Ask a Red, Second Edition

[Traitorfish]

Again, u seem to be dealing in extremes and not degrees, there will ALWAYS be members within a society that do not cooperate…..and I am quite sure that you and I will justify varying degrees of uncooperativeness most likely at opposite ends of various spectrums. U however miss the point completely that the “nature of society” exists soley on the individual’s benefit to survive. In general, the wellbeing of each individual within a society will always be more important to that individual than the wellbeing of the society it belong to, which leads me to the initial point I made in this thread…..as psychologically imperfect as we are, we all tend to some narcissism, if only secondary to self preservation, we all tend to think we deserve a little more, are a little better or a little smarter than the other guy, etc...

Socialists are generally of the opinion that the greater mass of people are better off under socialism, so "self-interest" doesn't really cut it as a counter-argument. Bourgeois money-grabbing is not the only form that self-interest may take; see Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution by Peter Kropotkin.

And how exactly is this inevitable recognition going to take place? Suddenly or over a long course of evolution or indoctrination human beings are going to realize that other’s urges, hungers, ecstasies, despairs ethics and morals are as important as mine? Not likely…..this (to me) sounds just as delusional as those waiting for christ to establish his second kingdom… “yeah, then we will all get along”

"Recognition of inevitably" and "inevitable recognition" are not the same thing.

Yes and communists will get along just dandy because there brain chemistry or lofty morals will make them super human and incapable of screwing themselves over (hypothetically speaking of course because the statement has nothing to do with fact)

I am not convinced that exploitation is an innate factor of human biology. The relative egalitarianism found in most primitive societies certainly seems to suggest otherwise.

You do realize that you sound very condescending when u ask silly rhetorical questions don’t you? but in any case, it has nothing to do with your hypothetical view of socialism. Opportunities will exist under any system, but it’s the benefit of reward that motivates action on opportunities.

I am not actually sure why you think this is relevant.

(Actually, I know exactly why you think this is relevant, but I'll let you flesh out that particular nonsense for yourself.)

Really?, r u typing on a pc a mac or other os? Who was been more successful?, if the American “lnventor-entrepreneur” model is a myth, the “anarcho-communist benefit to the world” model is a fantasy, myths are at least, based on reality

Are suggesting that either of those has been personally crafted by a single inventor-entrepreneur? Because that's really what you'd have to establish to be correct..

Sorry, to me, u seem to be arguing against your point, if I understand u correctly, u say that the only two properly implements of socialism, was SO impossible to apply practically, that only sub-sets of sub-sets could be implemented, were dreadful FAILURES…as far as the protectorate and jacobin directory, to me, your definition of liberalism seems quite distorted…

You don't. Even vaguely.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Gentlemen (and UnGentlemen) this is a question and answer thread, not a discussion thread. Please restrict your banter here to that nature, and take discussion elsewhere.

 

[countrygrl]

I know I'm not approved to answer questions but I really want everyone to understand this point that Traitorfish just made. The idea that free markets encourage innnovation is patently false; the best way to turn a profit is not to innovate, but to get the maximum return on existing infrastructure. This always happens when you privatise things and it's why almost every major medical advance comes from government funded labs while the private ones are busy making up first-world luxury diseases.

Sorry, but this just isn't accurate at all.

In real terms, spending on American biomedical research has doubled since 1994. By 2003, spending was up to $94.3 billion (there is no comparable number for Europe), with 57 percent of that coming from private industry. The National Institutes of Health’s current annual research budget is $28 billion, All European Union governments, in contrast, spent $3.7 billion in 2000, and since that time, Europe has not narrowed the research and development gap. America spends more on research and development over all and on drugs in particular, even though the United States has a smaller population than the core European Union countries. From 1989 to 2002, four times as much money was invested in private biotechnology companies in America than in Europe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/business/05scene.html

We spend roughly 100 billion dollars per year as a whole on medical research in America today. And not even a third of that comes from the government.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60B5FL20100112

As of 2003, the NIH was responsible for 28%—about US$26.4 billion—of the total biomedical research funding spent annually in the U.S., with most of the rest coming from industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institutes_of_Health

If government driven research was such a goldmine to driving medical research, then America wouldn't have 60% of Nobel Prizes since 1970, discovered 9 out of 10 of the most seminal achievements to medical care. Europe would be shredding us to pieces. But this isn't the case. The social models of Europe spend a small fraction of what we do, and they essentially subside off of our capitalist model and the innovations it brings to the world.

