Why Socialism?

[blue1995]

The top down approach is what has been tried and failed. Why invest the same amount of power into revolutionary leaders that you are trying to get away from investing in capitalists? The results are inevitable. Socialism can only function efficiently if it's brought up from below, but it can only survive and expand if it reaches the top and takes over the political realm. I suggest watching the documentary, even for curiosity's sake. It's very interesting.

That sounds about right. I will, thanks for the link.

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

Capitalism seems to be doing just fine for the majority of the western world.

The vast majority of the members of the western world are far more social than the US. Not to mention the US has lost a massive amount of international standing, and is continuing to hemorrhage hard earned political capital due to the greedy, careless, and shameless decisions of the current ruling class.

 

[bit_pattern]

The top down approach is what has been tried and failed. Why invest the same amount of power into revolutionary leaders that you are trying to get away from investing in capitalists? The results are inevitable. Socialism can only function efficiently if it's brought up from below, but it can only survive and expand if it reaches the top and takes over the political realm.

I concur.

 

[gimpan]

There's probably a lot and then some that I don't know. It's just that, somehow, when I hear the word "socialism" all I can think about is the possibility for abuse of power over the individual and the family, and that goes against everything in me that identifies as an American and a human being.

At least you're not above asking, I dont pretend to know the right way for our society to follow, but it seems too many people think they know the in's and out's of specific systems of government because they took a class or two or read some pseudo commie blog.

I believe people are naturally greedy and to ignore that fact is detrimental to our society. If people have nothing to profit I believe advances in science,technology,medicine, etc would would suffer, on the other hand of course we cant let greed be the overwhelming goal of our society.

I believe like many things the right way is to find ourselves a happy medium right in the middle, nestled somewhere in between the butt cheeks of Capitalism and Communism and Anarchy and Tyranny.

 

[Bardeaux]

I believe people are naturally greedy and to ignore that fact is detrimental to our society. If people have nothing to profit I believe advances in science,technology,medicine, etc would would suffer, on the other hand of course we cant let greed be the overwhelming goal of our society.

But this is demonstrably incorrect. Non-profit enterprise made it to space in the early 1950s, the private sector is just now getting to the point where putting a person in space is practical in 2013. The cure for polio was not patented, and was given away freely by Jonas Salk. Everything from television to radio to the internet was developed by not-for-profit enterprise. In some ways, profit gets in the way of what information and technologies are available to the public.

Now, the market has been wonderful in delivering these things to the masses, in a way that is much more efficient than otherwise. I can buy all of the ridiculous things I do or do not need at the click of a button. However, once there is a way to do this in a planned fashion without an exchange of currency, the private market will no longer be relevant. With the commercialization of the internet also came pirated file sharing that completely undermined the concept of profit.

The profit motive has been a great delivery system, but it isn't necessary for the actual development of sciences, medicine or technology.

 

[CoffeeDrinker]

Your community isn't self-sufficient - they rely on outside sources for the materials needed for an off-the-grid energy system.

Your community could be completely self-sufficient but you'd dial back your standard of living a lot. No electricity. You better hope there's clay for bricks. And a source of iron. Better get a blacksmith as well.

Or you could live with just paleotech and require even less knowledge and local resources.

But I don't think the quality of life would be that great.

If we're talking about cultural problems and putting our $.02 in, here's my two copper plated bits of zinc:

The poor in the US can be trapped in situations where's its hard to escape from poverty. They frequently lack the resources or empowerment needed.

