• Socialism Has Never Worked?
    171 replies, posted
[QUOTE=RB33;50856398]Also they could most likely also just buy them.[/QUOTE]Buy them with what?
[QUOTE]If true, you'd be a sociopath, not a socialist.[/QUOTE] No words, i'm a sociopath because I don't feel sympathy for someone not getting his pay raised from 10$ million to 11$ million? WTF [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50856365]At a certain point, you're going to have to acknowledge that your own viewpoint is futile and illogical. It doesn't even work within itself. You're arguing for something while at the same time arguing against it. Everyone is treated equally. People who "improve society" get special treatment. Luxuries shouldn't exist because they're not necessary for survival. Luxuries should be given to those who "improve society". Society wouldn't be unfun. Luxuries are bad because they are just for fun.[/QUOTE] No, morally this is the right thing and I will believe it until I have seen it fail for myself. The world isn't black and white, the same goes for socialism. [editline]10th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50856404]Buy them with what?[/QUOTE] Tell me how many "socialist" countries don't have money.
[QUOTE=RB33;50856423]The world isn't black and white, the same goes for socialism.[/QUOTE] Yet you've portrayed it in very black and white terms. My entire purpose has been to compel you to actually understand that its not, and that society and people are so much more complex than you grasp. [editline]9th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=RB33;50856423]Tell me how many "socialist" countries don't have money.[/QUOTE]Well, depending on who you talk to there have never been any socialist countries. But why would there be money in a socialist country to begin with?
[QUOTE=RB33;50856352]I still don't why someone should have salaries equal to thousands of workers, that's disgusting. Why should anyone get that? Are you worthy as much as them? Are you better than a thousand people combined? If not, get a pay decrease. People will be rewarded but they be rewarded in a way that makes sense. Not in a way that is just greed and "give me more money". Once people get ridiculous amount of money, they are never content. People are starving but no, they being rich are still not happy about their pay. I can't feel any sympathy for them.[/QUOTE] Why do you think effort should equate to value? You still haven't answered that question. Do I deserve compensation when i take a particularly massive shit? That takes effort right? A top level CEO is making decisions that can generate billions in profits for a company. If he isn't rewarded for those choices, he [i]will[/i] go to a company that does reward him. Offering financial compensation is the only way to retain people capable of benefiting the company to that degree. Someone sweeping floors and scrubbing toilets is expendable and replaceable. It takes no real knowledge, and no real intellect or insight. Losing that CEO can cause the company to fall behind the other companies. So yes, they are worth more than hundreds, or thousands of other people, because they have the ability to do more. They have the same rights as anyone else, and in that sense they aren't 'better', but their quantified impact on society is far greater, and for that, they get more out of it. That's capitalism 101. As soon as you take away the carrot on a stick, progress stagnates.
[QUOTE=RB33;50856423]Tell me how many "socialist" countries don't have money.[/QUOTE] Do you think stable money comes from trees? Money exists as an index of value and purchasing power, to have this index it must be based on something. We currently have fiat money yes, but our dollars and pounds sterling used to represent a weight of gold that we could request from a bank at any time. We call these little things bank notes because that's exactly what they used to be, a note from the bank describing how much value in gold you currently possess. It has been postulated time and time again that money cannot rise without backing of some kind, if GM suddenly started handing out 'GM Dollars' as compensation for their workers, do you think anyone would value it? The same is true with a country, unless the entire planet becomes universally socialist all at once, your shitty 'socialist dollar' or whatever will be quickly ousted by external foreign currencies that are actually worth something.
[QUOTE=RB33;50856423]No, morally this is the right thing[/QUOTE] Framing things in a "moral" perspective is a cop-out because morals are relative and unquantifiable. Its just a cheap way to hold your viewpoint on a pedestal. You don't have to change your viewpoint because it is the "moral" view point. Why would you have to when "morally" you are right?
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50856437]Well, depending on who you talk to there have never been any socialist countries. But why would there be money in a socialist country to begin with?[/QUOTE] Even the Soviet Union had money. If you don't know that socialism doesn't require there to not be any money. Why are you talking about socialism? Communism requires that, not socialism.
