Socialist life

[barbara44]

The problem with socialistic ideas that people who should be in charge of these type of stuff usually make it their own mission to get richer than everyone else, human greed just doesn't allow the ideas to work, there is no problem with the concept itself, the problem is with the execution and that is what most of the right people go against and I do understand their point.

If you look at Russia for example, they were Soviet Union for a while and in 91 the day after they became a non-communist regime there were plenty of billionaires, how did those people became so rich so quickly? Because even at the point when everyone should have been equals, they were richer and didn't follow their own rules. So yeah, as an idea socialism is the best one there is to me, but execution should be done with people who are not greedy at all.

[exstasie]

Why do people think that when you pay high taxes you are going to end up paying for people who do nothing at all and sit around and just collect checks?

I think that people worry that they would end up paying for those that do nothing because that is the result of communism and communism is a form of socialism.

Isn't that what is already happening? I just watched the Fed print $3 trillion+ to bail out corporations and their shareholders. The US government is planning to borrow $3 trillion this year, most of which is being spent to bail out out the unemployed (literally paying them more than they got at their job to do nothing), homeowners who no longer had to make housing payments without any effect on their mortgage or credit, and unprofitable companies and their workers who were gifted forgivable loans for keeping people on the payroll.

In my book, that means taxpayers and savers like me who are paying to bail out greedy corporations and the people who work(ed) for them, who have spent months this year collecting checks for doing nothing.

Some form of actual socialism (and by that I don't mean to imply Marxism-Leninism) seems preferable to this system where bailing out corporations and the investor / homeowner classes is paramount. In this system, money is taken through taxation and inflation and gifted to those who already have it. It's the worst of both worlds: an absolutely unfree market, but also an inequitable society.

[Cnut237]

Democratic socialists may draw closer to equality, but they do not make economies of society equal. Here I am not in favour of capitalism. it's just that, I assume that equality will be achieved if society adheres to egalitarianism and mutualism. I mean is. The breakdown of hierarchies and entire institutions will give birth to a classless society. and I think that is true equality.

I'm in favour of equality of opportunity, where everyone gets the same chance to succeed. I also think that the rampant inequality of outcome that we have in modern societies needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency, and certain well-worn progress paths need to be removed (e.g., in the UK: Eton->Oxbridge->Conservative government).

But at the same time, I don't think absolute enforced equality of outcome is desirable. We need to permit a certain level of inequality in order to give people something to strive for, so that those who try harder or who have more talent are better rewarded... otherwise I think society stagnates. It's all a matter of keeping that permitted inequality to a reasonable level, and ensuring that inequality is based on merit rather than circumstance or an accident of birth.

[Sapphire915]

I don't see any sign that we are going to be a socialists world. First and foremost, the world is composed of many different countries, with different beliefs, culture and behaviour. Its not easy to comprehend the kind of economy growth in each country, others may based upon economic and political theories, but some are definitely not.
It is still commendable if the Government will just reach out for help to the community especially those smaller businesses so everyone will be given a chance to grow and be successfull in each endeavour, rather than advocates collectivism for their own good. I believe that if we help each other, the whole economy will grow fast and its a great pride of a certain Country.

[el kaka22]

This is literally what people are missing out when they are talking about socialist countries and that is the funny part.
When people talk about socialism they are not talking about authoritarian socialism, if there is a dictator at the helm that doesn't mean that it is something ANYONE can agree on, who could say having one strong dictator ruling all of the nation could be good? Right, left, socialism, capitalism, communism, fascism, doesn't matter what you believe in, if there is one person leading it all the time that is not acceptable at all.

However if you look at socialism in these small countries everyone lists, like Cuba or Venezuela even though they did had those type of rulers at times, they were still "better", obviously they compare it to European or american great nations and say look how people are poor but they are missing the fact that even before revolution they were worse, things are not all sunshine and rainbows now neither but at least they are doing better than how they were, which means improvement.

[Gozie51]

It is still commendable if the Government will just reach out for help to the community especially those smaller businesses so everyone will be given a chance to grow and be successfull in each endeavour, rather than advocates collectivism for their own good. I believe that if we help each other, the whole economy will grow fast and its a great pride of a certain Country.

I have you to understand that I believe that whatever kind of economic system in place in the country or world in general, we are still going to realize people with be equal in economic status. Some will have more than others and the reason is strength is not same, bonuses will come in different kinds of work we do. And even government give loan, some will squander theirs while others will be able to grow theirs. We can only practice the one better for the people well being.

