The problem with the idea itself is that it doesn't go too well with human nature and therefore will never be realized properly.
are we talking general socialism or more communism?
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with social equality as an idea. Not being able to implement social equality universally and/or properly, should not be an excuse to abandon it's pursuit.
all Socialist Leaders made really really bad things
Socialism is not the same as Communism... Scandinavia is, in my opinion, more socialist, than Russia ever was.Socialism is a very wide term which encompasses many things. In original communist writing, the word socialism refers to the economic stage before communism and there socialism is very closely related to communism. At a certain stage of history being a socialist was basically being a communist, but instead of seeking a violent transition, socialists aimed at reforming the economical system through the parliaments.
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with social equality as an idea. Not being able to implement social equality universally and/or properly, should not be an excuse to abandon it's pursuit.
An argument regarding human nature is pretty much irrelevant, since every law out there, is against human nature, but that doesn't make them wrong or unneeded. Otherwise there wouldn't be any need to write them down. f. ex.: It's not in human nature to sniff each other's assholes when we meet, and so we have no need in laws restricting this activity explicitly. It is in human nature to smack each other around, so we need many laws restricting these notions.I think there is a subtle difference here in that laws try to prevent humans from doing what is in their nature, whereas socialism expects humans to do what is outside their nature. Humans are capable of breaking the law, which is why they are there, but they are not capable of carrying out socialism. In any case using human nature in any argument is a slippery slope as it is an abstract concept, but it was the quickest way to describe what I meant. What I mean is that history has been fairly consistent in showing us that socialism is unrealistic due to human selfishness.
wat
I presume you are referring to democratic socialism, which is what most of our Western European 'socialist' parties practice. Which has very little to do with the original socialist tenets, and merely seeks to avoid the excesses of capitalism. In which case socialism is a great idea which I support. Not sure what exactly the OP means by socialism.
I think there is a subtle difference here in that laws try to prevent humans from doing what is in their nature, whereas socialism expects humans to do what is outside their nature. Humans are capable of breaking the law, which is why they are there, but they are not capable of carrying out socialism. In any case using human nature in any argument is a slippery slope as it is an abstract concept, but it was the quickest way to describe what I meant. What I mean is that history has been fairly consistent in showing us that socialism is unrealistic due to human selfishness.
Of course not. Socialism is a perfect dream, a world where everybody has same chance for happines and good life.
However, I fear that ideal of socialsm will never be realised as long as greed and envy exists. And of course, there will always be someone who will want more than everyone else.
wat
Socialism is more like democrats i think...Socialism is nothing like the Democrats in the US. Sure the Democrats are more left than the Republicans, but the Democrats are still more right wing than most parties we in Europe consider right wing. The ideals of low government interference and free market are so deeply ingrained throughout the US society that there hasn't been much of a labour or socialist movement.
Socialism is reality. We have socialism in some european states. It inclueds state wellfare, 4-5 weeks holidays, health and unemployment insurance and stuff like this.No, those things are the only things that socialists have managed to realize after watering down their ideology for a century. They became less and less extreme because they saw that their ideology was not feasible. What is left now of socialism are capitalists who value equality slightly higher than the other capitalists, gg socialism. Socialism is dead as hell because current day socialists are a part of the system the original socialists tried to overthrow.
I'm not entirely convinced on the premise that human nature says given the opportunity with minimal risk we're going to screw our neighbors or strangers without a second thought but there is a certain malevolence when normally altruistic people fail to prevent the others from doing something exploitative.
The leftist policies practiced in Scandinavian countries are not socialist. Socialism is not communism, but neither is it what any country in Europe practices.
And, let's be honest here, Scandinavian countries do not owe their current prosperity to their wellfare programs. Norway has oil, whilst Sweden was one of the countries least affected by WW2, whereas it is pretty much the entire Eastern Europe that was forced intosocialismcommunism after WW2.
Shure Teeth. How can modern day socialists do what they want to do, if they dont get them funds from faithful members as it used to be. They need the system as they are not independet. They would be if they were funded by theire voter base with membership fees. But today thats not the case. No support, no independence, no power.
corrected. (that socialism does not encourage the eliminiation of private property may be one of the most significant differences between socialism and communism for clarification)
Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1][2] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[3] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[4] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[5]
Socialism is not the same as Communism... Scandinavia is, in my opinion, more socialist, than Russia ever was.
Yeah Cubans were pretty happy with how their country turned out, you go to Cuba today and the people are a lot more upbeat than compared to there Neighbours America for example.
