Socialism and Conformity

Post Reply New Topic

I am both a Socialist and a non-conformist. Doesn't sound quite right, does it???

Let me explain............

Socialism has in the past involved the idea that the workers will rise against the elite, overthrow them, and collectively own everything. All persons will be equal and conform to the new socialist state.

Now I understand that most people with AS will not like that at all. Neither do I!! !! ! . After all, most of us here by our very nature are non-conformist in some way and we like to be individuals, not just some mindless zombie in some socialist collective.

I have taken upon myself an enormous task. That is to invent a new type of socialism that addresses the problems of this century, and the needs of people as individuals and also members of society.

My new philosophy (RobertN Socialism) I will lay out in another post in the future when I have finalised it. The idea is to come up with something that 'does what it says on the cover', that is, the name Social-ism. This implies a system that serves the interests of people (Social), as opposed to a system that serves money and corporations, capital-ism (capital means wealth).

My idea is a flexible, liberal system that fits all sorts of different people. Individuality and creativity needs to be encouraged, but not at others' expense. We need to recognise that all people should be equal, but different. Differences should be encouraged. For instance, I don't see why engineers should be paid more than social workers, or bankers more than scientists. These are all different skills, but equally as important.

I would also like to implement a system where people can earn respect and prestige through their jobs, and still rise in their career, but economic means should be a right (not earnt) and shared absolutely equally amongst all citizens, regardless of their status.

Of course the most vital aspect is democracy. If people don't like my system, they can still kick me out out of office. I will not force it on them.

Sounds a bit simplistic to me. Some professions and jobs should have higher wages than others because it takes more skill dedictaion and hard work to get to that stage. If we all had equal money then who would bother their behind gettingb up and working harder and making more sacrifices because there is no reward for it at the end of the day?

.......................

Last edited by yellowbelliedpooh on 09 Nov 2005, 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

While agreeing that Labour are marginally better than the Tories dont you think youve gone a little overboard on how good Tony Blair is? Why is it that there are European countries with no-one under the poverty line but lots of employed people and the unemployed here including the disabled are expected to live under this line.

The difference in riches between some people and some areas of the country is sickening and indeed increasing and needs to be addressed sharpish. Politicians and Businessmen are giving themselves large increases in wages all the while trying to keep the "blue collar" workers wages as low as possible to keep rich shareholders happy.

The NHS is struggling, i have been told i need to wait two years for a simple hearing test and psychological services are near impossible to get here unless you do drastic actions. Glasgow is the poorest city in the European Union but still one of the highest council taxes in Scotland. Im not living in this brilliant utopia that you speak of!

No, it does not.

That sounds quite threatening.

Perhaps most people with AS will not like it, but I can think I can reasonably predict that many more will not either.

Great! Another Grand Narrative - just what we need to get the 21st Century off to a flying start.

All systems serve teh needs of people. Some systems claim to serve the needs of more people than others, while some systems predicate their legitimacy on serving first and foremost, the needs of a tiny elite, because they proclaim that sufficient crumbs will trickle down to 'benefit us all'.

A system of 'social-ism' demainds, a priori, that there are established rules of interrelating and so on. It sounds like a template for the tyranny of the majority, which most political systems are anyway.

Surely the payment differentials between different skill sectors (which are often (fallaciously) claimed to be on the basis differing levels of abiliity), are demonstrations of those very differences you say should be encouraged.

Noble sentiments, however they do not fully take account of what has been dubbed 'human nature'. Most jobs do not garner respect and prestige, they are pointless, mind-numbing chores that are the 'just desserts' of those who, while possessing the congnitive amamentaria for achieving so much more, are often railroaded into these dead end roles as a form of punishment for failing to be a carbon copy cut-out of everyone else around them.

I think that anyone who genuinely created a system of egalitarianism would soon find themselves out of power and airbrushed out of History. You may recall the treatment Leon Trotsky received, when he became aware of the tyranny that was taking place in 'soviet' Russia.

People have invented some amazing systems of thought and socio-political and economic philosophies. Marxism and Socialism is one of the best that has been devised, unfortunately the failing is that it has never yet been translated to a workable reality. This is in part due to the fact that it has never genuinely had a fair chance to run properly, but it is also because human nature seems to be designed against such ideas.

In comparison to Fascism, Socialism clearly has the moral high ground. It is a very 'pro-human' philosophy and if human beings were better, more evolved, or something, then it would be the plan to follow. At its very best, Socialism is the Tribune of the Oppressed, the one voice in the wilderness that will speak up against institutional injustice and it is always there, even in the worst times.

The problem though (and this is not really about Socialism, it is about a Thought System that views the entire world through its own perspective), is that it becomes totally blind to ideas outside of its problem domain, or else it tries to embrace all problematic areas of human existence, even those beyond its remit. This is where dogmatism looms large and it is one of the problems with embracing a 'one size fits all' narrative framework.

There are many things happening in the world today that Socialism explains remarkably well; better in many respects than the 'orthodox' and 'common sense' pseudo-explanations put forward by the mainstream chattering classes.

Socialism might happen one day, when human beings evolve enough to put petty ideations and personal conceits and bigotries behind them and genuinely engage their intellects (and their compassion), in order to build something for the better and for the future. Unfortunately, this possible development of humanity is being adversely affected by the social and economic framework we find ourselves in.

Social capatilism would be a lot better than the disgusting differences in living standards there are in most capatilist countries right now.

Was that post supposed to be completely ironic, or was it just the end?

i can hardly breathe for laughing! yellowbellliedpooh, you are either a genius with a magnificent sense of irony, or... well, the alternative is too ghastly to contemplate...

