Socialism

Post Reply New Topic

I am a socialist technocrat, or whatever my idea might be called. I believe that everyone should have a minimum standard of living, and work their way up from there. If you are capable, but too lazy to work after finishing education, your share of resources is reduced to just enough to survive. You still get the free services, such as all education. public transportation, healthcare, electricity, and replacement of goods.

Most companies are state- owned, and success is measured by productivity and quality. Company leaders are picked according to skill. Anything which does not surrender to being bought out by the nation will die off.

The capitalist economic system is replaced by distribution of resources according to requirements, and credits with which people can buy their share of goods according to their salary. There is no need for tax, as the nation uses the resources at its disposal. Resources are obtained from wherever possible, including asteroids and other planets.

In fact, the only purpose of currency is to value things and share resources/goods fairly.

People are rewarded for achievement with a boost in salary and promotion. Failure results in demotion.

People enjoy freedoms, so long as they do not break the law in such a way that harms others, or causes damage to society.

Yes, a lot of beureaucracy and complicated technology is needed. It is no problem so long as there are computer literate and competent people capable of doing the job.

The rulers are merely councils of administrators, devoted only to governing the system and ensuring that it works. The workings of the system are open for public discussion. If someone dislikes the system altogether, they can leave with or without a bribe, forcibly, or face imprisonment. Simple as, if you don't like it, go and pick some nation with a system you do like.

the problem with communist russia was the extreme tendency towards authoritarianism. there are many variants of socialism and communism.

Please, enlighten me.

So the welfare starts at a minimum level, interesting.
The only thing is what is productive and what has quality? How do we measure the most efficient way of production if there are multiple factors that can be used in varying amounts for varying efforts? Who determines the best quality?
The only thing is that human action does not respond to requirements so much as incentives. Who determines the share of goods though? The worker may work long hours but the engineer's work may be irreplaceable, is it labor or importance of effort. Resources cannot be exploited without labor so there is a share taken by the government. Asteroids and other planets is rather too futuristic for the discussion.
The use of currency is as a medium of exchange, however, fair is such an iffy word. I can easily attack my fellows on what fair is or is not.
Who determines achievement? Is getting a PhD in Russian Literature a greater achievement than getting a Bachelors in Engineering Physics? After all more effort was put in for the former than the latter.
Is entrepreneurship a freedom? What if you do piss off a bureaucrat?
What if they don't? What encourages them to do their job? Can corruption occur in this bureaucracy? After all, in current society corruption in bureaucracy is not that uncommon, what can prevent this system from being the same.

What about the possibility of human capital flight? Let's just say that I get trained as a physician but I see that the US or some other country has a higher salary for me? Then I leave, and let's just say that this becomes a common occurrence, how will that be dealt with? Will that be dealt with effectively. As well, given that councils are responsible for the workings of the systems, can that not lead to certain groups desiring more than what they already receive, or subsidies for things that should not be subsidized?

enlighten you as to what? the myriad forms of socialism and communism? a simple google search would save me the trouble, i would think.

No, see, what I don't understand is how they are different. They all seem the same to me. I didn't mean to come as a rude or sarcastic, but I just don't get the differences. They are all fundamentally the same.

I mean, we've got communism and maoism and trotskyism and religious communism and libertarian socialism and democratic socialism and social democracies and eco-socialism and Leninism and marxism and anarcho-communism and Islamic socialism and Christian socialism Marxism-Leninism and fabianism and syndicalism...

But seriously, what are the differences?

And who defines this minimum level? Should everyone have access to cable television and iPods, or what? Because I have a friend who can't afford to feed her kids, but because she qualifies for all sorts of government programs, she was able to buy them all iPods for Christmas. AND she can afford cable and beer, but very little else in food stuffs. I end up anonymously giving her a big box of food every two weeks because I think she is making very bad choices, which are being subsidized by my tax dollars. I won't stop, but it is frustrating to see.

(And then I sit through economic courses telling me all "capitalists" are greedy, selfish bastards...*sigh*)



Exactly. Who? And I suppose that because he (or she) is so much more knowledgeable than the rest of us, that he (or she) ought to get more compensation, eh?




Despite the fanciful asteroid comment, I would tend to agree you---but see, your replacement of a capitalist economy seems an awful lot like a free market. I mean, a company isn't going to rush out and buy a whole lot of farmland in Kansas if it is going to be producing computer chips, as it won't require it. And I think taxes ought to be used for infrastructure and certain public utilities that everyone uses, like roads, firehouses, police, etc. Taxes should not be used to subsidize things like national debt.



