Results 1 to 20 of 34
First of all, a dictionary definition of socialism:
so·cial·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm)
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a socialist economy would forbid private ownership of capital and resources and instead they would be owned exclusively by the 'collective'. That's all well and good but how will the Government seize all private property? How do you think people will react when their homes, businesses and properties are taken off them?
Also, a Socialist society would have no government I am lead to believe. So how do we get people to comply with collective ownership? If there is no government, what is to stop me from starting a successful business and keeping the profits for myself? If a police force is necessary to implement collective law - who is to administer and control it?
If businesses and individuals are forced to sacrifice their profits and property to the collective, won't a VERY LARGE black market spring up for those who don't want to be controlled by the state? I said 'very large' as all profits would have to be declared and then distributed 'fairly' amongst the workers, so you will have a lot of people trading illigitemately and not recording their proper earnings to escape the auspices of the collective.
That's just my theory I am interested to see how these questions may be answered if any of you have the time.
Nihilism: a philosophical position of the view that the world, and especially human existence, is without meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value.
First off, private property still exists in SOCIALISM, take a look at NEP Bolshevik Russia...
You're thinking of Communism,. where the state is no more - socialism is the transition state GOING TO COMMUNISM
The workers seize the means of production, meaning seizing those factories from the capitalist.
Ricardo Guevara
-Mr. Bolshevik, at your service
"Long live the Cuban working class! Long live the Latin American sister nations! Long live the nation! Fatherland or death! We shall win!"
So people will still be able to own their own houses, factories, stores and land? What if people use their privately owned factories to make profits? What if someone runs a home based business from their house and retails and distributes goods? How will the collective intervene and control these financial transactions?
Please tell me more about this 'transition state'? Would it require extreme regulations in order for businesses and individuals to comply with collective demands? Why do you think that a Government who will establish such power will one day secede all authority and hand over the state to the 'people'?You're thinking of Communism,. where the state is no more - socialism is the transition state GOING TO COMMUNISM
But if the capitalists owned the factories, wouldn't this be theft? And I thought you said that communism would enable private ownership?
And how exactly are the workers going to seize the means of production? Through violence? Won't someone else just take control?
Nihilism: a philosophical position of the view that the world, and especially human existence, is without meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value.
Is this really so hard to understand? Capitalism permits private property, communism doesn't. Socialism imposes more regulations on the economy and on accumulation wealth and narrows the gap between rich and poor.
"such power"??!!! what the fuck are you talking about? they would have no more power than any other government just by being socialist.Please tell me more about this 'transition state'? Would it require extreme regulations in order for businesses and individuals to comply with collective demands? Why do you think that a Government who will establish such power will one day secede all authority and hand over the state to the 'people'?You're thinking of Communism,. where the state is no more - socialism is the transition state GOING TO COMMUNISM
oooooooooh no, not theft!!! god forbid those poor capitalits wont be able to exploit their workers anymore. As for your next sentence; (sorry to repeat myself) what the fuck are you talking about, NO! communism forbids private ownership, thats the whole point!But if the capitalists owned the factories, wouldn't this be theft? And I thought you said that communism would enable private ownership?
dont take that statement too literally, they wont walk into the factories and carry off the machinery. The government would outlaw private ownership and nationalise the economy, the governemt in communist society being representative of the workers. Such a government could be achieved in several ways, violence is one of them but not the only one (although some communists may disagree with that).
As for your absurd comment about taking away peoples houses; they would be allowed to live in their houses, they just wouldn't be able to sell them or pass them on as inheritence, its not like the state takes all their possesions.
There is no theft when the workers take control of their work place. It is theft to have someone who does no work who leaches off the work of others. The capitalist may hire and fire and seek contracts, but that can all be done the workers themselves, and will probaly done more effectively, as profit means less to a collective then it does to a single power authority.
Private ownership is not necassary when society runs on respect and making sure noone is left behind, remember what they taught you in kingergarten?
There are many ways to sieze the means of production. Strikes, ignoring the chain of command and occupying the factory, buying out the company by the workers (o.O not what I'd prefer), and of course having a benevolent capitalist who gives the riegns to the workers and then fucks off, or joins them as a normal worker.
