Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[burningpet]

Disclosure - I live in a kibbutz, which is a sort of social community.

Socialism is a good theory that goes against the very basic characteristic of the human nature. there's a saying here that goes something like: "If you are not pro-socialism as teenager you are a douche, if you remain pro-socialism as a grown up, you are a fool." my kibbutz is in the process of shifting toward a much more capitalistic economy and thats the only reason i still live in it.

The very basic concept of effort-reward is embedded so strongly in us, that without another ideology behind it, socialism to its fullest just doesn't work in the long run. when a group has a goal which is greater than its individuals, than yeah, socialism can work, and it can work very well even if some members of the groups live in values different to the rest. but when the actual driving force is gone, if by achieving its goal or because of a new generation of people who didn't share the ideology to begin with, it start to crumble. and i don't think equality is a very strong ideology for the long run (not to mix with important or worthy, i just don't think its an ideology that can keep over a span of generations).

As jelle said, the system is ever as a good as the people, and even in a strictly social system, indifferences do appear. one guy decide he can skip work more often, knowing he will still get what his hard working neighbor gets, another one cheats the system to get some more etc..

On average, the life standards quality in my community is higher than the israeli average, but, the stronger people, the management and highly educated layer, could live in a higher standard than the kibbutz ensure. when we see what we can get if we leave the place, it becomes clear that who ever stays in the system, are the ones benefitting from it, ie, the weak ones, and because of this, the average living standards gradually decline because the strong leave. i live in a very crappy apartment while i maintain a high managing position that can allow me to live in a much better place, while a "friend" of mine live in a much better apartment, barely work at the minimum standards and the only reason this happens, is that he got more kids and the place give preference for people with kids. (we don't own nor rent our apartments)

When a system is completely concerned with attending and preferring  the needs of the people, it encourage needy people.

In my kibbutz, this is all goning change within a year and we will start getting salary based on our work time / position, while maintaining some things socially like education and health. in this system, i will be able to afford a better apartment (hell, i can even right now buy an apartment outside the kibbutz, much better than what i got), while still ensuring a good education to my kids (my kibbutz high school is rated the best among israel high school, our psychometri average, a sort of test before high education degrees, is the highest in israel. so even if will not be 100% fulfilling my living standards potential, the side benefits from living in an equal, nursuring and protective community are worth it.

So i am not saying complete wolf to wolf capitalism is any better, not at all, a system should be somewhere in the middle. allow for growth to people who can, and have a basic safety net for those who cant. it can't automatically presume that people needs should be regarded higher than people abilities, but it cant neglect the needs either.

[kaijyuu]

I disagree about your interpretation of a "basic characteristic of human nature."

What people want is fairness. They don't want to feel exploited or left behind or ignored. How to accomplish "fairness" is a matter of interpretation, however; for many, "fair" is some people working in the mines getting barely enough to eat and others living lives of extreme luxury. For others, "fair" is everyone getting the exact same share. For others still, "fair" is giving according to people's need.

I very much contend against the idea that capitalism fulfills some basic need for all of humanity. If fulfills a basic need for some of humanity, giving them some sense of self determination. It exploits and abuses others.

I agree that the ultimate solution is somewhere inbetween pure socialism and pure capitalism. For one, necessities should never be under capitalism if we can at all avoid it. Luxuries only somewhat, so as to avoid any egregious class systems (there's tons of evidence that the more non-egalitarian a society is, the unhappier it is among the lower classes, regardless of their actual objective wealth and standard of living).

[mainiac]

People sure do seem to conflate socialism and communism a lot.

[Jelle]

People sure do seem to conflate socialism and communism a lot.

Not entirely ununderstandable, especially for a capitalist point of view. If capitalism and communism are two extremes socialism does sit somewhere in between. Any shift from capitalism towards socialism is also a step closer to communism.

Not that I'm implying that's a bad thing. I do understand even the mention of the word can cause a bit of knee jerking, especially over on that side of the atlantic.

[Mr. Strange]

snip

This is close to what I have thought always, only way socialist community can work is if all members have volunteered to put needs of community before their own, and in our global culture that values material wealth above all else, selfishness will serve you better than altruism. Unless you have society where people consider non-material rewards more important than now you can't motivate people to act in a way that benefits the community over the individual.

I very much contend against the idea that capitalism fulfills some basic need for all of humanity. If fulfills a basic need for some of humanity, giving them some sense of self determination. It exploits and abuses others.

Also, very much this...

I do understand even the mention of the word can cause a bit of knee jerking, especially over on that side of the atlantic.

...and this.

[pisskop]

I tend to believe we must teach ourselves and our children to be fairly able.  When that fails or in temporary hard times we should rely upon and contribute to private/personal charities.

And as a volunteer in hard times I think I live what I teach.

---

So Im rather against permanent aid for individuals who are physically capable.  I rather we teach people skills to produce in some fashion (again).

