Miscellaneous > The Lounge

Socialist or immature

<< < (6/17) > >>

slave:
Bill Gates is a billionaire.  I know he's not the only billionaire--the US has many many more--but I think he makes for a good example, since he IS the richest man alive.  His assets are worth over 40 billion dollars.  It's enough money to feed a 3rd world nation.   Do you think his work deserves him all those billions?  I personally think he has exploited many people in order to make that money.  I'm sure Bill would say "this is a free market, it's my right to make money, blah blah" but the question remains; how much merit does a system really have that allows people to get so obscenely rich through mistreating other people?

I'd like to live in a society where money is irrelevant so we can work on improving the human condition, not form a corporate gang (a business) and go on some profiteering spree.

 
quote:  but most hard working people are not poor. if you work hard, then *generally* you do well. look in the communist countries, they are far worce off then people in the US or other capitalist states
--- End quote ---


Yeah, but the funny thing is most people in the US (I speak for the US only because I don't know how it is in other countries) work their asses off not to improve society but to make a profit.  It ends up hurting everyone.  They all have dollar signs in their eyes and work night and day for money since they believe it will make them happy.  (They've been tricked!)  After all, isn't the American Dream to make a bunch of money and live in the suburbs somewhere with your two cars, boat, 3 kids and big house?  The sad thing is they end up being slaves to money, and work so much to get it that they find they don't have any time left to actually drive their cars, relax in their houses, or play with the kids (another reason why families are literally falling apart in this country)  This kind of system results in massive wastefullness because people want to feel justified for working their butts off like that so they spend it all on stupid things.  The US is *the* home of gluttons; I mean, look at how fat we all are!  We are the biggest bunch of porkos on the planet, in fact, I'm surprised we don't cause Earth's orbit to go off balance or something from the uneven distribution of weight.

/rant mode off

slave:
Ok I found an excellent website  on socialism with some quotes that may help explain what socialism is really about.

I'll post the move relevant questions/statements.

From the FAQ:

Isn't socialism at odds with human nature?


Isn't socialism contrary to human nature? Aren't people inherently selfish?


To my mind socialism is more in line with human nature than capitalism. Part of our human nature is the possession of needs that can only be met through cooperation and reciprocal relations with others. These include both emotional needs and the need to self-actualise or achieve. So 'enlightened selfishness' requires cooperation and mutual regard.


It is certainly true that socialism would be impossible if people were to continue behaving in the anti-social ways that they do at the moment. However, this behaviour is mainly driven by conditions that are far from permanent and would be eliminated under socialism. These include the following:

Capitalism generates dog eat dog behavior. Your interests are set unnecessarily at odds with others. You have to be a bastard to get ahead in your career or business. Your success is someone else's failure. Because socialism is based on cooperation rather than competition, it removes much of the conflict between our needs and those of others.
Socialism not only removes the incentives to act against the common good, it generates the motivation to actively serve it. Work is transformed into a desirable activity performed for its own sake and people feel part of society rather than alienated from it.
In developed countries it is now possible for everyone to live a reasonably affluent life and be free of long hours of routine toil. As discussed [below] this creates a better basis for cooperation and mutual regard. Historically, where equality would have meant shared misery, scarcity made a necessity out of the plunder, enslavement and exploitation of others. And there was no room for an 'enlightened' attitude. If you were not on the delivering end, you were on the receiving end. Freed slaves felt no compunction about enslaving others.
Any desire to harm others is not part of human nature but rather something neurotic and self-destructive. The same goes for the complementary desire of some people to be treated as door mats. Such disordered behaviour is fostered by capitalism. Firstly there is the direct effect of the dog-eat-dog workings of the system and the alienated nature of labor. Then there is the indirect effect through the impact of other people's neurotic behaviour, particularly that of parents, who have been deformed by the system.

Doesn't socialism suppress individuality and economic freedom?


If socialism suppresses individuality and economic freedom it is only the individuality and freedom of capitalists as they trample on the individuality and freedom of everybody else. They will no longer have the freedom to control and exploit others by monopolising the means of production.


Capitalism is premised on economic freedom being confined to a minority. Everyone else has to follow orders. If workers went to work tomorrow morning determined to show initiative and creativity, they would immediately see how the system gets in their way.


Capitalists want their cake and to eat it too. On the one hand they want workers to accept their subordinate position but at the same time to show a bit more initiative within their cramped area of responsibility. Success is limited because people who accept their subordination tend to lack initiative while those who don't accept their subordination are hard to motivate.


Certainly a worker under capitalism is freer than a serf under feudalism. They are not obliged to stick with one boss. And also, the capitalist is freer than the guild master bound by guild rules. However, you can't keep dining out on that for five hundred years. Being better than feudalism loses its power to impress. It's about as impressive as a middle aged couch potato outpacing an octogenarian with a walking frame.

Socialism in a nutshell


In a socialist society the means of production [1] are owned by the workers rather than by a rich minority of capitalists or functionaries. Such a system of ownership is both collective and individual in nature.


It is collective because society can control production unlike the economic anarchy of capitalism and because production is for the common good rather than for individual profit.


At the same time it is individual because workers are no longer a 'collective' mob of alienated non-owners employed by a minority of owners. Work becomes a free and self-affirming activity for each worker and they receive the full fruits of their labor. The capitalists and their servants no longer control production nor grow rich from other's toil. Everybody is an owner. Socialism is genuine free enterprise.


The personally empowering and cooperative nature of socialist ownership underpins similar changes in other aspects of life. Socialism means far healthier individuals and human relationships. It means full participation by each individual in the intellectual, cultural and political life of society.


Socialism requires a revolution with three main stages: firstly the emergence of a workers' movement committed to socialist revolution, secondly the achievement of political power and the expropriation of the capitalists and thirdly a period during which workers learn how to be owners and rulers and cast off the psychological and ideological dross of the past.


Socialism will not be an utopia simply created in people's minds. It will be the product of economic and social development. In developed countries it is now possible for everyone to live a reasonably affluent life and be free of long hours of routine toil. This creates a better basis for cooperation and mutual regard. Historically, where equality would have meant shared poverty, it was inevitable that a minority would plunder, enslave and exploit the majority. At the same time rank and file workers are progressively acquiring through their experiences, the abilities to do without an elite. Their general level of education and training has advanced significantly over the last couple of generations. The work they do, while still totally oppressive, has an increasingly mental and conceptual content. And they now have extensive access to cultural and intellectual resources and the diverse experiences of living in a modern society. So while socialism was impossible in the past, these emerging conditions make it inevitable in the future.


Footnote [1]. The means of production comprise everything, except labor, that is used in production, namely, factories, plant, equipment, offices, shops, raw materials, fuel and components.

[ March 16, 2003: Message edited by: Linux User #5225982375 ]

zoolooo:

quote: i do NOT want some jackass who doesn't want to work to live off of my tax money.
--- End quote ---


But you give more of you tax to the very rich to keep them that way than you do on Welfare payments.  Why is your issue with the poor jackass and not the rich jackass?

 
quote:i do not see how it capitialism is not civilised. as far as i know, we don't have public beheadings. i can not possible understand how you can say capitialism is not civilised!! GIVE me reasons, EXPLAIN yourself!!!!!
--- End quote ---


Co-operation is more civilised and a higher order of thinking than competition is. QED

Your ignorance is showing.

zooloo

BTW, you didn't say how much your capital is and how did you get it.  Please do, I'd like to know as I am sure I'd be able to use it against you.

[ March 16, 2003: Message edited by: zoolooo ]

slave:
Zooloo, there's one thing I'd like to mention in your last post.

Competition isn't--in and of itself--a bad thing; it's when it degenerates into combat that we start to see problems.  Richard Stallman puts it better than I can, so I'll quote what he says in his essay Why Software Should be Free:

Is Competition Inevitable?


 Is it inevitable that people will try to compete, to surpass their rivals in society? Perhaps it is. But competition itself is not harmful; the harmful thing is combat.


There are many ways to compete. Competition can consist of trying to achieve ever more, to outdo what others have done. For example, in the old days, there was competition among programming wizards--competition for who could make the computer do the most amazing thing, or for who could make the shortest or fastest program for a given task. This kind of competition can benefit everyone, as long as the spirit of good sportsmanship is maintained.


Constructive competition is enough competition to motivate people to great efforts. A number of people are competing to be the first to have visited all the countries on Earth; some even spend fortunes trying to do this. But they do not bribe ship captains to strand their rivals on desert islands. They are content to let the best person win.


Competition becomes combat when the competitors begin trying to impede each other instead of advancing themselves--when ``Let the best person win'' gives way to ``Let me win, best or not.'' Proprietary software is harmful, not because it is a form of competition, but because it is a form of combat among the citizens of our society.


Competition in business is not necessarily combat. For example, when two grocery stores compete, their entire effort is to improve their own operations, not to sabotage the rival. But this does not demonstrate a special commitment to business ethics; rather, there is little scope for combat in this line of business short of physical violence. Not all areas of business share this characteristic. Withholding information that could help everyone advance is a form of combat.


Business ideology does not prepare people to resist the temptation to combat the competition. Some forms of combat have been banned with anti-trust laws, truth in advertising laws, and so on, but rather than generalizing this to a principled rejection of combat in general, executives invent other forms of combat which are not specifically prohibited. Society's resources are squandered on the economic equivalent of factional civil war.

zoolooo:
Yes Linux User #5225982375, I agree.

Thank you for the point, I see now that I was assuming an extreme ideal of competition and I should have been clearer.

I sacrificed too much accuracy for the sake of brevity.  You have corrected that.

zooloo  

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page