Socialism and Conformity

Post Reply New Topic

Excellent, Ed. That is Karl Marx's doctrine. That is the underpinning of a socialist society.

Try to see it in a different way, Sean. Corporations these days hang on to their power by setting all the workers against each other, making them compete for jobs. Just imagine what we could do if we ditch the corporations and unite the workers. We could produce stuff so much more efficiently, and then there really would be enough to go round the world over.

I mean why refuse an aspie a job because his social skills are not good? Under socialism, people could organise themselves into roles they can do and they can help society in that way. The other side of the coin is that they get help from society for the things they aren't good at. It is a system of give and take, but not in the same way capitalism is. There would be no need for money, even.

Basically, you give what you can give, and take what you need. Obviously there are people who are not capable of giving very much but are still allowed to take what they need. That is OK, since the root of the system is Goodwill rather than petty economics. Likewise, there will be very capable people who will give much more than they take, and contribute the most to the socialist society. These people will be well respected in their community for their efforts, and rightly so, and held up as role models for the rest of society.

You could accomplish the same thing by restoring the political clout the unions once had and still increase worker's wages, be able to generate enough income tax revenue to support the genuinely disbled as long as laziness is not also subsidized, and do so without the loss pf personal libery that socialist governments cause.

Huh? A right-winger talks about the loss of freedom that a left-wing government would cause? That's funny.

The right wing is actively working to keep our freedom as limited as possible. Bush even said that his Supreme Court nominees would not be "activist judges", and then defined that as judges who create rights for the American people that aren't specifically guaranteed in the Constitution. His stated public policy is to restrict our freedom as much as possible.

You are not accounting for the fact that once the population control currently exerted in Africa, the Middle East, India, South America and China disappears the result isn't a planet wide "Birthathon" where every one of the 5 - 40 children now live to maturity. Furthermore, the healthcare requirements for that would be truly insane. The is a limited amount of water and we can only produce a limited amount of energy (with current tech) so taking arid areas in the third world and using them for production would require enormous resources.

As typical of socialism, your system begins by having to murder off a bunch of people to make it work.

look at the personal and finacial freedom indexes of welfare counrties to the us and you might be surprised.

Hmm some socialism programs could work but I don't see that happening.

...... Necro.......

This thread is a bit of a mind-screw. The posters who originally wrote in it, were here when I first joined. It's a bit eery.

7 years?

Impressive.

It is so good that PPR has moved on from those old outdated terms of yesteryear like 'socialism'.

Oh wait...

Sounds interesting, I'm falling asleep now or i'd read the whole thing and comment. I think your system could work and I've been thinking about similar system for years that would prevent anyone from ever worrying about money and still preserve capitalist innovation.

I don't think that democracy should be able to vote communism out. if that were the case greedy people would always try to steal the elections. What the ideal system is that people should be allowed a choice were they live. If people actually want to live in that hell hole called capitalism, capitalistic preserves would be set up just as Hong Kong is a capitalist preserve of China.

More likely communistic preserves (communes) could be set up where those foolish enough to be collectivists can live in peace. Capitalistically inclined folks do not give a damn one way or the other about those who prefer collectivist as long as the collectivists do not try to foist their insanity on the rest of us. Anyone living in capitalist land has the option of not buying or selling anything. That we he can be free of capitalist evil. Just do not transact business. No one will force you to. Of course anyone that foolish will probably starve to death but that is his choice.

ruveyn

A communist living in a capitalist country is forced to buy and sell just in order to survive. A day will come when anyone who identifies himself as a communist will not be allowed to buy and sell. When that day comes communists will form communes so they will be able to survive and not go to hell.

One can live quite well raiding dumpsters and living beneath an overpass. If one prefers a cleaner life, then he should cash out and invest in a commune. The capitalistically inclined will not bother people living in communes as long as the people living in communes do not make trouble. No one is forcing anyone to live in a capitalistic manner.

ruveyn

No one is forced to buy or sell. One can steal, one can beg or one can starve. One can even live in a hippie commune. There are always alternatives.

ruveyn