ForumGarden

SPOT----I am interested in knowing if your very broad interest in music correlates in any way to your social, economic thinking? Your profile lists a huge number of artists.

Whatever system you put in place, there will always be those individuals or groups of individuals that will act to gain an advantage over everyone else. They will seek a position of power irrespective of whomsoever is disadvantaged by their actions.There are those that will rob you just for the challenge. These are problems that will never go away. For reasons I'm not going to try and expound here, the full range of human motives encompass the negative as well as the positive.

I believe that in a small community where everyone virtually knows almost everyone else, these ne'er-do-wells find it harder to prosper. At least, they would never be able to settle in a community and lay down roots. Travelling vagabonds would become known between the communities through the normal channels of communications.

OpenMind;1010534 wrote: Whatever system you put in place, there will always be those individuals or groups of individuals that will act to gain an advantage over everyone else. They will seek a position of power irrespective of whomsoever is disadvantaged by their actions.There are those that will rob you just for the challenge. These are problems that will never go away. For reasons I'm not going to try and expound here, the full range of human motives encompass the negative as well as the positive.

I believe that in a small community where everyone virtually knows almost everyone else, these ne'er-do-wells find it harder to prosper. At least, they would never be able to settle in a community and lay down roots. Travelling vagabonds would become known between the communities through the normal channels of communications.


So you'd recommend a move back to the city state then with minimal travel and interchange between communities?

Bryn Mawr;1010538 wrote: So you'd recommend a move back to the city state then with minimal travel and interchange between communities?


Where did I say that? How would trade and communication (as opposed to telecommunication) exist between communities. Travelling and exploring is a part of the human spirit. What I actually said related to the easier policing of smaller communities.

Since you have raised the subject, however, I may as well add my opinion. Land is a resource. The rights of travelling communities need to be equable to the settled communities. On the one hand, homesteads and other economic structures in a land-based community must be protected. However, law-abiding travellers have the right to sojourn. The only reason I can see why travellers cannot stop at a particular location is if the land-based community has become over-populated, or have developed an unhealthy contempt for travelling comunities, whether law-abiding or not. That is, by generally presuming all travelling communities are disreputable.

I don't ever foresee an end to prejudice except in science-fiction stories and films that depict utopian communities. Laws governing the relationships between all communities would need to be administered at the national, or possibly international level.



At a guess, I would hazard to say that there are now more people who prefer to settle and lay down roots as there are people who want to live on the way. But, with some thought and respect for needs of each type of community, an affable, if not 'profitable' arrangement can be reached.

From my general experience over my lifetime, however, travelling people tend to migrate in small groups rather than large caravans. Some travel individually.

Mobility prohibition would be a restriction on the abilities of individuals and groups to pursue their interests.

OpenMind;1010534 wrote: Whatever system you put in place, there will always be those individuals or groups of individuals that will act to gain an advantage over everyone else. They will seek a position of power irrespective of whomsoever is disadvantaged by their actions.There are those that will rob you just for the challenge. These are problems that will never go away. For reasons I'm not going to try and expound here, the full range of human motives encompass the negative as well as the positive.

I believe that in a small community where everyone virtually knows almost everyone else, these ne'er-do-wells find it harder to prosper. At least, they would never be able to settle in a community and lay down roots. Travelling vagabonds would become known between the communities through the normal channels of communications.


OpenMind;1010597 wrote: Where did I say that? How would trade and communication (as opposed to telecommunication) exist between communities. Travelling and exploring is a part of the human spirit. What I actually said related to the easier policing of smaller communities.

Since you have raised the subject, however, I may as well add my opinion. Land is a resource. The rights of travelling communities need to be equable to the settled communities. On the one hand, homesteads and other economic structures in a land-based community must be protected. However, law-abiding travellers have the right to sojourn. The only reason I can see why travellers cannot stop at a particular location is if the land-based community has become over-populated, or have developed an unhealthy contempt for travelling comunities, whether law-abiding or not. That is, by generally presuming all travelling communities are disreputable.

I don't ever foresee an end to prejudice except in science-fiction stories and films that depict utopian communities. Laws governing the relationships between all communities would need to be administered at the national, or possibly international level.



At a guess, I would hazard to say that there are now more people who prefer to settle and lay down roots as there are people who want to live on the way. But, with some thought and respect for needs of each type of community, an affable, if not 'profitable' arrangement can be reached.

From my general experience over my lifetime, however, travelling people tend to migrate in small groups rather than large caravans. Some travel individually.

Mobility prohibition would be a restriction on the abilities of individuals and groups to pursue their interests.


Surely it is implicit in your :-

I believe that in a small community where everyone virtually knows almost everyone else, these ne'er-do-wells find it harder to prosper. At least, they would never be able to settle in a community and lay down roots. Travelling vagabonds would become known between the communities through the normal channels of communications.


With the current level of mobility and mixing between communities even small communities no longer exist in a state where every virtually knows almost everyone else. For as long as you have large scale commuting for work, centralisation of facilities such as schools and shopping precincts etc the number of outsiders will always overwhelm the social cohesiveness of the old style village.

I live in a village about the size of the community my grandparents lived in when I was a child. Even though I didn't live with my grandparents, only visited for two weeks each year, I was known by and knew most of the people there - indeed, I was recognised within quarter of an hour of returning there thirty years later.

In contrast, I know less than a dozen people in my current village and couldn't possibly tell you who was resident and who was outsider when walking down to the shop.

I would suggest that policing is only easier in smaller communities when the number of outsiders is restricted as it was when I were a nipper.

spot;1010405 wrote: Just for the record, I regard the description of Socialism I gave earlier to be centrist, non-extreme and uncontroversial. I'd have thought most Socialists would find it hard to improve on, as definitions or descriptions go. By all means offer alternatives and we can see how different yours is, or how centrist compared to others.