I have a question regarding this. If employees decided that instead of receiving a part of the (not so sure) future profit, choose to receive a steady income now, is this still exploitation?
Inter pedes puellarum magna voluptas puerorum est
I like Mao's method of killing all the impirialist pigs, re-educating the new classless society to become equal and self sufficiant. Bush would be hung on CNN (communist news network) We could all be united, working and learning together evolving into a more efficient holistic and positivley motivated people.
where people will focus on each other and the world as a whole entity, instead of worrying about profit and ownership, the new rigeime in power would provide trade relations, if you are interested in this, do it for the people, the profit will be shared.
peace yall
peace yall
Socialism does NOT narrow the gap between rich and poor. At worst it creates enormous inequality and at best it makes everyone poor. The more welfare is given out the greater the dis-incentive to work and succeed. Many minority groups have suffered this fate because of overly generous handouts from the Government. When given everything all of your life, it severely diminishes your work ethic. High tax rates for the rich would also stop people from working harder and succeeding because why bother if marginal tax rates are so high that you are better off working menial jobs or living on welfare? And regulations usually favour one industry over another (ie. tariffs, subsidies), plus regulations on businesses just add more costs and make them less able to perform and hire more workers. In other words socialism completely rips off everybody, except for the bureau-rats.
"The size of Government depends on their total amount of spending as proportional to GDP. A socialist government would be high spending, and highly controlling through laws and regulations - thus giving them more power.
How can it be theft if the worker has agreed to work for that wage. If he/she doesn't like the wage then they can either re-negotiate or try and get another job.
As for value inputs by the worker - many other variables also go into the product to produce value (like capital and technology, plus other producers in the value chain). It is not so clearcut as the worker produces all of the profit for the capitalist. BUT.......
THE KEY THING IS (now pay attention), is how that capital is used in the first place to make a profit. Profits don't magically appear as soon as you manufacture something. You need marketing, competitive pricing, quality product, salesmanship, new innovations, expansions - all which need to be decided by the company managers. Therefore they are the ones who are responsible for the profit (and the owner provided the original impetus to put up the credit to create the business anyway). If you start a business and need to hire a worker - you don't have them dictate terms to you, as you are the genesis and brainchild/director of the business. Furthermore, if workers are to take their share of business profits why wouldn't they also take share of the losses (even though they are not responsible for the losses - how could they?) Why don't lefties understand this?
It would be thuggery, violence and mob rule - you know it.
Bullshit - if you can't sell your house then you hardly own it. It is owned by the state. That is fucked.
In communism everyone is equal - equally poor!
Nihilism: a philosophical position of the view that the world, and especially human existence, is without meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value.
You're not going to have a self sufficient society if everyone is made to be dependant on the state for the livelihood.Originally posted by Rasta Sapian@Nov 30 2003, 11:57 PM
I like Mao's method of killing all the impirialist pigs, re-educating the new classless society to become equal and self sufficiant. Bush would be hung on CNN (communist news network) We could all be united, working and learning together evolving into a more efficient holistic and positivley motivated people.
where people will focus on each other and the world as a whole entity, instead of worrying about profit and ownership, the new rigeime in power would provide trade relations, if you are interested in this, do it for the people, the profit will be shared.
peace yall
And I guess anyone who disagrees with communist ideology will be jailed or killed, like the political prisoner's under Stalin's regime.
Wonderful. Sign me up, comrade.
Nihilism: a philosophical position of the view that the world, and especially human existence, is without meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value.
YOu make many assumptions. Tote the party line. Perhaps you'd like to step away from your socialization for a moment?
Capitalism, where the rich are lazy and the poor are serfs in all but name
'Tis a taste of your own medicine no? Highly inefficetive no?
I believe that you, sir, are an idiot. Party line. Unable to see past socialization. Stalin does not equal communism.
~this is pete after a weekend of essay writing...~
CrazyPete,
I was not socialised to believe in libertarianism, capitalism, individualism and laissez faire free markets - I investigated them for myself. I have also read up on socialism and communism (although I still get confused between the two).
I was brought up in a state school as are the majority of others in so callled 'capitalist' countries. Since schools are essentially socialist - how could I have been indoctrinated into capitalism via the school system?
