Socialism Questions

[jrrtoken]

I wouldn't say that conformity within society is a trait of socialism, but of pseudo-capitalism. Conformity allows for more "team-players", which are essential components of mega-corporate ideology: More agreement, more productivity.

 

The principle has been present in American society since the late-1800's when industrialism was in full swing, but I think that the modern phase has been forged in post-WWII suburbia. It's social-oriented, yes, but not directly for state or government, but for corporate prosperity.

[Ping]

I probably would have done better to use wording that didn't sound like propaganda, but it fits in this case. The public school system is the greatest exponent of socialism in this country because it indoctrinates children at a young age to the ideals of socialism by encouraging conformity while discouraging individuality. Conformist children are groomed for success while individuals are groomed for failure by being singled out, persecuted and harassed to the point of suicide (or murder) by the conformist students while the faculty either turns a blind eye or even joins in. Conformists are far easier to govern and control by the mere threat not fitting in, and I happen to regard them as something less than human.

 

Go ahead and think that I'm throwing out "red herring labels for something (I) disagree with" if you wish. I know better because I've lived it and experienced it first-hand. Needless to say, I hate conformity with a purple passion.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to label it socialism, but I do see your point. I've personally been through similar experiences. Finally, someone I can relate to.

[urluckyday]

I probably would have done better to use wording that didn't sound like propaganda, but it fits in this case. The public school system is the greatest exponent of socialism in this country because it indoctrinates children at a young age to the ideals of socialism by encouraging conformity while discouraging individuality. Conformist children are groomed for success while individuals are groomed for failure by being singled out, persecuted and harassed to the point of suicide (or murder) by the conformist students while the faculty either turns a blind eye or even joins in. Conformists are far easier to govern and control by the mere threat not fitting in, and I happen to regard them as something less than human.

 

You do make an interesting point...

[Totenkopf]

The nail that sticks up gets hammered down. But, frankly, conformism has less to do with any economic ideology and everything to do with social control for whomever is in charge.

[True_Avery]

I probably would have done better to use wording that didn't sound like propaganda, but it fits in this case. The public school system is the greatest exponent of socialism in this country because it indoctrinates children at a young age to the ideals of socialism by encouraging conformity while discouraging individuality. Conformist children are groomed for success while individuals are groomed for failure by being singled out, persecuted and harassed to the point of suicide (or murder) by the conformist students while the faculty either turns a blind eye or even joins in. Conformists are far easier to govern and control by the mere threat not fitting in, and I happen to regard them as something less than human.

 

Go ahead and think that I'm throwing out "red herring labels for something (I) disagree with" if you wish. I know better because I've lived it and experienced it first-hand. Needless to say, I hate conformity with a purple passion.

If I agree with you, I'll be a conformist for conforming to your opinion. If I try to refute any of your above points, I'm a conformist because you know better. If I try to bring any sociology into this and explain conformity to you the way I understand it, I'll be a conformist for going to school. If I try to share any life experiences and relate, you'll just tell me I had it easy and in what ways I'm a conformist. If I try to understand your beliefs more in depth, you'll just explain to me how I need to be saved from my conformist ways and be an individual. If I try to explain myself, I have to step on the landmines of people you know who've been affected by conformity. If I do, I'm conformist. If I don't, I'm conformist.

 

I've been staring at your post for an hour and there is absolutely no way I can respond in any way that wont get you to hate me more

[Q]

I had a good teacher.

 

But I don't hate you, Avery, or anyone else here. I hate the system and its effects; not its products. I am, after all, just as much a product of the system as you are, but I'm part of the opposite demographic.

 

EDIT: I see what you did there.

[True_Avery]

Well, either here or in this thread (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=202944), could you at least explain how it could be fixed? I'm not really sure there is a way to stop conformity, but you may have some ideas.

 

But, as far as conformity goes, isn't that more of a problem with human nature and social norms instead of socialism? I was under the impression that socialism is supposedly the economic ideology, while straight communism deals with more of the social aspects.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

I probably would have done better to use wording that didn't sound like propaganda, but it fits in this case. The public school system is the greatest exponent of socialism in this country because it indoctrinates children at a young age to the ideals of socialism by encouraging conformity while discouraging individuality. Conformist children are groomed for success while individuals are groomed for failure by being singled out, persecuted and harassed to the point of suicide (or murder) by the conformist students while the faculty either turns a blind eye or even joins in. Conformists are far easier to govern and control by the mere threat not fitting in, and I happen to regard them as something less than human.

