Socialist supporters...

Blockhead

Would you still support socialism if we lived in a society that didn't use money?

If it was impossible to tax people in order to redistribute wealth, would you simply accept using a barter/trade system for exchanging goods for services, or would you support/form mobs and forcibly invade peoples homes and take their stuff to redistribute to the masses?
Would you force farmers (privately owned) to hand over their land to the "public" so that the production of vegetables was owned publicly?
Say there was a blacksmith in this fictional community, would you forcibly take over his forge? And since he's the only one trained to use it, would you force him to provide his services for free?

I'm curious how you can jusfity socialism being implemented, if at all... If there weren't any banks just working people, bartering/trading for what they need. Wouldn't socialism be pointless if there wasn't a class system to begin with? Just people making a living producing stuff and trading it with other people. Isn't socialism actually counter-productive in such a society?

redrock

Define what you understand by socialism.

polaris_x

and you aren't a conservative!???

Blockhead

polaris_x wrote:

and you aren't a conservative!???

Great answer... :roll:

polaris_x

Blockhead wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

and you aren't a conservative!???

Great answer... :roll:

did you actually read your post before hitting submit!? ... do you not see the absurdity in your hypothetical? ... how do you expect to receive a serious response when you bait and load up your scenario with mobs invading homes? ... your example of the blacksmith is even more absurd ... what you describe is slavery ...

what i don't understand is how one cannot see that regardless of their views of socialism - is that all societies are socialist in nature ... it is simply the degree to which socialism dictates policy ...

seriously ... i don't really think you understand modern day socialism ... this libertarian viewpoint of force is wreaking havoc on objectivity ...

EdsonNascimento

polaris_x wrote:

did you actually read your post before hitting submit!? ... do you not see the absurdity in your hypothetical? ... how do you expect to receive a serious response when you bait and load up your scenario with mobs invading homes? ... your example of the blacksmith is even more absurd ... what you describe is slavery ...

what i don't understand is how one cannot see that regardless of their views of socialism - is that all societies are socialist in nature ... it is simply the degree to which socialism dictates policy ...

seriously ... i don't really think you understand modern day socialism ... this libertarian viewpoint of force is wreaking havoc on objectivity ...

I think folks like to avoid answering legitemate questions by pointing out absurdities in obviously fictitious scenarios. However, intelligent folks would realize the parable and the truth being sought. That is - how is taking extra tax dollars from someone via fiat (law) any different than forcibly making the most talented blacksmith do his work for free? Maybe, free shouldn't be the word used - maybe, for a fixed, gov't imposed rate.

Again, the parable is fine. It's how literal you want to take it. So, you can actually answer the question posed (however set up you feel it to be) by intelligently interpreting the point and not saying - well, you say forcibly to make people hate the idea. So, ok - put your tax law into effect as long as I can decide whether to pay it or not without penalty (get it? The penalty - jail is force - you are forcibly taking my money in place of taking my services).

Blockhead

polaris_x wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

and you aren't a conservative!???

Great answer... :roll:

did you actually read your post before hitting submit!? ... do you not see the absurdity in your hypothetical? ... how do you expect to receive a serious response when you bait and load up your scenario with mobs invading homes? ... your example of the blacksmith is even more absurd ... what you describe is slavery ...

what i don't understand is how one cannot see that regardless of their views of socialism - is that all societies are socialist in nature ... it is simply the degree to which socialism dictates policy ...

seriously ... i don't really think you understand modern day socialism ... this libertarian viewpoint of force is wreaking havoc on objectivity ...

So what your saying is you will attack and not answer the question because you can't support your views...

polaris_x

EdsonNascimento wrote:

I think folks like to avoid answering legitemate questions by pointing out absurdities in obviously fictitious scenarios. However, intelligent folks would realize the parable and the truth being sought. That is - how is taking extra tax dollars from someone via fiat (law) any different than forcibly making the most talented blacksmith do his work for free? Maybe, free shouldn't be the word used - maybe, for a fixed, gov't imposed rate.