Correct me if I'm wrong but in a couple of other threads did you not offer the opinion that you want to see the end of the capitalist system? That is where i would part company from you. Like most people I like bits of socialist ideals but part company when it comes to the revolutionary socialism and class warfare of the left.

Bryn Mawr;1010616 wrote: Surely it is implicit in your :-







With the current level of mobility and mixing between communities even small communities no longer exist in a state where every virtually knows almost everyone else. For as long as you have large scale commuting for work, centralisation of facilities such as schools and shopping precincts etc the number of outsiders will always overwhelm the social cohesiveness of the old style village.



I live in a village about the size of the community my grandparents lived in when I was a child. Even though I didn't live with my grandparents, only visited for two weeks each year, I was known by and knew most of the people there - indeed, I was recognised within quarter of an hour of returning there thirty years later.



In contrast, I know less than a dozen people in my current village and couldn't possibly tell you who was resident and who was outsider when walking down to the shop.



I would suggest that policing is only easier in smaller communities when the number of outsiders is restricted as it was when I were a nipper.


I have just written a comprehensive and unfinished reply to your post. When I went to preview it, the entirety of my reply was lost. Where it went I don't know, but it took me a long time to compose it and I don't have time right this minute to re-compose it. As it is, I had to stop writing at a convenient point as I have other work to get on with.

But I shall never endeavour to preview a post again. What a useless, pointless facility.

Later then.

OpenMind;1011109 wrote: I have just written a comprehensive and unfinished reply to your post. When I went to preview it, the entirety of my reply was lost. Where it went I don't know, but it took me a long time to compose it and I don't have time right this minute to re-compose it. As it is, I had to stop writing at a convenient point as I have other work to get on with.

But I shall never endeavour to preview a post again. What a useless, pointless facility.

Later then.


I'll be here

Sorry you had a glitch with the preview - I use it whenever I include a photograph in a post to make sure the final result is as I want it. Usually works well so I'm not sure what went wrong.

OpenMind;1011109 wrote: I have just written a comprehensive and unfinished reply to your post. When I went to preview it, the entirety of my reply was lost. I HATE when that happens. I try to stay in the habit of hiting A C every time before I try anything. That selects all and copies it to the clipboard, so that even if everything goes wrong all I have to do is paste it again.

I'm taking a Sociology class right now and this thread leaves me dizzy. I think I'll just lurk for a bit as it's been an interesting read.

Bryn Mawr;1011524 wrote: I'll be here



Sorry you had a glitch with the preview - I use it whenever I include a photograph in a post to make sure the final result is as I want it. Usually works well so I'm not sure what went wrong.


I'm fairly certain that the problem is at my end with my browser. I've had a problem upgrading to IE7 since coming back online.

I shall write out my reply in Word first and paste it across when it's done.

That will have to be later, though as I've got to go out this morning to pursue a contract.

Your comments have certainly given me pause for thought. Though I'm going to resist the temptation to argue over my semantics. (And I still have to copy and paste the emoticons.)

OpenMind;1012267 wrote: I'm fairly certain that the problem is at my end with my browser. I've had a problem upgrading to IE7 since coming back online.

I shall write out my reply in Word first and paste it across when it's done.

That will have to be later, though as I've got to go out this morning to pursue a contract.

Your comments have certainly given me pause for thought. Though I'm going to resist the temptation to argue over my semantics. (And I still have to copy and paste the emoticons.)


I've had that happen a couple of times as well-I use firefox. I've always assumed the problem is with the ISP or the forumgarden server.

gmc;1012370 wrote: I've had that happen a couple of times as well-I use firefox. I've always assumed the problem is with the ISP or the forumgarden server.


I didn't experience these problems before. I'm using essentially the same system as before. The only change is that Virgin has taken over the system NTL operated and that I have moved location.

Still, everything is software driven. I don't think FG are at fault though otherwise other users would be complaining.

It's still likely to happen, whoever's fault it might be. I wouldn't dream of typing more than a quick paragraph response into the browser edit window, I use a standalone editor with proper autosave recovery options. For one thing it lets me see what I'm typing rather more clearly.

GMC's response to my post in the "Wealth Redistribution" thread gave me a question about socialism and it's potential in becoming substantially prevalent throughout all societies but didn't want to hijack the thread so I'll ask it here...

To me "socialism" is so overly dispersed it's hard to get an understanding of even the most simplest of forms...Well at least it's hard to know where to start...

What form of socialism would you say has the greatest potential in being significant to the potential of establishing equilibrium throughout the world given today's realities mixed with today's ideals?...

A uniform worldwide standard of living. That requires a deliberate permanent focus on preferentially improving the standard of living of the least well off, and taking the regional standard of living of the least well off as a measure of the well-being of that region.

spot;1031659 wrote: A uniform worldwide standard of living. That requires a deliberate permanent focus on preferentially improving the standard of living of the least well off, and taking the regional standard of living of the least well off as a measure of the well-being of that region.


So you're saying that such depends on the region of the people in question?...Speaking in reference to the people least well off...

K.Snyder;1031663 wrote: So you're saying that such depends on the region of the people in question?...Speaking in reference to the people least well off...


I keep saying that the US is a deprived area but nobody hears my words. You just happen to have a stack of hyper-wealthy people living in the same country. I've no idea why you tolerate it.

spot;1031665 wrote: I keep saying that the US is a deprived area but nobody hears my words. You just happen to have a stack of hyper-wealthy people living in the same country. I've no idea why you tolerate it.


From my understanding the US isn't a country with an exponential amount of natural resources...

Fine I'll play along...

