Can rational self interest and socialism be reconciled?

[Lark]

Do you think rational self interest can be reconciled with socialism or is it impossible? Is there a case to be made for "selfish socialism" or is that impossible? Is socialism intrinsically linked with self-sacrifice, self-denial and, at the very most, altruism while individualism is intrinsically linked with self-interest and self-reward?

 

[finifugal]

I can see how many of the things I do for others I ultimately do for myself. But I am trying to apply that to government programs. It's hard.
I now have so many conversations with Republicans in my head. What they and I agree on is that socialism and entitlement programs do more harm than good. I think it is more altruistic to do away with socialist programs. If we are left with more of our paychecks in our pockets, there really would be enough voluntary generosity (in my opinion,) than when we are forced to give. That and the fact that people will keep their income down over taking a second job, or doing over time, because they know it'll affect their earned income credit eligibility or their food stamps. They see it as working for free. Or perhaps I should keep that to my own experience. So if it makes you feel better, I'll just say that I used to turn down ops for over time because it might mean reducing my EIC. I don't limit myself like that anymore. Those mentalities don't help.
I would say rational self interest and socialism don't mix. One exception; public education. Obviously, that is more of an investment than entitlement. But that is still more altruistic than selfish.
Now some of you will kill me for what I said about food stamps. But I do believe in voluntary generosity. My church has a program where you can buy a box of groceries for $35 that feeds four for a week. No expired products. Just a deal made with the grocery store. More things like that would pop up if gov. aid would end. A theory, I know. And now I wonder if I've taken the ? in the wrong direction. Did I misunderstand?
Dare I hit post??

 

[Eventhorizon]

Why would either need to be anything other then moved beyond for what they are? Socialism a proven non viable form of government and self interest? Why would it need to be reconciled with socialism at all?

 

[finifugal]

Silly INTJ. It is good to ponder these things. I wish more types were willing to spend time talking about them.

 

[Lark]

Why would either need to be anything other then moved beyond for what they are? Socialism a proven non viable form of government and self interest? Why would it need to be reconciled with socialism at all?

I dont think any of those points are in evidence at all.

 

[CogentPursuit]

If you have no wealth, then socialism is in your best interest. Currently, there is a greater gap between the poor and wealthy which is why people flock to socialism to a greater degree these days.

 

[muir]

US americans seem to mean BIG GOVERNMENT when they say SOCIALISM

But they already have big government. If a government has enough money and manpower to be spying on all of its citizens (PRISM) then it is already too big and is already taxing the public too much

For me socialism is when the workers own and control the means of production which is definately what we do not see in the US. The means of production are increasingly held by the richest in society who have been made richer through a banking fraud carried out in collusion with the government

This corporate el-ite want a strong government, which they can control, to use to protect their interests against the public and against foreign competitors

This is what they have achieved. They own congress and they own the media and are turning the government into their militarised, surveilance enforcer

So when they talk about 'socialism' what they are meaning is that they will control you using the government apparatus and you will have no democratic say in anything

That's a long way away from the dream of the workers owning and controlling the means of production

One version empowers the el-ite and the other version empowers the many (the workers)

At the moment however in that tug of war the elite are winning in the sense that they are managing to sculpt the country into what they want it to be

None of this is theoretical or from textbooks....this is from reality....and i'd argue what people need to be engaging with is that the self interest of the el-ite is NOT compatible with the collective interests of the public and that the way the el-ite use the word SOCIALISM is to mean a totalitarian police state

In the freer meaning of the word socialism for example LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM then there could be some more room for a bit of enterprise and an individual could seek forms of 'success' or ways to shine

 

[Lark]

If you have no wealth, then socialism is in your best interest. Currently, there is a greater gap between the poor and wealthy which is why people flock to socialism to a greater degree these days.

Why is that so? Why do you say that about wealth btw?

 

[muir]

If you have no wealth, then socialism is in your best interest. Currently, there is a greater gap between the poor and wealthy which is why people flock to socialism to a greater degree these days.