 

Go ahead and think that I'm throwing out "red herring labels for something (I) disagree with" if you wish. I know better because I've lived it and experienced it first-hand. Needless to say, I hate conformity with a purple passion.

I think you got it backwards. Conformity is something that can only exist towards the ruling system. Regardless of what may have been said, we've got Capitalism running the show on the US, as it always have been. Now, I did never study on a North American public school so I can't check first-hand on your allegations regarding indocrination, but if one is led to think on the collective before thinking on himself, well that's excellent, isn't it?

 

Yes, off with the disguise, I'm by no means a sympathizer of Capitalism and most of it's damaging byproducts. By saying someone ought to think on others rather than just look out for himself and those that suround him and are in some fashion profitable to have around, does not equal to discouraging the belief on the individual's potential. In fact, there's a lot an individual can do in terms of self-improvement that'll only benefit society afterwards.

 

When one is born and educated in a place that demonizes differences - and we're talking especifically about the socioeconomic side - then there's little hope for individualism to actually blossom on him or her. I believe in the honest option of having an minimally unbiased choice betwixt what the general consensus is and what you wish to believe.

[Totenkopf]

.. if one is led to think on the collective before thinking on himself, well that's excellent, isn't it?

 

Depends on the nature of the "collective", unfortunately.

[Q]

Yeah, it's really excellent when the idiotic collective gets convinced by some manipulative lunatic in a leadership position that thousands or even millions of people should be exterminated simply because they're somehow different from the members of the collective.

 

How many times has that happened in the past century? I can count half a dozen just off the top of my head. How many more times will it have to happen? Call me "selfish", but the collective can collectively kiss my ass.

[True_Avery]

Yeah, it's really excellent when the idiotic collective gets convinced by some manipulative lunatic in a leadership position that thousands or even millions of people should be exterminated simply because they're somehow different from the members of the collective.

 

How many times has that happened in the past century? I can count half a dozen just off the top of my head. How many more times will it have to happen? Call me "selfish", but the collective can collectively kiss my ass.

Warning: Going to abuse a metaphor this entire post.

 

I think its more of a love/hate thing. I mean, without a "collective" I doubt society would hold together very well. A country of individuals sounds... difficult to manage. A collective can vote, create law and "order" or sorts, come together to form enforcement, business, parties, etc.

 

The side effect of this is that individuality becomes a minority and, strictly and non-offensively speaking, almost like an odd cog in the machine. The cog can stray off the pattern and cause the machine to do something new, or it can strip gears and drag other cogs into its basement and eat them.

 

But, cogs really all flow and spin together, stripped or skewed off regardless. Even if you and I view ourselves as "individuals" or "different", we're still a cog in the end. We conformed to language, customs, traditions, beliefs, etc of our machine. If your catholic upbringing was against the spin of your cog, you then spin the other way, moving other cogs in the process.

 

Our parties, religions, viewpoints, etc all seem to form working "collectives" of cogs, working together to at least some degree through the, well, centrist cogs I guess.

 

I think my point is, an "individual" cog on the side of the machine that just runs by itself is effectively doing nothing at all. It is, in a way, just a waste of energy. This cog, in reality, could only really be approximated to a non-English speaking... I dunno, asian man being dropped in the middle of new york with no idea of customs, language, ect of the country. He's a cog that sort of works, but at the moment has nothing else to grip onto to make him a functioning part of the system. This may also apply in some fashion to anarchists or, well, straight criminals although, while they strip some gears they are probably more apart in moving the machine than the "individual" on the side.

 

The concept of an "individual" is hard for me to define. While you or myself may call ourselves individuals, me may just be cogs in the middle, or off to the side working while the main gears and cylinders work away. Maybe its gears that didn't hook in right with the collective heart and were relegated to other points, etc. I dunno.

 

In thinking so, the "collective" seems to be, in many ways, just a perspective issue. Cogs at the bottom look up and see a mountain of cogs, and those at the top look down and see and sea of cogs. The Republicans see an overwhelming and destructive sea of cogs, while the Democrats see a raging volcanic mountain of cogs. Those in the perceived middle see both, and those to the side, or perceived side, watch the rest of the cogs work merrily.

 

What you may see as a collective, they may consider themselves a bunch of individuals doing their part. Are you conservative/liberal? Do you vote conservative/liberal? Well, you may see yourself as an individual, but chances are you're still spinning with the cogs all around you but you just don't care to bother with who you're spinning with.

 

Point is, the machine is there and we're mostly all apart of it.

