NationStates Jolt Archive

Is it just me or does the republican imagerny version of socialism sound like slavery?


here it is

All former capitalist sit at home all day to be supported by other people who will hopefully be working because thats how they believe socialism works. Meanwhile, teh people who understand socialism would be working all day to support all teh lazy idiots.

Hurray for slavery to the stupid!

The republican version has nothing to do with reality thank you very much.

Socialism:

Everybody works for everybody's gain.


The following is just my two cents tho:
What you get paid doesn't necessarily reflect your work effort.

The Republican party has never seriously studied socialism. They think of it as something like the short story Harrison Bergeron.

Why Slavery?

I think it's too idealistic, rather than Slavery.

Because there would be lazy idiots in the world no matter what.
Makes you feel frustrated like "Why should I work my butt off for them?"

Why don't I work for Myself, and reap my own rewards, and let those lazy idiots starve themselves. :D

To me, it's unrealistic. Because I don't believe that the world has enough resources to fulfill everybodies needs.

So I guess it comes down to survival of the fittest (Or hardworking, or smarts, whatever).

Btw. Muru, what country are you from? (Oh yeah, where did that communist thread went too. I got disconnected. :p)

The Republican party has never seriously studied socialism. They think of it as something like the short story Harrison Bergeron.
Vonnegut is one hell of a writer - that story was friggin scary

Vonnegut is one hell of a writer - that story was friggin scary

I get the distinct impression that it was a strawman attack on the concept of social equality.

Read Anthem by Ayn Rand. And 1984 by Orwell.

Collectivism in any form (National Socialism, communism, socialism, Marxism, etc.) is morally bankrupt and completely ineffective.

Read Anthem by Ayn Rand. And 1984 by Orwell.

Collectivism in any form (National Socialism, communism, socialism, Marxism, etc.) is morally bankrupt and completely ineffective.

You missed the point of 1984. Look around you and read the book again.

1984 hardly had to do with socialism. Other than the fact that they were socialist, it wasn't a big hit on it. There were men and women in 1984, it doesnt mean men and women are bad.

Interesting how collectivism is morally bankrupt when, in an unbridled capitalist system, we'd revert to feudalism with the CEOs as heads of small nation-states because they would be able to purchase workers.

Read Anthem by Ayn Rand. And 1984 by Orwell.

Collectivism in any form (National Socialism, communism, socialism, Marxism, etc.) is morally bankrupt and completely ineffective.

As though capitalism isn't collectivist. I guess you haven't noticed how the average person puts bolts on cars or sits in a cubicle if they're lucky. Real individualist. :rolleyes:

Also, how can Ayn Rand possibly complain about something being immoral. She believed in doing whatever benefited you. Socialism is in the best interest of someone who is starving on the streets.

I have read both Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand and 1984, by George Orwell, so I actually can speak intelligently about these works. It is hard for a person to say with a straight face that 1984 is not about socialism- Ingsoc itself stands for English Socialism. The main idea behind the book was that the government should not be given power over peoples' lives, and that people should have inherent freedoms unalienable by the government- including economic freedom. A better example of George Orwell arguing for economic freedom is in Animal Farm.
In my opinion, Ayn Rand is completely correct when she argues against government intrusion in the free market. Based on supply and demand, the market will reach an equilibrium on its own accord (my dad's an economist, by the way), and any government interference will push it away from the ideal. The idea that the government knows what to do with my money better than I know how to really torques me. A free market system creates the most efficient systems, and the most efficient and cheapest services. The idea that the government can force people to support incompetence (welfare), and that it manages your money for you (social security), along with regulating the free market, is pure evil.

Vonnegut is one hell of a firebrand. lots of energy for an 80+ year old fella.

Here is a much-talked-about interview with Vonnegut:

http://inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=38_0_4_0_C

A question from the interview:

http://www.vonnegut.com/times1.asp

And here is his main site:

http://www.vonnegut.com/news.asp

From the Interview alone you can see he's a lefty.

I have read both Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand and 1984, by George Orwell, so I actually can speak intelligently about these works. It is hard for a person to say with a straight face that 1984 is not about socialism- Ingsoc itself stands for English Socialism. The main idea behind the book was that the government should not be given power over peoples' lives, and that people should have inherent freedoms unalienable by the government- including economic freedom. A better example of George Orwell arguing for economic freedom is in Animal Farm.
In my opinion, Ayn Rand is completely correct when she argues against government intrusion in the free market. Based on supply and demand, the market will reach an equilibrium on its own accord (my dad's an economist, by the way), and any government interference will push it away from the ideal. The idea that the government knows what to do with my money better than I know how to really torques me. A free market system creates the most efficient systems, and the most efficient and cheapest services. The idea that the government can force people to support incompetence (welfare), and that it manages your money for you (social security), along with regulating the free market, is pure evil.

