The Fundamental Problem of Socialism

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 674
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: The Fundamental Problem of Socialism

Post by Conde Lucanor »

The fundamental problem of capitalism:

http://skewednews.net/index.php/2015/09 ... eed-baked/
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re:

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

henry quirk wrote:Hobbes, Mick,

You've both done a fine job explaining why each of you is a socialist, but neither of you has offered a definition for socialism.

I'm not lookin' for "a single all-embracing" definition, just yours.
There is no such thing

Socialism is what socialists do. Words follow, they do not impose meaning. Plato is dead.
Cups change in design so the meaning of "cup" has to comply with that.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re:

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

henry quirk wrote:"I think I have, Henry. Granted, I've chosen to couch it as a definition of "a socialist"..."

Someone is a socialist if a) they believe the competition that is life in Western civilisation is not fair but has been so rigged in the past by earlier winners* that the elite to which those winners and their descendants belong holds a monopoly on success at the expense of the vast majority; and b) they are on the side of society's undeserving losers.
.
Obviously complete bollocks.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9510
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re:

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

henry quirk wrote:Hobbes, Mick,

You've both done a fine job explaining why each of you is a socialist, but neither of you has offered a definition for socialism.

I'm not lookin' for "a single all-embracing" definition, just yours.
Modern, evolved societies with the highest standard of living have a good balance between 'socialism' and capitalism. They should keep everyone happy, but there are always the greedy, selfish fucks who whinge about having to share. Little do these morons realise that they could well be dog-food in the dog-eat-dog utopia they profess to crave. Those street beggars that they get such a kick out of could be themselves.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9510
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re:

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

henry quirk wrote: Someone is a socialist if a) they believe the competition that is life in Western civilisation is not fair but has been so rigged in the past by earlier winners* that the elite to which those winners and their descendants belong holds a monopoly on success at the expense of the vast majority; and b) they are on the side of society's undeserving losers.
The trouble with yanks is that their only measuring-stick for success and being a 'winner' is how much money a person makes. The greatest humans in history made little or nothing from their achievements, and didn't expect riches. I suppose you think Trump is a 'winner'. The guy can't keep a wife, he has the worst hair-do of all time, he's a boorish bloated mess, he probably has diabetes and high blood pressure, his buildings are vulgar monstrosities, his sons are cunts, and he's a repellent piece of crap. Not a 'winner' in my book.
(He's also orange).
User avatar
richardtod
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:51 pm

Re:

Post by richardtod »

henry quirk wrote:Mick, Rich, Hobbes,

Apparently, the way I define socialism isn't in keeping with how any of you do, so, can you each define it?
I suggest that all the above explanations of Socialism have managed to define the concept quite well. A short definition just does not work. The complex world of the Socialist movement reflects the complexities of life in general. The hottest debates I have are not with Capitalist sympathisers but fellow Socialists.

For me, a key issue is the absurd way in which the benefits of Capitalism are distributed.

When I was a child I looked forward to the days when the advances provided by capitalist enterprise would create robots to do most of the work leaving people greater freedom to do other things. Instead I see the benefits of Capitalism funneled into fewer and fewer pockets thereby reducing the need for product and strangling the very source of capitalist success, the market place. The metaphor of the snake eating itself works very well.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9991
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

"Socialism is what socialists do."

Agreed...so, what do you 'do'?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9991
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

"Obviously complete bollocks."

I agree...take it up with Mick...it's his definition.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9991
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

"I suppose you think Trump is a 'winner'"

Nope, not me.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9991
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

"For me, a key issue is the absurd way in which the benefits of Capitalism are distributed."

I agree...I favor a *free market, not a capitalistic one.









*open, unrestrained, internally regulated
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9510
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re:

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

henry quirk wrote:"Obviously complete bollocks."

I agree...take it up with Mick...it's his definition.
Mick wrote that? lol. I thought you did. Terrible definition then, if it comes across as something a die-hard capitalist would write.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9991
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

"Modern, evolved societies with the highest standard of living have a good balance between 'socialism' and capitalism.

