Socialism is superior to capitalism

Ok, lets start off by nutting down what version of socialism you are talking about;

Marx's socialist mode of production, Ricardian socialim, Market socialism, or one of the other dozen different versions

Under Pure Socialism, there is no government, every member of the community has an equal say in every decision making process. Which is actually impossible for an event that needs to be completed in a shorter time than that decision making process takes. And even if not, if everyone doesnt agree on everything the same way, and you have to go with a majority rule, then it isnt pure socialism anymore as not everyone had an equal say. Pure Socialism is impossible

Under Marxist socialism "the sole criterion for production is use-value and therefore the law of value no longer directs economic activity". That is produce only what is needed for everyone and somehow magically that means the value of every good and service will have the same value

That is produce enough carrots for everyone every day of the year, and some how magically thats going to stop junkies putting more value on heroin. Or lets not focus on negative aspects of humanity, lets say the guy running an orphanage wants to give an extra toy to the kids one month, so he is going to put more value on that extra toy over the amount of carrots they get that month. Producing enough carrots for everyone every day of the year somehow magically is going to stop that orphanage guy trading some carrots on the black market for some extra toys.

Which is why Marxist Socialism has never been implemented anywhere, because its fucking nonsense

Now under Marx's socialist mode of production he gives three main possibilities of government, which he is vague on because he knew it was all a load of shit:
Co-operative enterprise - the purer version where everyone agrees and decides on everything, public ownership (central government) the George Orwell kind of shit where the government decides how many carrots you get, or private ownership - representatives of the workers, so pretty much unions get to decide how many carrots everyone gets

So lets start with that, lets start from the top. You want to explain how awesome socialism would be for everyone. Start with telling us which type of government would work best. Who makes all the decisions; a central government, localized government, no governement and everyone spending a couple hours a day voting online on big decisions, or a private firm or union making all the decisions

 

No.

Why is everyone so touchy in this thread?

 

Because their whole thought process is being poked at with a stick...

 

People have thought processes these days??? Here I was thinking they just accept whatever they're told to without question

 

They do... but they believe it's something they came up with all on their own through diligent research. (usually on YouTube)

 

It depends on the decision.

And yes, many decisions would be arrived at democratically... I can't see too many situations where this wouldn't be the case.

Well, at least now you're attacking the economics as opposed to making up shit about 'human nature' and huge Stalinist governments.

The guy who wants to give the orphans a toy can use 3D printing to make the toy from raw materials. If that isn't currently feasible, the older kids can learn woodworking or something and make the toys for the smaller children. People can actually learn skills and put them to use for the good of their community. Fucking hell, just take your carrots and make toys out of carrots... it's fun! You don't actually need to rely on other people's creativity (or lack thereof) when you yourself are creative.

The junkie is breaking the law and should be detained then assisted with his drug addiction via community programs.
The people giving him the heroin should be punished for selling illegal drugs.

Marx was vague because he was talking about the FUTURE, not because he 'knew it was all a load of shit'. FFS, it's not a conspiracy. Smart people don't tell everyone they are oracles who can predict with 100% certainty exactly what is going to transpire.

Socialism and democracy are wholly compatible. George Orwell was a socialist. A central government can make decisions based on tested, proven science for the good of the people (before you start accusing me of contradicting myself, I didn't say there would be NO central government-- decentralization doesn't have to be absolute, and of course in hypothetical situations about a future socialist society, it isn't exactly easy to say what would and wouldn't be). A system of checks and balances can be implemented to make sure that the government works for the good of the people, not themselves. It would probably help if the transition to socialism wasn't the result of someone seizing power in a violent revolution-- but with all of the right wing nut jobs in the US, that seems pretty far off.

Spending 'a couple hours a day' (where did you get that figure anyways?) making decisions about your own future, the future of your community, the future of your nation, or the future of your planet seems a lot more productive than spending it jacking off to porn, smoking weed, arguing about Star Wars movies or playing violent video games. It shouldn't be thought of as some soul-crushing burden... and in many other societies, it isn't. It isn't human nature to be lazy and frivolous, that is the result of decades of consumer culture teaching us that shiny objects are more exciting than participating in our own political process.