The middle class is also getting squeezed. But their situation is different from the poor. Yes, there are outside factors that have resulted in attacks on the middle class's quality of life. But the middle class itself is remarkably destructive towards its members. It has cultivated a cancerous culture of consumption and debt. Large homes, new cars, the latest tech gadgets all serve to sap any potential ability to save. Credit cards run up debts of thousands of dollars (the median credit card debt in the US is $3,000!). The way we live our lives is another fiscal drain - we build unwalkable communities, which results in us driving everywhere (automobile costs), which reduces our health (medical costs), and requires us to devote more time to trying to regain that health, such as gyms (membership fees). Automobile use isn't the only way we create a culture that is expensive and unhealthy: We tend towards large lawns (more expensive to buy), then encourage green, weed-free lawns even in the driest summer droughts (water, fertilizer, and weedkiller costs) which are so big that we require power tools to maintain them (gas, maintenance and the initial purchase and replacement costs). It goes on and on, and it results in an insane race to the bottom.

...hmmm...No one cares about the constituents of modern pennies, you blowhard, and the other Snapple-cap facts you've organized into a post aren't any less common knowledge either. Anyway.....

I guess I didn't make it clear enough that my whole idea wasn't merely for the purpose of being self-reliant in a dictionary definition sense of the term, but to create a self-sustainable community that "would, essentially, be able to exist, or possibly thrive, within an existing capitalist framework." Meaning it's set up WITHIN the system, therefore ambiguously pointing out that it requires "outside resources" was just as helpful as your explanation of the contents of today's pennies. (Also, isn't everything considered an "outside resource" to something that hasn't been built yet?) It produces goods and energy that, once set up, would allow it to self-sustain as long as there's people willing to do it. The whole "selling back to The Grid" portion was just a way to make a little extra money, and another implicit acknowledgment that this idea was meant for use in today's America.

Quality of life does not need to be limited at all if you use today's technologies correctly.

If you're gonna be an asshole, don't be a dumbass also. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

I guess I didn't make it clear enough that my whole idea wasn't merely for the purpose of being self-reliant in a dictionary definition sense of the term, but to create a self-sustainable community that "would, essentially, be able to exist, or possibly thrive, within an existing capitalist framework." Meaning it's set up WITHIN the system, therefore ambiguously pointing out that it requires "outside resources" was just as helpful as your explanation of the contents of today's pennies.

Next time, why don't you use the word "sustainable" instead of "self-sustainable"? It would be less confusing.

Although, if you're relying on goods and services from the current capitalistic framework, is it really sustainable?

 

[CoffeeDrinker]

Other than a road, and the lines that feed back into the grid purely for the purpose of selling back energy, the thing seems pretty self-sustaining to me, but you're probably right about it being better to refer to it as "sustainable".

As for the second point...
When the apocalypse comes I'd much rather be positioned in a sustainable village like I'm talking about than a city or suburb. And I definitely wouldn't want to be in a small, decaying, rural town that didn't have a few internal sources of energy.

I just saw a video about how a small town in the Catskills in NY, which was formerly a semi-prosperous Dairy producing village, gradually lost any semblance of a decent economy/industry. When the windmill contractors started flooding the area to sell the town Wind energy in the mid 2000s some of the members were all over it. When the wives of these men complained of their sight and peace being interrupted by the giant windmills they started a giant fuss until the turbines came down. The town's people were divided, and now it has no hope of economic revival. All because of something stupid like your neighbor's wife doesn't like how it looks.

What I'm saying is those people would be the first to go when the Bilderbergs start their Great Culling.

Self-Sustainable Earthship Community to the rescue!

 

[bit_pattern]

United States: Socialists make big council gains

Saturday, November 9, 2013
By Raul Connolly
“It’s a far cry from a revolution, but socialists had a surprisingly strong showing in two city council races on Election Day, November 5,” MSNBC.com said the next day. “In Seattle, Kshama Sawant picked up 46% of the vote while challenging 15-year Democratic incumbent Richard Conlin. And in Minneapolis, Ty Moore is only 131 votes behind Democratic candidate Alondra Cano.”

The article said that, while Sawant and Moore both trail their opponents, neither race has been officially called. “And even if they both lose, they will have received an unusual amount of grassroots and institutional support for two avowedly anti-capitalist candidates running in major American cities.”

