What makes a socialist? - To all the cappies out there

[Sirion]

After readng a few topics here, I was starting to wonder what the cappies here think is required for a person to be considered socialist. So, sum it up, and post it here.

And, keep away things similiar to Stormin's sig. Posting those things will only make fools of ye...

[Stormin Norman]

What makes a socialist? This is an interesing question. I will give you the recipe passed down to me by my grandfather.

2 cups of dirt
3 cups of warm piss
1 Teaspoon of toenail shavings
1 horrible sense of self worth
1 illogical mind
1 inability to understand and appreciate greatness
1 hatred for all of humanity
1 of Al Gore's sense of humor
5 of Barbra Streissand's precious locks of nose hair
1 ability to excuse dictators and mass-murderers alike
1 ill-conceived version of economics
1 waste of skin
and a partridge in a pair tree

[Sirion]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 11:08 am on Jan. 5, 2003
What makes a socialist? This is an interesing question. I will give you the recipe passed down to me by my grandfather.

2 cups of dirt
3 cups of warm piss
1 Teaspoon of toenail shavings
1 horrible sense of self worth
1 illogical mind
1 inability to understand and appreciate greatness
1 hatred for all of humanity
1 of Al Gore's sense of humor
5 of Barbra Streissand's precious locks of nose hair
1 ability to excuse dictators and mass-murderers alike
1 ill-conceived version of economics
1 waste of skin
and a partridge in a pair tree

This wasnt EXACTLY what I was looking for (I think I mentioned I did'nt want idiocy like this somewhere in my first post). For those like Stormin, I will say it a bit easier:

I want to know what views on politics a person needs for you to consider him a socialist...

[Beccie]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 11:08 am on Jan. 5, 2003
What makes a socialist?
1 hatred for all of humanity


could you please explain how a socialist hates humanity more then a capitalist.

[Stormin Norman]

I posted that simply because you provoked me by mentioning my signature. I feel that this was exactly the type of response that you wanted, otherwise you wold not have mentioned yours truly. You knew I would not be able to resist, therefore you taunted me. If you wanted anything else you should not have directly attacked me. Since you failed on those counts, you got what you were asking for.

[Sirion]

Conspiracy theories all along!

Sorry, but this was never my opinion. I did not try to provoke you in any way, I only mentioned your sig because what it contains was a good example on the responses that I did not(I was looking for serious posts, not flames)...

So, anyone else?

[Anonymous]

Someone who uses the initiation of force in order to steal wealth from others in the name of compassion and social justice. They allow their own emotional distress over the state of others to drive them to the point where they no longer respect the rule of law.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 11:08 am on Jan. 5, 2003
What makes a socialist? This is an interesing question. I will give you the recipe passed down to me by my grandfather.

2 cups of dirt
3 cups of warm piss
1 Teaspoon of toenail shavings
1 horrible sense of self worth
1 illogical mind
1 inability to understand and appreciate greatness
1 hatred for all of humanity
1 of Al Gore's sense of humor
5 of Barbra Streissand's precious locks of nose hair
1 ability to excuse dictators and mass-murderers alike
1 ill-conceived version of economics
1 waste of skin
and a partridge in a pair tree


lmao....stormin normin, you're the greatest. This is all a big joke to you isn't it? what a character.

[Hayduke]

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 11:59 pm on Jan. 5, 2003
Someone who uses the initiation of force in order to steal wealth from others in the name of compassion and social justice. They allow their own emotional distress over the state of others to drive them to the point where they no longer respect the rule of law.


A guy with over 300 post's should have at least got a better view of socialist's.

If you see us that way, then what are you still doing here ?

[Umoja]

Okay you guys aren't being logical. Most Cappies here are very hateful, and so are quite a few of the commies here. If you refuse to see the advantages of either system, then one can never truly understand their own.

Capitalism, is meant to ensure complete economic freedom for every individual. It removes government restrictions to trade, and ideally creates a huge amount of competition that leads to large advances in technology. Unfortunatly the competition spills down in much larger amounts then it should, with employers intentionally needing to use un-employment to control wages, which can lead to racism, and the over comsumtion caused by Capitalism is generally dangerous to the enviorment. This isn't all inclusive of Capitalism, but it's Capitalism in a nutshell.

[Michael De Panama]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 5:08 am on Jan. 5, 2003
What makes a socialist? This is an interesing question. I will give you the recipe passed down to me by my grandfather.