What can the American citizens do to move the current capitalist ideology of the power bias in America to something say like a "more so economically motivated social structure influenced greatly by the philosophies of Libertarian socialism and Mutualism..."?..."For further reference you might want to read about Pierre-Joseph Proudhon..."...

That's a different use of the word "socialism". It's the Orwellian notion that if you don't have a word for a concept then you can't think about it. Americans don't understand socialism because the word means something different there.

You asked "What form of socialism would you say has the greatest potential in being significant".

I gave you a very succinct definition of the key aspect that stands out ahead of any other.

You then blinked, refused to see the words and tried to redefine socialism.

You can't do that, not when you asked me for a definition of the core plank and I gave it to you. If you want to discuss "What form of socialism would you say has the greatest potential in being significant" then by all means do it but you do it with the response I gave you, not with whatever response you'd prefer to have had.

spot;1031686 wrote: That's a different use of the word "socialism". It's the Orwellian notion that if you don't have a word for a concept then you can't think about it. Americans don't understand socialism because the word means something different there.

You asked "What form of socialism would you say has the greatest potential in being significant".

I gave you a very succinct definition of the key aspect that stands out ahead of any other.

You then blinked, refused to see the words and tried to redefine socialism.

You can't do that, not when you asked me for a definition of the core plank and I gave it to you. If you want to discuss "What form of socialism would you say has the greatest potential in being significant" then by all means do it but you do it with the response I gave you, not with whatever response you'd prefer to have had.


I asked "What form of socialism would you say has the greatest potential in being significant [...] given today's realities mixed with today's ideals?"...Which asks what form of socialism would be more realistically implemented in the majority of today's societies.

I know what socialism is...I weren't asking for a definition of socialism...

spot;1031686 wrote: ...not when you asked me for a definition of the core plank and I gave it to you.


Actually I can understand where you thought I was asking for the definition of socialism in it's secular form...

When I'd said "Well at least it's hard to know where to start" I was referring mainly to the diversity of the different types of socialism along with socialism's progression of influence accompanied by the individual philosophies and theories that make up all of those said different types of socialism...

I have a very strong idea of what "socialism" specifically means because quite frankly I live it.

K.Snyder;1031703 wrote: Actually I can understand where you thought I was asking for the definition of socialism in it's secular form...

When I'd said "Well at least it's hard to know where to start" I was referring mainly to the diversity of the different types of socialism along with socialism's progression of influence accompanied by the individual philosophies and theories that make up all of those said different types of socialism...

I have a very strong idea of what "socialism" specifically means because quite frankly I live it.


In it's SECULAR form! Where did that come from.

try dictionary definitions

socialism

• noun a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

— DERIVATIVES socialist noun & adjective socialistic adjective.


communism

• noun 1 a political and social system whereby all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs. 2 a system of this kind derived from Marxism, practised in China and formerly in the Soviet Union.


state socialism

• noun a political system in which the state has control of industries and services.


social democracy

• noun a socialist system of government achieved by democratic means.








corporatism

• noun the control of a state or organization by large interest groups.

— DERIVATIVES corporatist adjective & noun.




I would put it to you that what you have in the states is the latter-at the moment.

The roots of socialism go back a very long way and has it's basic origin in the question of who rules? What is government for? Or the wee guy turning round saying who are you to govern me! The basic belief that are all equal under the law used to be a radical idea. There was massive social an political change wrought by industrialisation and changing social structures which you kind of need to understand in a broad sense for it to make sense.

You might recognise echoes of these debates a hundred and thirty years later on the other side of the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putney_Debates




In a very real sense america was not part of that and did not go through quite the same process of change. Spot and I have a common heritage and background information-in an american context we are both left wing socialists but we in actual fact disagree considerably-I don't like his definition for one thing and disagree over much more besides.

Each country has put it's own variation it but generally most european countries are social democratic in nature but pick from all sides of the political spectrum. Most people are very right wing about some things and left wing about others-you won't fins many in the UK or europe that share your attitude to healthcare for instance.

Socialism is not a religion-though some of its practitioners exhibit some of the tendencies of a cult-lenin called it the infantile disorder as they sat down to argue about the correct way-bit like religious fundamentalists. Some still propound a kind of class war fundamentalist approach like I suspect spot does others are not so hung up on definitions.

Trouble is in the states revolutionary communism and socialism seem to have become conflated and turned in to a bogey man in a way that helps curtail sensible discussion. Even the present bail out is characterised as socialism when it quite clearly is not.



What can the American citizens do to move the current capitalist ideology of the power bias in America to something say like a "more so economically motivated social structure influenced greatly by the philosophies of Libertarian socialism and Mutualism..."?..."For further reference you might want to read about Pierre-Joseph Proudhon..."...


Anarchism won't work any more than communism and for much the same sort of reasons-and also because the communists would wipe them out as airy fairy intellectual tossers:sneaky:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

I can see why you think you can live the life of a socialist or anarchist but as solutions to societies ills they both don't really work-bit like christianity-if christians actually behaved like christians things would be great but they don;t do they.

read this as well

http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-intro.htm

K.Snyder;1031678 wrote: From my understanding the US isn't a country with an exponential amount of natural resources...I'll have a small go at this too. I have no desire to see any growth in average world consumption or average world production, quite likely I'd prefer to see a decline. I certainly have no interest in exponential growth which has been the Capitalist objective for as long as there's been Capitalism. Growth isn't helpful. A steady regular fixed level of production and consumption is fine, once the right level's been chosen, and as I say it could well be a reduction from what happens at the moment. What matters isn't now much there is, it's how it's distributed.

spot;1008906 wrote: The quality of life in New Zealand is amazingly high. I'd love to have spent some time living there.

I'll have a try at swinging the thread back to Socialism but I doubt whether anyone's going to want to play, Lon. It's all about vocabulary before people can even start to engage in discussing what they'd prefer and why they'd prefer it. I'll try to put some words here that, if we all used them the same way in the thread, would allow a discussion.

