Explaining Socialism

[Greatguardian]

Sure, whatever. But first of all, do you even agree that for the US, moving towards a social democrat economy is the right thing to do? Or what do you think about a full blown socialist economy, or perhaps a socialist economy as something you progress to after social democracy?

I believe that progressing towards a socialist economy will be inevitable after moving towards social democracy, but that neither will be permanently sustainable models for us. It's less that it's the right thing to do and more that it's part of the natural progression of society, and the only real difference that can be made at this juncture is how long it takes to get there and how difficult the transition will be. The free market capitalist model is fundamentally incompatible with a sufficiently technologically advanced society.

[Kuya]

I believe that progressing towards a socialist economy will be inevitable after moving towards social democracy, but that neither will be permanently sustainable models for us. It's less that it's the right thing to do and more that it's part of the natural progression of society, and the only real difference that can be made at this juncture is how long it takes to get there and how difficult the transition will be. The free market capitalist model is fundamentally incompatible with a sufficiently technologically advanced society.

You're gonna have to explain all that in detail, because that's a lot of loaded statements. For example, if you believe socialism is a natural progression of society, then you sound like a communist (since communists think that the natural phase after capitalism is socialism), and this statement also implies that you don't think it's particularly important how socialism is achieved, because achieving it is a given.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I believe that progressing towards a socialist economy will be inevitable after moving towards social democracy, but that neither will be permanently sustainable models for us. It's less that it's the right thing to do and more that it's part of the natural progression of society, and the only real difference that can be made at this juncture is how long it takes to get there and how difficult the transition will be. The free market capitalist model is fundamentally incompatible with a sufficiently technologically advanced society.

Holy shit this is groundbreaking stuff, you sound nothing like Karl Marx almost 200 years ago. Wow man I totally see where you're coming from now I just didn't get it before but you're really onto something. You should publish this, write a manifesto. Clever title is all it needs. Watch this guy errbody, going places.

[Greatguardian]

You're gonna have to explain all that in detail, because that's a lot of loaded statements. For example, if you believe socialism is a natural progression of society, then you sound like a communist (since communists think that the natural phase after capitalism is socialism), and this statement also implies that you don't think it's particularly important how socialism is achieved, because achieving it is a given.

I don't know how we'll get there. I don't know how easy it will be, or how long it will take. I'm not writing off this process, or saying that the ends justifies any sort of means, but rather that the technological advancement of society will necessitate these shifts whether people like it or not.

I'm not a Marxist. Karl Marx was still a pre-computer thinker. The world has undergone a fundamental shift since his day. Rather than a focus on the proletariat, it's important to realize that the global need for labor will only shrink. One cannot worship the working class while simultaneously espousing its growing irrelevance in the world economy - and in fact, espousing the growing irrelevance of the world economy itself.

My position is simple. All pre-computer technology has granted us advancements in the form of tools. It allowed any given person to be more efficient and to produce more. With the advent of the computer, technological advancements will become increasingly autonomous. Rather than one man being able to do the work of ten, we have machines that can do the work of a hundred men without involving a man at all. As society becomes decreasingly dependent on human labor, the free market system will crumble. People will be unable to feed themselves in a society where you are only granted the necessities of survival if you work because there will be no need for work.

Free market capitalism is founded on the idea that the society needs everyone to work in order for it to be successful and sustainable. Anyone who does not work is punished by being unable to live. Those who work harder, in theory, contribute more to the advancement of society and are rewarded with greater wealth. When there is no longer a need for everyone to work, the system becomes incompatible with society. We can agree there, yes? I hope I'm being reasonably clear.

Now, the reason socialism itself is part of the inevitable advancement of society is simple. This technological progression is not instant. It's a gradual change that will take place over the course of decades. People won't suddenly stop having to work, but people will realize that the need for labor is decreasing and that our society is becoming capable of supporting itself without capitalism's rugged form of natural selection. As I said originally, the only change that can be made at this juncture is how long this transition will take and how difficult it will be. Those who benefit most from the current free market system are going to be the most resistant to change. And frankly, how they choose to handle it is something that's entirely out of our control. We are not the power players here.

