Socialist Party of Canada

[Socialist]

Jroc for the win!

Apparently we're not getting through to them, though, eh?

 

[JLM]

No, you said that genetics did not play a role, then you said 'inherit'.... contradiction.

Copying part of post 108............"I think there are many reasons for laziness, but I doubt if it's necessarily the innate nature of a person."

 

[Socialist]

Copying part of post 108............"I think there are many reasons for laziness, but I doubt if it's necessarily the innate nature of a person."

You're still contradicting yourself, just not to as high a degree.

 

[Jroc]

Copying part of post 108............"I think there are many reasons for laziness, but I doubt if it's necessarily the innate nature of a person."

Hi JLM, I want to add a short video clip that deals with human nature and motivation.. I found it very interesting, perhaps you will too.

Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us

YouTube - RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us


Just goes to show that money does not necessarily make the world go round.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

There are no Socialist countries at present, and there never has been.

And you don't see the significance of that? Every attempt to implement it has failed, without exception. It doesn't work.

 

[Cliffy]

And you don't see the significance of that? Every attempt to implement it has failed, without exception. It doesn't work.

It doesn't work because it is trying to implement tribal values with the present situation. Socialism worked fine for small tribal groups, but once the population reaches a certain mass, the tribe starts to move politically toward a centralized form of governance, be it monarchy, democracy or dictatorship. Lets face it, anything more than 30 or 40 people in one place and pretty soon you have a mob. Government and religion have been used to try to control the mob. I hate to admit it, but perhaps they are necessary evils. Individuals may be highly intelligent, but put them into a crowd and they become a stupid as the lowest common denominator in the crown, like at professional sporting events and on election days.

 

[JLM]

You're still contradicting yourself, just not to as high a degree.

I just pointed out to you that my original post wasn't contradicting anything.

 

[taxslave]

It doesn't work because it is trying to implement tribal values with the present situation. Socialism worked fine for small tribal groups, but once the population reaches a certain mass, the tribe starts to move politically toward a centralized form of governance, be it monarchy, democracy or dictatorship. Lets face it, anything more than 30 or 40 people in one place and pretty soon you have a mob. Government and religion have been used to try to control the mob. I hate to admit it, but perhaps they are necessary evils. Individuals may be highly intelligent, but put them into a crowd and they become a stupid as the lowest common denominator in the crown, like at professional sporting events and on election days.

Even in small tribes there was a hierarchy. Come to think of it even in the animal kingdom today there is a hierarchy, just look at a wolf pack.
I think our two wanna be socialists are still in high school since they have no grasp of even basic economics beyond what they might have got from a teacher that never had a real job either. I think they should read Ann Rand to get a perspective on how bad socialism is.

If I understand their theory correctly an artist would turn out art, no matter how bad or unsalable in return he would be able to get food, shelter art supplies etc for free. The question is how do the workers that produce the art supplies and food producers get compensated for their time and raw materials? Are they forced to accept bad art that they can't trade? And why would they want to.
Another one: My little co-op makes buggy whips and we are good at it. Despite socialist forces that inhibit new thinking someone manages to make an automobile and suddenly there is no demand for our buggy whips. Will car owners be forced to purchase our whips because that is all we want to make? Or does the government buy them and store them in a warehouse until they rot?

 

[TenPenny]

Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.

Clemenceau

 

[Jroc]

Even in small tribes there was a hierarchy. Come to think of it even in the animal kingdom today there is a hierarchy, just look at a wolf pack.
I think our two wanna be socialists are still in high school since they have no grasp of even basic economics beyond what they might have got from a teacher that never had a real job either. I think they should read Ann Rand to get a perspective on how bad socialism is.

If I understand their theory correctly an artist would turn out art, no matter how bad or unsalable in return he would be able to get food, shelter art supplies etc for free. The question is how do the workers that produce the art supplies and food producers get compensated for their time and raw materials? Are they forced to accept bad art that they can't trade? And why would they want to.
Another one: My little co-op makes buggy whips and we are good at it. Despite socialist forces that inhibit new thinking someone manages to make an automobile and suddenly there is no demand for our buggy whips. Will car owners be forced to purchase our whips because that is all we want to make? Or does the government buy them and store them in a warehouse until they rot?