They both also received union endorsements, with Moore even managing to raise more money than the Democrat in the race.

“This is an indication of how eager people are for real change,” Sawant told MSNBC.com. Sawant and Moore ran as members of Socialist Alternative.

MSNBC.com said: “Among the issues Moore campaigned on: A $15 minimum wage, public ownership of Minneapolis utilities, and declaring housing to be a human right.

“Sawant also focused on low wages and affordable housing as key issues, and was a vociferous supporter of a referendum that raised that town’s minimum wage to $15 per hour.”

https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/55339

 

[cashfl0w_d0nkey]

Capitalism is the most powerful economic force yet established. Socialism is less powerful than capitalism and so for now, the best we can do is to temper capitalism with socialist aims. I think if you look at the world today, you see some nations experimenting with this issue and trying to figure out what is the right balance that allows for the strongest economy with the least volatile society. I'd say that this is the most logical way forward for any nation.

 

[cashfl0w_d0nkey]

But this is demonstrably incorrect. Non-profit enterprise made it to space in the early 1950s, the private sector is just now getting to the point where putting a person in space is practical in 2013. The cure for polio was not patented, and was given away freely by Jonas Salk. Everything from television to radio to the internet was developed by not-for-profit enterprise. In some ways, profit gets in the way of what information and technologies are available to the public.

Now, the market has been wonderful in delivering these things to the masses, in a way that is much more efficient than otherwise. I can buy all of the ridiculous things I do or do not need at the click of a button. However, once there is a way to do this in a planned fashion without an exchange of currency, the private market will no longer be relevant. With the commercialization of the internet also came pirated file sharing that completely undermined the concept of profit.

The profit motive has been a great delivery system, but it isn't necessary for the actual development of sciences, medicine or technology.

It seems to me that it was American tax dollars that got a man into space. The success of the American space program is pretty much still to this day the pinnacle of capitalist achievement.

PS: Since when is the US military considered a non-profit enterprise?
PPS: The internet was developed primarily by not-for-profit activities? I guess all of the innovation over the last 20 years has been done not-for-profit as well?

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

Capitalism is the most powerful economic force yet established. Socialism is less powerful than capitalism and so for now, the best we can do is to temper capitalism with socialist aims. I think if you look at the world today, you see some nations experimenting with this issue and trying to figure out what is the right balance that allows for the strongest economy with the least volatile society. I'd say that this is the most logical way forward for any nation.

I too agree that a form of regulated capitalism is the right way. In Germany the free markets are more strictly regulated than in the US, but are still free markets. While far from perfect (as everything will probably always be) they attempt to protect their citizens from malicious corporate entities (with the exception of a few who sometimes get what they want..car industry).

The US is a very similar system, and used to be even closer to this form of regulation than where we are today. The American government/people began being assaulted under Nixon. The foundation of private health insurance companies was criminal. Listen to Nixon and the head of Humana talking about how to make such a system profitable (Nixon's #1 concern in the exchange). Very simply they say take in as much as you can, and give out as little as possible.

Next came the deregulation of the corporate sphere combined with a lowering taxes on the extreme wealthy. Trickle down people seem to forget the ice that trickles down has to come from somewhere. Maybe through evaporation from the vast oceans covering 71% of our planet!? The more water that is there the more that can evaporate to begin with. These two graphs make the phenomena pretty clear. LOfuckingL at the rich people complaining about wealth redistribution.

nsfw size

NSFW:

nsfw size

NSFW:

So now these people have a ton of fucking money, and bought so much influence within our government that our government acts within the best interests of these elite few as opposed to the interested of the vast majority.

With that what was once a very promising system is slipping down the slope towards becoming a police state oligarchy where corporations do as they please. Destroyed from the inside out, and the vast majority have unfortunately very little say nowadays (that they use at least).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the US had its best and brightest years as it was being its most social, but it was still a form of regulated capitalism! The US is still very social, but for some reason people think this is a bad thing, and so the trend is to go dark ages style. Germany has an incredible social support structure, but it operates using a form of regulated capitalism (it has free markets, AND universal healthcare)!

