Socialism Forum!

I've not been discussing what I would like "your" society to be like. That is a decision for you and those who make up your society to decide.

We seem to disagree on our scales of the society in which we would like to see our views imposed, as well as how they should be imposed.

Who's inserting the emotional plea now? The society I currently am a part of appears to be acceptable by all of us who comprise it, but you would like to change it to make it more fair simply because you outnumber us? Based upon your assessment I was born disadvantaged, yet I feel I have been successful in achieving any goals I wished to achieve, and feel that I could have achieved even more if I had wished, but was satisfied and preferred to retire and enjoy life instead. I'm still healthy enough to be a productive member of society, so would you then care to force me back to work in order to provide for those who are less capable or incapable of providing for themselves around the world? I gave up a job my employer tried to talk me out of giving up, but felt by doing so someone else would gain employment that needed it more than I. I now work around the house so I eliminate the need for others to provide for my needs.

 

Try sticking with facts.

Why should that have anything at all to do with wanting or not wanting a Bugatti?

So now you're going to tell me what I'd want or not want without need of asking me?

I've never heard of him, where in the world did you dig him up?

Is that all you use to gauge success? Currently I have very little, but feel quite successful, and have often achieved beyond goals I had set for myself, which seldom were related to what I could acquire, but instead to what I could produce or improve on.
Do you base success and achievement upon the acquisition of what produces envy? Perhaps that's why I'm unapproachable by Liberalism or forms of Socialism, it doesn't bother me what others achieve, or acquire beyond what I achieve or acquire. I set reasonable goals in life, and find satisfaction in achieving or surpassing them. It must be very depressing to have views from the left, thinking if only I had been born into wealth I would have been a success.

 

i might like to get my teeth fixed some day, or get a pair of eyeglasses

am pretty much blind and in pain all the time

is that success? is it excess?

i think when i'm 55 medicaid or some other such "socialist" program will kick in

that's my bugatti . . .

edit to note that i had originally typd a long and overly-personal [who me?] screed on wealth and luck but am getting tired once again of arguing with individual

[call me neville]

 

Neither, it sounds like old age approaching. I've been there for a while now myself and could use a new pair of glasses at the moment.

Unless those evil republicans can do away with it.

We could each pick a food that one of us likes and the other doesn't and argue over that instead.

OK neville.

 

it's your compassion i'll remember . . .

 

Wait a minute now--I jumped in on page 14,so I may have missed that someone actually called Gates and Buffet socialists? The Gates and Buffet that are 2 of the most successful capitalists EVER! The Gates and Buffet that believe in massive charitable giving? That plan on giving away most of their money to help people?I can't believe someone said that. Nah. No one here is that fuckin' dumb.

 

And all this time I thought we were talking about government.

 

"Buffet and Gates are the milder supporters of socialism."
In reference to the political party they donate the greatest sums to.


And George Soros, another capitalist who also was mentioned, appears to be ignored for some reason.

 

Huh. Guess I was wrong. And I thought right-wingers would be happy at the charitable giving of the rich,since that's the way they believe poor people should be taken care of instead of the government doing it.

 

Can't really confirm your being right or wrong as it's difficult to know how you interpret or misinterpret the words of others. I'm surprised to see the rich being lauded as charitable, as most often they're claimed to be greedy. And most who are right of center do believe charity is a function of individuals, not government.

 

Indie

Well if you are using it as an exemplifier (as you are) for you views then yes it is very important.

I mean what you seem to be describing as a model is a pre-industrial, non-urban society, with a primitive economic system.

And you are trying to us that as a model for a highly industrial and urban society with a complex economic system.

Its apples and oranges, chalk and cheese, only someone that hadn’t given it much thought or was a fool would see that it couldn’t be done.

*

Let us take for example Laos, one of the poorest and less well developed countries in Southeast Asia.

