 |
 |
|
 |
|
| Author |
Message |
IgnatiusJ
Turbo Geek
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 288
Location: Cleveland
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:52 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| byebyeblackbird wrote: | | Wow, you really are uneducated about socialism. I should have just said, "attn: Chris." I have my own ideas about methods of competition in socialist societies, I'd just like his historical take on it. |
Not really true, but thanks, you're so awesome, did i tell you that before? It is a pretty common understanding that planning is centralized with the state or labor boss and not the individual for most forms of socialism.
I rarely see theories in this forum applied contextually, so I apologize if what I posted was a little more sobering or pragmatic.
Seriously, what would life be like? Take this simple question, potentially a hanging curve right down the middle...If an individual is an amazing athlete and is great at golf, but that person is also great at science and math, what would the state have them do? Could they still become a full time professional athlete? Would we still have sports, but only the least intelligent would be able to play? And how entertaining would that really be? Isn't anyone concerned that a lot of our decisions would be taken away? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
daydream set
kinda my penis
Joined: 07 Dec 2001
Posts: 12814
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | If an individual is an amazing athlete and is great at golf, but that person is also great at science and math, what would the state have them do? |
I don't understand why you assume that the state automatically dictates everyone's lives in a socialist society or why you assume that it's the state's decision to make. You do understand that real socialists don't advocate or champion a future akin to the former USSR or to the type of society imagined by the author of The Giver, right?
| Quote: | | Could they still become a full time professional athlete? Would we still have sports, but only the least intelligent would be able to play? And how entertaining would that really be? |
I don't understand why not. A lot of people can do math and science. And many more have the potential to do math and science. In a socialist society, I'd assume that educators would be much more able to teach these skills to people since classroom sizes would be much smaller and everyone would have better access.
| Quote: | | Isn't anyone concerned that a lot of our decisions would be taken away? |
Once again, our individual autonomy would not necessarily shrink in a socialist society. In fact, it would probably increase in many crucial areas - even if, for instance, I no longer would get to decide which overpriced health care plan to choose from. Aww shucks!
I mean, right now we're forced to deal with lots of decisions and phenomena that we don't have any control over. War, poverty, environmental destruction, crime, etc. I don't know about you guys, but I'm pretty sick of these highly destructive decisions that affect me being made without my consent. Have been sick of it for a very long time.
_________________
-Chris | LastFM | RYM | Twitter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
byebyeblackbird
Rogue
Joined: 11 Sep 2008
Posts: 1622
Location: NC
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| IgnatiusJ wrote: | | Seriously, what would life be like? Take this simple question, potentially a hanging curve right down the middle...If an individual is an amazing athlete and is great at golf, but that person is also great at science and math, what would the state have them do? Could they still become a full time professional athlete? Would we still have sports, but only the least intelligent would be able to play? And how entertaining would that really be? Isn't anyone concerned that a lot of our decisions would be taken away? |
| byebyeblackbird wrote: | | Wow, you really are uneducated about socialism. |
I do not understand why you want to confuse utilitarianism and socialism. Utilitarianism has been used to advocate political socialism, but I've never heard it proposed for democratic socialism. They do occasionally meet - especially in economic realms - but they are far from the same thing. Your point about career athlete versus math and science whiz is pretty poor because our true nature is alienated under capitalism and nobody knows this more than the lower classes.
_________________
Brandon
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
daydream set
kinda my penis
Joined: 07 Dec 2001
Posts: 12814
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| -enjoyIncubus- wrote: | On top of interior interference, I would expect a country (USA) to go out of their way and thwart any socialist uprising.
