- Joined
- Nov 8, 2006
- Messages
- 13,406
- Reaction score
- 8,258
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
digsbe said:Pure socialism ensures an equally shared poverty.
Wtf are you talking about
digsbe said:Pure socialism ensures an equally shared poverty.
Wtf are you talking about
Wake said:It is a spreading of the wealth, is it not?
It's a transformation of the entire socio-economic system, which is just a little more profound than "equal redistribution of wealth". In fact I don't think the phrase has much to do with socialism, which surpasses such an economist demand.
In essence, socialism is doing away with artificial scarcity and raising the level of production to such a point which capitalism is unable. As the productivity of society increases, so does societal wealth. This gives the exact opposite result than "shared poverty" (whatever that means).
What do you base such conjecture on, Khayembii Communique?
Human nature, my friend. Human nature.
Socialism puts a country on the road to poverty because it kills incentive and when you can get it free why work just to hive your money to someone who doesn't
One way would be to take the strategy of The Venus Project. Wait for our financial system to completely crash, which it will, and use that opportunity to introduce the ideas of The Venus Project. If you haven't already, you should probably browse through that website. They even have programmers on their team working on the various computer programs they will need for their society at this present time. Basically, they are devoting their professional lives to a world better for human civilization as a whole.
Another way is by force. Maybe something happens and the population decide to take matters in their own hands and use the second amendment to its full potential. Overthrow the people in power, and then start implementing the ideas of The Venus Project.
Or somebody in The Venus Project obtains a seat in power, and slowly moves civilization towards that direction.
The Venus Project literally has a lot of it already thought out. What they need is the resources to back it up. Before you start throwing arguments back at me, I would actually suggest reading what The Venus Project has already done and thought out.
ksu_aviator is under the incredibly naive opinion that good choices provide rewards and bad ones negative consequences. Anyone that has lived in the real world for a short while knows this is not the case, so there really isn't any point debating him on this matter, as he is clearly divorced from reality.
I am often puzzled by the fact that so many of the passionate critics of socialism have such a poor understanding of it.
"Communism is forced equality. Capitalism is forced inequality. I've picked my poison."
You may think him wrong, but he does have a point.
Should resources be distributed based on need or by ability?
That question exemplifies the fools errand that is choosing between communism and capitalism.
The bolded bit is the nub of the issue for me. 'Artificial' because capitalism could, although inefficiently so, provide sufficient wealth to end the evils of want but, by its very nature, ensures that it doesn't in order to maintain the competition for resources that allows some to profit, others to suffer. Artificial also, because it limits the goals of endeavour and creativity to the cash nexus. What becomes prioritised is the production of goods and services that are the most profitable, not the most necessary. Thus, just one example, billions more are invested in research into cosmetic pharmaceuticals than into cures for ailments widespread in the poorer regions of the globe.It's a transformation of the entire socio-economic system, which is just a little more profound than "equal redistribution of wealth". In fact I don't think the phrase has much to do with socialism, which surpasses such an economist demand.
In essence, socialism is doing away with artificial scarcity and raising the level of production to such a point which capitalism is unable. As the productivity of society increases, so does societal wealth. This gives the exact opposite result than "shared poverty" (whatever that means).
"As to Communism and Capitalism, as a quote from, if I recall, Viktyr Korimir:
'Communism is forced equality. Capitalism is forced inequality. I've picked my poison.'" - Wake
His sig is a lie.
Capitalism doesn't force inequality on anyone. People are free to choose to be losers and failures.
Under communism failure is forced upon everyone without choice.
No idea where you got this from.......People forcing their ideas on other people kill people.
That is why capitalism is the best choice. It forces nothing and leaves everything up to the individual.
I think a system where this is no state, no class, no money, and everything is owned in communally. Sounds perfect
Yes, there is. Its the previously mentioned artifical scarcity that is the essential feature of corporatist capitalism that ensures people do not get what they need. It's not about having everything you want. 'Want' is a social construct, one that the entire capitalist media and advertising industry is in business to create.That won't work as long as resources are scarce. There just isn't enough of everything that people want, for them to have as much as they want.
Or because they only keep the car on average for a week? And most cars don't get very dirty in just a week. Bad example.If everyone shares something, then no one cares about it. It's the same reason why rental car customers almost never go to the car wash.
Not unless they are being bombarded 24/7 by messages from people who tell them what they should want.Furthermore, if everything is owned communally, people want more of everything.
And yet, if you got all those things, do you think you would be instantly happy? If you think you would, I'd recommend spending a day attending a divorce court hearing between a couple of insanely rich people.I'd love to have a mansion, six or seven fancy sports cars, a few hundred fancy electronic gizmos, and gourmet meals for lunch and dinner every day. The only reason I don't is because those things have a price attached to them because of their scarcity.
Yes, there is. Its the previously mentioned artifical scarcity that is the essential feature of corporatist capitalism that ensures people do not get what they need. It's not about having everything you want. 'Want' is a social construct, one that the entire capitalist media and advertising industry is in business to create.
Andalublue said:Or because they only keep the car on average for a week? And most cars don't get very dirty in just a week. Bad example.
Andalublue said:Not unless they are being bombarded 24/7 by messages from people who tell them what they should want.
Andalublue said:And yet, if you got all those things, do you think you would be instantly happy? If you think you would, I'd recommend spending a day attending a divorce court hearing between a couple of insanely rich people.
TheDemSocialist said:I think a system where this is no state, no class, no money, and everything is owned in communally. Sounds perfect