[Byrthnoth]

I think "Liberal" might require a definition as well. When did it become a curse word? Not to mention that people use it totally incorrectly ALL THE TIME.

Revolutionary : Wants to work outside the legal system to change the government to something new.
Liberal : Wants to work within the legal system to change the government to something new.
Moderate : Happy with the system as is.
Conservative : Wants to work within the legal system to change the government to something that it used to be.
Reactionary : Wants to work outside the legal system to change the government to something that it used to be.

Many GOP ideas are actually very liberal, and lots of Obama's agenda items have been quite conservative.

[Uzor]

A lot of you seem to believe living off of the welfare the system provides you with will give you a good life where you can do whatever yo want without having to work. If this was the case. No one would work. The thing is, sure. You could live like that, if you want to live in a very bad neighborhood and barely have enough money to live day-to-day buying food.

The thing is, welfare is to meant to be something you depend on. It's supposed to be something to help you out in a bad situation. If you work, you'll have money to do other rings than just survive. You can buy new phones, travel, go to the cinema, etc. however; if - god forbid - something happens that make you without a job and unable to find a new job, you won't have to rely on crime to survive. You'll be able to get the most basic of human needs - water, electricity, housing, food, education, health care and protection - until you're able to get on your feet again.

It's not about rich people working to allow lazy people to buy iPhones and computers; it's about giving everyone the chance to become the best they can be. Most people don't WANT to be lazy and not do anything. Most people want to be the best they can be. Being the best you can be should not be about how rich our parents happen to be, everyone should get the chance to be what the can be - no matter their social standing and wealth.

[Cyn]

A lot of you seem to believe living off of the welfare the system provides you with will give you a good life where you can do whatever yo want without having to work. If this was the case. No one would work. The thing is, sure. You could live like that, if you want to live in a very bad neighborhood and barely have enough money to live day-to-day buying food.

The thing is, welfare is to meant to be something you depend on. It's supposed to be something to help you out in a bad situation. If you work, you'll have money to do other rings than just survive. You can buy new phones, travel, go to the cinema, etc. however; if - god forbid - something happens that make you without a job and unable to find a new job, you won't have to rely on crime to survive. You'll be able to get the most basic of human needs - water, electricity, housing, food, health care and protection - until you're able to get on your feet again.

It's not about rich people working to allow lazy people to buy iPhones and computers; it's about giving everyone the chance to become the best they can be. Most people don't WANT to be lazy and not do anything. Most people want to be the best they can be. Being the best you can be should not be about how rich our parents happen to be, everyone should get the chance to be what the can be - no matter their social standing and wealth.

Fucking this.

[Ashmada]

A lot of you seem to believe living off of the welfare the system provides you with will give you a good life where you can do whatever yo want without having to work. If this was the case. No one would work. The thing is, sure. You could live like that, if you want to live in a very bad neighborhood and barely have enough money to live day-to-day buying food.

The thing is, welfare is to meant to be something you depend on. It's supposed to be something to help you out in a bad situation. If you work, you'll have money to do other rings than just survive. You can buy new phones, travel, go to the cinema, etc. however; if - god forbid - something happens that make you without a job and unable to find a new job, you won't have to rely on crime to survive. You'll be able to get the most basic of human needs - water, electricity, housing, food, education, health care and protection - until you're able to get on your feet again.

It's not about rich people working to allow lazy people to buy iPhones and computers; it's about giving everyone the chance to become the best they can be. Most people don't WANT to be lazy and not do anything. Most people want to be the best they can be. Being the best you can be should not be about how rich our parents happen to be, everyone should get the chance to be what the can be - no matter their social standing and wealth.

Lies! Welfare queens exist, I know it for a fact!
Don't believe me? I have photographic evidence:



http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/hmqe2.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iIlWLVmyAm...gnConsorts.jpg

[Uzor]

Touche.

[Cadsuane]

I think "Liberal" might require a definition as well. When did it become a curse word? Not to mention that people use it totally incorrectly ALL THE TIME.