 

Sometimes one shifts drastically and causes a bunch to spin backwards with it. While, say, Germany got a bunch to spin with the Nazi party, there were still a great deal that didn't exactly approve. Maybe it is fear that keeps them quiet, honor, or something else. Slowly, more cogs went with the changer and those that didn't turn got stripped and thus major parts of the machine either stop working, or are forcible turned.

 

Who's "collective" can kiss your ass is up for question. As Toten says, it entirely depends on the nature. While I bet you'd take offense to it, you probably fit into more of an anarchistic collective branch of the machine. That, or the "libertarian" collective. Take your pick. You belong somewhere because you aren't an Asian man with no knowledge of America's language, customs, etc.

 

While the idea of some leader coming forth and moving a collective absolutely disgusts you, it again may come down to perspective. You're a hill of cogs watching another hill of cogs saying "[insert here]". But, what if someone, or a group, were to come forth with the legitimate idea of throwing power back to the people, dissolving most of the government, and, well, [insert your belief here].

 

Would you follow that "party", or those cogs? Would you follow Jefferson's influential cog on government?

 

Or, do you truly believe you are just a cog that sits outside the rest of the machine looking on? In all honesty, what use are you then? Are you not just then a cog that, well, wastes space and energy on the machine? While you would indeed be sticking it to the collective, what use are you?

 

I don't believe that. I believe you fit in somewhere because we're talking. But, by fitting in somewhere, I also believe that, under the right circumstances, either a major cog could move you by mechanics, or maybe you'd even be one of those major cogs. I don't know.

 

Essentially what I'm saying is I don't see how a "collective" can be pointed out as a whole. You can look from your spot and see a horizon of cogs, but you're still apart of the machine no matter how rusty you try to get.

 

I've talked to you. I have a basic understanding of a lot of your beliefs, and I find it hard to imagine that you would refuse a following that built itself upon your beliefs. If not that, then you're at least apart of some part of the machine trying to affect the collective. Essentially, by sticking it to them and resisting you're trying to move the collective itself and effectively becoming the "manipulative lunatic" that changes course.

 

I'm being brutally honest here with my opinion, but the only way you're going to be an "individual" is if you move out to a lone island somewhere or fall off and die. Everywhere else you're still apart of some machine, and some collective.

 

Conformity is human nature. How our social dynamics work. No matter what, you're going to conform to something somewhere. Whether that be "anarchy", rebellion, etc they are all still stances and pieces especially in a society as big as ours.

 

In this sense, "non-conformity", "individualism", "anarchy" may all be illusions and dreams just as elaborate and far fetched as communism. While some cogs stick, rust, sheer, pop out, the machine often keeps running, compensating for the lost cog. Its why "communism" may, in the end, just be a utopia lie since it would imply a machine that never rusts, never stutters, never changes. An movable god. But, a true "individual" cog just spins, connecting to nothing, changing nothing, wasting space, time, and energy until it finds it niche and runs with the rest.

 

Personally, I think you run with the rest by some capacity. We all do. You're not posting porn, speaking in Japanese, and generally doing everything in your power to ruin this forum or doing anything in your power to ruin every cog here so, in some capacity, you're at least moving, even if grudgingly, along with this forum's collective.

 

Even if a cog is skewed, running slow or fast, etc, the machine can still compensate and, in doing so, may change many parts of it. It is why mutations, individuals, etc are important for the function and "evolution" of the machine... but, if changing, even by their own unique factor... they're still connection, spinning with others, and, in the end, still very much apart of the mass "collective", or the "machine".

 

This isn't a "side effect" of capitalism, socialism, schools, business, etc. Calling it a "side effect" seems to almost be a denial of the existence and function of any society, no matter how small. If anything, it is a "side effect" of the meeting and communication of 2 or more humans. They can either go at it and both die like savages, alone, or they can communicate and find common ground on something as simple as being a fan of some fashion of Star Wars. Once that connection is made, conformation begins. Boundaries are made between likes and dislikes. Rules, and such are made and then you have the foundation of a society, even if only 2 people. And, possibly, even if it is only 1 person that person still "conforms" in some fashion to the world around him, finding boundaries, limits, etc to animals, trees, weather, etc.

 

In summary, I believe a true "individual" in society exists about as much as absolute true communism.

[Q]

^Hm, I'd be willing to bet that I could sum up that entire post's worth of reverse psychology in three words:

 

"Resistance is futile."

