Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Let's Say You're Wrong - Socialists

wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 3:44:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
A completely hypothetical scenario to Socialists.

Socialism is fully enacted world-wide.
You notice that it is no longer in anyone's self-interest to put forth effort.

Would you use force to extract this effort?
Would you use propaganda to get people to work harder?
Would you install supervisors to improve efficiency?
How would you make sure that mouths are fed and prosperity pervades the land?

Your thoughts...
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 4:06:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 3:44:54 PM, wjmelements wrote:
A completely hypothetical scenario to Socialists.

Socialism is fully enacted world-wide.
You notice that it is no longer in anyone's self-interest to put forth effort.

Would you use force to extract this effort?
Would you use propaganda to get people to work harder?
Would you install supervisors to improve efficiency?
How would you make sure that mouths are fed and prosperity pervades the land?

Your thoughts...

Whats the difference? We already do this now.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 4:32:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 3:44:54 PM, wjmelements wrote:
A completely hypothetical scenario to Socialists.

Socialism is fully enacted world-wide.
You notice that it is no longer in anyone's self-interest to put forth effort.

Non sequitur, socialism doesn't do that. but lets say that it did somehow happen.


Would you use force to extract this effort?

not really, depends on the degree of force.

Would you use propaganda to get people to work harder?

Yep, mostly being that the more we all produce, the more we all get.

Would you install supervisors to improve efficiency?

It would mostly be engineers, designing robots that make things more efficient that we would be looking into.

How would you make sure that mouths are fed and prosperity pervades the land?

Thanks to modern farming technology, the ability to produce sufficient food is not really an issue. Transporting it and dispersing it can be problematic, but even then, not really that hard.

The biggest task is the creation of luxury goods. Which goods should be made, how many, and how would they be disperesed.


Your thoughts...

Occationally
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 4:49:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The classic "everyone gets paid the same" scenario, or some version of it. Socialism, in modern practice, is just some degree of having the state own, subsidize, or regulate certain industries.

The profit motive is still there.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 5:12:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 3:44:54 PM, wjmelements wrote:
A completely hypothetical scenario to Socialists.

Socialism is fully enacted world-wide.
You notice that it is no longer in anyone's self-interest to put forth effort.

That's a massive assumption to make. Why would it not be in anyone's interest, what strawman of socialism is this conclusion based on?

Even to a hardcore Marxist, socialism is the initial stage where the policy is "to each according to his contribution", and only develops into the full blown communism of "to each according to his need" once there is sufficient abundance of the necessities of life.

And I certainly don't know of any modern socialist parties in western democracies who advocate an equal division of wealth. Socialism is control of the means of production in the hands of the workers, meaning you are rewarded for working.

So in addition to your faulty assumption that money is the only means of motivating people, your conclusion seems to be based on a complete misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what any hypothetical global socialism would entail.

Would you use force to extract this effort?
Would you use propaganda to get people to work harder?
Would you install supervisors to improve efficiency?

Without getting all rob1billion on you (no diss, Rob's cool), you're also assuming that current levels of production are neccesary and desirable, let alone sustainable. Individual profit drives current production levels and the massive wealth inequality which is the outcome makes people desire useless crap they don't need.

The rich buy overpriced tat to inflate their egos and the poor buy cheap crap that breaks and needs replacing. Without obscene profit margins, useless services, and inefficient poor-value products we woudn't need an endless cycle of growth and we wouldn't have an ever-widening gulf between rich and poor.

How would you make sure that mouths are fed and prosperity pervades the land?

By empowering the hungry masses who are eager to work.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 5:25:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 5:12:34 PM, feverish wrote:

The rich buy overpriced tat to inflate their egos and the poor buy cheap crap that breaks and needs replacing. Without obscene profit margins, useless services, and inefficient poor-value products we woudn't need an endless cycle of growth and we wouldn't have an ever-widening gulf between rich and poor.

