|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Sept 22, 2004 12:55:16 GMT -5
But why woudn't we? I mean, we'd still want to know where the best farm production is and which method of transportation and such is easier, no? Apparently not.
|
|
|
Post by Kodyn on Sept 22, 2004 14:44:34 GMT -5
Yes, he conceded that. He means the part of economics that deals with capital and such.
|
|
|
Post by greenmaster on Sept 23, 2004 10:02:39 GMT -5
But why woudn't we? I mean, we'd still want to know where the best farm production is and which method of transportation and such is easier, no? Apparently not. -actually if you think about it, it really wouldn't matter about the best farm production, as there will be no cost/benefit stuff to go along with it. Of course, we will NOT farm on areas which are unsuitable, Heck, agricultural scientists tell us that, not economists. There would be no need for the science as it stands today to be taught, except in the historical sense. As for transportation methods, engineers work that out, economists are just there to work out how economicalyl viable it is, as in how much it will cost, something which will obviously be irrelevant in socialism. We will simply do things for needs, not for profits, thus economists will be no longer needed, as they ensure that things are done for profits, not for needs.
|
|
|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Sept 23, 2004 12:52:45 GMT -5
So essentially, everything's free, right? Well, that's definitely something that'll get a few starving teens and poor people on your band-wagon, but what about the actual application of it, hmm? How does it work?
I mean, the production of anything takes time. Some things take lots of it. Don't immediately jump at me and tell me that "Technology will take care of it." Now you're being a fool. What if technology stagnates? You can't simply guarantee that it won't, so plan for the worst case. What if we do need people to work the crappy jobs - the factories, the sewers, the manure shoveling, etc.? The automation of everything would very quickly use up most sources of power we currently use. Again, don't say that we'll find something else. Plan for the present, not what MIGHT happen 20 years from now. The time and resources used up doing things is what makes things cost money. You can't simply abolish it without severe repurcussions. The person who spends hours and hours toiling away in a smelly factory making parts for valuable machines SHOULD make more than someone with a less dangerous and stressful job. (And if you don't believe factory work is stressful, it is. Almost as stressful as cooking.)
To say that everything will be free is irresponsible, to say the least. Believe me, I've considered the idea many times myself. It simply won't work.
There was another point that came up in the discussion, after you left. We were discussing with Morb (Elfie and I) about how things would be run. For instance, the scheduling of what truckers are taking what goods where, the scheduling of whose week it is to shovel manure, etc. Morb said that it would all be decided by councils. Now, I live, as I have said, in a community of about 50,000...maybe less. Let's say it's 10 people on a council. That makes decent sense, no? First of all, those people on the council get power and control for however long they're on the council. An hour, a week, a month, whatever. Doesn't matter. The fact is that they get power. Obviously, since we don't want to give anyone too much power, there'll be different people on different councils. But wait a minute...how many councils will we have? We'll have to have one for tallying which goods are leaving and where. We'll have one for figuring out whose week it is to do what. Separate jobs for separate councils...wouldn't want them having too much power. We'll have one for determining what community recreational activites will be put on in any given period. Already we have SCORES of people in councils. This leads to 2 points -
1. When do we work? With everyone on a council, no one will have any time to work. People are not going to simply meet with their council and agree immediately on everything - that's not human. If we all agree on everything immediately, you're not trying to revolutionize humanity, you're trying to change us all into hive-minded robots. Hearing points, counter-points, and rebuttals takes time.
2. You ARE giving them power and control. As I said, it doesn't matter how long they have it for. Will they be elected or just rotated in? If they're elected, we're already heading into a Republic, not a Socialism. If they're rotated in, then we have an Autonomous Collective. Remember that scene from Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail? I thought so. There's your socialism. ^_^
Socialism is simply not practical. The abolishment of money creates HUGE issues, as does the practice of no one being able to run anything without proper approval - basically, a huge, bloated, annoying beaurocracy.