(click to show/hide)
Socialism is nothing like the Democrats in the US. Sure the Democrats are more left than the Republicans, but the Democrats are still more right wing than most parties we in Europe consider right wing. The ideals of low government interference and free market are so deeply ingrained throughout the US society that there hasn't been much of a labour or socialist movement.
Shure Teeth. How can modern day socialists do what they want to do, if they dont get them funds from faithful members as it used to be. They need the system as they are not independet. They would be if they were funded by theire voter base with membership fees. But today thats not the case. No support, no independence, no power.
As you see is not what it is. That's just government functions, as they have always been. Read what i quoted off wikipedia, again. Socialism, in general, prevents private property in means of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production). No country in Europe is socialist, thankfully.
@nightmare: funds collected by taxes have to be declared in the budget, like every goverment has to. Other income usually is aquired by all parties to make theire political campaigns being heard - call it advertisment - its fact that political parties need this or they go down the river.
EDIT:
I believe econimic crises was provoked by antisocialist groups to bring down socialism by making people believe social systems cant be supported anymore becouse of "financial crises". Them greedy capitalists just dont want to pay up for social system anymore, they dont want to pay tax for theyre working class, they want to make more money and pay less to them who do the work. Thats just it. My true conspiracy theory.
In times of campaigning I may have heard rumours that some parties use more money then there is in the budget...
Still this is worth a own thread about corruption and maybe getting into community policy stuff thats way too far off the trail.
If as a peasant, the state allows you to keep 4 bags of grain for yourself and confiscates (or buys at state prices, which is basically the same) everything else you produced, what is the point of producing more than 4 bags? That's it. No sane person would work for nothing, I don't even think it's fair to call that greed.
The leftist policies practiced in Scandinavian countries are not socialist. Socialism is not communism, but neither is it what any country in Europe practices.And what about Finland, then? No oil, hugely affected by WW2.
And, let's be honest here, Scandinavian countries do not owe their current prosperity to their wellfare programs. Norway has oil, whilst Sweden was one of the countries least affected by WW2, whereas it is pretty much the entire Eastern Europe that was forced into socialism after WW2.
That's because Russia is Communist :idea:
That's because the unhappy ones swam to Florida, were imprisoned, or killed.
You seriously underestimate racism and natural resources. It would be a helluva more like pre-2011 Sudan than 1917 Russia.
Much truth in this.
That's because most socialists in America have no money to give (and are lazy to boot). I imagine it is similar in Europe.
Can someone explain to me why people are being fired from mines, industries and have to decrease the amount of production (agriculture, industry etc) during a financial crisis? The amount of available resources are the same, the availability of workforce is still there, the industries and mines are still ready to use. All shut down because of some banks across the atlantic invested their money in the wrong places (and end up being bailed anyways - so much for free market+Capitalism)
Just sounds really stupid in my opinion and personally believe our current monetary system in the world is stupid - Better than what it used to be before of course but in need of change. I'm not really that educated in economy so if someone would like to convince me why Im wrong go ahead.
And what about Finland, then? No oil, hugely affected by WW2.Is it as prosperous as Scandinavian countries? Not really. Also, it was affected by WW2, but... hugely? As hugely as most of Eastern Europe or Germany or France? Not really, no.
What motivates rich people to actually become rich? Is it not the prospect of securing the future of their family? What do you think the wealthy would do, if they knew that their fortune would be distributed/taken over by the government after their deaths?
Is it as prosperous as Scandinavian countries? Not really. Also, it was affected by WW2, but... hugely? As hugely as most of Eastern Europe or Germany or France? Not really, no.Yes, it is as prosperous as Sweden and Denmark. Norway is way above both, though, because of oil. And yeah, Finland had to pay huge war reparations and got a big chunk and one of its biggest cities taken from it; obviously this has a big effect on the economy and everything else, not to mention the dead people. Whether it was as badly affected as Eastern Europe, Germany or France is academical, you still can't say that the damage WW2 did to Finland is in the same league as it was to Sweden, which is my point.
Or they will simply transfer the ownership to someone else before they die?
Marxist understanding of the world was wrong though, or at least their predictions based on their understand were plainly wrong. Marxist theory as a very poor empirical record as no nation has ever fulfilled the theory and properly reached the stage of socialism, let alone communism. The bad rep socialism gets is because it has only been implemented in perverted forms which didn't work that well, simply because the original socialism is an idea that is totally unrealistic.
Tell me how socialism is still relevant as an idea as even the socialist parties throughout Europe have changed their manifestos and removed all the references to cooperative ownership of production, production for use, and getting rid of capitalism in general and have embraced capitalism themselves. How does the current world not show you a victory of capitalism? Beautiful and excellent maybe, but practically useless.
