It's not ENTIRELY 'nurture', just mostly (enough that once eliminated, Socialism would work.)
Socialist Party of Canada
- Thread starter Jroc
- Start date
Since money wouldn't exist in this perfect world, what would be the incentive for someone to become a doctor...let's say , instead of a measly labourer....
What would he get for his long hours of study? A better set of golf clubs????
What would he get for his long hours of study? A better set of golf clubs????
There would be very few (if any) people lazy enough to work less than the probably 5-7 hour weeks that would be the usual in Socialism, due to proper education, and proper upbringing, combined with the inherent drive of Socialism, not being impeded by the stress of "not having enough money" etc.
The incentive would be the desire to help people... It's the same as in Capitalism. Why be a doctor when you could be a business owner? (Which both require about the same intelligence.)
They would be encouraged to not be lazy. If they refused to work at all, we would alienate them from society until such time they are willing to work. (By alienate, I mean cut said person off from non-essential things)
Ok, you've convinced me .....What are the coordinates to that wonderfull land of OZ...............
Hmmmmmmmm let me think..........................maybe to treat/cure sick people?
Socialism on paper is a wonderful idea. On paper. The one factor that screws socialism everytime is the human factor. People by nature have a wide variety wants, needs, vice, greed, etc. That is why socialism does not work and that is why it will never work. That is why you lack support. You are just the newest in a long line of previous pitchmen.
You cant ''screw something every time'' if it has never been tried. Who are you to say it can never work? You have no proof, because it has not been tried. Our theory and subsequent ideologies are valid, and very much possible.
If that's an example of the understanding of science you get from being a scientific socialist, you're done before you start. Evolution says nothing of the sort. It says almost precisely the opposite, that all individuals differ slightly, and it's those slight differences that natural selection operates on.
Basic behavioral traits differ in every member of the species? But I though your argument was that there are too many lazy people?
Natural selection very slowly favours those with good traits, ergo, if anything, there would be far less lazy people than you seem to think there is because of 'human nature'.
Any ideology can work if it's run with the people's interest in mind and not with a few elite's interest in mind. Capitalism with some social programs for safety seems to be the thing that works best but it has been recently moving farther and farther into the elite's control too. The middle class has less and less every year and the elites have more every year. Most socialists have an agenda of giving the middle class things they can't afford to actually hurt the upper middle class more than anything so the elites can absorb the upper middle class' wealth. THen when they have taken over the upper middle class they degrade those social programs and start to take the lower middle class' wealth too and ship it off shore, which is where we currently are in the world.
Socialists don't believe in the idea of money, or 'social programs', as we are for a worldwide moneyless direct-democratic system.
Could you clarify the sentence I have put in bold. I don't understand what you are trying to say.
I agree that all people have different wants, needs, and vices, but to say that greed is human nature is not exactly true. It may be counter-intuitive to think that humans are not by nature selfish and greedy, but there is a substantial volume of hard evidence against such thinking. This anthropological study looks at human altruism as a beneficial social mechanism. This sociological article argues much the same thing, and this particular article discusses how human altruism developed as an evolutionary trait necessary for the survival and promotion of our species. There is countless more peer reviewed research to back up this claim all of which is fairly easy to access over the internet.
It is easy to think that it is human nature to be selfish and greedy, but in truth this is just a behavior that has been developed in response to the economic and material conditions under which humans live.
Last edited:
That wasn't my argument, that was somebody else. And no, basic behavioral traits do not differ in every member of the species, I didn't say that either, I was talking in much broader terms: genetically we are all different, even identical twins differ slightly, but we share a common humanity and heritage and certain common needs. At least most of us do, those that don't we call sociopaths or psychopaths, and evolution throws a few of them up every now and then too. Sometimes things go wrong, which is what we should expect from an undirected process. It's a mistake to talk about "good traits," natural selection makes no value judgments, it simply favours those with traits that enable differential reproductive success. It's not a progression from lower to higher, or good to better to best, it's about what works in particular circumstances. Evolution has no direction, so it's also a mistake to talk about the inevitable evolution of societies toward socialism in Darwinian terms. That's not how things work, there's no inevitable "progress" in evolution, there's only adaptation to current conditions via differential reproductive success. Speaking metaphorically, that's all evolution cares about.