Obviously I can't be completely sure EXACTLY how each and every socialist community must operate... again, I am talking about the future here. All I have really been saying is that socialism does not require an oppressive, all-powerful state and that Americans are not the way they are because it's 'human nature'.

 

Oi vey, double facepalm

I think you just single handedly won the war on drugs, problem solves we dont need narcs anymore

LOLz, well you can start by getting all the guys here on HF to stop doing those things, then we will work on the other 3 1/2 billion dudes on the rest of the planet

 

It isn't surprising that your only response is to mock me based on nothing.
It's what you do.

Since you said absolutely nothing, do you mean to say that 3D printing wouldn't be able to create the toys that the orphanage owner wants? That he wouldn't be able to procure the raw materials? What exactly is it about this idea that is making you roll your eyes so hard? FFS... people would probably do it for free because the orphans are part of the community and people like doing nice things for each other. Of course, this wouldn't fit in with your 'people are selfish pieces of shit by nature' argument...

Is it that in your scenario, the children want a very specific toy complete with movie tie-ins and vast amounts of marketing? When have children ever actually cared about who makes the toy so long as it is made well? I still remember my grandfather making some pretty awesome toys for us when we were little... and he didn't even have a 3D printer-- just some wood and tools. Maybe try to think of a better example?

Also do people on this drug use forum actually support the war on drugs? You are honestly using the war on drugs, huge success that it is, as the reason why things like legalization, counselling, community support programs... are a waste of time? I would say that strong community support programs, community centers, sports programs, drama programs, music, etc... make it far less likely that anyone would turn to drugs in the first place.

I don't even know what your point about heroin is-- heroin is always going to be a black market thing. People are already giving drug dealers everything they own to get it. It's illegal. But I will say that if labor were to become the true measure of an object's value to the extent where currency disappeared, there would be almost no incentive to sell heroin at all, because of the threat it poses to the community.

Obviously the habits of consumer society won't disappear overnight... I didn't say that they would. But as I have said six or seven times already, this isn't human nature. I don't mean people will stop jacking off, I mean jacking off will just be one of a number of things that people do, INCLUDING taking a more active interest in their own future.

 

why did you call me touchy? what did i do wrong!?

 

In the midst of nonsense, this ^ stands true!

Speaking of nonsense:

(we could use a laughing icon)
"What? I left you 'some'! What are you bitching about?”


Also...
Pure democracy: two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

 

Well, okay.

That's why I made that point about decentralization.

I don't know what your family dinners are like, but I know what my reaction would be if I were invited out to dinner and someone went out of their way to give themselves more than everyone else. This would result in shame and ostracism... especially if people didn't buy into the 'I am smarter/more hardworking/better than you, therefore I deserve it' bullshit that rightwingers love so much. Nobody should be buying into this, yet here we are. People SHOULD be refusing to work for these fuckers and calling them out on their greed and selfishness, but instead everyone just applauds them and votes for more tax breaks so they can take even bigger shares and not give any back. They have effectively convinced the dwindling middle classes that those greedy, selfish, lazy poor people are their true enemies.

The reason they can do this is because the classes are so alienated from each other, so oblivious to how the others live... that the voters simply choose to believe whatever makes them feel best about themselves and the world they live in. The media helps with this a great deal. Bringing everything down to a community level where people are forced to depend on each other as opposed to someone they've never met in a far off land, someone in a gated community they've never seen, or someone stuck in some ghetto in some part of the city that they're afraid of... would help with this immensely.

It's capitalism that emphasizes the law of the jungle 'winner take all' mentality... socialism is supposed to put equality ahead of entitlement. Your cynicism about the ability of people to make it work isn't going to change what it is.

 

Well that was quite a tirade!

I don't see how you justify comparing a society sharing limited resources to a family dinner. Do you presume to suggest that all people can 'evolve' to treat all other humans as "family"? That's really idyllic thinking! And of course, impossible.

How do you think you maximize GDP, standard of living, manufacturing capacity, and the ability to defend a nation? By gardening and singing songs together? Come on!

I mean if you want to go form/join a commune and live in utopía, feel free to 'turn on, tune in, and drop out'. Our society still allows enough freedom for that. But don't go pretending that diligence and progress toward "gettin' 'er done" is some kind of evil enterprise that should be abolished.

