Socialism Forum!

clearly this idea which i hear repeatedly from you is pure fantasy, people are desperate and will settle for anything

suggest you read a bit on labor history

the free market produces what it can make the most profit from, if the poor can easily afford to eat, the price will simply be raised

in a nation run by the super-rich producers, perhaps they think they can do best by providing bugattis for one another

 

I've done that, but I live in the present not the past.

In a free market system lacking excessive government regulations, competition takes place which allows consumers to have more effect in regulating prices. Prices often rise due to government action related to the currency which results in the poorer members of society having to spend their earnings entirely, eliminating their ability to save, in order to produce a continuously growing economy which primarily benefits government.

Most government regulations are for the benefit of the large producers in that they make it difficult and costly for small producers to start up and compete with them.
On the positive side, producing those expensive Bugatti's provides jobs for those who can't afford them while at the same time providing a means of stealing money from the rich who can afford to buy them. If you want to reduce the wealth of those who have much, produce an expensive product that they will buy.

 

all you do is offer a scenario differing from the current mess in that it would trade a set of hounds to whom we in theory hold the leash, for a set of hounds that is utterly beyond our control

[apart from some magical thinking about the power of consumer choice]

the reason the theory is not working is that your hounds are already dominating ours; why would we want to give them the rest of the power and wealth they crave?

 

Indie
For example you have never denied that you would want people you think have no value to die?

You said that what you have dubbed my ‘socialist’ argument appears to be about keeping people alive regardless of their value to society.
-

If I’m wrong please explain why I’m wrong.

*

Yes but your definition of ‘oppressive’ seems to be a government that assists those of the disadvantaged that you would rather see dead.
*

Why not? Most people here are happy to say where they live, you are open in where you claim you where brought up, so why this coyness when it comes to where you live now?
*

Again that amazing naivety and seemingly lack of experience - I mean people are people and some of the worst feuding in history has gone on between families or small communities.

One of the reasons for government is as arbiter between such disputes.

 

Jon

I’m disturbed by your college story, because it doesn’t seem to make sense.

Are you honestly saying that professors at college level education give their students regular pop tests as if they were at primary school? It seems very bizarre to me.

As to the supposed working of ‘socialism’, if that how you think it works then you really need to do a bit of studying.

*

It first point out that these people have already reached college level education, but in many systems there are many people with the potential to achieve such a level that due to disadvantage do not realise that potential.

To me such systems have already failed.

Read the whole of –

Effort or Luck
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=400136&f=36

- and you will see my argument.

*

People that have reached university level education are usually those that want to learn, like to learn, enjoy learning, if they aren’t I think they would be better off somewhere else. So the question is why would such students not be putting in the studying?

Also two people may study as equally as hard but have very differing results, any decent teacher will tell you that is often the case and any intelligent student will also work that out. That is why in many educational systems, exams, are just one part of the method of grading.

Again are you sure US colleges really undertake such ‘tests’ with A-F marks in there classes it seem closer to primary school than college level education?

In the UK that level is more about essay writing, debate and final exams. The essays would be graded but they were handed out and back individually so you wouldn’t always know who got what and anyway they were often on differing aspects of the subject.

But maybe it was different for you?

Someone I know did some of their course in the US and they were amazed by it, in her UK College a lecturer would give an essay question and a bibliography and that was it, a student was expected to read through the books, finding the relevant information and pertinent quotes. In the US not only were the books given but the chapters and even paragraphs where they wanted the information coming from.

*

You seem to think that the students would stop learning because they were not getting a reward, like a kindergarten child hankering after a gold star, but you give children gold stars because they don’t yet understand that some things bring their own reward. I mean I would hope that someone that reached college level education would understand that. If they hadn’t then they’ve missing the whole point and should give up their place to someone who understood that their reward was the education.

*

 

Jon

What reward? What success?

Two medical students of equal ability and qualification –

(A) goes into community medical practice, getting people fit and back to work, saving lives, helping the elderly and even delivering babies, but who only does moderately well financially.

(B) goes into cosmetic surgery, does boob jobs, fatten lips and sucks the fat out of wannabe stars in Los Angeles makes millions and retires early.

Which one is the more successful?

Which one deserves the greater rewards?

Two kids from poor families of equal ability –

(A) Studies hard at school, gets a job at a factory, works hard rises to foreman, company outsources to Mexico, he losses his job, eventually get another at wal-mart works hard but needs food stamps to get by because of the low pay.

(B) wants money and plays truant from school to run with a gang, rises through the ranks, goes from selling drugs on street corners to running a network, kills a few people along the way but isn’t convicted rises to boss status with millions stashed away and several mansions to his name.

Which one is the more successful?

Which one deserves the greater rewards?


*

Some would say that A and B made their choice.

But often the way a system works can have an influence on the choices people make or even the range of choices open to them.

Choice can be uneven and clumped by position. And how success is view can have an influence on what choices are taken.

To me ‘socialism’ is about forming a system that helps increases the likelihood of people realising their potential and makes it easier for them to make choices that benefit the whole community, and a society that strives to give people healthy and fulfilled lives.

 

Hounds? How about providing some names? Government is what is out of control, and that's not a partisan view as it applies to both Democrats and Republicans.

What is the "magical thinking" you refer to?

