40 replies to this topic

[Blutarsky]

Conditions just haven't been ripe for success. At some point in history as society becomes more technologically advanced and the workers become more educated, they will take control of the means of production and produce a better world. It's inevitable. Learn to like the idea and accept it.

6,000 years of recorded human history and the conditions have never been ripe.

Bullshit.

No conditions will ever produce a scenario where fundamental rules of logic don't apply. Socialism is based upon both/and dialectical logic and therefore does not conform to reality. Any worldview that violates the law of non-contradiction is doomed to failure.

The most glaring failure in your analysis is that you assume that workers WILL become more educated. Never in any society that has ever existed has humanity provided better and more abundant access to high quality education, yet the educational level of the average American is relatively low.

Socialism favors the weak minded collectivist and as people educate themselves they inherently become more independent.

Why do you think socialistic systems tightly control education and limit academic freedom? Education isn't the goal, it's indoctrination.

Strictly a capitalist/exploiter's definition.

I don't particularly care what you think of my definition. Socialists are just like atheists. If I asked you to define socialism on 15 separate occasions, you'd provide me with 15 different definitions. It's the weasel factor that allows you to explain around the embarrassing flaws within your philosophy.

Don't want anybodies money and I would much rather do something of value to help others for free. Right now I'm trying to stay out of the role of exploiter or exploitee. I may not have any money or live in luxury, but I do get by.

Fortunately for you, the people whom you pejoratively call "exploiters" provide you with valuable products and services such that you can fritter your day away on a computer that was designed, built and sold to you by an evil corporation. The same corporations large and small that built the home you live in, produce the food you eat, deliver amenities like electricity, gas and water to your home, provide you with Internet access, etc, etc, etc...

If you're such a purist, please, by all means, disavow the use of the fruits of labor of these exploiters. Else, every time you consume something they create at the expense of the poor simply adds to their power.

It's about honesty and integrity. Either you believe in what you espouse or you don't. If you believe in what you espouse, then live by your principles and stop allowing them to exploit.

Otherwise, shut the hell up.

Just out of curiosity, how much do you give to charity each year?

Edited by Blutarsky, 07 March 2009 - 10:07 PM.

[william7]

6,000 years of recorded human history and the conditions have never been ripe.

Because it hasn't happened in 6,000 years means it can never happen? You must be the eternal pessimist. Man hasn't conquered all disease, aging, and death in 6000 years. Does this mean it can never happen? What are you doing participating in these forums? This is Imminst you know? The same advances in science and technology that will put an end to disease, death and suffering will require an end to oppression and inequality.

No conditions will ever produce a scenario where fundamental rules of logic don't apply. Socialism is based upon both/and dialectical logic and therefore does not conform to reality. Any worldview that violates the law of non-contradiction is doomed to failure.

Many a notable social scientist and philosopher would beg to differ with you. Marxian science says socialism is inevitable.

The most glaring failure in your analysis is that you assume that workers WILL become more educated. Never in any society that has ever existed has humanity provided better and more abundant access to high quality education, yet the educational level of the average American is relatively low.

And here you say the working class can never be educated enough to emancipate itself in spite of the historical record of progress in this respect. What school did you go to?

Why do you think socialistic systems tightly control education and limit academic freedom? Education isn't the goal, it's indoctrination.

No socialist system has ever tightly controlled education or limited academic freedom. What you fail to understand is that there has never been a truly socialist system in history that you can evaluate or judge in this respect.

I don't particularly care what you think of my definition. Socialists are just like atheists. If I asked you to define socialism on 15 separate occasions, you'd provide me with 15 different definitions. It's the weasel factor that allows you to explain around the embarrassing flaws within your philosophy.

Notice that I don't give you my personal definition of socialism, but that of the Socialist Labor Party and other socialist organizations that follow Marxist ideology. All these definitions are consistent. So what you say is untrue.

Fortunately for you, the people whom you pejoratively call "exploiters" provide you with valuable products and services such that you can fritter your day away on a computer that was designed, built and sold to you by an evil corporation. The same corporations large and small that built the home you live in, produce the food you eat, deliver amenities like electricity, gas and water to your home, provide you with Internet access, etc, etc, etc...