Even in small tribes there was a hierarchy.

Evidence?

I think our two wanna be socialists are still in high school since they have no grasp of even basic economics beyond what they might have got from a teacher that never had a real job either. I think they should read Ann Rand to get a perspective on how bad socialism is.

Your and expert on economics? Ayn Rand and the rest of the objectionist are hacks that know less about what socialism means than you do.

The question is how do the workers that produce the art supplies and food producers get compensated for their time and raw materials?

They don't. In a society based on common ownership, there would be no such thing as wages or employment. Individuals would have free access to the goods produced by the community.

Despite socialist forces that inhibit new thinking someone manages to make an automobile and suddenly there is no demand for our buggy whips. Will car owners be forced to purchase our whips because that is all we want to make? Or does the government buy them and store them in a warehouse until they rot?

This does not even apply. No money, no buying and selling, just free access and common ownerhsip. What the WSM is advocating is a radical break from all previous forms of social organization. You are a fool if you think that capitalism will remain for ever. No economic system remains forever, capitalism has only been around for 350 years. The problem is, the world is approaching its destruction ever more rapidly. The forces of capitalism will only speed up the destruction of the earth, and the killing and degradation of its inhabitants.

You have shown zero understanding of what the concept of scientific socialism is. Rather, you base all of your assumptions and arguments off of state capitalist countries that have failed miserably.

 

[TenPenny]

They don't. In a society based on common ownership, there would be no such thing as wages or employment. Individuals would have free access to the goods produced by the community.

What goods would be produced by the community?

 

[Jroc]

Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.

Clemenceau

To not be a socialst at any age, to me is proof of want of head. People who support capitalism, to me, are living in a fairy tale land where gum drops fall from the sky and people the world over live wonderful happy lives. Supporting an economic system that leaves half of the world in poverty, is responsible for war, is destroying our oceans, lakes, rivers, forests, air, soil, and will eventually leave this planet uninhabitable.....that to me is proof of want of head. You have to have major blinders on to believe this system is working. Cognitive dissonance I suppose...

What goods would be produced by the community?

Everything that is already produced now. Community was probably a misleading world. Work would be organized at the local, regional, national, and world level. However, a socialist society would aim to make every community as self sufficient as possible. For example, no more shipping apples grown in Brazil half way accross the world, we would just grow them here.

 

[JLM]

Even in small tribes there was a hierarchy. Come to think of it even in the animal kingdom today there is a hierarchy, just look at a wolf pack.
I think our two wanna be socialists are still in high school since they have no grasp of even basic economics beyond what they might have got from a teacher that never had a real job either. I think they should read Ann Rand to get a perspective on how bad socialism is.

If I understand their theory correctly an artist would turn out art, no matter how bad or unsalable in return he would be able to get food, shelter art supplies etc for free. The question is how do the workers that produce the art supplies and food producers get compensated for their time and raw materials? Are they forced to accept bad art that they can't trade? And why would they want to.
Another one: My little co-op makes buggy whips and we are good at it. Despite socialist forces that inhibit new thinking someone manages to make an automobile and suddenly there is no demand for our buggy whips. Will car owners be forced to purchase our whips because that is all we want to make? Or does the government buy them and store them in a warehouse until they rot?

Teachers are generally quite bright but not at all practical or realistic. Got to watch my Ps and Qs, I'm related to some. :lol:

 

[Colpy]

To not be a socialst at any age, to me is proof of want of head. People who support capitalism, to me, are living in a fairy tale land where gum drops fall from the sky and people the world over live wonderful happy lives. Supporting an economic system that leaves half of the world in poverty, is responsible for war, is destroying our oceans, lakes, rivers, forests, air, soil, and will eventually leave this planet uninhabitable.....that to me is proof of want of head. You have to have major blinders on to believe this system is working. Cognitive dissonance I suppose...



Everything that is already produced now. Community was probably a misleading world. Work would be organized at the local, regional, national, and world level. However, a socialist society would aim to make every community as self sufficient as possible. For example, no more shipping apples grown in Brazil half way accross the world, we would just grow them here.

Sinners! Sinner all! Repent! Repent!

Or face the wrath of a world denied!!!