Well, you do make a point but in 1984's case it is socialism gone NUTS. As a comparison I can say Jennifer Government is capitalism gone NUTS. In either case you get some 'big brother' force controlling our lives to the tiniest detail. Either extreme is not good and although their philosophies differ the result is identical. It just changes who gets to be 'big brother'.

Power over people's lives (see 'Patriot Act'). One of many 'Orwellian-named' acts the corporation-friendly Bush administration has put into action.

'Pure Capitalism' and 'Pure Socialism' could lead to these 1984 an Anthem scenarios. But rarely (very rarely, if not never) are these 'pure' policies enacted. Sensible governments should pick and choose wisely when to be one or the other. That's why we haven't seen 1984 happen (yet :D ).

Socialism and Capitalism themselves don't cause slavery. Stupidity, pride and complacency do.

And don't try that 'pure evil' stuff. They obviously are not. I can only hope you are being witty and sarcastic.

Capitalism, in my opinion, whether a 'weakened' system like the US has now, or in it's infinitely immoral 'pure' form, is still very immoral. How someone with an average or above average income can turn to someone who is destitute and say 'You're less (intelligent/worthy/useful) to society or you've screwed up your life somehow and that's why you're poor, deal with it', I don't know. To me, that's revolting, heartless and disgusting, and I honestly hope that everyone who feels that way has to experience some form of destitution so they can see what it's like to have to rely on others for their livelyhood and see how good it makes /them/ feel.

(For the record, I'm upper-middle class, so this isn't a 'poor person's rant'.)

Sure, there are some lazy people who would do nothing other than rely on others for their income, but those are the people who would never amount to anything anyways - there's worlds of difference between socialism and communism, in terms of how those who are unwilling to work are treated.

Personally, I'm about five years away from making one of my major life-objectives come true. I plan on helping homeless people, street children, and poor families become (more) productive members of society, through generally caring for them in whatever manner they'll allow me to.

Socialism is a system where people (should) care for one another, regardless of whether or not they know the person. One for all, and all for one.

Capitalism is a system where people care for nobody but themselves, unless they owe something to someone else. One for themselves, and none for you.

Keep in mind that these are mainly just personal opinions derived from my own personal set of morals.

If everyone chips in to a national fund (by way of taxes) which is used to insure as good a minimum quality of life for all people in the nation, that prevent people from getting rich if they work hard. It just means they don't have to feel all that terrible guilt that surely comes from earning money on someone else's expense. And it's even compatible with democracy, so there is no need to worry about those spooky totalitarian rulers either!

More on Orwell.

Here is a article he wrote in 1946 called "Politics and the English Language". It's like reading in a language OTHER than English. I swear. Its complex to say the least. You can tell he's an educated man by the amount he prattles on and still manages to be poignant.

Read it the best you can. Its actually a good way to understand 1984 better by seeing how the man thought and his disdain for politics.

http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html

Speaking of language:

This thread is doubleplusgood, compared to all the plusungood threads around.

Also, how can Ayn Rand possibly complain about something being immoral. She believed in doing whatever benefited you. Socialism is in the best interest of someone who is starving on the streets.
OTHER PEOPLE being socialist would be in the best interests of somebody living on the streets. that individual would still be best off if he followed Randian ethics, assuming that you judge "best off" in terms of attaining self-sufficiency and accumulating personal wealth.

Read Anthem by Ayn Rand. And 1984 by Orwell.

Collectivism in any form (National Socialism, communism, socialism, Marxism, etc.) is morally bankrupt and completely ineffective.
Add conservatism to your list. The only truly non-collectivist area of politics is the Libertarian (social issues) Right-Wing (economics).

Capitalism, in my opinion, whether a 'weakened' system like the US has now, or in it's infinitely immoral 'pure' form, is still very immoral. It really depends on your (personal) morals.

How someone with an average or above average income can turn to someone who is destitute and say 'You're less (intelligent/worthy/useful) to society or you've screwed up your life somehow and that's why you're poor, deal with it', I don't know. While I wouldn't say they were necessarily less intelligent, worthy, or useful, I can say they are a bit less valuable. There are always others who can flip burgers or work a cash register that are available, but there aren't always others who can, say, head the company or continue the research for finding a cure to a rare disease that are available.

To me, that's revolting, heartless and disgusting, and I honestly hope that everyone who feels that way has to experience some form of destitution so they can see what it's like to have to rely on others for their livelyhood and see how good it makes /them/ feel.When I was a child, we were poor. A family of four that lived in a three room apartment, that is a bedroom, a bathroom, and a kitchen/dining room/living room. We had almost no money after rent and food. We managed to work our way up.

(For the record, I'm upper-middle class, so this isn't a 'poor person's rant'.)Sure sounds like it.