Socialism has nothing to do with what type of government a country has, it's to do with the distribution of resources. Nothing else, just that. Not the type of government, or the degree of government, or whether government can itself hold and manipulate society's resources or not. Those are all entirely independent issues.

A given society at a given moment has a level of resource. That has nothing to do with the political system, that's a part definition of resource and society which indicates the association between the two. For the average person a resource is either wealth or income, the one he holds, the other he acquires.

In some political systems there's no government at all to distribute any resource. In other political systems only the government is allowed to distribute resources. Neither of those is socialism.

Socialism has two legs.

One is that no person within society is left so unresourced that those with an average share of the resources consider themselves to be significantly better resourced. I'm not talking degree here, I'm talking kind. If the average isn't starving then neither can the least resourced person be. The same goes for shelter, schooling, access to whatever the average consider fundamental elements of existence. In western society today that undoubtedly includes, for example, Internet access.

The other leg is that socialism regards lower wealth differentials to be healthier for society. For any state of financial distribution, a socialist would prefer that the wealth differential between the richest band and poorest band were narrower.

Now, anyone numerate can design a perfectly good system for distributing income and wealth in such a way as to progressively bring about greater degrees of socialism. Anyone numerate can create an achievable starting condition and set rules in place for the starting condition to progress in the right direction.

Is that helpful?


Very but how is the distribution of intelligence, motivation and ambition to be brought about?

gmc;1031832 wrote: In it's SECULAR form! Where did that come from.

try dictionary definitions

I would put it to you that what you have in the states is the latter-at the moment.

The roots of socialism go back a very long way and has it's basic origin in the question of who rules? What is government for? Or the wee guy turning round saying who are you to govern me! The basic belief that are all equal under the law used to be a radical idea. There was massive social an political change wrought by industrialisation and changing social structures which you kind of need to understand in a broad sense for it to make sense.

In a very real sense america was not part of that and did not go through quite the same process of change. Spot and I have a common heritage and background information-in an american context we are both left wing socialists but we in actual fact disagree considerably-I don't like his definition for one thing and disagree over much more besides.

Each country has put it's own variation it but generally most european countries are social democratic in nature but pick from all sides of the political spectrum. Most people are very right wing about some things and left wing about others-you won't fins many in the UK or europe that share your attitude to healthcare for instance.

Socialism is not a religion-though some of its practitioners exhibit some of the tendencies of a cult-lenin called it the infantile disorder as they sat down to argue about the correct way-bit like religious fundamentalists. Some still propound a kind of class war fundamentalist approach like I suspect spot does others are not so hung up on definitions.

Trouble is in the states revolutionary communism and socialism seem to have become conflated and turned in to a bogey man in a way that helps curtail sensible discussion. Even the present bail out is characterised as socialism when it quite clearly is not.

Anarchism won't work any more than communism and for much the same sort of reasons-and also because the communists would wipe them out as airy fairy intellectual tossers:sneaky:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

I can see why you think you can live the life of a socialist or anarchist but as solutions to societies ills they both don't really work-bit like christianity-if christians actually behaved like christians things would be great but they don;t do they.

read this as well

http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-intro.htm


I have to say that anarchist communism seems more fair and socialistic than collectivist anarchism which from my understanding purports a more co capitalist based philosophy pertaining to socialism than does anarchist communism...

I'd have to agree with the former...Anarchist communism suits much more what I have in mind of labor and property rights...I wish communism isn't the word of choice having been used to describe the concept but whatever fulfills my desires so shall it be named...I'm sorry I just do not agree with the policies for the most part of the countries that claim communism.



I'll get to the second link in a bit...

spot;1032018 wrote: I'll have a small go at this too. I have no desire to see any growth in average world consumption or average world production, quite likely I'd prefer to see a decline. I certainly have no interest in exponential growth which has been the Capitalist objective for as long as there's been Capitalism. Growth isn't helpful. A steady regular fixed level of production and consumption is fine, once the right level's been chosen, and as I say it could well be a reduction from what happens at the moment. What matters isn't now much there is, it's how it's distributed.


Well I couldn't agree more really, but I think the emphasis should be more so in establishing the actual worth of those resources...Far too many luxuries in a society, I feel, shades the peoples' view of true worth which helps to increase the demand...

Far worse having a country waste a resource than having to rely 100% on one without an alternative solution...I pray to God almighty we do not run out of oil as quickly as it appears we may...Or in your case you pray we do from fear of more suffering...

Equal markets are the key to equality and until trade is met with labor we'll continue to see more bloodshed in the eyes of greed...I couldn't for a minute think that most wars have been the result of hatred, rather love - love for money and I couldn't be more ill given both virtues.

spot;1008906 wrote: The other leg is that socialism regards lower wealth differentials to be healthier for society. For any state of financial distribution, a socialist would prefer that the wealth differential between the richest band and poorest band were narrower.

Now, anyone numerate can design a perfectly good system for distributing income and wealth in such a way as to progressively bring about greater degrees of socialism. Anyone numerate can create an achievable starting condition and set rules in place for the starting condition to progress in the right direction.

Is that helpful?


Sure...What I'm after is what in your mind would realistically change the ideology of a nation to feel the need to increase the differential of economic classes in that nation before it's natural resources diminishes below those averages?...

Americans do seem to strongly oppose any possibility of socialism. I don't really understand this because I thought USA was rather socialist during the 50's and 60's. Things went pretty well during that time.

wildhorses;1032828 wrote: Americans do seem to strongly oppose any possibility of socialism. I don't really understand this because I thought USA was rather socialist during the 50's and 60's. Things went pretty well during that time.


They aren't.

They're scared of change when it comes to the economy. All they need to do is read about what "socialism" purports and get a general idea of the philosophies they agree with so that they can help to actually establish equality as opposed to purport it.

Which is why I posted in here...

I'd like to get a perspective of the realities associated with socialism...

And the capitalist pigs on Wall Street can't propagate enough the "hell" of "socialism" because that would mean they'd pay for it. Rich greedy pigs.

K.Snyder;1032832 wrote: They aren't.

They're scared of change when it comes to the economy. All they need to do is read about what "socialism" purports and get a general idea of the philosophies they agree with so that they can help to actually establish equality as opposed to purport it.

Which is why I posted in here...

I'd like to get a perspective of the realities associated with socialism...

And the capitalist spigs on Wall Street can't propagate enough the "hell" of "socialism" because that would mean they'd pay for it. Rich greedy pigs.


You got that right!!!! Right now we have corporate facism....this is how this mess happened imo.

During the 50's in USA, there were very strong unions. Workers got a fair share of the profits of the company they worked for. They got healthcare and job security. Even less educated workers had the chance to build something during their lifetime. Workers were not only protected by unions, but by state and federal laws. There was way less disparity between the income of the poor and the income of the rich.

The way I see it, there was socialism already in this country....or at least some variation of it. Since it worked well before, I don't see the fear in doing so again and just updating it to fit current day issues. I really don't understand the fear. It's not as if it would be completely new and untried.

wildhorses;1032839 wrote: You got that right!!!! Right now we have corporate facism....this is how this mess happened imo.

During the 50's in USA, there were very strong unions. Workers got a fair share of the profits of the company they worked for. They got healthcare and job security. Even less educated workers had the chance to build something during their lifetime. Workers were not only protected by unions, but by state and federal laws. There was way less disparity between the income of the poor and the income of the rich.

The way I see it, there was socialism already in this country....or at least some variation of it. Since it worked well before, I don't see the fear in doing so again and just updating it to fit current day issues. I really don't understand the fear. It's not as if it would be completely new and untried.


Well when one speaks of "fear" and "socialism" one could only mean big business. Obviously the "fear" would decrease equally with the amount of decline associated with those that will be effected most by socialism which can be relative but mainly the rich...

For instance in the United States socialism wouldn't effect near as many working class individuals with the amount of income above the standard from which any implemented socialistic philosophy demands to achieve equality...

What people fail to realize is that by creating equality in the market place the price of necessities dramatically decrease which then in turn makes the price of luxuries fall as well...What you have is the exact same commercial make up but with the worlds currencies being leveled and ultimately distributed equally which in turn decreases demand...The decrease of demand is what big businesses "fear" and they'll do anything to stop the succession...What's funny is the decrease in demand helps to ensure equality because it keeps inflation rates down as well yet people "fear" it?...The only people who "fear" socialism is big business, and like I said, upon those that are not rich understanding the possibilities socialism not only hints but guarantees, they understand the possibilities of class equality and the better lifestyles to all of those involved simply by not having the need to pay more than what a product is actually worth.

K.Snyder;1032843 wrote: Well when one speaks of "fear" and "socialism" one could only mean big business. Obviously the "fear" would decrease equally with the amount of decline associated with those that will be effected most by socialism which can be relative but mainly the rich...

For instance in the United States socialism wouldn't effect near as many working class individuals with the amount of income above the standard from which any implemented socialistic philosophy demands to achieve equality...

What people fail to realize is that by creating equality in the market place the price of necessities dramatically decrease which then in turn makes the price of luxuries fall as well...What you have is the exact same commercial make up but with the worlds currencies being leveled and ultimately distributed equally which in turn decreases demand...The decrease of demand is what big businesses "fear" and they'll do anything to stop the succession...What's funny is the decrease in demand helps to ensure equality because it keeps inflation rates down as well yet people "fear" it?...The only people who "fear" socialism is big business and like I said upon those that are not rich understanding the possibilities socialism not only hints but guarantees they understand the possibilities of class equality and the better lifestyles to all of those involved simply by not having the need to pay more than what a product is actually worth.


I would also think that socialism would only be a problem for the filthy rich. I am not sure why some of the average people I have spoken with are so afraid of this change. Although it may be that they are buying into the corporate propaganda.

K.Snyder;1032827 wrote: Sure...What I'm after is what in your mind would realistically change the ideology of a nation to feel the need to increase the differential of economic classes in that nation before it's natural resources diminishes below those averages?...


Greed among the rich increases the differential of economic classes, crisis decreases it when the whole nation bonds together to handle an external threat or an internal collapse.

wildhorses;1032828 wrote: Americans do seem to strongly oppose any possibility of socialism. I don't really understand this because I thought USA was rather socialist during the 50's and 60's. Things went pretty well during that time.


They also seem to be afraid of liberals as well, seeming to conflate the two. It's a subtle change-in ww2 the liberal democracies fought fascism-post ww2 acted to contain communism but even the very principles fought for are now pilloried in the US-not elsewhere-with the term seeming to be an insult. You when you ask someone do they believe in the tenets of liberal democracy (individual freedom, freedom of religion, rule of law etc etc) they all say yes but take offence at being called a liberal.

You perhaps need to look to your own history to find an explanation. I read somewhere-can't find the link just now-that in 1948 the house un-american activities committee defined a communist as anyone who advocated the role of government was to make things better for it's people. I have an opinion but As a non american it's not really something I feel qualified to discourse on.

posted by lon

Very but how is the distribution of intelligence, motivation and ambition to be brought about?


You cannot re-distribute intelligence-it's a spurious argument imo that is intended to distract from the real point.

