Socialist supporters...
Blockhead
Posts: 1,538
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?
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?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
and you aren't a conservative!???
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).
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 ...
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 ...
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.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
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.
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.
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.
Oh dear... that's not socialism.
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.
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?
So, are you advocating anarchy? No government at all. No laws, military, public roads, public lands etc.?
"With our thoughts we make the world"
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.
Sorry-- this is just not so. I wish it were.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
okay ... i apologize for treating your initial query with slight disdain ... mainly because this is at least the 3rd of its kind ... of which the previous ones proved nothing on your behalf ... also- my initial response was based on our discussion in the carbon tax thread where you claimed you weren't a conservative and i pointed out that you were anti-socialism because of threads like this ...
i digress because it appears you do not realize your scenario is not socialism and that you actually think it holds water ...
soo ... to the question above i respond: i can envision a society without money ... in fact, in a microcosm - that is how i live my life ... my friend will help me with some repairs at my place and i'll drive him to get his car fixed ... i catered a small fundraising event for a friend in lieu of some hand-knitted toques she made ...
so ... yes, i can definitely envision a society without money ... i look forward to it ...
There are a few things, but lack of education is one reason. Maybe age? Economy? lack of jobs? children?
Maybe some of these people would actually do better in your theoretical barter/trade society.
This is a good point. So, I could see small communities doing this, but it becomes much more difficult in a bigger society. And that has nothing to do with capitalism or selfish. It's impossible for me to give money to every single person that needs help. But, I can guarantee I'd do a better job of it than the government. If I caught someone buying ice cream with money I gave them for food for their kids, I'd buy food for their kids directly instead of giving them the money to waste on junk. I don't want to derail this, but that's the extension in modern society of what you are talking about here. If my American Indian tribe neighbor needed corn for their kids, I'd give them corn and they'd be happy. If my current neighbor needs vegetables for their kids, the gov't takes my tax $'s, gives it to them, and they are outraged if what they are allowed to buy with it (e.g. corn not ice cream) is determined by those that are giving them the money (tax payers).
So, the selfishness and greed you allude to works both ways making the whole system problematic. I don't think anyone on the don't raise taxes side is against helping less fortunate. But, by the same token, I'm sure they want a greater say in how that money is spent (and how much of it).
Sounds good.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
But, this is not socialism.
Now, what if the gov't came and took a third of your wife's books to give to whoever they deemed appropriate?
What the hell is "modern day socialism?"
the best way to describe it would be countries like norway and sweden ... where socialistic principles take precedence over individualistic goals all within a capitalistic framework ...
so, corporations and individuals are allowed to earn as much money as possible but not at the expense of socialistic values such as the environment or someone's health ...
value is placed on programs such as education and health care in order for individuals in society to have the best assets to contribute to society ... long-term sustainability of people and resources are not sacrificed for short-term gains ...
i would not have a problem with that