Socialism is the best ideology

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
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.

I do believe I understand your point. At the same time, it's hard not to note that we'd still be living in caves if we stuck with what's "sufficient". I mean who needs iPad when you can spear fish (well that, and you can get infected from that nasty cut on your foot and die three days later).

reply to post by buddhasystem


I believe the crux, as always, is: "Why? Why do we do this? Why do we want to?"

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I believe the crux, as always, is: "Why? Why do we do this? Why do we want to?"

These may well be unfathomable questions. At the same time, a wish to not die because of a trivial infection you may contract while spearing fish is fairly natural, don't you think? Same goes for a wish to have a dry, safe and enjoyable house, and maybe a clean and working VW.

Originally posted by rom12345
socialism ultimately collapses under the weight if it's own administration.

I don't think the socialist system itself creates much administration. It seems to me that the amount of administration depends on the amount of trust of citizens in their government vice versa. If there is a lot of trust you don't need much registration and administration.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
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.

I do believe I understand your point. At the same time, it's hard not to note that we'd still be living in caves if we stuck with what's "sufficient". I mean who needs iPad when you can spear fish (well that, and you can get infected from that nasty cut on your foot and die three days later).

I think humanity is driven to innovate, regardless of monetary reward. I think the innovation would be different if money was a lesser factor, but I think innovation itself, would persist. But to what degree, I am not certain...

I think the problem with the current system is that; humans are becoming enslave to human constructs, such as,
money, credit, production and output.

I bet there is a better way to do it. However, I don't think straight socialism, or capitalism will work, not sure what the alternative would look like.

Simple question... How much time have you spent in a socialist country? I have spent 6 months in 2 countries, so 1 years worth of time.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
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).

On a sidenote: the living standards in an oppressive system can be high, think of the Nazi period in Germany. That's because the majority of the Germans were able to lead normal, productive lives, work was actively created by the state and last but not least the Germans conquered a lot of land and used slaves to labour for them.

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.

We're discussing models, aren't we? That does not mean we have to have an implementation. Actually, you might even say that capitalism has never been fully implemented either. Even in America, that many see as the most capitalistic system in the world, you have social security, public schools and libraries.

(ForteanOrg): 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.

If it needed to be driven by such systems we indeed would never even gotten out of our caves. Innovation is driven by creative people. It does not matter where they live and under what system, they are always there.

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.

That's simply not true. They had a very active scientific community and invented stuff like the maser and laser, the LED, had the first satellite, the first manned spaceflight, were the first to do a spacewalk, the first to have a space lab (MIR), they invented the heart-lung machine, the Ilizarov machine, the periodic table of elements, the cathode ray tube, synthetic rubber, blood transfusion etc.

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

Some folks in here suggest that the Americans did not get there either

Seriously: the space race was really that. The Americans lost most of the race, but were indeed the first to land on the moon. The Russians were close though.

However, the question that should be asked is if there was need for a space race at all, given that there were still people that lived in poverty - in both camps. A truly socialist state would first have ensured their people had plenty before engaging in building weapons and rockets to sent folks to the moon. Of course, the only reason the space race was started was that the former allies became enemies and wanted to show their superiority. Childish behaviour.

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.

To the best of my knowledge the Americans did not build the moon. According to Butler and Knight they may, one day

Originally posted by hamburgerler
I think humanity is driven to innovate, regardless of monetary reward. I think the innovation would be different if money was a lesser factor, but I think innovation itself, would persist. But to what degree, I am not certain...

Agreed.

I think the problem with the current system is that; humans are becoming enslave to human constructs, such as, money, credit, production and output.

Indeed. The weirdness of it all: in my country, the right wing keeps on yelling at us that we need to work harder, work longer, work on more days and for equal or less payment. In the meantime, our younger ones can not find a job - their work is done by the old geezers that work harder, longer and on more days. Unemployement is soaring, social security is minimized, so even more people are craving for a job - a job that is not there, or is taken by the old geezers that work harder, longer and on more days...