|
|
|
Post by greenmaster on Sept 23, 2004 13:20:40 GMT -5
So essentially, everything's free, right? Well, that's definitely something that'll get a few starving teens and poor people on your band-wagon, but what about the actual application of it, hmm? How does it work? I mean, the production of anything takes time. Some things take lots of it. Don't immediately jump at me and tell me that "Technology will take care of it." Now you're being a fool. What if technology stagnates? You can't simply guarantee that it won't, so plan for the worst case. What if we do need people to work the crappy jobs - the factories, the sewers, the manure shoveling, etc.? The automation of everything would very quickly use up most sources of power we currently use. Again, don't say that we'll find something else. Plan for the present, not what MIGHT happen 20 years from now. The time and resources used up doing things is what makes things cost money. You can't simply abolish it without severe repurcussions. The person who spends hours and hours toiling away in a smelly factory making parts for valuable machines SHOULD make more than someone with a less dangerous and stressful job. (And if you don't believe factory work is stressful, it is. Almost as stressful as cooking.) To say that everything will be free is irresponsible, to say the least. Believe me, I've considered the idea many times myself. It simply won't work. There was another point that came up in the discussion, after you left. We were discussing with Morb (Elfie and I) about how things would be run. For instance, the scheduling of what truckers are taking what goods where, the scheduling of whose week it is to shovel manure, etc. Morb said that it would all be decided by councils. Now, I live, as I have said, in a community of about 50,000...maybe less. Let's say it's 10 people on a council. That makes decent sense, no? First of all, those people on the council get power and control for however long they're on the council. An hour, a week, a month, whatever. Doesn't matter. The fact is that they get power. Obviously, since we don't want to give anyone too much power, there'll be different people on different councils. But wait a minute...how many councils will we have? We'll have to have one for tallying which goods are leaving and where. We'll have one for figuring out whose week it is to do what. Separate jobs for separate councils...wouldn't want them having too much power. We'll have one for determining what community recreational activites will be put on in any given period. Already we have SCORES of people in councils. This leads to 2 points - 1. When do we work? With everyone on a council, no one will have any time to work. People are not going to simply meet with their council and agree immediately on everything - that's not human. If we all agree on everything immediately, you're not trying to revolutionize humanity, you're trying to change us all into hive-minded robots. Hearing points, counter-points, and rebuttals takes time. 2. You ARE giving them power and control. As I said, it doesn't matter how long they have it for. Will they be elected or just rotated in? If they're elected, we're already heading into a Republic, not a Socialism. If they're rotated in, then we have an Autonomous Collective. Remember that scene from Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail? I thought so. There's your socialism. ^_^ Socialism is simply not practical. The abolishment of money creates HUGE issues, as does the practice of no one being able to run anything without proper approval - basically, a huge, bloated, annoying beaurocracy. all very good points, but you misunderstand socialism. And is Bureaucracy. I will get back to this later on tonight.
|
|
|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Sept 23, 2004 16:55:06 GMT -5
Blargh. I knew I spelled it wrong. Fork. Oh well. I normally have excellent grammar. I'm allowed a mistake every now and then.
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Sept 23, 2004 17:19:55 GMT -5
Blargh. I knew I spelled it wrong. Fork. Oh well. I normally have excellent grammar. I'm allowed a mistake every now and then. Damn right you are, Bass.
|
|
|
Post by greenmaster on Sept 23, 2004 19:57:24 GMT -5
i quoted this again, to make the thread flow properly. So essentially, everything's free, right? Well, that's definitely something that'll get a few starving teens and poor people on your band-wagon, but what about the actual application of it, hmm? How does it work? -a few, a few? 2billion people suffer from some form of malnutrition on this planet, a planet which can produce enough food to feed 10billion at the very least. We destroy food however to keep the markets stable, to ensure we dont' overproduce and thus deflate prices, thus causing profits to fall. That is the nature of the system. It works like this, you produce what you can, take what you need and desire, it is that simple, really. -technology doesn't need to take care of it, but technology nethertheless is ever advancing, and will continue to do so within socialism, for there will simply be so much free labour, we will be left with little to do BUT research. We already produce more than enough of the basic needs of man to support all men to a comfortable level, heck, a middle class level if you will. And if you put your mind to it, there are many MANY jobs that are essential to run capitalism, but will be completely redundant within socialism. So, at a rough estimate, if we add all the armed forces of the world together, all the accountants, lawyers, estate agents, politicians, bankers, shop assistants (the list is endless) we more or less double the available workforce. Add to that the 189MILLION unemployed people on this planet, and you have a workforce that is capable of producing a tremendous level of goods. And yes, a lot of it will be automated, the technology exists for that already my friend. The time