[QUOTE=ntzu;50856462]It has been postulated time and time again that money cannot rise without backing of some kind, if GM suddenly started handing out 'GM Dollars' as compensation for their workers, do you think anyone would value it?[/QUOTE] Ironically, this would be highly illegal because of abuse in the past. Abuse that very closely mirrors socialism in that the companies involved fixed prices at untenable levels, which lead to widespread suffering of individuals that bordered on being outright slavery.
[QUOTE=RB33;50856469]Even the Soviet Union had money. If you don't know that socialism doesn't require there to not be any money. Why are you talking about socialism? Communism requires that, not socialism.[/QUOTE]You're advocating a system where people are rewarded with things based upon a nebulous concept of "improving society" and a focus on only what is necessary or "useful" for survival. Within a system like this, what place does money have?
[QUOTE=ntzu;50856345]The work it would take to move the food you don't want to those who absolutely need it vastly outweighs the overall benefit that is gained from feeding those people. I'm sorry to be the devil's advocate here but the very notion of 'the greater good' actually supports me here. The work required to feed those who genuinely need it would be so huge and taxing that it would simultaneously detract from the standard of living of all others, including yourself. What benefit would we gain other than unemployed, unskilled, uneducated, but fed people?[/QUOTE] Everything doesn't need to be done for profit. [QUOTE]Reality has no notion of justice. This isn't even an argument, its the equivalent of spouting political memes to get your favorite president elected.[/QUOTE] Justice is what people make it. [QUOTE]What if I believe that your access to the internet is 'overdoing it', which was akin to a luxury not even 20 years ago, and was brought to you explicitly because of capitalism. Tell me, how do you determine 'overdoing it'[/QUOTE] Some people argue that the internet is a human right, people don't argue that about mansions. There's a difference.
[QUOTE=RB33;50856484]Some people argue that the internet is a human right, people don't argue that about mansions. There's a difference.[/QUOTE]The people in the mansions argue that they're a human right.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50856451]Why do you think effort should equate to value? You still haven't answered that question. Do I deserve compensation when i take a particularly massive shit? That takes effort right? A top level CEO is making decisions that can generate billions in profits for a company. If he isn't rewarded for those choices, he [i]will[/i] go to a company that does reward him. Offering financial compensation is the only way to retain people capable of benefiting the company to that degree. Someone sweeping floors and scrubbing toilets is expendable and replaceable. It takes no real knowledge, and no real intellect or insight. Losing that CEO can cause the company to fall behind the other companies. So yes, they are worth more than hundreds, or thousands of other people, because they have the ability to do more. They have the same rights as anyone else, and in that sense they aren't 'better', but their quantified impact on society is far greater, and for that, they get more out of it. That's capitalism 101. As soon as you take away the carrot on a stick, progress stagnates.[/QUOTE] So if a thousand people starve to death, that's fine. They weren't CEOs. Is that okay? Is that a good thing? Because that's what I oppose. The lives of CEOs aren't worth more than any other person. [editline]10th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50856512]The people in the mansions argue that they're a human right.[/QUOTE] Should we take them seriously, do you think? Because i'm not doing it. [editline]10th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=ntzu;50856462]Do you think stable money comes from trees? Money exists as an index of value and purchasing power, to have this index it must be based on something. We currently have fiat money yes, but our dollars and pounds sterling used to represent a weight of gold that we could request from a bank at any time. We call these little things bank notes because that's exactly what they used to be, a note from the bank describing how much value in gold you currently possess. It has been postulated time and time again that money cannot rise without backing of some kind, if GM suddenly started handing out 'GM Dollars' as compensation for their workers, do you think anyone would value it? The same is true with a country, unless the entire planet becomes universally socialist all at once, your shitty 'socialist dollar' or whatever will be quickly ousted by external foreign currencies that are actually worth something.[/QUOTE] Currency would be backed by actual useful things like resources and products. They also have no choice, only one currency is used. [editline]10th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50856476]You're advocating a system where people are rewarded with things based upon a nebulous concept of "improving society" and a focus on only what is necessary or "useful" for survival. Within a system like this, what place does money have?[/QUOTE] Improving society is working to keep it running, to improve it by contributing to it. I never said only focus on useful things, a priority on useful things. Money is used to get what you want.
