Socialism is the best ideology

Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by ForteanOrg

 

Nature provides raw materials but you need manpower and tools to extract and convert the raw materials to useful goods.

In fact, manpower (work) is all that matters. Unless we leave the planet we'll have to make do with what it offers, but that won't change no matter what system we choose.

Vedic system has worked in India for many thousands of years before the medieval time.

Seemingly, the current system is good enough for most, as the people of India don't seem to want to overthrow their current system and replace it by a Vedic system.

So what is wrong in examining a successful economic system? Why you want to stick to socialism which clearly is a failure?

Again: any system that makes the people happy will do. But from my point of view, principles like "dignity", "equality" and "solidarity" should be part of a good system.

Your observation that 'socialism is clearly a failure' is puzzling: what socialist system have you seen that failed? I have seen oppressive states fail over and over again, some of them even labeled themselves 'socialist' but were actually simply party dictatorships. I am not aware of any people that already have a socialist state, would love to see one..

reply to post by ForteanOrg


1. The current India does not have awareness of Vedic system.

We have suffered from a loss of knowledge during the long foreign rule.

Some people are now researching and discovering wisdom of our own people.

2. Where is socialism successful?

Saying 'party rule' is engaging in excuses.

We must realize the basic principle of economics - that a person has to work to earn wages.
If wages are earned without work (like dole), the system is bound to fail.

Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by ForteanOrg

 

1. The current India does not have awareness of Vedic system.

We have suffered from a loss of knowledge during the long foreign rule.

Others might say that India made progress since they abandoned the Vedic system

Some people are now researching and discovering wisdom of our own people.

Research will not harm anybody, carry on!

2. Where is socialism successful? Saying 'party rule' is engaging in excuses.

There are no truly socialist states yet in as far as I know. However, socialists have had strong influence in the democracies of Europe. It is striking to see that in those countries where equality is stimulated by the government (and dignity, and solidarity) the people all report to be happier, e.g. Norway, Sweden, Danmark, Finland, Australia, New Zealand, The Netherlands. If countries fall back to oppression or the differences between incomes become bigger, the people become less happy. Have you ever read Tony Judt?

We must realize the basic principle of economics - that a person has to work to earn wages.
If wages are earned without work (like dole), the system is bound to fail.

No, a person does not have to work to earn wages. A person has to contribute to society as well as he or she can and should only take from it what he needs. Those that can contribute should, those that can't contribute aren't forced to but are still allowed to take from society what they need. Such is socialism.

Dont' forget: you aren't judged by what you HAVE in a socialist system - you are judged by what you have CONTRIBUTED within the limits of your possibilities.

reply to post by ForteanOrg


It will take me half an hour to convince you if I was speaking to you.

Writing posts is very difficult. Internet can be so impersonal.

India suffered in every sphere since it diluted and abandoned the Vedic system. India was powerful till Vedic system was in use. Todays Indians are ignorant of Vedic system. Veda is a large body of work and it takes years along with very sharp intellect to understand.

The West's "socialism" is fueled by slavery. It is based on a large number of dis-advantaged people working for low wages so that a few in some countries enjoy high standards of life. The British empire practiced a direct form of slavery which is replaced by an indirect form (in form of economic imperialism) by USA empire. You remove economic slavery (for example introduce a world currency which is based on gold) and your socialism will evaporate in seconds.

Some countries can have large State organized welfare programs due to mineral resources or other natural benefits. These are special cases. Socialism is simply out of question for the large majority of humans.

Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by ForteanOrg

 

It will take me half an hour to convince you if I was speaking to you.

Maybe. But many that tried are now - like me - anarchists

Writing posts is very difficult. Internet can be so impersonal.

Indeed, hence additional politeness and caution is required. But the arguments you might present are the same, in written or spoken conversation and I will gladly read them and answer them. Until now, we both said that our systems are good: you pointed out that in ancient times yours worked in India, I pointed out that mine has never been implemented yet, but where elements of it are, people are more happy. That's about it.

India suffered in every sphere since it diluted and abandoned the Vedic system. India was powerful till Vedic system was in use. Todays Indians are ignorant of Vedic system. Veda is a large body of work and it takes years along with very sharp intellect to understand.