issue is irrelevant, of course it will take time, you can't grow wheat any faster than you grow it already, we will simply produce at an accelerated rate at first to ensure that all people gain a decent standard of life ASAP, then things will settle down. -the crappy jobs? factories are more or less automated now, manning a machine can be done by anyone with some level of training, a teacher could volunteer to do it for half a day a week say. On a similiar matter, according to some economist (yes, they do have some uses), 2% of the worlds population will, in 20years time, theoretically be capable of producing enough goods to cater for the needs of the full 100%. Just think about that, we would only need to work a little each week, some work would need to be done of course, but in the end, no where near as much. Post-revolution of course there will be a ton of work to do, no one is disputing that. People WILL volunteer to do the mucky jobs, but automation will arrive quicker than you may think. As for the power issue, it is called alternative energy, solar, wind, tidal, nuclear, nuclear FUSION, now that will be fun, and before too long, anti-matter power, but who knows. -work is only stressful due to the demands placed upon the worker-do so much within a set time or suffer the consequences of failure. THere will be no consequences of failure within socialism, people will just contribute WHAT THEY can to society. People are paid money for their labour, but they are paid money that is not equivalent to the value of that labour, that is how profit comes about. Money is not a social necessity, and that really is the bottom line on the issue my friend. Some people may like factory work, work will be made as pleasant as it can be in socialism, why have grey factories when you can have murals, and poetry beign played over the stereo system, and a fresh breeze blowing through the open doors? -no, not really. You have evidently not considered it within the concept of socialism. Everything will be free, in the sense that you can take what you want and need, but of course, people will still have to produce, people will realise and act upon that reality. -no, not really. Look at it this way, depot x asks supplier Y for a lorry load of toilet rolls, Y sends the loo rolls to X, the transaction is logged on the internet. sorted. People would volunteer to do work of a mucky nature, if someone for some reason wishes to shovel sh1t for a day, then they will be allowed to. Things will just be done, and most goods will come from the local area most likely, distribution will be based on the number of people in each area-i.e. a town with a million people will need more food than a town with 10000. People will not want limitless resources, just enough to live as good a life as is possible at that time. -err no, not really. No need for councils at all. It will be a pure democracy, the people will decide what happens, if the residents of your block want a new community centre, they will simply ask their neighbours if they agree, and set to work on it, by asking the local builders to knock it up for them, and gettign the plumbers to plumb it all in. For example, the people in say, Birmingham don't care if the folk in Coventry farm potatoes instead of turnips for one year. Most farmers will suggest what they plan to grow, and then grow it, and provide it to society. So as you can see, there will be no power as such, there will be representatives, local commitees, set up to look after the local issues, and regional ones as well. But they will hold no power, they will not be able to act without the peoples consent. This will NOT be a huge bureaucracy, there will be no need to discuss every single issue with everyone, as I have said, just the people concerned, that is all, and as long as it is not too radical, it will likely go ahead anyway.
|
|
|
Post by greenmaster on Sept 23, 2004 19:57:45 GMT -5
-Ok, let us see. goods will just be produced, and distributed where needed, that is all. Some places will specialise of course, and will thus send out goods to regional depots, where they will be free for locals to come and get. A for the "whose week it is to do what", it will be a democracy, people will be ASKED to do jobs, not forced, all voluntary. The community decides what the community does, they will put on whatever rec activities they want to put on, if they want a fairground AND a swimming pool at the same time, then they will have it. -no, you truly misunderstand socialism, it will be NOTHING like that at all. People are not naturally antagonistic, if they see something they like, tehy will not dispute the issue. Everyone will NOT meet with the council all the time, as my earlier comments will surely show. You make a lot of assumptions here my friend. WE will of course not agree on everything immediately, who said we ever would? Time will be available, if needs be, but people will see that if we need food, we grow food, simple as that my friend. -i have covered this issue already. -who is to approve? who cares if you build a new shed in your back yard, who really minds if we grow carrots instead of parsnips? no one, that is who, people will simpyl get used to the easy life, it is a factor of the life man lives in capitalism, that he is forced to question everything, due to the twisted, subliminal nature of the system. Socialism IS practical, money is madness, and bureaucracy sucks, which is why socialism=/=bureaucracy. I think i have covered everything there.
|
|
|
Post by DarkAngel on Sept 23, 2004 20:11:39 GMT -5
Holy crap greenmaster - Are the letters still on your keyboard? That was a lot of typing
|
|
|
Post by greenmaster on Sept 23, 2004 20:24:45 GMT -5
Holy crap greenmaster - Are the letters still on your keyboard? That was a lot of typing lol, yeah, just about, i admit that the volume i type can be intimidating at times, but one can't really condense it much without it losing its power.
