Political Crossfire Forums

[zMtLlC]

I believe the system is wrong both morally and realistically.

Morally: Every human being possesses the right to their own life, which, in turn, leads to their right to the products of their life: labor. How can you just put everyone's labor into a pot and dispense it without regard to who actually contributed to it? Wealth is not just some nameless form which comes from "society," it comes from individuals, and they have the right to that wealth. The real question is: who owns your life: you or society?

Realistically: While the idea that everyone gets what they need and gives what they have sounds like a good idea in theory, it, plain and simple, doesn't work in practice. The fact is that humans will only work to their capability when their self-interest on the line. Look at the difference of how hard someone works when they're compelled to compared to when they do it by their own choice and get the profits from it. By nature, humans only do things for their own self-interest, so, realistically, Communism would not work. Ronald Reagan, in his address to the British Parliament in 1982, stated:

Quote: Were it not for the private sector, the tiny private sector tolerated in Soviet agriculture, the country might be on the brink of famine. These private plots occupy a bare 3 percent of the arable land but account for nearly one-quarter of Soviet farm output and nearly one-third of meat products and vegetables

[good90]

zMtLlC wrote: I believe the system is wrong both morally and realistically.

Morally: Every human being possesses the right to their own life, which, in turn, leads to their right to the products of their life: labor. How can you just put everyone's labor into a pot and dispense it without regard to who actually contributed to it? Wealth is not just some nameless form which comes from "society," it comes from individuals, and they have the right to that wealth. The real question is: who owns your life: you or society?

Realistically: While the idea that everyone gets what they need and gives what they have sounds like a good idea in theory, it, plain and simple, doesn't work in practice. The fact is that humans will only work to their capability when their self-interest on the line. Look at the difference of how hard someone works when they're compelled to compared to when they do it by their own choice and get the profits from it. By nature, humans only do things for their own self-interest, so, realistically, Communism would not work. Ronald Reagan, in his address to the British Parliament in 1982, stated:

Quote: Were it not for the private sector, the tiny private sector tolerated in Soviet agriculture, the country might be on the brink of famine. These private plots occupy a bare 3 percent of the arable land but account for nearly one-quarter of Soviet farm output and nearly one-third of meat products and vegetables
Nicely put! I couldn't have done better myself.

[mODULAR mAN]

Your thread topic was Socialism and then you talk about Communism....

What are you talking about?

[Zoot]

Quote: Morally: Every human being possesses the right to their own life, which, in turn, leads to their right to the products of their life: labor.

In other words, you are a socialist.


Quote: How can you just put everyone's labor into a pot and dispense it without regard to who actually contributed to it?

In other words, you are a socialist who is not a communist.


Quote: Wealth is not just some nameless form which comes from "society," it comes from individuals, and they have the right to that wealth.

In other words, you oppose capitalism.


Quote: The real question is: who owns your life: you or society?

Would you be who you are without society, though? That's something to keep in mind.

[zMtLlC]

mODULAR mAN wrote: Your thread topic was Socialism and then you talk about Communism....

What are you talking about?
Excuse my ignorance, but aren't they basically the same thing?

Zoot: What are you talking about?

Quote: Would you be who you are without society, though? That's something to keep in mind.
Yes. A person does not exist for "society" or the "common good" but for themselves. The fact is that whatever "society" gives to them, they pay for.

[Zoot]

zMtLlC wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: Your thread topic was Socialism and then you talk about Communism....

What are you talking about?
Excuse my ignorance, but aren't they basically the same thing?

Zoot: What are you talking about?

Quote: Would you be who you are without society, though? That's something to keep in mind.
Yes. A person does not exist for "society" or the "common good" but for themselves. The fact is that whatever "society" gives to them, they pay for.

There are a few things that are a bit more abstract than simple good and services.

But in general, I agree with you. Every human being possesses the right to their own life, which in turn leads to their right to the products of their labour. That's why I am a socialist, opposing capitalism.

[zMtLlC]

Zoot wrote: zMtLlC wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: Your thread topic was Socialism and then you talk about Communism....

What are you talking about?
Excuse my ignorance, but aren't they basically the same thing?

Zoot: What are you talking about?

Quote: Would you be who you are without society, though? That's something to keep in mind.
Yes. A person does not exist for "society" or the "common good" but for themselves. The fact is that whatever "society" gives to them, they pay for.

