09 Feb 06
Is a degree of socialism a prerequisite for a society to be considered civilised? I am currently reading about sociological systems at school, and it seems to me that the only truly civilised societies are those which incorporate a degree of socialism (like various social services, state funded healthcare, pensions and education, care for the aged, etc.) whilst those that are entirely run by the private sector appear comparatively harsh for the less well off.
Does anyone think this is a reasonable conclusion? 🙂
Leo
09 Feb 06
Originally posted by Leo2Makes sense they say the best way to judge a civilisation is by how it treats the dependant. I think a good civilisation would learn to work together and the more able to help the less able and everyone to be fairly equal. I don’t think a country run completely privately would work very well if there was no state education or healthcare I think then it would just revert to a kind of slavery with little regard for human rights or life.
Is a degree of socialism a prerequisite for a society to be considered civilised? I am currently reading about sociological systems at school, and it seems to me that the only truly civilised societies are those which incorporate a degree of socialism (like various social services, state funded healthcare, pensions and education, care for the aged, etc.) whils ...[text shortened]... ely harsh for the less well off.
Does anyone think this is a reasonable conclusion? 🙂
Leo
09 Feb 06
2 edits
Originally posted by Leo2Is that really socialism or ...... ?
Is a degree of socialism a prerequisite for a society to be considered civilised? I am currently reading about sociological systems at school, and it seems to me that the only truly civilised societies are those which incorporate a degree of socialism (like various social services, state funded healthcare, pensions and education, care for the aged, etc.) whils ...[text shortened]... ely harsh for the less well off.
Does anyone think this is a reasonable conclusion? 🙂
Leo
Check out Catholic Social Thought:
http://centerforsocialconcerns.nd.edu/mission/cst/cst_into.shtml
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/social.html
09 Feb 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeNo, of course it isn't socialism.
Is that really socialism or ...... ?
Check out Catholic Social Thought:
http://centerforsocialconcerns.nd.edu/mission/cst/cst_into.shtml
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/social.html
Social Democracy perhaps, but not socialism.
09 Feb 06
Originally posted by Will EverittI suggest you will be happy in Cuba. Take a vacation there and see if you like it.
Makes sense they say the best way to judge a civilisation is by how it treats the dependant. I think a good civilisation would learn to work together and the more able to help the less able and everyone to be fairly equal. I don’t think a country run completely privately would work very well if there was no state education or healthcare I think then it would just revert to a kind of slavery with little regard for human rights or life.
In my opinion an advanced civilisation is one that will :
- reward entrepreneurs appropriately so that risk-taking, invention and innovationcontinues
- ensure that the workforce is paid in accordance to the level of skill and training thats required for the job.
- have sufficent surplus for export
- encourage saving which can encourage re-investment
- take care of the justfiably dependant population.
- discourage the 'drone' mentality
- provide sufficient time and avenues for leisure
- encourage freedom of expression in all its forms
- put aside funds to assist those poor countries less fortunate and/or more stupid than themselves
- allow religious freedom.
For Example ...... ?
09 Feb 06
Originally posted by Rajk999I must say i am very much for capitalism and the harder someone works the more reward they are able to earn.
I suggest you will be happy in Cuba. Take a vacation there and see if you like it.
In my opinion an advanced civilisation is one that will :
- reward entrepreneurs appropriately so that risk-taking, invention and innovationcontinues
- ensure that the workforce is paid in accordance to the level of skill and training thats required for the job.
- hav ...[text shortened]... rtunate and/or more stupid than themselves
- allow religious freedom.
For Example ...... ?
Unfortunetly in some countries who percieve capitalism (one to hand is Ireland) have a 40% tax rate above earnings of 30K Euro.
Not much of an incentive to work harder and improve your standard of living??!?!? 60,70K then bring in the higher tax rate i think.
In England the higher tax rate comes in after 45K euro (30K sterling) which is much fairer but should still be raised.
Stop punishing the working man who works hard to improve his life i say.
I was lucky enough to be born and lived in England for quite some time, i was of the opinion that the healthcare should be privatised and people pay as you go.
Having lived in 2 different countries without a state health system my opinion has changed significantly.
I think public health should be free (or with very low charges) and be available to everyone. I have found it so shocking the health care charges that i have been facing and the service has been far worse than i get in the UK!!!!!!
Education should also be made available and more cheaply to those who wish to improve their lives. By making it expensive and inaccessible is creating a very unfair and unequal society.
09 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Leo2Leo,
Is a degree of socialism a prerequisite for a society to be considered civilised? I am currently reading about sociological systems at school, and it seems to me that the only truly civilised societies are those which incorporate a degree of socialism (like various social services, state funded healthcare, pensions and education, care for the aged, etc.) whils ...[text shortened]... ely harsh for the less well off.
Does anyone think this is a reasonable conclusion? 🙂
Leo
This is an interesting thread. I am right in the middle of my work day, so I will come back to this later. My initial thoughts are threefold.
1 - Civilization isn't a fixed object but is an evolutionary (indeed revolutionary, at times) PROCESS or CONSTRUCT.
2 - If we study the history of civilization we find that what we have come to call RIGHTS didn't start out as rights, but as goals. Goals tend to become Rights in direct proportion to that which enables the action. In all cases this is two-part. The first part is "Means" which is always "Wealth". The second part is "Will" and this is politic.
3 - Civilization always swings out of control in one direction, then the other when a new "thousand pound" pendulum is set in motion.
