Socialism is superior to capitalism

So anyways, today I learned that socialism is about forcibly taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor so that they can be lazy and do nothing (violence MUST be involved), is basically the same thing as the American welfare system, Karl Marx is stupid, it will never work because it's stupid, that people are inherently selfish and cruel... and that suggesting any of these ideas is wrong is elitist and mean. Also, it seems everyone is totally open to the idea of having a socialist government, understands exactly what it would mean, and the reason that we don't have it is because the people always get what they want, therefore socialism is wrong... also, I am petty, and trying to actually understand things is a waste of life.

 

LMAO

 

Good presentation, but to clarify...

No, you quoted what I said.

You're presenting this assertion as of it were fact. I hope you realize it's actually an opinion. A belief. A value system. But in reality, not one of us "deserves" anything. Not even the right to life. That's why we set up societies and assign rights, because otherwise there'd be none.

You've assumed the current state is due to an unwillingness of people people to help the needy. (see "the four agreements")

Some history. People used to take care of the needy directly. The government didn't intervene because the people needed it, but because it put them in control, and made the people dependent on them, which secured votes, and so in return they could retain power. Pretty crafty on their part, eh? Most people don't even recognize this.

Now that the government is taking by force to provide charity, people have come to believe it's their job and they're gonna let them do it. There's still some private charity going on, but by and large the people are relying on the government to provide it. If the government were to stop (which they won't unless masses demand it) then people would go back to helping the needy. Some because of an instilled value of caring, others because God calls for it. So government doesn't "have to", but we've turned it over to them, for better or for worse.

 

I think it's a reasoned elaboration of a principle based on empathy--the recognition that other people are like us, and feel pain and suffering. This is a sentiment most humans share with lower animals, although it has been broadened by ethical teachings and growing knowledge of foreigners. It seems to be a premise of the major ethical systems of world religions, despite the efforts of "Objectivists" to deny it. So yes, it is an opinion, as is the opinion that we should try to be moral. What is moral? It's all a matter of opinion, but the great moral teachers seem to think loving and helping fellow humans is an important part of it.

Are you talking about the don Miguel Ruiz book of pseudo-Toltec wisdom? Explain "the four agreements."

Now some real history. People used to take care of the needy directly. This worked well in communal societies where there was an ethic of mutual care and cooperation. The churches and religious societies also engaged in charity as part of their duties to the poor. As societies grew and became more complex and urbanized, communal spirit suffered setbacks. Large numbers of people lived hand-to mouth, and many were reduced to begging on the street. And we developed capitalism, in which people became increasingly vulnerable to the business cycle. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, industrial societies developed "Poor Houses" (aka, "Work Houses') where people were gradually provided with subsistence in return for labor. Charles Dickens described these vividly. By the late 1800's, reformers began to think something more should be done, so they turned to government. The big turning point was the Great Depression which marked a major shift in responsibilities to the government, in response to a major failure of our capitalist economic system and resulting mass unemployment.. This was not, as you've suggested, a sinister plot by the government to seize control over people's lives. It was a practical response to a crisis, and a recognition by FDR that if something weren't done we'd be facing a revolutionary situation. It was, of course, a political opportunity for the Democrats, and Republicans even then thought government mustn't intervene. Speaking of opinions, the notion that if government would just step out private charity would step back in is certainly that. For a different opinion, see
Why Charity Can’t Replace the Safety Net Social Security History
Private charity is never a substitute for public welfare | Peter Wilby
The Conservative Myth of a Social Safety Net Built on Charity
Privatizing Social Security: The Troubling Trade-Offs

 

Did you notice your last edit was 4:20?

There's all sorts of theories to support various social schemes. And there is no end to the debate. In my formative years, people looked out for their peeps more than today when victimhood and entitlement are praised. Someone's always going to be repressed in any system, there's no way to have it all.