 

[Salzella]

Why do you equate socialism with loss of freedom? economic big state/small state issues are very different to ideas of conformity and 'freedom' (a word i don't like using). Also, do you consider yourself an anarchist? the things you say sound like anarchist ideas but you're very cynical about it if they are. maybe they're not, maybe i'm misinterpreting. also, do you consider socialism a bad thing compared to neoliberalism? if you do, then i would say that it's an odd thing to take that from socialism and capitalism, the former emphasising the common good whilst maintaining individual freedom, and the latter being individual concerns at the expense of the common good which always strikes me as frankly incredibly selfish.

[Totenkopf]

if you do, then i would say that it's an odd thing to take that from socialism and capitalism, the former emphasising the common good whilst maintaining individual freedom, and the latter being individual concerns at the expense of the common good which always strikes me as frankly incredibly selfish.

 

Seems a bit naive. Neither capitalism nor socialism really have anything to do with the common good. Socialism puts the "burden" of charity on govt (and ultimately the private sector via heavy taxation), whilst capitalism largely leaves it to individuals to decide. I'd say that the way both are practiced currently could be more or less described as such: capitalism is about equality of opportunity and socialism about equality (NOT quality, mind you) of outcome. This is even more pronounced in "communist" nations, where everyone that's not important (pretty much entire populations) has crappy quality of life. I'm thinking it's equally selfish of one to expect govt to pick up the tab for your miserable existence and does nothing to foster personal responsibility.

[Q]

Why do you equate socialism with loss of freedom?

Because, in a nutshell it is the taking, by force, of money from people who've earned it and then giving it to those who haven't. It's slavery.

economic big state/small state issues are very different to ideas of conformity

They go hand in hand as far as I'm concerned. Conformists are far easier to deceive, oppress and enslave. It is easier to convince conformists that they aren't really slaves when, in fact, they are.

and 'freedom' (a word i don't like using).

Why not? I know that it's become clichéd and perhaps even unfashionable, but I wasn't aware that it had become a dirty word.

Also, do you consider yourself an anarchist?

No. I'm well aware of the need for the rule of law. The problem is that the law has been corrupted to the point that we are now under the rule of an oligarchy of sorts, which is precisely what the founding fathers wanted to avoid when they wrote the constitution and its amendments.

the things you say sound like anarchist ideas but you're very cynical about it if they are. maybe they're not, maybe i'm misinterpreting.

Explained above, and, yes, I'm very cynical, especially in certain situations. Who isn't at my age?

also, do you consider socialism a bad thing compared to neoliberalism? if you do, then i would say that it's an odd thing to take that from socialism and capitalism, the former emphasising the common good whilst maintaining individual freedom,

When and where has it ever managed to do that? I'm fairly certain that socialism sacrifices individual freedom on the altar of "the common good".

and the latter being individual concerns at the expense of the common good which always strikes me as frankly incredibly selfish.

I'm sure that's what you've been taught. It is my belief that a system designed around the way people actually are here in reality is going to work better than a system that forces people to conform to an ideal and destroys the people who can't or won't. Or at least it will as long as the government doesn't try to sabotage it for its own ends. Yes, people should give more, but they should be encouraged to do so voluntarily, and not at gunpoint. Voluntary altruism is charity. Involuntary altruism is slavery. I'd rather live in a society that gives me a choice, be it charitable or selfish.

[Salzella]

Seems a bit naive. Neither capitalism nor socialism really have anything to do with the common good. Socialism puts the "burden" of charity on govt (and ultimately the private sector via heavy taxation), whilst capitalism largely leaves it to individuals to decide. I'd say that the way both are practiced currently could be more or less described as such: capitalism is about equality of opportunity and socialism about equality (NOT quality, mind you) of outcome. This is even more pronounced in "communist" nations, where everyone that's not important (pretty much entire populations) has crappy quality of life. I'm thinking it's equally selfish of one to expect govt to pick up the tab for your miserable existence and does nothing to foster personal responsibility.

Socialism has everything to do with the common good - that's rather the point. The only thing that usually prevents it from operating as perhaps people would like is the manner in which it is implemented, which is where the problems of quality you talk about come in - perhaps naivety on the left's part, but there should be room for idealism in this world. Incidentally, this is not always the case anyway; just look at the Nordic countries such as Sweden, where they have very high taxation and fantastic welfare and, not coincidentally as far as i'm concenerned, a much higher quality of life than in America. which is not to say it is totally left-leaning, just that there is both freedom in the private sector (for better or worse) and good government provision. When i was in America i found the suburban areas despicably monotonous and chain-run - the influence of capitalism.

 

Because, in a nutshell it is the taking, by force, of money from people who've earned it and then giving it to those who haven't. It's slavery.

that is one of the most ludicrous comparisions i have ever heard. slavery? really?

