The triumph of socialism...

[vision]

…it’s not working.

Unfortunately it's working just as the Founding Fathers designed it. The goal was to set up a system that prevented totalitarianism. It worked. However, they hadn't planned for preventing a corporate oligarchy (or they didn't think it was a problem).

[Tunnelcat]

And what makes you think one corruptible system can fix another?

I guess they can't, really, when I think about it. We're all slaves to human nature, good and bad. But you keep assuming that capitalism can be fixed and that socialism is inherently corrupt. That's your bias speaking and that's why things never change. Socialism isn't any more corrupt than capitalism and both can become corrupted with ease. Anything can be fixed, IF the will is put forth to do so. Everything is influenced by human behavior, so those same rules apply to any system that humans create to govern themselves, run their societies or to make a living. With socialism, it's power. With capitalism, it's always money. Want of money is no less evil or less prevalent than want of power.

What I was saying when I indicated a mix of systems is required to benefit society and the nation, not just a few people, we need a little socialism. There are things that a nation needs to do for itself that will benefit all of society. We've already used a mix of capitalist and socialist systems in the past. Our main roads and bridges were the result of government action and funding, not business. But those same roads and bridges we ALL paid for with our tax dollars also benefit business. And yet, the richest corporations balk at paying the taxes to maintain those same roads and bridges that they also use everyday. We have national parks preserved for use by everyone, not just for the abuse and profit of a small subset of businesses. And you just know that we would have trashed a whole bunch of cherished wild untouched places by now in this country if capitalism ran things the way they wanted, everything for profit.

The electric grid is a good example of what happens when business runs infrastructure. Sure, the main lines were built years ago, all to make a profit, but it took the government to make it happen for millions of rural customers. Rural areas were unprofitable, so business just refused to build out those systems. Same with the telephone. Now we have the internet. No business is willing to spend the money to build the infrastructure to connect everyone with reliable high speed internet, even though the net has pretty much become an everyday necessity in this country. Sometimes society as a whole needs to suck it in, come together and get something done for the benefit of ALL and not for a profit. Once something's built, a whole lot of profit by private business can usually be had. But they still have to pay taxes to help maintain it. After all, they're using it too.

[Spidey]

Wow, I didn’t say socialism is inherently corrupt, I said it has an inherent flaw that can’t be fixed, you were the one that started the discussion on corruption.

[Vander]

You obviously want us to know the inherent flaw you're talking about, but you won't tell us. I'm almost more interested in why than what.

[Spidey]

Yes and no, I want to say it but I also don’t want to have to singlehandedly debate with a half a dozen people who are totally enamored with socialism, and will probably be in total denial.

But just for the sake of civility I will say it, but don’t expect me to debate it.

The unfixable flaw in socialism is….the disincentive syndrome.

[vision]

The unfixable flaw in socialism is….the disincentive syndrome.

You just made that up. Try harder.

[Spidey]

That's one....next...

[Top Gun]

...you really think that crapping out a three-word phrase magically wins your point?

[Spidey]

That's two...

Denial # 1 takes the form of a personal insult.
Denial # 2 takes the form of a loaded snarky question.

Next...

[Top Gun]

No, seriously. If you're going to randomly say three words without expanding on them at all, why even bother posting?

[vision]

That's two...

I gotta tell you man, you've really slipped in to woodchip territory lately with this paranoid persecution complex. You like to chime in on threads, spit out a one-liner, then claim everyone is against you or "misreading" your posts when you actually attempt to write something. You either don't have a point, can't communicate it correctly, or are off on some weird attention trip. I can't tell which.

[Spidey]

You're imagining things.

[Vander]

I'm not totally enamored with socialism. I agree there can be a disincentive that comes along with socialism, and don't advocate for a completely socialist economy. The invisible hand of the market needs to be attached to an arm attached to a body.

I do find the ability of an individual to own a tree, or own a patch of real estate questionable on principal, but concede that it has it's merits.

But I also think the incentivized consumption capitalism evokes will end badly for us all. To rehash my thinking from this thread, private ownership and market forces aren't compatible with the closed ecosystem we rely on for existence, if the goal is human sustainability.

If the issues I see as important (and so far I haven't found a suitable argument against my thinking) are to be addressed, we're looking at some sort of publicly controlled access to resources. (to a greater extent than we see now) I'd like to see people thinking on that, to come up with solutions that advocate liberties and minimize corruption. Unfortunately, it's currently disregarded in favor of an unsustainable status quo.

So I'm not just thinking about 19th century capitalism vs marxism, I'm trying to have the perspective that we're on an isolated rock spinning through space, and how to best make use of what we have for as long as we can.

[Spidey]

Thank you for the honest reply.

