My Two Cents on Socialism - The Political Machine Forums

Reply #26 September 27, 2004 2:17 PM from

JoeUser Forums Top

It says right on them which states have a plan in place that gives rebates to industrious recyclers.

That's not a rebate- that is a return (you pay a deposit when you buy it. In Michigan, for example, you pay $.10 a bottle/can when you buy a carbonated beverage, and you get that back if you return it).

You can get money for recycling other things. If you take scrap mettal, paper, cardboard, etc. to a recycling center there is a dollar amount given per pound.

Recycling for free also makes sense if you pay per bag for garbage removal.

Socalism would in itself destroy innovation. Why achieve if there is no greatness behind it?

True, very true.

Reply #27 September 27, 2004 11:14 PM from

JoeUser Forums Top

Socalism would in itself destroy innovation. Why achieve if there is no greatness behind it?

In some countries because you have a gun stuck to your head, in others for national pride and simply to be the best or because you can. Most innovation doesn't come from the promise of monetary reward or the wonders of capitalism but because the innovator has a passion for their work. The money is useful and affects how often innovative people are able to do their thing, but lack of money has never been an enormous barrier to anything except commercialisation of an idea. Consider open-source software (largely free and unpaid) or even eye-correcting surgery (first developed using scalpels in Russia).

A socialist country does not necessarily have to crush innovation - consider the many hundreds of heroes used commonly in socialist propaganda, especially Chinese propaganda. Inspiration and the threat of violence can be as effective as money in motivating people to improve their designs.

Reply #28 September 28, 2004 3:42 PM from

PolMach Forums Top

Inspiration and the threat of violence can be as effective as money in motivating people to improve their designs.

Alright. Now look around you at the innovations that you appreciate. Then consider what kind of system birthed them. I think that you will find that freedom and capitalism brings to us the bulk of the innovations that we all love so much despite containing a minority of the world's populace.
The field of health care is easier to disect with respect to economics (vs. an entire economy). Look at where new medicines and medical proceedures come from. Do they come from nations with Socialized Medicine?
(Yes I know some will posit that the US has partially socialized medicine but that occurance is far more limited in the US than other places - still supporting my hypothesis that the less socialism in an industry, the better that industry will perform.)

Reply #29 September 28, 2004 3:51 PM from

PolMach Forums Top

In some countries because you have a gun stuck to your head, in others for national pride and simply to be the best or because you can. Most innovation doesn't come from the promise of monetary reward or the wonders of capitalism but because the innovator has a passion for their work.

Than what point is there behind inventing new technology or anything new for that matter, if it were not for monetary and social recognition, in a socialist world that person would be only recognized a functioning cog in the machine, not as the brilliant inventor, such as Thomas Edison, or Nicolai Tesla, etc. What point is there to proceed forward? Granted they just don't do it for the two above, but for all three reasons: monetary, social recognition, and the benefit of society, take two away and you will see fewer inventors and fewer innovations period. Am I the only one who can see that?

- GX

Reply #30 September 28, 2004 8:10 PM from

JoeUser Forums Top

Whew, a gun to the head, huh? That's alot better than capitalism..invention by threat.

I didn't say it was nice, just that it was effective.

Than what point is there behind inventing new technology or anything new for that matter, if it were not for monetary and social recognition, in a socialist world that person would be only recognized a functioning cog in the machine, not as the brilliant inventor, such as Thomas Edison, or Nicolai Tesla, etc. What point is there to proceed forward? Granted they just don't do it for the two above, but for all three reasons: monetary, social recognition, and the benefit of society, take two away and you will see fewer inventors and fewer innovations period. Am I the only one who can see that?

There were a large number of communist scientists, both in Russia and in China, who achieved considerable social status and material possessions as a result of their success. But communist countries are more dictatorial than socialist, so certainly I'm prepared to disregard their successes for you.

Cuba or Nicaragua were probably the closest countries to the socialist ideal, but they were/are impoverished and weak due to exclusion from world markets, constant attack and subversion from larger neighbours and the inherent weaknesses of the leadership/system. I don' t think they are a good example of innovation as they fail to do so even now under capitalism.

Reply #31 September 28, 2004 8:17 PM from

JoeUser Forums Top

Now look around you at the innovations that you appreciate. Then consider what kind of system birthed them. I think that you will find that freedom and capitalism brings to us the bulk of the innovations that we all love so much despite containing a minority of the world's populace.

I freely admit that capitalism gave birth to many of the things I use around the house. But capitalist countries weren't the ones who developed the tech to fix my eyes or developed the tech to let my satellite dish work. But the 4 or so billion people who made up the capitalist world during the 1900s significantly outnumbered the socialist world and were far richer. This was certainly due to the efficiency of their economic systems, but the fact that Russia managed to maintain technological parity in military terms with the US for so long suggests that socialism isn't quite as anti-innovation as many claim.

I would hate to live in a fully socialist country, but the small amount of socialism which my home country supports does little to inhibit innovation.

Reply #32 September 28, 2004 8:57 PM from

PolMach Forums Top

There were a large number of communist scientists, both in Russia and in China, who achieved considerable social status and material possessions as a result of their success. But communist countries are more dictatorial than socialist, so certainly I'm prepared to disregard their successes for you.

Russia's Communist System was not socialist, it was capitalistic, which was the irony of the USSR. Still even than most inventors in the USSR lived in the fear of Stalin and other Dictators, but even than still more of a capitalist system than socialist. Face it inventors just don't invent for the benefit of society.

- GX

Reply #33 September 28, 2004 9:07 PM from

JoeUser Forums Top

Face it inventors just don't invent for the benefit of society.

That is what I said... if we agree then I guess I've got nothing more to say about innovation and socialism.

Reply #34 September 28, 2004 9:23 PM from

PolMach Forums Top

That is what I said... if we agree then I guess I've got nothing more to say about innovation and socialism.

I agree 100%, just have a habit of reiterating stuff.

- GX

Reply #35 November 1, 2004 10:17 PM from

JoeUser Forums Top