Socialism

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The labor contributed is certainly not the sole determiner in wages, nor should it be. If employees and employers received the same wages, there would be little incentive for potential employers to go through education and training that would be necessary to run a firm, when they could simply earn the same sum working in lower-end labor. That's why education/experience required is always a greater determiner in wage than the sweat you sweat while doing the work.

I don't think that greed is the sole driving force for people to work hard or advance in life. Do politicians or other public servants become such because they want lots of money? What about volunteer organizations? Someone will always be there who wants to run things, the only difference is that with socialism those people are chosen from the workers by the workers, rather than installed by the owner of the company (though you could say they are still installed by the owner of the company, since the workers themselves are the owners, but that's really a moot point ).

The list includes selfishness, being intoxicated by power, lying, looking out for one's own life and well being (and the lives of loved ones)... Did I mention selfishness?

Apart from selfishness, which of those (supposed) human instincts is "at stake" here?

Socialism could literally work if the government was run by robots programmed to have none of these qualities, and if the only people who knew how to reprogram these robots were murdered.

What does the government have to do with any of this?

 

[Fr8monkey]

Or more likely people would be paid what they contribute. Does a CEO of a failed bank get to retire with $50,000,000? Conservitives say yes... Socialists say no.

Socialism - economic and social system under which essential industries and social services are publicly and cooperatively owned and democratically controlled with a view to equal opportunity and equal benefit for all. The term socialism also refers to the doctrine behind this system and the political movement inspired by it.

Socialism is not Communism.

 

[homeyg]

Necessity still dictates the existence of these things, I don't know why you would think it otherwise.

So you're saying that just because my town might need more police officers, that I'm going to become one just for that reason? I don't think so.

 

[homeyg]

What does the government have to do with any of this?

Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, drunk with power much?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

That's not the problem. The problem lies in the way that money would be distributed between different types of jobs. The problem is that a doctor would be paid the same as a burger flipper at McDonalds. And that just don't fly. This is of course, if your definition of socialism is "equal sharing of goods and wealth."

I'm suggesting equal sharing of wealth within each company, so a burger flipper would make as much as a waiter who would make as much as a manager within a single company. And, second, that all businesses have their owners removed, and be run democratically; whether that is direct or representative democracy would obviously be dictated by the size of the company.

After all, this is not collectivism. We're not suggesting we turn the US (or whatever country) into a giant "hippie commune," so to speak. We're nowhere near capable yet of handling social redistribution like you've suggested, if we even are at all.

 

[nonconformist]

That's not the problem. The problem lies in the way that money would be distributed between different types of jobs. The problem is that a doctor would be paid the same as a burger flipper at McDonalds. And that just don't fly. This is of course, if your definition of socialism is "equal sharing of goods and wealth."

Not really, that's the lie perpetuated by the American system, to discourage any change within it.

If youy want to go to fundemental Marxism (which is communism, not socialism) the rule of thumb is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs".

But the socialist generally beleives in graduated incomes proportional to the effort put in, as well as the necessity of the role in society.

 

[homeyg]

Not really, that's the lie perpetuated by the American system, to discourage any change within it.

If youy want to go to fundemental Marxism (which is communism, not socialism) the rule of thumb is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs".

But the socialist generally beleives in graduated incomes proportional to the effort put in, as well as the necessity of the role in society.

Fair enough.

 

[nonconformist]

So you're saying that just because my town might need more police officers, that I'm going to become one just for that reason? I don't think so.

This is not a problem uniqe to Socialism; in fact, it manifests itself often in capitalism too.

If there is not the demand for the job, you're not going to be hired for it, now, are you? Instead, you either gfind a job which has vacancies (which might very well be the police), or go without, which in capitalism is effectively a death sentence (no welfare!)

 

[Nylan]

This is not a problem uniqe to Socialism; in fact, it manifests itself often in capitalism too.

If there is not the demand for the job, you're not going to be hired for it, now, are you? Instead, you either gfind a job which has vacancies (which might very well be the police), or go without, which in capitalism is effectively a death sentence (no welfare!)