The best example I can think of is "Slavery". First civilization condoned it. You couldn't be a good greek or roman without slaves. Then what happened? Well, "wealth" happened. As some point, slaves ceased to be such an advantage that slavery became 50-50 beneficial to detrimental to the slaver or POTENTIAL slaver. So more and more the POTENTIAL slaver chose the more economical and "ethical" route. You can see this in British civilization studies. But the bigger point is that the pendulum of "slavery" swings all the way to "radical non-slavery". In the US right now... I will argue that this is where civilization rests. My evidence is that 70% or some ungodly number of black kids are now born out of wedlock. This is because of the "excess" swing of the pendulum to the 'rebel' side of the old norm. I think we will level out at the maximum swing of "no bonds on me, including marriage" back to the middle, then to the "slavery" side a bit, then back and forth for about five generations. Sooner or later there will be a "restive norm" where the pendulum ceases to swing on that issue.
But my view is that all Socialism is allowed when WEALTH allows it. How ironic then that socialism is a deadly enemy of greed? Greed in the form of capitalism is by far the largest maker of "wealth" that the human race has ever invented. This is just exactly like real life. I want to be able to go to Tahiti to relax, but I can't go unless I work hard.
I would love to have everyone on earth have clean water, clean air, food and a warm, safe house. But the wealth can only come from me being greedy enough to generate a SURPLUS. If I do the minimum, we all share my minimum. This is the battle of "socialism". The Chinese are on an interesting tack trying to balance socialisms demands to capitalisms genius. We'll see.
09 Feb 06
I have some communist views (Marxist) I think everyone has the right to somethings and it doesn’t matter the amount of money they own. It is a human job to help those less fortunate. Everyone has a right to education no matter if there parents are rich/poor they deserve the best possible chance to education. Healthcare I think it is massively unfair that the rich have a better chance to live if they get cancer as opposed to the poor I find that terrible we should all want everyone to stand the same chance of survival. The same goes for the law I know that in America the vast majority of people on death row are poor not because the poor are the only people who commit murder but because they can't afford the expensive top quality layers who would get from death penalty to a life sentence.
A common argument for capitalism is that people who work harder deserve more but how do you define work harder? I know farmers who work very long tiring days that seems like hard work to me I’m sure many people couldn't hack it. It’s also a skilled job you need to know what to do otherwise things would go wrong and you would make a massive loss. It could come to the skill level of the job but then the richest who can afford the best education will have the most skilled children and it will be very hard for the poor to break the cycle.
Think of it this way in a capitalist society what happens to a disabled person incapable of working? It falls on there families and charities there family need to put time into caring for them and so earn less money and can afford only the most basic care. Whereas in a communist society they could have the best care and be looked after.
09 Feb 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesHighly rec'd.
Socialism is an obstacle to civilization, since its implementation entails barbarism.
My view is that socialism is so 'accepting' that society will crumble and morality will break down.
I believe the only real promotion of civilization is Unionism and therefore Conservativism.
09 Feb 06
Originally posted by MRobertsYou mean in stark contradistinction to the moral, undivisive Thatcherism that turned formerly proud, independent colliery towns into heroin dens and flatly denied the existence of society?
My view is that socialism is so 'accepting' that society will crumble and morality will break down.
I believe the only real promotion of civilization is Unionism and therefore Conservativism.
09 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Will EverittWhat you are talking about happens in Cuba.
I have some communist views (Marxist) I think everyone has the right to somethings and it doesn’t matter the amount of money they own. It is a human job to help those less fortunate. Everyone has a right to education no matter if there parents are rich/poor they deserve the best possible chance to education. Healthcare I think it is massively unfair tha basic care. Whereas in a communist society they could have the best care and be looked after.
Go see for yourself if the system you are proposing works in practice.
09 Feb 06
Originally posted by AmauroteWhich, of course, is much better than the mess Blair has the whole country in now.
You mean in stark contradistinction to the moral, undivisive Thatcherism that turned formerly proud, independent colliery towns into heroin dens and flatly denied the existence of society?
In Thatcherian times my area was quiet, and crime was unheard of. In the last year, a particular area has become a known crack den, and there have been several armed robberies.
The problems you describe could have been sorted if the Conservatives were still in power.
As it is, Labour have let it grow like a cancer.
10 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by MRobertsWhich is a lovely story, were it not for the fact that recorded crime doubled in "Thatcherian" times and property offences have been falling for the past decade- I love that neologism so much I'm going to steal it from you like a cockney roustabout, though, it's so apt...she did of course love her Dickensian squalor and her Victorian values, somehow it fits so well.
Which, of course, is much better than the mess Blair has the whole country in now.
In Thatcherian times my area was quiet, and crime was unheard of. In the last year, a particular area has become a known crack den, and there have been several armed robberies.
The problems you describe could have been sorted if the Conservatives were still in power.
As it is, Labour have let it grow like a cancer.
10 Feb 06
Originally posted by Leo2I guess I don't consider the programs that you list as "socialism." Socialism is a economic arrangement under which all capital is owned by the government. Production from labor and capital is then redistributed by a central planner government. The redistribution may or may not be equitable (in practice within large economies it never is).
Is a degree of socialism a prerequisite for a society to be considered civilised? I am currently reading about sociological systems at school, and it seems to me that the only truly civilised societies are those which incorporate a degree of socialism (like various social services, state funded healthcare, pensions and education, care for the aged, etc.) whils ...[text shortened]... ely harsh for the less well off.
Does anyone think this is a reasonable conclusion? 🙂
Leo
The emergence of the social programs you mention can best be explained through rational agents operating under a democratic system with universal sufferage. In equilibrium, demographics give rise to instutituions that favor dominate subsections of the polity.