Socialism. Why not?

If you want socialism to work at all it has to be spontaneous and with mutual agreement. You cant impose it on people unwilling to participate. Otherwise you just end up with state run capitalism and people like Maxim parading around shouting about how those workers who refuse to join the collective must be exterminated like rats.

The complaints I hear about socialism is that it takes away the individual's role in society, by forcing all to be equal and to some extent I can see the point. My point in return is that we need to change the values within our society, so that the acquisition of wealth is not the motivating factor for success. Surely values of helping one another and community are more important than ones ability to make financial gain.
The important jobs in our society, like the teacher and the nurse should be deemed to have more value to society than Wall Street traders, yet it is the Wall Street trader or salesman who reaps the rewards of our society. Traders dont actually contribute anything to society, they push electronic numbers around on a screen, yet are rewarded much more so than those who really make a difference to our lives.

We need to change our values, so people's competitive and individual desires can be used to benefit communities not just themselves.

Just a thought

When people think of 'socialism' they think of any additional taxes imposed on the rich. Something fox news did a good job of perpetuating.

You Said,

"I don't know about you, but personally, I like learning, and I would go to school forever if I knew I could have a roof over my head and all those basic needs. But that's just me."

My interpretation,

"I don't want to work, so it would be awesome if I could just go to school the rest of my life and have everything I need given to me by others."

There's one of the main problems with your idea. There would be a lot of people that wouldn't want to actually contribute anything to this great utopian society you have in mind.

Originally posted by jnyblujns
You Said,

"I don't know about you, but personally, I like learning, and I would go to school forever if I knew I could have a roof over my head and all those basic needs. But that's just me."

My interpretation,

"I don't want to work, so it would be awesome if I could just go to school the rest of my life and have everything I need given to me by others."

There's one of the main problems with your idea. There would be a lot of people that wouldn't want to actually contribute anything to this great utopian society you have in mind.

How is learning not contributing to society? So, okay, maybe we should put a maximum limit on education. Say 20 years post high school. Or something.

I don't see any reason why my utopian society would not work, and I believe any apparent flaws in my plan could be rectified if need be while maintaining and respecting free will as much as possible.

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by jnyblujns
You Said,

"I don't know about you, but personally, I like learning, and I would go to school forever if I knew I could have a roof over my head and all those basic needs. But that's just me."

My interpretation,

"I don't want to work, so it would be awesome if I could just go to school the rest of my life and have everything I need given to me by others."

There's one of the main problems with your idea. There would be a lot of people that wouldn't want to actually contribute anything to this great utopian society you have in mind.

How is learning not contributing to society? So, okay, maybe we should put a maximum limit on education. Say 20 years post high school. Or something.

I don't see any reason why my utopian society would not work, and I believe any apparent flaws in my plan could be rectified if need be while maintaining and respecting free will as much as possible.

The act of learning itself contributes nothing to society. It's what you do with that knowledge that matters. I was just going by the fact that you said you'd go to school forever. If you did that, you would never actully contribute anything. Going to school forever doesn't produce food or clothing or shelter or anything else.

Don't get me wrong, in theory, if everyone was somehow of the exact same mindset in the world, your idea is great. It would be awesome if we could all just get along and provide for each other and tell "the man" to go to hell. My point was just that it would never work in reality because there would be millions of people that would not do anything at all and expect those who did produce food and clothing and shelter to give it to them for free.

Come to think of it......that's one of the primary problems with our country now.

Originally posted by jnyblujns

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by jnyblujns
You Said,

"I don't know about you, but personally, I like learning, and I would go to school forever if I knew I could have a roof over my head and all those basic needs. But that's just me."

My interpretation,

"I don't want to work, so it would be awesome if I could just go to school the rest of my life and have everything I need given to me by others."

There's one of the main problems with your idea. There would be a lot of people that wouldn't want to actually contribute anything to this great utopian society you have in mind.

