 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Survival of the Fittest and the Application Thereof. |
New poll |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Rom Manic                   Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Another reason I like Socialism is because if you make the same amount of money as the next guy, you no longer have to fight just to survive. You would be able to afford a living, and that way, whatever your passion is in life, thats what you can strive for without worrying about any monetary issues. Everyone would be happy, and there would be no more arguments over money.
Too stoned to add more, back later... |
|||
|
Schweiz oder etwas [12:55] (Dr_Death16); I swear, the word drama needs to be stricken from the dictionary, for I've heard it so many times, it will permanently be imprinted on my brain   Since: 11-17-05 From: Kingston, Rhode Island Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Anyone remember the Flapper generation of the 20s? A bunch of kids who had the financial backing from a hard-working previous generation. They were outspoken, took life to the limit, lived lavishly and got bitched at by the elders for not working as hard as they did...
...And were completely fucked when the Great Depression hit. What does this have to do with right now? I dunno, you tell me. I'm just figuring I'm seeing a lot of college students drinking and partying, backpacking across europe, buying nice cars, and going to nightclubs on Thursdays. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Grey, EVERY generation does that =P | |||
|
Rom Manic Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| A point I've noticed being mentioned over and over is that there is no fight to survive in socialism. That all the grubby jobs in the world make the same as the highest jobs in the world. This is all from a perspective of people growing up in the hierarchy of life.
There is no physical attribute that makes us different from one another. We all have arms, legs, teeth, and the like. What makes us different is our mentality. And nature has even found a way to balance it out for us in this way too. You see, we may not all be able to crunch a calculus function in a split second, but one might be more superior in other ways. Moral standing, virtue, or other mental abilities all fall in that category. Therefore, we should all be working together, not against each other, to build a utopia. Where one of us fails, there's always another there to fill any gap. So where do we go from here, then? Can any of us change the future? No, but we can all create the path we walk to it. It's jsut a question of what direction we want to make the path. I think the problem is that we can all see the path, or have the resources to make the path, but we don't want to create it. We'll continue our blind march because that path works, and it feels good to walk down it. This path is the society we live in today. Capitalism, the system created by your forefathers, given unto the world so that the lucky and the smart will flourish with happy lives, while the dumb and the inept suffer a poor life of poverty. That's my issue with Capitalism. But what would happen if we jumped onto a different path? Would it be so horrible? Would it be worth a venture? If we do, there is no turning back. But there is always starting fresh. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. "He who asks is a fool for 5 minutes, but he who never asks is a fool forever." - Chinese Proverb |
|||
Silvershield   580  Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6307 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| There is no utopia. There can never be a utopia. Any ideal society set up by a majority of good intentioned, upright people, will be taken advantage of by the type of person who will seek the easy route above all else. Where the hands of the hard-working forge a path, the lazy and evil will take advantage without offering anything in return.
Until you can get every one of Earth's six billion people to cooperate, it will not happen. And, no matter how noble the goal, six billion people will not cooperate. |
|||
Snow Tomato Snap Dragon  Since: 12-31-05 From: NYC Last post: 6316 days Last view: 6301 days |
| ||
| Socialism survived for thousands of years among native tribes and primitive peoples. It wasn't really until the creation of the huge classical ancient civilizations that we saw other systems emerge. People discovered greed and power then. Once people know something... they can't un-know it.