[QUOTE=RB33;50856519]Should we take them seriously, do you think? Because i'm not doing it.[/QUOTE] Why not? What makes their claim less valid than others, such as the argument about internet access?
[QUOTE=_Axel;50856260]I was responding to a post which claimed that any economic and social system must be structured around pure self-interest because it is embedded in human nature. You are arguing that altruism and cooperation are part of human nature to begin with, so I guess you agree with me?[/QUOTE] I was saying that isn't needed anymore, so it doesn't matter how we behaved back in caveman days. [QUOTE=_Axel;50856260]What. You realize the system relies on humans being part of a group right? You need people to pick up your trash, to supply you with water and electricity, to grow food for you to eat, to educate your children... In the era of globalization, humanity is more interdependent than it ever has been. If individuals didn't need other people to survive, people would be able to easily live by themselves in the wild without any interaction with other humans, which clearly isn't the case. [/QUOTE] Those people aren't doing it for free or to help you. They are doing it to earn their own money. Of course we still live in a society, but this society isn't based on or needs altruism. The point is, we don't literally need to be in a group to walk to school, write our own grades, find our job and to pay for our food. Yes, this is a system where many people are involved. But we are doing it for ourselves as individuals. Everyone is a cog in a big machine that runs on self-interest. [QUOTE=_Axel;50856260]But the competition doesn't occur between isolated individuals at all? The companies engaging in competition rely on cooperation within their ranks to function. People work in teams, communicate with each other, information is shared between several departments. We are very far from lone warriors fighting each other in pits. The truth is, if you want progress, you need a healthy dose of both competition and cooperation[/QUOTE] I agree with your last statement. I didn't want it to sound like it's everyone vs everyone. Competition and cooperation after all happens on different levels and that is dependent on perspective and purpose. In one scenario you are working together with your colleagues to please your boss and to get the job done. But at the same time you are also competing with them, trying to outshine them and to have higher chances of a pay raise or even promotion. And when your colleagues try that too, the quality of everyone's work raises. Now we can think of competition when it comes to entire companies trying to make the most money and yet there are also chances that companies will work together, dependent on if it's worth it. In the end it isn't cooperation born out of altruism or idealism. It's just overlapping interests in the moment. [QUOTE=_Axel;50856260] And how do you propose we regulate it to fix this glaring issue? Providing a basic universal wage to cover minimum food and housing for everyone would be a good way of forcing employers to give better reasons to work for them than "or you'll starve", but you seem to be against that for some weird reason?[/QUOTE] That was a strawman. I'm not against that. I just said capitalism has to be regulated. The average worker shouldn't be driven to inhumane working standards to afford basic needs. But regulating capitalism wouldn't make it immediately socialism either, which is the only thing I'm arguing against.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50856465]Framing things in a "moral" perspective is a cop-out because morals are relative and unquantifiable. Its just a cheap way to hold your viewpoint on a pedestal. You don't have to change your viewpoint because it is the "moral" view point. Why would you have to when "morally" you are right?[/QUOTE] The meaning that I'm deriving from these words is somewhere along the lines of "tbh I'd kill everyone I knew if it was beneficial to me, morals don't exist fuck everyone who isn't me" I really hope that's not what you meant but it's what it read like.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50856560]Why not? What makes their claim less valid than others, such as the argument about internet access?[/QUOTE] More people support internet access and actual influential people. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access[/url]
[QUOTE=RB33;50856519]Improving society is working to keep it running, to improve it by contributing to it. I never said only focus on useful things, a priority on useful things. Money is used to get what you want.[/QUOTE]Again, who determines usefulness? What is the metric for improvement? How does this prevent the imbalance society already has? This just changes who is currently at the top, not that there are people at the top. The people supposed to be making those video games aren't doing anything to explicitly keep society running.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50856465]Framing things in a "moral" perspective is a cop-out because morals are relative and unquantifiable. Its just a cheap way to hold your viewpoint on a pedestal. You don't have to change your viewpoint because it is the "moral" view point. Why would you have to when "morally" you are right?[/QUOTE] I don't like having people starve, being homeless, people being oppressed and exploited. So I oppose that. That's a moral stance. What's the problem?