Sure, there are some lazy people who would do nothing other than rely on others for their income, but those are the people who would never amount to anything anyways - there's worlds of difference between socialism and communism, in terms of how those who are unwilling to work are treated.The fact of the matter is the people will work so they can survive in a capatilistic society, but if they can get away with it, they will not in a socialistic or communistic society. And its not a minority of people either. Can you honestly say you'd rather work than do whatever you want all day?

Personally, I'm about five years away from making one of my major life-objectives come true. I plan on helping homeless people, street children, and poor families become (more) productive members of society, through generally caring for them in whatever manner they'll allow me to.Good for you, but personally I don't want to care for homeless people or the poor, I don't want my tax dollars going to them, and I sure as hell do not want to be working as a highly-educated professional for the same wages as the man who's gluing the soles on to my shoes.

Socialism is a system where people (should) care for one another, regardless of whether or not they know the person. One for all, and all for one.Man is an animal, a highly evolved animal, but an animal nonetheless. It is ingrained in each and every person to be better than the next for a variety of reasons. The majority of people never overcome this.

Capitalism is a system where people care for nobody but themselves, unless they owe something to someone else. One for themselves, and none for you.Which is in sync with our nature.

in a PROPER socialistic society, at least the one im going to run when i take over, if you decide to be "lazy" instead of doing your job, you dont get your share of the socialistic pie, and everybody else pie is increased by a small fraction.

socialism shouldnt and im pretty sure doesnt benefit the lazy over the workers, thats why i labeled this topic the "republican version of socialism" which is slavery to the stupid and arrogant.

i am not ignoring any flaw in human nature, where you are ignoring an important one in advocating capitalism, its the exact reason you argue capitalism: people want to further themselves, and they will screw other people to do it

The only truly non-collectivist area of politics is the Libertarian (social issues) Right-Wing (economics).

Absolutely. Government shouldn't be interfering with our social issues. The American People will work things out eventually on their own. Putting regulations and mandating that this or that be done to create equality only creates bigger inequalities. Let people break their own stereotypes.

I know I'm trying to break mine: How's an atheist and a libertarian supposed to be seen in a state that's primarily Mormon/Republican?

in a PROPER socialistic society, at least the one im going to run when i take over, if you decide to be "lazy" instead of doing your job, you dont get your share of the socialistic pie, and everybody else pie is increased by a small fraction.

socialism shouldnt and im pretty sure doesnt benefit the lazy over the workers, thats why i labeled this topic the "republican version of socialism" which is slavery to the stupid and arrogant.

i am not ignoring any flaw in human nature, where you are ignoring an important one in advocating capitalism, its the exact reason you argue capitalism: people want to further themselves, and they will screw other people to do it

I believe that a socialistic world cannot be achieved, although perhaps it should be considered as our[mankind's] ideal. Those in power are reluctant to give up that power and so the cycle of viciousness and cruelty is passed down from generation to generation. The "I'm just as good as you, or better" dogma that has plagued our society for centuries is passed down from parent to child. Perhaps children shouldn't have to look towards the same garbage that their parents have. I don't think that I should have to be blue collar just because my parents are. Maybe eventually I'll end up in a dead-end 9-5 job like 80% or more of americans. However, if that happens, I'm gonna blow some shit up.

i am not ignoring any flaw in human nature, where you are ignoring an important one in advocating capitalism, its the exact reason you argue capitalism: people want to further themselves, and they will screw other people to do itTo tell you the truth, I really don't see a problem with that as long as it is within the law.

If I have time later tonight I'll respond to the rest of the post, but I must be going. I have a dinner reservation to make.

Capitalism, in my opinion, whether a 'weakened' system like the US has now, or in it's infinitely immoral 'pure' form, is still very immoral. How someone with an average or above average income can turn to someone who is destitute and say 'You're less (intelligent/worthy/useful) to society or you've screwed up your life somehow and that's why you're poor, deal with it', I don't know. To me, that's revolting, heartless and disgusting, and I honestly hope that everyone who feels that way has to experience some form of destitution so they can see what it's like to have to rely on others for their livelyhood and see how good it makes /them/ feel.

i was homeless before i finished high school. i've had to shower in the lockerroom at school and wash my underwear in gas station bathrooms. interestingly, i was raised by fairly socialist parents, and i was essentially a socialist until my life experience changed my perspective. being poor was what made me oppose communistic and socialitistic ideals as strongly as i do.

I've been poor my whole life and it sucks ass. People who argue about who's been poor and who hasn't as to an argument for socialism need to realize that poor people have just as much pride as everyone else. It's hard to accept gifts from somebody who you don't know or cannot give anything in return. Pride in oneself and pride in one's family are necessarily human emotions and cannot be replaced with anything.