How To Make Socialism Work

[Sentama Lin]

Thanks Commie, Myself, and Everyone Else talking in my Prop 8 topic about governments for derailing that topic. In hopes to recover the conversation about Proposition 8 in the aforementioned topic, I'm going to start this thread.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. is the statement that succinctly summarises Marxist Communism. Now, while I don't think I would be happy in such a setting, should I ever be offered a chance to join a community like that, I would stand up, take my card, and say "for the good of the state and the good of all people, who I deeply care about, I will work to make sure everyone has the basic needs met." But how much is too much? I already said I wouldn't be happy in such a community even though I would join it to make sure everyone has their welfare in hopes that, through that, they'll be able to pursue what individual endeavours a society like that would allow.

Obviously a totalitarian control over everything is not cool in my books. I would find it worthwhile to work in whatever job I was assigned as long as I knew that I had a place to live, health care, education, and food to eat. But if it started bordering on what hobbies I can pursue, what thoughts I can think, and what career I want (I'd like to choose how I benefit society), I'd be leaving like a rabbit from a canned tuna.

Anyways, talk about governments here -- continue on the conversation here. Please don't derail my Prop 8 thread... crying  

[lazycommie]

I apologize for derailing the thread.

Basically, Socialism is based on the idea that you can take from the haves and give to the have nots. Now, this is good in theory, and can work on very small scale(where everyone knows everyone else, it's called being a good neighbor), but when applied to a country it doesn't work for a few reasons.

1. It's expensive. You have to take more from person A than you can give to person B, because you would have to pay for middle men. This means when you take from person B to give to person C, you've just lost more money from the cycle.

2. The people it hits hardest are the middle to lower-middle class. They get the taxes still and don't make enough to really offset it like the rich do, but don't get the benefits either.

3. It encourages laziness. People decide that they don't need to do as much, and so they don't. Begin a slow slide downwards, til few are doing the work and having to take up the slack of many. Right around this time, the few start to realize that they're doing well more than their fair share of work and stop doing any more than their share, or stop working at all. Begin collapse.


Now, how could we theoretically fix this?

The answer is small scale application. Think "being neighborly". Basically, instead of trying to apply it on a federalized or state scale, apply it on small scale. Now, I do not like socialism, at all, but that's for other reasons. As far as this goes, though, think of it as someone coming to your door and asking to "borrow a cup of sugar", or maybe "get a ride into town". This works well if the person doing the borrowing pays the neighbor back. If you apply that same concept to money, and you have the solution. If X needs some cash to make ends meet or fill up his gas tank, he asks Y. Maybe a couple days later, Y needs something and, thinking of his favor to X, asks X first. The key is to decentralize it and remove it from government.

This is not without it's flaws, as someone could be selfish and refuse to help anybody, but that's just an integral flaw.  

[God-The-RapistV2.0]

I'm what I like to call a Techno-Socialist. I've come to the conclusion that complete socialism is the only way to effectively ensure that the rights and freedoms of all peoples are secured in every way possible.

Any necessity for life should be free. If all peoples have a right to life then all peoples have a right to the things that are required for life. Food, Shelter, Clothing, and Entertainment.

I also feel that humans are too greedy and arrogant to properly control a system that is meant to be equal in all aspects and therefore we should try and develop a computer with a program that is specifically designed to oversee the entire country and eventually world.

--------------------------------------------

Art By: La Belle Isolde

 

[lazycommie]

God-The-RapistV2.0

I'm what I like to call a Techno-Socialist. I've come to the conclusion that complete socialism is the only way to effectively ensure that the rights and freedoms of all peoples are secured in every way possible.

Any necessity for life should be free. If all peoples have a right to life then all peoples have a right to the things that are required for life. Food, Shelter, Clothing, and Entertainment.

I also feel that humans are too greedy and arrogant to properly control a system that is meant to be equal in all aspects and therefore we should try and develop a computer with a program that is specifically designed to oversee the entire country and eventually world.

--------------------------------------------

Art By: La Belle Isolde

I would disagree with you and assert that nobody has a "right" to any given necessity, and rather that it is earned, and that the only "right" is that of being able to start off on an equal footing and be able to work to earn those things.  