If you're such a purist, please, by all means, disavow the use of the fruits of labor of these exploiters. Else, every time you consume something they create at the expense of the poor simply adds to their power.

It's about honesty and integrity. Either you believe in what you espouse or you don't. If you believe in what you espouse, then live by your principles and stop allowing them to exploit.

I live and work on a Bible campus as a volunteer without pay. The computer I don't own. What you say is totally ridiculous. I think of the computer as the product of exploited workers whom I hope to assist through use of their product.

Otherwise, shut the hell up.

Exactly what I thought.

Just out of curiosity, how much do you give to charity each year?

I don't give in money. I give in time and labor directly. I don't keep track of this.

[JLL]

If I said that everyone on the planet MUST work for somebody else, then I would be restricting their freedom, but this is not what I'm saying.

What you are saying is if you're not smart enough you will be required to work for someone for long hours at low wages and the quality of your life will be seriously impacted.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that for those who want to work outside a socialist community, let them do so. If you wish to host a community where people who are "not smart enough" are welcome, you may certainly host one.

Also where do you get "long hours and low wages"? Hours are shorter now than they have ever been, and wages are higher than they have ever been. This is all thanks to capitalism, the ownership of property. Without the state interfering with everything, I believe things would be even better.

I am not responsible for the quality of life of others. That resources are scarce and willpower and hard work are required to succeed in life is dictated by nature, not by me or other people.

It would be
a society based on the most primary freedom—economic freedom.

This is a false definition of economic freedom.

You may be correct. There's nothing in the Scriptures that indicates a type of Marxist Socialism must come first before Christian Communism. I have to agree that the world would be better off if it could make the transition into pure Christian Communism without a period of less than perfect Socialism.

There were some positive results to those imperfect forms of socialism you mention. Marxist criminologists found far less rates of street crime in states claiming to be socialist and found capitalism to be a strong breeder of crime - including homicide.

You seem to be a big fan of Marxism. Did you know that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were among the first to publicly (in newspapers) promote the idea of mass genocide? They took their ideas directly from Hitler but modified them to suit the idea of murdering people who are not "ready for the socialist revolution" instead of murdering people based on race as Hitler did with national socialism. They were big fans of the whole cleansing process. I take it you're a fan of that one as well.

And street crime, please. Is this the best argument you've got? You should know never trust statistics by a socialist state. Have you ever seen the propaganda put forth by the Soviet Union back in the day? It looks funny now, but that was official data back then. Socialist/communist state statistics are notoriously incorrect.

I also thought you thought Russia was not a true socialist state, so why are you now quoting statistics from false socialist states? If you're going to take that route, how about putting things into perspective and looking at how many people these true/false socialist states have killed:

4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State

Oh well, 61 million people murdered in slave camps, but at least there's less street crime (probably because there's nothing to steal in a socialist state)!

http://www.hawaii.ed...kills/NOTE1.HTM

I guess the "communities" you keep referring to are really euphemisms for gulags? I mean, they worked for the greater good and nobody got paid in money, right?

Show me a society that has existed in history where there was a working class and an owner class that had no need of an enforceable system of law?

Why are you asking me to show that? I never claimed there was one. I said we don't need a state, i.e. a monopoly of violence over a geographical area, to enforce law. For some examples of private law, see the medieval Law Merchant, medieval Iceland and private law agreements between miners and mining companies in the not-so-wild west.

If you mean you want to be free to manipulate others for your benefit and to their disadvantage, this would be aggression. What's so wrong with sharing everything and staying on the same wrung of the social ladder as your brother? Give it some thought.

How is it manipulating if I am willing to pay someone to do a job, and someone accepts it? We are both willing parties. Is this really so hard to grasp? To call this aggression is absurd. If accepting the job was to their disadvantage, why would they accept it in the first place? Even if we assume a scenario where someone has the choice between looking for scrap metal in the dumpster and working for a sweatshop, taking a job at the sweatshop is not aggression from the part of the employer. Jobs at sweatshops are like a dream come true to many people in poor countries. Just ask them. It's people like you who want to ban sweatshops that are stripping these people of their choice to improve their lives, because you say it would be "aggression" and result in a "disadvantage". Nobody has said that working in a sweatshop is great, but you have to ask: Compared to what? Compared to spending 18 hours each day in a hot, steaming garbage dump that smells like feces and vomit, I bet the sweatshop is a whole lot better.