|
|
|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Sept 23, 2004 21:10:33 GMT -5
Many thanks, DA, for posting something irrelevant to the arguement and making it go to the next page. I was discussing this with my friend Alex, who I have convinced to post here, if only to argue this, and he came up with the following quote, among other things: "Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint." - Alexander Hamilton "It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity." - Alexander Hamilton Now then, to the argument at hand. First of all, do you know why techonology is ever-advancing? It's something called funding - monetary gain. Guess what!! Without funding research goes NO WHERE. You mentioned unnecessary jobs - accountants, lawyers, estate agents, politicians, bankers, shop assistants, etc. - well let me address these separately. Accountants - these are numbers crunchers. Your precious stockpiles? They're gonna need to be kept up. Someone's gotta do it, and the internet isn't infallable. It's called "Checks and Balances" Look into it. Lawyers - So what about the people who are suspected of crimes? What about them? Are they left defenseless? I'll let Elfie continue on this issue, he knows more about it than I. (Real) Estate Agents - You're standing on my property. Get off. Seriously. You wanna be a socialist, deal with the consequences - you're on my land. And Morb's land, and Elfie's land. Get off, I'm building a house. Politicians - This is a side-product of government, not capitalism. Socialism is, unfortunately for your argument, a government. Bankers - *See Accountants Shop Assistants - How in the HELL do you define a shop assistant. Please. Because that is (surprise from the socialist), a VERY vague term. Please elaborate. You said factories are automated. Yet there are people manning the machines...well, which is it? Automated or people working the machines? When you finally decided, get back to me. Economists say 2% will be able to do it all. Which economists are these? Please, tell me. Nuclear Fusion...now there's a novel idea! I'd love to see you accomplish that. Go for it. And Anti-matter power! WOW!!! Can I meet Mr. Spock, too? I had to quote this. I simply had to. There are no consequences of failure? NONE? Wow. In that case, I shotgun NOT DOING CRAP. Who's with me? What, the whole world? That's what I thought. I'll address your rebuttal to this in a minute, don't you worry. Hahaha. You must be delusional. Find me a factory worker who doesn't want to be doing something better. C'mon, do it. I dare you. Because my town is capable of producing apples, peaches, coconuts, bananas, oranges, broccoli, cauliflower, mangos, plums, grapes, beef, pork, chicken, lamb, milk, eggs, fabric softener, toilet paper, shirts, pants, underwear, shoes, etc., etc., etc. Right. Nice contradiction. Care to continue? And then you ADDED to it. And I thought it impossible. Wow. And that's decided by....the people? Too bureaucratic. The committees? Giving them too much power. The representatives? Again, too much power. Again, shotgun not doing crap. Who's with me? NO SH!T. I would've thougth if they liked something they would argue against it! WOW!!! You've opened my eyes. So because bureaucracy sucks and socialism is practical, that means socialism doesn't = bureaucracy, and thusly, doesn't suck? GUESS WHAT!!! China has too many people. THey kill off any child past the...what is it, second?...of any of their people. Is it practical? Yes! It keeps the population in check. Does it suck? Also yes! GG. Now, I've analyzed your arguments both here and on eM, and I've discovered 4 recurring points. 1. "From each one's abilities, according to each one's needs." 2. Society will regulate everything. 3. Technology will move forward in massive advancements, to the betterment of mankind. 4. People will be re-educated and will not want more than they need. Let's blow these arguments out of the water, shall we? 1. Who determines abilities? Who determines needs? Those people are given power, regardless of how minor it may be, they get power. Also, I claim I need all the apples in the stockpile. GG x 2 2. The only way for Society to regulate everything is for every human being on the planet to think and act alike - basically, a hive mind. but wait, socialism advocates freedoms! Nice contradiction. GG 3. Technology needs funding and/or a war to advance in leaps and bounds. War technology has given us - the jet, the helicopter, the rocket, and a WIDE variety of medicinal advances. Without funding, no technology gets discovered. GG 4. People will be re-educated. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but that sounds like.....what was it....oh yeah, I remember! BRAINWASHING!!! Let's make people think what we want them to think! WHO DETERMINES WHAT PEOPLE GET RE-EDUCATED TO, ASSHAT?! YOU? SOCIETY? I don't know, but I don't like it. And that's the end of that. PS - Someone mentioned something about reigning in the "Capitalist lies" Can anyone say "Death-squads"? Maybe the "Third Reich"? Physically or intellectually, it's the same thing. Seriously, GM, you're getting on my last nerve. You refuse to see the various holes in your argument, despite their excessively GLARING nature.