You haven't really said anything I can make sense of yet, would you care to clarify?

 

i cannot possibly make any sense to you if anything that implicates the corporate or the wealthy as responsible for our mess is blocked at the door

:banghead:

 

Indie

Oh I’m all for reform - the problem is that all you have presented so far would seem to only make things worse for the majority of people (while favouring a minority), a charge that you have so far been unable to defend your ideas against.

(and it would seem your view would be especially bad for those you believe as having no value, who you would prefer to see die).

 

Was I wrong?

Then you are admitting that you are intent giving government the power and funding to keep everyone alive no matter what, at any cost?

It has nothing to do with me wishing anyone dead, but everything to do with government oppressing one sector of society to benefit another sector.

It would contribute nothing of value to the conversation, and besides I wouldn't care to say or do anything that might damage our pristine environment and community.

So why would you like to increase the scale?

Like the local police force and local courts?

 

Don't let it bother you, there are probably many things you might find difficult to make sense out of.

I couldn't really say as I have been out of school about as long as you've been alive. And did the story, not of my creation but simply one I had received from another, state that it was a "pop" test?

Actually I don't think it works at all, at the scale you would like to implement it.

So we then need to find someone to blame?

Only for those who are totally dependent upon the "system".

That only confirms that you have an intent of placing blame and responsibility upon those who seek out and achieve success in life for those who do not and relieving them of any blame and/or responsibility.

Even when I went to school the objective was to acquire a diploma, and some didn't really deserve them. Even now I occasionally am asked to write term papers for students, most often for persons I've never met.

Which surgeon would you prefer for some life threatening delicate surgery, the one who achieved successful operations, or the one who desired to do so eventually?

As I said, I was only passing along the story, so feel free to change college to primary and re-read it.

Why waste so much time arguing over nothing of importance?

I liked the story because it reminded me of working in a unionized job where the results were essentially the same.

 

That's a question you would have to ask both (A) and (B) individually. They alone assess their own achievement of success. In addition you would have to ask each of their patients who would alone be able to express their satisfaction with (A) and/or (B). But you wish to judge their success when it is none of your or my business, and only the business of them and their patients.

They each deserve what they are capable of receiving agreeable by their patients.

If you're judging success based upon money received or earned, it would appear that (B) is more successful, and (B) also in achieving promotion. It sounds like (A) may have just given up. There can be situations where (A) may have been from a wealthy family and (B) from a poor family. What then?

Sounds to me like they both ended up with what they deserved, by accepting it, although (A) may not have deserved the food stamps he received if he was gold-bricking and could have found a higher paying job if only he pursued one.

Sounds like they did.

Only if you let it.

Obviously everyone can't become a George Soros, Warren Buffett, or Bill Gates, but wait a minute they are Socialists not Conservatives or Libertarians.

Even if it means stealing? How laudable that becomes simply by calling it a tax.I think a great many more people would achieve their potential if only they had to.

 

You're focusing to narrowly upon corporations and wealthy, while ignoring the part government, both Republican and Democrat, is playing and has played in what you are calling a mess.
There is a much larger picture to view, and I personally don't find Socialism as a form of National government to be the answer, but only a way to worsen the mess.

 

Sometimes things must get worse before they get better.

Perhaps you should change the thread title to "Death Wish"? I don't think many people would die by having to go to work. And I think many jobs would appear more quickly if government got out of the way and quit passing laws which incentivize employers to not hire new full time employees.

 

but it's not a socialist mess

it's a corporatist mess

 

See what I mean?

 

no

government aids the corporations with one hand and regulates them with the other

how will doing away with both change anything for the better?

 

Indie
You said of me -

I’ve asked you to explain yourself but you have been evasive.

As I’ve said I want to make societies that are fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life, I don’t think I can eradicate death.
What I’ve been asking you is what you mean by seeming to say that people you think have no value to society should die.
I mean it is a common enough view amongst those with flawed Social Darwinist ideas that people that can’t ‘compete’ should just die, but is that your line?
*

But as pointed out everything you have presented so far would seem to only make things worse for one sector of society (the majority of people) while favouring another (a minority), a charge that you have so far been unable to defend your ideas against. And it would seem your view would be especially bad for those you believe as having no value, who you would seem to prefer to see dead

*

Oh it would give people a lot of insight into your life, I mean the difference between say living in Hong Kong or Pyongyang is tremendous. And in what way could it damage your community?
*

So now you are arguing that small and large are the same. Can you please make up your mind?
*
One of the reasons for government is as arbiter between such disputes.

And between multinational corporations and nations or between one state and another.

**

 

Indie

So I though oh no not that childish petulance again - oh its soooooooo cutting LOL - but then I started reading the other replies from there and I though wow this man is seriously loosing it, you are all over the place, please calm down.

*

First take a deep breath

Second could you please address the things been asked of you.

Third could you stop making unsubstantiated (and seemingly hysterical) statements and actually explain your thinking.

*

 

Indie

The greatest effect on a person’s life is where and to whom they are born. This can give someone advantages or disadvantages that can affect their whole lives and their possibility of realising their potential, and that long before they have the independence to take actions themselves.
For me socialist ideas are about trying to improve the chances of many to fulfil their potential with the aim of improving their quality of life and that of society as a whole.

Your ideas are opposed to that because….