My Two Cents on Socialism

Socialism is like Recycling, both make you feel nice, but that's about it.

Only thing worth recycling that is actually cheaper to recycle than make new ones is aluminum cans. Everything else is BS as told by those wisemen Penn and Teller.

- GX
"I have no answers to your questions, but I can question your demands." - Motto Inspired by Laibach's WAT

I think it's much like the democratic ideal. It's never worked perfectly, but it makes life easier to think that the problems we face are caused by a misinterpretation rather than a flaw in the theory itself.

In any event, without aspiring to unattainable goals humanity would never have left the cave. The ideology of socialism was the driving force behind the rise in unionism (and corresponding improvements in working conditions) and the ideals of the modern welfare state. Sure these movements have been corrupted over the years, but without them the world would have been far more bleak for countless millions. Humanity needs the unattainable in order to progress.

Maybe it is a lot like believing in fairies from Neverland, but most people (myself included) would rather believe in fairies than believe that humanity is a plague upon the face of the world. People need hope and socialism provides that. Who are we to judge the believers for aiming for an impossible Eden?

There are several fairies that visit me regularly and I have a great relationship with Santa's elves.


"to dream the impossible dream..."

Socialism, IMHO, just isn't for humans till we find a way to get rid of "monster" in all of us that makes we want to expolt or steal from each other. Found a socialism country and corrupt ones will thank you then take it over.

Socialism is indeed an incredible ideal, and it is also true that it has not yet worked. The problem with socialism in todays world is that of capitalism.

Do you guys like working? If you're an ordinary person, you don't, and thus, socialism is perfect for you. With our technology today, one man can produce sufficient clothing for 10,000
people, think about the implications of that. If one man is capable of the much production, and everyone else is similar, the amount of free time people would have would be absolutely astonishing. A socialist nation cannot survive for very long when it has to cope with Capitalist nations, which are so common today. While citizens in a socialist country would have everything necessary to survive, the amount of gadgets, etc, that capitalist countires produce would be very appealing to that socialist citizen.

And while many countries do not have the necessary resources to support themselves entirely on their own, they are forced to trade with countires who have those resources, and are often Capitalist. Now lets say half of the earth was socialist, there would be no problem, as trade between true socialist countries is far simpler than that between socialist/communist countires.

In terms of practicality, socialism is there. You guys are certianly right about how hard it would be for socialism to succeed in todays world, but if things keep progressing the way they are, and the middle class is eliminated, which seems to be happening these days, that transition will be much much easier. Think about not having to buy anything, there would be no managing 401k's, retirement funds, mortgages, etc etc etc. If you work, you are given those things you want, when you get old and cannot, you have a pension of sorts... Seems pretty damn nice to me.

As nice as it would be, there is no way in hell this would happen in neither mine, noe my grandchildrens years....

Do you guys like working? If you're an ordinary person, you don't, and thus, socialism is perfect for you. With our technology today, one man can produce sufficient clothing for 10,000 people, think about the implications of that

And therein lies a big part of the problem. If the people in a socialist society truly don't like working, what's to get them to work when things are provided for them automatically?

Only thing worth recycling that is actually cheaper to recycle than make new ones is aluminum cans. Everything else is BS as told by those wisemen Penn and Teller.

Not only that, but each time I recycle, I take away another opportunity from a homeless person to make some money.

I think it's much like the democratic ideal. It's never worked perfectly, but it makes life easier to think that the problems we face are caused by a misinterpretation rather than a flaw in the theory itself.

Yeah, and like the democratic ideal, it is good when it's mixed with other systems. Rather than debating whether socialism should be the law of the land, it should be how much socialism will improve the world.

Socialism, IMHO, just isn't for humans till we find a way to get rid of "monster" in all of us that makes we want to expolt or steal from each other. Found a socialism country and corrupt ones will thank you then take it over.

That won't ever happen though. It's natural to fight for one's own interests, and if the system can't use that motive to benefit everybody for the most part, then it's not going to work.

Do you guys like working? If you're an ordinary person, you don't, and thus, socialism is perfect for you. With our technology today, one man can produce sufficient clothing for 10,000 people, think about the implications of that. If one man is capable of the much production, and everyone else is similar, the amount of free time people would have would be absolutely astonishing. A socialist nation cannot survive for very long when it has to cope with Capitalist nations, which are so common today. While citizens in a socialist country would have everything necessary to survive, the amount of gadgets, etc, that capitalist countires produce would be very appealing to that socialist citizen.

But the technology has to be created, everything has to be shipped, the energy for that needs to be produced, etc. If a socialist nation can't compete with a capitalist one, doesn't that say something about socialism?