Yes, those are the four agreements. The website does a pretty good job of outlining them. The book is definitely recommended reading. It expounds on them quite effectively.

 

His last edit was 1:20

 

East coast, west coast

It shows 10:20 on my end. My account is set on some random time zone on the other side of the world for some reason. Its always been like that

 

Huh.

I always thought the time stamps were each poster's local time

 

And the point is?

 

That I thought the time stamps were representative of the poster's local time.

 

You have to set your time zone to your own if you want it to show in your time.

Otherwise it shows at whatever it's defaulted to. Maybe GMT? I forget... But the time stamp is the actual occurrence.


Click your name, then preferences. Time zone is at the top.

 

I 'm sorry. I was referring to Trudgeon's point. As I recall, my post was sometime this afternoon, and I may have edited it at some point after that. So what? Did I violate some norm or rule? Right now, it is 7:55 p.m. okie time, at least that's what my watch says.

I read the Four Agreements years ago with a book discussion group. Your point still escapes me. Is it the "assumptions" part--the Third Agreement? "Don't make assumptions". Generally good advice. Assumptions make "an ass of u and me", as the saying goes. As I explained, your assumption about my assumption was incorrect, and my assumption was a tentative conclusion based on my personal observations, experience, and yes, intuitions.

 

I guess someone on this psychedelic drug use site doesn't know about 4/20...

4/20, marijuana's high holiday, explained

 

Oh, I'm a bit slow. I did try weed a couple of times, but--never inhaled (and never had sex with that woman!)

 

LOLz

If you cant even get half a dozen people in this thread to agree with you

How would you or anyone else get a whole society to agree on whom should be the person that cleans the toilets at the mall and who gets to fly fighter yets....and they both get paid the same

All for the good of the community first, and exactly the way you mean it

Oh....and one is an alcoholic, so all of of sudden he/she is going to give up drinking, well more than their community alloted ration

 

It's not about me, and I am not a politician or a leader of a socialist party. I don't need to be some kind of radical leftist revolutionary to know what socialism is, how it could work, or why it could be a positive thing.

In fact, in this very thread I said that too many people are afraid of the word and have too many weird ideas about it for anyone to ever be able to seriously win an election as a socialist. It's basically a derogatory word at this point. But you shouldn't confuse capitalist mentality with human nature.

It is possible that the fighter jet pilot would do voluntary community service when he isn't fighting other jets. He would share this duty with other members of a society that wouldn't consider the work inherently degrading or beneath them. People wouldn't have to have just one job, and part of their role as a member of the community is to keep it clean and take pride in it.

Ideally, the federal government would be decentralized and there would be more power at the local level...which makes sense as statelessness is the ultimate goal here anyways, and as others have said, it works better when people actually know each other.

There wouldn't be rations so much as a community mentality where people would take as much as they need and be sure to leave some for their neighbors and friends.

 

Seriously dude? What is this kindergarten?

"Ideally the federal government would be decentralized"??? under socialism

So you say "I was just trying to explain what socialism is to people who don't understand what socialism is" when you have no idea what it is

or how to implement it

 

YOU don't know what it is. It is obvious to anyone who has even done a few minutes' research that you have only a VERY superficial understanding, probably gleaned from Cliff's Notes/old reviews of 1984, possibly in combination with multiple viewings of Red Dawn and Rocky IV.

A simple google search will reveal that a massive, all-powerful federal state is NOT integral to a socialist society, and neither is a strong central government.
All that is necessary is community ownership of the means of production (as in no private ownership).
Communities can exist on several different levels-- global, national, state, municipal, tribal...it doesn't mean they can't be socialist.

It doesn't have to be some big-ass oppressive state looming over everyone, brainwashing them into thinking everything's great because the Great Leader loves them while they kill their children for food.

This is EXACTLY what I mean by people not knowing what socialism is.

 

So we're back to changing human nature.

 

What you think human nature is... isn't human nature.
Stop calling it that.