In the end the only ones that better themselves are the ones that 'manage' all this and the ones that own the companies. They take very good care of themselves, and the misery of the ones without a job, the old ones, the sick ones, is none of their business. Bankers shamelessly enrich themselves while their banks go down, the CEO of a company that goes broke and has to discharge thousands of people goes home with a few million more in his account. He starts his new position (for an even higher fee) next Monday. The poor sod that assembled the cars is fired and if he complains he can't find a new job he is accused of being unwilling to work. The ones that still have a job even dare to say that the ones without a job are simply lazy. Perhaps we should lower their incomd yet a bit more, than they will work! Before you know it, people have 3 jobs and still starve. Yeah, capitalism. Sweet capitalism.

I bet there is a better way to do it. However, I don't think straight socialism, or capitalism will work, not sure what the alternative would look like.

Well, as said before: it are models, not realities. You are right: the final version of what is good enough for all will probably have elements of both systems. I will do my utmost to ensure that we have as much socialism in our system as we can. But I respect others that think differently - they have every right to take a stand for their favourite model too.

Originally posted by holton0289
Simple question... How much time have you spent in a socialist country? I have spent 6 months in 2 countries, so 1 years worth of time.

Which countries were they? In which period? And.. did you like it there? If not, why not, if so, why?

Originally posted by ForteanOrg

Well, as said before: it are models, not realities. You are right: the final version of what is good enough for all will probably have elements of both systems. I will do my utmost to ensure that we have as much socialism in our system as we can. But I respect others that think differently - they have every right to take a stand for their favourite model too.

Yes realities are one thing. I think the government should introduce all new capital/money through the population, not the banks. The government could give everyone an equal disbursement of capital each month, everyone would have money to spend, AND companies would have more income, everyone would have jobs. Instead, new money is introduced into the economy directly to the hyper capitalist banks, the "private sector". Money should come to the people, it will be distributed by the people, instead of by the banks.

An economy based upon credit, not debt.

Cheers,

What would be your solution to this mess?

Originally posted by hamburgerler
What would be your solution to this mess?

I don't hold all the answers, of course. Nor does anybody.

But as I said before, I think that the Iargan model makes a lot of sense. Apart from the question if Denaerde really met aliens, he describes their society as based on total equality, extremely efficient, without the need for money and with organised competition. This 'organised competition' is arranged such that there are always at least two competing 'trusts' that try to make a product a efficient as possible (both in how it works and how it is created). Both trusts are fully owned by the people, by all people. As sustainability is key in their society, the product that lasts the longest and is produced with the least possible efforts / resources is the product that is said to have 'won' the competition. They call this system cosmic economics. It is not like communism or capitalism, it is more or less anarchistic: strong cooperative tendencies and a hint of friendly competition to stimulate development of the most effective and efficient product. Iargans are said to hold selfless service, immortality, and cosmic integration as their highest goals. There are no class distinctions and chores are shared by everyone.

By the way: Iargan society is depicted by Denaerde as totally based on a type of "Christian love". Denaerde was a Christian himself, and maybe he simply projected his religion onto what he saw (or imagined he saw, the jury is out on that one, of course). Anyway, even if you're not a Christian, there is not much wrong with Christ as a role model; many (like me) see Christ as a Socialist, maybe even an Anarchist. And the good news is that you don't even need to suffer like he did - even Christians agree that He already suffered plenty to serve us all.

If you want to be pragmatical: we might simply start organising work in a more democratic way. Companies should be owned by all that work there, and only the workers should have a vote in how the company is managed. I believe the Semler model is a good example of how you could actually have such companies in the current system. If they prove to be succesful, their example will be followed. Look, for example, at the Open Source movement. In the 1980's you would have been accused of ignorance at best if you had said that people would GIVE AWAY software (though in the 1960's we already did, but that's another story). Now the Open Source movement is one of the biggest sources for operating systems in countless devices, runs most of the Internets critical infrastructure and is available to even the poorest - given they can find themselves some hardware, of course. It is proof of the fact that people will work for nothing, if their basic needs are covered and they receive acknowledgment instead of money.