If you live in poverty in a sink estate working long hours just to get by with no end in sight despair is a powerful de-motivator and can kill the ambition of anyone eventually. What you can do is give equal access to opportunity by access to education and a chance to "get on in life" by allowing all to benefit from the wealth generated by society. Yes some people are thick but not everybody who is poor is stupid. It's not cause and effect unless you are prepared to believe that some people are naturally more gifted and therefore their children should receive greater access to education and opportunity because clearly their blood lines are so much better.

The question is what do you do about it-or indeed is it the role of government to do something? just writing whole sections of the population as a waste of space is not terribly constructive.

The threads of socialist thought come from all over the place and-in the UK much was in all the self help societies that aimed to make things better for ordinary people-the early workers organisations and the like. There was a kind of europe wide underground of knowledge sharing and education in radical ideas particularly amongst the skilled tradesmen . Thomas Paine the rights of man was a bet seller in britain despite being banned as revolutionary. many of the french soldiers in the american revolution took back radical ideas that were to fuel the french revolution.

Left wing intellectuals tend to think the likes of marx and engels et al were the main influences but the reality is very different. most of the time they were caught out by spontaneous workers revolts and the like and only later sat down and tried to explain what happened. It's very much a bottom up-grass roots desire for equality and a better life and a questioning of authority.



posted by K Snyder

For instance in the United States socialism wouldn't effect near as many working class individuals with the amount of income above the standard from which any implemented socialistic philosophy demands to achieve equality...


i though the US was a class free society where an individual could get on solely by his own efforts:sneaky:

Even in socialist europe the language of revolutionary socialism and it's calls for class warfare have had it's day. We stil have it;'s pundits though

wildhorses;1032839 wrote: During the 50's in USA, there were very strong unions. Workers got a fair share of the profits of the company they worked for. They got healthcare and job security. Even less educated workers had the chance to build something during their lifetime. Workers were not only protected by unions, but by state and federal laws. There was way less disparity between the income of the poor and the income of the rich. No doubt there was a use for unions at one time, and now the threat of unions keep things running well. They're like guns; sometimes you have to use them, but most times just having them keeps you safe.



That's where this "socialist" healthcare program should come from - unions. Rather than forcing employers to provide healthcare, then trying to argue that they're responsible for their employees even after employment ends, they should provide a group plan for their members. A member is a member whether they're employed or not, so the insurance would naturally follow between jobs and during times of unemployment. No laws would need to be changed, people who didn't want to participate wouldn't have to (such as through taxpayer support) ... everybody wins. Suddenly the same healthcare changes from a negative forced on overburdened taxpayers to a positive - people taking care of themselves.

Ref the need to travel comment, I love to, anywhere everywhere to see other cultures, societies, and their people's. I love coming home.

Ref the socialism issue, it doesn't frighten me at all. A poster said we have to look at our own countries history, this is where I view this issue from. I am actually quite a political person, and growing up held some extremely left wing views. It may be have been a phase, as I as a student, and we all read Karl Marx, etc. But my views mellowed over the years. The reality being that communism did not work, and had it's casualties, but socialsim in it's most literally translated form, is doable. When Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister this country, captialism was reborn, and it was the decade of the yuppie, and the 'have's' having more, and the 'have not's' having less and getting less help to aspire to be a 'have'.

I agree we should all work, and get the appropriate, realistic financial reward for our job. But not over inflated salaries for fat cats and minimum wage for jobs that are worth so much more. I've never understood why an M.D or C.E.O of a company can have massive pay rises, and a nurse, or fireman or policeman have to fight for a decent salary. The M.D's or C.E.O's are required to head companies, and make decisions, but there is some room for respite and reward up the top, a lot of the workers are worth so much more than they get paid.

gmc;1032919 wrote: If you live in poverty in a sink estate working long hours just to get by with no end in sight despair is a powerful de-motivator and can kill the ambition of anyone eventually. What you can do is give equal access to opportunity by access to education and a chance to "get on in life"
The equal access exists. It is in our left's best interest to try to hide that fact in a fog of class warfare. You're 100% right, though, about the despair. It's rampant in poorer neighborhoods. The primary reason I see is that the instant someone does pull themselves up enough to afford better digs, they leave. The only people left behind are the left-behind. They have no role models showing that it's actually possible to overcome their circumstances. Admiration for their accomplishments are often overcome by jealousy and become cries that the person is a sell-out or just lucky.



But we can't force a successful person to stay in the slums just so others can have a role model. We can only encourage them to choose to do so. The only ones that do, it seems, are the ones that seem convinced that no one can make it out without forcing an unwilling taxpayer to fund the way, despite the contrary evidence of their own success.



**

Once again I feel the need to toss in the caviat that my railng is against centralized federal tax-supported programs, not against local or even state programs. Those are close enough to the voters that they can better control the representatives making the decisions.

Accountable;1032974 wrote: The equal access exists. It is in our left's best interest to try to hide that fact in a fog of class warfare. You're 100% right, though, about the despair. It's rampant in poorer neighborhoods. The primary reason I see is that the instant someone does pull themselves up enough to afford better digs, they leave. The only people left behind are the left-behind. They have no role models showing that it's actually possible to overcome their circumstances. Admiration for their accomplishments are often overcome by jealousy and become cries that the person is a sell-out or just lucky.



But we can't force a successful person to stay in the slums just so others can have a role model. We can only encourage them to choose to do so. The only ones that do, it seems, are the ones that seem convinced that no one can make it out without forcing an unwilling taxpayer to fund the way, despite the contrary evidence of their own success.



**

Once again I feel the need to toss in the caviat that my railng is against centralized federal tax-supported programs, not against local or even state programs. Those are close enough to the voters that they can better control the representatives making the decisions.


