Beckwin

[Howard Roark]

I'm afraid.

[Beckwin]

a positive feedback loop of anger that could launch the planet over the tipping point

[Shiroikage]

Maybe if it killed some people, the human race would be able to survive for longer because less people would use less resources.

[Beckwin]

What are the goals of socialism?

The goals of socialism are equality and progress, through which we can attain a truer sense of freedom and improve quality of life.

Through what structures does socialism accomplish its goals?

Socialism accomplishes those goals by dismantling hierarchy and social barriers (chiefly: class). This requires some sort of restructuring of both government/decision making and distribution of wealth (as virtually all social barriers, such as class, racism, etc can be traced to material conflict). In respect to the former, more direct democratic systems would be used, and to the latter, abolishing private property and restoring democratic influence over community resources.

How do these structures acheive their goals?

More direct forms of democracies allow for more responsive government and in turn creates greater citizen interest in politics. Having influence in their workplaces and communities spurs greater interest. People come together, as individuals with no more power or influence as the fellow next to them, and make mutually beneficial (or in some cases, mutually unattractive) compromises. This forces a reevaluation of what is truly important for maintaining and improving our communities and qualities of life that more market based systems often (and easily) ignore.

When there is equality, I believe empathy manifests more readily. This lends to the above decision making and interest in the process.

Anyhow, that's a start. Not a perfect articulation but it's what you'll get for now. Now I'm curious if you're going to respond in a derisive, nitpicking manner or actually try to be constructive, legitimately curious way.

Time will tell!

[Howard Roark]

I read the bold and the italics

[Kuya]

I'll respond more fully at a later time. Though for now i will ask for a few clarifications. I am going to assume that by equality you mean equal in relation to the State, although you could mean some form of real equality, but you'd have to define what this real equality is. What i do need you to clarify is what you mean by progress. For example, technological progress? Some form of social progress? The latter is quite ambiguous, and it would require that you define progress, and then speak of what form of progress you are referring to. For example, progress implies a benefit, but not everyone necessarily benefits from a form of progress.

I am not quite sure what you mean by differentiating between being nitpicky and constructive. I presume with the latter you mean adding suggestions? If that's what you want, i'll try to add that. I will try not to be derisive though.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

What are the goals of socialism?

The goals of socialism are equality and progress, through which we can attain a truer sense of freedom and improve quality of life.

Through what structures does socialism accomplish its goals?

Socialism accomplishes those goals by dismantling hierarchy and social barriers (chiefly: class). This requires some sort of restructuring of both government/decision making and distribution of wealth (as virtually all social barriers, such as class, racism, etc can be traced to material conflict). In respect to the former, more direct democratic systems would be used, and to the latter, abolishing private property and restoring democratic influence over community resources.

How do these structures acheive their goals?

More direct forms of democracies allow for more responsive government and in turn creates greater citizen interest in politics. Having influence in their workplaces and communities spurs greater interest. People come together, as individuals with no more power or influence as the fellow next to them, and make mutually beneficial (or in some cases, mutually unattractive) compromises. This forces a reevaluation of what is truly important for maintaining and improving our communities and qualities of life that more market based systems often (and easily) ignore.

When there is equality, I believe empathy manifests more readily. This lends to the above decision making and interest in the process.

Anyhow, that's a start. Not a perfect articulation but it's what you'll get for now. Now I'm curious if you're going to respond in a derisive, nitpicking manner or actually try to be constructive, legitimately curious way.

Time will tell!

This is going to attract trolls like flies to shit, but I got your back my nigga gots my shirt off and my spray tan is dry. Let's roll.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I'll respond more fully at a later time. Though for now i will ask for a few clarifications. I am going to assume that by equality you mean equal in relation to the State, although you could mean some form of real equality, but you'd have to define what this real equality is. What i do need you to clarify is what you mean by progress. For example, technological progress? Some form of social progress? The latter is quite ambiguous, and it would require that you define progress, and then speak of what form of progress you are referring to. For example, progress implies a benefit, but not everyone necessarily benefits from a form or progress.

I am not quite sure what you men by differentiating between being nitpicky and constructive. I presume with the latter you mean adding suggestions? If that's what you want, i'll try to add that. I will try not to be derisive though.

That was terrible trolling Kuya. What is progress? Really?

No shit not everyone benefits from progress. The future and society benefit from scientific discoveries, the church did not. The 'greater good' does not really need to be explained or examined, it's obviously implied.

[Beckwin]

Equality: no one has any special privileges. everyone is treated equally in respect to the law/community/state/whatever systems are in place. this does not mean legitimate achievements/aptitudes are ignored when it comes to work/study/etc., this refers to gender/race/ethinicity/sexuality/(non-existent) wealth or social class.

Progress: the betterment of the human experience. progress in health, happiness, education, knowledge, sustainability, etc for all people. since all people would be, for all intents and purposes, material and political equals, they all benefit equally/collectively. this sort of eliminates progress that would be detrimental, compared to the reality we have now (where for example, progress in healthcare is detrimental to insurance CEOs)

[Howard Roark]

way to polemicize the debate jerk

[Beckwin]

you're already being a tad nit-picky, but yeah I was mainly referring to derisiveness, which you've avoided so far.

[Kuya]

Okay, i have no real complaints with the elaboration; it's pretty straight forward. I presume that the reform of government into a fully democratic entity would take place first, and then private property would be abolished which would presumably eliminate most conflict from which material inequality manifests. My only complaints and doubts are whether equality via the liberal State is meaningful, as per Marx's critiques of the liberal State (i assume that equality via the State is just supposed to be the first step and real equality is to be gained via the abolition of private property, otherwise it wouldn't make sense). Unfortunately, i also assume that the State is supposed to be the conduit by which private property is abolished, and, once again, picking up Marx's criticism of the State as a child of civil society, private property being one of its preconditions, the State being capable of that goal seems unlikely to me.

[MysteryMithra]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAh9pjvqH0o