Come to us, oh sinners, and you will be made whole!!!!

Faith trumps rationality........

 

[Jroc]

Sinners! Sinner all! Repent! Repent!

Or face the wrath of a world denied!!!

Come to us, oh sinners, and you will be made whole!!!!

Faith trumps rationality........

I'm not calling anyone a sinner, I am just pointing out how illiogical supporting this economic system is. Supporting something that is causing such great destruction, to me, is not rational. People call me an idealist, but I think those who believe we can find solutions for all of humanities problems within the system that created them, is idealistic.

 

[ironsides]

I'd be curious to know how true that really is. I used to be a member of the NDP years ago, and in the group I'd met, most were middle or even upper-middle class. Most also had university degrees. That said, most also appeared to have little experience of poverty.

But then the question is, if socialism is so beneficial to the poor, why was the NDP failing to attract the poor among their ranks?

I remember one meeting where the grat concerns being discussed were all very much middle class concerns, even though they tended to think of them as issues concerning the poor. For example, one discussion was about how much bus passes for students aught to be subsidized. Well, if you're dirt poor, you're not a student.

Yet all their discussions more or less went the same way. When I'd first joined the NDP, it was mainly out of a concern to help the really poor (i.e. those in third world countries, and of course a few of the really poor here in Canada). Ironically enough, most of the people there were in favour of protectionism to protect high paying Canadian jobs at the expense of workers in the third world. Of course it was all couched in social justice rhetoric like protecting the poor in those countries from capitalist exploitation in our countries. Yeah right. I'm sure most of them would prefer being exploited at dirt poor wages than have no work at all. And of course the most vocal of the group were union workers. But honest, it really was about social justice. Hmmm... right?!

Then you have the issue of amateur economics. For instance, wanting to raise the minimum wage even if it does price some people out of the market. While I may not be against a minimum wage in principle, it has to go hand in hand with skills training to raise the employability of the unemployed at the new minimum wage. After all, seeing that minimum wage legislation actually legislates the most vulnerable out of work, certainly no government ought ot have a moral right to pass such legislation without taking responsibility for those it legislates out of work. If people could sue the tovernment for such stupid legislation, the minimum wage would be repealed quickly. And besides, if quality education is offered to the poor, they'll be able to earn a higher income, minimum wage or not. Looking at it that way, minimum wage leglislation is purely redundant, not to mention it encourages inflation to counter its negative effects, thus bringing its positive effects to nought, and forcing the poor who can't hedge against inflation to take the brunt of the impact.

Another example of quasi-scientific economics at work is rent ceilings. Again, well intentioned, but totally ignorant of market economics. Rent prices drop, rental companies make less profit and so are no longer interested in building ore apartments, so construction companies move on to other things. And if we consider that one reason for the cost of rentals was the excessively high ratio of demand to supply, then clearly forcing the price down will raise the demand (as more people want to rent) and reduce the supply (as incentive to buildmore such unites is gone) Sooner or later, corruption builds in as landlords have no incentive to maintain proterties and tenants start offering 'key fees' or other 'bribes' to landlords, as they are desperate to find an apartment. Eventually the system collapses and the government has no choice but to raise the ceiling to fix the problem, and then prices skyrocket until the market eventually adjusts again. Paris France, Ney York NY, and Toronto ON have all suffered the same fate with rent ceilings.

While I'm not against socialistic ideas per se, and can certainly acknowledge their good intentions in many cases, good intentions alone are not what makes the world go round. Now of course pure realism devoid of any caring for one's fellow man will destroy this world too no doubt. The trick though is to create a system that is based on sound science on the one hand, while being infused with a sence of justice and compassion on the other. A blance has to be reached. I think John Stuart Mill (John Stuart Mill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) was onto something when he talked of economic democracy (Economic democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), essentially a form of corporatism, albeit a more progressive version.

While some on the radical left might view any kind of social corporatism as a sellout of the socialist ideal, I see it as a pragmatic balance between two extremes.

Besides, if we look at so-called social-democratic countries that have had some success, they were not extreme socialist, but were more than willing to find common ground between labour and management, and were not particularly interested in pitting labour against management. They recognized that management itself was needed to ensure an efficient economic system.