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Sept 23, 2004 21:15:36 GMT -5
From www.earthteam.net/green_news/issues/0104.htm: In order to live, people consume natural resources. This is not bad if we don't take more than the Earth has to offer. Are we taking more than we should? The Ecological Footprint provides the most complete comparison of natural resources demand and supply available. Did you know: If everyone lived like the average American, it would take more than 5 Earths to sustain us! From www.seatosky.bc.ca/lang2.html: Ecological Footprint --- the amount of Nature you ‘consume’ to live. Each lifestyle has its own eco footprint. Measured in hectares. The average Canadian eco footprint is 8 hectares. If every human lived like the average Canadian we’d need 5 earths! From www.dt.buildtolearn.net/id23.php: One simple fact seems to support this. If the CURRENT population (which is growing like mad) were to live a modest, average lifestyle of a European, or American, or Canadian, or Australian, etc. there would need to be ... not 1 earth, not 2 earths, not even 5 earths, but 12 Earths worth of resources. And if you wanted an upper middle class, it would be more like 20 Earths worth of resources. Couple this with an ever growing population in the world, and we've got a recipe for disaster. Wondering where this is coming from? Try this website: www.earthday.net/footprint/index.aspEconomics is the study of the allocation of limited resources. If we didn't have limited resources, we wouldn't need economics and socialism would be a piece of cake. That's not the case though.
|
|
|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Sept 24, 2004 10:10:54 GMT -5
Ahem...lemme do this before they do it, so it doesn't seem quite as viable, since it's most definitely not. "People will only take what they need...we will not need to use up all the resources because people will suddenly realize that we're destroying humankind and they'll stop!" Also... "Technology will advance far enough to sustain us. There will be no need for Earth's resources...technology will find its own!" I'm a good little socialist.
|
|
|
Post by Kodyn on Sept 24, 2004 13:55:27 GMT -5
Ok, my current views on this debate?
Over. I'm not going to be part of it anymore, because I am admittedly not knowledgeable enough about world socialism to argue their points fully, and I have seen holes in both arguments that neither side will admit to. I am therefore now neutral on the matter. I would still love for socialism to work, but if bass and eflie's holes are never addressed by real world socialists/marxists, I'm afraid I'll have to concede their points.
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Sept 24, 2004 17:23:48 GMT -5
*stops for a second amidst the flying bullets and napalm*
What?!?
We've had some sort of effect on someone?
This is amazing!
Morb's right though. Capitalism isn't perfect. Socialists think that we need to start from scratch. Bass and I happen to think that solutions are still available within the current system. This is a big difference, but at least we recognize that things need to change, which is a step in the right direction. It restores at least a little faith in society, and I would advise that all of you run for a political position someday. We need cool heads like yours if we're going to fix the problems we're faced with.