Yes it is possible to be a non-conformist and a socialist.
The Chinese, Russians, Cuba and former Yugoslavia got away with saying they were a democracy.
Even if you can't except every single countries excuse for doing something
(I personally can't), there are many different ways to define theoretical political philosophies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_art

Soviet Nonconformist Art
The death of Stalin in 1953, and Nikita Khrushchev's Thaw, paved the way for a wave of liberalization in the arts throughout the Soviet Union. Although no official change in policy took place, artists began to feel free to experiment in their work, with considerably less fear of repurcussions than during the Stalinist period.

non·con·form·ist (nŏn'kən-fôr'mĭst)
n.
One who does not conform to, or refuses to be bound by, accepted beliefs, customs, or practices.

its INCREDIBLY EASY TO BE BOTH!
Call yourself an anarchist, everyone will believe your both.
Look at Noam Chomsky

Well, obviously my vision does not seem to be well excepted, and if I were a politician, I would have to acknowledge that.

However, a few points in my defense:

1) Someone has suggested I am living in the past. I put it to you that I am living in the future, perhaps many years in the future, I don't know exactly. What I am suggesting is not communism, but a system that proposes both economic control and personal liberty. Communism does not give personal liberty, and most forms of socialism do not either. Some people call me a Liberal or Progressive, and I am merely suggesting a more extreme version of progressivism.

2) Someone has suggested that absolute economic equality would lead to laziness. I disagree. People will always strive to suceed, whether there are economic incentives or not. Just think, under my system, you won't ever have to worry about money again!! !! !! !! !! !

3) AAARRRRRGGGHHH to all you cynics. Cynicism is for boys. Progressivism is for men. If we were all cynics, no-one would do anything about anything, and we would still be living in caves.

Slogans are for those that havent got any ideas or lack substance behind their ideas. Right now i think social capatilism would be my favoured form of government and is a system we could feasibly have in Britain. No-one would need to worry about living in poverty but hard work, skills and enterprise would still be rewarded.

RobertN, have you ever heard of Social Democracy? That has been what you are talking about. It isn't a new form of socialism. It has been around a long time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

First of all, not all people strive to succeed. There are plenty of people who don't want to work hard and would rather live off of the system. A friend of the family who is quite wealthy (wealthier than my family anyway) always votes Republican, but she only votes that way for economic reasons, not for 'moral' issues. Her family was poor growing up, so she worked hard in school, and got to where she is today entirely on her own. Her philosophy is basically 'I got there on my own. I earned my money by working hard. Why should I give anyone a handout.' She thinks that anyone who accepts and uses a government handout is lazy.



Sorry, but you're wrong about that. If everyone has to be equal, then eventually no one will have anything. I will give you an example of what I mean.

Scenario 1: There are 100 starving people in a room. There is also a cake in the room. They divide it among themselves.
-- 3 people get gigantic slices of cake
-- 7 people get huge slices of cake
-- 15 people get large slices of cake
-- 50 people get medium slices of cake
-- 15 people get small slices of cake
-- 10 people get nothing

How many people survive? Ninety out of 100. It's horrible that 10 didn't, but most of the people survived. There are the elite few that get a lot, a large amount that get an okay amount, and a somewhat small amount that get hardly anything. Overall, though, most of the people end up fine. The cake represents money and resources. This is an example of capitalism.

Scenario 2: There are 100 starving people in a room. There is also a cake in the room. They divide it among themselves.
-- 100 people get equal sized, but miniscule slices, that are practically crumbs

How many survive? It's hard to say. Maybe a few do, but they are the strong ones. The cake was divided equally and fairly, but there just wasn't enough to go around. There was no way they could just make more cake magically appear. Most of the people die. The cake represents money and resources. This scenario is an example of socialism in its purest form (i.e. not social democracy).

Scenario 1 is more vicious and unfair than Scenario 2, but in the long run, more of the people's needs will be satisfied.

Wait a second! RobertN, you are right! Under your system we won't ever have to worry about money again! Why? Because none of us will have any.

People have their opinions. No sense getting pissed off by them. I suppose you could be pissed off by bad established practices, but it seems rather futile to be pissed off by opinions.

Say i thought that it was right to clone babies to harvest them for their delicious newborn eye balls in my new frozen kiddie-eye sorbet.

The fact that this will never ever happen should make the fact that i think it irrelevant.

And incase you are wondering, i prefer the eyes of home-grown adults.


j/k ^_^

No, I thoroughly disagree with you there, Bec. In your 2nd scenario, there would be plenty enough to go around. Everyone would get medium sized, or possibly small sizes, but enough to survive. I find your support of the 1st scenario where 10% of the population are allowed to die absolutely dispicable. You should be ashamed.

You are using the minimalist arguement which states there are not enough resources to go around. That is utter crap, and it is just used by Republicans to defend their wealth. There is plenty for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed, as one famous person once said.

http://www.earthday.net/footprint/index.asp

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES

FOOD 4.2
MOBILITY 0.5
SHELTER 1.7
GOODS/SERVICES 2.3

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 8.7

IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 8.8 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 4.8 PLANETS.

I am not that bad of a person, try it and you will see how many resources it takes to live the
"good life"

I don't understand your point? Who are you critising here, me or Bec?

Are you trying to say that if everyone lived like the United States, we would need 4.8 planets? If it is, I agree. However, I am not suggesting everyone lives like Americans - quite the opposite.

In the UK, we produce 5 times less waste than the US. Does that mean we would only need one planet.

I don't quite see your arguement?