 

They go hand in hand as far as I'm concerned. Conformists are far easier to deceive, oppress and enslave. It is easier to convince conformists that they aren't really slaves when, in fact, they are.

i can't understand how you equate left-leaning society with conformity - in my experience the right encourages conformity to a far greater extent through all this corporate 'team-building' ethos etc., not to mention the focus on equipping children for jobs rather than thinking - one of the few things i agree with Marxists on.

 

Why not? I know that it's become clichéd and perhaps even unfashionable, but I wasn't aware that it had become a dirty word.

because Freedom as a world does not make sense unless you define the freedom from whom and to do what. absolute freedom seems to me to be perfect selfishness.

No. I'm well aware of the need for the rule of law. The problem is that the law has been corrupted to the point that we are now under the rule of an oligarchy of sorts, which is precisely what the founding fathers wanted to avoid when they wrote the constitution and its amendments.

i assume by 'we' you mean America? i'm british so i'll take your word for it but i can accept that point. Oligarchies are very much more symptomatic of capitalist, money-driven societies (hence the name) than socialist societies.

Explained above, and, yes, I'm very cynical, especially in certain situations. Who isn't at my age?

too much so perhaps.

When and where has it ever managed to do that? I'm fairly certain that socialism sacrifices individual freedom on the altar of "the common good".

as i said above, freedom is not this holy grail of human life we should all aspir to at any cost - sacrifices should be made if we don't want to end up lonely, parasitic leeches as the higher-ups in capitalist businesses seem to be.

I'm sure that's what you've been taught. It is my belief that a system designed around the way people actually are here in reality is going to work better than a system that forces people to conform to an ideal and destroys the people who can't or won't. Or at least it will as long as the government doesn't try to sabotage it for its own ends. Yes, people should give more, but they should be encouraged to do so voluntarily, and not at gunpoint. Voluntary altruism is charity. Involuntary altruism is slavery. I'd rather live in a society that gives me a choice, be it charitable or selfish.

your idea of voluntary charity seems incompatible with your view that we all need freedom and shouldn't give unless we hamper that persons ability to think for themselves, and also the fact that people are by their nature are too selfish too anyway. you seem to advocating a 'survival of the fittest' sort of thing. humans formed society for a reason - because we are not a collection of disparate individuals fighting for our lives, a viewpoint that seems unnecessarily cynical and pessimistic. for the record i do not believe in communism or the far ends of socialism but i do believe that for all our sakes it pays to be left-leaning as opposed to a '**** everyone else' view. capitalism seems to be an excuse for people to act on their misanthropic tendencies which is not going to help anyone.

[Totenkopf]

Socialism has everything to do with the common good - that's rather the point. The only thing that usually prevents it from operating as perhaps people would like is the manner in which it is implemented, which is where the problems of quality you talk about come in - perhaps naivety on the left's part, but there should be room for idealism in this world. Incidentally, this is not always the case anyway; just look at the Nordic countries such as Sweden, where they have very high taxation and fantastic welfare and, not coincidentally as far as i'm concenerned, a much higher quality of life than in America. which is not to say it is totally left-leaning, just that there is both freedom in the private sector (for better or worse) and good government provision. When i was in America i found the suburban areas despicably monotonous and chain-run - the influence of capitalism.

 

No, the rhetoric of socialism has everything to do with claims of looking out for the common good. But then, how loosely is "common good" defined? I've been to several countries as well and can't say that I've been impressed enough with any of them to want to leave America and settle there. Some very interesting places to visit, but as the saying goes, I wouldn't want to live there. Guess we'll have to chalk up our differences to our own enculturations.

[Q]

just look at the Nordic countries such as Sweden, where they have very high taxation and fantastic welfare and, not coincidentally as far as i'm concenerned, a much higher quality of life than in America

Well, that's your opinion, though I very much doubt that that is truly the case.

When i was in America i found the suburban areas despicably monotonous and chain-run - the influence of capitalism.

Once again, that's your opinion; not fact. I'm not too fond of "vinyl villages" myself, but they exist for the sake of convenience for people who don't want to reside in apartments but still want to live close to their workplace. Is that "the influence of capitalism" that you refer to?

that is one of the most ludicrous comparisions i have ever heard. slavery? really?

Yes. Really. Take away all of the legality and political sugar-coating and slavery is precisely what you're left with.

i can't understand how you equate left-leaning society with conformity - in my experience the right encourages conformity to a far greater extent through all this corporate 'team-building' ethos etc., not to mention the focus on equipping children for jobs rather than thinking - one of the few things i agree with Marxists on.

