NationStates Jolt Archive

One of my friends emailed me this, and I thought some people here might enjoy it (whether its agreed with or not).

In order for socialism to work, the people have to be convinced that the working class as a whole is more righteous than individual workers in deciding who deserves what resources. From a governing perspective, this is OK since the government's job is to govern EVERYBODY how it sees fit, so convincing the masses that they are more righteous than individuals is feasible. From a worker's perspective though, the only way he can be convinced that the masses are more righteous than individuals is by believing that the welfare of everybody is more valuable than the welfare of himself and everyone else he cares about.

But, why would any given human being believe resources should be allocated for those he doesn't care about rather than those he does? Why would any given human being want "Z" amount of resources to be allocated to "X" + "Y" populations when any given human being only cares about the population of "X"? After all, don't people want to be provided with the best possibility of survival if not the best possibility of prosperity; and by allocating a fixed amount of resources to people any given human being doesn't care about, isn't that human being reducing the possibility of survival and prosperity?

Furthermore, if population "Y" is said to be beyond the perspective of any given human being, but this person believes in its existence and wants to make sure it's taken care of, shouldn't this person have direct contact with the authority that allocates resources in order to convince it of the correct course of action? But if a certain person lives in a world with people he doesn't care about, how can he be certain that he will receive the attention of the governing body since that governing body pays attention to people beyond this certain person's perspective?

Ultimately, what would be required of this person is faith in his government doing the right thing, but one of the essential parts of having a government is PARTICIPATING in that government. Otherwise, you're only giving away authority without insuring the fulfillment of responsibility, the exact opposite of what socialism sets out to do in the first place....

unless....

socialism's purpose is to make sure that certain responsibilities aren't fulfilled, but why would any given human being WANT to have a government that doesn't fulfill responsibilities?

This is why capitalism and democracy work. Capitalism allows individuals to gauge who they believe deserve the fruits of labor through markets while democracy allows individuals to participate in government and get its attention. They may not be perfect and fair all the time, but neither capitalism nor democracy declares perfection to be one of its goals either in principle or in practice.

Their goal is the same that any given human being carries for himself - to seek out the BEST POSSIBILITY of survival and prosperity....

for those he cares about.

Hope you and everyone else in your world has a fun and pleasant holiday season, even if they happen to be part of what I can only view as population "Y".

You automatically associate socialism with statism. Fail.

In order for socialism to work, the people have to be convinced that the working class as a whole is more righteous than individual workers in deciding who deserves what resources.


The "working class" is individual workers. Just like any group is simply a bunch of individuals.

The notion that a group must necessarily be some kind of monolithic hive mind is simply nonsense (and is as commonly held on the "left" as on the "right").


From a governing perspective, this is OK since the government's job is to govern EVERYBODY how it sees fit, so convincing the masses that they are more righteous than individuals is feasible.


Where the aggregate of sovereign individuals governs its self, the establishment of coercive ("convincing") political hierarchy is unnecessary.


But, why would any given human being believe resources should be allocated for those he doesn't care about rather than those he does?
...
Ultimately, what would be required of this person is faith in his government doing the right thing...


Such "faith" is only required where the individual abandons both his sovereign right to self-government and his obligation to respect the sovereign right to self-government of other individuals (by, for instance, condoning the division of society into class structures that rationalize the abuse of those whom "any given human being doesn't care about.")


Their goal is the same that any given human being carries for himself - to seek out the BEST POSSIBILITY of survival and prosperity....


If "survival and prosperity" are our standard, then one need only turn to the natural world with its various species, hives, flocks, herds, packs, societies, and other sorts of groups for some of the strongest and most long lived examples. Of course, the success of the groups is based on the contributions of their individual members. Indeed, the group is merely the strength of individuality multiplied.

You automatically associate socialism with statism. Fail.

The more fundamental mistake is the same old tired insistence on treating "group" and "individual" as mutually exclusive concepts. As absurd as trying to make a brick wall exclusive of bricks.

You automatically associate socialism with statism. Fail.

To be fair, he reposted something he was emailed (thus, not his own work) for the purpose of starting a discussion.

You automatically associate socialism with statism. Fail.

agreed. socialism and democracy are not mutually exclusive. people who think this are misinformed (and usually american...)

though, for most of the OP, tl;dr

but for me, its clear why a group is more important than an individual. lets make an arbitary unit to represent importance; lets call it 'I'.
as an individual, i have one unit of I. you put me together with another individual, we collectively have two units of I. a whole society of people, working class or no, will clearly have more I than any one individual in it. simple (to me)

In order for socialism to work, the people have to be convinced that the working class as a whole is more righteous than individual workers in deciding who deserves what resources.


Why would you think that?

but for me, its clear why a group is more important than an individual. lets make an arbitary unit to represent importance; lets call it 'I'.
as an individual, i have one unit of I. you put me together with another individual, we collectively have two units of I. a whole society of people, working class or no, will clearly have more I than any one individual in it. simple (to me)

This accurately describes only forms of "group" where each individual is able to contribute a full share of "I" (the form of "group" that the misinformed are ignorant of). However, there are other forms of "group" that involve the concentration of all "I" into the hands of the relatively few, not all; these groups will also have more "I" than any one individual, but they will probably be neither just or free.

Justice and freedom concern themselves with maximizing "I" for the whole, without disenfranchising the individual of his share of "I." Thus, in the state of justice and freedom, neither the group or the individual can be "more important" than the other.

The capitalist errs in his insistence that one cannot share "I" without completely giving up control of it. Likewise, far too many socialists insist that one must completely give up control of ones "I" to elite individuals in the name of the "more important" group. In this way, they are both the same mouth, but just talk out of different sides.

I think there should be a stickied "Socialism Discussion" mega-thread, considering how much you can get of results by searching for either "Socialism" or "communism" in General.

And read a Proudhon book. He is socialist but there is a difference on his ideas compared with communism... a large one.

And read a Proudhon book. He is socialist but there is a difference on his ideas compared with communism... a large one.

That "individualism" thing.

Yup, a socialist political party would never be able to run a country.:rolleyes:
<Cough> United Kingdom <Cough>

Silly dear.

This accurately describes only forms of "group" where each individual is able to contribute a full share of "I" (the form of "group" that the misinformed are ignorant of). However, there are other forms of "group" that involve the concentration of all "I" into the hands of the relatively few, not all; these groups will also have more "I" than any one individual, but they will probably be neither just or free.

very true
i was very much simplifying the matter ;)

The capitalist errs in his insistence that one cannot share "I" without completely giving up control of it. Likewise, far too many socialists insist that one must completely give up control of ones "I" to elite individuals in the name of the "more important" group. In this way, they are both the same mouth, but just talk out of different sides.

is that not a tenet of representative democracy, rather than necessarily of socialsim?

one way or another the individual gives up their importance or influence to others. direct democracy is the only instance i can think of where there this is not the case and I is shared equally. however, this brings in tyrrany of the majority (the minority's I is diminished come any decision) and that's a whole different can of worms.

this is kinda eating at the core of politics, methinks

is that not a tenet of representative democracy, rather than necessarily of socialsim?


It is a tenet of everything from representative democracy to vanguardism to outright totalitarianism. The only kinds of socialism that don't involve the elitist concentration of "I" are the anarchist kinds. Anarchism is nothing more than the simple proposal that each person owns and controls his or her own "I."


however, this brings in tyrrany of the majority (the minority's I is diminished come any decision) and that's a whole different can of worms.


Tyranny of the majority is a specific instance of the concentration of "I" in an elite which in turn abandons its obligation to respect the right to self-government. And "direct democracy" and "tyranny of the majority" are certainly not the same thing; the first simply eliminates representation, but the second eliminates the protection of the sovereignty of the individual. The first makes each person the master of his or her own "I," while the second proposes the absurd self-contradiction that one is "free" to pursue the destruction of freedom.


this is kinda eating at the core of politics, methinks

Politics is the economics of "I."

Yup, a socialist political party would never be able to run a country.:rolleyes:
<Cough> United Kingdom <Cough>

Silly dear.

Oh, let's expand the list with, say, all of western Europe. Scandinavia, dreadful region to live in. Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg: abysmal. I'm getting sick and tired of all these socialism = communism = EVIL arguments.

Best countries to live in, according to the UN annual table:

1 Iceland - socialist are part of government coalition
2 Norway - left-wing coalition
3 Australia - socialist government
4 Canada - socialists needed because of conservative minority government
5 Ireland - country's oldest continuous political party

Those bloody socialists! Those idiots keep voting for them, and to top that the evil UN has declared them betterto live in than capitalism - huzzah USA...

One of my friends emailed me this, and I thought some people here might enjoy it (whether its agreed with or not).

In order for socialism to work, the people have to be convinced that the working class as a whole is more righteous than individual workers in deciding who deserves what resources. From a governing perspective, this is OK since the government's job is to govern EVERYBODY how it sees fit, so convincing the masses that they are more righteous than individuals is feasible. From a worker's perspective though, the only way he can be convinced that the masses are more righteous than individuals is by believing that the welfare of everybody is more valuable than the welfare of himself and everyone else he cares about.

But, why would any given human being believe resources should be allocated for those he doesn't care about rather than those he does? Why would any given human being want "Z" amount of resources to be allocated to "X" + "Y" populations when any given human being only cares about the population of "X"? After all, don't people want to be provided with the best possibility of survival if not the best possibility of prosperity; and by allocating a fixed amount of resources to people any given human being doesn't care about, isn't that human being reducing the possibility of survival and prosperity?

Furthermore, if population "Y" is said to be beyond the perspective of any given human being, but this person believes in its existence and wants to make sure it's taken care of, shouldn't this person have direct contact with the authority that allocates resources in order to convince it of the correct course of action? But if a certain person lives in a world with people he doesn't care about, how can he be certain that he will receive the attention of the governing body since that governing body pays attention to people beyond this certain person's perspective?