I believe socialism can survive on a small scale. If people lived in communities sort of seperate from one another.. and small towns were run where everyone benefitted equally. I don't think it can exist on a global scale. The countries are too dependant on one another... and everyone's out to take advantage of each other. Take trade for example. Countries want the maximum amount of supplies for the cheapest price possible. Is that not greed? Greed exists on many levels. The fight to control trade is the tale of history. Trade is where money is made and with money, nations are built. There's a large amount of greed that goes along with this.. and with it.. power. So no, I don't believe true socialism could exist today. As much as I wish it could. However, I think that the economy can be controlled. There should be safeguards on monopolies, people should benefit equally from medicare and medicaide, social security... and all government services. The government should not tell the different between a rich man and a poor man. Same services should be provided. What's strange to consider is that Socialism and Capitalism seek the same things. People who believe in Socialism believe that those involved will seek out an economy and a government who benefits everyone. This eliminates competition, no upward or downward mobility... and it leads to a kind of stagnant economy. True capitalism or laissez-faire economics calls for no government intervention in the economy. So following laissez-faire economics... monopolies would exist. Monopolies eliminate competition and allow no room for mobility, thus... stagnation in the economy. The only difference is with monopolies, few people control a vast number of resources and wealth... so like 90% of the resources, wealth and what have you.. are under the control of a small percent of the population, let's say 10%. (It was BAD during the Industrial Period of America.) Socialism's goal, on the otherhand, is to have everyone share the wealth and the resources of the nation. So Capitalism fights for the few... the "fittest"... and Socialism fights for everyone. I love the idea of Socialism. But if a nation were to opt for that in this day and age, they would be doomed. With everyone getting the same exact resources and wealth... there would be no incentive to make good quality products, there would be no upward mobility, no anything... just stagnation. And the governments that govern socialist nations are usually, if not always oppressive. Captialism offers freedom... but with that freedom you have to make choices. The choices you make determine whether you are among the "fittest" or not. Basically, if you fuck around too much... you're not going to do well. So, there needs to be a cushion for the people who mess up. A nice, plushy... socialist cushion. (Think welfare.) I feel like I should tie this up... but I've already said everything I want to say. |
|||
|
Rom Manic Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| You know, not everyone becomes a doctor because they make alot of money. Alot of people who become a doctor become one to try and make a difference for the people they serve. The inspiration could start as a child, or from living in conditions where medicare is almost not availiable.
Why do scientists push the limits of technology? They're driven by the fact that they're going to be remembered forever as the one who discovered such and such discovery. Take ex-Professor Podkletnov from my Antigravity thread. Why, after being laughed at again and again and again, continue to pursue his dream of making Antigravity a reality? He believes that it's for the benefit of the people to continue his work. Thats the attitude people need to have to survive in a Socialist world. But monopolies have nothing to do with the way socialism works. They're still selling that product, and they still have a monopoly on it. But rather than maximizing their profit from it, they can have no profit. So now it gives these corporations more incentive to accomodate to the people and spend the money to make their product worth using. If they don't like it, then don't sell the product. There will always be someone who is all about the people. I've been trying to think of solutions to the various problems that wind up with Socialism. My solution was to come up with a different type of government altogether, and so far it's going pretty good. It isn't shakespeare, but it's really for my personal reference. (edited by Rom Manic on 02-20-06 11:48 AM) |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6307 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| No matter how you twist it, there is always a set of jobs that are undesirable by anyone's standards, even if they are vital to the continued functioning of civilization.
Sure, maybe a good number of would-be doctors - maybe even most of them, for the sake of the argument - enter into the profession to help others instead of to bring home a huge paycheck. But, definitely not all of them. And, considering that there isn't exactly a surplus of such professionals in the modern, capitalistic, real world, and also considering that all those who currently hold the job because of its fiscal benefits would seek an easier profession under a socialist system, the dearth of medical professionals would be incredibly dire if the monetary impetus was removed. Conversely, there are some jobs that most people would not do regardless of the compensation, and especially not if the compensation were exactly equal to that of a far better profession. I wouldn't be a garbageman, even though I'm well aware of how vital such people are to society, and I certainly would not do the job if I didn't get paid more than someone doing something far more desirable. Imagine it: in an ideally socialist world, where everyone gets paid the same without reference to education or actual job, we'd have an acute shortage of doctors and garbagemen, and an overwhelming surplus of bikini inspectors. |
|||
Wurl Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6336 days Last view: 6336 days |
| ||
| I think some of you guys are confusing utopian socialism/utopian communism with practical/scientific socialism. An example of Utopian Socialism/Communism would be Brook Farm. Scientific or Practical Socialism applies to Marx, Trotsky, ect. who believed there were realistical steps that had to be taken before something resembling Utopian Socialism could exist. | |||
|
Snow Tomato Snap Dragon Since: 12-31-05 From: NYC Last post: 6316 days Last view: 6301 days |
| ||
| Another point I'd like to bring to this thread... are morales and bussiness completely separated? Like.. "Lowering your wages. Don't take it personally.. it's just bussiness". We completely screw each other over in various ways in bussiness because everyone is looking out for their own interests. The bussiness world is absolutely brutal.