Again, the parable is fine. It's how literal you want to take it. So, you can actually answer the question posed (however set up you feel it to be) by intelligently interpreting the point and not saying - well, you say forcibly to make people hate the idea. So, ok - put your tax law into effect as long as I can decide whether to pay it or not without penalty (get it? The penalty - jail is force - you are forcibly taking my money in place of taking my services).

dude ... he's posted these scenarios before and people have answered ... go look at them - you've been involved ...

if he wants a serious discussion then he needs to ask it seriously instead of making abusrd scenarios that are stacked ... it's like asking someone who is against killing another person what they would do if all the children in the world would die tomorrow if they don't kill this one person ...

and like you said ... he didn't use the word giv't imposed rate ... he said free which goes back to my point that he doesn't understand the concept of modern day socialism and therefore his comparisons are absurd ...

polaris_x

Blockhead wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

did you actually read your post before hitting submit!? ... do you not see the absurdity in your hypothetical? ... how do you expect to receive a serious response when you bait and load up your scenario with mobs invading homes? ... your example of the blacksmith is even more absurd ... what you describe is slavery ...

what i don't understand is how one cannot see that regardless of their views of socialism - is that all societies are socialist in nature ... it is simply the degree to which socialism dictates policy ...

seriously ... i don't really think you understand modern day socialism ... this libertarian viewpoint of force is wreaking havoc on objectivity ...

So what your saying is you will attack and not answer the question because you can't support your views...

why haven't you answered redrock's post? ... i've semi-answered your question with my post above which you also haven't responded to ...

brianlux

First off, I have to agree with those who express doubts about your scenario accurately describing socialism. It really does sound more like slavery and there is a huge difference between the two.

But setting that aside and answering your question: Yes, I can picure a form of socialism in a money free society. Many pre-continental conquest American Indian tribes functioned in a way quite similar to socialism and, of course, they had no banks. Members of the tribes looked out for each other and everyone had a job and a purpose in life. Our society is so capitalistic and selfish in nature, I'm not sure we can even think in those terms and that's sad indeed.

shadowcast

I think certain aspects of socialism is good. Shit the US has socialism all over. Medicare, SS, proper regulation of commercial activities eg insurance, banking, etc.
I also think that if people really knew what socialism was they would have more of an open view of it. As I guarentee that 80% of Americans do not know that Medicare and SS is socialism. Again small amounts of socialism is fine by me.

Blockhead

polaris_x wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

did you actually read your post before hitting submit!? ... do you not see the absurdity in your hypothetical? ... how do you expect to receive a serious response when you bait and load up your scenario with mobs invading homes? ... your example of the blacksmith is even more absurd ... what you describe is slavery ...

what i don't understand is how one cannot see that regardless of their views of socialism - is that all societies are socialist in nature ... it is simply the degree to which socialism dictates policy ...

seriously ... i don't really think you understand modern day socialism ... this libertarian viewpoint of force is wreaking havoc on objectivity ...

So what your saying is you will attack and not answer the question because you can't support your views...

why haven't you answered redrock's post? ... i've semi-answered your question with my post above which you also haven't responded to ...[/quote]
Its like you can't think without something laid in simple terms for you...
Its a pretty easily understandable scenario, and the question is how could you support socialism in a society that didn't rely on money, only other peoples goods and services. The answer is you can't unless you support slavery, I was trying to give you a chance to justify your stance on socialism. Clearly your unable to think once your stance is challenged.

Blockhead

shadowcast wrote:

I think certain aspects of socialism is good. Shit the US has socialism all over. Medicare, SS, proper regulation of commercial activities eg insurance, banking, etc.
I also think that if people really knew what socialism was they would have more of an open view of it. As I guarentee that 80% of Americans do not know that Medicare and SS is socialism. Again small amounts of socialism is fine by me.

Yeah those are great programs...

redrock

Blockhead wrote:

Its like you can't think without something laid in simple terms for you...
Its a pretty easily understandable scenario, and the question is how could you support socialism in a society that didn't rely on money, only other peoples goods and services.

THere are many different types of 'socialism' and if you can't define what YOU think you mean by this, how can we answer your question properly? And yes, a society that doesn't rely on money can thrive though, as brianlux said, your scenario doesn't resemble any socialism I know.