There are a few things that are a bit more abstract than simple good and services.

But in general, I agree with you. Every human being possesses the right to their own life, which in turn leads to their right to the products of their labour. That's why I am a socialist, opposing capitalism.
Wish to explain more?

[VMAN]

Socialism promotes equality for all by prosperity for none, this is why a utopian society could never work, because people say "cool if I put a little bit more work into this it could cure this disease for my country, uh but whats the use a state owned company will gain the rights to it, and I will still be working this damn plot, okay out the window." Wait one moment, in communist societies somone does get prosperity the party leaders sorry. And communism and socialism are the same the gentleman up above says he's a socialist because when you tell someone you are a commie they tend to stay away from your Xmas party how ignorant.

[zMtLlC]

VMAN wrote: Socialism promotes equality for all by prosperity for none this is why a utopian society could never work because people say "cool if I put a little bit more work into this it could cure this disease for my country, uh but whats the use a state owned company will gain the rights to it and I will still be working this damn plot, okay out the window." Wait one moment in communist societies somone does get prosperity the party leaders sorry. And communism and socialism are the same the gentleman up above says he's a socialist because when you tell someone you are a commie they tend to stay away from your Xmas party how ignorant.

...what?

[VMAN]

tell me what didn't you get.

[zMtLlC]

VMAN wrote: tell me what didn't you get.

I think I get it. Try using commas for maximum understandability.

[VMAN]

Cool, I just tend to get into things and forget english class. But you're fine with the basic thinking ?

[zMtLlC]

VMAN wrote: Cool, I just tend to get into things and forget english class. But you're fine with the basic thinking ?
Yes.

[MplsBison]

zMtLlC wrote: Zoot wrote: Every human being possesses the right to their own life, which in turn leads to their right to the products of their labour.
Wish to explain more?

He believes that if you "mix" your labor with a piece of matter, you automatically own that piece of matter.


It doesn't make different if the factory you work in is owned by someone else and that person owns the raw materials that you're processing into a product. Simply by performing labor upon the materials, you now own them.


You can see how the whole philosophy is a big crock of s***.

[Zoot]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: zMtLlC wrote: Zoot wrote: Every human being possesses the right to their own life, which in turn leads to their right to the products of their labour.
Wish to explain more?

He believes that if you "mix" your labor with a piece of matter, you automatically own that piece of matter.


It doesn't make different if the factory you work in is owned by someone else and that person owns the raw materials that you're processing into a product. Simply by performing labor upon the materials, you now own them.


You can see how the whole philosophy is a big crock of s***.

Firstly, "ownership" is a socially constructed system that has changed in the past and can change in the future.

Secondly, you are either intentionally misrepresenting my view or you do not understand it. Either way, I will correct you for his benefit. A just distibution of wealth is one that is proportionate to the distribution of labour that went into creating that wealth. Raw materials must be worked on to be useable, they must be transported, they must be worked on using technology which itself was created by other labourers from raw materials provided by other labourers.

So you don't automatically own a piece of matter that you work on. You own your fair share of the value of the product of your labour - the value being set by the market. If you did all of the work, from extracting raw materials onwards, then yes, you would own the product of that labour. After all, you are the only person who contributed. But very few goods in society are the product of just one person's labour.


Capitalist property rights as they stand today make it possible for someone to do nothing and profit greatly and for many others to do everything and profit very little.

That is the problem.


Let people answer for themselves. They seem to be better at it than you are.

[Zoot]

zMtLlC wrote: Zoot wrote: zMtLlC wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: Your thread topic was Socialism and then you talk about Communism....

What are you talking about?
Excuse my ignorance, but aren't they basically the same thing?

Zoot: What are you talking about?

Quote: Would you be who you are without society, though? That's something to keep in mind.
Yes. A person does not exist for "society" or the "common good" but for themselves. The fact is that whatever "society" gives to them, they pay for.

There are a few things that are a bit more abstract than simple good and services.

But in general, I agree with you. Every human being possesses the right to their own life, which in turn leads to their right to the products of their labour. That's why I am a socialist, opposing capitalism.
Wish to explain more?

Capitalism ensures that most people don't have the right to the full product of their labour. Socialism is the movement in favour of people having the right to the full product of their labour. Different kinds of socialism hope to achieve this in different ways.

[VMAN]

Do tell. How does the government decide what a person is entitled to based on their contributions?