Anyway, I kind of diverged here a ltittle, but so be it.



Now it may be possible, in theory at leat, to develop an education system that could turn out a nation of moral people. However, even if that is possible, then we are faced with the question of whether socialism would be needed in such a system. After all, people would so willingly share their recourses that we'd have social justice without socialism anyway. So it's a double-edged sword. If the people are not ready for socialism, it won't work; and if they are ready for it, they won't need it.



OK. Now let's suppose everyone was altruistic and was willing to work, not for pay or profit but as a sense of duty. What would happen if everyone wanted to become a teacher, or a medical doctor, and no one wanted to become a plumber? They'd all be willing to work of course, but only at what they want to do. That might not be laziness, but it sure it pickiness. Yet we need plumbers. So in a purely socialist system, who'd decide who will be the plumber and who will be the doctor?

Now don't get me wrong here. I'm well aware of flaws in the capitalist system. The question though is, do we through the baby out with the bathwater by abandoning capitalism altogether as socialists propose, or do we rather simply try to redirect some of the more harmful aspects of the capitalist system, as some corporatists suggest, while keeping it strong points?

Every country no matter what kind of goverment needs cooperation between the various classes, (I know that a true socialist state they profess to have a classless society, but that is not true). The poor of every country should be helped, but aside of letting them starve, the individual can only go so far. Now as for helping the poor get real jobs as opposed to token jobs requires capitalism. There is no country in the world that is truly socialistic, just various degrees of capitalism that evolve into a dictatorship of some kind jumping over that truly socialistic position. Mans greed won't let it happen, but somehow the poor still do get some help. Guess we agree sort of in our own ways.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

...scientific socialism...

Oxymoron.

The classless society is an idle dream of people with no class.

 

[Colpy]

I'm not calling anyone a sinner, I am just pointing out how illiogical supporting this economic system is. Supporting something that is causing such great destruction, to me, is not rational. People call me an idealist, but I think those who believe we can find solutions for all of humanities problems within the system that created them, is idealistic.

Never, in the history of the world, have so many people lived free, rich, and peacefully as they have in the last 100 years in the capitalist system.

Now, there are problems, adjustments need to be made, but to abandon this sustem in favour of an ideal that has seen its followers murder 100 million people is just off the wall.

And yes, read a little. Lenin, Che, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot etc were seeking the socialist paradise........the same one you seek.

I am currently reading Che; A Revolutionary Life. You sound just like him......he appreciated the Maoist model.....that cost at least 50 million lives.

Another true believer.

The purely socialist ideal is extremely discredited....to say the least.

 

[taxslave]

Evidence?



Your and expert on economics? Ayn Rand and the rest of the objectionist are hacks that know less about what socialism means than you do.



They don't. In a society based on common ownership, there would be no such thing as wages or employment. Individuals would have free access to the goods produced by the community.



This does not even apply. No money, no buying and selling, just free access and common ownerhsip. What the WSM is advocating is a radical break from all previous forms of social organization. You are a fool if you think that capitalism will remain for ever. No economic system remains forever, capitalism has only been around for 350 years. The problem is, the world is approaching its destruction ever more rapidly. The forces of capitalism will only speed up the destruction of the earth, and the killing and degradation of its inhabitants.

You have shown zero understanding of what the concept of scientific socialism is. Rather, you base all of your assumptions and arguments off of state capitalist countries that have failed miserably.

Want evidence of a hierarchy in tribal cultures try reading a history book of Canada. All tribes that I am aware of had a chief and some sort of council of elders. Matter of fact they still do.
You missed the entire question that I was asking with your repeated dogma.
That is how do you propose to control the flow of goods? As I asked before what do you do with the now redundant supply of buggy whips?
Also why should a wanna be artist be permitted to churn out bad art that nobody wants just because he feels like it. He is not being a productive member of society and more to the point he is wasting goods that others produced.

Teachers are generally quite bright but not at all practical or realistic. Got to watch my Ps and Qs, I'm related to some. :lol:

There is no relationship between book smarts and being practical or realistic. The last two leaders of the federal Liberals prove this.

 

[JLM]

And there lies the difference between intellect and wisdom. :smile: