uh yes
uh yes
control is essential to capitalism
And not Socialism?
Originally Posted by kyne
no because the point of socialism is egalitarianism
Ever read The Giver?
solly what does that have to do with anything
The society in The Giver is the only way I can imagine Socialism to work without people getting riled up.
Capitalism is to the economy as Libertarianism is to politics and as I've already pointed out Libertarianism has Egalitarianism as one of it's tenets. Saying Capitalism causes poor people is like blaming gravity for letting a rock fall on a man's head.
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." - Time Enough For Love, by Robert Heinlein
But isn't it gravity's fault?
as in they are both elaborate fronts for racism?
and yeah libertarianism holds egalitarianism in a very different light. libertarianism contends that egalitarianism is not something that needs to be worked towards, but that everyone is born pretty much independent of their culture, circumstances, family experiences, etc, and therefore what they do is completely up to them so the poor deserve to be poor and the rich deserve to be rich, etc. obviously this is silly.
Hey gyys, let's think unorthodoxally for a second. What if one were to change human nature?
solly what are you talking about
Everybody is against Socialism because of lazy asses getting what they don't deserve, right? What if people accepted this?
well 'everyone' is against socialism because of how capitalists have portrayed it. i wish socialism/communism/left-wing radicalism would re-enter the international discourse because im sure a lot of people would be pretty accepting if the logical arguments in its favor were able to be presented.
But to be logical you'd have to change human nature. That's why I brought up The Giver.
solly this whole thread is about why the human nature argument doesnt really make sense ....................................
Well. *Erhem* Heh heh. :x
I suppose Socialism doesn't go against human nature. Evolution led the human race to work together. However, then Capitalism and "justice" came.
The real question is, are capitalists really human?
People are naturally born equal, it's our society (and any for that matter) that attaches stigmas to everything. You're basically trying to counteract social stigma with government edicts and all you'll get is friction on all sides.
Plus in a socialist society, what would be the motivation to succeed? Oh sure for corporations it's easy they'd still make millions but the crippling taxes would diminish the middle class, affirmative action would hand pick people for all the hard to find jobs that pay well in specialized fields as nearly everything today that pays well involves specialization. The entire population with the exception of the already wealthy would bottom out at lower middle class with the two working college graduate parents pulling in close to what the single working mom across the street is. Investments and retirement funds would degrade as taxes and inflation rise steadily, making the people even more reliant on government programs which in turn would cause an increase in taxes and inflation. How would any of this be good?
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." - Time Enough For Love, by Robert Heinlein
Your motivation: Not dying.
Solly, you've said 'the question is' two times already in this thread. which question is it?! MAKE UP YOUR MIND
See, it seems like we skimp over what're the fundamental issues with this theory. Forget how we're going to transform the conventions of our world today and adjust to a total cash economy mutilation overhaul, we're speaking theoretically so I don't give a stuff, not to mention the fact that money is indeed a material representation of social stature and such. An ingrained concept which is not human nature and could, with some RADICAL ACTION, possibly be changed and substituted.
I can agree with that. With the exception of the last part. Money and its purpose today, x, is a variable but limited by the equation. The substitute at hand must fulfill what money stands in to represent. So what does money mean in our society? Money, for trade of goods and services. But what you're suggesting in a socialist society is the elimination of this? The way you describe it is as though currency is eliminated as a whole and replaced by something entirely different. In which case the need for trade in exchange for goods and services is obsolete.money is not some kind of completely separate entity that human nature seeks in and of itself. its psychologically represents something. it represents social standing and the ability to obtain a mate. human nature seeks social standing and the ability to mate - money is just, in our current culture, which represents this. it could theoretically be represented by anything.
'Theoretically represented by anything'. We can see cases of this through the history of man, the development of money from barter, to commodities, to precious metals, to cheques and notes and eventually to what we have today.
But with your example of the scientist which develops a cure for death, what he gets in return is respect which raises his social standing and higher chance of finding a desirable mate. So rather than money or any material commodity he gets in return an immaterial reward. Just, the problem is that respect and desirability can't be traded like a material good can. You can't make people give others their respect. You just can't trade that, it's an uncontrollable factor that could not become a guaranteed, acceptable, recognised form of trade for a service.
I mean, there's no motivation in being a janitor if you would probably get even less respect than being unemployed and a negative chance of finding a mate. Deeds like that don't go recognised. You can't make people respect that person more or be mroe attracted to them. And what if you cured death but you were as attractive as a rotting carcass [no offence]? Money never was a sure-fire way to give you more of a chance of finding a desirable mate, and you can bet this undefinable x wouldn't fulfill that either.
There aren't infinite possibilities to what could be a substitute for money. In fact, unless you can show me otherwise I can't think of anything other than another material substitute which will inevitably end up with the same result. Believe me, if there were a way there could be not a single person in this world who didn't have to struggle to meet basic living standards each day, struggling to feed themselves and their family and decent shelter and water and with a future, I would jump at the chance. The poverty cycle is a terrible thing. And RC don't you try and deny it because the plain and simple fact is that each man is not born equal because the future of an African child and the future of a well-to-do white American kid differ enormously.
Selfishness is not human nature. Refer to the Fear discussion for my thoughts on that. It is quite agreeable that money is not a seperate craving we desire, but instead a representation of social stature in a way. So I don't believe socialism goes against human nature but I've been debating with myself what exactly x could be substituted with. Your suggestion about the scientist who finds a cure for death, I don't believe that can function unless you can show me otherwise. A lot of things are open for corruption, and in the end we fall into the same predicament we have in our society today. I dunno. Just my insight into this.
By "equal" I mean equal in the eyes of the law of the land and it's citizens, I'm not talking Tabula Rasa or anything. I'm not saying poor people aren't born poor and rich people aren't born rich I'm saying if they apply themselves just about anyone can be just about anything. Socialism sounds like it tries to help people reach their goals but all it does is keep everyone kinda leveled off.
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." - Time Enough For Love, by Robert Heinlein
why, then, do most people born either above or below the middle class tend to stay there
if you want to say capitalism works while taking this into account, it seems the only explaination is that the poor are genetically lazy and the rich are god's chosen people or something
If there was a substitute for money, that substitute would eventually become money.
It's called "socioeconomic" for a reason, God. Social stigma, the people you surround yourself generally reflect the person you become. Ignorant parents teach their children poorly or not at all about important stuff, those kids don't take it upon themselves to learn, and end up being poor when they're older. The information to get ahead is just an internet connection, a library trip, or a phone call away and they just don't do it. The not lazy poor people who resist that stigma however can easily develop a plan for pulling ahead of the crowd.
Granted part of this falls on the shoulders of a broken education system, but even as is the information on how to get a degree in a rather affordable way, how to get a better job, how to manage finances, how to invest, and many other things is right in front of our faces.
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." - Time Enough For Love, by Robert Heinlein
But if they don't know about it, how is it their fault? They didn't choose to be born into a family with ignorant parents.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