A quote from Denaerdes book to give an impression of the Iargan system and how it relates to socialism and human nature.

[...] on Iarga, money does not exist and nothing is paid for. What we conveniently call "price" is in fact purely a method of expressing the production time demanded by a certain article, and is only used to determine the distribution of prosperity. When you ask if the prices are high, you really mean to ask if there is a lot available to us, if we are rich or poor. In fact you are asking about the production level per head of the population, and compared to Earth's standards, this is very high. The answer is, we are all rich. The universal economic system that exists by a great many intelligent races, does not concern itself with money, possession, or payment. The aim of this system is to free the people from material influences and motivation; and in contrast to the Earth's economy, this system is very simple, it can be explained in a couple of minutes. The explanation is indeed simple, but it must be accompanied by one or two marginal notes. It appears to be a socialist heaven, and as such is rather misleading. Earthly Marxism makes the fault of thinking that all people are good, and that only their social and economic situation makes them "bad"; change their situation and the problem is solved. If only this were true. Every intelligent race is dualistic, and as absolute necessity, contains an extremely evil consciousness component that now and again comes to the surface in the form of lies, deceit, sadism, homicide, etc. etc. One of the reasons for the terrible murder of millions of women and children in gas chambers.

A detailed explanation will come later, so let it suffice here to say that beings on Iarga that possess this mentality are denied reincarnation. This selection is the cause of the continuing improvement in mentality, generation after generation, which enables a race to become unselfish. On Earth, this selection was blocked some twenty centuries ago by extra-terrestial intervention whereby we cannot improve our average mentality. This system is therefore unsuitable and undesirable for us because it would stimulate the egoism. The lazy and the profiteers would disrupt the system. The universal economic system is just an utopian dream for us. The beginning of this system is their worldorder. The unity of such a race comes from the fact that they obey a set of Godly laws and therefore have a uniform legal system. Add this to their love of travel, which results in the mixing of the races, and the result is the disappearance of nationalism, which happened long ago. The total production of all goods and services is controlled by globally operating trusts or cooperatives, the presidents of which form the world-government. These are not so much economic as political formations that perform most of the tasks that fall here under governments and ministries.

Originally posted by hamburgerler

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
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.

I do believe I understand your point. At the same time, it's hard not to note that we'd still be living in caves if we stuck with what's "sufficient". I mean who needs iPad when you can spear fish (well that, and you can get infected from that nasty cut on your foot and die three days later).

I think humanity is driven to innovate, regardless of monetary reward. I think the innovation would be different if money was a lesser factor, but I think innovation itself, would persist. But to what degree, I am not certain...

Well I am certain, and that degree is "not much". Of course human curiosity and industrious spirit don't die completely even in dire situations. Just like music. But not every nation can manufacture a quality grand piano, that's the thing. There is a huge gap between a concept (which can be produced in any society) and putting it in production. That gap can be bridged by entrepreneurial effort. In socialism, it barely exists.

reply to post by buddhasystem


There's a difference between greed and necessity. Again: "Why do I want this?"

Originally posted by buddhasystem
There is a huge gap between a concept (which can be produced in any society) and putting it in production. That gap can be bridged by entrepreneurial effort. In socialism, it barely exists.

It's hard to tell, as there are no, nor have there ever been any truly socialist states. But the states that tried to create equality in income, like for example Sweden, Danmark or The Netherlands all have excellent track records for being able to create new concepts and putting these in production. The Big Question is: was this due to competition (capitalism), or due to the equality in society (cooperation)?

The "secret" to success may be the mix and match we have between the two.

