The ULTIMATE SOCIALIST PLAN - Finally it is time

[Lardlad95]

Come on people it is time damn it...no more pointless bickering

we are going to sit downa dn disscus this GOD DAMN IT

No more sidetracking

we are going to sit down and argue over every subject of socialism one by one until we get a clear defined plan

in this thread we will start with one subject argue until we come to cnsensis then we will move on

WE WILL STAR WITH ECONOMICS

ANYONE WANT TO START?

[Larissa]

Economics is such a complex subject! Can't we start with something easier?

[Conghaileach]

Marx wrote three volumes of Das Kapital, hundreds upon hundreds of pages, on economics. I agree with Larissa that this may not be the best starting point.

[Lardlad95]

Ok..by economics I mean modern economics and how they can be structured in a sociakist society

[Xvall]

Economics? What is economics? We must take a look.

Economics is defined as the social science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services and with the theory and management of economies or economic systems.

In all aspects. The free market is a twisted and chaotic form of economics. The production, distribution, and consuption of goods and services is random; fluxuating back and forth. Ownership of 'business' is more oftenly given to priviledged individuals who have descended from the upper class rather than earned through truthful and sincere means. I assume that under socialism or communism; such a state of being would be abolished. Capitalism is often compared to the game monopoly. However, it has little, if any similarities. You must remember. In the game of monopoly, everyone starts with the same amount of money in the exact same location. All property is free and open to be purchased at the player's expense. They all collect the same amount of money as they pass go. Capitalism is nothing like this. All people are not created equally in such a system. Some are created in a more secure location. Some are created with more money than others. Some earn massive amounts of money for sitting in meetings; listening to their corporate advisers talk about which workers they need to lay off in order to make even more amounts of money. Some earn a miniscule amount of money for working for the individuals I have just mentioned. Capitalism is hell. As I have stated. I assume such things would be abolished under socialism and capitalism. Likely; there will be little if any gap between the rich and the poor.

Discuss.

[Lardlad95]

The thing though is how do we convert this chaotic psuedo free trade system into a socialist one

In the past we have seen that when this occurs the farmland is seized and collectivised

Then guess what happens production plummets

there must be a way to over come this

[Larissa]

Found this on the web...
(...)"According to E.P. Thompson, there is an optional way to understand the economic world, different from political economy, that of moral economy, which reflects the ineludible fact that human life cannot be solved by the market place.
"No society has ever accepted that the market place should decide over the life and death of human beings. The work force is not a common merchandise, whose value and degree of occupation may be decided with impunity by the market forces.
"The moral element is inevitably involved. When governments and business managers forget it, the population rebels in one way or another. The rise
in the price of bread may stabilize the offer and demand of bread, but it does not solve people's hunger. The works of Scott and Thompson show us that the moral responsibility for people's lives is a fact present in most societies. What we should consider anomalous are times and places where that responsibility is diluted as seems to be the case in today's neoliberal world." (...)
Excerpt of J Boltevik's editorial "Moral Economy II" ("La Jornada", 10-11-97)

[Lardlad95]

ok Then we have taken a loook at the definition of economy now we need to figure out how to keep it supported

as I have stated through collectiveising farms production usually plummets rapidly

how do we avoid this?

[Lardlad95]

so no one has ever thought about how to keep production up in the transition

[Saint-Just]

It depends on the state of the rural economy. In developed countries, agriculture is often around 5% of the economy. It would be far less of a problem to collectivise farms in a developed economy.

The problems with collectivisation usually arise because of the speed at which it is done.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Chairman Mao on 4:18 pm on Jan. 25, 2003
It depends on the state of the rural economy. In developed countries, agriculture is often around 5% of the economy. It would be far less of a problem to collectivise farms in a developed economy.

The problems with collectivisation usually arise because of the speed at which it is done.

as opposed to teh great leap to death...i mean teh great leap forward

anyway I think you are correct that in a developed country it will be easier

however have we considered the people working on them?

THey are key to production..I think it is mainly their lack of work ethic post reformation

[chamo]

People need to be keen to work for a socialist economy, that's why the transition needs to be slow and open. If we were to jump straight into a new economy where people need to work out of their own free will, you would find that many people would be to lazy to do anything due to the lives that they have led in the capitalist system where hard work and good education needs to be done in order to achieve a good quality of life. Though it should not be this due to it's uncertainty and uncaring policy (but I won't go in depth to that now), people would still live to these guidelines. If they see nothing coming directly from doing some hard work, then they will not bother, even though there is a large collective benefit from people's effort, they will not see this as a direct result affecting them.
So the change needs to be with an enthusiastic peoples. Even if the people are not that enthusiastic we can still make it work through change and benefit.

Is someone to record all the end results and decisions of our debating and mind racking in a more condensed record.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from happyguy on 5:04 pm on Jan. 25, 2003
People need to be keen to work for a socialist economy, that's why the transition needs to be slow and open. If we were to jump straight into a new economy where people need to work out of their own free will, you would find that many people would be to lazy to do anything due to the lives that they have led in the capitalist system where hard work and good education needs to be done in order to achieve a good quality of life. Though it should not be this due to it's uncertainty and uncaring policy (but I won't go in depth to that now), people would still live to these guidelines. If they see nothing coming directly from doing some hard work, then they will not bother, even though there is a large collective benefit from people's effort, they will not see this as a direct result affecting them.
So the change needs to be with an enthusiastic peoples. Even if the people are not that enthusiastic we can still make it work through change and benefit.