I think that when talking about socialism here, some may confuse 'true' (if one can use that word) socialism with a social democracy.

Blockhead

redrock wrote:

Define what you understand by socialism.

when ownership and control over private property is eliminated

redrock

Blockhead wrote:

redrock wrote:

Define what you understand by socialism.

when ownership and control over private property is eliminated

Oh dear... that's not socialism.

JonnyPistachio

Blockhead wrote:

Would you still support socialism if we lived in a society that didn't use money?

If it was impossible to tax people in order to redistribute wealth, would you simply accept using a barter/trade system for exchanging goods for services, or would you support/form mobs and forcibly invade peoples homes and take their stuff to redistribute to the masses?
Would you force farmers (privately owned) to hand over their land to the "public" so that the production of vegetables was owned publicly?
Say there was a blacksmith in this fictional community, would you forcibly take over his forge? And since he's the only one trained to use it, would you force him to provide his services for free?

I'm curious how you can jusfity socialism being implemented, if at all... If there weren't any banks just working people, bartering/trading for what they need. Wouldn't socialism be pointless if there wasn't a class system to begin with? Just people making a living producing stuff and trading it with other people. Isn't socialism actually counter-productive in such a society?

Society has become too complex to function like this (barter/trade ,without govt). There will always be people who cant put in what is expected of them. But most importantly, like I said, its the complexity that throws this off. We need roads, electricity, protection, etc... will people just do this out of the good of their hearts? maybe some, but not all.

Blockhead

redrock wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Its like you can't think without something laid in simple terms for you...
Its a pretty easily understandable scenario, and the question is how could you support socialism in a society that didn't rely on money, only other peoples goods and services.

THere are many different types of 'socialism' and if you can't define what YOU think you mean by this, how can we answer your question properly? And yes, a society that doesn't rely on money can thrive though, as brianlux said, your scenario doesn't resemble any socialism I know.

I think that when talking about socialism here, some may confuse 'true' (if one can use that word) socialism with a social democracy.

Your telling me that there are no people out there that are using other peoples tax dollars (taken by force) to pay for their goods and services?
I never said a society could not thrive without relying on money. I am asking if trading and bartering were our only source of obtaining goods, would you still support forcefully taking someones goods and/or services to people who can not and do not contribute (can't trade or barter their goods or services) If you don't then why do you support taking peoples money (goods/services) and giving it to someone who dosen't have any?

Blockhead

redrock wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

redrock wrote:

Define what you understand by socialism.

when ownership and control over private property is eliminated

Oh dear... that's not socialism.

Then whats your definition?

markin ball

U2

Blockhead wrote:

redrock wrote:

Define what you understand by socialism.

when ownership and control over private property is eliminated

Who here wants that? Eliminated? I don't think anyone on this board would advocate that.

So, are you advocating anarchy? No government at all. No laws, military, public roads, public lands etc.?

shadowcast

Blockhead wrote:

shadowcast wrote:

I think certain aspects of socialism is good. Shit the US has socialism all over. Medicare, SS, proper regulation of commercial activities eg insurance, banking, etc.
I also think that if people really knew what socialism was they would have more of an open view of it. As I guarentee that 80% of Americans do not know that Medicare and SS is socialism. Again small amounts of socialism is fine by me.

Yeah those are great programs...

Do you know how many people rely on Medicare and SS? Without these programs the elderly would be screwed. My mom and aunts and uncles are up there in age and they have nothing but great things to say and would be broke if it were not for these programs. If you saved up $500,000, and retired at 65 and had a yearly expense of $20,000, in 25 years you are broke. With that....how many people would be able to save $500,000? Not many. So let's say someone is able to save $100,000 with $20,000 in expenses. Have a fun 5 years because it's over after that. Also this is able to save this money with no children...good luck buddy.

Let me ask you this, how come we in America will educate you through grade scool, middle school and high school but as soon as you get sick we say "Good luck you are on your own" it doesn't make sense. Why would we bother educating everyone putting time and money in our investment but if they get sick they are on their own? Healthcare is a human right.