Why do you think that Socialism is so bad?

If you have read my previous posts i am not talking about large groups of people but rather communal units , now you have the central government forcing their will on states / prefectures and then in counties/peripheries and municipalities . What i am proposing is administration to work in the reverse way with municipalities being the supreme authority inside their borders .
This way people will be able to decide in a local level over matters that directly affect them , to achieve variation you can even put random people in the local council (soviet is the taboo word) through a lottery or make a referendum via the internet.
The small scale will also not turn bad decisions into catastrophes .

 

Isn't that actually a Demarchy?

What you are describing is interesting. Pushing power down to lower levels. Wouldn't the ultimate form of that to push authority to the individual whenever possible, since that is the lowest level possible? Put individual in charge of themselves, when they encounter conflict, let the community decide, when communities conflict, let the state decide and so on? That is a Libertarian society.

 

I think I'm mainly opposed to it because I don't see inequality as a problem, and I think it's based on envy and jealousy.

 

I don't think the individual should have any authority but freedom to do what he/she likes inside the legal framework as dictated by the soviet (local council) . This is because personal interests are always a source of conflict while the purpose of socialism is to move in ways beneficial for the entire society.
The state should only advise the communities not take decisions for them.

I guess you have minarchism in mind but my socialist model is about more control than their idea of a stripped down state that lets everyone do as they like .

 

[

That's where the problem lies. Socialists have always said humans are animals. I think it's about time we move to the next level.

Humans are not that natural. Ants don't have space programs. Their politics should match the naturality of their artificial human nature.

 

sorry, socialism is absolutely built into our DNA...it's the reason why a weak, slow, claw-less, fang-less specie came to dominate the globe against far physically superior predators, we care for each other...alone we die, together the group survives, in the days of our hunter gather past every individual's survival was critical to survival of the entire group, the group would nurture the weakest...

 

Nurture the weakest by sending them away on ice flows or by tossing them on a hillside to die? Which one are you speaking of?

 

Our DNA is also subject to evolution.

A weak, slow, claw-less, fang-less species dominates because it was small enough to hide in holes in the ground when the asteroid wiped out all dinosaurs.

With the right technology you may just clone a 5 star restaurant meal for all 7 bn on the planet every day. So why not keep investing in the individualistic side?

A too large group of scientists will not come up with anything useful. And while I believe scientists live mostly for the quest of knowledge and advance, they could use some reward money too. He/she may not be that motivated to create the food replicator if he/she knows there will be no serious financial reward afterwards.

 

why not turn the question around; why do you think socialism is so good? Is it because you see equality as a goal, and if so why? Does the less capable have a moral right to live as the successfull? I don't think so, and justifying that can only be done through envy.

 

This sounds like a variation of Innatism, the theory that men are born with knowledge as opposed to the blank slate (tabula rasa) theory which proposes that knowledge is a product of perception and experience. I side with the latter theory. To date, no evidence exists that men are born with any actual knowledge.

 

I do not think everyone should have the same material standards of living. That is not even a real objective of socialism, which I reckon would instead try to have folk compensated equally only when their labors are deemed to be equal, as well - i.e. equal pay for equal work as opposed to equal pay for unequal work.

I have a number of qualms with capitalism - though there are many things about it I do like.

In my humble opinion, socialism brings representative democracy to the workplace, and in doing so can decentralize decision-making power and make authority figures within firms a lot more responsive and accountable to the workers. When it comes to welfare a guaranteed minimum income basically restricts the extent to which being poor can sap an individual of actionable freedom. Reducing (but not eliminating outright) inequalities of income and wealth - when in concert with social programs - could help empower individuals improve themselves, take advantage of opportunities they otherwise would have been deprived by forces beyond their control, and seek out satisfying, productive lives.

