10 Feb 06
Originally posted by telerionI know that is the common view of Communism, which is a variant of socialism.
I 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. ....
Communism as propounded by Marx and Engels was never practiced. The 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs' proposal seems very sensible and humane, but neither the USSR, Communist China, nor North Korea were/are run according to those principles. They were/are simply Communist dictatorships, not unlike the many Capitalist dictatorships which are in the world today.
But I am referring to another more common form. If you look at the most successful (from a sociological viewpoint) societies in the world today, you will find that they are run olong the principles of free enterprise but incorporate a significant degree of socialism in the way they are run. This is particularly apparent amongst Scandinavian and northern European societies.
I guess they take the view that if a proportion of the people are not hungry, homeless, brutalised and robbed of all self-respect, then society will run better, and your children will be safer walking to the bus stop.
On the other hand, those societies where capitalism is allowed free reign, are sometimes very wealthy, but have a high proportion of marginalised people. A high crime rate, few social programmes, a high number of homeless people, and are often very violent.
I do not see greed as creating wealth. Industry creates wealth, and greed only adversely affects the distribution of that wealth.
Leo
10 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Leo2Ok, I'll accept your definition of socialism though I will take this moment to point out that it is not the standard usage.
I know that is the common view of Communism, which is a variant of socialism.
Communism as propounded by Marx and Engels was never practiced. The 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs' proposal seems very sensible and humane, but neither the USSR, Communist China, nor North Korea were/are run according to those principles. ...[text shortened]... ew social programmes, a high number of homeless people, and are often very violent.
Leo
It seems to me that you are asking a circular question. This becomes evident if you invert the order of your claims and get back to your question. I will construct this inversion below:
1) Socialism = larger redistributions of wealth through government transfers.
2) A larger level of redistribution (through social programs) from the government is necessary for a society to be civilized.
3) Is Socialism a prerequisite to civilization?
You see? Although you didn't make it so clear in your first post by this point in the thread one can see that the original question was needless because you'd already by your standards defined socialism to be a necessary for civilization.
Personally, I do not think of Northern Europe and Scandanavia a socialist economies, but I'm working off of the standard defintion. Transfer programs are the result of the subgroups of the polity using the voting mechanism to their favor. Tax money pays for these programs. The polity votes over candidates who run on platforms that implicitly require (given some degree of fiscal prudence) a higher or lower tax bill. Since the median wealth holder is nearly always poorer than the mean wealth holder in nearly any country, if given the opportunity through universal suffrage, there is incentive to redistribute income. There are also disincentives to redistribution. Taxes distort labor and savings decisions which in turn affect the aggregate level of output in an economy. This conflict of incentives leads to equilibria (which may be cyclical). These equilibria however can be disrupted by shocks to demography which change the incentives of the polity.
These equilibria can be different. Thus it is possible to arrive at an arrangement with lower transfers (USA) or one with higher transfers (most EURO countries).
I do not see greed as creating wealth. Industry creates wealth, and greed only adversely affects the distribution of that wealth.
I don't understand this comment. Would you expand on it? What is the major difference between industry and greed?
10 Feb 06
Originally posted by telerionTo be honest I don't understand several of your points either. We are just starting on social systems in sociology.
Ok, I'll accept your definition of socialism though I will take this moment to point out that it is not the standard usage.
It seems to me that you are asking a circular question. This becomes evident if you invert the order of your claims and get back to your question. I will construct this inversion below:
1) Socialism = larger redistributions ...[text shortened]... comment. Would you expand on it? What is the major difference between industry and greed?
But if you are saying I did not need to ask that question 'cause I have already made up my mind, you are wrong.
Yes, it does seem to me that to use public funds to look after the needy is a more civilised way to do things, but I am interested to hear why it is not.
Also, I mentioned the Scandinavian countries because bodies such as the UN describe them as having the highest standard of living. But I do not want to get involved in a 'my country is better than your country' discussion 'cause nobody learns anything from that.
As for industry and greed, I would have thought that industry is making the effort to produce something and better your sutuation, and greed is just wanting more stuff than you could possibly ever use.
Industry is what prompted man to come down from the trees, and greed is what causes him to invade someone else's homeland.
Leo
10 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Leo2Greed is "excessive desire". but excessive? by who's standard?
... and greed is what causes him to invade someone else's homeland.
Leo
Excessive anything is not good, that's the very meaning of the word: too much.
There are people that have an excessive desire to run faster or jump further than anyone else, we usually put these people on pedestals and give them medals...but an excessive (again, by who's standard) desire to make money, and we've got all the lefties/envy artists on this board screeching and pulling their hair out.
The only person that can define what excessive is - is that person themself. We may have an opinion on scrooge swimming in his pool of money, but provided he didn't come by his money through force or fraud it ain't no-bodies business but his and the people he deals with.
Greed can be a great motivator, it dosen't neccessarily motivate people to act immorally.
I don't have a problem with it.
