to me or him?

anomaly
10th February 2006, 00:41
Him.

sovietsniper
11th February 2006, 10:41
Sorry,just got confused :(

anomaly
12th February 2006, 05:06
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 06:08 AM
Sorry,just got confused :(
It's cool. Atleast you post. The original poster does not seem inclined to respond to any arguments made against him.