In fact libertarianism is a very rarely practised ideal in Australia. Most people believe in a mixed economy (a combination of capitalist markets and government intervention to varying degrees).
Nihilism: a philosophical position of the view that the world, and especially human existence, is without meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value.
You may not have been socialised into these particular ideas but you were socialised into a state of capitalist hegemony which made you more receptive to capitalist view points and reluctant to critisice capitalism and very quick to critisice communism, as most of us were, surely you aren't saying to you were commpletely objective and open minded.
where did you get this impression? schools are renouned for rienforcing capitalism and indoctinating young people with capitalist properganda. Have you studies modern history? no doubt if u have you will believe that america was the most important factor in winning WW2 when in fact the USSR destoryed 90% of the nazi units and the USA only joined the war when Russian troops were already merching on belin. School enforce a hierachical structure on children and teaches them to blindly obey the authority of higher members of the heirachy, schools often impose unfair and pointless rules without explaining to pupils why, this teaches them not to question the rules or the authority of their 'superiors'. Along with Religion and the Media, Education in concidered among sociologist to be one of the main methods of socialisation (not just marxist sociologists, functionalists agree but believe that it is a good thing).
The only thing they teach you at school is that all good things come from the state, I don't see what that has to to with capitalism.
Inter pedes puellarum magna voluptas puerorum est
Then you're blind.
This is absolute rubbish. At school we were never taught about finance or running our own businesses. We were never instructed about alternatives to the democratic system or the faults in the current political system.
Economics is offered but is only a very basic outline of the field and doesn't discuss the intrinsic philosophy of it.
For one thing all of the Government propaganda is essentially socialist - election promises always aim towards more government spending and even more government control (always backed up by emotional rhetoric). From very early on we are taught that the state police are the good guys and not to question the government and its laws as they are all for the good of society. We are led to believe that we must pay taxes and participate in democratic elections (where, in Australia, you are fined if you don't vote).
Think about it; why would Government bureaucrats want to give up their power to tax and control you. It is their livelihood at stake not the people who engage in free market activities (who must shoulder the tax and regulatory burdens placed on them by Government).
As for schools and their education methods - these are decided by bureaucrats not capitalists. Their alleged slanted teaching of the outcome of the war does not favour capitalism it favours certain governments who participated in the war. War and state schools are socialist in nature because they are funded collectively therefore they are as alien to capitalism as the communist manifesto.
Nihilism: a philosophical position of the view that the world, and especially human existence, is without meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value.
Do you really think they want to train people to compete with them? your point would seem to support my argument.
Errrm...thats because they dont you to know these things so you wont question capitalism. Again your point supports my argument.
Why would it, they don't want you to rival them nor do they want to demystify economics because then you'd realise that they dont deserve their wealth. Are actually argueing with me or did you have a change of heart?
What does this have to do with the education system, or you're assertion that my post was "rubbish" ?
Have you figured out yet that the state you are told not to question is capitalist? are you trying to prove my point or something cos i could swear you were suposed to be criticising it.
"led to believe"? You do, it's the law. This is not even propaganda let alone socialist properganda as you claim.
because they are bougois and as such gets lots and lots and lots of money from capitalism and if there was no capitalism they would have less money and their main supporters (the business owners) couldn't use the media to put them in power.
They are decided by bureaucrats apointed by capitalists. You see Nyder, the media can make people vote for whoever they want, the media is owned by very very rich people so they get people to vote for right wing parties, these parties are made up of the bougoirsie who suck up to the other bougois to maintain their power.
ARE YOU SAYING WAR IS SOCIALIST IN NATURE? If you mean that schools are funded by taxes this maked no differnce, McDonalds fund themselves by taking money from people does this make McDonalds 'as alien to capitalism as the communist manifesto' becuase it is funded 'collectively'?
I have to say you did a good job of proving yourself wrong.