If you mean 'socialism' to mean big government then its actually in the interests of the wealthy to HAVE socialism

The wealthy want a strong government which they can control to protect their interests and to use as an enforcer against the public

This is why the big bankers like the rockefellers and rothschilds ARE 'socialists'

Their political buddies like kisinger want to create a state socialist police state under which you will be totally controlled; if you protest you might dissapear into a 're-education' centre or you might just dissapear like tens of thousands of people did in projects Kissinger was involved in like operation Condor

 

[finifugal]

I like you muir

 

[finifugal]

If you mean 'socialism' to mean big government then its actually in the interests of the wealthy to HAVE socialism

The wealthy want a strong government which they can control to protect their interests and to use as an enforcer against the public

This is why the big bankers like the rockefellers and rothschilds ARE 'socialists'

Their political buddies like kisinger want to create a state socialist police state under which you will be totally controlled; if you protest you might dissapear into a 're-education' centre or you might just dissapear like tens of thousands of people did in projects Kissinger was involved in like operation Condor

Is that what my ESTJ coworker is talking about when he says they want people to stay poor? I can see that. People stay poor due to bad mentality. Spending a bonus before they even get it in their bank account, for example, as opposed to saving it for a rainy day. We keep ourselves poor. I'm not sure they have anything to do with it, other than the crappy public education offered.

 

[finifugal]

Anyone else here cry when Ron Paul was edged out? They really do make you "disappear" if you oppose their system.

 

[muir]

I like you muir

Thanks, likewise!

I hope that whether people like me or loathe me that they can come over time to understand my perspective

 

[muir]

Is that what my ESTJ coworker is talking about when he says they want people to stay poor? I can see that. People stay poor due to bad mentality. Spending a bonus before they even get it in their bank account, for example, as opposed to saving it for a rainy day. We keep ourselves poor. I'm not sure they have anything to do with it, other than the crappy public education offered.

Yeah they do want people to stay poor (otherwise they'd share their incredible wealth)

Spending money when you get it is generally the working persons way and its not actually a 'bad' thing......the economy loves it!

What the economy doesn't like is the super rich using their money-power to influence politicians into passing laws that benefit them at the expense of those that would otherwise spend into the economy

The super rich don't spend, they hoard and that's the problem. The idea of 'trickle down' has been shown to be a myth...there is no rising tide to raise all boats...that was a big lie as many of us knew

The money has been looted upwards to the top of society for example by corrupt politicians using our pension money to give tax breaks to their rich buddies. This means that pensions are dissapearing and that people are having to work to older and older ages

The banking bailouts were nothing but a giant swindle that has dissposessed the public

The el-ite are beginning to feel justified in their eugenics ideas because the public are just sitting there and allowing all the corruption to continue; in the minds of the super rich this means the public are stupid when in fact the public just aren't cunning and cruel

 

[muir]

Anyone else here cry when Ron Paul was edged out? They really do make you "disappear" if you oppose their system.

Ron Paul was spot on by calling for an end to the fed!

For a politician he had a rare grasp of economics

 

[BrokenDaniel]

What do you people here think of Kibutz. I've known someone who's from Israel who participated on it back in the 70s, i've never got to talk to him much about it though.

 

[CogentPursuit]

Why is that so? Why do you say that about wealth btw?

If you have little to nothing then government provided, healthcare, food, school, land, etc.. is more than nothing. To people who have little socialism is a blessing, a hope, an ideal that gives them the opportunity to survive in a world where only those who have money can survive and succeed. A chance to survive where they would have fallen in a capitalist society.

If you mean 'socialism' to mean big government then its actually in the interests of the wealthy to HAVE socialism

The wealthy want a strong government which they can control to protect their interests and to use as an enforcer against the public

This is why the big bankers like the rockefellers and rothschilds ARE 'socialists'

Their political buddies like kisinger want to create a state socialist police state under which you will be totally controlled; if you protest you might dissapear into a 're-education' centre or you might just dissapear like tens of thousands of people did in projects Kissinger was involved in like operation Condor

Muir, you are imposing your own belief system on others. Not everyone things freedom alone is in their greatest interest. There are other factors like security, sustenance, healthcare, equality etc... People prove everyday that these things are what they feel they want or need. To them these things are in their best interest. Freedom is not all or nothing, it is a trade for a little of something else.

As an example: A homeless person will sometimes commit a crime and give up all their freedoms for a day in order to get a night in a warm environment with food.
We as a society allow the government to build and control the roads and our transporation in order for us to prosper as a society.
We allow public schools in order to allow equal opportinty where only those with money would have been able to have the knowledge to succeed.

It is freedom to be able to choose to give it up and people make that choice all the time in order to survive and feel secure.

 

[muir]

Muir, you are imposing your own belief system on others.