I understand your concern, but I doubt melding a version of socialism into the market system will do much to solve that issue, you're probably looking at something way outside of the box.

Like say...mandatory population controls, and things like that, because humans by simply existing in huge numbers will consume resources at a tremendous rate, even if everyone lived like Spartans.

.................

In fact as I think about it, any kind of global socialism would probably increase the consumption of resources based on the idea that the hoards of poor people would then have access to resources that weren’t available to them before.

No, I think the solution to your concerns lie in human ingenuity, and technology. (and space mining )

[vision]

I understand your concern, but I doubt melding a version of socialism into the market system will do much to solve that issue, you're probably looking at something way outside of the box.

I get the feeling you never really studied socialism and have a view that's made up of crap people have told you about it over the years. Socialism isn't "no one works and everyone get everything for free from the government." There are many forms of socialism some of which are based on markets. Some forms of socialism are anarchistic and don't involve a government handing anything to anyone. And your "disincentive syndrome" would probably only apply to a version of socialism that did not consider the doctrine of "to each according to his contribution." I think you might want to do a little more research before claiming a system has an inherit flaw. It's not like the great minds of the past didn't consider all the angles.

[Spidey]

Well see…that’s the problem with flaws…they usually prevent a thing from working like they are supposed to.

.........

Most flaws tend to show up in practice…not theory.

Nobody “plans” flaws.

[Tunnelcat]

The unfixable flaw in socialism is….the disincentive syndrome.

What disincentive syndrome are you talking about? I don't see a lot of people in Scandinavian countries complaining about their socialistic governments. In fact, those countries are in the top ten list of the world's happiest nations. They must be doing something right for their citizens.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/23/travel/fe ... index.html

[Spidey]

Sure, except their economies are not socialist…for the umpteenth time.

[Tunnelcat]

And hence the mix of political and economic systems. It proves that you can have a mix of economic capitalism and government socialism and still have the system work.

[Spidey]

I agree, but there are plenty of people who claim that what the Nordic people are practicing is not actually socialism, but a sort of welfare system instead.

But like I said, I concede the term as it is used, because I can’t win that argument.

[sigma]

People everywhere and always the same, if their brain is not clouded by any fanaticism.
Some people just want a kind of socialism, recall the times of the American hippie.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I'll side with Spidey on this one. Anyone who doesn't appreciate what he is saying is just inexperienced. People at times have their own drive, and at times can be driven by external motivators (some people are driven more by one than the other), but social economic engineering actually strikes at both. Capitalism isn't a solution to many negative aspects of human nature (that we are not slaves to unless we allow them to direct our lives--there is responsibility there), but it does put incentive where it needs to be. Incentive and motive are as complex as the situations in which they operate, and attempting to manage either instead of creative an environment for self-management (Capitalism) is an exercise in futility, failure, oppression, and suffering (in about that order). Capitalism is a necessary economic and social ingredient in the recipe for liberty/freedom.

Greed and freedom can be intertwined, but to kill both in your efforts to defeat greed is foolhardy. That's known as throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[callmeslick]

I think it can be possible to regulate and tamp down(not absolutely eliminate)greed, and preserve freedom for all practical purposes.

[Tunnelcat]

Greed and freedom can be intertwined, but to kill both in your efforts to defeat greed is foolhardy. That's known as throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm not saying kill both. Greed can be regulated, if those same capitalists decide to not fight the regulations they constantly vilify as the rules of the game. Changing the rules changes the game and it turns into a cheating fest where only the few win. I'm saying both can work together for the good of a society. Socialism can limit freedom by it's nature, but it does do many good and important things in any society that business just doesn't want to deal with, especially if it doesn't make a profit. There are just some things that ever get done if there's no profit motive to do it. If something doesn't make a profit, a large segment of the population will always be left behind. Capitalism may be equated with freedom, but when all the wealth and power accumulates into the hands of the few, that leaves the majority of people imprisoned in poverty and stuck with low pay and horrid working and living conditions. Then you will get revolution. We're already seeing a backlash now with this election. Capitalism will not create a community. It takes people wanting to create and run a community, not pure profit motive. However, business is what ultimately keeps it alive. No business, no work, no community.

There's an example of a Capitalist trying to create his own version of a worker's paradise community that was fully under his company's control and named after himself, George Pullman. The community of Pullman is now within the city limits of Chicago. Let's just say, it didn't work out as he envisioned, because in the end, he catered fully to his investors instead of his workers when the Panic of 1893 hit, and the workers just didn't take getting the non-existent end of the now smaller stick. The man had the gall to lower their wages and keep their company owned housing and tenements at the same rental rate. They couldn't even own their own houses if they'd wanted to since the company owned them. There was no longer a reason to remain as a viable community when it's leaders no longer cared about the people who lived in it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman,_Chicago