Actually, no one is arguing for socialism. No one in America at least.
If you have any though, feel free to post them!
The arguments for socialism
Actually, no one is arguing for socialism. No one in America at least.
If you have any though, feel free to post them!
The saddest ESFj
...
Ludwig von Mises
Owned.Originally Posted by Ashton
It provides an opportunity for people to have homes and not be home-less, especially for those who are particularly stressed by such circustances like certain types who easily abandon their belongings and Se stuff. there are lots of really good advantages to socialism.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
enough with the bullshit qoutes from dead white men, what do you make of social democracies in europe and south american new socialism like venezuela.
There is your argument.
Just like communist china is not true communism.
Last edited by jughead; 07-08-2010 at 11:51 AM.
True.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
A majority system of government in the world has some form of progressive taxation, enacted land reform, offer education to the masses, offer their citizens some form of health care and created rules governing working conditions and wages.
Ideas concerning wealth redistribution or at the very least fair distribution of wealth permeates the whole of global political systems not for merely ideological reasons, but practical ones as well.
I don't need to live in a socialist world any more then I need to live in a capitalist one, but wish for one one where people can live with the maximum amount of freedom and comfort without infringing upon others.
The uses of the terms socialist and capitalist have frequently been used to oppress and purge rival political factions, either violently, thru prison, harassment and exile.
The criticism of socialism that most people hear today are against Totalitarian Socialism (Socialism from above), but successful practice of socialist ideas require socialism from below which are practices in many Social Democracies.
The issues of inheritance, taxation, property are still in debate today and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
We know that the unregulated inheritance of economic and political power across generations is a risky proposition, fraught with oppressive conditions and failing leaders. When the advocates for wealth protectionism and the desire for unfettered political and economic inheritance appear, I know their interests are counter to those of humanity.
A person who seeks to pass his position and wealth on without limit seeks only to create a aristocracy, to knight and lord their selected, something which must be rejected with extreme prejudice.
Last edited by mu4; 07-08-2010 at 03:20 PM.
Yes.
The average citizen of a norway, sweden, denmark (socialists or social democracies) etc have higher quality of life than your average american.
Basically people are happier and have higher education/health care.
And thats given their cold location!
Even faux socialist countries like venezuela are on the rise at least in standards of living while America falls or remains stagnant. Granted they have an assload of oil to finance this but its a better model than Saudi Arabia who we take it in the ass from.
Rebuttal?
Seriously, dude, shut your fucking face! "it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings" -- is this some kind of gamma thing or like what? explain yourself or elseway...
Hey, I can quote dead people too.
"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate (the) grave evils (of capitalism), namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society."
Albert Einstein, Why Socialism?, 1949 [13]
Do YOU have anything to say, or we just going to mindlessly quote others.
The mode of goodness conditions one to happiness, passion conditions him to the fruits of action, and ignorance to madness.
Chapter 14, Verse 9.
The Bhagavad Gita
That's a lot. I would add some kind of anarchy to it. And something about solving the green ?'s.
Dignity? Your a serf, working your "9 to 5" so to speak. The only people to have any real dignity in a free for all capitalist society, is the people at the top.
The mode of goodness conditions one to happiness, passion conditions him to the fruits of action, and ignorance to madness.
Chapter 14, Verse 9.
The Bhagavad Gita
yep, and... if I had no parents I would be homeless. I have worked 9 to 5, very good works and not so good ones, but I hated it. and if you're like me in this society you're a shame to yourself. "why wouldn't you want to work, you're such an egoist, you!"
I'm not an economist, but you don't have to...lol be an economist to have heart.
I made a quick google search for the phrase "hospital queue" in Danish, Norwegian and Swedish.
The Danish phrase is "sygehuskø".
The Norwegian phrase is "sykehuskø".
The Swedish phrase is "sjukhus kö".
A few minutes of search gave the following info which I picked more or less at random from the first few pages of hits:
In Denmark people with serious heart conditions have to wait like 9 months for surgery:
Google Translate
In Sweden people wait for like 8 months for an x-ray examination:
Google Translate
and more than 2 years for other things:
Google Translate
In 1998, nurses at a major hospital were complaining about patients in the Emergency room having to wait for 9 hours:
Google Translate
In one part of Sweden they're proud of having less than 3 months wait for knee surgery:
Google Translate
That may be a private institution, though, for all I know.