[God-The-RapistV2.0]

lazycommie

I would disagree with you and assert that nobody has a "right" to any given necessity, and rather that it is earned, and that the only "right" is that of being able to start off on an equal footing and be able to work to earn those things.

That's just capitalist views poking through but because I can not prove that a right is intrinsic I can not argue that point.

However I can say that if we are to define humans as animals (as I do) and we are to look at the existence of an animal from an evolutionary point of view (which I almost always do) we can say that because we are designed to procreate and expand our ever growing numbers that we on a basic level must have at least a "natural" premise of existence".

This premise is thus "survival". What better way to the describe this "survival" than "rights of life." These rights can only then be upheld by the continued existence of the human animal.

--------------------------------------------

Art By: La Belle Isolde

 

[lazycommie]

God-The-RapistV2.0

lazycommie

I would disagree with you and assert that nobody has a "right" to any given necessity, and rather that it is earned, and that the only "right" is that of being able to start off on an equal footing and be able to work to earn those things.

That's just capitalist views poking through but because I can not prove that a right is intrinsic I can not argue that point.

However I can say that if we are to define humans as animals (as I do) and we are to look at the existence of an animal from an evolutionary point of view (which I almost always do) we can say that because we are designed to procreate and expand our ever growing numbers that we on a basic level must have at least a "natural" premise of existence".

This premise is thus "survival". What better way to the describe this "survival" than "rights of life." These rights can only then be upheld by the continued existence of the human animal.

--------------------------------------------

Art By: La Belle Isolde

Make no mistake, I am a die hard capitalist. I just enjoy debate.

One could assume we were meant to exist(I'm going to skip over religous matters regarding this, as that makes it way over-complex), however nowhere in nature is something just given to a species. All species have adapted in some manner or another to procure(i.e. work for and obtain) their food. In Man's case, that's by forming societies and agriculture. You could, if you so desired, subsist solely by trapping, fishing and gathering. It's all in nature. However, humanity as a whole tends to work in groups where trade exists. Person X gives A to person Y, in exchange for B. Even in the most primitive of peoples, you find such a thing. Whether it is in the form of barter or capitalism(either with backed or fiat currency, the former being more stable and the latter being largely hot air).  

[God-The-RapistV2.0]

lazycommie

Make no mistake, I am a die hard capitalist. I just enjoy debate.

One could assume we were meant to exist(I'm going to skip over religous matters regarding this, as that makes it way over-complex), however nowhere in nature is something just given to a species. All species have adapted in some manner or another to procure(i.e. work for and obtain) their food. In Man's case, that's by forming societies and agriculture. You could, if you so desired, subsist solely by trapping, fishing and gathering. It's all in nature. However, humanity as a whole tends to work in groups where trade exists. Person X gives A to person Y, in exchange for B. Even in the most primitive of peoples, you find such a thing. Whether it is in the form of barter or capitalism(either with backed or fiat currency, the former being more stable and the latter being largely hot air).

As you have very clearly pointed out our particular manor of survival is that or Society and Agriculture. We as a group are designed to do things for each other to ensure the survival of the other.

I see no reason why this can not be done without currency. I build houses so that we can live in one (a house, not the same house) and you grow food so that we can eat it.

This seems as fair a proposition as any.

--------------------------------------------

Art By: La Belle Isolde

 

[lazycommie]

God-The-RapistV2.0

lazycommie

Make no mistake, I am a die hard capitalist. I just enjoy debate.

One could assume we were meant to exist(I'm going to skip over religous matters regarding this, as that makes it way over-complex), however nowhere in nature is something just given to a species. All species have adapted in some manner or another to procure(i.e. work for and obtain) their food. In Man's case, that's by forming societies and agriculture. You could, if you so desired, subsist solely by trapping, fishing and gathering. It's all in nature. However, humanity as a whole tends to work in groups where trade exists. Person X gives A to person Y, in exchange for B. Even in the most primitive of peoples, you find such a thing. Whether it is in the form of barter or capitalism(either with backed or fiat currency, the former being more stable and the latter being largely hot air).

As you have very clearly pointed out our particular manor of survival is that or Society and Agriculture. We as a group are designed to do things for each other to ensure the survival of the other.