2 cups of dirt
3 cups of warm piss
1 Teaspoon of toenail shavings
1 horrible sense of self worth
1 illogical mind
1 inability to understand and appreciate greatness
1 hatred for all of humanity
1 of Al Gore's sense of humor
5 of Barbra Streissand's precious locks of nose hair
1 ability to excuse dictators and mass-murderers alike
1 ill-conceived version of economics
1 waste of skin
and a partridge in a pair tree

Haha. Well, I know what makes a capitalist! Sheer cuteness! Teehee. :cheesy:

[HankMorgan]

What makes a socialist?

The belief that there should be equality of outcome, no matter how great the spread in ability, ambition or willingness to work. It is this belief that shackles the human spirit.

The belief that the person who has the idea and risks it all should benefit no more than anyone else. It is this belief that destroys incentive.

The ability to completely ignore basic facts of life such as a good or service is worth exactly what a willing buyer will pay for it. It is out of this mental illness that unworkable economic systems spring.

I could go on but I always feel guilty beating on someone down in the ash heap of history.

[synthesis]

The belief that there should be equality of outcome, no matter how great the spread in ability, ambition or willingness to work.

Communism is 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.' That is, likely, what you're thinking of.

Socialism is, from each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds. This in no way represents equality of outcome.

The ability to completely ignore basic facts of life such as a good or service is worth exactly what a willing buyer will pay for it. It is out of this mental illness that unworkable economic systems spring.

Unworkable? Norway's doing fantastically!

[HankMorgan]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds" doesn't sound like equality of outcome or like any of the ideas I read in other parts of che-lives (long may it prosper).

If Norway is doing fantastically then their economic system must take into account facts of life such as market value. Imagine something being worth the labor it took to make it. That would make my 286 powered computer more valuable than the Athlon I'm driving right now. Silliness.

[bombeverything]

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 6:59 pm on Jan. 5, 2003
Someone who uses the initiation of force in order to steal wealth from others in the name of compassion and social justice. They allow their own emotional distress over the state of others to drive them to the point where they no longer respect the rule of law.


What about the rule of natural law, or natural order? What about the law of reason? I [alongside many others] believe that nature works best without interference. This 'emotional distress' you are referring to is otherwise known as compassion.

[Umoja]

Since your 286 took more effort to make, of course it would be more valuable then your Atholon, that shows that advances in technologies simplify labor, and can lower cost, instead of increasing them.

[HankMorgan]

I'm not sure if you're pulling my leg Umoja.

[antieverything]

OK, I don't know about the rest of these guys, but I recognize that the labor theory of value is a gross oversimplification. Almost all value is instilled in a good through labor...somewhere down the road but at every level of this ladder of production (remember that the machines that make the machines have parts that are made by people) capital (in the form of machines) is still used to make labor more efficient. Labor AND capital give something value but capital cannot exist without the other...when it can, humanity ceases to have a purpose and let's just not get into the science fiction issue. The argument, therefore, shouldn't be about what produces wealth but rather which part of the production is more deserving of the wealth created: Labor or capital. Capital can exist without a capitalist...it isn't a human entity but labor is and only people have use for wealth.



This was supposed to be a SHORT post...can you believe it?

(Edited by antieverything at 3:50 am on Jan. 6, 2003)

[HankMorgan]

Labor doesn't impart any value to a product. For example, a man might put mighty effort into digging a hole in my front yard. Lots of labor but no value. In fact to me the hole would have negative value. If there is such a thing. A good or service is only worth what a willing buyer will pay.

Which leads to the second, more interesting part of your post, antieverything. I see where you're going with the idea of what part of the production is more deserving of the wealth created. There has to be reward for the innovation and risk needed to created a new enterprise (means of production for you folks). In your effort to see that labor not capital is rewarded, you throw out the incentive for risk and innovation. If there isn't a reward, the enterprise is never created.

There is another sad truth. The labor you seek to reward is a service that itself has a value determined by the market. Unfortunately the market value of a worker's effort may be below even a subsistence level.

The answer is to create more job opportunities for the worker. When there are more jobs relative to the number of workers, the market value of each worker goes up. That's what I want and I bet you do too.

What's the best way to create more jobs? That's easy. Make it more profitable to create a new enterprise (means of production). Give more reward to the people with the big ideas who are ready to bet everything on its success.

The fundamental idea is to work with human nature, not try to change human nature.