I may not even have any of either. But what you told me is that your system has classes, and that only a limited group of people is allowed to choose a King. The King then has absolute power. I am fiercely opposed to any system that assumes that one man is better than the other or should have more rights than another, hence I oppose your system.

The West's "socialism" is fueled by slavery. It is based on a large number of dis-advantaged people working for low wages so that a few in some countries enjoy high standards of life.

Socialism is opposed to in-equality. It does not strive for destruction of wealth, nor is it opposed to a full, wealthy life. But everbody should have such a full, wealthy life. And that can be done if we spread wealth evenly and all contribute to society as well as they can within the limits of their possibilities.

The British empire practiced a direct form of slavery which is replaced by an indirect form (in form of economic imperialism) by USA empire. You remove economic slavery (for example introduce a world currency which is based on gold) and your socialism will evaporate in seconds.

I do agree that a currency that is based on something of value instead of the promise of value is an improvement on the current (sic) system. But it will not change anything to the distribution of wealth, hence nothing to the need for more democracy, socialism, communism and finally anarchy. See, your Kings and his enlighted nobleman (an my industrialists, bankers and government) will invariably have more of that gold to spent. They are the mostly self-proclaimed semi-Gods that determine how the 'lesser' people should live. I'm opposed to that.

Some countries can have large State organized welfare programs due to mineral resources or other natural benefits. These are special cases. Socialism is simply out of question for the large majority of humans.

Well, say we have just one world and we have achieved socialism in that world. We would share wealth evenly. People in Africa would be about as well off as we here, in The Netherlands. Poverty would not exist anymore. All people would be well-educated. I don't see much wrong with that.

I do agree that there are many hurdles on our path to anarchy - and maybe we will never reach that goal. We are certainly moving into the wrong direction nowadays, more toward 'strong leaders' and 'chaos' (see my previous postings for an explanation). But I strongly believe that we will have a socialist world one day, in which people live together in piece, working together to create wealth and happiness for everybody.

reply to post by ForteanOrg


Classes:

Every society has classes - defined or undefined.

The classes by occupation called Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra mentioned in Veda are widely mis-understood.

Brahmin means teacher
Kshatriya means soldier
Vaishya means Agriculturists and traders
Shudra means Service class or employees

The classes in Veda are NOT hereditary. There is no "caste" system mentioned anywhere in Veda. There is NO separation of classes. So this is no different from any successful modern society.

Socialism:

You mention a few countries who have large welfare programs. These countries are not "socialist" by any measure but provide free healthcare, nutrition and housing support to poor.

These principles are very close to Vedic principles which advises employers to take care of every need of employees (including marriage of children) and advises the King that nobody should die of hunger. King is advised to take care of basic needs of people.

However Veda supports the principle of earning the wages. So kings started large construction projects in the weak economic cycles to provide more employment. Doles is equal to donations in Vedic system. Supporting the poor and needy is clearly provided and is in fact duty of an Arya. This works like this - a doctor will provide medical care free or at low cost to the poor for example.

3. You have to tell me a successful "socialist" country by example. Then we shall take from there.

Originally posted by GargIndia
The classes in Veda are NOT hereditary. There is no "caste" system mentioned anywhere in Veda.

Seriously, stop hijacking this thread. It's not about Hinduism or Vedic teachings. It's just not. You are shamelessly spamming this forum and frankly are giving a bad name to those interested in Hinduism and the Vedas.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by GargIndia
The classes in Veda are NOT hereditary. There is no "caste" system mentioned anywhere in Veda.

Seriously, stop hijacking this thread. It's not about Hinduism or Vedic teachings. It's just not. You are shamelessly spamming this forum and frankly are giving a bad name to those interested in Hinduism and the Vedas.

Prove your allegations???

I do not have to take shelter in Veda to disprove your OP. I can do that anyway.

You have to prove your case first.

Originally posted by GargIndia

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by GargIndia
The classes in Veda are NOT hereditary. There is no "caste" system mentioned anywhere in Veda.

Seriously, stop hijacking this thread. It's not about Hinduism or Vedic teachings. It's just not. You are shamelessly spamming this forum and frankly are giving a bad name to those interested in Hinduism and the Vedas.

Prove your allegations???