You're also free to start your own business and contribute to the general welfare on your own terms, rather than work for "the man". BE the man.

 

It's not evolution. Once again, the problem is that people have come to think of the way things currently are as natural. But that doesn't mean that this IS natural, or that 'nature' is too rigid to adapt to a different type of society.

Ever notice how the countries with the highest standard of living have things like universal health care, free higher education, social programs galore, and a strong welfare system? Socialism is a bit more than 'gardening and singing songs together'... but of course, that's just your way of dismissing it without actually looking into what it is.

As for manufacturing capacity-- take a look at the top-selling products of all time(admittedly an older list, but it still makes my point):

You'll Never Guess What the Best-Selling Product of All Time Is

1. Sony Playstation-- think of how much climate change is actually a direct result of people wanting to play VIDEO GAMES.
2. Lipitor-- a drug that wouldn't even be necessary if the food industry weren't so set on feeding us shit (it lowers bad cholesterol).
3.Toyota Corolla-- a car that is loved for its reliability, affordablity, and low gas mileage. Sounds great.
4. Star Wars-- not exactly a need. It's probably Marvel now... a formulaic film franchise that aspires to regurgitate the same crap over and over without informing or intellectually challenging its audience is one of the best-selling products of time.
5. iPad-- Now you can access the internet while ignoring your TV at the same time!

I would argue that our addiction to what is largely meaningless crap is a negative, not a positive, and that manufacturing it is causing long-term environmental damage that is definitely not worth the result. FFS... think of all the toxic byproducts and exploited workers out there, and how many people are suffering as a result of people wanting to sit on their ass for hours and hours, staring at a screen, and in the end gaining absolutely nothing from it except some meaningless conversation with others addicted to the same game, and some virtual rewards that mean absolutely nothing in the real world. FFS toys and games are supposed to help children figure out how to be adults, not keep them suspended in a permanent state of adolescence!

I would also argue that our standard of living is not as great as it seems, if this is what you consider living. The fact that a drug that counteracts the effects of shitty food is the number 2 best-selling product of all time is frankly disgusting, especially since a better solution would be clean food and regular exercise.

If you think I or any other socialist is opposed to 'diligence and progress toward 'getting 'er done', then you obviously don't understand anything about socialism. How exactly is taking DIRECT responsibility for your community opposed to diligence or progress?? It's like you aren't even trying to understand me.

And putting people before profit should be the NORM, not some marginalized fringe movement. I am not talking about utopia-- just because it's better doesn't mean it's unrealistic or that everyone thinks it's perfect. Obviously there are challenges.

And anyone who has ever seen Walmart arrive in their town and completely destroy their main street can tell you how easy it is to start up your own business. Of course everyone will tell you that it's all because you did this or that wrong, but the truth is there are numerous adverse conditions that exist nowadays that didn't exist 30 years ago.

 

...and how would their standard of living be affected if they were attacked/invaded?

 

I think there’s more of a collective mindset in Norway than in the US. Their ideas around socialism have a majority of people agreeing with whereas in the US, there is a lot of diversity culturally and politically. Sort of like Japan with anti-gun laws, there is a collective mindset there whereas we have too much diversity on the topic, here.

But, we do have programs that are built around socialism in the US, we just don’t have a purely socialist society.

 

True Norway has 7 million people and it's mostly whites who accept that socialism is not evil. But I don't think America's size is an excuse to not try. You could also say capatilsim does not work in America because there are just too many of us with too many different views. Capitalism requires a small society where people are culturally the same. They can only have small difference of opinion or the goverment will never work. It will become a team sport where nothing gets done. And we know that does not happen in Ameirca.

 

The same as any other nation that gets attacked or invaded.

 

Is it just me or when you read the title a politic party is superior to another one, it seems problematic. Or the term "superior" seems to be a negative. Seems like once you start these "superior" political parties, bad shit happens. It's like the whole equality thing over again, like you believe you're a superior person because your political views are "superior".

Yeah?
Nah?

 

That's possible. Hard to know what their motive behind their claim is.
The way I see it, some people have seen more and thought more about stuff than others.
It can take a few flicks of the switch before the light bulb comes on.

 

The problem is that any system would work if everyone agreed. But...when There is 300 million people with free speech it's hard to get them all to agree.