I agree. Currency is a universal means of exchange.



Like the point above on replacing capitalism, this is how the free market works. If you please someone, you get rewarded. If you fail, you aren't.



Anubis, unless you expound on this a little further, like to define "damage to society," I think that you are more free-market, personal-choice than you think.

Actually, what is sort of funny is that I used to lean more to the other side of these debates. Eventually, I saw that my fixes in order to fix socialism really made it too similar to what capitalism tried to represent.

You know what else is funny---how everyone uses the term "capitalism" to define "free market." The word "capitalism" was actually coined by Karl Marx, who hoped that it would help in his crusade to denigrate the system of private property and free enterprise and promote socialism.

Try reading How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold History of Our Country, from the Pilgrims to the Present; it is very interesting. (The author also wrote a book called The Real Lincoln, which is also interesting.)

Yeah, actually that is funny. I knew he came up with the term though. It really isn't the most accurate term given that capitalism is more of an idea of free markets or free exchange but everyone still loves using it and even standing behind it as a virtue.
I would, but unfortunately I don't think my school has it and well, mobilizing the resources to obtain it would be too costly as it is not in my sadly low price range, unless there is a free pdf of it I don't know about. The pilgrims thing though refers to the early experiments with collectivist farms though right?

You know why socialism blows? Because people don't truely want it which means they don't care.

Case and point;

I watch cars get stuck in the ice all the time, living in Canada. Often, right at lights. Sometimes at busy intersections. Well, look at all those socialist dive into help. They all just stare and walk by. There's your socialism.

I think of socialism as a "government" which is an "idea" which can be talked about and debated. The thing is, it's your actions that dictate truth, not always what you say. Socialism is a "way of life" best shown through doing, not voice or opinion.

Last edited by Corvus on 29 Jan 2007, 8:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That reminds me dexkaden, did you read the new article about 24?

Because, and maybe I am making a base generalization, most of the people on this thread act like their wealth was based entirely on themselves. What balance is in their to keep businesses honest when people can easily be deceived?

No, which one? The one about 24 being Orwellian? The one about 24 going to far? The one about 24 being a right wing propagandist machine? The one about it being 2010 in the 24 universe? A different one? I crave. I crave. Tell me.



Well, I think it is a combination of both, and I think that wealth stems from property, and property is protected by law. The two work together. The study of political economy is what I am truly interested in, especially as it concerns property law. I am actually writing a paper (and I think it will be my life's work, really--the subject, not the paper) on why America and other democratic societies have been able to thrive while third-world countries have languished. And I don't buy the whole "not enough resources, not enough capital" argument, either.

I am of the mind that it is the legal system that allows the liquidation of capital, which allows for the creation of wealth. I came across a book by Hernando de Soto (not the explorer) called The Mystery of Capital. It basically took my theory and expounded upon it. What I think I am going to do is prove his thesis, and figure out exactly why and how extralegality in America was codified into law--because believe it or not, no one really can say. And so if I can figure out even a little bit of the code, then maybe I can help change the world. audere est facere

There are a few governmental investments that do help, however, the reason most people act as you say is because of the idea that wealth was created by individual actions. The idea behind a lot of this is that individual actors are the ones that make the choices and the tradeoffs that ultimately result in economic success. The individual decides their investments or lack thereof, the individual decides the efforts to improve their well-being, and the individual chooses how to act and what to do. There is indeed some luck involved given that the future is full of imperfect information, however, one cannot deny that certain choices lead to certain consequences for good or ill.

The issue on business honesty really depends on who you ask. Some people claim that consumer sovereignty is enough, after all, if a business screws you over or screws one of your friends over then in all likelihood you will not ever give them business/repeat business and tell your friends about what a horrible deal you got, and businesses that stay in business know that they have to appeal to consumers. Others would argue that mild regulation is involved in order to avoid exploitation of asymmetrical information, such as lemon laws for the auto industry and laws against false advertising. In both situations though, the exchange occurs only if both sides want it to, which is not as bad as coerced exchange in most cases.

But people are easily duped into placing themselves into situations which harm them. Even though many times it is because they are "stupid" there are plenty of people, including you and me, who fall for these traps. This might occur whether or not the company is aware of the situation.