[kaijyuu]

Would you say the same if all the work required to keep people alive and happy was done by infrastructure (robots, etc) and a tiny fraction of the population?

Just wondering if you're advocating everyone working due to necessity (which will disappear in the future), or because you think work is some ideal that everyone should strive to do to the point of coercing them to do it.

[pisskop]

I have mixed feelings on it.

Ultimately I think automated labour would lead to gmi.
I think a guaranteed minimum income is unavoidable in the future.  Which means that many wouldn't work regardless of my opinion.
No matter how automated labour becomes there will always be a tier of workers who look down on those who won't.

I think that work provides a communal service even if it isn't a necessity.  There is a lot of ideal in being willing to offer your time for others, even with compensation.

I think that having large swathes of the populace who have never worked is baaaad. Terribad.  To not know how to toil for hours, to not have the mechanical memory, experience, skill, or immediate familiarity is a huge risk for a society.  Not assembly line stuffs.  Skilled labourers.  All it takes is one crisis.

I think that work provides secondary skills as well.  Time management, a basic structure to the day, and grouping you with similar individuals.  Instilling a frame of mind where you simply comply with the demands instead of griping, (hopefully) a gossip-free environment, and even a reason to want to celebrate and relax.

I think that being dependent upon one institution (gov, in this case) for your needs is also bad.  It binds you to their interests.  A populace without skill would be very dependent on the robots to function, and the providers of the robots/maintenance in kind.  And whoever does pay for your food, check.

[alexandertnt]

Which means that many wouldn't work regardless of my opinion.

We could have everybody work 10 hour weeks to get a minimum income, instead of some 50 hours and some none. As automation increases, keeping 9-to-5 workdays seems counterproductive.

I think that being dependent upon one institution (gov, in this case) for your needs is also bad.  It binds you to their interests.  A populace without skill would be very dependent on the robots to function, and the providers of the robots/maintenance in kind.  And whoever does pay for your food, check.

So do charities, many of which are religious and are much less willing to help those who are not of their faith or willing to convert (for example, me). I'm not sure what this governmnet self-interest is exactly. Down here in Australia, you get unemployment benefits if you are unemployed and looking for employment, and thats about the only condition.

Also why exactly to non-working people not have skill? Haven't you ever wanted to pursue something because its of interest to you, not because you have to in order to not starve to death?

[misko27]

*Disclaimer: I feel the right to be exceedingly philosophical here*

I have mixed feelings on it.

Ultimately I think automated labour would lead to gmi.
I think a guaranteed minimum income is unavoidable in the future.  Which means that many wouldn't work regardless of my opinion.
No matter how automated labour becomes there will always be a tier of workers who look down on those who won't.

I think that work provides a communal service even if it isn't a necessity.  There is a lot of ideal in being willing to offer your time for others, even with compensation.

I think that having large swathes of the populace who have never worked is baaaad. Terribad.  To not know how to toil for hours, to not have the mechanical memory, experience, skill, or immediate familiarity is a huge risk for a society.  Not assembly line stuffs.  Skilled labourers.  All it takes is one crisis.

I think that work provides secondary skills as well.  Time management, a basic structure to the day, and grouping you with similar individuals.  Instilling a frame of mind where you simply comply with the demands instead of griping, (hopefully) a gossip-free environment, and even a reason to want to celebrate and relax.

I think that being dependent upon one institution (gov, in this case) for your needs is also bad.  It binds you to their interests.  A populace without skill would be very dependent on the robots to function, and the providers of the robots/maintenance in kind.  And whoever does pay for your food, check.

No matter where you live right now, your government, by the very virtue of being a government (unless it is exceedingly weak, in which case your local militia or warlord, although they are one and the same) has the capacity to end your life at any time it sees fit. It's probably not going to do this, but if it so choose it could. Monopoly on violence within a specific region is the very definition of government (this is the police, the military, etc), a group that does not have sole control over the use of force in an area ultimately is not the government of that area, and if no one group monopolizes it, that is what is called anarchy. So indeed, you are very much bound to their interests. And unless your government is a form of democracy, you, the lay man, have no say in the arrangement. And why? Because they by definition can force you.

If the people who run the machines aren't powerful enough to force their will, they are not in charge, and thus worries about them are irrelevant. If they are, they're the de-facto government anyway. Corporations (speaking broadly here) right now could cut everything all at once: electricity, food, all of it; and it wouldn't matter because the government could simply physically force them. If the government couldn't do that, and the corporations repelled them, the corporations are the new government of the area they control. Alternatively, the government could cut those same things, and if no one is stronger then they are those things will simply remain cut.

Basically, there already exists an institution that is the only one capable of forcing it's will on anything, and plays by the rules it alone sets: whether benevolent, cruel, or whether it chooses to set rules at all. Anarchy (by which I mean lack of government by force as I have defined it) isn't stable, so that doesn't work either. And a socialist government probably would have control over the machines anyway.