There's never been a pure Marxist revolution. Lenin's vanguard party and his successors reactions to Leninism eschewed many of the principles making up Marxist thinking. You admit they perverted the ideology and still go on to claim that socialism is at fault? :D Besides this, I find it very cheap of you to do like so many do when they refer to socialism as some cheap idealism, it denotes an impatient lack of understanding of the subject. This brings me to your next remark
I admit this is pretty troll-y. It presupposes that the centre politics of Europe and America are at all relevant to modern scholasticism. Do you honestly think those that have spent their lives studying this care what Tony fucking Blair or François Hollande say? If how the world is currently operating is any indication of the practicality of moderatism it couldn't hurt to try something new.
Well said sir.
The thing I think is most important to note is that there has never been a true communist state. It has always been adapted communism to fit a countries context. The only way real communism could come about is if al countries were to adopt it at the same time, whereby countries and national borders would be obsolete. Yes it is utopia and no I don't think it is possible, but that does not mean capitalism can not be shaped to provide more for society through more emphasis on social security, the environment and of course much greater income equality. There are many think tanks working on such ideas, think tanks like the New Economic Foundation, who are looking at alternatives to this global system largely formed by the Anglo-American model (which fails so many people).
There has never been a true capitalist state either.
Well said sir.
The thing I think is most important to note is that there has never been a true communist state. It has always been adapted communism to fit a countries context. The only way real communism could come about is if al countries were to adopt it at the same time, whereby countries and national borders would be obsolete. Yes it is utopia and no I don't think it is possible, but that does not mean capitalism can not be shaped to provide more for society through more emphasis on social security, the environment and of course much greater income equality. There are many think tanks working on such ideas, think tanks like the New Economic Foundation, who are looking at alternatives to this global system largely formed by the Anglo-American model (which fails so many people).
What is interesting to note is how defensive many working class people are of their capitalist keepers. They believe in this myth of social mobility because of all the rags to riches stories in the media. It's the kind of mass hysteria which takes place when people buy lottery tickets. They're absolutely blind to their own captivity...I think there is a Platonic analogy like this. Plato's cave?
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Well thank god, its hard for me to even think how bad that would be, I mean capitalism is all about making profit and having growth and more growth (GDP wise as most economists like to use), the planet would be seriously fucked because it can't support infinite growth. What am I saying... the planet is already fucked unless serious changes are made and countries get a bloody grip and realise how devastating Climate Change is and will be in the next 5-6 decades. Not enough is being done...
You have no idea what capitalism means.
There's never been a pure Marxist revolution. Lenin's vanguard party and his successors reactions to Leninism eschewed many of the principles making up Marxist thinking. You admit they perverted the ideology and still go on to claim that socialism is at fault? :D Besides this, I find it very cheap of you to do like so many do when they refer to socialism as some cheap idealism, it denotes an impatient lack of understanding of the subject. This brings me to your next remarkThe bad rep that socialism has gotten is indeed unfair because it is mostly based on what people have seen of the crappy versions actually carried out in nations. My point is that those crappy versions are the best we are going to see of socialism because it is an unrealistic idea. How is referring to socialism as idealism showing a lack of understanding when we have never seen true socialism, we have only seen a few dozen attempts which all gave very poor results. How is it not ideallism when so many have actively pursued a proletarian revolution, yet we have never seen a true one? In fact Marxist writing speaks about the proletarian revolution as if it is the natural next step in social-economic development, yet we haven't seen one. How is it not ideallism to have everyone get his share from the production of goods, when we have never such a thing work? Explain to me why socialism is not ideallistic please.
I admit this is pretty troll-y. It presupposes that the centre politics of Europe and America are at all relevant to modern scholasticism. Do you honestly think those that have spent their lives studying this care what Tony fucking Blair or François Hollande say? If how the world is currently operating is any indication of the practicality of moderatism it couldn't hurt to try something new.European socialist parties were hardline Marxists when they started, now they are just moderate leftist capitalists, which is because they have seen socialism getting less and less realistic. I hate to break it to you, but mid-19th century Europe had the highest class awareness we have seen anywhere in the world ever. If in European nations governments managed to diffuse class tensions from that precarious situation, other nations all over the world can surely do the same, as there is much less class awareness anywhere outside of Europe now. If the proletarion revolution didn't happen in the mid-19th century it sure as hell is not going to happen now, not in Africa, not in South America and not in Asia. Explain to me how you foresee actual socialism happen anywhere please.