[QUOTE=RB33;50856579]More people support internet access and actual influential people. [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access[/URL][/QUOTE] So its simply a popularity contest then? So if more people believed mansions were a right, then you'd support this, correct? [editline]9th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=elowin;50856574]I really hope that's not what you meant but it's what it read like.[/QUOTE] That is not what is read like at all, and this is one of the laziest strawmen I've seen recently.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50856475]Ironically, this would be highly illegal because of abuse in the past. Abuse that very closely mirrors socialism in that the companies involved fixed prices at untenable levels, which lead to widespread suffering of individuals that bordered on being outright slavery.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but you can't honestly call the bullshit company currency a form of socialism. It was a form of unchecked capitalism which sought to entirely devalue employees and turn them into slaves. I normally try to keep out of threads like this because they're always a shitshow, but some things are just too stupid to stay silent on. Socialism is a system which can work perfectly well, regardless your personal opinions on it, but it is by no means a perfect system. It requires a LOT of forethought and planning to effectively implement, and it requires constant protection from outside forces who have a vested interest in undermining it. Similarly Capitalism is a system which can provide enormous wealth and prosperity to a country, but it also drives inequality. It too needs a lot of forethought and planning to work effectively. Socialism is a system which needs constant protection from external forces, capitalism is a system which needs constant protection from internal forces, neither system is perfect and neither system is 'right'. People fucking love to go on about how social programs can't be compared to socialism because it doesn't go all the way but they have no problem heralding capitalism despite the numerous restrictions imposed to keep it in check. Capitalism is great (as long as we ignore all the problems we specifically set rules for) and Socialism is evil and stupid (as long as we blanket all dumb left wing decisions as "Socialist"). The fact of the matter is pretty much any system can work, and they can all work well. The key is to not have any one system rule over the people as though it were naturally decreed. The most important thing is to stop fucking acting so god damn dogmatically loyal to a flawed system that needs to have a million and one exceptions and restrictions to work in the modern world. If you're a capitalist stop acting like all socialists are idealistic retards, if you're a socialist stop acting like capitalists are heartless machines. For fuck's sake.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50856582]Again, who determines usefulness? What is the metric for improvement? How does this prevent the imbalance society already has? This just changes who is currently at the top, not that there are people at the top. The people supposed to be making those video games aren't doing anything to explicitly keep society running.[/QUOTE] The people do, I said that earlier. Mansions are not useful for most people, so they likely won't get build. If people are unhappy they are worse at working, therefore video games to make them happy. See? Games have uses, also because we also deserve to have fun. What use is free food, housing if we all are depressed?
Too many libertarian leaning people here claiming that you can have a state without morals as determined by the state here. I'm not at a computer so can't argue against this in a conservative direction effectively, but this isn't a realistic way to run society. Morals are intrinsic within economics and within law, and cannot be separated. The objection that people would be getting something for no work is not JUST economic, but also moral in nature. We forbid slavery not for economic reasons or rational reasons - it is not accident that most abolitionists were not liberals or economists but were Methodists and Quakers motivated by religious fervour and morals - but because we as a society decided that it was morally repugnant. Everything has a moral dimension to it and the state will always have a moral dimension to it too as a result.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50856594]So its simply a popularity contest then? So if more people believed mansions were a right, then you'd support this, correct?[/QUOTE] I would disagree with them because it's wasteful. But socialism is a democracy (or supposed to be), so the people get to choose.