Ultimately, what would be required of this person is faith in his government doing the right thing, but one of the essential parts of having a government is PARTICIPATING in that government. Otherwise, you're only giving away authority without insuring the fulfillment of responsibility, the exact opposite of what socialism sets out to do in the first place....

unless....

socialism's purpose is to make sure that certain responsibilities aren't fulfilled, but why would any given human being WANT to have a government that doesn't fulfill responsibilities?

This is why capitalism and democracy work. Capitalism allows individuals to gauge who they believe deserve the fruits of labor through markets while democracy allows individuals to participate in government and get its attention. They may not be perfect and fair all the time, but neither capitalism nor democracy declares perfection to be one of its goals either in principle or in practice.

Their goal is the same that any given human being carries for himself - to seek out the BEST POSSIBILITY of survival and prosperity....

for those he cares about.

Hope you and everyone else in your world has a fun and pleasant holiday season, even if they happen to be part of what I can only view as population "Y".


Just to clarify, because I don't read well, does the above say the following?

1 Socialism means you cannot participate in politics, which is bad, because then the government wastes your money.
2 Democracy means you can participate in politics, which is good, because then you can decide what your money is spent on.
3 Capitalism means you do not need to participate in politics, because the market puts money where it should be.

Why socialism is fundamentally unsound:
Because you touch yourself at night

Yup, a socialist political party would never be able to run a country.:rolleyes:
<Cough> United Kingdom <Cough>

Silly dear.
Tony Blair's/Gordon Brown's (New) Labour isn't Socialist. They wanted to go a "third way" between the old Left and Right and scrapped Clause 4 of their party's constitution, which was a promise to nationalise public transport, power and the like. They may have continued some of their party's old ideas, but a lot of their policies are decidedly Thatcherist in their leaning.

...and to top that the evil UN has declared them betterto live in than capitalism - huzzah USA...

That's a rather bizarre declaration, considering that all those countries institute some form of capitalist market economy. Are we simply equating "social welfare" with "socialist?"

Of course, the abolishment of the welfare state is the key indicator of the achievement of genuine socialism. After all, if the economic order is no longer broken, there is no reason to continue wearing the band-aid.

That's a rather bizarre declaration, considering that all those countries institute some form of capitalist market economy. Are we simply equating "social welfare" with "socialist?"

Of course, the abolishment of the welfare state is the key indicator of the achievement of genuine socialism. After all, if the economic order is no longer broken, there is no reason to continue wearing the band-aid.

I know it's a bizarre declaration, and I know I am grossly generalizing. But I'm becoming increasingly annoyed by "socialism bad" utterances. Plus, I'm cranky this morning.

That's a rather bizarre declaration, considering that all those countries institute some form of capitalist market economy. Are we simply equating "social welfare" with "socialist?"
......

Are we sure we are sure what socialism is?

Are we sure we are sure what socialism is?

Are we?

Just to clarify, because I don't read well, does the above say the following?

1 Socialism means you cannot participate in politics, which is bad, because then the government wastes your money.
2 Democracy means you can participate in politics, which is good, because then you can decide what your money is spent on.
3 Capitalism means you do not need to participate in politics, because the market puts money where it should be.Wow, I was going to respond to the OP point by point, but you did it quite well and in a much more succinct manner. Bravo!

I know it's a bizarre declaration, and I know I am grossly generalizing. But I'm becoming increasingly annoyed by "socialism bad" utterances. Plus, I'm cranky this morning.

What passes for "socialism" these days is indeed quite bad. That most "socialists" don't understand this is even worse.

Wow, I was going to respond to the OP point by point, but you did it quite well and in a much more succinct manner. Bravo!

*blushes*

*relurks*

One of my friends emailed me this, and I thought some people here might enjoy it (whether its agreed with or not).

In order for socialism to work, the people have to be convinced that the working class as a whole is more righteous than individual workers in deciding who deserves what resources.

And that's where I lost interest.

If it had been something about being convinced (still not my wording, perhaps) that the 'working class' is more 'righteous' at apportioning resources than either corrupt government or self-interested profitwhores - well, it might have been worth going on, because there might have been room to argue.

As it is - it's just crap. It is meaningless, and assumes there is a discrepancy between one worker and two-times-one-worker.

3 Australia - socialist government


Nah, not really.

Nah, not really.

True, Labor is currently like New Labour in the U.K .

All my earlier statements were made after a disastrous job interview, and before I had any coffee ;)

Now, to get back to earlier post in this thread, two questions that haven't been answered:

Are we sure we are sure what socialism is?

Are we simply equating "social welfare" with "socialist?"

Comments?

1) "I suggest you ask why your friend is sending you such trash and maybe think about re-evaluating your friendship"

is what leaps into mind with or without the right wing rant

2) ugh capitalist ranting on Christmas of all times :mad:

In order for socialism to work, the people have to be convinced that the working class as a whole is more righteous than individual workers in deciding who deserves what resources.
Nonsense. That's like saying "in order for democracy to work, the people have to be convinced that the population as a whole is more righteous than individual people in deciding who deserves to be president."

It's nonsense because people don't need to be altruistic in order to accept majority voting on political issues (such as presidential elections), so why on Earth would they need to be altruistic to accept majority voting on economic issues?