Subsistence farming accounts about half of its GDP and provides some 80 percent of the countries employment, it is a mainly rural society with some 85% of the population living in rural areas. And these areas can often be isolated there been virtually no rail network and few year round roads (only 16.5% to 19% been paved) although the Mekong allows river traffic to those communities close to it. So these are places with little population movement since subsistence farmers don’t often move from their land and little employment outside of agriculture.

On the other hand the United States of America is very different with 80% of Americans living in urban areas and with approximately only 2-3 percent of that population being directly employed in agriculture (and it only accounting for 1.2% of GDP).

Subsistence agriculture basically disappeared in Europe by the beginning of the 20th century but had declined rapidly from the 1850’s and in North America it died out with the movement of sharecroppers and tenant farmers out of the American South and Midwest during the 1930s and 1940s but again had been declining before then.

In the US (as in many parts of Europe) industry and then services have dramatically changed the type of society they had (with industry in the US now accounting for 21.9% and services 76.9% of GDP).

For many they don’t look to the land for survival but to their wages or commercial profit.

The other major difference between the two types of societies which helps define how they are set up is urbanisation.

The population of the whole of Laos is 6,320,429 while that of New York City alone is 8,391,881, but that doesn’t give the full picture more important is the population density, even in the capital of Laos, Vientiane population density is 178 per square mile whereas in NYC it reaches a staggering 26,403 per square mile (In London which is more spread out than NYC its 4,761).

A village of subsistence farmers requires little in the way of infrastructure and often does not produce the surplus to support such things. A built up urban society demands infrastructure. A village of subsistence farmers requires little in the way of regulation, but again a built up and populous urban area requires them.

In the same way social welfare and provision is likely to be local and family orientated in a subsistence economy, old or infirm family members would be looked after by their families and those that fall pray to bad luck are going to get there neighbours help, if that is possible but even that s going to depend on income as this article on Laos points out

“Many lowland villages are prosperous, regularly produce a rice surplus, and assist a small number of less well-off households within their boundaries. Other villages, particularly those in the uplands or of minorities who had recently relocated to lowland sites, are less well off and often unable to produce enough rice for village consumption. In these situations, the ability to produce other salable commodities, whether livestock, opium, or vegetables, or to find wage-labor jobs, is critical to the well-being of the household and the village. In settings where an entire village is rice-deficient, interfamily exchanges and rice loans cannot ameliorate the basic shortage affecting the community. Acute regional crop shortfalls in several years between 1989 and 1993 were largely met by rice imports provided through foreign aid. As market networks expand and as the economy becomes increasingly monetized and population growth and resettlement increase pressure on land resources, the number of villages in marginal economic situations can be expected to increase.”
http://countrystudies.us/laos/65.htm

Many modern left wing ideas (including Socialism) grew out of the industrial revolution and increasing urbanisation because they were about tackling and alleviating the problems associated with those developments.

The old social structures associated with the agricultural system often broke down as new realities took hold.

Someone might think that such simple rural communities are idyllic or even romantic, especially if they hadn’t had to live the life of a poor peasant farmer, but even they must realise that is a far cry from a highly industrial and urban society.

Now there are those people that would like to turn back the clock or turn the US into something closer to the Laos agricultural model but to me that is a fantasy. The population of the US would have to drop dramatically and it would entail the forced redistribution of wealth (land) that even a hard-line communist might find daunting.

Again your views seem to be fundamentally flawed

 

Indie

That is fine - as far as it goes - but the problem is that I’m explaining (sometimes at length) why I believe your ideas are flawed, and you seem unable to address those flaws.

Oh you always claim you can or have addressed these criticisms but these ‘replies’ or ‘answers’ always seem to consist of slogans or unsubstantiated claims which again you seem unable to back up when asked.

What I’m saying is that your views don’t seem to be very valid, yes I know you think mine are not valid and that’s your prerogative (and maybe one day you will put up some rational and reasonable arguments as to why you think they’re not, and I look forward to that day) but what we are dealing with is a set of ideas that don’t seem to stand up to scrutiny and the originator of them seems unable to defend them in any rational or reasonable way.