Also, it seems that socialist societies need a certain level of autonomy. In an age where there is so much interdependence and globalization this autonomy seems impossible. |
this is why the socialist movement must be coordinated worldwide. the rest of the world can't become socialist while, for instance, the US and Japan remain capitalist. not only does such a situation force a Cold War-esque standoff, it's not fair that the rest of the world gets to experience (further) progress while the US working classes continue to suffer. 
| Quote: | | Then again, maybe capitalism is necessary to lower the world population. Are there enough resources to evenly distribute to 6 billion people anyway? |
there is no reason to lower the world population and there are enough resources to meet the needs of 6 billion people if those resources are allocated rationally.
to see what i mean, check out this article: http://socialistworker.org/2009/08/03/enough-to-go-around
_________________
-Chris | LastFM | RYM | Twitter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
REVOLUTIONalreadyUNDERWAY
The Fly Guy
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2247
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| daydream set wrote: |
this is why the socialist movement must be coordinated worldwide. |
exactly.
| daydream set wrote: | | Quote: | | Then again, maybe capitalism is necessary to lower the world population. Are there enough resources to evenly distribute to 6 billion people anyway? |
there is no reason to lower the world population and there are enough resources to meet the needs of 6 billion people if those resources are allocated rationally.
to see what i mean, check out this article: http://socialistworker.org/2009/08/03/enough-to-go-around |
Oh, I totally believe you and from a few university assignments I've done on the subject I think we have more than enough resources if allocated properly. However, there are just as many articles that claim to prove we do as there are that we don't Of course a socialistworker article is going to claim we do. I'm not a specialist on the matter that's why I'm just a little skeptical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
daydream set
kinda my penis
Joined: 07 Dec 2001
Posts: 12814
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| -enjoyIncubus- wrote: | | However, there are just as many articles that claim to prove we do as there are that we don't |
but for those claiming we don't, what evidence do they present?
we waste tons of food every day (google: food overproduction) while 20-25% of the planet goes hungry. it's immediately obvious that a more rational distribution of resources would significantly curb starvation - at the point of production alone. that doesn't even take into consideration the point of consumption.
it also doesn't take into consideration less immediately evident issues such as unsustainable farming practices and misallocated labor.
are there any "we don't have enough" articles that comment on this? because any article that doesn't address these facts and tries its hand at some heavy-handed economic calculus on the matter doesn't deserve anyone's time or consideration.
_________________
-Chris | LastFM | RYM | Twitter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
REVOLUTIONalreadyUNDERWAY
The Fly Guy
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2247
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| daydream set wrote: | | -enjoyIncubus- wrote: | | However, there are just as many articles that claim to prove we do as there are that we don't |
but for those claiming we don't, what evidence do they present?
we waste tons of food every day (google: food overproduction) while 20-25% of the planet goes hungry. it's immediately obvious that a more rational distribution of resources would significantly curb starvation - at the point of production alone. that doesn't even take into consideration the point of consumption.
it also doesn't take into consideration less immediately evident issues such as unsustainable farming practices and misallocated labor.
are there any "we don't have enough" articles that comment on this? because any article that doesn't address these facts and tries its hand at some heavy-handed economic calculus on the matter doesn't deserve anyone's time or consideration. |
Man there were a whole bunch of great articles on different "green philosophies" in a folder for a course called "Environment and Resources" that I took last semester. However, I can no longer access the folder anymore because I'm not enrolled in the course. I'll still try to look for you. I remember I wrote an my essay on the green philosophy of Marxist Ecology or Eco-socialism - which pretty much blamed capitalism for all of today's environmental problems. Really all that I can remember was that there were lots of articles citing the earth's carrying capacity - they ranged from 500,000 to 20 billion. A bunch of them were around 10 billion but the one's with radical estimates backed up their argument very well. I'll see if I can find any of them for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
daydream set
kinda my penis
Joined: 07 Dec 2001
Posts: 12814
Location: Atlanta
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
byebyeblackbird
Rogue
Joined: 11 Sep 2008
Posts: 1622
Location: NC
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anyone reading or read The Shock Doctrine? It's a very interesting read for someone who doesn't know a large amount of history.
_________________
Brandon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Moses Malone
The Fly Guy
Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Posts: 2422
Location: Mississauga, ON, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| daydream set wrote: | | We have three imperial wars that everyone is perturbed about, people are seeing their 401Ks; mortgages; and lives disappear overnight, we have the first black president in a nation built on slavery, the world economy is down the toilet with people revolting all across Europe because of it and people here pissed off at Wall Street, people in the US are organizing protests around a variety of progressive causes and linking it to the economic crisis, and Republican conservatism has been all but discredited. |
And then the right wing reasserted itself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
daydream set
kinda my penis
Joined: 07 Dec 2001
Posts: 12814
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think that's true.