Better to say such societies find a good balance between cooperation and competition, between individual autonomy and collective need.
xy.Now!
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:51 am

Re: The Fundamental Problem of Socialism

Post by xy.Now! »

.
Let me add some ideas regarding Socialism's intrinsic problems, which might help clarifying why is it that so many people rejects it (Socialism, communism; the Left in general), or why is it that many feel that Socialism doesn't precisely lead society (humanity, etc.) to "greener pastures", as so many of you, ardent fans, think it does.

First of all, you gotta realize, Lefties, that good intentions do not necessarily lead to good results (--good intentions might perfectly lead to something worse--). No one can see the future, and that you feel that something must be done regarding certain aspects of reality, because those same aspects of it tear your heart apart, means only that you are feeling something regarding something else, (pain), and that you want that, those oppressive feelings of yours, to stop --nothing more, nothing less--. Yet, that you want this pain to go away from you does not constitute in any way some sort of universal, definitive proof of the validity of the actions that might be taken for the sake of alleviating said affections of yours, and which you naively promote as "better for the whole" (i.e., better for "society", in the name of "human being", "humanity", etc, etc).

This is the first thing you gotta keep in mind. Your actions regarding these political issues are, at bottom, not meant to "improve reality": they are meant to make things easier for you to swallow.


Secondly. That the rich have (better) health treatment for themselves; that they always have (better) food on their table, that they wear better clothes; that they are blond, that they are beautiful, etc, etc, and so, that people will always prefer them over and above you any day ---which is why you hate them so much, at bottom---, does not mean in any way: (a) that it is unfair that you do not have their same stuff, (b) that it is fair that they have less, (c) that it is fair that they have the same stuff you have. That my neighbour has a better car than mine does not mean I should be driving a better car, or that I should be driving the same car as his, or that he shouldn't have that kind of car; that I don't have a car does not mean my neighbour shouldn't have one either, or that someone should be giving me one. Similarly, and more generally, that my neighbour is a successful man does not mean that I should also be successful, or that he should not be a successful man, or that he should only be as successful as me. Same thing applies, Lefties, to health. That you are sick does not mean in any way that you should be cured, or that you should be having your health back; that you are sick and your neighbour isn't, does not mean, again, in any way that you shouldn't be sick, that yout neighbour should also be sick (then), or that your neighbour should be as sick as you. That you are a healthy individual is relevant only to you; that you exist is relevent only to you. That we all exist is relevant only to us. The Universe, the Earth, its plants, its animals, etc., each of them were all here long before us, and they will continue to be here long before we're gone. Our (particular, individual) existence is not necessary condition for anything else but us (particularly, indivudually speaking).

This is also something you should really be aware of, Lefties, cause you don't seem to realize how many of your complaints are product of some form of ignorance regarding these, more basic issues. That you wanna be healthy, that you wanna have your health back, that you wanna keep being alive, existing for many years to come; that you wanna have stuff, education, etc, etc: that's great! On the other hand, that you want all that, and more, doesn't mean in any way that "it is necessary" that things be this way (the way you want; the way it pleases you; the way it's best for you; the way it's more convenient for you; the way you think things should be).


Thirdly. The thing you Lefties are most ignorant of is yourselves. You think that having more stuff somehow insulates you from pain, from misery: from being miserable... You think that going to a better school or university will somehow make you better; that living in a better neighbourhood will make you better. Ultimately, you ignore that which makes for a better life, but somehow you think that having more stuff will change that; you know there is something you wanna change, but do not know where or what is it; and you blame others... You are miserable because you don't know yourselves, and only an ignorant, vulgar soul comes to the conclusion that material possessions cure him from that.

There is nothing wrong with being rich, or having stuff; but wealth is that which comes with greatness, not the other way around; him who looks for happiness in riches will come out with his hands empty. It is of no use to blame others, either... (--That which makes a champion great is not the trophy nor his medals, but his spirit; that's why we've always rewarded champions: because they remind us of the triumph of the human spirit... --)


.
mickthinks
Posts: 802
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: is this what socialists 'do'?

Post by mickthinks »

"Recent US actions have had a considerable and highly detrimental impact at a time when Venezuela is in desperate need of dollars but is prevented from gaining access to them by Washington, which has made little secret of its support for Venezuela’s anti-government opposition."

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-i ... in-crisis/
Post Reply