No you are

I am giving you a reality check

Not everyone things freedom alone is in their greatest interest. There are other factors like security, sustenance, healthcare, equality etc...

What a naive statement!

Don't you realise they are all bound up together?

Lose your freedom and you'll lose them all

People prove everyday that these things are what they feel they want or need. To them these things are in their best interest. Freedom is not all or nothing, it is a trade for a little of something else.

This is easy for you to say because you haven't yet experienced a world without freedom!

If we give away our freedom we will lose it all because the people trying to take our freedom are not benevolent; they do not care about your security or safety (think of people being herded onto railway carriages and taken off to camps)

The people are not choosing what they trade freedom for it is all being decided for them and i disgaree with the idea that the current 'trade' as you put it is a fair one that reflects what can be achieved with a fair and responsible sharing of resources

Your argument is an argument in defence of tyranny NOT an argument for a better balance in society

As an example: A homeless person will sometimes commit a crime and give up all their freedoms for a day in order to get a night in a warm environment with food.
We as a society allow the government to build and control the roads and our transporation in order for us to prosper as a society.

I'm not talking about a responsible government i'm talking about the one we have in REALITY which is a corporatocracy bent on creating a police state...wake up!

We allow public schools in order to allow equal opportinty where only those with money would have been able to have the knowledge to succeed.

More naive nonsense!

THERE IS NO EQUAL OPPORTUNITY! The game is rigged

It is freedom to be able to choose to give it up and people make that choice all the time in order to survive and feel secure.

Thats how humanity got plugged into the matrix in the matrix films...they gave away all responsibility

These people are control freaks

They're not interested in giving you a cosy little life they see you as an entirely expendable thing that they want to replace with technology; they are eugencists who are bent on culling the population

They want to drastically reduce the population and the survivors are not going to get QUALITY of life they are going to get shit

If you don't realise that your comforts are directly related to your freedoms then you are going to find that as you give away your freedoms so to will your comforts dissapear because you have failed to realise what kind of people you should be protecting yourself from

[video=youtube;k2S9IQgEzzs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2S9IQgEzzs[/video]

 

[CogentPursuit]

No you are

I am giving you a reality check

All your arguments go one direction no matter the topic. It is tiresome and predictable. We are all naive as none of us knows everything. Perhaps I am naive or perhaps your obsession to a single idea blinds you to so many other possibilities. You make too many baseless claims and arguing against them feels as impossible as proving god doesn't exist to a religious fanatic. I cannot prove something doesn't exist because if it doesn't exist it doesnt have evidence. All I can do is determine if evidence that seems to prove something is valid and real. So where is the evidence so I can take you seriously?

 

[muir]

All your arguments go one direction no matter the topic. It is tiresome and predictable. We are all naive as none of us knows everything. Perhaps I am naive or perhaps your obsession to a single idea blinds you to so many other possibilities. You make too many baseless claims and arguing against them feels as impossible as proving god doesn't exist to a religious fanatic. I cannot prove something doesn't exist because if it doesn't exist it doesnt have evidence. All I can do is determine if evidence that seems to prove something is valid and real. So where is the evidence so I can take you seriously?

Look at what people are saying....

Look at my posts and then look at the posts of the people i debate with

Notice in my posts they are filled with REAL things and people and events. This is because my posts are based on what is either occuring now or has already occured in history

Now look at the posts of the people i debate with...they don't talk about real things, people or events...they talk about theories...they're not in the real world

They talk about dry socio-political theories that they have just read out of a textbook

The textbooks are all framed though by the system.....this is about putting things in a box...that is to say putting peoples thinking into a box in order to get people to see the world the way they want them to see it

But my posts root the discussion into reality. I mention people, places, events, things etc that can easily be researched into so that the person i discuss with can get an idea what im talking about

So for example i mentioned to you earlier in this thread Operation Condor. I did this for a reason. It is so that anyone who is wondering what sort of people are behind these global events can then find out that they are the kind of people who kidnap people from their families, tie them up and then fly them over the ocean in helicopters before slitting their bellies open and throwing them out to be shark food; this they did to tens of thousands of people all with the help of the CIA and the likes of Kissinger

These guys are the eugencist fascists behind the corporatocracy in the US and they are fighting a global war against humanity

If you think we should 'trade' our freedoms in return for giving these guys carte blanche to do whatever they want in the hope that they will be merciful with us and hopefully build some sort of political system where we will all be housed, fed, clothed and looked after then you need a wake up call