Feel free to enlighten me :)
The man came from nothing, and built himself up to where he is. Still, from a quick glance at the above picture, it is unlikely that his daughters will run the house as well as he did, and likely spend millions on luxury (Effectively real waste, yes the money trickles down, but the resources spent don't), and much much worse: Bad business decisions, which are really just an incredible amount of wasted resources, which in the hands of someone competent would actually benefit society and all of us.
So, I'm for a meritocracy, but tax the dead, especially those that are accumulating enough money and businesses that they pose a risk of extreme luxury and resource waste for the inheritors. (50m USD+?) Gvnmt should simply take the businesses, and immediately sell them, by law.
The real problem isn't that such large amounts of capital are concentrated in so few hands. In fact, that is actually the solution for world changing projects that those 3 billion poor would never accomplish the way the top 85 can. No, the real problem is so few are actually doing the things they need to do. Any of those 85 could finance a Moon colony, or send men to Mars, or find the cure for any number of diseases, but in general, they don't. I do like the Gates Foundation and Warren Buffet, and I like what the new kids on the block like Google's founders, Elon Musk, and John Cormack are doing. But the others could be doing so much more. The REAL problem is how to inspire those folks to do more than just compete for rankings on Forbes 500.
Free market economy.
You want meritocracy but lament it in action? If those girls can't manage that wealth, they will lose it to those with merit. It may take their lifetime to run the well dry, but it will be run dry, and who knows? THEIR kids may not be quite as dumb as they are, having been raised seeing what a waste their mothers are making of things, and therefore bring the wealth management back to where their grandfather had it. And if not? If they lose it? Meritocracy at work.
What is interesting to note is how defensive many working class people are of their capitalist keepers. They believe in this myth of social mobility because of all the rags to riches stories in the media. It's the kind of mass hysteria which takes place when people buy lottery tickets. They're absolutely blind to their own captivity...I think there is a Platonic analogy like this. Plato's cave?
Thomek, my dear man, you are forgetting the driving force behind humanity. Think sex. The goal of life is to live, and since life can't exist in one form forever it must procreate and give its progeny the best chance possible to live and produce progeny in its own turn. One way to give that chance is to pass along all of your physical resources and that includes money. And you don't give it to someone else because of some high falootin idea of "humanity". Check the circles of priority. It starts with you and your kids, then your tribe, then your race or country, then humanity. Humanity is a long way down the handout line.
Don't try to fight life, Mother Nature will just kick your ass.
Whats not to like about this idea?
Because it completely shafts the people who built up, or inherited and maintain those mega empires. Somewhat similarly to the way John D. Rockefeller, lost his oil empire. A man works his entire life toward a dream, and a hope that he can pass on the fruit of his labor, to his children and grandchildren, perhaps teach junior to one day run his father's company, only to find it taken from him, and essentially given to someone else.
Perhaps I sound selfish, or perhaps I am misinterpreting. I just don't see the justice in that but, its your opinion, your views. Great discussion. :)
I'm surprised to find that the top 5% is only the upper middle class and after looking at the numbers the median income is a lot less then I thought it would be. But maybe you're right and some of us are too stupid and/or lazy to make our way to even the upper 50% but does that mean we should be treated as a dispensable resource for the machinations of others? Maybe you came from a family of little means but it sounds like yours at least had the cohesion of a more or less "traditional" family, not many in rags even have that. I don't doubt that you worked hard for where you've come in your life but yours is of a different generation then most of ours and where my great grandfather could afford a house and a "comfortable" retirement from working in a factory; those of the working poor and lower middle class are basically hanging over a precipice with increasingly limited options nowadays and the deck IS becoming more stacked against the common person, no matter his inclinations or motivations.
But, whatever, Dancing with the Stars is on, and I have to find out what happened with the Biebs.
I'm not sure how it isn't fair. We shouldn't be defined by our families. We should be defined as individuals. Nepotism isn't fair. What individual needs to inherit an Empire? The beauty of the dream of Empire, one would think, comes from the act of taking it yourself, rather than having it bequeathed on you by your mom or dad.
50 million is more than enough for a life of luxury.
However, I'm a weird, all said and done. I've never valued family as much as my childhood peers, and I've yet to be struck by the desire to pass on the line. Maybe it's a reaction to growing up in a culture where family was always first, and I'm just a rebel at heart. I don't know. What I do know is that there's always a better way to live life, and it's not with communities tied by blood. It's about the family you pick, not the one you're stuck with.
A very nice and well meaning post, I do appreciate it.