OK, I will. In the past pages, you've been pressing hard to explain the caste structure of the Indian society and how the Vedic outlook is pretty cool and all that. If you don't think that's true, please go back and read your own posts.

I do not have to take shelter in Veda to disprove your OP.

I have nothing to do with the OP, I am not a part of it and thus your statement just betrays your obsessive behavior with a major hangup with the Vedas.

Relent, will you.

You have to prove your case first.

I don't have to prove the obvious fact that you are SPAMMING this thread with your Vedic hangup sort of a world view.

Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by ForteanOrg

 

Classes:

Every society has classes - defined or undefined.

No, every society has people that vastly differ in many aspects, say talents and character, but all should have equal rights. Equality does not equal equal

The old caste system in India based on the notion of groups of talented. That is a very common notion and is comparable to the old guild system we had (and in a modified form still have) in Europe. Guilds were meant to build and exchange knowledge about a certain trade. Anybody that had the proper talents could decide to join a Guild. Sounds good, right: equality, because anybody that wants to can join the Guild. But it wasn't all that good.

Any group of people also has political and societal power. In many cases members of a Guild just thought about their own good, not about that of society in general. As an example: in my own country the Guild of Sawers was responsible for sawing logs into planks. This was done by hand and was a costly affair. When a Dutchmen build a mill to saw the planks using a simple wind-driven machine (a sawmill), he was forced out of the city by the Guild of Sawers, who saw (sic) their trade in jeopardy. It was only because he was able to continue his work outside the city that the Dutch were able to build many cheap ships, which in turn allowed them to trade with the rest of the world, the dawn of our so-called 'Golden Age'. Had it been for the Guild of Sawers we would still be sawing planks from trees by hand..

The classes by occupation called Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra mentioned in Veda are widely mis-understood.

Thanks for the list. You forgot the Untouchables. Now, officially they are not part of the Vedic system, but in practice India had a large group of people that were treated as the garbage they collected.

The classes in Veda are NOT hereditary. There is no "caste" system mentioned anywhere in Veda. There is NO separation of classes. So this is no different from any successful modern society.

Theory and practice vary wildly - as you already pointed out a number of times when we discuss socialism but fail to mention when we talk about Vedic systems.

In theory, classes are not hereditary. But in practice they were. You were born inside a caste and it was VERY difficult to get out. As India moved on, it is now possible to marry outside your caste - if your are not in a rural area. Because in many rural area's the castes still dictate whom you can or can not marry and what type of work you can do. And even today we still have the 'untouchables', a bloody shame if you ask me.

That there is some 'cross class breeding' going on in India is made possible by the democratic forces in India whom moved India forward from the 'strong leaders' phase into the 'democracy' phase. The next logical step after democracy is socialism, not a fall back to the Vedic 'strong leaders' system.

Socialism:

You mention a few countries who have large welfare programs. These countries are not "socialist" by any measure but provide free healthcare, nutrition and housing support to poor.

Yes, that's what I said: that we do not have a real socialist country on this planet nor ever have seen one. But elements of the socialist approach have been implemented, the ones you describe for example.

These principles are very close to Vedic principles which advises employers to take care of every need of employees (including marriage of children) and advises the King that nobody should die of hunger. King is advised to take care of basic needs of people.

Well, if it works, it works. But it did not work and hence is replaced. See, my friend, in the end there is only ONE party that will stand up for the people: it are the people themselves.

However Veda supports the principle of earning the wages. So kings started large construction projects in the weak economic cycles to provide more employment. Doles is equal to donations in Vedic system. Supporting the poor and needy is clearly provided and is in fact duty of an Arya. This works like this - a doctor will provide medical care free or at low cost to the poor for example.

So, the poor are at the mercy of the doctor. If he does not want to treat them, he does not. That is unthinkable in a socialist system, where all are treated the same and the doctor is payed the same for the treatment.

3. You have to tell me a successful "socialist" country by example. Then we shall take from there.

I fail to see why I need to tell you about a successful socialist country to discuss socialism. As I have pointed out many times before: we haven't seen any truly socialist country / state yet. There is a lot of work being done to implement socialist values - with success.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I'm happy you returned to the discussion, buddhasystem, maybe you can add some arguments to either side.