Aren't children supposed to be equipped for jobs so that they can actually provide for themselves when they reach adulthood? I disagree that conformity is a result of capitalism, but you know, you're right. Schoolchildren in left-leaning societies are indeed encouraged to think, and it comes as no surprise that it happens to be precisely what you think.

 

Unfortunately, the teacher's union in my country is extremely left-leaning and conformity forms the basis of their curriculum. I know because I've been through it.

because Freedom as a world does not make sense unless you define the freedom from whom and to do what. absolute freedom seems to me to be perfect selfishness.

I've read that argument countless times and my answer to it is this:

Should people be selfish? No, but they should still have the freedom to be selfish if they want to be. Taking away that choice is tyrannical.

i assume by 'we' you mean America?

Yes.

i'm british so i'll take your word for it but i can accept that point.

Well, that explains a lot regarding your point of view. How about a little allegory from your own country's history? I give you the R100 verses the R101.

Oligarchies are very much more symptomatic of capitalist, money-driven societies (hence the name) than socialist societies.

In the strictest sense of the term you are correct, but I was referring to a new aristocracy in my country made up of members of the government who are, incidentally, wealthy, powerful and firmly entrenched because the voters are usually restricted to choosing between one faction of this aristocracy or the other.

Explained above, and, yes, I'm very cynical, especially in certain situations. Who isn't at my age?

too much so perhaps.

See if you're still of the same opinion in a decade or so.

as i said above, freedom is not this holy grail of human life we should all aspir to at any cost

Fundamental disagreement, here. In my opinion, freedom is just about the only thing worth living for. Without it there is no hope for the future.

- sacrifices should be made

This statement, or one very similar to it, is spoken several times by the antagonists in Atlas Shrugged in an effort to justify destroying the nation's economy. Scary. If "sacrifices must be made" for the good of society, then feel free to make them yourself. Go ahead; knock yourself out. But if you try to force me to do it against my will you're in for a world of hurt because that would constitute an act of war as far as I'm concerned.

if we don't want to end up lonely, parasitic leeches as the higher-ups in capitalist businesses seem to be.

Are you referring to the people who provide everyone else with jobs? Do you think that a nation's only employer should be its government? Employers are only "parasitic leeches" if their business practices are unscrupulous, and, yes, I believe that there should laws in place to prevent such practices, but not to the extent that has the government strictly controlling everything.

your idea of voluntary charity seems incompatible with your view that we all need freedom and shouldn't give unless we hamper that persons ability to think for themselves, and also the fact that people are by their nature are too selfish too anyway.

I never said that people shouldn't give; only that they should not be forced to give. It's the basic principle of forcing people to be charitable that I have a problem with, not the charity itself.

you seem to advocating a 'survival of the fittest' sort of thing. humans formed society for a reason - because we are not a collection of disparate individuals fighting for our lives, a viewpoint that seems unnecessarily cynical and pessimistic.

Or merely realistic.

for the record i do not believe in communism or the far ends of socialism

You honestly could've fooled me.

but i do believe that for all our sakes it pays to be left-leaning as opposed to a '**** everyone else' view.

How can a society be called "free" if no one is allowed to possess any point of view that is deemed to be "bad" or politically incorrect?

capitalism seems to be an excuse for people to act on their misanthropic tendencies which is not going to help anyone.

I'd rather be labeled a misanthrope than a pod-person. And I'm going to go as far as to say that, after everything that our marvelous society has taken from me by force in the first half of my life, I am of the opinion that, as far as the second half is concerned, I don't owe society jack ****. If that's "selfish" and "misanthropic", then so be it; I can live with that. If you don't like it, well, that's just too bad. At least for now, I am still afforded the freedom to hold any opinion that I want to; so I'm going to.

[Darth Avlectus]

Socialism has everything to do with the common good - that's rather the point. The only thing that usually prevents it from operating as perhaps people would like is the manner in which it is implemented,

By the human element itself. It is and always will be botched as a result of human nature. Just like capitalism. Just because it is government doesn't necessarily mean it's any more in the right (correct, ethical, moral--what we associate with good and in many cases common good).

 

which is where the problems of quality you talk about come in - perhaps naivety on the left's part, but there should be room for idealism in this world.

There already is room for idealism in freedom of speech. That's why we debate and discuss.

 

which is not to say it is totally left-leaning, just that there is both freedom in the private sector (for better or worse) and good government provision.

And then you have other places where people could give a flip because they'll be paid no matter what anyways, if they only just meet some minimum standard (hardly a mindset to accomplish quality).