In countries like Sweden and The Netherlands cooperation is done on the level of 'workers' and 'owners': the Unions and business-owners try to get an agreement on things like wages, social security etc. and they mostly succeed. Competition is done within the limits of this framework. This 'Nordic model' (aka the "poldermodel") has worked quite well for us.

Originally posted by ForteanOrg

Originally posted by buddhasystem
There is a huge gap between a concept (which can be produced in any society) and putting it in production. That gap can be bridged by entrepreneurial effort. In socialism, it barely exists.

It's hard to tell, as there are no, nor have there ever been any truly socialist states.

That makes this discussion quite pointless, doesn't it?

But the states that tried to create equality in income, like for example Sweden, Danmark or The Netherlands all have excellent track records for being able to create new concepts and putting these in production.The Big Question is: was this due to competition (capitalism), or due to the equality in society (cooperation)?

The "secret" to success may be the mix and match we have between the two.

This may indeed be the case.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
There is a huge gap between a concept (which can be produced in any society) and putting it in production. That gap can be bridged by entrepreneurial effort. In socialism, it barely exists.

Originally posted by ForteanOrg
It's hard to tell, as there are no, nor have there ever been any truly socialist states.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
That makes this discussion quite pointless, doesn't it?

Of course not. There aren't any truly capitalist countries either. As I said before: we are discussing MODELS, not reality. Reality is far more complex than politics. Even in the so-called "united" states reality beats the models - time after time. The states differ wildly in their religious identity, in the way they judge people, if they are republican or democrat states, or average income, to mention just a few differences.

Originally posted by ForteanOrg
The "secret" to success may be the mix and match we have between the two.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
This may indeed be the case.

The next question then is: how much socialism do you need, how much capitalism? Again, that Iargan model wasn't so bad.. and if I had to choose between a 'pure' capitalist state and a 'pure' socialist state, well, that would be easy: I'd go for the state that recognises the value of each human being, treats them with dignity and takes care of EVERYBODY. Socialism it is.

Originally posted by ForteanOrg
As I said before: we are discussing MODELS, not reality.

Ah. Silly me. Then it is indeed pretty pointless, since there is no tangible relation to reality. Might as well discuss other MODELS, like those who accompany me on my morning ride in a diamond-studded chocolate stretch limo, sipping champagne all the way. More fun, even though it's just as unrelated to anything, really.

Socialism doesn't work. It's too easy to hijack. Once u hijack the power structure there is basically no competition to stop u and u have a complete control over every aspect of the government and people.. For this reason socialism doesn't work in the real world. It has proven time and time again to be a failure because once a few people gain power they won't let it go and really no one can stop them.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ForteanOrg
As I said before: we are discussing MODELS, not reality.

Ah. Silly me. Then it is indeed pretty pointless, since there is no tangible relation to reality. Might as well discuss other MODELS, like those who accompany me on my morning ride in a diamond-studded chocolate stretch limo, sipping champagne all the way. More fun, even though it's just as unrelated to anything, really.

No, it's not pointless - models are what you use to steer your actions in reality, so choosing a correct model is important. Currently, the model I use to steer my political actions in reality is that of socialism. Might we ever achieve most of socialism in reality, I will probably adopt the model of communism. Might we ever achieve communism, I may adopt the model of anarchism.. I'm not sure what lies beyond that, maybe nothing, maybe we all will return to chaos and it all starts over again. Satya Yuga .. kali yuga, Anyway, we're far away from event he implementation of the democratic models, let alone socialism..

Please note that I am an anarchist - but it is pointless to use the anarchistic model(s) in the current state we are in, it would not be of much use - probably would work against what you would like to see achieved..

Models are like raincoats: you wear them for a while and then you discard of them if they are of no use to you anymore. But there is a point in discussing them: they are your (discardable) guides to reality. If the model becomes your reality, you are simply a dogmatic fool. Something that happens a lot to people: they confuse the model of reality with reality itself.