|
|
|
Post by greenmaster on Sept 24, 2004 20:24:30 GMT -5
JE DETESTE WHITE TEXT! (makes copying into word sucky) I was discussing this with my friend Alex, who I have convinced to post here, if only to argue this, and he came up with the following quote, among other things: -what experience? When has there ever been a pure democracy, in MODERN times? Only a few colonies worked this way, and believe it or not, they DID work. In any case, you are arguing over a shaky area, it may not end up as a pure democracy, it may end up as something else, who knows. In any case, full democracy will work, people are not stupid by nature, far from it in fact. [quoteFirst of all, do you know why techonology is ever-advancing? It's something called funding - monetary gain. Guess what!! Without funding research goes NO WHERE.[/quote] -you do realise that you talk within the context of a capitalist world here yes? Do you REALLY think that research will stop, just because people no longer get little bits of metal and paper as a “payment” for doing it? You are truly silly if you think that research will just CEASE like that, in fact it will likely go into full scale research overdrive, all projects will go ahead, and scientists from all the armed forces and such like will muck in and do research to better our lives. -Someone will likely do it, but there is again no need for the huge number of accountants and jobs of that nature that we have today. People will simply record, as a community, what gets consumed and what more is needed, and orders will be placed. If family X needs a new toilet, they order it. 95% of crime is property related. Enough said. Capitalism breeds crime, the entire system is one big crime in itself, legalised theft for a start. The people who commit crimes in socialism, which there will no doubt be some number of unfortunately, will be dealt with like this-evidence presented, person prosecuted, by a jury. There will no doubt still be some people who will specialise in this area, as there WILL be ex-lawyers in the first generation of socialists, but as it develops, it will generate its own legal systems. -no, not your property, common ownership, all man owns all things, or conversely all men own nothing. We don’t own the sky or the stars (although some American (it had to be a yank) has claimed ownership of the entire known universe (yes, he can legally do this within capitalism. Madness) and is thus the controller of the entire of the known universe. Some other guy claimed ownership of a star which is 100% diamond, which = 10000000000000000odd carats), so why should we own the fields and the forests or the animals? Common ownership makes a tremendous amount of sense if you just think about it for a bit. -nope, socialism is not a government, socialism is technical anarchy, anarchy comes from an archo, meaning no leader, thus no government. -someone who sits at a till, collecting money for goods which should really be free for all to access. -automated in the sense that people no longer have to mix the sauces or weld the joints on cars, that is all done by machines. Of course machines need to be manned, they need oil changes and guys to turn them on, but only that. Then the guy can go sit in an office, chat to people on the internet, read a paper, go for a walk in the local park, anything he wants, but in capitalism, he can’t. -I would if I had any idea where I pulled it from, but it is truthery. -actually nuclear fusion is going to be here within some 10 years. Quote: THere will be no consequences of failure within socialism, people will just contribute WHAT THEY can to society. -you misinterpret, there will be no punishment, in wages docked or a sacking for people being incapable of producing to the desired amount, for there will be no desired amount. People will simply volunteer to do the work, not be forced into wage slavery to survive. The whole world is not as chaotically minded as you my friend, once people understand that socialism can exist, with the only “payment” being that people continue to contribute to society in the form of work, which will be made as pleasant as possible, and if they understand that the rewards are full access to all they need and wish for, I think they would take it and NOT go “hey, lets not work ever again”, because that is the idiot approach. Plus, you would get tremendously bored from not working, having a productive role in society is a human need.
|
|
|
Post by greenmaster on Sept 24, 2004 20:24:42 GMT -5
Quote: Some people may like factory work -within socialism factory work will be so different from factory work within capitalism, you would hardly recognise it. Walls will be painted, people will be allowed to talk and work as they wish (as long as it is safe), and will generally be able to make the factory into exactly whatever they wish it to be, for it is their factory, not some capitalist. Quote: most goods will come from the local area most likely -local area=200mile radius. Use your imagination and don’t go out of your way to appear stupid. Quote: No need for councils at all Quote: there will be representatives, local commitees, set up to look after the local issues, and regional ones as well -out of context, and just a below the belt jab. Quote: as long as it is not too radical -how about society? Quote: people will be ASKED to do jobs, not forced, all voluntary -covered. Quote: People are not naturally antagonistic, if they see something they like, tehy will not dispute the issue. NO SH!T. I would've thougth if they liked something they would argue against it! WOW!!! You've opened my eyes. Quote: Socialism IS practical, money is madness, and bureaucracy sucks, which is why socialism=/=bureaucracy. -socialism is practical and it is not a bureaucracy, and that is the fact of the matter my friend. Bureaucracies are just overcomplicated regimes that achieve nothing, socialism will be simple and will achieve, in the long term, everything. China only has overpopulation troubles due to the nature of capitalism. -I never said people will not want more than they need anywhere. They will just learn the true value of things, if anything. Socialism will NOT regulate everything, far from it, no uniform clothing, just sensible clothing, as deemed by the sane. Tech will move forward, nothing will stop it. -too bad you are using a potato gun against an