 

because Freedom as a world does not make sense unless you define the freedom from whom and to do what. absolute freedom seems to me to be perfect selfishness.

 

To you, maybe. To me it implies responsibility as it should, as should it with any remotely reasonable person.

 

Oligarchies are very much more symptomatic of capitalist, money-driven societies (hence the name) than socialist societies.

 

Oligopolies that control markets are symptomatic of capitalism. It does not have any political control.

Oligarchy is where Government works with companies which are more or less (often less because of its clout--making money for the government) regulated. This is so with public and unionized companies.

 

Socialism is not communism so it must be... selectively capitalist. It's where government controls, owns, runs, or is in some major way is a part of the market. Considering how public and unionized companies tend to get coddled much more than private companies (which is a liberal leaning capitalist model), I would say oligarchy is symptomatic of socialism. That doesn't necessarily make it any more for the common good. Sure that's debatable but in these instances you get practically an invite for terribly over-designed regulation which always ends in red tape bureaucracy that hampers effectiveness of voting or directly doing much of anything.

 

Then you also have government jobs which are by definition not competitive--which I'm still trying to figure out how they will revitalize the economy simply because it's "providing jobs for people".

 

Maybe this is a different view than others here but socialism can be capitalist: a company for profits is a company for profits regardless if it's private or public. So now the government is the C.E.O. and the rule maker.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

capitalism is about equality of opportunity

At what times did this ever happened? I can't recall it ever off papers and theories on the system's functionality, with little to no relation to realiy. Empirical evidence (and we just need to open our eyes at any shantyhouse out there, unless it's properly hidden as governments often make an effort to do) has shown that equality of opportunity (and luck) in nonexistent.

 

How can anybody argue with a straight face that someone who during his or her whole childhood barely has enough to feed on is in equal starting ground as another kid pampered from birth and given every basic need satisfied? And considering that capitalism requires permanent misery for some unlucky populational stripe, crushing chances are that our Joe/Jane Doe from the first example isn't going to be someone living on at least decent human condition.

 

And, well, I didn't even name countries and places in which the "less-favored" consists in way more than half the population.

[Totenkopf]

At what times did this ever happened? I can't recall it ever off papers and theories on the system's functionality, with little to no relation to realiy. Empirical evidence (and we just need to open our eyes at any shantyhouse out there, unless it's properly hidden as governments often make an effort to do) has shown that equality of opportunity (and luck) in nonexistent.

 

How can anybody argue with a straight face that someone who during his or her whole childhood barely has enough to feed on is in equal starting ground as another kid pampered from birth and given every basic need satisfied? And considering that capitalism requires permanent misery for some unlucky populational stripe, crushing chances are that our Joe/Jane Doe from the first example isn't going to be someone living on at least decent human condition.

 

And, well, I didn't even name countries and places in which the "less-favored" consists in way more than half the population.

 

No offense, but you're conflating outcome w/opportunity. I'm merely speaking of the fact that in the capitalist system a poor person has as much a chance as someone born in a rich family to attempt to succeed on his own merits...if he seizes or recognizes the opportunity before him. It does not mean that he will BE as successful, just that if he applies himself he has the chance to do it. But let's be honest, most people don't have enough drive and/or ambition (and yes, sometimes not even the talent) to succeed. Many people would rather have the govt give them a check and other goodies so they can focus on their own entertainment. World is full of people throughout history that rose above their circumstances. It's also full of trust fund morons that probably couldn't balance their own check book. But, like any economic system, capitalism and socialism's "successes" depend on a wider variety of circumstances than just whther your check comes from the private or public sectors. What does socialism do when it can no longer afford the level of goodies promised to it's populations? A declining birthrate in Europe, and lackluster productivity, coupled with a burgeoning debt due to socialism's promise of cradle to grave benefits will make for an interesting case study. Even America faces a burgeoning crisis brought on by too many promises of govt support and not enough revenue to pay for them.

[vanir]

I never cease to be taken aback by the American cultural tendency to interpret socialism as collectivism and capitalism and libertarianism.

 

socialism is just subsidy. Switzerland is a parliamentary democracy practising socialist economics, the degree of subsidy varies between parties and terms.

 

the Australian Labor Party is nationalist-socialist (a formal member of socialist international, but where the Nazi Party was autocracy the ALP are closest to Menshevism by policy, so are closer to communism than nazism despite inferrence of concise labelling).

 

France runs basically on Menshevism.