[QUOTE=RB33;50856519]So if a thousand people starve to death, that's fine. They weren't CEOs. Is that okay? Is that a good thing? Because that's what I oppose. The lives of CEOs aren't worth more than any other person.[/QUOTE] I never said that. In fact I explicitly said the opposite. You have rights. You just don't get to live like a king without doing anything for it. I'm actually an advocate for a minimum income system, but again, that doesn't entitle you to live comfortably. The government should not be required to subsidize your own financial stupidity. You get an income, and if you buy a bunch of TVs and starve to death, well that's your own fucking fault. Don't pay your rent on time? Landlord can kick you out on the street. No special protections. Don't pay your utilities? They get shut off. Wellfare is burdened by excessive bureaucracy, and all that accomplishes is wasting money, hurting people who do genuinely need help, and it completely and utterly fails to teach responsibility, leading to people getting stuck in a perpetual cycle of dependence. Learn to be responsible with what you have, and if you choose never to work, you'll survive, and your money will be recycled back into the system. If you want anything past that, well you get to contribute to society and earn it like everyone else.
[QUOTE=RB33;50856590]I don't like having people starve, being homeless, people being oppressed and exploited. So I oppose that. That's a moral stance. What's the problem?[/QUOTE]Because its relative. One moral stance is that no one should be killed. Another moral stance is that some people should be killed so that others can live. One moral stance is that no one should be allowed to die. Another moral stance is that people should be allowed to die if they wish. Take assisted suicide. Is it morally right to let a person kill themself? Under what conditions? Is it morally right to allow a person who has been crippled to kill themself? Is it morally right to allow a person who is depressed to kill themself? Is it morally right to let someone who has cancer kill themself? Morals are entirely subjective. They're fast and loose rules that tend to gloss over the complexity of the issues at hand. But they're also loaded concepts because they relate to "Good" and "Bad". So if someone establishes themself as the "Moral" view in an argument, they can use the loaded nature of the term to simply ignore criticism and bludgeon their opponents. "I don't have to listen to you, you're immoral. By nature what you're saying is bad. Because it is immoral." [editline]9th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50856625]Too many libertarian leaning people here claiming that you can have a state without morals as determined by the state here. I'm not at a computer so can't argue against this in a conservative direction effectively, but this isn't a realistic way to run society. Morals are intrinsic within economics and within law, and cannot be separated. The objection that people would be getting something for no work is not JUST economic, but also moral in nature. We forbid slavery not for economic reasons or rational reasons - it is not accident that most abolitionists were not liberals or economists but were Methodists and Quakers motivated by religious fervour and morals - but because we as a society decided that it was morally repugnant. Everything has a moral dimension to it and the state will always have a moral dimension to it too as a result.[/QUOTE]Keep in mind that religious, moral institutions have also argued for atrocities under moral cries. That heathens be put to death or enslaved because it was moral. That towns and crops be burned because it was moral, so long as the moral, the believers, were saved. That genocide is moral because it allows the moral to expand and grow.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;50856609]I'm sorry, but you can't honestly call the bullshit company currency a form of socialism. It was a form of unchecked capitalism which sought to entirely devalue employees and turn them into slaves.[/quote] The underlying causes are fundamentally different, but the end results are very similar. It's just that it was a company profiting off of what amounted to indentured servitude instead of the 'state'. Hence the comment about irony. [QUOTE=Janus Vesta;50856609]I normally try to keep out of threads like this because they're always a shitshow, but some things are just too stupid to stay silent on. Socialism is a system which can work perfectly well, regardless your personal opinions on it, but it is by no means a perfect system. It requires a LOT of forethought and planning to effectively implement, and it requires constant protection from outside forces who have a vested interest in undermining it. Similarly Capitalism is a system which can provide enormous wealth and prosperity to a country, but it also drives inequality. It too needs a lot of forethought and planning to work effectively. Socialism is a system which needs constant protection from external forces, capitalism is a system which needs constant protection from internal forces, neither system is perfect and neither system is 'right'.[/QUOTE] Quite right. The problem is that capitalism protects itself far better than socialism because a side effect of it's very nature is that it aggressively culls the weaker aspects of itself. Socialism does not do that as efficiently because the carrot on a stick isn't intrinsic to the system. It's simpler to regulate and deal with the negative consequences of capitalism. Therefore it's more effective.