 

[Bardeaux]

It seems to me that it was American tax dollars that got a man into space. The success of the American space program is pretty much still to this day the pinnacle of capitalist achievement.

The enterprise itself was not for profit. The funding is just funding, unless you consider government usage of tax dollars capitalism? What about Soviet space exploration? The Soviets beat the US in every space race aside from the moon landing. We can hardly chalk this up to capitalist achievement. Capitalist enterprise can make it to space, sure. But it surely isn't a prerequisite.

PPS: The internet was developed primarily by not-for-profit activities?

Yes.

Read the rest of my post. The internet is not 20 years old.

 

[ebola?]

We're about at the point where we'll need to spell out what exactly capitalism and socialism are (as social processes) and explicitly declare our levels of analysis of choice (eg, firms, institutions, whole societies, etc.)

ebola

 

[bit_pattern]

It seems to me that it was American tax dollars that got a man into space. The success of the American space program is pretty much still to this day the pinnacle of capitalist achievement.

Do you not see the incongruity between these two statements? How are tax dollars (i.e. government spending) analogous with capitalism?

 

[cashfl0w_d0nkey]

Do you not see the incongruity between these two statements? How are tax dollars (i.e. government spending) analogous with capitalism?

You're thinking really "in the box" here. Does military spending really make a nation not capitalist? Even if the economic engine of the nation is clearly capitalist? Even if the actual creation of the spacecraft was contracted to corporations? Both the Apollo spacecraft and space shuttle were built by the contractor North American Rockwell.

The enterprise itself was not for profit. The funding is just funding, unless you consider government usage of tax dollars capitalism? What about Soviet space exploration? The Soviets beat the US in every space race aside from the moon landing. We can hardly chalk this up to capitalist achievement. Capitalist enterprise can make it to space, sure. But it surely isn't a prerequisite.

My understanding of the space race is that the USA was a laggard at getting a man into space but eventually the capitalist machine overpowered the soviet one and clearly pulled ahead. Getting a man on the moon first was the US's way of saying "See, our economic engine is stronger." It was definitely understood in these terms at the time as well. Both the USSR and the USA set out to pour as many resources as possible into their programs and the American version definitely won out in innovation and implementation of effective new technology. This is a textbook case of the unparalleled efficiency of capitalism. As I pointed out to bit_pattern above, to say that the enterprise itself was not for profit is difficult as many businesses were contracted for tasks related to the project including the actual creation of the spacecraft.

Read the rest of my post. The internet is not 20 years old.

You're not helping your argument by being disingenuous. Is the internet before the 90's really the same thing as the one we have today? Do you think we'd be talking on this forum today had capitalist entities not poured the resources into it that they did during this period?

 

[cashfl0w_d0nkey]

The US is a very similar system, and used to be even closer to this form of regulation than where we are today. The American government/people began being assaulted under Nixon. The foundation of private health insurance companies was criminal. Listen to Nixon and the head of Humana talking about how to make such a system profitable (Nixon's #1 concern in the exchange). Very simply they say take in as much as you can, and give out as little as possible.

I am interested to find that Nixon interview? I tried searching around a bit but couldn't find it. Do you know where I could find it?

 

[Bardeaux]

Getting a man on the moon first was the US's way of saying "See, our economic engine is stronger." It was definitely understood in these terms at the time as well. Both the USSR and the USA set out to pour as many resources as possible into their programs and the American version definitely won out in innovation and implementation of effective new technology. This is a textbook case of the unparalleled efficiency of capitalism.

You're not helping your argument by being disingenuous. Is the internet before the 90's really the same thing as the one we have today? Do you think we'd be talking on this forum today had capitalist entities not poured the resources into it that they did during this period?