How is learning not contributing to society? So, okay, maybe we should put a maximum limit on education. Say 20 years post high school. Or something.

I don't see any reason why my utopian society would not work, and I believe any apparent flaws in my plan could be rectified if need be while maintaining and respecting free will as much as possible.

The act of learning itself contributes nothing to society. It's what you do with that knowledge that matters. I was just going by the fact that you said you'd go to school forever. If you did that, you would never actully contribute anything. Going to school forever doesn't produce food or clothing or shelter or anything else.

Don't get me wrong, in theory, if everyone was somehow of the exact same mindset in the world, your idea is great. It would be awesome if we could all just get along and provide for each other and tell "the man" to go to hell. My point was just that it would never work in reality because there would be millions of people that would not do anything at all and expect those who did produce food and clothing and shelter to give it to them for free.

Come to think of it......that's one of the primary problems with our country now.

Well that's the purpose of this thread, for you to figure out why it won't work, and for me or someone else to come up with a solution. My solution is no one gets anything unless they work or are going to school. You can only go to school for x amount of years while learning various trades. There would need to be some math involved to find out the most practical maximum amount of schooling. When someone becomes disabled or old, they can simply quit work and still receive everything they need. Only under these and other unmentioned reasonable terms can someone choose not go to work or school.

Really the only thing I can see that prevents this from working is it would probably have to become a global effort in order to freely distribute the world's resources. Otherwise, if we were to remain restricted to the confines of our own country, for this to properly work, we would probably have to give up, or limit consumption of a few leisures, like oil for example. Now we're getting into the realm of the NWO and bible prophecy and such, which actually isn't a bad idea, but religious fanatics are scared of the idea.

The love of money really is the root of all (or most) evil. Getting rid of money would get rid of evil (or most of it).

Title should read 'Unlimited State Power and Violence: Why Not?'

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
Title should read 'Unlimited State Power and Violence: Why Not?'

You're wrong. The people have the power always, even when the laws make us think we don't. Just look at what happened in Egypt recently. If the government has too much power, you simply, overthrow them.

Did you even read my post? Or did you already know what you were going to say when you read the title? Because my post didn't talk or imply anything about "Unlimited State Power and Violence."

I'm talking about a government free from corruption who has the countries best interests at heart, what are you talking about? Not what I'm talking about, I promise you.

The people have the power always, even when the laws make us think we don't.

Certainly. The power emits from the consent of the governed, even in a dictatorship.

Just look at what happened in Egypt recently. If the government has too much power, you simply, overthrow them.

Do you believe the new military dictatorship of Egypt has more or less power than its predecessor?

Did you even read my post? Or did you already know what you were going to say when you read the title? Because my post didn't talk or imply anything about "Unlimited State Power and Violence."

To be perfectly frank, I read the title and responded flippantly based on it. If you were in any way being sarcastic or rhetorical in your meaning, then I apologize for my offhand remark, and withdraw.

But if you were indeed being strait forward in your query and you genuinely dont understand why others would reject socialism on its face, then my comment stands, and is totally accurate.

I'm talking about a government free from corruption

You make a number of assumtions and commit to some serious fallicies in this short sentence alone. You assume, wrongly, that there can exist such a thing as a government (which can more accurately be described as a *monopoly of violence*) which is free of corruption. Firstly, no such thing has existed in the history of mankind, and secondly, no such thing is *possible*, as the monopoly of the initiation of force that you ephemistically refer to as a *government* is inherently corrupt and progressively corrupting. (as all history shows.)

No one can point the gun aggressively at others are remain moral and thus uncorrupted. Government, and *especially* socialist government, is fundamentally just a gun pointed at its opposition to its monopoly. To advocate socialism is simply to advocate the biggest gun pointed at the most amount of people.

who has the countries best interests at heart

That you believe government actually exists to serve the 'people' (whoever they are, as the 'people' disagree radically almost always), or that you believe such a state could be willed into existence via the point of gun barrel, indicates to me that you dont properly understand the concepts which you advocate.

what are you talking about?