 

Of course my views would appear to be fundamentally flawed as I am not receptive to a large centralized socialist form of government. They work fine at a small scale, especially where there is little more than the necessities of life produced and available to all.

 

I have no problem with giving government the power to act in eliminating or reducing criminal activities which affect all of society. It's something entirely different when government attempts to control emotions, and beliefs which can differ greatly between individuals and makes government analogous to a religion.

You appear to look for government to act as the supreme equalizer of society, and government is incapable of bringing everyone up to a common standard, and could only bring most people down to a lower standard. Those who earn a living are not likely to put forth the effort required to provide for the needs of a growing number who put forth little or no effort at all. That's government forced charity, and if you think people give to little when they do so by choice, I think you would find that they will give even less when it is done by force, and that is a flaw I see in your reasoning.

 

Indie

Sorry that doesn’t stand; opposition to something does not explain your inability to defend your own views.

Again you are not asking why – why is there criminal activity in a society?

Also as discussed before you would seem to what a system of laws and enforcement agents to impose order, the most obvious signs of social unrest often manifest themselves in what many states see as ‘criminal’ activity.
Basically you would be using these methods to enforce a social order organised to serve the interests of a few.
It is not what I would see as ‘a better society’ but it would be the use of force to accomplishing a social goal.

I’ve said many times that absolute equality is impossible but it is possible to bring about more equality than say in the US or UK societies of today.
I think you should read The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do better by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett

“Income inequality, they show beyond any doubt, is not just bad for those at the bottom but for everyone. More unequal societies are socially dysfunctional across the board. There is more teenage pregnancy, mental illness, higher prison populations, more murders, higher obesity and less numeracy and literacy in more unequal societies. Even the rich report more mental ill health and have lower life expectancies than their peers in less unequal societies.” Will Hutton

*

It is not government but the policies a government might follow that can help to give most people the chance of realising their potential and giving them the possibility of having a health and fulfilled life.

This has been accomplished in the past with governments bringing in laws and regulations that have improved the lives of many people.

You also want ‘government’ but as I said it seems to me that the policies you’d want your type of government to follow would only seem to serve the interests of a few and you still are refusing to address that charge.

As I’ve pointed out before you seem to want protection of property, law and order and defence to be accomplished through force (compulsory taxes) presumably because you understand that if it was not financed through such taxation it wouldn’t happen, but you think social programmes aimed at helping the disadvantaged should be accomplished by voluntary donation?
And can you back up your assertion that there are a “growing number who put forth little or no effort at all”?

 

By the way--that kind of horse shit of putting Obama in front of a soviet sickle and hammer is just the kind of crap that stirs the fringe -dwellers up and into action. Carry on.

 

thanks for the subforum

 

As a socialist, one who believes in no class hierarchies at all, I believe in no government at all. Government just creates a class all its own.

As a social democrat, on the other hand, I believe in fiscal responsibility but using taxes for social safety netting to prevent gross poverty from developing. My rationale is that you'd have to use more money for law enforcement when people start starving, so why not just be preemptive with funding basic welfare? I'm not saying pay lazy people to live in mansions. I'm just saying use some of the taxes to prevent social conditions from getting like India or Indonesia while allowing room for economic growth.

I disagree with people who want to do away with social welfare altogether, because they usually argue it from the standpoint of liberty. However, there comes a point that you actually lose freedoms when society begins to break down or become too destabilized. More money will be spend on mercenaries or police. More personal liberties will actually become lost when social decay is used as an excuse for government to become more heavy handed.

Genuine socialism is just an ideal for me. In fact, I'd like to start a worker's co-op eventually. I'm not a Marxist. I'm more of a Hagelian, in that I do believe that the state is just a reflection of the human psyche and how we interact with one another on a daily basis. It can change gradually if people work on their selves. Once you heal your soul, you'll take the appropriate actions in your daily life.