[Blutarsky]

Because it hasn't happened in 6,000 years means it can never happen?

Yes. 6,000 years is ample time. Abject failure of socialism at every turn argues against your delusional hopes. Furthermore, marxian philosophy and socialism have spawned some of the most disgusting regimes in human history (see the above post). These regimes killed in the name of socialism, and the murders weren't tangentially related. Such actions flow from the premises of the philosophy itself, i.e., that man is but blood and soil.

You must be the eternal pessimist.

Nope. Just a pragmatic realist that chooses to learn from historical failures like "national - socialist" party and look for viable alternatives.

Many a notable social scientist and philosopher would beg to differ with you. Marxian science says socialism is inevitable.

What value is there in asking a marxian scientist any objective questions regarding the philosophy of socialism? That's like asking a priest if you should go to confession. A bit of a no-brainer don't you think, pardon the pun? Any philosopy that embraces dialectical logic does not conform to reality.

And here you say the working class can never be educated enough to emancipate itself in spite of the historical record of progress in this respect. What school did you go to?

You should read my statement more carefully. I stated that you assume everyone WILL educate themselves. Clearly this is not the case. We have abundant opportunity for every person in this country to avail themselves of a free education through high school, yet how many people still fail to graduate from high school? Your mistaken belief in the altruistic axiom that everyone will become educated is foolish and one of the many flaws in your system.

No socialist system has ever tightly controlled education or limited academic freedom. What you fail to understand is that there has never been a truly socialist system in history that you can evaluate or judge in this respect.

Oh...well, since we're debating a theoretical system that exists only in your mind, then of course, I understand where you're coming from...

Exactly what I thought.

Exactly what I thought as well. You're just like every other jackass that wants a socialist, communist or fascist system. You don't have the guts and integrity to live out what you believe RIGHT NOW. You want the system to change and THEN you'll start living like a socialist. Meanwhile, until the system changes, you want to play along with everyone else and enjoy what has been provided to you by the "exploiters."

In other words, it's not FAIR that you have to give up these things when everyone else doesn't have to. But, after everyone else has been forced to give up what they have, then you'll finally live out what you believe.

If no "truly" socialist system exists, why don't you prove us all wrong and create one, starting with YOU. You lead the way and provide objective evidence that YOUR system, whatever the hell that is, actually works. Until then, no person with a modicum of common sense need listen to you.

Edited by Blutarsky, 09 March 2009 - 03:49 PM.

[markm]

Exactly what I thought as well. You're just like every other jackass that wants a socialist, communist or fascist system. You don't have the guts and integrity to live out what you believe RIGHT NOW. You want the system to change and THEN you'll start living like a socialist. Meanwhile, until the system changes, you want to play along with everyone else and enjoy what has been provided to you by the "exploiters."

In other words, it's not FAIR that you have to give up these things when everyone else doesn't have to. But, after everyone else has been forced to give up what they have, then you'll finally live out what you believe.

If no "truly" socialist system exists, why don't you prove us all wrong and create one, starting with YOU. You lead the way and provide objective evidence that YOUR system, whatever the hell that is, actually works. Until then, no person with a modicum of common sense need listen to you.

Uh, did you not catch the part where he said he works without pay? If you guys are going to trade snotty rhetoric, at least get your facts straight.

[william7]

Uh, did you not catch the part where he said he works without pay? If you guys are going to trade snotty rhetoric, at least get your facts straight.

Thanks for seeing the facts correctly! I hope you make out well with your struggle too.

[imarobot]

I like what he is saying, but his example was of intelligent software engineer entrepreneurs, I feel that this type of work-communism works with intelligent people, but try getting a bunch of Fast Food employees involved and I'm pretty sure the company would fail because of incompetence.

I agree that the fast food employees probably wouldn't be shining examples of socialist behavior. But the fast food employees aren't succeeding under capitalism either. So the question is why are they unsuccessful? Intelligence alone? I doubt it.

