No, my desire to be an efficient worker in order to make money supersedes my material needs. God made me this way. It is an irrevocable law of nature that humans are most motivated by the acquisition of the organizational tool known as capital.
Socialism
- Thread starter Satya
- Start date
No, my desire to be an efficient worker in order to make money supersedes my material needs. God made me this way. It is an irrevocable law of nature that humans are most motivated by the acquisition of the organizational tool known as capital.
It would utterly suck if the desire to be productive was irrevocably connected to the desire to make money.
S
Shai Gar
Wrong. Reread your post in a few days so you can look with fresh eyes at your post.
True, there are other driving forces behind productivity. HOWEVER generally, in this competitive material world, capital is definetly part of it!
Just remember, serving the interest of materialism will only lead to more materialism. At what point will humans consume all their finite resources in their self serving venture to generate more and more capital? To what degree can this planet handle the waste and pollution we generate in our desire to have more? When will humans start producing for the planet and not from it? At what point should we begin limiting the individual's freedom when human society begins to decay due to conflict over scarce resources?
Those are questions that you, as a die hard capitalist, might want to consider.
Humans are very flawed. The opposite to Growth is Environmental and people are easily attracted to extravagance. I know that humans want more and more. Its in our nature to project our want onto something else once we have attained what we initially wanted. Hence, I think that sooner or later, in a lifetime, people discover that they are missing something meaningful. Thus, why someone who has millions and millions still may not be 'happy'. Although, it may not happen in time before it leads to our own demise...
Don't be so quick to judge me :S I love this world and I am all for environmental friendly means!! And what makes you think I'm a die hard capitalist?
Therein lies the justification for a certain degree of socialism and an infringement on individual freedom. Capitalism is only concerned with the short term and the bottom line, and therein lies the rub that Karl Marx originally intended people to see. Capitalism will inevitably destroy itself.
I'm just asking the questions. I think it was this post that started it all...
http://forum.infjs.com/showpost.php?p=133587&postcount=13
Health care is a scare resource in this country, and rather than remedy it, the insurance companies sought to keep it a scarce resource so as to make a greater profit.
Last edited:
YOU ASSUME to much, way to much. When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me. You're such a black and white thinker, JUST because I oppose the socialist ideology you assume that I'm the opposite, a hardcore capitalist. You don't seem to realise that even the most capitalistic society in a democracy has a social welfare.
And don't blame an IDEOLOGY for failing the environment. That is just pathetic because socialism has consistently failed to protect the environment just as the other!!
You are correct, I assumed that your vehement hatred for socialism and your comments like, "Time is money" indicated that you were a big supporter of capitalism. Moderates generally don't take the position of hating one side. You have yet to acknowledge even one of the flaws I put forth in regards to capitalism, instead choosing to lay the blame on human nature. As such, I believed that you were as vehement a supporter for capitalism as you were a hater of socialism. In that regards, I apologize.
I acknowledge that a healthy functioning society needs Socialist means, however it is the extent in which they are taken to that I hate. (i.e. Sweden)
Apology accepted =)
A lot of people talk about how under Socialism, the goal of the government is the welfare of its citizens. This is in contrast to a Capitalist setup, they say, where the only concern of the system is profit. While this is true and seems in favor of Socialism at a glance, let's lay out all parties involved:
Goals of parties in Capitalism:
Government: Preserve the rights of the people and businesses.
Businesses: Produce the greatest legal profit.
Citizens: Trade salary for personal welfare.
In a Capitalist system, goods are produced in order to make profit. Every dollar that a person has and is willing to spend is like a vote towards what goods will be produced. Companies will compete to produce the goods most likely to be bought by the end consumer, and it is the consumer's job to ensure that the goods bought by his or her salary support his or her general welfare. The government's ONLY job should be to preserve rights.
The end result of Capitalism is the welfare of the citizens at the citizens' discretion.
Goals of parties in Socialism:
Government: Provide for the welfare of the citizens.
Businesses: Null - controlled by government.
Citizens: ???
In a Socialist system, the government's goal is the welfare of its citizens. What I find scary about this system is that rights need not apply. The problem in implementing this system is in determining who gets what. In Capitalism the system resolves with each dollar as a vote, but there's no inherent choice for socialism. Whether they dole out dollars, vouchers, or the products themselves, the amount that each person receives is either an amount equal to everyone else or based on need.
Whether this is right comes down to the question "Does everyone have the right to have sustenance provided for them?" If you answer "yes" to that question then you are very likely socialist. If you answered "no" then you are very likely capitalist.
If the above question is not taken into account, it is clear that Capitalism is much more efficient at distributing goods. If we think of each dollar as a vote, we can see that those companies who have the greatest income are the best at providing for the consumers' needs and those who have the best income
rofit are the most efficient. Those who provide more for society get more "votes" as to what goods get sent their way. The system is self-balancing and highly efficient.
Problems arise in Capitalism when people try to manipulate the system.