aircraft carrier, isn’t it? -err, no one determines abilities, you just DO WHAT YOU CAN, voluntarily. Needs are also self-determined. You do not need all those apples, you will have no need for all those apples, they will just go to waste and people will likely kick down your front door, punch you in the face and take the apples to people who actually need them. Again, you simply flagellate at socialism, trying to dent it, but doing nothing to it. -err where have I ever said regulation will be part of socialism? Nowhere. Screwball. -again, you talk from within a capitalist mindset, so your argument collapses on itself. -err, how about no? people will simply BE educated, they will be taught the truth about history, from an unbiased perspective, the truth about capitalism, one can’t lie about math or the sciences. Children will be taught to question, to probe, to think outside the box, to argue back with their teachers, to REALLY be educated. People will think what they want to think, people will simply be around to teach them things that they may wish to learn. -no idea what you are babbling about here sorry. -no, I have shown that there are no holes, there is no spoon my friend. You simply misunderstand socialism. There are no holes, no holes you have yet to expose at least. You may think you have, but in reality you have not. From www.earthteam.net/green_news/issues/0104.htm:-we can provide enough food to feed 36billion-WFP or some other UN agency. We can provide more than enough food, more than enough clothing, more than enough housing, sanitation, furniture (from sustainable forests), more than enough energy, and other products, to support the entire of humanity to a decent level at the very least. Under socialism we will not all consume like Americans, for that is simply unsustainable, no one needs to consume that amount of produce, for it is truly unhealthy and is testament to the insanity of capitalism. From www.seatosky.bc.ca/lang2.html:-and this proves what? As I have already said, we can provide enough commodities to support the entire of humanity easily. The only big problem is oil, and current events are screwing that up nicely. From www.dt.buildtolearn.net/id23.php:-myth, capitalist myth. The idea of limited resources is a joke. It is only as limited as the methods of production are, and there are enough production methods available to support all mankind a few times over at the very least. I have no idea where you get these statistics from, but I can assure you, they are incorrect and assume capitalist production continues, not socialist production. -resources are not so limited. *stops for a second amidst the flying bullets and napalm* What We've had some sort of effect on someone? This is amazing! -you are going to be upset to hear that the current system really is beyond repair my friends. We need to start from scratch as it were, man needs to take control of the methods of production, for that is the only true way forward, not a continuation of the status quo. If you want me to destroy the idea of reformism, all you have to do is ask. And that is the last you will hear from he for the foreseeable future, university beckons.
|
|
|
Post by greenmaster on Sept 24, 2004 20:34:09 GMT -5
In fact, I think I will tear reformism asunder right now. Reformism, while seeming good, really gets us nowhere. Canada may seem rosy, but it is far from as good as it could be. It still has the problems of capitalism, unemployment, private property, violence, politicians, a class society, etc. Reforms only occur when the capitalist class, those who control all of society, all the media outlets, all the politics, all the methods of production, and thus have a complete stranglehold on life, decide that if the working classes are that little bit happier as a result of a slightly higher minimum wage, or that a healthier workforce will be a better workforce, i.e. more productive and thus more profitable, does the reform get passed. It is simply a stab in the back really, they give with one hand, and take with the other. Reforms cost money, which hits people in the pocket badly, which means that life, instead of getting easier, actualyl gets harder.
I could go on, but really, why stop at half measures? It is still capitalism, and you will NEVER be able to run capitalism truly in the interests of the masses, for that would be contradictory to the class nature of the system. The workers need to be wage slaves for profits to be created, that is the fact of the matter. Capitalism works for capitalists, then for workers, the workers always get second best. You reformists will be licking the boots of the capitalist classes, trying to get mild reforms out of them, but really, you will only get crumbs, while us socialists want the whole freaking loaf. You are the impossiblists, trying to manhandle capitalism so that it works for the workers.
I have a theory-you are going for soft state capitalism, which as my country is testament to, sucks. You are simply trying to run capitalism in the interests of the workers, while reality plainly shows that capitalism never works for workers, no where near as much as it could do. If we lost money, the class system, national borders, armies, corporations, bosses, about a 1000 useless jobs, famines, warfare, religious bigotry, i think the world would be a much better world, and it is actually an achieveable aim as well. Capitalism for the workers is not, for state capitalism eventually trips over into stalinism, and that is awful. Canada may seem rosy, but really, it isn't, you know it, i know it.
|
|
|
Post by DarkAngel on Sept 24, 2004 23:17:32 GMT -5
Greeny - You're arguing your point well, but I can't see any possible way that this system will ever work.
And Bass - I know a lot of people who work on a General Motors assembly line, the majority of the workforce does it in the area - and most of them are very happy with what they do...I'm not saying every factory worker is, but don't generalize like that.
Green, the main problem I see with your argument is the fact that your assuming every person will be willing to co-operate with the system. No system will ever ensure 100% co-operation from the population. Sure - total equality would be nice. Sure - no unemployment would be nice. But it won't happen. No amount of "education" could change that, and you know it.
|
|