Revolutionary : Wants to work outside the legal system to change the government to something new.
Liberal : Wants to work within the legal system to change the government to something new.
Moderate : Happy with the system as is.
Conservative : Wants to work within the legal system to change the government to something that it used to be.
Reactionary : Wants to work outside the legal system to change the government to something that it used to be.

Many GOP ideas are actually very liberal, and lots of Obama's agenda items have been quite conservative.

You mean a progressive, not a liberal. Liberalism is a decapitated concept without a good definition in American common parlance. In political theory, the GOP is largely neo-liberal in rhetoric, the democrats somewhere between that and social democrat (and not very much towards the latter).

Let me reiterate that the average Joe's understanding of basic introductory political terms is so bad as to assign a label to the camp who's bitterest enemy is the camp that resembles the description more. That's you and most people. Don't feel bad. So I guess liberal just means "what a republican isn't", now. I can roll with that I guess, but permit me to make a snide observation that the colloquialism "liberal" reflects a historical perspective of an illiterate. Crazy thing is, I know no one here is illiterate or even that stupid. You're just American.

ITT: how fanatic ideology can divorce an entire country from reality and give it brain cancer.

[Byrthnoth]

liberal [ˈlɪbərəl ˈlɪbrəl]adj1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) relating to or having social and political views that favour progress and reform
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) relating to or having policies or views advocating individual freedom

What I wrote above was the more practical version given by my college poly sci teacher, but that could have just been his own definition.

[Greatguardian]

When dealing with abstract concepts, it's fairly common for academics to have their own definitions for damn near everything, so it's fairly silly to quibble over how some one or another chooses to define something. These are nebulous concepts. Most have general characterizations, but even those are only relevant in the proper context.

ITT: Political scientists who forget that the definition of terms is only a requisite to intelligent discussion and not intelligent discussion itself.

[Cadsuane]

Okay, yes, semantics. But let's consider for a moment, that if I say "liberal" I mean someone who thinks that the role of government is to preserve the rights and properties of citizens, that it should be limited in scope and power by a constitution and the rule of law, and that the virtue of liberty is among the highest for society in general, then that definition would betoken a historical context for the word going back to the enlightenment when it was first coined, and furthermore that it's opposition and intersection with conservatism would be all the more implicit. When I say "liberal", I mean all of these very precise things that are nested in an expansive ontology of a consistent and living ideology, whereas if you say "liberal" you mean that the term "progressive liberal" is redundant and besides that very fucking little at all, and that when I would say something is "liberal" I would be making an observation about specific criteria and philosophy, whereas you would be uttering something only trivially true or false.

That is, I would be saying something worth saying and you would not. I think it's worth insisting on a definition in situations like these.

[Demosthenes11]

I had you at first, but you lost me with "the" - can you define this term for me please?

[Milkster]

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-...31528526_n.jpg

[Headspace]

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-...31528526_n.jpg

But jobs

[guartz]

I didn't pay my bill to the police department and got robbed before the next paycheck came in. Do I deserve my fate?

I don't think that is how that scenario would work out. Few, if any people, would pay for police/fire directly. Let's assume in some perverted future state police/fire is dismantled and citizens are asked to resolve their own disputes, crimes and accidents. What happens is that now you have created a new market with a huge demand for those services. Maybe not immediately, but you'll see insurance like companies who deal with financing institutions that provide these services. Most likely emergency services will be covered through rent and dispute services through your employer.

[Kurokikaze]

The explanation I often use to describe socialism to those that "hate" it is: "When the government gets involved in certain industries that it feels shouldn't be done for profit. Because I'm almost certain that you don't think that a for-profit company would run our military better."

Also they HATE it when you tell them the truth about the NFL's business model... It's very similar to socialism and it's the most popular sport in the US. lol

[Rhinox]

Stop reading after the first page.


Saw Swampy mention eliminating lobbyists. Did he have a chance to bring up his idea for the galactic senate?

[Zilong]

To be fair, Palpatine did send Anakin to murder all those Trade Federation Separatists, which seems to be close enough?