In Norway, 2 years ago about 200,000 people were patiently waiting for hospital services:
Google Translate
That's like 1 in 20 of the whole population.
Anyway, I'm not sure the Scandinavian countries are really more "socialist" anymore than f.i. the US.
Also, newspapers etc tend to focus more on problems than what's actually working fine, so the results from such internet "research" may be a little biased, but they seem to indicate that problems of the nature one can expect from Socialist or semi-socialist systems exist to a significant extent.
Greetings, ragnar
ILI knowledge-seeker
My point in quoting Einstein, was not necessarily beacuse of content. My point was to show that, I am not convinced by mere appeals to authority.
You have done nothing here original, what make you so convinced Ludwig is the final word.
The mode of goodness conditions one to happiness, passion conditions him to the fruits of action, and ignorance to madness.
Chapter 14, Verse 9.
The Bhagavad Gita
Erich Fromm. He's done a lot in promoting socialism.
I commend you, for comming to your own conclusions. However, that dosen't mean the conclusions of others are invalid, beacuse they do not come into alignment with yours.
I grant Albert is not the best source for this topic. chances are however, you are no more credible than he was. Could Einstein not have made years of observations himself? or is the fact that he was a physicist make him invaild automaticly. If so then come back to me when you have the prestige of Ludwig.
My beef with you simply, was that you are arrogant enough to copy paste a quote. Then you claim no more disscussion is needed, beacuse in your opinion, no one has adequately argued to the contraty.
It's not you position I have issue with, It's your reasoning.
The mode of goodness conditions one to happiness, passion conditions him to the fruits of action, and ignorance to madness.
Chapter 14, Verse 9.
The Bhagavad Gita
You seem reasonable, I perhaps came off a little to aggressively, for that im sorry. It's not that I support socialism, Im not a believer in one fix all answers. It's just when I perceive bad reasoning, it get me fired up.
I look foward to further disscussions in these forums.
The mode of goodness conditions one to happiness, passion conditions him to the fruits of action, and ignorance to madness.
Chapter 14, Verse 9.
The Bhagavad Gita
Make sure you include:Hmm, speaking of bad reasoning. I wonder if I should post my "Socionics Malreasoning" list here.
- pretending for there to be suitable conditions for empiricism where there aren't any
- supplying subjectively interpreted material as objective evidence
- asserting facts on the basis of ones personal authority while simultaneously condemning the general authority based approach
I don't know much about it, but according to this study, the US health care system is the most expensive in the developed world and the least effective. Skeptics should look at their methodology more closely because it seems like an empirical study.
BBC News - UK health system is top on 'efficiency', says report
Study Website: Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: How the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally, 2010 Update - The Commonwealth Fund
Interactive Web Feature: MIRROR, MIRROR ON THE WALL: AN INTERNATIONAL UPDATE ON THE COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF AMERICAN HEALTH CARE
The Netherlands comes in first place overall. The US comes last or close to last on almost all factors.
It looks like the US has long wait times. Second longest waiting times in ERs and poor service on weekends and evenings? Sounds like a pretty rough place this US.
Thank you. People don't know shit about or health system or anyone elses.
I don't see anything wrong with elements of capitalism combined with socialism, it seems to be the best system.
No state in the fucking world is capitilistic, socialistic, communistic etc...they are just practices and systems and combining the best elements of each works out.
The smaller states probably more easily switched to this system because of certain pressures and lack of others while the US is a superpower and is more restricted until under due stress. And now we got tons of debt which seems to prevents change.
I don't get it. Why do you folks think socialism works at all? Give me some examples.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
--Theodore Roosevelt
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
-- Mark Twain
"Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in."
-- Confucius
It does work in certain contexts, usually involving small groups of people with a strong mutual bonding.
The world of a little child is essentially a small Socialist bubble, with mommy dividing the family's resources fairly among the siblings and taking care of them.
It's quite interesting in this context to reflect on the phenomenon that many Socialists call themselves "Progressives" rather than ...