 

The CIS which is most of Eastern Europe (chased back into the hands of the Kremlin by US foreign policy in the last twenty years), were of course Bolshevik during USSR but soviets (unions/workers councils) still hold a lot of power I guess you could sort of call them default Menshevists with overtones of extreme corruption atm.

 

Republicans are basically Nationalists, despite their capitalist economic policy their right wingers have more in common with Nazism than say parliamentarianism, whilst their leftists have more in common with Stalinism.

 

And capitalism as any kind of governing authority by and of itself is nothing more than purist corruption. It is libertine, not libertarian. Whilst socialism again as a governing authority by and of itself is nothing more than totalitarianism, subjugation is not really a welfare state.

 

The mistake being continually made is politically unaware individuals assuming there is only one way to intellectually define the world around us (the "correct" way), and that governing bodies are economic institutions. This is not the case. The same words mean completely different things to an American, a Frenchman or a Russian, and these differences directly alter economics where one is given political authority over another.

 

 

The only thing "socialism" or subsidy is going to do to the USA is make your evil and cruel health and welfare systems more human and more humane, and perhaps eventually it might even shift your social culturing towards less "live and let die" greedy, selfish and entitled attitudes.

 

It has nothing whatsoever to do with governing, just economics.

[Ping]

I never cease to be taken aback by the American cultural tendency to interpret socialism as collectivism and capitalism and libertarianism.

 

socialism is just subsidy. Switzerland is a parliamentary democracy practising socialist economics, the degree of subsidy varies between parties and terms.

 

the Australian Labor Party is nationalist-socialist (a formal member of socialist international, but where the Nazi Party was autocracy the ALP are closest to Menshevism by policy, so are closer to communism than nazism despite inferrence of concise labelling).

 

France runs basically on Menshevism.

 

The CIS which is most of Eastern Europe (chased back into the hands of the Kremlin by US foreign policy in the last twenty years), were of course Bolshevik during USSR but soviets (unions/workers councils) still hold a lot of power I guess you could sort of call them default Menshevists with overtones of extreme corruption atm.

 

Republicans are basically Nationalists, despite their capitalist economic policy their right wingers have more in common with Nazism than say parliamentarianism, whilst their leftists have more in common with Stalinism.

 

And capitalism as any kind of governing authority by and of itself is nothing more than purist corruption. It is libertine, not libertarian. Whilst socialism again as a governing authority by and of itself is nothing more than totalitarianism, subjugation is not really a welfare state.

 

The mistake being continually made is politically unaware individuals assuming there is only one way to intellectually define the world around us (the "correct" way), and that governing bodies are economic institutions. This is not the case. The same words mean completely different things to an American, a Frenchman or a Russian, and these differences directly alter economics where one is given political authority over another.

 

 

The only thing "socialism" or subsidy is going to do to the USA is make your evil and cruel health and welfare systems more human and more humane, and perhaps eventually it might even shift your social culturing towards less "live and let die" greedy, selfish and entitled attitudes.

 

It has nothing whatsoever to do with governing, just economics.

 

Finally, I find someone who I agree with 100%.

[Ten-96]

The only thing "socialism" or subsidy is going to do to the USA is make your evil and cruel health and welfare systems more human and more humane, and perhaps eventually it might even shift your social culturing towards less "live and let die" greedy, selfish and entitled attitudes.

 

It has nothing whatsoever to do with governing, just economics.

 

Like Greece, Spain and the UK. All of their economic systems are based on the socialism structure and look where they are financially with their "humane" health care systems.

[vanir]

Like Greece, Spain and the UK. All of their economic systems are based on the socialism structure and look where they are financially with their "humane" health care systems.

 

Not true, this is again the product of Americanism in political definement. You're calling subsidy and "socialism" interchangeable terms again, which is the age old "Reds under the Bed" Cold War paranoia.

 

They are industrial economies under parliamentary government. Socialism is a clean sweep of capitalist economy in legislative terms, a paradigm shift.

 

Even when we have the ALP in federal parliament Australia remains a "democratic monarchy," it doesn't suddenly switch to a socialist republic. This is because federal parliament trumps individual parties as a legislative body, pride of place secured by the Australian Constitution. We frequently have a socialist party in power yet remain a capitalist nation by strict definition.

 

Spain has a fascist history and greece has socialist tendencies, however their economies remain industrial (ours was once colonial). If anything their financial woes are more an example of capitalist failing than they are of socialist failing.

 

France uses an institutional socialist economy, so does Switzerland and Finland. Those are the strict west European examples of socialism, they haven't done too badly at all, France did better in the last thirty years than most of western Europe combined, maintaining a similar standard of living with much greater defence spending.