At what point do morales play a role in bussiness? It's also kind of a question that pertains to social darwinism.. because if you're on the top because you're the "fittest" and the best, where does that place everyone else who isn't on top? Are you able to take advantage of them and make them your pawns and slaves? Working conditions in factories pre-the progressive era in American History could compare to slavery. People had to work, they had to eat. We're taught that it's morally right to look out for our fellow man and be a good samaritan, to share and to be nice to others. However, when money is involved we tend to drop all of our morale values when it comes to the bussiness world. |
|||
SamuraiX Broom Hatter Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| Simply put, I think it is a money-power versus greater good and personal achievement conflict. Many people--especially in the capitalist countries that encourage this--believe that if you have a nice car and house and lots of money and can buy whatever trend that is around, you are happy. However, as I believe, "you can't make your cake and eat it", you have to choose, either material gain or mental gain or even "for the greater good" gain. You really can't have both, at least in my eyes. Of course, this belief is completely un-American and the government will coin this as "terrorism." Since mental gain or doing something for the greater good of society, all of this, apparently seems to be communist-Nazi-jihadist-person-who-blows-up-buildings philosophy, or so my Benz-driving English teacher tells me. But I digress. Many search for material gain, while few--very few--look to better society or do what they as a person like, not they as a consumer. | |||
mattp Red Paratroopa Since: 03-04-06 Last post: 6559 days Last view: 6559 days |
| ||
| Oh god an argument over the viability of capitalism vs socialism, I have to get in on this shit!
Sir Wurl:
Allow me to paraphrase: "Capitalism does not allow people to better themselves: for example, the government run schools in the inner city are shitty because the government taxing is unfair" Naturally your solution to a problem of government power-caused-corruption is more government power and control, when its proven that taking as much government control out of the situation betters it. Charter schools and private schools are the BEST schools. If I had to choose between private and public, I would choose private in an instant. The reason private schools are as expensive as they are is because government schooling is an absurdly unfair competitor, offering a free product. The fact that private schools are still succesful is proof to their superiority. Sir Wurl:
The majority of people inherit most of their wealth? that's absurd. Most people's parents did take care of them through their childhood but you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would call that inheritance. Inherited indirectly? So because my parents own the car I drive to work in, my payment is indirectly inherited? I disagree- I worked for and earned my paycheck, it was not inherited. I also know of many people who work and support themselves through college. In America, to be poor is to be lazy. There are simply too many opportunities in this land to be poor. Sir Rom:
Stop living in a fantasy world and understand what socialism entails. You live on the same level as a hobo. You tell me there won't be fighting to survive when there isn't enough food to feed everyone. The only difference is that your own ability and skill won't get you anything, only your willingness to sink into brutality or deception. Sir Rom:
WTF? "There is no physical difference between people ( there are, its a freak thing but there are ), ergo we all work together to build a utopia". That's the biggest logical leap I've ever seen. Sir Rom:
Your issue with capitalism is that it is just? To reward a person for good work and to punish a person for poor work is fair. To punish a person for good work and to reward a person for poor work is unfair. In order to make your socialism work... you have to steal from those who produce good work to compensate for the bad work of those who can't do it. Sir Silvershield ( good to see you're still here )
+1. Any system relying on people to work for no incentive is doomed to fail. Sir Tomato:
I agree with you 100% there and that's probably the last point I'll agree with you on.
No. Capitalism and Socialism can't 'seek' things in the first place because they're nothing more than abstract ideals. Only people can seek things. Capitalism as an economic theory basically lets all people free to do as they please, and rewards those who produce and work succesfully within the society with financial success. Socialism as an economic theory basically reduces people into slaves to eachother with no master... as an economic reality, a master steps up out of necessity. Regarding monopolies- What are they? A monopoly is one company that is bigger and better than any others. What that means, is that this company, for whatever reason, makes a product that people will buy over any competing products. In a laissez-faire economy, monopolies would either be beneficial for the economy or they wouldn't exist at all. When you try to balance the field to break monopolies, what ends up happening is the funding of inferior products and companies -- stealing money from the people who do what they do well and giving it to the people who do what they do poorly. Stupid idea. Sir Rom
Sir Silvershield dealt with the first half of your posts perfectly so I'll focus on the second half. If there is no incentive to improve a product, then it won't get improved. Any 'good' in a socialist society is 100% dependant upon the creation of said good in a capitalist society that was robbed. It costs money to improve something; they don't improve out of nowhere. "There will always be someone who is all about the people." Practically this works out to "There will always be someone who is a friend of the dictator." Samurai X ( notice the lack of sir )
Your post has no intellectually redeeming qualities. Please actually research the subjects involved before talking online about what you don't know. The beleif that having a car, money, power, etc. is equal to happiness is actually philosophically the result of socialist and not capitalist beleifs. I do not advocate lawless dog-eat-dog capitalism, I advocate a Libertarian government who exists ONLY to protect the natural rights of its citizens. |
|||
|
Rom Manic Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Do you see a lack of food now? Why would it be different under a Socialist regime? Oh yeah, and I'd quit calling names if I were you.
I think you should elaborate on this. I know I made a mistake by saying we're not different physically, but we're essentially all carbon based life forms living on the planet earth.
No, my issue is that people do get punished for poor work, and that can ruin their lives. By eliminating the system where making good money is challenging, we eliminate other problems too. Suicide, Divorce issues, etc. Not completely eliminated, but for the ones related to money issues.
Not really. Did you read what I typed? I didn't say that hard work would go without benefits. I have to go, back in a bit to finish this post off. |
|||
1106 Shyguy  Since: 03-13-06 From: Irvine, CA, USA Last post: 6614 days Last view: 6614 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Rom Manic So, you want to entitle everyone to a chunk, even when that is fiscally impossible (e.g. depression)? That is absolutely ridiculous. People get punished for poor work? Too bad, that's how life should be. If you sit around like a lazy bastard, then you should be compensated in a manner befitting your lack of effort. That is, not at all. Do nothing, get nothing. The reason why we have so many problems today (at least, in the United States) is because we try to blend free market capitalism with socialist benefits. Unfortunately, you can't have a free market that sloughs off the unproductive elements if those unproductive elements are subsidized by the government. Welfare, food stamps, etc. are all the overbloated results of trying to shoehorn idiotic socialist entitlements into the natural order. You want to make it not "challenging" to make good money? Good luck, because as has already been mentioned, the incentive to work hard and actually exert some effort is completely eliminated by socialism. You will have absolutely no one doing the menial/undesirable tasks that need to get done for all of us to exist. If you ever hit hard times, you'll have upheaval because people feel "entitled" to whatever they got from the public dole even if there's no money left to give out. Aside from all of that, I find it absolutely disgusting that you equate sucide and divorce solely with money issues. That statement proves to me your ignorance of reality. What about clinical depression? ADD? Asperger's? Are those caused by "money issues" too? Are they all manufactured lies created by drug companies looking for a quick buck? Do emotions and feelings somehow not exist anymore? Your arguments only exacerbate what's wrong with every -ism ever to exist: annihilation of personal responsibility. Always a "someone else" to blame for your problems, so you can do whatever the hell you want. |
|||
geeogree Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6309 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| "Your arguments only exacerbate what's wrong with every -ism ever to exist: annihilation of personal responsibility. Always a "someone else" to blame for your problems, so you can do whatever the hell you want."