How does that factor in the amount of time necessary to receive proper education in many subjects? Wouldn't the "job market" be entirely different by the time they finish?

 

[amadeus]

Somebody has to do them, and without them, the company wouldn't function, as Ama so kindly observed. Necessity still dictates the existence of these things, I don't know why you would think it otherwise.

And that's where the brilliance of the price system and supply and demand come in; the boss and employee, while they both contribute, do not contribute the same amount nor do they contribute the same kind of skill... that's why some people get paid higher than others.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

So you're saying that just because my town might need more police officers, that I'm going to become one just for that reason? I don't think so.

If they're hiring and you need a job, absolutely you will. I understand that you are still young, and not accustomed to having to find a job or go hungry. You don't always get the job you want when you want it.

Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, drunk with power much?

Nazi Germany has what to do with this?

And even if the USSR was authoritarian, what does it have to do with this? No one is suggesting we recreate Stalinist Russia in the US. The Soviet Union was not in any way a true demonstration of what socialism should or would be; for us to properly begin socialism, we must first have gone through the capitalist stage, in order to properly develop the economy into an organ capable of properly meeting the needs and wants of the population. But the problem is that, though the capability to provide those things to everyone exists, it is not being properly applied, and only provides those things to a certain percentage of the population. Russia was far behind the rest of Europe, and still very feudal by the early 20th century, when capitalism was flourishing in Western Europe and the US. The communists saw the need to create socialism in Russia, but when they did so they effectively skipped that capitalist stage and went directly from feudalism to socialism. Because of this, and the need to compete with the West, who was far, far ahead of it and expanding exponentially, the USSR had to rush through development to simulate what would have happened had they waited 100 or 200 years for capitalists to build the things necessary to provide for a modern society, and thus their economy came out very flawed and not nearly as well suited as it should have been. That's why they failed.

But we don't need to rush through anything like that; we're already there. Capitalism has run its full course in the United States and Western Europe, so there's no need to do anything like what they did in the USSR. No one is suggesting a vanguard party, no one is pondering a dictatorship, no one is planning to create a secret police or checkpoints on roads between states, no one is talking about censoring the media, and no one wants to end democracy or any of those things that define the American Republic. The Constitution isn't going anywhere, the Bill of Rights isn't going anywhere. You can stop worrying about these things and being so afraid of socialism and socialists.

I do suggest you sharpen your argument a bit, though, homey.

 

[amadeus]

The Constitution isn't going anywhere, the Bill of Rights isn't going anywhere. You can stop worrying about these things and being so afraid of socialism and socialists.

While I understand that you feel this way, what happens to those people that don't want their property socialized? Let's say you enact a law that says nobody can possess more than $1 million in stocks, bonds, commodities, etc. and I have $5 million worth. What do you do then?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

And that's where the brilliance of the price system and supply and demand come in; the boss and employee, while they both contribute, do not contribute the same amount nor do they contribute the same kind of skill... that's why some people get paid higher than others.

Of course they do. Without either of them performing their jobs, the company wouldn't run the same and they wouldn't make the kind of profit they do.

But even if I did concede the point, the ultimate problem is the private ownership of the company. Theoretically, even a democratically-run company could still decide to set the wages of some jobs higher than others, and if that's how it happened, who would I be to say they are wrong? But if that were the case, then the wages are not being unjustly taken from the people being paid less, now are they? It is only when that is institutionalized from the top-down that such a circumstance is unjust.

But then, I don't think that people would decide to do that, either. I do admit the possibility of it happening, though.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

While I understand that you feel this way, what happens to those people that don't want their property socialized? Let's say you enact a law that says nobody can possess more than $1 million in stocks, bonds, commodities, etc. and I have $5 million worth. What do you do then?

What would happen if that happened now?