[Zoot]

VMAN wrote: Do tell. How does the government decide what a person is entitled to based on their contributions?

In state socialism, it depends on which kind.

In libertarian socialism - anarchism - there's no government to decide entitlements.

[VMAN]

pick a kind and describe it to me because you talk a good game up until the point that the government decides what people are entitled to.

[Nathyn]

First of all, you need to clarify between Socialism and Communism. They are frequently used as synonyms, but that is not how it's used by Marxists. Communism is the theoretical classless, non-authoritarian (likely anarchist) society. Socialism is the economic policy which is established in order to transition to Communism. One can reject Socialism as economically infeasible, even totalitarian when implemented, while supporting Communism, in principle.

The question of whether to support or oppose Socialism is a question for economics, not philosophy. I think what you mean in this discussion is Communism or perhaps Collectivism.

Collectivism, too, is distinguished from Communism and according to some, even Socialism. Because if one believes the Capitalism is itself coercive and authoritarian, that action is necessary to uphold individual liberty, then Communism and Socialism can both be individualist, in that they are controlling society only so that the individual can be liberated from his Capitalist masters. Historically, most Socialists have been Collectivists, as it seems to me, but this is not the case for democratic socialists, particularly in America where American Liberalism has developed its own tradition of Socialism, not out of a desire for equality or support for collectivism, but in defense of freedom.

zMtLlC wrote: I believe the system is wrong both morally and realistically.

Morally: Every human being possesses the right to their own life, which, in turn, leads to their right to the products of their life: labor. How can you just put everyone's labor into a pot and dispense it without regard to who actually contributed to it? Wealth is not just some nameless form which comes from "society," it comes from individuals, and they have the right to that wealth. The real question is: who owns your life: you or society?
The problem, though, is that even if you assume that labor is the basis for ownership, no one can own anything, because we do not labor for our bodies (both Conservatives and Liberals agree that every individual has some form of moral obligation to society) and more importantly, we do not labor for natural resources. We steal gifts of nature and then mix labor with it. The process of mixing labor with natural resources occurs before anyone has actually labored for the natural resources to begin with. No one can "labor," to create land or water, the very first materials necessary for any goods, period. See my thread: "Why I Don't Believe in Property"

But there's another point to make, which I didn't make in the thread on property: If you support the ultimate sanctity of the individual and true self-ownership, then Capitalism is again unjustifiable. Because Capitalism involves the ownership of natural resources and the procurement of goods through inheritance of historical theft, some become stronger than others. In any given nation, not only are there those who unjustifiably exert authority over others through political power, but the ownership of natural goods is itself coercive. Hence, classical Anarchism is Communist.

The most ideal system, where individual liberty is upheld the most, is a world where every individual has his own universe: Each has unlimited resources and none exerts authority over the other. Well, since we cannot create separate universes for us to live in, but must share this one world, the closest to such a world is Anarcho-Communism.

Under a gift economy, everybody possesses whatever they're using and whenever there's a dispute, they simply voluntarily work out a fair agreement between themselves. In this way, there is no state and it is not collectivist. It is individualist, because no one imposes authority upon anyone else and everyone owns everything, together.

Now, even if you oppose Anarcho-Communism is impractical, which is reasonable, that still doesn't change the fact that Anarcho-Communism is the ideal. It is the most ethical system and it should be established if it is possible.

In this respect, I don't see "Socialism," as authoritarian, but Capitalism. And I don't see liberty and equality at odds, but as complementary. Liberty is equality.

zMtLlC wrote: Realistically: While the idea that everyone gets what they need and gives what they have sounds like a good idea in theory, it, plain and simple, doesn't work in practice. The fact is that humans will only work to their capability when their self-interest on the line. Look at the difference of how hard someone works when they're compelled to compared to when they do it by their own choice and get the profits from it. By nature, humans only do things for their own self-interest, so, realistically, Communism would not work. Ronald Reagan, in his address to the British Parliament in 1982, stated:

Quote: Were it not for the private sector, the tiny private sector tolerated in Soviet agriculture, the country might be on the brink of famine. These private plots occupy a bare 3 percent of the arable land but account for nearly one-quarter of Soviet farm output and nearly one-third of meat products and vegetables
You can't criticize the ethicalness of a system based upon how well it works.

I.E., pacifism may be suicide, but that doesn't make war more ethical.