Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Evolution selected socialism

Page 3 of 4 [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

RedHanrahan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Sep 2007
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,204
Location: Aotearoa/New Zealand

06 Jul 2011, 7:32 pm

Sand wrote:
There are certain minimum necessities that each human requires to maintain life which should be provided by society no matter the contributions of the individual. Beyond that a more generous society would provide further minimums to encourage individual development of individual inherent possibilities. There is no doubt that these possibilities have a wide spectrum in any society. But the society benefits greatly with the encouragement of these possibilities. When the abilities of some members of society permits them to sequester for their own use the wealth that should be devoted to both minimum necessities for all members and the development of fruitful potentials, society as a whole suffers greatly. That suffering is very evident in current capitalist society and society as a whole suffers for it and when the suffering reaches a certain potential violence will break out.


This is in fact a soundly down to earth understanding of the foundation of our collectivist urge and it's logic on even self interested grounds.

peace j


_________________
Just because we can does not mean we should.

What vision is left? And is anyone asking?

Have a great day!


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

07 Jul 2011, 2:00 am

ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:

No. Social Darwinism is a bogus concept. :roll:


Who brought up the matter of Social Darwinism? Not I.

ruveyn


You have said before in no uncertain terms that those who cannot be completely self-sufficient or cannot find a job that pays a living wage should just perish.



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

07 Jul 2011, 2:49 am

xenon13 wrote:
The article mentions that the studies show a Denmark-level of inequality to be optimal. I don't think that's total and absolute equality. Unfortunately Denmark is considered to a communist society according to the radical adherents of the Synergenic Selfishness cult that are running things into the ground. They demand brutal punishments for alleged failure to motivate people into a supposed better tomorrow. Terror - that's what these people offer.

People in Denmark and Sweden come here for opportunities that are effectively banned in their native countries.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

07 Jul 2011, 11:54 am

marshall wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:

No. Social Darwinism is a bogus concept. :roll:


Who brought up the matter of Social Darwinism? Not I.

ruveyn


You have said before in no uncertain terms that those who cannot be completely self-sufficient or cannot find a job that pays a living wage should just perish.


No. I said that we are not obligated to help them. And we all will perish in the long run.

ruveyn



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

07 Jul 2011, 12:33 pm

ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:

No. Social Darwinism is a bogus concept. :roll:


Who brought up the matter of Social Darwinism? Not I.

ruveyn


You have said before in no uncertain terms that those who cannot be completely self-sufficient or cannot find a job that pays a living wage should just perish.


No. I said that we are not obligated to help them. And we all will perish in the long run.

ruveyn


If you beleive nobody is obligated to help people in need you are a Social Darwinist. Most people find your Randroid philosophy repugnant, especially since in much of the world success isn't necessarily an indicator of merit but on inherited opportunity. In fact, many find it so repugnant that they will take up arms of conditions get bad enough.



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

07 Jul 2011, 12:45 pm

I guess you are not aware of the principle "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations". It can take more generations than that, but as a glance at most wetsern European and many North American family trees will show, inherited wealth / power can only take you so far UNLESS the offspring also have ability.

The history of Britain is full of cases of people who started out in conmon and sometimes strained circumstances, made good, got ennobled - and produced offspring who lost it all or sold it all or had it confiscated by the crown and would up back digging ditches.

I would bet the last honors list included commoners whose grand fathers were upper class, whose great great grandfathers were lower class, whose great great great great grandfathers were barons, etc.



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

07 Jul 2011, 2:08 pm

Philologos wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
The article mentions that the studies show a Denmark-level of inequality to be optimal. I don't think that's total and absolute equality. Unfortunately Denmark is considered to a communist society according to the radical adherents of the Synergenic Selfishness cult that are running things into the ground. They demand brutal punishments for alleged failure to motivate people into a supposed better tomorrow. Terror - that's what these people offer.


Push the button. Beep beep. Help the old guy out.

"Synergenic Selfishness cult?" Reference or definition PLEASE.


The theory claims that if everyone is selfish this causes a synergy that causes the optimal outcomes. The belief in this is cult-like and it rules the world right now. It's an expression I coined the other day. Synergenic Selfishness Cult.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

07 Jul 2011, 2:20 pm

marshall wrote:
zzzzzz

If you beleive nobody is obligated to help people in need you are a Social Darwinist. Most people find your Randroid philosophy repugnant, especially since in much of the world success isn't necessarily an indicator of merit but on inherited opportunity. In fact, many find it so repugnant that they will take up arms of conditions get bad enough.


Then let the war begin. I know who will win.

ruveyn



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

07 Jul 2011, 2:51 pm

ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
zzzzzz

If you beleive nobody is obligated to help people in need you are a Social Darwinist. Most people find your Randroid philosophy repugnant, especially since in much of the world success isn't necessarily an indicator of merit but on inherited opportunity. In fact, many find it so repugnant that they will take up arms of conditions get bad enough.