I see no reason why this can not be done without currency. I build houses so that we can live in one (a house, not the same house) and you grow food so that we can eat it.

This seems as fair a proposition as any.

--------------------------------------------

Art By: La Belle Isolde

The reason why this could not be done without some form of trade is simple. People like to have their efforts rewarded. Some people actively enjoy helping others(I happen to be one of them to an extent, actually, oddly enough), but not all. Most people want compensation, because they could be using their time and efforts for other things. Building a house when they could be building an addition to their own, or farming when they could be cooking for their family, for instance. It does not have to be a universal currency, though. It could very well be a barter system, which happens to work effectively as long as the person is willing to accept what you're offering in trade. A universal currency speeds some of those other transactions where you don't have anything to trade, but is still flawed in that it is not the actual good. A combination of the two, with both barter and a universal currency, would be a good idea in my opinion, where you could exchange goods for money at a bank of sorts, or money for goods at the same. Sort of a community market type arrangement.  

[Erverain]

Wow, you guys go for the gut right off the bat, don't you?

So, since we are going into this sort of thing, let's bring out our old friend Plato and his thoughts into this. I am in no way capable of arguing with you guys, as I tend to be rather simple in my ideas. However, it is my belief that any socialist government, no matter how well maintained or clear-cut it seems, will inevitably crumble into anarchy. Perhaps it's just the idea of people living like a bunch of parasites that annoys me...
Anyway, since I can't usually get my ideas across very well I tend to stall out at points like this.  

[lazycommie]

Erverain

Wow, you guys go for the gut right off the bat, don't you?

So, since we are going into this sort of thing, let's bring out our old friend Plato and his thoughts into this. I am in no way capable of arguing with you guys, as I tend to be rather simple in my ideas. However, it is my belief that any socialist government, no matter how well maintained or clear-cut it seems, will inevitably crumble into anarchy. Perhaps it's just the idea of people living like a bunch of parasites that annoys me...
Anyway, since I can't usually get my ideas across very well I tend to stall out at points like this.

Agreed with you on the inevitable result of Socialism.

I was only taking the attitude that if I were going to fix the bugs in it, what should be changed. People will always want compensation for their work, and thus the flaw in socialism.  

[wakusei]

This seems much more suited for IDD, I believe. So I'll be moving it.

 

[God-Raped-Me]

I to believe that certain things should NOT have to be payed for. Water being one. If you go 3 days without any water you die! You shouldn't have to pay for water, food, clothing or shelter. Health care is debatable. Then people can be regulated to get what they need. a couple wouldn't have a giant 5 bedroom house where as a family of 10, or a family with in-laws living with them would. Food would be regulated on a person to person basis. They would get evaluated and then told how much food they can get per week or per month or however they wish to shop. It would include junk food as well.

I don't believe however that we NEED computers or T.V or video games for entertainment. We used to gather and tell stories, go to dances, or just meet up with others to have a good time. All the other crap would have to be extras, and you would either have to work extra hard doing whatever, or buy it depending on if currency was kept or not.

However I don't consider myself as a socialist.

 

[lazycommie]

God-Raped-Me

I to believe that certain things should NOT have to be payed for. Water being one. If you go 3 days without any water you die! You shouldn't have to pay for water, food, clothing or shelter. Health care is debatable. Then people can be regulated to get what they need. a couple wouldn't have a giant 5 bedroom house where as a family of 10, or a family with in-laws living with them would. Food would be regulated on a person to person basis. They would get evaluated and then told how much food they can get per week or per month or however they wish to shop. It would include junk food as well.

I don't believe however that we NEED computers or T.V or video games for entertainment. We used to gather and tell stories, go to dances, or just meet up with others to have a good time. All the other crap would have to be extras, and you would either have to work extra hard doing whatever, or buy it depending on if currency was kept or not.

However I don't consider myself as a socialist.

We can also find our own water, food, etc.

This brings up what is probably the biggest question regarding it. Why should one person's responsibility become the responsibility of the group?  

[God-Raped-Me]

One for all and all for one? If you want things done for you, then you have to do things for others.

We wouldn't have homeless people, we wouldn't have children who are almost starving. We wouldn't have parents who HAVE to be away from their kids for 3 different jobs. There would be no rich and poor.