Greetings, ragnar
ILI knowledge-seeker
Okay, yeah you are right.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
--Theodore Roosevelt
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
-- Mark Twain
"Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in."
-- Confucius
Socialism is cool because you can do nothing all day, and you'll still get some money, thanks to a certain fraction of people that enjoy working quite a lot and can't really relax much. Unfortunately, I'm more likely to pertain to the latter set.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
That's not socialism. Go to back to school or something.
So what's the fuss about family in a socialist setting - where is it ? That's a communal system(?) you're talking about.
I wasn't being serious, c'mon.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Sorry, alcohol does that to me.
In America there is a tendecy to be preducdice against any government thats not America, especially if they threaten us moreso, or alternatively are seen as weak.(moreso than other similar countries i think) By this i mean most people default to saying bs propaganda about any government outside the USA
Socialism is seen as evil, communism too because it would threaten the aristocratic rich, coroporate power etc...they are bitches. When it would benefit the majority of people more. Often times it benefits everyone, the rich and powerful just want the status differential, poor people can't be too close.
Thus any time socialism is mentioned there is a plethora of propaganda bullshit thrown out and resistant to actual conversation.
I don't know what you mean by socialism doesn't calculate. Economic theory attempts to calculate(not that accurate for prediction at that) and that's neither socialism or capitalism. Rational economic activity is moot because the sum of activity in the universe is not rational human economical activity.
We live in the world where the things we have to deal with is not only human oppression, but also natural disasters and every creeping death as well as envy, jealousy and the greed, malice, and negligence of others.
Anyways, stop harping about socialism or capitalism or whatever since if you want to talk reality, these are almost meaningless rhetorical viewpoints.
I don't really see capitalism or socialism, because people use these terms rhetorically and politically.
Economically there is wealth concentration, wealth distribution and wealth redistribution.
A thought experiment I use to visualize economic activity is the workings of a engine.
Wealth redistribution is no more then strapping a supercharger or a turbocharger to the engine of economic activity. It has a effect to increase power output and/or efficiency.
But wealth redistribution does not only occur from wealthy to poor but also from poor to wealthy thru government bodies. Money is often distributed to the wealthy thru business subsidies and loans which is only granted to people with substantial credit and wealth. Also things like low capital gains tax(esp when it's lower then income tax) and little to no estate tax fall into the same areas. This is the top-fueled dragster of economies. Growth and performance at the cost of fuel/resources.
Wealth redistribution from wealthy to poor is more a attempt at increased efficiency, more like a centrifugal turbocharger. A attempt to use reserve army of labor or in a sense the exhaust of the system. Unemployment exists, homelessness exist, people without economic opportunity exists, it can either be tapped for increased economic activity or left to pollute the enviroment. However, these mechanisms require a certain level of economic activity and tuning before power or efficiency is produced, at a certain point these mechanisms reduce power.
The developed countries powers with cheap access to natural resources and willingness to exploit cheap labor have the ability to create successful economic systems in different ways vs poor developing countries. I personally don't believe a developing country can enact a proper wealth redistribution system without signifigant economic activity. Historically, the formations of socialist/communist governments/policies in societies without signifigant economic activity usually resulted in decreased economic activity.
However economic systems that redistribute capital to the wealthy also has a effect at creating inefficiency, disparity of wealth and a lack of incentive to work. Just as free money is bad for incentive to work, so is the feeling that one is never being able to catch up.
Hundreds of millions, if not billions of people of people in the world still live with the belief that no matter how hard they work they will never catch up, this is a dangerous feeling that has a great deal of power and the revolutions of the 20th century show that they are more the willing to take everyone down for it.
Their needs must be addressed to a certain extent, but not with a handout, but they cannot be addressed without good opportunity and education. However, as these people are unemployed, minimally employed and/or exhaust of the social economic engine, they are in a sense outside of the business world, with very little opportunity to enter it.
They have to be addressed by themselves or governmental entities of their locale because they are already outside of the existing economic system.
Effective and efficient governance is needed in most developed countries as they attempt to conserve energy and material resources. The developing world is no longer so friendly to the idea of being exploited for their natural resources or labor. I can only hope that a few places in the world will achieve some success in these endeavors. And there, I look for a vacation home.