(Edited by HankMorgan at 12:20 am on Jan. 6, 2003)

[antieverything]

The value of labor is derived from market forces...there is no demand for a hole in the middle of a yard.

About innovation...market forces are important to keep production up and efficiency high, I agree. I don't agree that only a capitalist can create something new.

On this point, you are wrong...I agree that labor's value is determined by a market but markets are human creations and should be subject to human values. It is not consistant with the human values (you sure love "freedom" but what about freedom to live?) of our society for those who produce needed goods to not be rewarded in a way which is fair in our standards...not just by the market's standards. Markets are great but should be subordinate to the goals we use them for, they are not our gods.

The supply side ideas of job production and trickle down economics are severly flawed but it's late and I'll get into that later. (you do remember the Reagan years, don't you?) It is most profitable for capitalists to keep a number of workers unemployed and impoverished. Sure, the industrial revolution could have resulted in full employment and incredible production with less work on the part of each working man but that wouldn't be very profitable for those in control.

The fundamental idea is to create a system that works AND is compatible with human values. If market worship is compatible with your values, fine...but the rest of humanity would beg to differ.
[hr]
Oh, in reference to your 286, the worker is not payed in regards to the market value of the computer ten years in the future but of it at the time of production.

[synthesis]

One of the arguments I hear whenever I propose the idea of heavily taxing those who make a gargantuan amount of money off something that does not contribute to the well-being of society as a whole, such as a rock star or a stock broker, is that people would not take up these professions.

Money, they argue, is the incentive to pursue such a living; without said incentive, they say, no one would be a musician, politician, or an author.

My response, then, is that this incentive, that of undertaking such a duty as contributing to the culture of society as a whole, is one of the problems!

People today do not make music for their own pleasure or artistic expression any longer; they do it because they know they can get the money and the pussy if they work hard enough, or are born with enough singing talent to carry themselves effortlessly to the top of the charts.

True music, then, made by those who truly love making it, goes to the underground.

The best music is made not by those who seek to gain capital from its creation, but by those who passionately love making it.

The capitalists are actively profitting over such useless shams as the demand for an attractive look ever-present in today's society. Do the diet pills, the liposuctions, the plastic surgery benefit society as a whole? Quite the opposite! But they can make money off it, so they do it. The capitalist society revolves around supply and demand - all that remains is creating the demand that does not exist in the first place.

My point?

In a capitalist society, people are not driven to write the best music, create the most useful inventions, or serve the people the best; they are driven to write (or play) the most profitable songs, to invent the most profitable products, or present the most profitable propaganda.

In a society where money is no longer the incentive, only those who actually love making it will do so. Only those who truly care to invent an innovative, useful product will do so.

It seems obvious to me that the quality of the product, whether it be the song or the book, is directly proportional to the passion the person creating the product possessed at the time of conception.

When that passion is the only reason to create a product, only those possessed of such passion will do so. And therefore, only the truly useful products will emerge to serve society.

[/rant]

[HankMorgan]

I like to use the 286 vs Athlon 2100+ computer example because the people posting on che-lives (long may it prosper) are familiar with computers. They know that a 286 powered computer is worthless even though the amount of labor needed to make it may actually be greater than a much newer computer. The market sets the value of goods and services just like friction causes heat. The market isn't a god, more like a force of nature
like friction.

Imagine a country where taxes are so high it isn't possible to make money producing anything. Now imagine the government of that country trying to spur economic growth by increased spending, by increasing demand in other words. Becauses taxes are so high, nothing can be profitably produced. Maybe all the production takes place in another country. Nobody is producing therefore the workers are out of work. Since no goods are getting produced and the money supply is being inflated by government spending, there is high inflation. Because of inflation, lending institutions have to charge high interest rates because borrowers will be paying back loans with money that is worth less than when it was borrowed.

To review, the government has slowed production with high taxes yet seeks to spur the economy with spending. The result is unemployement, inflation and high interest rates.

Now imagine the government reduces taxes to the point where it's again profitable to produce. Companies start hiring workers to ramp up production. Unemployment goes down. Goods are produced to fill the demand created by the inflated money supply. Inflation goes down. With inflation gone, interest rates come down.

The time of high taxes was the 1970's in the US. As predicted, there followed high unemployment (10%), high inflation (12%) and high interest rates (21%).