[South Park]

... if we could change one or several aspects of human nature then socialism could work, but the point is that we can't ...

The re-education camps in China and in Vietnam after the war, and the Soviet labor camps of Lenin and Stalin all demonstrate the terrible outcome of that socialist myth.

Which is why communism and socialism cannot work, that does not mean capitalism is perfect, it is not, however so far it is the best system that we have and the only one that makes sense, communism and its little brother socialism try to go against human nature as if we are a colony of ants or something but we are not, people work hard and spend decades of their lives working in order to get an adequate remuneration for their efforts and if they do not get it they will simply not work, this disincentives those that have the greatest capacities to only work the minimum necessary creating a rush to the bottom from which it is impossible to escape and that makes the system to collapse at the end.

[odolvlobo]

However if you look at socialism in these small countries everyone lists, like Cuba or Venezuela ..., they were still "better", ... but they are missing the fact that even before revolution they were worse, ...

You make a good point about socialism vs. dictatorship.

As for Cuba and Venezuela, you are mistaken. Both of these countries had higher standards of living than the other Latin American countries before they turned socialist, and now they are struggling.

[tyz]

The basic idea of socialism is not so bad. The rich help the poor. The only problem is that socialism has never worked, secondly, it disregards some profound misunderstandings of human nature and thirdly, it has always led to a loss of human progress. If socialism had been introduced thousands of years ago, we would be riding horses today at best, but certainly not flying to the moon. In my opinion, the best economic form is the social market economy, i.e. in principle capitalism with strong social characteristics.

Perhaps the cause of the failure of both capitalism and socialism is the separation of economy, politics and religious teachings, even the roots of socialism, namely communism, consider religion to be addictive. In fact, religious teachings adhere to values that not only regulate the relationship between humans and the creator but the relationship between humans and the relationship between humans and nature.

Both socialism and capitalism see the matter as an end, not as a tool. Don't judge the books from its cover, we take an example of the basics of Islamic economics, we can put aside Islam, but what is taught in Islamic economics we can learn and if possible apply if it can bring solutions to the improvement of the global economy.

I would not say that capitalism has failed. It functions as much as capitalism has to function. Many people only see that it does not work properly because they do not benefit from it. When you see what progress is happening in human civilization (research and development), capitalism is definitely the better alternative to socialism/communism (or name me an existing or past socialist country that has brought progress for humanity in the long run).
I do not understand your reference to religion. Both are first and foremost economic forms, in a graded form also ideologies, but certainly not religions.

[Arkann]

The basic idea of socialism is not so bad. The rich help the poor. The only problem is that socialism has never worked, secondly, it disregards some profound misunderstandings of human nature and thirdly, it has always led to a loss of human progress. If socialism had been introduced thousands of years ago, we would be riding horses today at best, but certainly not flying to the moon. In my opinion, the best economic form is the social market economy, i.e. in principle capitalism with strong social characteristics.

Perhaps the cause of the failure of both capitalism and socialism is the separation of economy, politics and religious teachings, even the roots of socialism, namely communism, consider religion to be addictive. In fact, religious teachings adhere to values that not only regulate the relationship between humans and the creator but the relationship between humans and the relationship between humans and nature.

Both socialism and capitalism see the matter as an end, not as a tool. Don't judge the books from its cover, we take an example of the basics of Islamic economics, we can put aside Islam, but what is taught in Islamic economics we can learn and if possible apply if it can bring solutions to the improvement of the global economy.

I would not say that capitalism has failed. It functions as much as capitalism has to function. Many people only see that it does not work properly because they do not benefit from it. When you see what progress is happening in human civilization (research and development), capitalism is definitely the better alternative to socialism/communism (or name me an existing or past socialist country that has brought progress for humanity in the long run).
I do not understand your reference to religion. Both are first and foremost economic forms, in a graded form also ideologies, but certainly not religions.

In my opinion, today capitalism and socialism work simultaneously in almost every country. No country has a pure capitalist or socialist system. Even China is guided by capitalist social communism. Moreover, in its pure form, Socialism is a Utopia. In addition, if you completely disassemble the "Manifesto of the Communist Party", which was written by Marx and Engels, it becomes clear that they saw a social system in the form of "slavery" of the country's population, and the absence of any free that people have today.