Too many of us think too highly of ourselves. If I'm so smart, why am I middle class just like my parents? I'm more intelligent than my parents (I promise), so what other factors have put me in the same socio-economic group as them? Why is my less intelligent, less motivated brother-in-law on track to becoming wealthy like his parents? Genetics can be a factor. But what we often forget about are the fuzzy ideas of access, opportunity, and knowledge. Does a poor person understand what's necessary to become rich? Doubtful. So do they pass on that lack of knowledge to their offspring? Does the middle class have biases which get in the way of success -- the need for security, for instance? What are the prejudices of each class that help or hurt that class? What advantages do the offspring of one class have over the offspring of another class?

I think we can make some changes that would allow fast food employees to become more successful. Their success would benefit everyone, just as their failures take a toll on everyone. Is improving the underclasses even possible with a purely capitalistic system? No. Does that mean that capitalism should be abandoned? No. Capitalism has a place. So does socialism. And if done smartly, one system can help the other: a pinch of socialism can help the fast food workers become capitalist competitors.

Each economic system has some important gears and levers. The trick is incorporating those gears and levers into smoothly running machine. I doubt pure capitalism or pure socialism or pure communism is sustainable. Humans are too complicated. We need a mix of parts that matches us, a complicated, sometimes confusing mix. Such a machine is a little tougher to build. But when it's working, it's beautiful.

Edited by imarobot, 10 March 2009 - 05:22 PM.

[JLL]

I agree that the fast food employees probably wouldn't be shining examples of socialist behavior. But the fast food employees aren't succeeding under capitalism either. So the question is why are they unsuccessful? Intelligence alone? I doubt it.

Some of them are not interested in being succesful. You'd be surprised at how many people have different priorities than being succesful. Others are just lazy. Laziness is far more common than true stupidity, and laziness can't be fixed with socialism; on the contrary, laziness and socialism are a terrible combination. People who are really interested in being succesful won't work in fast food joints for very long.

Currently, however, to be succesful one needs to be fairly smart and/or work hard. I'm fairly confident that the level of intelligence and hard work one needs to succeed (financially) would be lower if there were, say, no taxes and other needless bureaucracy. Starting your own business can be very difficult in many cases because there are some many governmental regulations. You might want to start selling your home-made cookies to your neighbors, but after a while you'd have bureaucrats knocking on your door asking what's going on.

If I'm so smart, why am I middle class just like my parents? I'm more intelligent than my parents (I promise), so what other factors have put me in the same socio-economic group as them? Why is my less intelligent, less motivated brother-in-law on track to becoming wealthy like his parents?

Only you can answer this question. I doubt he's less motivated if you say he's on the right track and you're not.

Genetics can be a factor. But what we often forget about are the fuzzy ideas of access, opportunity, and knowledge.

This is why knowledge should be free (which means getting rid of IP laws once and for all). After that, it's up to us what to do with that knowledge. You can't force a man to learn how to fish.

Is improving the underclasses even possible with a purely capitalistic system? No.

What is a purely capitalistic system?

Does that mean that capitalism should be abandoned? No. Capitalism has a place. So does socialism. And if done smartly, one system can help the other: a pinch of socialism can help the fast food workers become capitalist competitors.

No. Your rhetoric is typical of socialist politicians. The government never produces anything; it only distributes. Socialism only works in the short term, and even then poorly.

Let's take, for example, the socialism-based idea of minimum wage. To some people, this seems like a good idea. However, in the long term, what happens is that jobs that are not worth X dollars per hour are lost. So if I wanted to hire that kid next door to run my lemonade stand and pay him $5 an hour and it would earn $6 in total, I can't afford to pay a minimum wage of $7. So the lemonade stand is no more.

If minimum wage really worked as an idea, why not set minimum wage at $100 / hour? Surely that would make us all rich. All socialist ideas are based on similar false assumptions about reality and economics.

[imarobot]

A purely capitalist system would be one which doesn't attempt in anyway to restrict or to get in the way of the aggregation of capital.

The minimum wage doesn't teach the person anything, nor does welfare. So I agree. As far as socialist ideas go, those are weak, temporary solutions that do damage to the individual and to society when extended.

