Socialist supporters...

Blockhead

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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.

In this day and age, (other than handicapped people) what is the reasoning that people can't put into society what is expected from them? Everything to is accessible to everyone (speaking U.S.)

brianlux

Blockhead wrote:

Everything to is accessible to everyone (speaking U.S.)

Sorry-- this is just not so. I wish it were.

polaris_x

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. 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.

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 ...

JonnyPistachio

Blockhead wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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.

In this day and age, (other than handicapped people) what is the reasoning that people can't put into society what is expected from them? Everything to is accessible to everyone (speaking U.S.)

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.

EdsonNascimento

brianlux wrote:

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.

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).

brianlux

polaris_x wrote:

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 ...

Sounds good.

EdsonNascimento

brianlux wrote:

This even works in the real world of business today.

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?

Parachute

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 ...

What the hell is "modern day socialism?"

polaris_x

Parachute wrote:

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 ...

polaris_x

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Now, what if the gov't came and took a third of your wife's books to give to whoever they deemed appropriate?

i would not have a problem with that

brandon10

polaris_x wrote:

Parachute wrote:

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 ...

And don't forget Germany. Germany's economy is solid right now. Has been for a while. They also have social healthcare, education, and great infrastructure.

polaris_x

brandon10 wrote:

And don't forget Germany. Germany's economy is solid right now. Has been for a while. They also have social healthcare, education, and great infrastructure.

it's really a cultural thing too ... it's the "me" vs "we" thing ... in germany, you are told that you are only allowed to produce so much garbage a week ... people get it ... over here - people feel it's their right to produce as much as they want ... you take a train there and it's like super fast and efficient ... every time you pass a train station, there are 300 bikes parked there ...

Blockhead

brianlux wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Everything to is accessible to everyone (speaking U.S.)

Sorry-- this is just not so. I wish it were.

What is not accessible?

EdsonNascimento

polaris_x wrote:

Parachute wrote:

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 ...

And how much immigration do they have? Can we have a similarly closed border (I know they don't close theirs, but I am sure the net immigration is somewhere near that in effect). Again, I'm not for closing the border. But, socialism as you have described it (and it's not quite that simple or perfect there either) is made remotely possible by the more homogeneous nature of their population.

EDIT: For clarification - the homogeneous comment does not just go to immigrants. It is a broader commentary on the population at large. Some immigrants are our most intelligent, innovative and productive folks, and the US' openness in terms of immigration and opportunity affords them and the country the chance to reap the rewards.

Blockhead

shadowcast wrote:

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.

Guess what? People pay into Social Security. It's a service we buy.
People get out what they pay in, it's not a free service.

polaris_x

EdsonNascimento wrote:

And how much immigration do they have? Can we have a similarly closed border (I know they don't close theirs, but I am sure the net immigration is somewhere near that in effect). Again, I'm not for closing the border. But, socialism as you have described it (and it's not quite that simple or perfect there either) is made remotely possible by the more homogeneous nature of their population.

EDIT: For clarification - the homogeneous comment does not just go to immigrants. It is a broader commentary on the population at large. Some immigrants are our most intelligent, innovative and productive folks, and the US' openness in terms of immigration and opportunity affords them and the country the chance to reap the rewards.

what's your point?

like i've said in all these kinds of threads ... the countries (and no one is saying any one is perfect) that are rated as the best places to live are all socialistic in nature ...

fundamentally speaking a society that helps each other is going to do better than one where everyone is out for themselves ...

EdsonNascimento

polaris_x wrote:

what's your point?

like i've said in all these kinds of threads ... the countries (and no one is saying any one is perfect) that are rated as the best places to live are all socialistic in nature ...

fundamentally speaking a society that helps each other is going to do better than one where everyone is out for themselves ...