 

[Shylock]

As a Red how do you feel about Roy Hodgson? Do you reckon he should be allowed to continue at least to the January transfer window?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

[snip]

Darling, I kindly refer you to the post above yours, and the advisement contained therein. I further direct you to the thread OP, which outlines the rules in further detail.

 

[Gogf]

Darling, I kindly refer you to the post above yours, and the advisement contained therein. I further direct you to the thread OP, which outlines the rules in further detail.

Wait so basically this thread could also be titled:

Ask me questions about my personal ideology so that I can then talk about my personal ideology and argue for my personal ideology without fear of anybody disagreeing with me, because that is not allowed in my thread!

 

[countrygrl]

Sorry, I just couldn't let such egregious ignorance go unpunished

From what I gather from your definition of socialism/communism, you do not advocate any sort of central control of the economy. This would naturally lead to the formation of asset bubbles and product failures. If production is held in the hands of the workers collectively and they share in the fruits of the labor, what happens when their entire way of life becomes obsolete? An example would be telephone operators or horse and buggy drivers. Along this line, you say that communism and socialism is a means of reducing socio-economic inequality. Yet, you still allow people the freedom to take the fruits of their labor and obtain whatever consumer goods they desire. Would there be a need to have a greater system in place to provide for the needs of people who see their jobs become obsolete while other collectives prosper? While on social business is producing cassette tapes and gradually becoming poorer while another social business across the country is becoming rich from producing IPods, what do you do to address these social concerns with minimal government?

 

[Traitorfish]

Wait so basically this thread could also be titled:

Ask me questions about my personal ideology so that I can then talk about my personal ideology and argue for my personal ideology without fear of anybody disagreeing with me, because that is not allowed in my thread!

That is what the thread is called. We just went with a snappier version.

 

[Karalysia]

nvm plz delte

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Wait so basically this thread could also be titled:

Ask me questions about my personal ideology so that I can then talk about my personal ideology and argue for my personal ideology without fear of anybody disagreeing with me, because that is not allowed in my thread!

Yes. Did I ever say it was anything else?

 

[countrygrl]

I am more statist and traditional than these wishy washy liberterian socialists, so my answer is that the state should step in and see to it that their capital, that is their factory, machines and so forth is modernized and that the workers in question are retrained so that they too may produce the more modern product, the Ipod. This will prevent redundancy. Should a worker be too old to be retrained, perhaps very close to retirement, then they should be allowed to retire.

I imagine that it will be a gradual process rather than a sudden thing. When such redundancy or obsolescence is noticed the older method of production should be gradually phased out.

Well, it's difficult to discuss this matter with more heavy handed style socialism that you believe in, so this next question may not be applicable to you.

But - Earlier it was suggested by another "Red" that innovation would come from the collective pooling of resources instead of venture capital. So instead of Steve Jobs building a corporate empire to develop the products Apple sells, people would collectively pool capital, gain control of the means of production, develop, produce, and sell the Ipod, then share the fruits of the labor more equally. Apple would be collectively owned so to speak. So when Casio, who is producing Cassette tapes, and is failing because they cannot compete with Apple, is summarily retooled and retrained to produce Ipods by government fiat, aren't you essentially stealing the ingenuity and investment of the workers of Apple and just handing it to Casio and another group of less innovative people? And at the same time aren't you punishing the people who actually developed the product? Wouldn't policies such as this drastically hinder growth? But again, I don't know if this is applicable to you as you have larger intentions and don't follow the more libertarian perspectives of Cheezy and Traitorfish. You may not believe in smaller collective businesses.

 

[Elrohir]

I think most of us can agree that Obama trying to pass a (very lame) healthcare bill hardly makes him socialist -- but to what extent would a healthcare system be run or guaranteed under a socialists system, as you see it? Do you think a universal healthcare system is something that a true socialist government must create? Or do you think following a socialist revolution all the workers would simply be well enough off (Since they own their own labor now) to simply pay for their treatment from doctors/buy insurance directly? Is it a feature of a socialist government, or a happy byproduct? Are there differing views on this among socialists and communists?

 

[Karalysia]

nvm plz delete

 

[Gogf]

Yes. Did I ever say it was anything else?

Okay. I'm not going to listen to that. If you want to report me for "discussing things" in your thread, go ahead.