that right there is what is wrong with society now.... regardless of which economic/religious/cultural system. People are taking less responsibility for their own actions. |
|||
|
mattp Red Paratroopa Since: 03-04-06 Last post: 6559 days Last view: 6559 days |
| ||
I do not see a lack of food but I do see that under socialist/communist regimes that there are lacks of food and rarely if ever are the food shortages in capitalist societies. I haven't called anyone any names. Even if I had, what are you going to do about it?
So since we are similar, we owe it to eachother to give all of our life into the creation of a utopia which is not possible...?
Allow me to stab to the heart of the issue: you don't like that people get 'punished' for poor work ( like it can really be called punishment, they receive the compensation they EARN through their work )... Here's a scenario-- Say you hire a mexican to mow your lawn and you agree to pay him $20 for the whole thing. He mows it, yes, but he only mows about half of it and its a very sloppy job. What would you do? Give him the full $20 even though he's done a half assed job? Not pay him at all? Pay him a fee equal to his work? Socialism requires that you pay the proverbial mexican the full $20 for a poorly done job. If there's no incentive to work hard and to get all the money... then no one will. Do you erally want to live in a world where there's no incentive to work? Have you thought about the consequences of such a world? Imagine it. The scientists don't work hard, the doctors don't work hard, the architects and engineers don't work hard, the laborers who build your house don't work hard... etc. Everything falls apart.
+1 |
|||
Jomb Deddorokku  Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6298 days |
| ||
| CESum - were you not paying attention to what you were reading? Rom Manic clearly said that Suicide, etc. would NOT be compeltely eliminated under socialism, just that some depression is caused by money issue (a simple fact).
All you capitalist fanatics - under your system what happens to people who are mentally ill? slow? handi-capped? would you just let them out on the street to starve to death? Would you rather live in a society where everyone is mildly poor or one where only greedy back-stabbing bastards can get ahead? There is much more to life then money, i say. |
|||
|
mattp Red Paratroopa Since: 03-04-06 Last post: 6559 days Last view: 6559 days |
| ||
I assume their families will take care of them. It is no one's responsiblity to do so, unless of course they want to. Since they live in a much richer society than they would under a socialist government, they have an overall better quality of life... just as the poor today have luxuries that kings of ages past could only dream of. What happens to these people under socialism?
I would rather live in a society where a person's work will get them ahead. That is capitalism. Greedy back-stabbing bastards... nice smear. unfortunately for you capitalism encourages cooperation for greater profit. Don't be a tool. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Scandinavia appears to be doing fairly well right now. | |||
|
1106 Shyguy Since: 03-13-06 From: Irvine, CA, USA Last post: 6614 days Last view: 6614 days |
| ||
Originally posted by JombExactly, which is why it's stupid to bring it into the conversation. It's nothing but a red herring. "Social problems" are the most commonly used distraction in these arguments, but they do nothing to bolster the credibility of your claims. I'm sorry, your strawman is no good here. As a person with a mental illness, I take extreme fucking offense to that. Who the hell says that everyone who suffers from mental health issues/physical disabilities is a drooling retard with no common sense or ability? I think not. Everyone, regardless of ability, can contribute something to society (save the brain dead). Having a disability is not an excuse for someone to sit on their ass and whine about how bad their life is. (edited by CESum on 03-14-06 08:04 PM) |
| Pages: 1 2 3 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Survival of the Fittest and the Application Thereof. |
| |