Then let the war begin. I know who will win.

ruveyn


No. In the long run you will lose. Hoarding of resources is an act of aggression against people who are in need.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

07 Jul 2011, 3:00 pm

marshall wrote:

No. In the long run you will lose. Hoarding of resources is an act of aggression against people who are in need.


You think capitalism is hoarding. Your mistake. Capitalism is the transformation of capital assets into productive activity. Everything you use or enjoy or almost everything was privately produced and for profit at that.

ruveyn



merrymadscientist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 533
Location: UK

07 Jul 2011, 3:16 pm

Given that we evolved as a social species, a certain level of cooperation is required for our continued success. Our current society is not even capitalist according to strict criteria - rather the rich have a form of socialism whilst the poor do not.

Certainly some level of inequality is necessary to stimulate productivity (out of most people anyway, I will always do the best I can and so will certain others), but probably the ideal could be set at a certain level - maybe 10x or 20x difference between the richest and poorest. Surely money is not the only stimulator anyway, although economists seem to think it is. I can think of many more things that would motivate me (i.e. I have no need for half the money I earn, although feel obliged to save most of it - [but some I give away], out of concern for the future as no job is secure anymore and I am only short term contracted as are many people in our capitalist society).



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

07 Jul 2011, 6:16 pm

merrymadscientist wrote:
Given that we evolved as a social species, a certain level of cooperation is required for our continued success. Our current society is not even capitalist according to strict criteria - rather the rich have a form of socialism whilst the poor do not.



Your government has seen to it that profits are privatized and losses are socialized.

Hence the bailouts at taxpayer expense.

I hope the bankers have the decency to do their laughing in private.

ruveyn



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

07 Jul 2011, 7:21 pm

ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:

No. In the long run you will lose. Hoarding of resources is an act of aggression against people who are in need.


You think capitalism is hoarding. Your mistake. Capitalism is the transformation of capital assets into productive activity. Everything you use or enjoy or almost everything was privately produced and for profit at that.

ruveyn


No. I just think capitalism alone fails when there is not enough resources to go around and there becomes a huge separation between people of wealth and people who have absolutely nothing. I'm not saying places like the US or Canada are at this point right now. It is however where the philosophy of Ayn Rand eventually leads when there is a huge economic structural problem that society cannot adapt to. I'm sure you'd love for the US to become a banana republic. :roll:



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

07 Jul 2011, 7:24 pm

marshall wrote:

No. I just think capitalism alone fails when there is not enough resources to go around and there becomes a huge separation between people of wealth and people who have absolutely nothing. I'm not saying places like the US or Canada are at this point right now. It is however where the philosophy of Ayn Rand eventually leads when there is a huge economic structural problem that society cannot adapt to. I'm sure you'd love for the US to become a banana republic. :roll:


Please stop with the zero sum nonsense. Capitalism, when it functions correctly cures the scarcity by creating a plenty. Henry Ford cured the shortage or scarcity of automobiles. The solution was the model-T.

ruveyn



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

07 Jul 2011, 7:29 pm

marshall wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
zzzzzz

If you beleive nobody is obligated to help people in need you are a Social Darwinist. Most people find your Randroid philosophy repugnant, especially since in much of the world success isn't necessarily an indicator of merit but on inherited opportunity. In fact, many find it so repugnant that they will take up arms of conditions get bad enough.


Then let the war begin. I know who will win.

ruveyn


No. In the long run you will lose. Hoarding of resources is an act of aggression against people who are in need.
Where do you draw the line between hoarding and saving up for a rainy day?



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

07 Jul 2011, 7:33 pm

merrymadscientist wrote:
Given that we evolved as a social species, a certain level of cooperation is required for our continued success. Our current society is not even capitalist according to strict criteria - rather the rich have a form of socialism whilst the poor do not.

Certainly some level of inequality is necessary to stimulate productivity (out of most people anyway, I will always do the best I can and so will certain others), but probably the ideal could be set at a certain level - maybe 10x or 20x difference between the richest and poorest. Surely money is not the only stimulator anyway, although economists seem to think it is. I can think of many more things that would motivate me (i.e. I have no need for half the money I earn, although feel obliged to save most of it - [but some I give away], out of concern for the future as no job is secure anymore and I am only short term contracted as are many people in our capitalist society).

This idea that inequality provides incentive for people work harder and produce more is way overrated. There are tons of people who are motivated will work hard towards a cause for reasons other than the prospect of becoming wealthy. The real problem with communism is that some pooling of capital is needed to make big things happen. Allowing the pooling of capitol to only occur in the public sector is a limiting factor.