In terms of practicality, socialism is there. You guys are certianly right about how hard it would be for socialism to succeed in todays world, but if things keep progressing the way they are, and the middle class is eliminated, which seems to be happening these days, that transition will be much much easier. Think about not having to buy anything, there would be no managing 401k's, retirement funds, mortgages, etc etc etc. If you work, you are given those things you want, when you get old and cannot, you have a pension of sorts... Seems pretty damn nice to me.

If everybody was given what they want, we'd all have mansions, limousines, robot maids, etc.

And therein lies a big part of the problem. If the people in a socialist society truly don't like working, what's to get them to work when things are provided for them automatically?

I'd also miss the individuality of capitalism. There's something more satisfying about being in a dead-end job with a possibility of getting a better one than to be in a dead-end job for the rest of your life because the government chose it for you.

Not only that, but each time I recycle, I take away another opportunity from a homeless person to make some money.

Hahahaha. You're kidding, right?

Hahahaha. You're kidding, right?

Don't you ever see people looking through garbage cans for soda cans to recycle? It might not be much money, but if everybody were to recycle, that'd be less money for them, and I'm sure they need the twenty dollars they can get from recycling more than we do.

ahahaha. You're kidding, right?

Sandy,

No, messy's not kidding. That was our primary income for a month.

Reply #11 By: Gideon MacLeish - 9/25/2004 3:22:31 PM ahahaha. You're kidding, right? Sandy, No, messy's not kidding. That was our primary income for a month.

Mine too for a little while!

The problem with socialists is that they think that all people are equal. The socialists I've talked to honestly believe that the average garbage man has the same IQ as a doctor.

Smart, hardworking people should be rewarded....which is why many dumb, lazy people support socialism.

The problem with socialism is that it breeds complacency. Ambition to succeed is an option and for those who strive for success and attain it, it becomes their responsibility to carry an ever growing load. In a perfect world, humanity would be free from the shackles of currency and the definition of ambition would be to better ones self - not the acquisition of material wealth. Sort of a bartering system where everyone filled a need according to their abillities. Unfortunately, humanity is still riddled with greed, dishonesty, corruption, and deception so all of the above has and will fail without exception. Until mankind evolves beyond our current shortcomings, capitalism (with all it's flaws) is the best incentive to get those lazy butts out of bed every morning in search of a better future.

Oh and oligarchy314
I know a garbage man or two that started out neck deep in trash and now own their own garbage collection services making more cash than a lot of doctors. Dedication can be just as profitable as IQ in many cases.

For years my father had a terrible job, barely enough money to support the family. But he escaped depression. He knew he would one day find a better job and let his family live the way they wanted to live. He worked hard, worked hard to achieve his goal, achieve his dreams, and live up to his family's expectations. Because of his motivation to do better, we lived better.

That is how it is in Capitalist nations. Because the people need to work hard for what they want, they often get what they want. In Socialist nations, nobody has to worry about succeeding in a job, since their life will be no better if they do. A nation full of unmotivated, lazy people is doomed to fail. In a Capitalist society, people strive to be their best, and therefore it benefits the whole country.

I know my father would have given up if he knew that he could not excel in his career or be rewarded for doing better. A person in a Socialist nation would've given up, most likely. With a nation full of people that essentially 'give up', what can be accomplished?

Zobelisk: Do you know the defintion of the word average? Of course their are some garbagemen that have a higher IQ than some doctors. That is why I used the word "average" instead of "all".

It seems true that "real" socialism has not been tried but by that criteria - neither has "real" communism or "real" capitalism.

From what I can see, these economic paradigms HAVE all been tried - but not in their purest forms. Now that the playing field is level, it is easy to see which one consistently produces the best quality of life, technological innovation (which is what allows 1 man to produce for 10,000 in the 1st place), and long term success, not to mention fundamental fairness.

Since socialism doesn't work well except in small doses as America has it, why even bother supporting some make-believe utopia that'll never be? It might be nicer, but niceness doesn't do as much for the world as practicality.

But Messy, the socialists that you are discussing with are only trying to discount the failures of implementing socialism, not socialism itself. What they mean to say is that socialism is so self-evidentially right that you cannot dismiss socialism, you just have to excuse those who have failed to implement it correctly!

Grim Xiozan:

Only thing worth recycling that is actually cheaper to recycle than make new ones is aluminum cans.

I don't want to hijack this thread, but this statement is woefully wrong. It is cost effective to recycle many items (eg. cars, newspapers).

Back to Messy:

Not only that, but each time I recycle, I take away another opportunity from a homeless person to make some money.

I don't know where you live, but there is no opportunity (market) for scavengers in my town. Besides, if you extend this logic then every time that you do something for yoursefl (wash your car, shovel your walk, cut your grass), then you are taking away from a homeless person. That's not quite accurate.

I don't want to hijack this thread, but this statement is woefully wrong. It is cost effective to recycle many items (eg. cars, newspapers).