The endless cycle of growth is fueled by human demand, which is infinite. People have obtained cars, electricity, Xbox's, sneakers, and yet we all want more. That isn't ever going to stop because it's human nature.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 5:57:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 5:25:57 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 8/17/2011 5:12:34 PM, feverish wrote:

The rich buy overpriced tat to inflate their egos and the poor buy cheap crap that breaks and needs replacing. Without obscene profit margins, useless services, and inefficient poor-value products we woudn't need an endless cycle of growth and we wouldn't have an ever-widening gulf between rich and poor.

The endless cycle of growth is fueled by human demand, which is infinite. People have obtained cars, electricity, Xbox's, sneakers, and yet we all want more.

But people can have all those things far more affordably and efficiently than they do now.

As it is now, some people are able to choose to buy overpriced luxury cars that consume high amonts of fuel and trade them in after a few years, others have to buy cheap, poor quality second hand cars that break down and cost a lot to maintain, while oil prices are artificially inflated by the industry and research into alternative fuel methods receives minimal investment from pro-capitalist governments.

Some people can afford to be incredibly wasteful with electicity and pay on time every month, receiving a discount if they set up an automatic payment; others have to pay through more expensive methods like coin and card meters, scrimp on heating and end up getting behind in payments and having to pay for more than the energy they have used.

Some kids have rooms full of expensive trainers (sneakers) while some kids go to school everyday with holes worn through the cheap shoes they have outgrown.

X boxes are not an entitlement, nor a neccesity for leading a satisfying and complete life, but there's no need to ban x-boxes or any luxury good under socialism anyway.

That isn't ever going to stop because it's human nature.

That's an incredibly poor argument in favour of anything. Should we all rape and kill, simply because to do so human nature? Should we accept it when others rape and murder? It's not inherent to every human to be infinitely greedy, anymore than it is to be a serial killer.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 7:01:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 5:57:55 PM, feverish wrote:
At 8/17/2011 5:25:57 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

The endless cycle of growth is fueled by human demand, which is infinite. People have obtained cars, electricity, Xbox's, sneakers, and yet we all want more.

But people can have all those things far more affordably and efficiently than they do now.

How so? There might be some ways to round off some of the rough edges of the current mode of production, but I don't see any grand solution eliminating poverty anytime soon.

As it is now, some people are able to choose to buy overpriced luxury cars that consume high amonts of fuel and trade them in after a few years, others have to buy cheap, poor quality second hand cars that break down and cost a lot to maintain, while oil prices are artificially inflated by the industry and research into alternative fuel methods receives minimal investment from pro-capitalist governments.

Some people can afford to be incredibly wasteful with electicity and pay on time every month, receiving a discount if they set up an automatic payment; others have to pay through more expensive methods like coin and card meters, scrimp on heating and end up getting behind in payments and having to pay for more than the energy they have used.

Some kids have rooms full of expensive trainers (sneakers) while some kids go to school everyday with holes worn through the cheap shoes they have outgrown.

X boxes are not an entitlement, nor a neccesity for leading a satisfying and complete life, but there's no need to ban x-boxes or any luxury good under socialism anyway.

This doesn't address my argument. I'm aware that people struggle to get by, but that's not a point I'm arguing against.

That isn't ever going to stop because it's human nature.

That's an incredibly poor argument in favour of anything. Should we all rape and kill, simply because to do so human nature? Should we accept it when others rape and murder? It's not inherent to every human to be infinitely greedy, anymore than it is to be a serial killer.

Rape and murder isn't a significant part of human nature. However, greed is, and considering the impracticality of eliminating that, we should just accept it and attempt to make the best of it.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 7:18:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
That's an incredibly poor argument in favour of anything. Should we all rape and kill, simply because to do so human nature? Should we accept it when others rape and murder? It's not inherent to every human to be infinitely greedy, anymore than it is to be a serial killer.:

Non-sequitur, as if rape and murder are so pervasive that everyone commits it. Greed, on the other hand, is highly subjective and everyone on some level commits it.