Is someone to record all the end results and decisions of our debating and mind racking in a more condensed record.

your saying the transition must be slow

set out a makeshift plan...10 year summary

it can be short but lets see where you are going with this

[chamo]

That the tranisition should eventually be towards a classless communist economy. Socialism is a tranisitionary period and is even more unsustainable than capitalism.
I'm not to sure on the plan, but it would involve first the transition to weak socialism, while people are educated yet classes still exist and companys have less but a bit of a significant power. When I talk about educate, I mean to teach them of the Communist Plan and why you should voluntarily work towards this plan and why the capitalist system was wrong and failed. The economy would involve all the working of a socialist one, free education, healthcare, pretty much like the British Welfare state. Then the communist plan can start to be worked towards, say after about 4 years. The tranistion towards this plan would take a further 6 years, the nationalisation of industries, the seizure of resources and materials, buildings, construction and factories. Agriculture has a large part to play as it is the main food producer. It would be manned so that it is efficent yet eco-friendly. The main aim is to eliminate poverty and starvation. Then low crime rates and education and health can be worked on. Then after that a changing of the nation's moral standards and then raising the quality of life with luxuries. The whole transition could take 10 years, the rest of the plan about 20 or 30 years until it is complete.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from happyguy on 5:50 pm on Jan. 25, 2003
That the tranisition should eventually be towards a classless communist economy. Socialism is a tranisitionary period and is even more unsustainable than capitalism.
I'm not to sure on the plan, but it would involve first the transition to weak socialism, while people are educated yet classes still exist and companys have less but a bit of a significant power. When I talk about educate, I mean to teach them of the Communist Plan and why you should voluntarily work towards this plan and why the capitalist system was wrong and failed. The economy would involve all the working of a socialist one, free education, healthcare, pretty much like the British Welfare state. Then the communist plan can start to be worked towards, say after about 4 years. The tranistion towards this plan would take a further 6 years, the nationalisation of industries, the seizure of resources and materials, buildings, construction and factories. Agriculture has a large part to play as it is the main food producer. It would be manned so that it is efficent yet eco-friendly. The main aim is to eliminate poverty and starvation. Then low crime rates and education and health can be worked on. Then after that a changing of the nation's moral standards and then raising the quality of life with luxuries. The whole transition could take 10 years, the rest of the plan about 20 or 30 years until it is complete.


And communism is sustainable? COme on now.....

some people will get far to greedy and vie for power... there will be a breaking point

Socialism is sustainable..depending on the form

Now you are looking at socialism in the marxist sense

however i am speaking about socialism in it's own whole form.

Socialism is more easily attianable and sustainable

the transition to communism is rought with pitfalls

every link in the chain has to work for communism it run smoothly

The transition from Socialism to communism (not that one should or is needed to be made)

will take a very long time

why because people will need to get used to it...

communal living isn't as always easy as it appears to be

[Pete]

Shouldn't the goal of Socialism be to first slow down all needless production of useless things like big weapons and non-public transit. By doing this there will be less of the needless work being done, so it can be spread thinner among the population, and then those who have no jobs can choice to go to some unpopulated area and start a farming co-op or to convince a current worker to do that and take that posistion. Thats a bit rough, but different. We don't have to keep up production, that is a stupid idea if it is a global revolution. Slow it down, control the beast, give people their lives back.

[Umoja]

I'd have to think that a mix between the economic plans of the Association of State Green Parties (aka The Green Party) and the Socialist Party, would lead to a good Socialized economy for the united states. The Green Party one seems more feasible to me for the short term, because some of the reforms for the Socialist party alieanate it. They'd have a minium wage of around 10 dollars, and the maxium income could only be 10 times that of the minimum because of a very steeply graduated income tax.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 4:06 am on Jan. 26, 2003
Shouldn't the goal of Socialism be to first slow down all needless production of useless things like big weapons and non-public transit. By doing this there will be less of the needless work being done, so it can be spread thinner among the population, and then those who have no jobs can choice to go to some unpopulated area and start a farming co-op or to convince a current worker to do that and take that posistion. Thats a bit rough, but different. We don't have to keep up production, that is a stupid idea if it is a global revolution. Slow it down, control the beast, give people their lives back.


Who said individual transportation is necasarrily useless?

With the exception of New York, philledelphia, Chicago, and Milwaukee

most of the public transportation systems I've seen have sucked

so unless you are planning on somehow making Beaufort South Carolina a city with a subway system

I see cars sticking around

as far as umjoma I think that minimum wage reform is a good idea

currently a ceo makes 400 times more than an average emply..that must be stopped

[kornbob]

what do you mean useless (weapons) I mean yeah it would be great if weapons were useless but hey they arent gonna be useless in LONG time and weapons is how che became famous sort of

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from kornbob on 2:26 pm on Jan. 26, 2003
what do you mean useless (weapons) I mean yeah it would be great if weapons were useless but hey they arent gonna be useless in LONG time and weapons is how che became famous sort of

I think he meant biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons of mass destruction