By the By, I agree with you on a number of other points, like the importance of multiple workers in a crisis, the value of hard work, etc; and one could make an argument for mandating a certain number of work hours in this socialist paradise for everyone who doesn't work regularly (like community service and shit), but I'm not making that argument, and if someone refers to this part of this post I will not defend it. I'm just pointing out a serious hole in your argument.

Also why exactly to non-working people not have skill? Haven't you ever wanted to pursue something because its of interest to you, not because you have to in order to not starve to death?

Not a lot of things no. I'd be a sheer basement dweller if I could. But I can't, and developing a life came as part of that.

[alexandertnt]

Also why exactly to non-working people not have skill? Haven't you ever wanted to pursue something because its of interest to you, not because you have to in order to not starve to death?

Not a lot of things no. I'd be a sheer basement dweller if I could. But I can't, and developing a life came as part of that.

I really don't understand this.

[misko27]

Also why exactly to non-working people not have skill? Haven't you ever wanted to pursue something because its of interest to you, not because you have to in order to not starve to death?

Not a lot of things no. I'd be a sheer basement dweller if I could. But I can't, and developing a life came as part of that.

I really don't understand this.

Sloth. No matter how much I like doing things, there is always an urge to do nothing. On a unrelated note, world peace and prosperity would annul my biggest passion in life, so there's that.

[kaijyuu]

And what's wrong with that? My ideal life would be lounging around in an apartment with no worries in the world.

One of the few things I really expect personal responsibility for is doing what you want in life. In reality things like work get in the way, but in a fantasy scenario where they don't, not doing what you want to do is entirely your own fault*. Don't impose coercion on everyone to do what you value just because you can't motivate yourself to do it yourself.

True self determination is inhibited by responsibilities such as these, not enhanced by them.


*Actually, I'll accept medical conditions like ADHD being at fault, but again, coercion of everyone isn't the solution to that either.

[pisskop]

Also why exactly to non-working people not have skill? Haven't you ever wanted to pursue something because its of interest to you, not because you have to in order to not starve to death?

Do you think that there will be sufficient numbers of people who share an active interest all the categories of  labour to provide in an emergency?  Or that many people's interests would convert to practical application so easily?  Look at what people pay to learn and pursue now. Going to college for philosophy or even history is considered a waste by many, and it can really translate poorly into earning potential.

No matter where you live right now, your government, by the very virtue of being a government (unless it is exceedingly weak, in which case your local militia or warlord, although they are one and the same) has the capacity to end your life at any time it sees fit. It's probably not going to do this, but if it so choose it could. Monopoly on violence within a specific region is the very definition of government (this is the police, the military, etc), a group that does not have sole control over the use of force in an area ultimately is not the government of that area, and if no one group monopolizes it, that is what is called anarchy. So indeed, you are very much bound to their interests. And unless your government is a form of democracy, you, the lay man, have no say in the arrangement. And why? Because they by definition can force you.

If the people who run the machines aren't powerful enough to force their will, they are not in charge, and thus worries about them are irrelevant. If they are, they're the de-facto government anyway. Corporations (speaking broadly here) right now could cut everything all at once: electricity, food, all of it; and it wouldn't matter because the government could simply physically force them. If the government couldn't do that, and the corporations repelled them, the corporations are the new government of the area they control. Alternatively, the government could cut those same things, and if no one is stronger then they are those things will simply remain cut.

Basically, there already exists an institution that is the only one capable of forcing it's will on anything, and plays by the rules it alone sets: whether benevolent, cruel, or whether it chooses to set rules at all. Anarchy (by which I mean lack of government by force as I have defined it) isn't stable, so that doesn't work either. And a socialist government probably would have control over the machines anyway.


By the By, I agree with you on a number of other points, like the importance of multiple workers in a crisis, the value of hard work, etc; and one could make an argument for mandating a certain number of work hours in this socialist paradise for everyone who doesn't work regularly (like community service and shit), but I'm not making that argument, and if someone refers to this part of this post I will not defend it. I'm just pointing out a serious hole in your argument.

Its a matter of degrees and protection as a whole rather than an individual.  Protection from tyranny, corruption, etc.  Dependence upon the words of a few (and probably a relatively unknown few at that) will provide ample opportunity for tyranny.  The gov has the right to terminate any individual at any time, but under our current system there are more diverse interests than the gov, and they would be capable of standing up (verbally) to the government.  If most of the populace was under the thumb of it the tolerance for such injustice rises dramatically.

And in any case I never understood why people decry private monopoly and power and encourage centralized government authority.  I mean, loosely compare DeBeers to Stalin.

Your point, while valid, is basically 'socialism, because it probably isn't any worse'.  Perhaps a point to mitigate it disadvantages, but not an advantage in itself.

[Tack]

I think Socialism (And communism) are only truly viable in the digital age.

Back when they were popular, they didn't have advanced enough infrastructure to allow a viable economy.