Paper is not cost effective to recycle, maybe cars, but paper produces more pollution, and does not save trees, since Paper Companies in the US plant Paper trees and in fact if the Paper Companies did not exist there would be LESS trees in the US now. Seriously watch Penn and Teller's BS Show, it is some good stuff.

Hell, they thought like I had thought that recycling some stuff is worth it, but when you check into the facts and such you find out how wrong that is. Only a couple of key items which aluminum cans and cars(?) are cost effective to recycle, seriously check into it.

- GX
"I have no answers to your questions, but I can question your demands." - Motto Inspired by Laibach's WAT

If more people had Socialist values, the world would be a MUCH nicer place to live in. You don't need a Socialist Government to make socialism work.....You yourself can make it work in your macro world. What is wrong with a society based on equallity of opportunity and social welfare?..Have a nice day y'all.

If more people had Socialist values, the world would be a MUCH nicer place to live in. You don't need a Socialist Government to make socialism work.....You yourself can make it work in your macro world. What is wrong with a society based on equallity of opportunity and social welfare?..Have a nice day y'all.

I honestly don't see how those with socialist values improve the world any better than those without them.

Reply #18 By: Bunnahabhain - 9/26/2004 3:28:25 AM I don't know where you live, but there is no opportunity (market) for scavengers in my town. Besides, if you extend this logic then every time that you do something for yoursefl (wash your car, shovel your walk, cut your grass), then you are taking away from a homeless person. That's not quite accurate.

So I take it there are NO recycling centers where you live? If so then there IS a market! Because that's where you turn it in! If not *where* do you send your recyclables?

Paper is not cost effective to recycle, maybe cars, but paper produces more pollution, and does not save trees, since Paper Companies in the US plant Paper trees and in fact if the Paper Companies did not exist there would be LESS trees in the US now.

I don't have the numbers on pollution or trees planted, but I do believe that the paper industry has come a long way in the last 20 years. While I am opposed to purposely destroying our planet, I don't support recycling for some feel-good, group hug, socialist inspired reason. It needs to make financial sense as well.

What I do know is that we have a recycling program in our town, and that the city makes money from some products and loses it on others. Prices fluctuate based on market conditions. Right now, aluminum cans pay well, and paper doesn't lose money. Recently a friend sold a Hyundai Pony (useless for parts, scrap value only) to a company for $50, and they towed it away. If it was not cheaper to recycle, then there would be no money in it.

Seriously watch Penn and Teller's BS Show, it is some good stuff.

Don't get that show here, and a Google search led me to http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/home.do. The page says, "We at Showtime Online express our apologies; however, these pages are intended for access only from within the United States.".

So I take it there are NO recycling centers where you live? If so then there IS a market! Because that's where you turn it in! If not *where* do you send your recyclables?

We have a recycling program run by the city. Collection cycle varies a bit based upon where you live, but there is a blue box for bottles, cans, and certain plastics. There is a gray box for paper products. Trash is separate. A pilot project exists for compostable materials,. but I don't know much about it.

If there is some sort of recycling center around, I don't know about it. With the city running the program that they do, I don't know if that leaves much room for competition.

Reply #24 By: Bunnahabhain - 9/26/2004 10:08:15 PM So I take it there are NO recycling centers where you live? If so then there IS a market! Because that's where you turn it in! If not *where* do you send your recyclables? We have a recycling program run by the city. Collection cycle varies a bit based upon where you live, but there is a blue box for bottles, cans, and certain plastics. There is a gray box for paper products. Trash is separate. A pilot project exists for compostable materials,. but I don't know much about it. If there is some sort of recycling center around, I don't know about it. With the city running the program that they do, I don't know if that leaves much room for competition.

If you have a recycling program then you *have* a recycling center!

If you have a recycling program then you *have* a recycling center!

That does not neccesarily mean that a person can redeem cans for money. Look at your cans and bottles. It says right on them which states have a plan in place that gives rebates to industrious recyclers. Many states have recycling programs but offer no financial incentive. There is only an emotional incentive or a legislation that mandates recycling. Not everyone lives in the same system that you guys apparently do.

Capitalism favors the risk takers, the investors, the people with fire and ambition and lets those lacking drive and commitment to suffer at their own hands. Socialism would bring up those who have no amibition and bring down those with the drive. Explain to me why that would be right? That, to me, would be the greatest injustice of all..and the biggest failing of socialism in any form.

I would have to agree with this statement. Without a motive to innovate and work hard, the society stagnates and the industrious among them emigrate to places where they are not stifled but instead, rewarded. Which is a good thing for America since immigrants that come here seeking opportunity typically do very well and contribute greatly to our society, economy, and culture. Now if only the homegrown populace would "get it."