Basically, it means that under a completely socialistic system prices cannot be determined, the need to be imposed "axiomatically". Which obviously creates large inefficiences, since allocation will likely be suboptimal (especially on the long run - creating a "start up" communist state seems feasible, however changes in production factor's prices would be extremely hard to determine).
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I think the modern economies that have planned and market qualities have show their resilience and strength. Singapore, China, and other countries have had success in creating wealth and bringing their countries to modernity.
I've been reading a bit on it, and I think the issues with socialist pricing has been it's efficiency which I see as a problem as well.
However, it's uncertain whether pure "free-market" is more efficient then a planned system or a mixed model system. All that has been shown is that mix model systems are pragmatic and successful.
I think it's more true that there are inefficiencies in pricing and that there are means of managing inefficiencies. In any large-scale system of interaction there are management costs and administration costs.
Why do you attribute resilience and strength to economies that have some planning? Redistribution does not create wealth.
You call modern economies successful? The west is set to economically collapse sometime between six months to three years from now.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
--Theodore Roosevelt
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
-- Mark Twain
"Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in."
-- Confucius
I'm not sure what you mean here? I never attributed resilience or strength to planning, nor did I attributed it to market based mechanisms.
Redistribution can be a efficiency mechanism, used to create greater efficiencies in systems. The primary mechanism of redistribution in relation to socialism is the redistribution of wealth in the form of wages/education/etc for labor to the unemployed and members of society who are not in the market economy for whatever reason. There have been many reasons for why people have been left out of the market economy, whether it is lay-offs, cost cutting for business profit, and many other factors. When these people are able to provide for themselves and benefit the economy, they generate wealth.
I'm not for all forms of wealth redistribution.
Currently in the US, the income tax for the middle class is much higher then the capital gains tax. By the fact that most of the capital in the US is owned by the rich and ultra rich, this is a form of wealth redistribution to the wealthy as they generally pay lower taxes then the middle class. So this form of wealth redistribution I am absolutely against as it penalize wage earning members of society vs ownership members of society.
Almost every economy in the world is some form of mixed mode economy, and they all are of varing levels of stability and success. The collapse of much of the world happened 100 years ago, due to gross inequalities in many areas of life. People fought for the equality of the sexes, races, class, and ethnicity.
The US has largely abandoned it's working class in favor of financial service, real estate and other capital oriented industries in the Post-Reagan era. Privatization and deregulation has lead to lay-offs in pursuit of growth, reduction of taxes on the richest member of society and social services programs which are outdated and only help non-working members of society have led to large deficits and reduced efficiency. The real wages of the middle class is lower then it was in the 70's but the wealthy are wealthier then ever before. What has happened isn't a failure of socialism, because that never existed in the US, not really, but a failure of free-market utopianism, a delusion much like Soviet style command economy.
Last edited by mu4; 07-13-2010 at 02:49 AM.
nice example, very Fi...
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
The more centralized systems have more possibilities for optimization and hence better results. USSR was good example, despite western propaganda says, in common. Other lesser named in media good examples of socialistic states were: GDR, Sweden, Eastern European states in 1945-1989 years were also highly developed compared to world's average level. Northern Korea was not lesser developed than Southern up to 1970s. Promoted by USA's technological and economical limitations established for socialistic states and inside sabotage, made serious harm to them.
When the interests of the society are the highest value, then democracy is natural there. There is no other possibility for real democracy.
It's the only system when everyone has equal possibilities for social growth and to take social power according to his abilities and skills.
The highest step of socialism is called communism, which is the only system where a man may implement his full productive potential.
It's the most humanistic political system. Close to Christianity (check ), despite supressed mystical part and traditional churches's role in known socialistic states. It's leeser said that late capitalistic states suppressed churches too and similarly established rationalism (check France from late 18th century).
Today most developed capitalistic states, have much of socialism, - social care and duties system. Some socialistic reforms were made there after USSR's example.
The most of humanity's history people lived in proto-communism. Collectivism represented by socialism in natural for people. It's doubtful the humanity may develop for long, leaded by individualistic anti-humanistic ideology of liberal capitalism, not coming to selfdestruction or regression. The lesser socialism will stay among people, the more problems may appear.
etc.
Canada
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