 

[kulade]

I don't think that greed is the sole driving force for people to work hard or advance in life. Do politicians or other public servants become such because they want lots of money? What about volunteer organizations? Someone will always be there who wants to run things, the only difference is that with socialism those people are chosen from the workers by the workers, rather than installed by the owner of the company (though you could say they are still installed by the owner of the company, since the workers themselves are the owners, but that's really a moot point ).

Well yes, obviously people are driven many things that are not money, but I wasn't speaking of them working for less per se, but getting training to no avail. The people most likely go through costly training to get a managerial position just to "run things" are the people with the most discretionary income to fall back on, i.e. the rich. Why would anyone else slave through costly education, (even without monetary cost) just to earn the same wages as someone who didn't? You better hope there are allot of inferiority-complex laden people with fallback reserves. Even people who are chosen by the workers , as you say, or stockholders don't only need the same training as their inferiors but also of management, PR, marketing, and anything else needed.

 

[alcal]

Commies will burn in the American fire!!! MUHAHA!

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well yes, obviously people are driven many things that are not money, but I wasn't speaking of them working for less per se, but getting training to no avail. The people most likely go through costly training to get a managerial position just to "run things" are the people with the most discretionary income to fall back on, i.e. the rich. Why would anyone else slave through costly education, (even without monetary cost) just to earn the same wages as someone who didn't? You better hope there are allot of inferiority-complex laden people with fallback reserves. Even people who are chosen by the workers , as you say, or stockholders don't only need the same training as their inferiors but also of management, PR, marketing, and anything else needed.

For the same reason I'm going to college. If I wanted, I could have taken a job offer several years ago to make nearly the amount of money my dream job after college will pay me, but whose only document requirment was a high school dploma. Why didn't I? Because I know that I would tire of that job, even if I enjoyed it or tolerated it for a while. People are happiest doing the job they want to do, and often times that means a job that doesn't pay that great. Why else do people become teachers and the like, when they go to school for the same amount of time as a nurse, economist, or Wall Street businessman?

 

[amadeus]

Of course they do. Without either of them performing their jobs, the company wouldn't run the same and they wouldn't make the kind of profit they do.

But even if I did concede the point, the ultimate problem is the private ownership of the company. Theoretically, even a democratically-run company could still decide to set the wages of some jobs higher than others, and if that's how it happened, who would I be to say they are wrong? But if that were the case, then the wages are not being unjustly taken from the people being paid less, now are they? It is only when that is institutionalized from the top-down that such a circumstance is unjust.

But then, I don't think that people would decide to do that, either. I do admit the possibility of it happening, though.

But participation in a company is entirely voluntary; if I don't like the way that executives are compensated at a company, I can leave and join another. This doesn't mean that I'd find the one I want, it just means that I have the choice and that I don't have a say in how someone else manages their property. Just as you wouldn't want your boss to come into your apartment and micromanage the way you live, I'm not going to try and do the same to them.

What would happen if that happened now?

They'd be imprisoned, but you're talking about imposing an even greater number of limits on a much larger body of people... likewise, in order have this system, is there the possibility for it to be dismantled if the public does not want it anymore?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

But participation in a company is entirely voluntary; if I don't like the way that executives are compensated at a company, I can leave and join another. This doesn't mean that I'd find the one I want, it just means that I have the choice and that I don't have a say in how someone else manages their property. Just as you wouldn't want your boss to come into your apartment and micromanage the way you live, I'm not going to try and do the same to them.

This is a strawman. I haven't suggested micromanaging my boss' life. I don't know how you got that from what I said.

They'd be imprisoned,

For owning that much, or for refusing to give up the other $4 million? I would think it would rather be confiscated by the Feds than waste time and money sending you to jail.

but you're talking about imposing an even greater number of limits on a much larger body of people...

I am? I know I advocated something like that once upon a time, but I see no need for such sumptuary laws now.

ikewise, in order have this system, is there the possibility for it to be dismantled if the public does not want it anymore?

As much capability as there is with the present system.

 

[amadeus]

As much capability as there is with the present system.

We're all doomed.