I agree that the discussion about Vedic systems is near the borderline of acceptability in this thread. But we now know that the Vedic system is a capitalistic, oppressive system, similar to what was common in England in the first half of the 19th century: classes of people, only the upper class had the right to vote the president (King), poverty needed to be taken care of by charity, health care was for the upper class, where the working classes had the option to die to 'decrement the surplus of the population'. Bah, humbug, indeed.

The essential question is: whom is taking care of whom in society. In my vision, we all take care of each other. In GargIndia's vision, there is an elite that takes care of everybody else.

The funny thing is that capitalists urge people to 'take care of themselves' but if the people actually do that and form a socialist system, the capitalists are opposed to it.

Originally posted by ForteanOrg
The funny thing is that capitalists urge people to 'take care of themselves' but if the people actually do that and form a socialist system, the capitalists are opposed to it.

"taking care of oneself" and socialism are not one and the same thing.

The way I see it, any society has, or actually is, an organization. Even in the most unregulated capitalist society, there are conventions and laws that work, otherwise it would cease to exist. Socialism simply has more rules (and possibly more complex rules, because indeed it usually has to do with varying degree of wealth redistribution).

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ForteanOrg
The funny thing is that capitalists urge people to 'take care of themselves' but if the people actually do that and form a socialist system, the capitalists are opposed to it.

"taking care of oneself" and socialism are not one and the same thing.

If the people as a whole take care of the people as a whole, that's socialism. If we all take care of ourselves, that's capitalism.

Actually, a socialist has to take care of himself too - that's the part in which he takes from society what he needs. However, he can take what he needs because many contribute to the wealth of society. Some people may not be able to contribute much, but they should still be allowed to take what they need. Others contribute much - but they should not take much more from society than the ones that can not contribute much. Strongest shoulders carry the heaviest burdens.

The final situation is where you simply all have plenty and you can spent more time on the more important things in life, like socialising, discussing, education, culture, sports, leisure etc.

The way I see it, any society has, or actually is, an organization. Even in the most unregulated capitalist society, there are conventions and laws that work, otherwise it would cease to exist. Socialism simply has more rules (and possibly more complex rules, because indeed it usually has to do with varying degree of wealth redistribution).

I agree with your statement that society is an organisation. I'm not sure if socialist states would need more rules. Yes, we have to start with the redistribution of wealth, but thats a 'migration project' and when done, we all have sufficient (plenty, even).

I like the Iargan system: a socialist system with some constructions in it to stimulate competition (which is one of the driving forces behind innovation). But we are not Iargans, we are humans and we are just starting to migrate away from the 'take' to the 'give' paradigm. So, we may need a 'credit' (monetary) system to ensure that wealth is indeed distributed fairly.

Yes, even the ones that choose to sit on their butts all day are entitled to the minimal amount of credits to allow them to live properly, period. Their contribution to society is that their behaviour prompts the others to rethink the way they produce goods in society: it should be done with the least amount of work needed and with respect for the resources our planet has to offer.

An interesting question is: would socialist states produce the equivalent of say, a golden Rolls Royce? Some item - fairly useless - that only exists because we are all led to believe that having something like that makes you a 'wealthy' man? I don't think so, but maybe somebody in here begs to differ..? What are the benefits of a society in which such items exist over a society that does not have them? Is innovation, for example, depending on the production of such expensive cars? Are they in fact then, merely scientific experiments? In a socialist state, you would have science..

Anyway, I don't think a socialist state would require more complex laws and regulations than a capitalist state. Take the US, for example, it has many, many, very complex rules, laws and regulations.

Originally posted by ForteanOrg
I agree with your statement that society is an organisation. I'm not sure if socialist states would need more rules. Yes, we have to start with the redistribution of wealth, but thats a 'migration project' and when done, we all have sufficient (plenty, even).

It seems that no matter what one has to say about socialism, it all comes back to the almost metaphysical idea of some refined and ideal socialist society. There might be a chance that it can be created, but I'm highly doubtful. In reality, a handful of European states forced into the socialist fold by the Soviets had relatively normal lives (i.e. what you call sufficient). The rest of the camp fared worse. I doubt that any part of it can be categorized as "plenty". There were perks. In general, there was also misery.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Because those socialist regimes were managed by capitalists? No economic system is going to fare well if the people at the top continually hoard everything. The purpose of socialism is ubiquity, not exclusivity. And yet exclusivity seems to trend with almost every system we've seen so far.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Because those socialist regimes were managed by capitalists?