I think i was pretty clear.

Not what I'm talking about, I promise you.

I do not need your promises to know that your premises are inherently contradictary and thus invalid.

The answer is very obvious why this won't work. Just look at the Soviet Union and why the people were not happy with it. Shouldn't take you much research to get your answers.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

Try living in a socialist country for a while. Heck, anywhere in the EU would do, don't need to visit Venesuela or Cuba. I'm not being snarky, youngster, but to gain a real perspective, you have to actually experience all the good/bad things that another type of government has to offer.
It's easy to "armchair quarterback" a new type of government. instead, take a year or two and live somewhere different.

You might be surprized and what you find.

Yes because Europe in general, and especially countries like Sweden must just be hell on earth, what a horrible place to live:

Average working hours per week
United States – 46.0
Sweden — 39.9

Unemployment Rate
United States – 8.8
Sweden — 7.9

Public Debt
U.S. 93% of GDP (Jan 2011)
Public debt 43.2% of GDP (2009 est.)

GDP per capita (world bank 2010)
Sweden - 48,875
U.S. - 47,284

Population below poverty
Sweden - 7.5%
U.S. - 14%

Infant morality rate
Sweden - 2.74
U.S. 6.9

Gini coefficient (measure of inequality UN r/p 10%)
Sweden - 6.2
U.S. - 15.9
(just for reference Uganda is 16.6, Kenya is 13.6, Japan is 4.5, and France is 9.1)

World Health Care Rankings
Sweden - 23
U.S. - 37

Lets see, some other countries that don't have social safety net programs, health care or retirement benefits, developed infrastructure, hospitals, public schools, and other "socialistic" programs, like Pakistan, and a majority of African countries...are obviously far superior. Yes Beezer, I think you should move there, as the U.S. and Europe, should obviously be hated for it's "socialismz" Our kids are all probably going to grow up to be little Hitlers as a result of public schools, roads, firemen, and hospitals, better get out while you can!!!

[by the way, I'm not endorsing the OPs opinion, there flaws in any utopian type vision, however the idea that something is bad just because it is "socialistic" is equally as dangerous. Most of the time when these people say OMG SOCIALISM!!!, they don't actually have an understanding of the what it actually means.]..Although anyone with a computer can view the wiki entry and find out (Here)

reply to post by smithjustinb


if you want socialism ,go have yourself thrown in jail, they will tell you what to do,and what to wear, and how to behave,they will provide you with food,cloths and a roof over your head, and if you are real good,you might get a tv of your own.for a person to ask such a question they could not possibly know what the true meaning of socialism is.

Why no socialism? Because sooner or later you're going to run out of my money, and then we'll both be poor.

Originally posted by infojunkie2
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

if you want socialism ,go have yourself thrown in jail, they will tell you what to do,and what to wear, and how to behave,they will provide you with food,cloths and a roof over your head, and if you are real good,you might get a tv of your own.for a person to ask such a question they could not possibly know what the true meaning of socialism is.

Seriously, you need to put the hyperbole aside and actually read about what socialism really is. I said before, all modern democracies are a combination of socialistic and capitalistic principles.

As an economic system, socialism is the direct allocation of capital goods (means of production) to meet economic demands so that production is oriented toward use and accounting is based on some physical magnitude, such as physical quantities or a direct measure of labour time.[6][7] Goods and services for consumption are distributed through markets, and distribution of income is based on the principle of individual merit/individual contribution.[8]

Source

Yes, this sounds just like being in prison. "allocation of capital goods based on demand", "goods and services distributed through markets" "income based on individual merit/contribution to society" My GOD! Who ever thought of such a tyrannical, evil system! /snark.

reply to post by smithjustinb
Have you every wondered how an otherwise intelligent person could become and stay a socialist? Check this out! 66.147.244.196...