Returning to the question "Does everyone have the right to have sustenance provided for them?":
It is my personal opinion that people have the right to provide for themselves, but it is not a universal right that sustenance be provided, because it allows for leeches.
If there were no leeches and everyone provided for their own then the question is irrelevant and might as well say "Does everyone have the right to provide for themselves?" (Which I agree with.)
P.S. I realized after posting that this is the exact type of post everyone makes at INTJs forum. Does this make me a stereotypical INTJ?
Goals of parties in Capitalism:
Government: Preserve the rights of the people and businesses.
Businesses: Produce the greatest legal profit.
Citizens: Trade salary for personal welfare.
In a Capitalist system, goods are produced in order to make profit. Every dollar that a person has and is willing to spend is like a vote towards what goods will be produced. Companies will compete to produce the goods most likely to be bought by the end consumer, and it is the consumer's job to ensure that the goods bought by his or her salary support his or her general welfare. The government's ONLY job should be to preserve rights.
The end result of Capitalism is the welfare of the citizens at the citizens' discretion.
Goals of parties in Socialism:
Government: Provide for the welfare of the citizens.
Businesses: Null - controlled by government.
Citizens: ???
In a Socialist system, the government's goal is the welfare of its citizens. What I find scary about this system is that rights need not apply. The problem in implementing this system is in determining who gets what. In Capitalism the system resolves with each dollar as a vote, but there's no inherent choice for socialism. Whether they dole out dollars, vouchers, or the products themselves, the amount that each person receives is either an amount equal to everyone else or based on need.
Whether this is right comes down to the question "Does everyone have the right to have sustenance provided for them?" If you answer "yes" to that question then you are very likely socialist. If you answered "no" then you are very likely capitalist.
If the above question is not taken into account, it is clear that Capitalism is much more efficient at distributing goods. If we think of each dollar as a vote, we can see that those companies who have the greatest income are the best at providing for the consumers' needs and those who have the best income
rofit are the most efficient. Those who provide more for society get more "votes" as to what goods get sent their way. The system is self-balancing and highly efficient.Problems arise in Capitalism when people try to manipulate the system.
Returning to the question "Does everyone have the right to have sustenance provided for them?":
It is my personal opinion that people have the right to provide for themselves, but it is not a universal right that sustenance be provided, because it allows for leeches.
If there were no leeches and everyone provided for their own then the question is irrelevant and might as well say "Does everyone have the right to provide for themselves?" (Which I agree with.)
P.S. I realized after posting that this is the exact type of post everyone makes at INTJs forum. Does this make me a stereotypical INTJ?
Last edited:
Let's examine these goals...
Politicians seek to get re-elected. That is their primary goal. They can only make money when they are in office and can push various agendas for their financial backers.
To produce the greatest profit for shareholders. That does not entail "legal" means and that doesn't mean creating the greatest amount of actual profit.
Tens of millions of laborers have to compete for wages so low that they cannot afford basic things like health care.
Within a Constitutional Republic, the government has several responsibilities, among which is looking out for the general welfare and security of its people. As such, the "capitalism" you are endorsing is one that can only exist within a non democratic system.
It falls at the discretion of whoever hoards the most capital.
Last edited:
S
Shai Gar
S
Shai Gar
S
Shai Gar
Think I may have got the wrong idea of what socialism is. Socalism was a big thing in England at the start of the 20th century, particularly writers of the Orwell persuasion, and I've tended, perhaps wrongly, to associate it with the developments made then.
I think of socialist thought as being "we whould share for the health of the country and our people as well as ourselves". This means paying taxes that go toward providing free education and healthcare as well as allowances for the unemployed, the disabled and sick etc.
Am I wrong? What does it mean exactly?
I think of socialist thought as being "we whould share for the health of the country and our people as well as ourselves". This means paying taxes that go toward providing free education and healthcare as well as allowances for the unemployed, the disabled and sick etc.
Am I wrong? What does it mean exactly?
Here's a definition according to:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Here's a definition according to:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Thanks
So we kind of take parts of socialism in England but not all then?
Like the BBC is public owned as is the postal service. The railway used to be public owned but was privatised (and not sure I totally agree with this move).
Well some things have to be controlled by the government in my opinion just to make sure it's fair. (or as fair as it can be). State schools in England used to be COMPLETELY public owned but are now allowed to receive funding from private interests. This means that there's now a school in Northumbria that teaches Creationism but not Evolution. Healthcare, education, transportation, postal service etc should definitely be public/state owned. Just to TRY and encourage fairness across the board both financially, geographically and in quality. Though obviously it never quite works out.
As for taxes, it is absolutely right that you should be taxed more the more you earn, it should be proportional. The point is not that you are being punished but that the people below you are giving the same proportion of their wages up. That's fair. That way everybody is being inconvenienced to the same degree.
Of course all out socialism would mean that EVERYTHING was owned by the state, I suppose? This just WOULDN'T work out. But taking on some socialist ideas like those detailed above is just humanitarian