Yes isn't it a shame that as people's prospects improve they simply don't invest in their own neighbourhood. I am sure it happens in some places and some u.k areas have improved. Some people actually do not want to improve and generations of their family remain in the same inherited state. That is their choice. But some with each generation they learn more, and have better prospects than their grandparents. My family in the main still live in where they originate from, but in much different circumstances to my grandparents.

Accountable;1032974 wrote: The equal access exists. It is in our left's best interest to try to hide that fact in a fog of class warfare. You're 100% right, though, about the despair. It's rampant in poorer neighborhoods. The primary reason I see is that the instant someone does pull themselves up enough to afford better digs, they leave. The only people left behind are the left-behind. They have no role models showing that it's actually possible to overcome their circumstances. Admiration for their accomplishments are often overcome by jealousy and become cries that the person is a sell-out or just lucky.



But we can't force a successful person to stay in the slums just so others can have a role model. We can only encourage them to choose to do so. The only ones that do, it seems, are the ones that seem convinced that no one can make it out without forcing an unwilling taxpayer to fund the way, despite the contrary evidence of their own success.



**

Once again I feel the need to toss in the caviat that my railng is against centralized federal tax-supported programs, not against local or even state programs. Those are close enough to the voters that they can better control the representatives making the decisions.


I can't really comment on the situation in america. I just don't have the background of knowledge and any comments would be based on UK experience. What you are saying were you talking about the UK I would characterise as simplistic right wing nonsense. That's not fair though is it? Why on earth do people need role models to want to improve their situation? That's a peculiarly patronising way of looking at things-be your own man/woman

We have had massive urban regeneration programmes in this country which involved massive slum clearance and rebuilding of our cities and the creation of new towns to house the overspill from the bigger cities along with considerable investment to attract new industries-financed by the government and it's something we see as being a key role of government-any government, even the tories know better than not to take it seriously.

gmc;1033122 wrote: I can't really comment on the situation in america. I just don't have the background of knowledge and any comments would be based on UK experience. What you are saying were you talking about the UK I would characterise as simplistic right wing nonsense. That's not fair though is it? Why on earth do people need role models to want to improve their situation? That's a peculiarly patronising way of looking at things-be your own man/woman



We have had massive urban regeneration programmes in this country which involved massive slum clearance and rebuilding of our cities and the creation of new towns to house the overspill from the bigger cities along with considerable investment to attract new industries-financed by the government and it's something we see as being a key role of government-any government, even the tories know better than not to take it seriously.It's patronising to ask people to take care of themselves, yet not patronising to give someone a house - sending the message that only through gov't help can you expect to improve one's situation??



I was responding to and agreeing with your post about the people's despair.



We both have the same goal.


Your response is to make people more comfortable, risking that they become even more complacent or sink deeper into despair.

My response is to show them that other people in the exact same situation have worked hard and lifted themselves out (indicating that they can too), risking that the ones who do succeed don't stick around to be role models.


I think my way honors the person more, but we've already established that we disagree on the role of gov't.

gmc;1033122 wrote: Why on earth do people need role models to want to improve their situation? If (collective) you don't think you can improve it, you're less likely to try. However, if someone you know, and know the background of, shows that it is possible by doing it himself, you're more likely to give it a go.



Someone once said "Don't take directions to Disneyland from someone who's never been there." Trying to get support from people who are in the same desparate situation as you are not likely to be much help, but someone who has already shown to be successful will give better support.

Accountable;1033340 wrote: It's patronising to ask people to take care of themselves, yet not patronising to give someone a house - sending the message that only through gov't help can you expect to improve one's situation??



I was responding to and agreeing with your post about the people's despair.



We both have the same goal.


Your response is to make people more comfortable, risking that they become even more complacent or sink deeper into despair.

My response is to show them that other people in the exact same situation have worked hard and lifted themselves out (indicating that they can too), risking that the ones who do succeed don't stick around to be role models.


I think my way honors the person more, but we've already established that we disagree on the role of gov't.


Yes we do disagree to some extent on the role of government but because we come at it from different viewpoints. You seem to see govt as an outside agency that comes along and does things to people.

Whereas the reality here is that govt was elected on the basis of what it was going to do. Like with our welfare state-it was not imposed the electorate basically turned round and said we're having this. Social housing, I think you call it, is what was built in the new towns and the majority of the population lived in or has lived in it but it's not seen as giving someone a house - sending the message that only through gov't help can you expect to improve one's situation? It's part of the normal function of government to develop and make things better for people. Just remember who elects them and pays their taxes- it's not as though anyone is being done any favours here.

Our social history is vastly different which is probably one of the main reasons for the diferent world view. Our cities are amongst the most densely populated in the world, people were living on top of each other most of the houses did not have inside toilets something had to be done to improve things. Same with the welfare stae, having gone through another world war no one was prepared to go back to the way things were with people starving because they were unemployed and afraid to go to the doctor because they had no money.

Now the attitude is very much that we expect certain things to be done and political parties are judged on how well they do them. Mucking about with the NHS, for instance, or appearing to want to privatise it will cost you the next election. Not doing anything to help regenerate an area hit by mass unemployment, for instance, is an option government does not have. The electorate here has the government by the balls, every now and then we squeeze to remind them who is boss cos they keep forgetting.

Posted by acountable

My response is to show them that other people in the exact same situation have worked hard and lifted themselves out (indicating that they can too), risking that the ones who do succeed don't stick around to be role models.


There is a real cultural difference there. (At least IMO) Anyone that does come out with the line that they see themselves as a role model would be greeted with snorts of derision. I know where the term comes from and people do have role models but not quite the same way. The emphasis is more on being your own man-finding your own sense of worth and not letting someone else define it for you. You can sit down with the richest man on the planet or the most powerful politician and be just as good a man with an equal sense of worth as they. Success is when you achieve what you set out to do not some others measure of success. Plenty of other people have worked their way out of the council schemes (like me for instance) -it's quite commonplace and we tend not to look down on those who are still growing up there or who never "made" it. Most of my contemporaries can point to a council scheme somewhere. It's part of the background not something to be ashamed off or proud of it just is the way things are.