The Democrats just discredited themselves.
_________________
-Chris | LastFM | RYM | Twitter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Moses Malone
The Fly Guy
Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Posts: 2422
Location: Mississauga, ON, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I also had the Toronto election in mind (a green light for Harper to start moving into the GTA in the next election, which might be the lift that'll get him a majority), as well as the general thrust toward conservative parties that seems to have happened in Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
REVOLUTIONalreadyUNDERWAY
The Fly Guy
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2247
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Feral Witchchild wrote: | | I also had the Toronto election in mind (a green light for Harper to start moving into the GTA in the next election, which might be the lift that'll get him a majority), as well as the general thrust toward conservative parties that seems to have happened in Europe. |
I like how the Conservative Party in Canada would essentially be a moderately left wing party in so many other countries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Moses Malone
The Fly Guy
Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Posts: 2422
Location: Mississauga, ON, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Even if they're a majority? I dunno man... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
REVOLUTIONalreadyUNDERWAY
The Fly Guy
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2247
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That may change things in their fiscal policy, but I still think on social issues their stance is fairly liberal.
How do you feel about a two-tiered health-care system? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
jayweenz
The Karate Kid
Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Posts: 197
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| -enjoyIncubus- wrote: | | I like how the Conservative Party in Canada would essentially be a moderately left wing party in so many other countries |
I totally agree. In Canada we have the NDP, Liberals, and Conservatives, which are left, center, and right. (That's a bit of a simplification, but fairly accurate). In the US they have the Democrats and Republicans, which are far right and batshitcrazy. I wouldn't be surprised if, in some alternate reality, Harper and the Conservatives were in US office and they were called crazy anti-American communists.
_________________
I intend to live forever. So far, so good.
- Josh |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Moses Malone
The Fly Guy
Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Posts: 2422
Location: Mississauga, ON, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| -enjoyIncubus- wrote: | | How do you feel about a two-tiered health-care system? |
I don't support it, for ideological reasons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
byebyeblackbird
Rogue
Joined: 11 Sep 2008
Posts: 1622
Location: NC
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Chris, what do you propose as the next extension of debate when someone talks about the success of our country being due to capitalism? Why advocate for socialism when capitalism built this country?
_________________
Brandon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
daydream set
kinda my penis
Joined: 07 Dec 2001
Posts: 12814
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What do they mean by "success"? Whose success? The elite 1% who have accumulated everything or the vast majority of the working population (and the poor) that's consistently been under attack for the last few decades? Is this person seriously suggesting that these two groups share a common level of success - or that these two groups even define "success" the same way? Why would a person suggest such a thing?
Are they simply trying to say that capitalism has proven an efficient means of economic production? Because that's not even up for debate, as any rational person will tell you. But, ya know, slavery and fascism get shit done too. But very few people are advocating for those things anymore. (Btw slavery, genocide, and imperialism 'built this country' too.)
But in any case, the defining feature of capitalism - the profit motive - doesn't get anything done except higher profit margins for those who own the stocks and capital. now, the American capitalist state apparatus has ushered in major technological and economic transformations over the course of its history: railroads, computers, etc. but those things were developed because huge public subsidies were poured into r&D at taxpayers expense. is that what he/she means by capitalism is responsible for our (I'm assuming collective?) "success"?
I dunno, Brandon. I guess it always depends on where they're coming from... how they interpret phenomena in general. but especially where they personally earn the means of their subsistence and how they interpret something as concrete as that. Is this a small business owner, a project manager, a CEO, an unemployed student, a professional, a truck driver, a blackwater operative, etc that we're talking about? Because some of these people will never accept socialism as an alternative - regardless of how logically or humanely it's argued or presented and no matter how well you argue that capitalism sucks. Because, for one reason or another, at that time, they've decided that they have nothing to gain from it personally. And those dudes... you've just got to let them go. you have finite time and energy on this earth, my friend.
(not saying that this is the case since obviously i don't know who we're talking about here, but i thought i'd just throw that out there).
_________________
-Chris | LastFM | RYM | Twitter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
byebyeblackbird
Rogue
Joined: 11 Sep 2008
Posts: 1622
Location: NC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