Some forms of socialism strike me as being more compatible with liberal prescriptions (e.g. checks and balances, separation of powers, limited government) than is the case with capitalism... under which firms tend to operate in a very hierarchical, if not also authoritarian manner. That most people equate socialism to the variations of Leninism so popular amongst some circles in the 20th century is a real shame; they are only looking at one of a great many schemes for how to shift the means of production into public hands and establish an economic order which serves the interests of all. For me at least it has nothing to do with envy. It is about expanding, then protecting, ones rights and liberties!

 

we are born with instinctual behaviour all animals are it's not taught it's hardwired into our DNA...just as our natural predisposition to be socially in tune with others, we survive as a specie because of social behaviour...

 

it hasn't changed...

irrelevant/bizarre...

the human mind is naturally curious and has never needed financial incentive to be creative...

 

Cool post , now think the historical progress from family size groups to nations counting billions sometimes , this is because as we evolve two things happen
1. we are becoming more able to communicate , debate and cooperate in large groups
2. all the antisocial elements are slowly getting extinct

Think of the Mongols , small group of armed men with vicious instincts made piles of chopped heads everywhere they passed . Think of Mongol' s victims , big groups of farmers and traders that were put to the sword, at one time to be a Mongol was the cool thing but where they are now ?
I will not stand to capitalism or fascism but in general lifestyles on the model of small groups preying over large ones have an expiration date and do not forget that the French revolution against aristocracy was about equality and liberty , the revolution against plutocracy and fascism will be for the exact same reasons.

 

Socialism is not "build into our DNA". That's just nonsense. Our species came to dominate the globe because of our brain, a thumb, and the ability to make tools. We are competitive, and the weak died off, we did not protect them. That doesn't mean we didn't protect our young, who are weak, but who were brought up with values and education to be stronger and better than we are. Socialism is the opposite of that. It teaches people to seek the lowest common denominator because there's no point in a socialistic society for exceeding the average. Be average, and you are rewarded just as much as your neighbor who does little to nothing, or just as much as your neighbor who works twice as hard.

 

Is say the antisocial elements are reproducing faster than the social ones - look at the reproduction rates of the criminal and poverty classes.

 

my favorite radio host says its EVIL

 

determining what ones work input is worth can be rather hard. Id rather have it determined by the free markets wherein employers and unions nehotiate. Besides, everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it, there is no other way.

What you describe can function within a capitalist system. See, i often see it as an employer offering some money in exchange for work; the workers choose to to accept that, and if its not in the deal that thered be any workplace democracy there should be none. They are just agreeing to work in exchange for money, its an agreement like any other. Workers are of course free to establish companies with democracy, and unions can try to negotiate things. I see no need for government in this.

Im not in favour of unrestricted capitalism, i support anti trust laws to break monpolies for example. But capitalism overall is good, but it has some shortcommings. I dont think people should be given any other powers than the ones they already get via collaboration in unions. It creates a balance in society, its good enough. We dont have a minimum wage in sweden for example, our unions take care of that. And our wages are high

 

Who said they should be anywhere now?

You see that's the problem of perceptions. Nobody says anybody should be praying on anybody. It's just socialists who choose to think it's like that. I'm convinced most of the right wing does not perceive anybody as weaker, inferior, ever. I myself am Center-Right. I mostly agree with the Keynesian economic model. To me it looks kind of perfect. It protects both the people and the businesses.

So I think it's just people who choose excessively to see themselves as weak & victims, untalented that want socialism, even though it's all just in their head. People who are a bit too pessimistic. The idea that anybody wants to pray on them is their solely personal impression.

In the interwar period my country was a strong European monarchy. USSR turned it into a socialist republic. Masses of older people (aged around 50) are now, in 2013, in positions where they are absolutely useless. Socialism has mutilated my society and continued to do so even after it broke all ties with the USSR. After 23 years since 1989 my country is still regenerating and it seems it will still need some more time.

Socialism makes people exempt of any responsibility and creates a mentality where everyone thinks the state has the duty to keep them like a mother.