I think that you need to decide whose side you are on. From what I have read, you either: believe we are living in a socialist state, think that we need more laissez-faire- style regulation of business (or lack thereof), are are a fascist. I'm going to lean a little towards the latter. Your nearly automatic disdain for anything leftist makes me think of all of the little drones at the local high school. Communism and socialism do not make people poor and do not widen the gap between classes. It eliminates class distinction by eliminating exploitation. Houses will not be forcibly seized, and if you only want your house to sell it, then you have bigger problems than not being able to argue politics. The point is that everyone should have what they need to live, and trust me, there is enough to go around- for instance, did you know that there is enough food grown worldwide to give everyone in the world 3500 calories a day to eat. Why are people starving then? Well, in order to pay for other necessities (land, housing, etc.), poor farmers sell their food to far away places for money to pay for these things. That is capitalism. that is what happens. Promoting capitalism is promoting amorality, apathy towards others' suffering and exploitation, and a cynical attitude towards the working class.
Murder is a crime- unless it is done by a police man or an aristocrat.- The Clash
Misodoctakleidist, I'll put this in caps so you pay attention:
THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT CAPITALIST!
Government and capitalism are two seperate things. Government is funded by taxes which need to be taken by force and/or the threat of force.
Free enterprise trades goods and services to make money.
You cannot blame free enterprise for what the Government does. What the Government does has nothing to do with free enterprise.
Nihilism: a philosophical position of the view that the world, and especially human existence, is without meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value.
Fuckwar, you appear to dislike war.
Did you know that every war in history has been started by a collective? Capitalism has nothing to do with war as it does not involve free enterprise. It is always Government that is responsible for war (it doesn't matter who influences the Government - it is Government at fault).
Now, to your post:
If I can't sell something I own or do what I want with it, then I don't own it, do I? Selling something means trasferring the ownership rights to another party. When trying to sell communism to the public, you had better not mention that their ownership over their own property will be taken away (if they do sell, what then? - you will send state police to take their money off them?)
The reason why so many people are starving in the third world is because of the regimes in those countries.
Promoting communism is promoting immorality. It surmises that the individual is just a tool to be used and abused for the collective.
The working class are exploited by the Government and taxation. For example, in Australia the average income earner works a third of the year for the taxman. All of this money does not go into essential services that could not be provided by the free market. When Governments or collectives let people keep their money then you will end exploitation.
Nihilism: a philosophical position of the view that the world, and especially human existence, is without meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value.
Apparently you have a deeply ingrained lack of knowledge about Marxism. You seem to think that a Marxist revolution entails a small party overtaking the state.
Here's a little primer on Marxism. Marx postulated that as capitalist-industrial technology grew (i.e., that technology which smooths the process of production and makes things more efficient) then the bourgeoisie would have less and less need for workers and therefore would downsize as necessary. Unemployment then creates a labor surplus which the bourgeoisie uses as a justification for reducing wages and worsening conditions.
Eventually, as the technology has grown so efficient, then the wages are so low, the conditions are so bad, and the unemployment is so high that the proletariat has no other option for survival but to revolt. The government following the revolution is called Socialism - the dictatorship of the proletariat, just as Capitalism is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and Feudalism is the dictatorship of the aristocracy. It is a class dictatorship necessary to eliminate traces of bourgeois resistance.
Using the dialectical method of analysis, Marx looked beyond the form of the state (purporting to repress natural human instincts, that old capitalist scapegoat) and found its function - not human repression, necessarily, but that of class suppression. The proletariat utilizes the state to suppress the bourgeoisie. Once there is only the proletariat, the working class, there is no need for the state and it will vanish. Communism takes advantage of the extremely efficient (almost entirely automated) technology and puts it to public use rather than private use.
With all basic needs provided for, humanity is free to pursue anything they want. The pressure of a life as an artist disappears; an artist can now create truly excellent art as opposed to creating that art which enables him to survive off his earnings. Same with scientists and inventors; since the material incentive (i.e. the material necessity) is gone, the scientist is free to develop medicines that benefit the community rather than produce capital for the scientist, as the inventor is free to develop technology that benefits the community rather than produce capital for the inventor. Medicines and technology are inherently beneficial except when restricted to a private sector.
There are problems with the Marxist prediction, of course. In addition to more efficient technology, the bourgeoisie moves jobs overseas to turn a greater profit. The job flight creates nationalistic rather than socialistic tendencies among the workers, and nationalism is inherently opposed to socialism in that socialism is international.
But all in all, it makes sense to me. More so than a dictum which paradoxically champions both the free market and government deregulation. As if a free market could exist in a society where a monopoly is not prohibited.
"to become a philosopher, start by walking very slowly"