 

[Gogf]

A single payer universal health-care system operating under a sort of NHS style is what I envision and I do believe it's a very important aspect for a government (it doesn't matter if its socialist or not) to provide for the greater good of the people, it is after all one of the fundamental duties of government along with education.

Why are these the fundamental duties of government?

 

[bernie14]

Socialists are generally of the opinion that the greater mass of people are better off under socialism, so "self-interest" doesn't really cut it as a counter-argument. Bourgeois money-grabbing is not the only form that self-interest may take; see Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution by Peter Kropotkin.

well, that opinion has NO basis in fact and is total trash, therefore, so is eveything else that follows from that opinion....

"Recognition of inevitably" and "inevitable recognition" are not the same thing..

dance, dance, side step, side step....

I am not convinced that exploitation is an innate factor of human biology. The relative egalitarianism found in most primitive societies certainly seems to suggest otherwise.

and on what planet do u live on? past, present and most likely future human relations will be formost dictated by who has the pointiest stick.....relative egalitarianism found in most primitive societies....that is hilarious

"I am not actually sure why you think this is relevant.

(Actually, I know exactly why you think this is relevant, but I'll let you flesh out that particular nonsense for yourself.).

dance, dance, side step, side step....

"Are suggesting that either of those has been personally crafted by a single inventor-entrepreneur? Because that's really what you'd have to establish to be correct...

no, i am suggesting that the slave labour in china drilling small holes in microchips 16 hours a day for your i pod is just as responsible and deserves as much money as steve jobs.[/QUOTE]

"You don't. Even vaguely.

and finish with a dip....

Darling, I kindly refer you to the post above yours, and the advisement contained therein. I further direct you to the thread OP, which outlines the rules in further detail.

countrygrl, it's called a circle jerk.....most of these threads are, which is why it is generally advisable to avoid them....

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I think most of us can agree that Obama trying to pass a (very lame) healthcare bill hardly makes him socialist -- but to what extent would a healthcare system be run or guaranteed under a socialists system, as you see it?

It is absolutely essential. I can think of no socialist anywhere that I have either read or met that does not believe in universal health care.

"Medicare for all" is the health care plank of the CPUSA.

Do you think a universal healthcare system is something that a true socialist government must create?

Absolutely, which explains the above.

Or do you think following a socialist revolution all the workers would simply be well enough off (Since they own their own labor now) to simply pay for their treatment from doctors/buy insurance directly?

Single-payer medical is essentially this. No need to complicate the situation.

It is possible. Is it a feature of a socialist government, or a happy byproduct? Are there differing views on this among socialists and communists?[/QUOTE]

As I have already said, it the want for universal health care is nearly universal amongst socialists. Where we might differ is whether we believe in continuing to allow private practice in parallel to public insurance and health care. Also, whether health care ought to be supplied by employers. I personally do not care for that, it all ought to be nationalized outright, and co-opted into a single federal medical insurance bureau to be merged with a reformed Medicare.

Okay. I'm not going to listen to that. If you want to report me for "discussing things" in your thread, go ahead.

Rest assured that I will. Your ilk sabotaged our last attempt, we will not be undone again. I certainly know my papenheimers, which is why I have asked the moderators to pay special attention to our thread.

countrygrl, it's called a circle jerk.....most of these threads are, which is why it is generally advisable to avoid them....

If that is how you feel, then I advise you to take your own advice.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Sorry, I just couldn't let such egregious ignorance go unpunished

From what I gather from your definition of socialism/communism, you do not advocate any sort of central control of the economy. This would naturally lead to the formation of asset bubbles and product failures. If production is held in the hands of the workers collectively and they share in the fruits of the labor, what happens when their entire way of life becomes obsolete? An example would be telephone operators or horse and buggy drivers. Along this line, you say that communism and socialism is a means of reducing socio-economic inequality. Yet, you still allow people the freedom to take the fruits of their labor and obtain whatever consumer goods they desire. Would there be a need to have a greater system in place to provide for the needs of people who see their jobs become obsolete while other collectives prosper? While on social business is producing cassette tapes and gradually becoming poorer while another social business across the country is becoming rich from producing IPods, what do you do to address these social concerns with minimal government?

The same thing that happens now. Workers move on to more productive ventures.

 

[Azale]

How viable is CPUSA or the Socialist Party in the USA anyway? Would the Greens be a better alternative for leftist folk?

Also, what do you think of the Monthly Review if anything?

 

[Karalysia]

Vote Democrat.