 

Crime and poverty have different causes...erm... neloberalism

If you are following the Arab spring and anti-government spirit almost everywhere it is because people want to make choices and their choices to be respected , to find their place inside the world and this is the engine behind socialisation . It may take time but the old will be vanish , this is the natural order of things.

*Please do not expand in the Arab spring, yes they got hijacked by islamists but societies don't jump from A to Z without stupid middle steps.

 

Other: as an economic system, it was never proven in practice on large scale and is more of a cultural meme than a coherent philosophy reflecting reality. Capitalism works relatively well, it only needs some social programs and certain public investments, dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. Then you have the authoritarian strain of socialism, and as a libertarian-leaning person I think thats just awful.

 

I have been in USSR during the Bresniev (sp?) era , I was denied entrance to Odessa's museum because i was not a citizen ....
There was nothing socialist in USSR and the Bolsheviks were happy to do the thinking for all the people when socialism is the exact opposite .

 

As a laisse faire Libertarian this is an interesting question but we have to address a key question first. What is socialism? Even the dictionary is rather vague because it provides definitions based upon common usage which are conflicting in many cases. For example a collective owning the means of production and distribution is different than the government owning the means of production and distribution. Even the term "distribution" is problematic because does it mean bringing of a commodity to market or does in mean actually providing the product directly to the consumer?

Perhaps more important is what socialism is NOT. It is not government welfare programs that mitigate the effects of poverty. It is not taxing and spending by government to address the needs of the people. This is generally a misrepresentation of "socialism" by conservatives that use the term inappropriately and illogically in their arguments. For example there is no difference between taxing and spending to provide for national defense and taxing and spending to provide food assistance for the hungry in America. Both are taxing and spending to provide for the needs of the people. We actually need to eat more than we need to defend our borders. Defending the borders becomes moot if we're dead from starvation. Where "conservatives" often get it wrong is that they believe taxation is a form of theft when, in fact, it is a contractual obligation based upon the "social" contract created by the people (i.e. in the United States it's the State Constitutions and the US Constitution) and a contract is a contract.

So I will provide "my" definition of socialism - An enterprise that is solely owned by the employees where they are compensated based both upon their individual contribution to the enterprise as well as the overall success of the enterprise.

Such an enterprise can exist in a laisse faire capitalistic system and, in fact, they do and have existed within a capitalistic economic system.

The only time that there is a problem with "socialism" is when it is established based upon the theft which is a violation of the Right of Property. In the past I ran the numbers on converting the Catepiller Corp into an employee owned "socialist" enterprises and each worker would have had to come up with $270,000, as I recall, to purchase all of the shares in the corporation. They would have "socialized" the corporation by employees lawfully obtaining all of the ownership of the corporation and they could set their own wage scales and the (assumed) profits of the corporation would have been distributed to each of the owner/employees. The ownership of the corporation could not have been taken from the lawful stockholders and given to the employees though as that would have been theft and a violation of the Right of Property.

So it depends upon the definition of "socialism" and how that comes to exist in an economy that is key. As noted though this has nothing to do with taxation and expendatures by government which is where most "conservatives" misuse the word.

 

Socialism like capitalism is defined by the relation a worker has with the product of his labour , in socialism the worker owns what he produces while in capitalism the worker is compensated with a fraction of the real value his labour has.
As you understand socialism and property rights are not incompatible since what we are talking here is self employment versus waged work. Public ownership of the means of production is the same as capitalism or even slavery ( worker has no say over the value or the "destiny" of his product ) , the idea that the public is something everyone owns is ridiculous.

In a socialist model there can not be stock markets because then the owners of labour value would be those who don't work

I agree with your comment on taxes .

 

And that traumatized you for life.

Nothing socialist? Oh yeah I'm sure all the tank plants and all MIG aircraft production were very innovative, prosperous private corporations... Maybe you say that some people also owned more than one home and rented the others for profit...

Crowds do have a consciousness but one that doesn't take them farther than it takes the bees or the ants.