These surveys/ratings that decide where the best places to live crack me up. None of them take into account and "risk adjustment." That's an insurance term, but what I'm saying is there are so many variable to take into account and those types of things never do. What's the average IQ in those countries? What's the median? What's the average of the lower quartile? Well, if they're smarter on average, then all of this becomes a lot easier. It's like a nature v. nurture thing - does our country create drug addicts living on the street or just attract them? It's very simplistic to say - well they're the best because they have X and another country doesn't when the cost to provide X to everyone is a lot cheaper/easier.

The only measure I can understand is - who has the highest NET immigration? That must be the country most people think is the best. Can we deport our neediest folks to Norway and see how their "experiment" works? (Again, not advocating that). i.e. our neediest are needier than their neediest in gross numbers.

It's like saying I'm stronger than you because I could bench the 100 lbs barbell I was given, but you can't bench the 1,000 lbs one you were given. I must be superior.

polaris_x

EdsonNascimento wrote:

These surveys/ratings that decide where the best places to live crack me up. None of them take into account and "risk adjustment." That's an insurance term, but what I'm saying is there are so many variable to take into account and those types of things never do. What's the average IQ in those countries? What's the median? What's the average of the lower quartile? Well, if they're smarter on average, then all of this becomes a lot easier. It's like a nature v. nurture thing - does our country create drug addicts living on the street or just attract them? It's very simplistic to say - well they're the best because they have X and another country doesn't when the cost to provide X to everyone is a lot cheaper/easier.

The only measure I can understand is - who has the highest NET immigration? That must be the country most people think is the best. Can we deport our neediest folks to Norway and see how their "experiment" works? (Again, not advocating that). i.e. our neediest are needier than their neediest in gross numbers.

It's like saying I'm stronger than you because I could bench the 100 lbs barbell I was given, but you can't bench the 1,000 lbs one you were given. I must be superior.

soo ... correct me if i am wrong but you are saying that the neediest in the US is more needier than in places like norway because of immigrants and their poor education levels? ...

if so, that opens up a whole can of worms ...

either way - it also does seem that you are implying that having a well educated populace makes a societal form much easier to maintain ... something that socialists believe in ...

fife

Blockhead wrote:

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?

actually nothing is taken by force. you decide to actually live in the country you are living in. because of that you have agreed to follow the rules that your Democratic elected officials have placed. if you don't like those rules that you are free to move to any country you choose.

EdsonNascimento

polaris_x wrote:

soo ... correct me if i am wrong but you are saying that the neediest in the US is more needier than in places like norway because of immigrants and their poor education levels? ...

if so, that opens up a whole can of worms ...

either way - it also does seem that you are implying that having a well educated populace makes a societal form much easier to maintain ... something that socialists believe in ...

That's certainly the simplistic way to look at what I said. No connections necessary.

I am saying that our neediest are needier than theirs as a whole. We have a larger population, we have a greater number of folks at the bottom who need more.

Education is not the sole property of socialsists. Everyone agrees education is the key to solving a lot of issues. The difference is - socialists don't take into account that having incentive to strive for greater things produces greater things (think Ford's assembly line - if efficiency hadn't brought him greater profits, would we have the assembly line?). Socialsits believe to each according to their needs from each according to their ability. The only problem is their concepts tend to stunt the latter, as there is no benefit to achieving more than average and that winds up being its downfall (plus they lower the bar on the lesser as there's no need to do anything as all your needs will be met regardless. So, if you are below average, what's the point in doing anything?). Ask the USSR. Even China is morphing from this concept.

If you lived in or around NYC in the 80's and 90's you'd understand this clearly. David Dinkins crushed the city by enlarging welfare rolls and tending toward more socialistic programs because his theory was people couldn't help themselves. Giuliani came in and said hogwash - I'm giving money to law enforcement and not to welfare, and folks can get jobs. He cleaned up 42nd street and increased tax revenues by giving tax breaks to Disney and the like to populate new buildings in a clean, new Times Square. And folks got jobs instead of wallowing on socialist payouts.