Many studies have compared the eating habits of Americans to the eating habits of people from other countries. Usually, American eating habits are inferior. Is this because Americans are inferior? If you group countries into classes based on the eating habits, America would be lower class. Do all Americans benefit if Americans are taught how to make better food choices -- if they are taught how to rise to a higher class? Is it accurate to say Americans are more lazy than a population with superior eating habits? Do the people with superior eating habits think more, or more clearly, about what they eat? Or were they just lucky to be born into the superior culture? What percentage of Americans would make a change entirely on their own, without being influenced by some person or community?

My socialism doesn't seem to be your socialism. My socialism is more about the spread of information than about the spread of wealth.

I understand what you're afraid of. All governments are socialist at their core: they take and they redistribute and they try to grab more. Does the government need to be kept in check? Absolutely. The government is the biggest danger to liberty because it has legitimacy. But corporations are also dangerous. In fact, any sufficiently large group needs to be watched carefully.

Even for purely selfish reasons, it sometimes makes sense to help others. That's why socialism -- even just a pinch of it -- should never be completely dismissed.

Edited by imarobot, 10 March 2009 - 08:51 PM.

[RunterBeaker]

Uh, did you not catch the part where he said he works without pay? If you guys are going to trade snotty rhetoric, at least get your facts straight.

Thanks for seeing the facts correctly! I hope you make out well with your struggle too.

I forgot about this thread, I've been too busy finishing up my economics degree.

WORKING WITHOUT PAY YOU SAY? oh jeez freakin louise, I could spend days analyzing this thread to dissect and debunk everything that Elijah has stated and reduce to little more than sloppy unconstrained imagination.

Oh, this is going to leave a lot out: about pay...first we must speak of VALUE. When most people think of economics they think of $,money,dollars... well guess what, economics is really about value, and a dollar is just another form of value. It functions to store value, facilitate exchange, and to standardize prices ( so we have a car in terms of dollars instead of in terms of every other product produced by other people)

Does Elijah or any other person really work for no pay? Nope, not at all they are getting paid, otherwise they would not be doing what they are doing. They are not paid in dollar bills, but in personal utility, in satisfaction -- in some form value. "What? What! No, no, no, I don't get paid!!! Are you some kind of a JOKER!" To provide further proof that Elijah or whoever does NOT work without pay, you can run this empiracle expiriment: Offer Elijah or whoever, 100 dollars to stop doing what he's doing for a week, or a month, or a year or forever. If they say no, then they value what they are doing more than the amount of money(obviously) Just keep on upping it incrementally (assuming you have the money) -- 200,201,202... 500.. 1000... 1,000,000 -- until they say, "ok I'll take the money and stop", the previous dollar amount you offer before he accepts is the amount of value in dollar terms Elijah is getting paid.

Edited by RunterBeaker, 30 April 2009 - 05:30 PM.

[chris w]

You seem to be a big fan of Marxism. Did you know that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were among the first to publicly (in newspapers) promote the idea of mass genocide? They took their ideas directly from Hitler but modified them to suit the idea of murdering people who are not "ready for the socialist revolution" instead of murdering people based on race as Hitler did with national socialism. They were big fans of the whole cleansing process. I take it you're a fan of that one as well.

I just had to reply to this ancient thread seeing this bulshit. JLL, when did you actually read something about Hitler ? The guy lived since 1889 to 1945, as for Karl Marx - 1818 to 1883, Freidrich Engels 1820 - 1895. So I take it that it would have been really hard for the two commies to be influenced by anything from Adolf Hilter's musings, unless maybe the soon-to-die Engels was enamoured by the genocidal ideas of the 5 year old Adi. And can you give me the actual texts where they're promoting mass genocide ? What exactly newspapers were those in ? And mind you, "promoting" is something different than "foreseeing to happen in the future if this and this happens".
Do you think they would have been able to print such papers, shouting "slay the rich" in the light of day - in Germany or United Kingdom and not get thrown into Kaiser's or King's dungeons ?
Not to mention communists and socialists were high on Nazi hit list as soon as the they got into power in Germany.

Edited by chris w, 12 July 2010 - 02:16 PM.