But govt action is part of the process to help people manage it. It's not the be all and end all by any means.

posted by accountable

Someone once said "Don't take directions to Disneyland from someone who's never been there." Trying to get support from people who are in the same desparate situation as you are not likely to be much help, but someone who has already shown to be successful will give better support.


I hear what you say but it's hardly a solution is it. If you and those around you are in a desperate situation then get organised and start doing something about it.

gmc;1033484 wrote: There is a real cultural difference there. (At least IMO) Anyone that does come out with the line that they see themselves as a role model would be greeted with snorts of derision. I know where the term comes from and people do have role models but not quite the same way. The emphasis is more on being your own man-finding your own sense of worth and not letting someone else define it for you. You can sit down with the richest man on the planet or the most powerful politician and be just as good a man with an equal sense of worth as they. Success is when you achieve what you set out to do not some others measure of success. Plenty of other people have worked their way out of the council schemes (like me for instance) -it's quite commonplace and we tend not to look down on those who are still growing up there or who never "made" it. Most of my contemporaries can point to a council scheme somewhere. It's part of the background not something to be ashamed off or proud of it just is the way things are. The only difference between you & me here is how you think I look at things.



Sure, anyone who goes strutting down the street talking 'I'm here to be a role model' would get laughed out of town. But there are those who stay in the old neighborhood simply because it is the old neighborhood.... home. And home is worth improving and fighting for.



gmc wrote: I hear what you say but it's hardly a solution is it. If you and those around you are in a desperate situation then get organised and start doing something about it.We agree on everything but method, my friend. The organizing happens and could be formal or informal, and the doing something would be self-help. In the more congested cities, though, I believe they act much as you do - using community organizers to twist some political arms. Even that is generally local, though, not federal - and that is good, imo.

This is a bit off what you gentlemen are discussing, but does I believe contribute to the fear of socialism that many in this country have.

I'm thinking of the Mcarthy Hearings of the 50's and the wild accusations of this or that person being a communist. I can well remember that there was not much differing between communist and socialist although the emphasis was on communist. The "John Birch Society" was in full swing and recruiting

like crazy (do a Google on the John Birch Society). There was absolute paranoia which fortunately subsided as cooler heads prevailed. I was in my 20's and though never a Bircher, was one that was caught up in the "we gotta get those commie bastards". Age and knowledge has a way of sorting things out.

spot;1032898 wrote: Greed among the rich increases the differential of economic classes, crisis decreases it when the whole nation bonds together to handle an external threat or an internal collapse.


Oh actually I apologize I meant "decrease" as opposed to "increase"...

Of course I'd love nothing more than one class to obtain the right for the word "class" to go diminished...

Perhaps some feel that greed will always exist but for the life of me I cannot understand why...Why so many feel the need to have more than they need...What is that?...Perhaps money makes up for the lack of character they have.<------ Not rhetorical and in fact not even a question.

I ask all;

What philosophies associated with socialism in your mind do you feel will serve to benefit a more equal and healthy society?...Realistically speaking given today's societies and their ideologies...

gmc;1032919 wrote: posted by K Snyder

i though the US was a class free society where an individual could get on solely by his own efforts:sneaky:




Sure...

If you're white! :wah:...

I agree non white Americans have more opportunities than they do now but for anyone to say classes are equal is absurd.

I also agree that even creating a local government inspired travel agency associated with jobs could help America out greatly. A local job placement agency that makes their money by sending peoples living in a city with extremely low job supply to cities with extremely high job supply. Beggars cannot be choosers so obviously they'd have to sacrifice seeing their families outside of their immediate families of course but hay life isn't candy and nuts. Come to think of it when is Beggars night?...

:wah:...

In any case I believe such would serve communities well...

Unemployment rates and vica versa should not be peculiar to birth place.

gmc;1032919 wrote: You when you ask someone do they believe in the tenets of liberal democracy (individual freedom, freedom of religion, rule of law etc etc) they all say yes but take offence at being called a liberal.




I personally believe in collectivism and not individualism. I feel that the government should step in and be the mediator upon certain issues more so pertaining to taxes and the systems people use publicly...Roads, banks, schools, etc... etc...One could even argue health care seeing as health care in my own mind would probably be the hardest business to congeal...And it is a business people don't kid yourself...Has been and always will be the most profitable business in the world...Why?...Because life is the single most coveted demand and is unending......

I think individualism would be no different than taking a capitalist state and doing nothing but distributing wealth equally but my belief is to accompany that with laws and that's what collectivism argues...

Accountable;1032921 wrote: No doubt there was a use for unions at one time, and now the threat of unions keep things running well. They're like guns; sometimes you have to use them, but most times just having them keeps you safe.



That's where this "socialist" healthcare program should come from - unions. Rather than forcing employers to provide healthcare, then trying to argue that they're responsible for their employees even after employment ends, they should provide a group plan for their members. A member is a member whether they're employed or not, so the insurance would naturally follow between jobs and during times of unemployment. No laws would need to be changed, people who didn't want to participate wouldn't have to (such as through taxpayer support) ... everybody wins. Suddenly the same healthcare changes from a negative forced on overburdened taxpayers to a positive - people taking care of themselves.


People can't take care of themselves when they do equal the amount of work in society only for their demand for health cost more than their worth to society...Health care should never at any point charge more to provide for someone worth the average of society and that's just wrong!

The difference is is when health care charges equal to the amount of worth of their customer you get a healthier national average at the expense of the providers' above average profits.

Or quit simply you get a nation without greedy a**holes.