10 Feb 06
Originally posted by WajomaThe problem with this desire to make money, is that it is at someone else's expense.
Greed is "excessive desire". but excessive? by who's standard?
Excessive anything is not good, that's the very meaning of the word: too much.
There are people that have an excessive desire to run faster or jump further than anyone else, we usually put these people on pedestals and give them medals...but an excessive (again, by who's standard) desir ...[text shortened]... 't neccessarily motivate people to act immorally.
I don't have a problem with it.
Therefore, this excessive desire to make money, which you seem to consider an admirable quality, is effectively an excessive desire to take other people's money from them, which I consider less than admirable.
10 Feb 06
Socialism has proved to be a dismal failure here. From the collapse presided over by Ramsey MacDonald in 1929 to the bancruptcy engineered by the late unlamented Harold Wilson.
A good deal of the failed socialist policies introduced by Clement Attlee in 1948 were scrapped by the best PM we have had since Churchill, Margeret Thatcher, and Tony Blair has been trying to reform the remaining socialist measures but has been stimied by the troglodytes on his own back-benches. The next collapse of the economy is on track to take place under Brown .
10 Feb 06
Originally posted by RedmikeThis is one of the great fallacies that drives the leftist doctrine.
The problem with this desire to make money, is that it is at someone else's expense.
Therefore, this excessive desire to make money, which you seem to consider an admirable quality, is effectively an excessive desire to take other people's money from them, which I consider less than admirable.
Money is a measure of wealth, and wealth is not 'zero sum'. There's not one big pie that we divvy up, there are many pies and more being made all the time. It is being created everywhere, every minute, the paper cup by the water cooler is 'wealth', including the watercooler and the purified water in it, the thing that you bang out your collectivist rant on is 'wealth'. Everywhere you look around, there it is, a brick, the road etc, etc.
So now we look at a person with a desire to make money, (what a great expression eh 'make money'...not 'take money', not 'defraud money out of someone', but to make money, literally create wealth) they start a business, develope a product, provide a service, invest wisely.
Then on the other hand we look at someone with no desire...er...they get by.
10 Feb 06
Originally posted by WajomaSo is there a constant amount of money in the economy, or an ever-increasing amount?
This is one of the great fallacies that drives the leftist doctrine.
Money is a measure of wealth, and wealth is not 'zero sum'. There's not one big pie that we divvy up, there are many pies and more being made all the time. It is being created everywhere, every minute, the paper cup by the water cooler is 'wealth', including the watercooler and the pur ...[text shortened]... ly.
Then on the other hand we look at someone with no desire...er...they get by.
10 Feb 06
It's like 11 pm and I'm supposed to be asleep, so I will make this short. Can we not discuss what I call socialism without going into two camps and talikng about leftist doctrine and capitalist greed?
I never used the words 'excessive' or 'greed' in my original post. I was talking about systems which look after people who need looking after. I was asking if it was better or not to have these systems funded out of taxation. I pointed out that the systems which seemed to be the most successful were one which did that.
Unless someone can show me that the systems which do not fund social services and healthcare, etc. out of taxation, but leave it to people to look after themselves, are more successful, I have to conclude that the first way is better, and therefore more civilised.
Leo
10 Feb 06
Originally posted by RedmikeVery basically it dosen't matter how much money is in the economy (within reason). Less currency available means that the currency that is available is worth more.
So is there a constant amount of money in the economy, or an ever-increasing amount?
When government 'prints' money faster than wealth is produced then the value of the dollar/ringit/rupiah goes down, we call this inflation,what it actually is - is a secondary (in some cases it might be a tertiary, quaternary, and even quinary) tax.
Most governments keep this reigned in enough for us to be able to use the available currency as a measure of wealth.
...and it is wealth creators that we should be putting on a pedestal along side the atheletes.
10 Feb 06
Originally posted by Leo2Actually, we can discsuss anything we like.
It's like 11 pm and I'm supposed to be asleep, so I will make this short. Can we not discuss what I call socialism without going into two camps and talikng about leftist doctrine and capitalist greed?
I never used the words 'excessive' or 'greed' in my original post. I was talking about systems which look after people who need looking after. I was asking if ...[text shortened]... ul, I have to conclude that the first way is better, and therefore more civilised.
Leo
We can go into as many camps as we like, talking about any doctrines we like.
Sleep well.
10 Feb 06
Originally posted by WajomaThen some remote farms are the most civilised places that exist along with some small tribal communitys. Where as many major citys that have drunken brawls, riots, gang shootings, threats from radical groups.
There is another way of measuring 'civilised' and that is the extent to which the citizens can live free from the initiation of force, threats of force and fraud.
11 Feb 06
Originally posted by Redmike...always the victim.
The problem with this desire to make money, is that it is at someone else's expense.
Therefore, this excessive desire to make money, which you seem to consider an admirable quality, is effectively an excessive desire to take other people's money from them, which I consider less than admirable.
How boring. It's not always that way you know.