[Shasha80]

I really don't like the socialist economic system where people think that people should cooperate with each other, this creates competition
between humans is reduced. This will make people less creative and cause a decrease in the number of entrepreneurs. It is very different
from the capitalist system which can have the impact of increasing innovation and can improve the quality of the human. And the most
dangerous part of the socialist system is if it has a bad leader, because the role of the state is too big, there can be abuse of power.

[naikturun]

I really don't like the socialist economic system where people think that people should cooperate with each other, this creates competition
between humans is reduced. This will make people less creative and cause a decrease in the number of entrepreneurs. It is very different
from the capitalist system which can have the impact of increasing innovation and can improve the quality of the human. And the most
dangerous part of the socialist system is if it has a bad leader, because the role of the state is too big, there can be abuse of power.

actually there are advantages and disadvantages of each, but if they are shown further, more negative impacts will be generated by socialists, if indeed everyone works together then there will be no more competition and integrity will decrease. But cooperation is also needed in building a relationship country.

[jaysabi]

Full on socialism has never worked and there’s no reason to expect that to change in the future. It requires suppressing with force a market’s natural tendencies and is therefore inherently violent. Countries with a mostly market system and strong social programs (free healthcare and education) have worked well and are probably as close to socialism as you want to get. But it’s not socialism per se.

Socialism can only be perfect if each human being does not live only for himself, but lives for the needs of the common society. In a socialist system, the people should have a direct voice in matters related to the state and the livelihoods of many people, what is currently happening is democratic socialism. Socialism will be perfect if it is bound by moral and religious values. The true basis of the socialist society is egality and brotherhood. Socialism was originally a communist philosophy that was based on the unity and integrity of society as a community in which socialism entered the economic realm so that it had a political-economic foundation. With the aim that the country's wealth could be enjoyed by the majority of the people, especially the peasants and poor workers - a movement to erode the various political, social, and economic impacts caused by colonialism and imperialism.

Socialism has a weak resistance compared to capitalism even though its basic ideas are equality and brotherhood because socialism is rigid and not flexible to the changes demanded by history.

Right, this is my point.  Socialism can only work of everyone in society ignores basic human nature and millions of years of evolutionary biology that have ingrained the need to be selfish for survival into our genes. Our survival is now longer predicated on that level of selfishness, but you're not going to reverse the wiring in our brains that reward it.  Religious views won't help you get there either since just about all major religions are based on a hierarchy and have spent hundreds of years preserving traditional and oppressive power structures.

[Cnut237]

Socialism can only work of everyone in society ignores basic human nature and millions of years of evolutionary biology that have ingrained the need to be selfish for survival into our genes. Our survival is now longer predicated on that level of selfishness, but you're not going to reverse the wiring in our brains that reward it.

I agree with the point that evolutionary biology has rewarded a degree of selfishness, and that natural selection has embedded it in our natures. But I would argue that our evolutionary history has in general only rewarded mild degrees of selfishness, and that higher levels of selfishness have been counterproductive to an individual's survival and ability to pass on their genes. We have evolved as social animals, living in tribal groups of somewhere of the order of 100 people. Arguably much of our intelligence has evolved through the need to build and maintain a complex web of inter-personal bonds, knowing who to trust and who not to, and establishing reciprocal altruism. We can argue convincingly that for a species of solitary creature, selfishness will certainly be selected for, and selflessness will not. I think we are on less solid ground arguing the same for social animals.

Beyond this... I'm not in favour of outright communist-style absolute equality of outcome, I'm more in favour of democratic socialism, a capitalism-lite where truly progressive taxation of both income and wealth work to remove some of the most egregious excesses, and government intervention works for the benefit of the whole population, and removes all innate privilege. This may be a dream that is unlikely to see reality.

I would say that most modern national governments do exhibit extremely selfish tendencies, but I think this is not because all or most people are extremely selfish, but rather that the sort of people who seek power tend to be more selfish than those who do not. If instead we base our assessment of human nature not on politicians, but on volunteers and charity workers, and for example the employees of MSF, who could work extremely well-paid jobs in private healthcare, but instead choose to risk their lives in war zones in the most troubled parts of the world... if we base our assessment on these people, then I would say humans don't seem particularly selfish at all.

[mdgabrielzim]

I sincerely prefer the current model, capitalism. In my opinion this is an interesting model, however, several actions are necessary to make it more fair for everyone and not just for the upper class.