But the same could be said by the Soviets when they launched the world's first satellite into orbit, put the first man in space, built and launched the first space station, stayed well ahead of the US in terms of nuclear arsenal.

The US clearly had a stronger economic engine, but it had nothing to do with putting a man on the moon. Like I said, and why I asked you to reread my post, is that the US had the edge because of it's consumer market abilities. Capitalist markets in the 20th century were leaps and bounds more efficient in distributing consumer items and services than planned, bureaucratic governments were.

The internet, for example, was not invented by a capitalist enterprise for profit. It was however taken and used as a means for the distribution of everything from socks and underwear to music, stocks and derivatives. I'm just reiterating what I said earlier. Profits aren't a prerequisite for the development in technologies, medicines or sciences. The market comes in as a (once?) useful and efficient tool in distributing these products to the masses.

 

[CoffeeDrinker]

It seems to me that it was American tax dollars that got a man into space. The success of the American space program is pretty much still to this day the pinnacle of capitalist achievement.

PS: Since when is the US military considered a non-profit enterprise?
PPS: The internet was developed primarily by not-for-profit activities? I guess all of the innovation over the last 20 years has been done not-for-profit as well?

And it was bitching over appropriating American tax dollars that shut down the space shuttle program, and shut down NASA entirely during the Ted Cruz circus this past month. It was also bitching over appropriating taxes that caused America to stop production on the Large Hadron Collider that would've been done in Chigaco in the mid 90s, instead of waiting a decade later and having it open up in Europe. The rickety ass ships we sent up to the moon should've just been a start, not a plateau, in American Space exploration, but now our current system is going to be heavily reliant on advances made by countries who might be considered a lot more socialist than ours. What does that tell you?

The space program is not successful because of capitalism, and it had nothing to do with economic issues like capitalism or communism. The national atmosphere of "us vs them" that was pervasive at the time doesn't prove that the space race was actually an accurate, and fair, measure of which economic theory is better any more than Rocky 5 proves that America is better than Russia.
The technological arms race heavily depended on luck, and who got which scientists, after the Nazi engineers and scientists scattered across the globe. Not to mention the fact that considering both NASA and the USSR had gov't run space programs, their methods of engaging in the space race weren't very different to begin with.
In fact, according to wiki, there's more evidence that the USSR used a capitalist-type approach by contracting work out to several competing design groups. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_space_program
Perhaps the USA's success in the Moon Landing was because it had a more streamlined, socialist, approach that hasn't been replicated in this country hardly at ALL since then? As far as the United State's aeronautical contractors: They were notorious for giving corporate well-fare to the company best equipped to produce what they want. It's not really much of a free market example considering how much of a hand the Federal Gov't had in the entire lifespan of the company that it contracted most important jobs to. Rockwell was one of the ldest few "go-to" firms dating back to WWII. True free market capitalism would look a lot different I would think, but I have no doubt that a blend is probably the best way to go.

I view Space exploration circa the 1960's as a time when mankind got a brand new shiny toy out of the box and was captivated by it. It started a meaningless, arbitrary, competition with the neighbor from down the street, and once USA blew its wad getting to the Moon a few times and getting some cool Hubble telescope photos it just put it away and let it rot in storage. That's a decent metaphor for the current state of American space exploration. Capitalism is making going to space little more than one of many rich man's activities.

I do think capitalism in truly a free market sense would be beneficial for future exploration because getting to the asteroid belt and mining it would be a bad ass way to make ridiculous amounts of money and give loads of motivation for all the requisite technical advances.

 

[Jabberwocky]

It's important to remember that capitalism is necessary for the construction of material conditions required for a transition into socialism.

This is something I find interesting in socialist ideology, but probably for different reasons...could you elaborate on this? And, I'm sure this is supposed to be assumed but I'm unsure- do you see socialism as raising standards of living?(long and short terms)