RED DAVE

As one of the few avowed socialists on this forum, have been trying to get a discussion going about socialism for awhile.

Let me contribute the following for openers.

The Two Souls of Socialism

RED DAVE

mshah2k

If I make a lot of money, why should I have to give it to some crack-head bum?


The mass of people are congenitally stupid, corrupt, apathetic and generally hopeless; and progressive change must come from Superior People rather like (as it happens) the intellectual expressing these sentiments.

Right on the money. See the average high school test scores and its all the proof you need.

Gurdur

According to your cited article, social democrats like me have managed to all but wipe out socialism.

I guess laying claim to the mantle of the word is important to some; your article's author seems to have defined socialism as the elimination of private ownership of the means of production, which seems to me to be a very restrictive use of the term.

But then, I'm not terribly worried; labels and flags are rather inessential symbols to me.

That would be the most interesting observation in it (apart from the expos� of Proudhon's racism and anti-trade-unionism).

So when are you doctrinnaire Socialists going to come to terms with us trade-union working-stiffs and incorporate our concerns ?
Or do we remain forever simply too politically incorrect for you ?

elwoodblues

So people are stupid. A lot of them are, anyway. Does this give you the right to make their decisions for them? Even when they're marching towards a certain mistake, does this give you the right to coddle them and take them by the hand, veering them in some other direction? That's no kindness, no favor. It cripples them.

Imagine a teenager, and he's about to make a mistake. A rather bad one. You've talked with him about his choices, how his actions affect his own life and those around him. He makes his mistake, and he gets burned for it. He'll not make that mistake again, or at least be far less likely to make that _class_ of mistake.

However, if you coddle that same teenager, he'll never learn. He'll keep on trying to make those same mistakes, wanting to make those same mistakes, over and over again. He'll never develop and grow, and certainly can't grow into whatever a 'Superior Person' is (gotta love those cap letters).

You shouldn't take away a person's right to make mistakes, misteps. It's the only thing we have. And it's the only way most of us grow.

ju'iblex

oh boy was the author way off on that one. "mass movements... establishment" now, im not saying this is total tripe, it has some truth to it... however, the rest is tripe. this gives the connotation that Catiline and the Gracchi had some sort of humanitarian basis, peoples-poet style. if the author had bothered to read the documents from the time, then they would know that Catilines main concern was bankrupcy and debt from his extravagant lifestyle. yes, extravagant lifestyle, very socialist indeed.

but this isnt the point, im just nitpicking.

doesnt dignify an answer.
uh, i think youre mistaking a poor education system for inherent stupidity.

RED DAVE

Perhaps I made a mistake in starting this thread with the reading that I provided. It was written during the late 1950s, and perhaps it's dated. All people have done is nit-pick it, instead of addressing the issues of socialism. So, let me try it again with the following.

Socialism FAQs

RED DAVE

Gurdur

heh.

Oh come off it, ju'iblex and ElwoodBlues made great comments, and I added a humble query or two, that go right to the heart of "Socialist" theory.
How about actually adressing the points raised before you try drowning us in more bumf ?

Defiant Heretic

The problem with posting essays or FAQ�s about socialism is that they can't possibly cover the position of every socialist. I'm a socialist libertarian, and this is the socialist system I think we should implement:

• Put power, water, and food production under direct government control. All should be run as efficiently as possible and completely non-profit.
  If people still can't afford the essentials, they should be sold to them at a price they can afford, even if it's at a loss. Tax money will be used to pay for this. Although this clause should be superfluous if the following programs are successfully implemented, it still should stand as a safeguard.
• Public education from K-Associate�s degree should be free.
• Communications will not be placed under government control. This will help preserve democracy by preventing a situation where the only source of information is the government's propaganda.
• Graduated taxes will be set higher. If someone is making millions of dollars a year, they should be taxed at a much higher percent than someone who is making minimum wage.
• The highest paid worker in any company shall not make more than five times the salary of the lowest paid worker. (To prevent dishonesty from CEOs, all assets they possess shall be included in all calculations. This includes things like houses they live in that are �owned� by the company.)

Anyway, that list is just off the top of my head, but I think if programs like these were implemented, they would create an improvement over the current system, without eliminating too much economic freedom. (And with no loss to civil liberties.)

mshah2k

Put power, water, and food production under direct government control. All should be run as efficiently as possible and completely non-profit.

Efficient and government are mutually exclusive words. If's its for profit, it will be more efficient, and as long as government ensures there is plenty of competition, will be relatively cheap as well.

Public education from K-Associate�s degree should be free.

Public school system sucks. At best, give the poor some credits they can spend at a private school.

Graduated taxes will be set higher. If someone is making millions of dollars a year, they should be taxed at a much higher percent than someone who is making minimum wage.

I dont have a problem with that, as long as much higher does not mean like 50%. It should be reasonable, not pay the government 50cents out of every dollar.


The highest paid worker in any company shall not make more than five times the salary of the lowest paid worker. (To prevent dishonesty from CEOs, all assets they possess shall be included in all calculations. This includes things like houses they live in that are �owned� by the company.)

WWHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT??? ?????????????????????

So if a janitor makes $6.00, the CEO cannot make more than $30.00 an hour? I am a measly engineer and even I demand more than $50.00-$60.00 an hour. You have got to be kidding me. There shouldnt be a limit on success.

Gurdur

This is not a fact, this is mere ideological cant.

Ah yes, that explains the recent scandals in the energy market in the USA (e.g. Enron), the failures of IBM with its OS, the upsydownsy of the USA auto manufacturers, and .....

Again, you are either only speaking ideology here, or possibly you are speaking from experience --- but only experience in your own area.

I live somewhere with public schooling of an excellent scholastic level, douing better in some areas (e.g. maths) than comparable private and public schools in the USA.

You give no reasons. Under certain conditions, even 50 % can be reasonable - I speak from experience.

Strawman.
You mean greed is good ? Or underpaying "lower" workers ?
How about golden handshakes for incompetent chief executives ?

Come on, other cultures recognise that there are limits on reasonable expectations -- and that great social divides are neither necessary nor desirable.