[jostorres]

The thing about capitalism that doesn't work in people's eyes is the fact that when there are so many homeless people and very poor people who cannot defend themselves politically because they do not have the means for it (what are they going to do, build a homeless voting network?) other people will have to defend them, right now I can easily say that capitalism worked for me, I am doing great and my economy is not bad at all, but I am willing to give 10% more taxes just so other people who are poorer than me could live a better life, 10% more tax from every single human and company would mean there would never be people who are homeless or starving, you can end world poverty with it.

However the problem with socialism is that you can tax as much as you want but if politicians are crooked and corrupt that money won't go to people who need it, that money will go to politicians pockets.

[jaysabi]

Socialism can only work of everyone in society ignores basic human nature and millions of years of evolutionary biology that have ingrained the need to be selfish for survival into our genes. Our survival is now longer predicated on that level of selfishness, but you're not going to reverse the wiring in our brains that reward it.

I agree with the point that evolutionary biology has rewarded a degree of selfishness, and that natural selection has embedded it in our natures. But I would argue that our evolutionary history has in general only rewarded mild degrees of selfishness, and that higher levels of selfishness have been counterproductive to an individual's survival and ability to pass on their genes. We have evolved as social animals, living in tribal groups of somewhere of the order of 100 people. Arguably much of our intelligence has evolved through the need to build and maintain a complex web of inter-personal bonds, knowing who to trust and who not to, and establishing reciprocal altruism. We can argue convincingly that for a species of solitary creature, selfishness will certainly be selected for, and selflessness will not. I think we are on less solid ground arguing the same for social animals.

Beyond this... I'm not in favour of outright communist-style absolute equality of outcome, I'm more in favour of democratic socialism, a capitalism-lite where truly progressive taxation of both income and wealth work to remove some of the most egregious excesses, and government intervention works for the benefit of the whole population, and removes all innate privilege. This may be a dream that is unlikely to see reality.

I would say that most modern national governments do exhibit extremely selfish tendencies, but I think this is not because all or most people are extremely selfish, but rather that the sort of people who seek power tend to be more selfish than those who do not. If instead we base our assessment of human nature not on politicians, but on volunteers and charity workers, and for example the employees of MSF, who could work extremely well-paid jobs in private healthcare, but instead choose to risk their lives in war zones in the most troubled parts of the world... if we base our assessment on these people, then I would say humans don't seem particularly selfish at all.

It's a fair point on the degree of selfishness being destructive at a point, however economics and money is an entirely man-made construct, it doesn't exist in nature. Money is just a stand-in for food or anything that allows you to survive, and in terms of survival, those with the most are the ones who are most likely to pass their genes along. Society thrives in groups, but man survives without it just fine. It's society that is threatened by excessive selfishness, not necessarily the individual.

[odolvlobo]

Socialism makes the assumption that the economy can be controlled. The economy cannot be controlled, or even predicted, any more than the weather.

[abhiseshakana]

Religious views won't help you get there either since just about all major religions are based on a hierarchy and have spent hundreds of years preserving traditional and oppressive power structures.

From this we can see that religious values are absolute and can be used as standardization and, their application in everyday life, can be used as indicators, whether civilized humans or not. We cannot separate religious values from our daily lives. A healthy civilization's thirst is based on awareness of reality. Like the joys of life represented by democracy and liberalism must be transformed into the principle of reality. If socialism and capitalism cannot bring prosperity to mankind on earth, then maybe we should review that the fault lies in their goals or strategies.

[mu_enrico]

Religious views won't help you get there either since just about all major religions are based on a hierarchy and have spent hundreds of years preserving traditional and oppressive power structures.

And religion is not equal to morality. Religion can order its followers to do immoral things like killing people who have different beliefs, that's why terrorism (and all sort of intolerance) exist.

Better stay away from discussion about religion (off-topic) on this section and remain on-topic about economics.

Money is just a stand-in for food or anything that allows you to survive, and in terms of survival, those with the most are the ones who are most likely to pass their genes along. Society thrives in groups, but man survives without it just fine. It's society that is threatened by excessive selfishness, not necessarily the individual.

The one with the most food is not necessarily the one who can pass the gene. They need protection, or they will be killed, robbed, etc. Even the king and queen fell in the French Revolution. Hence, even if you are a manly alpha male, you won't have a chance if dealing with angry mobs. We need each other as a social animal.