No, it's the opposite. I'm fairly convinced that without the supreme motivation of greed and moderate confidence in opportunity, productivity could have never been optimal under socialism. It could be a decent society in many regards, but would lag significantly, as far as the living standards go, when compared to a capitalist society composed of individuals of similar capability. Capitalism leverages superior motivation mechanisms and self-organization of working groups. Socialism offers other valuable tools, they just don't work as well.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
In reality, a handful of European states forced into the socialist fold by the Soviets had relatively normal lives (i.e. what you call sufficient). The rest of the camp fared worse. I doubt that any part of it can be categorized as "plenty". There were perks. In general, there was also misery.

Indeed, we agree, there was a LOT of misery. Especially in those 'socialist' countries that had in fact a dictator, for example Ceaușescu. His 'socialist' (he even dared to label it communist!) state was one of the most repressive states on the planet - actively supported by the United States, because they did not care about his politics as long as he was opposing the Soviet Union.

Anyway, I have never denied nor will I ever deny the misery in the Eastern European so-called socialist states. But then again, I have also pointed out many times that though in name these states were socialist, they had nothing to do with true socialism. The same holds for 'communist' or 'socialist' Russia, the former USSR. A man like Stalin, for example, was clearly a dictator, who did not hesitate to kill off his opposition or expel them. He too led an oppressive state.

What is and is not produced by a socialist state depends largely on what the people think is necessary. Innovation is not driven by the political/social/economical systems per se. Also, it is a well known fact that science and research were just as important - maybe even more important - in the USSR as in other parts of the world. If the Russians hadn't developed space travel the Americans surely would never have gone to the moon as it is not commercially viable to do so. This may explain why we never went back to the moon: there is not money in it.

Once more I bring up the 'line of progression': from 0 (chaos) - 1 (strong leaders) - 2 (democracy) - 3 (socialism) - 4 (communism) - to 5 (anarchism). The Soviet Union and the Eastern European 'socialist' countries were in fact in phase 2: 'strong leaders', but labeled it 'socialism' or even 'communism'. It had nothing to do with either.

socialism ultimately collapses under the weight if it's own administration.

Originally posted by ForteanOrg

Originally posted by buddhasystem
In reality, a handful of European states forced into the socialist fold by the Soviets had relatively normal lives (i.e. what you call sufficient). The rest of the camp fared worse. I doubt that any part of it can be categorized as "plenty". There were perks. In general, there was also misery.

Indeed, we agree, there was a LOT of misery. Especially in those 'socialist' countries that had in fact a dictator, for example Ceaușescu.

Romania was (and maybe still is) an atypical country. But in any event, I didn't mean oppression when I spoke of misery. I mostly meant living standards (of course Romania failed in this area in a pretty dramatic way as well).

But then again, I have also pointed out many times that though in name these states were socialist, they had nothing to do with true socialism.

Here's the thing, you keep appealing to a metaphysical ideal socialism which frankly never existed. If that's a kind of religion to you, I have no argument.

Innovation is not driven by the political/social/economical systems per se.

That's just woefully wrong. Can't believe you would post something like that.

Also, it is a well known fact that science and research were just as important - maybe even more important - in the USSR as in other parts of the world.

Science and research are not the same as the advancement of the society as a whole. The Soviets built some very good weaponry. They didn't manage to build much else that's worth mentioning.

If the Russians hadn't developed space travel the Americans surely would never have gone to the moon as it is not commercially viable to do so.

By the way note that the Soviets failed to implement their lunar landing program. Sorry, but... Touche.

This may explain why we never went back to the moon: there is not money in it.

Well sure, but the Moon will always remain a monument to the American ideology and the American way. Look up in the sky. It's still there.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Perhaps optimal productivity tends to bolster the lopsided nature that often develops within such systems. Maybe the trick is not optimal productivity, but sufficient productivity. That is to say, be happy with what you have instead of fussing over what you could have. Just because it's possible to be king, doesn't mean you need to be. Some people just don't care about that.