Then came President Reagan and his tax cut. When it became profitable to do business in America, people went back to work. Working people produced the goods to meet the demand of the inflated dollar. Inflation disappeared and the interest rates fell.

This success was also repeated in Ireland which went from one of Europe's poorest countries to the thriving economy of today.

Keynes is wrong and Reagan is right. Economies only produce when it's profitable to produce.

The economy continued to grow all through the Reagan, Bush and Clinton years and even with the tax cut so did Federal Revenue. Federal Revenue finally outstripped Federal Spending in the late 1990's and budget surpluses appeared. (It also helped that Republicans gained control of the spending in the 1994 congressional elections).

In the 1980's, Federal Revenue increased but spending increased faster. If you're take home pay goes up and up but you still can't pay off the credit cards, what's the problem? Anyone who can't correctly answer that question is probably carrying credit card debt. It's not a hard question.

Some history for the younger members of che-lives. It fits here because it points out the importance of not destroying incentive with high taxes.

[antieverything]

That view of history, my friend, is nothing but right-wing revisionism. Reagan's tax cuts didn't create economic growth and high taxes under Carter didn't hurt the economy or cause inflation. In fact, the top tax rate hardly rose any at all under Carter (about 1%) and that was offset by what he did with the capital gains tax and his own string of deregulative measures. What caused inflation was deficit spending during 'Nam and what ended it was Keynesian monetary policies by the federal reserve--creating a recession now to save the economy later. Yep, inflation was whipped under Carter and the Fed flooded the market again after Reagan was in office--triggering 7 years of economic growth. What happened with Reagan's tax cuts? The rich pocketed it. And what about 1982--the recession that happened right after Reagan's tax cuts?

[Exploited Class]

Quote: from antieverything on 5:19 pm on Jan. 6, 2003
And what about 1982--the recession that happened right after Reagan's tax cuts?

Ketchup became a vegetable?

[antieverything]

besides that...

[Umoja]

The government should never control prices. Things should remain largely grassroots, with things being determined democratically on a small scale. The government is an organized bueracracy that generally loses it's attachment to it's people. A democratic economy is not. So, I assume that would put me in opposition to many of the Marxist-Leninist, but I walk a fine line.

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 6:59 pm on Jan. 5, 2003
Someone who uses the initiation of force...

That's funny. I could've sworn that such a thing as pacifist socialists existed.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Sirion, you pose an interesting question, what is socialism? But perhaps an even more fascinating one would be to ask the same question to your own side. I think you’d be stunned by the diversity of interpretation on the subject. Leading you to the conclusion that there are many different types of socialist thought. In essence socialism(or communism) is a critique of the present state of the world. It is defined more by what it is against(capitalism, & the projection of US power) then what it is for. Rarely will you find two socialists arguing over policy proposals that effect the real world, what would be the point, the whole system is corrupt in their view. The movement requires only two things from its followers One being a strong sense of Anti-Americanism, the other is being relatively naïve about how open economies and transparent governments actually function

Being an ex-socialist I certainly attest to this being my experience. None the less I’ll try and break down some of the thought processes that lead people to adopt socialism.

The hard-core ideologue These are the true believers, they subscribe to the ends justifies the means mentality. Revolution is the goal and genocide is an acceptable price to pay in order to achieve it.

The Humanist Socialist that are good natured and their primary concern is the welfare of man. They dislike capitalism because they find it morally degrading, and inhumane. They are also the most consistent as they would condemn the Chinese and the USA equally for any actions they felt were human rights abuses.

The elitist intellectual Ironic for a movement that claims to want a classless society, but these are the snobs of the movement. They are mostly the academics you find on college campuses. After all no one is as smart as they are, especially not the ignorant majority of Americans, who reject socialism and communism.

The conspiracy theorist for these guys everything that goes wrong is the result of a covert CIA plot or some large corporation. The ideology appeals to them because its dis-trust of both big business and the united states military.

The fashionable socialist In certain communities the ideology is in vogue and these are the people that are into the scene, they listen to anti establishment bands, and like independent films. In terms of actual substance they are the least ideological of the bunch, they know the mantra but not much else.

These are extremes of course most socialist are blends between these types ( I was a mixture of the last four). Rarely are any of them concerned with proposing any feasible solutions to problems and most (not all) cannot be bothered to change the political system using legitimate peaceful means (voting). All in all a peculiar bunch that is perpetually a minority among political thinkers and virtually nonexistent among economists.