But look, until I start seeing those "poor destitute" individuals drinking water instead of soda, rice and sugar (both very very cheap) instead of Lay's and Hostess brand snacks, generic brands instead of name brands, adequate shoes instead of the latest Nike's, affordable clothing instead of namebrand, the basics for makeup instead of hundreds and thousands of dollars on "beauty" products, hair and nails done at home instead of hundreds of dollars every other week, staying home instead of lingering around the "club", spending money on education, even if it is just books instead of spending it on alcohol and drugs, buying educational software instead of video games, finding ways to earn extra cash (and there are many ways, I've been there) rather than being glued to the cable box all weekend, well then, and only then will I buy the "whoa is me story" coming from the so called "common" man. If being common means chasing every status symbol before you have educated and worked your way to the point where you can provide yourself a good standard of living, put money away for retirement, and still have extra cash on hand to do those things? We need a hell of a lot fewer "common" people.
While people may label me with a word that starts with an "R", it isn't Republican or Right Wing. It is a Realist. And what I say is that it is time for people specifically in America and tangentially in most other developed countries to get real.
Who cares as long as our standards of living keep on increasing?
Still society has long begun to capitalize on the lack of self responsibility of so many, who dont get up and educate themselves but stay at the low end of day-jobs in manpower leasing companies, in free work contracts without any adequate insurance, etc.
Further there are some who are at the bottom end of society by disability and pure bad luck in life (illness, accidents, coming out of really bad backgrounds, thrown back by private disasters, etc). Those people should not be forced to lead a life from water and potatos in insufficient heated flats. And dont tell me that in our days we can pass on the welfare of the unlucky in the hands of theire relatives or charity of good will. Social cohesion has declined to much for this to happen.
Especially if you think about the old and disabled you will notice that there is a downward trend in public funds, witch I think is alarming.
What I wonder is why america has only two partys: democrats and err.. them oil weapon.. ah. republicans.. whats this?
Society has always been that way. It will also always have people who have more and people who have less. The peasant type working class will always exist in every country. In America at least, you don't have to stay there. You can work your way up by being not smart, but by not being stupid, and not by being lucky, but by working.
We have too many immigrant families who come here, live in a 3 bedroom house with 10-12 people, who work and save their money to first buy the house, then buy a corner store or gas station or restaurant for one of the families. Then they work there and the profits go to buy the next one their store. Then on down the line. Then they buy each family their own house. They didn't even speak the language when they got here, had as much to their name as any homeless person, but do they cry for a handout? No, they got out and worked and helped each other. And if you don't have a family, then make a family of your choosing. Hell, if 6 people making fast food wages shared a 2 bedroom apartment they could all save about half of their money each month for getting ahead. But they don't because they prefer to try to live the dream with unnecessary luxuries before they worked themselves up to actually be able to support living the dream, and not just the empty shell that the poor think is what "making it" is all about.
Those in power will always try to keep it, there will always be people who could work and do more, but will always do nothing so long as they can get by without working at all if they can find a hand willing to give to them and enable them in their sloth. Those old and disabled would have a hell of a lot more if not for the able bodied who take advantage of any system and leech off of it at the expense of the old and disabled.
There is a saying that goes "God helps those who help themselves." I've always helped out the guy who has the sign that says "will work for food" by sending him by my house to mow my lawn for cash. But the guy I always see out there with his sign saying "hungry, please help" and then later I see him outside the liquor store? Well he can well and truly fuck off. :!:
"Smart American" is an oxymoron
PS: All i really know about america comes from movies...
Your words are truely american: everyone can work his way up.
The price is to hurt the pride of dead people, and to sell the assets of their inheritors to those with merit.
In america you can start up your snack bar, get the meat from wild dogs and rats and let your children work instead of sending them to school without much problem?Get the fuck out of here. You clearly don't have any idea about our health departments, FDA, Constables, and child welfare departments. If you truly think this is how people get ahead in America, you have no clue of the regulations we have over here. Only we don't do one thing that Europe appears to do. If you are a legal immigrant, the sky is the limit. Almost no significant restrictions except obey the law (well you can't become President so sue us). From what we hear over here, Europe despises their immigrants and treat them like scum to scrape from their shoes, while I think much of America's prosperity has come from our immigrants, their willingness to integrate themselves into our society, and our willingness to accept them. The most obvious thing is this; you may have great food, but you will never touch America because you have great food from your country, while we have great food from nearly every country. You can't touch this.
An interesting study was recently released on the subject. It doesn't come down on one 'side', and there's information that may surprise.
http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/ (http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/)
Is this in reference to anything? By your statement, I'm confused as to what you ment by "side" while showing that data.