[QUOTE=RB33;50856614]The people do, I said that earlier. Mansions are not useful for most people, so they likely won't get build. If people are unhappy they are worse at working, therefore video games to make them happy. See? Games have uses, also because we also deserve to have fun. What use is free food, housing if we all are depressed?[/QUOTE]So then fun is useful? But this directly conflicts with your own statements on the previous page about sports cars and diamonds and the like. Sports cars are fun to many people. Ergo they are useful. Mansions typically provide joy to the people who have them, and many want them. They'd be useful then, would they not?
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50856633]I never said that. In fact I explicitly said the opposite. You have rights. You just don't get to live like a king without doing anything for it. I'm actually an advocate for a minimum income system, but again, that doesn't entitle you to live comfortably. The government should not be required to subsidize your own financial stupidity. You get an income, and if you buy a bunch of TVs and starve to death, well that's your own fucking fault. Don't pay your rent on time? Landlord can kick you out on the street. No special protections. Don't pay your utilities? They get shut off. Wellfare is burdened by excessive bureaucracy, and all that accomplishes is wasting money, hurting people who do genuinely need help, and it completely and utterly fails to teach responsibility, leading to people getting stuck in a perpetual cycle of dependence. Learn to be responsible with what you have, and if you choose never to work, you'll survive. If you want anything past that, well you get to contribute to society and earn it like everyone else.[/QUOTE] Would you be surprised if I say that I mostly agree with you? I do. You wouldn't be living as a king because you get food and housing for free, just not be poor anymore. There would be minimum income for food and other necessities. A worker not worrying about his life is a better worker. [editline]10th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50856647]Because its relative. One moral stance is that no one should be killed. Another moral stance is that some people should be killed so that others can live. One moral stance is that no one should be allowed to die. Another moral stance is that people should be allowed to die if they wish. Take assisted suicide. Is it morally right to let a person kill themself? Under what conditions? Is it morally right to allow a person who has been crippled to kill themself? Is it morally right to allow a person who is depressed to kill themself? Is it morally right to let someone who has cancer kill themself? Morals are entirely subjective. They're fast and loose rules that tend to gloss over the complexity of the issues at hand. But they're also loaded concepts because they relate to "Good" and "Bad". So if someone establishes themself as the "Moral" view in an argument, they can use the loaded nature of the term to simply ignore criticism and bludgeon their opponents. "I don't have to listen to you, you're immoral. By nature what you're saying is bad. Because it is immoral."[/QUOTE] We want what we like, it's not surprising. We sometimes use morality to justify that. This is my morality, others morality is of course different. Not everything is justified by efficiency.
[QUOTE=RB33;50856272]Starvation and homeless is an injustice, therefore the opposite is justice. Just as simply as that.[/QUOTE] This isn't injustice, unless the system isn't giving those homeless people the chance to work and earn money. If that isn't the case, it's not injustice. You might as well be homeless and starving and it's entirely your fault, and suffering isn't work or entitles you to anything as you claimed here [QUOTE=RB33;50856139]Sure, but for me it's also about injustice. Sure, now i'm not starving anymore and got a house. And the other guy still got billions in the bank. He sure didn't struggle nearly as much as me to get that.[/QUOTE] I mean this is so outright stupid. In your scenario your homeless person literally got a house and food for free. How is that fair to average people who actually work to get the same or even less? Him struggling isn't work or makes him deserve anything. Why don't average people just make themselves homeless on purpose to receive this generous welfare like the first hobo? And then you somehow still think you can pretend the billionaire had to do less than the homeless person to acquire what he has, although the hobo literally got a house and food [I]for free[/I]. Should the hobo now get a few billions from this random billionaire, because the hobo couldn't live like a princess from the very start of his life? Sure, inherited wealth exists too if it's that what you meant regarding the billionaire and injustice, but not every rich person inherited his wealth. And even then, their parents worked for that money and have the right to give it to their own children, so it isn't injustice yet again.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50856677]So then fun is useful? But this directly conflicts with your own statements on the previous page about sports cars and diamonds and the like. Sports cars are fun to many people. Ergo they are useful. Mansions typically provide joy to the people who have them, and many want them. They'd be useful then, would they not?[/QUOTE] Within reason, this is fine. The problem with Capitalism is overdoing it. I seldom take extreme positions and often take compromise positions instead.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.