"Greed" has negative connotations, but like it or not, it is what motivates everyone. I assume you don't get paid in hugs, so can I assume that you are greedy for wanting money so you can, you know, survive?

You might reply that greed is an excessive desire for possessions, but who arbitrates on what is excessive and what it luxurious? Am I greedy bastard for wanting a GPS in my car because reading printable directions while driving is dangerous to not only myself but other motorists?

Most importantly you, nor I, are exempt from natural selection or the struggle to survive. If the lion doesn't have to apologize for surviving then why should you?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 12:37:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 4:32:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

Thanks for actually responding to the situation.

At 8/17/2011 3:44:54 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Would you use propaganda to get people to work harder?
Yep, mostly being that the more we all produce, the more we all get.

The best part is that it's true, but how would you fight the free rider problem?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,246
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 1:01:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 4:22:06 PM, Kinesis wrote:
This assumes that the major motivation people have to work is money, which is patently true.

Are you sure?
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 3:08:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 7:01:41 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 8/17/2011 5:57:55 PM, feverish wrote:
At 8/17/2011 5:25:57 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

But people can have all those things far more affordably and efficiently than they do now.

How so? There might be some ways to round off some of the rough edges of the current mode of production, but I don't see any grand solution eliminating poverty anytime soon.

Well I think if full global socialism were in place then eliminating poverty, (or at least "rounding off the edges" by eliminating mega wealth and extreme poverty which is all that is really needed) would be quite straightforward as the super rich would have nowhere to hide from a progressive tax system.

As it is now, some people are able to choose to buy overpriced luxury cars that consume high amonts of fuel and trade them in after a few years, others have to buy cheap, poor quality second hand cars that break down and cost a lot to maintain, while oil prices are artificially inflated by the industry and research into alternative fuel methods receives minimal investment from pro-capitalist governments.

Some people can afford to be incredibly wasteful with electicity and pay on time every month, receiving a discount if they set up an automatic payment; others have to pay through more expensive methods like coin and card meters, scrimp on heating and end up getting behind in payments and having to pay for more than the energy they have used.

Some kids have rooms full of expensive trainers (sneakers) while some kids go to school everyday with holes worn through the cheap shoes they have outgrown.

X boxes are not an entitlement, nor a neccesity for leading a satisfying and complete life, but there's no need to ban x-boxes or any luxury good under socialism anyway.

This doesn't address my argument. I'm aware that people struggle to get by, but that's not a point I'm arguing against.

Nor is it the central point I was making. I gave examples of how resources are wasted and squandered by some while others are compelled to pay for more than they have consumed, basically to illustrate how things could be made more affordable and efficient for everyone.

That isn't ever going to stop because it's human nature.

That's an incredibly poor argument in favour of anything. Should we all rape and kill, simply because to do so human nature? Should we accept it when others rape and murder? It's not inherent to every human to be infinitely greedy, anymore than it is to be a serial killer.

Rape and murder isn't a significant part of human nature. However, greed is, and considering the impracticality of eliminating that, we should just accept it and attempt to make the best of it.

But greed at an infinite level? The "infinite demand" you talked about before? I don't see that as any more inherently human (or any less destructive) than rape and murder.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 3:56:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Like all tyrannies destined for fail simply blame it on the Jews!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 11:33:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 7:18:56 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
That's an incredibly poor argument in favour of anything. Should we all rape and kill, simply because to do so human nature? Should we accept it when others rape and murder? It's not inherent to every human to be infinitely greedy, anymore than it is to be a serial killer.:

Non-sequitur, as if rape and murder are so pervasive that everyone commits it. Greed, on the other hand, is highly subjective and everyone on some level commits it.

It's arguable that everyone is guilty of greed on some level, but if you see my response to AA, you'll see I was talking not about greed in general but at the level of infinite demand for more material goods. Comparing that to a normal human level of greed would be like comparing the lifestyle of a serial killer with the mere murderous thoughts and temporary violent inclinations we are all likely to feel on occasion.

"Greed" has negative connotations, but like it or not, it is what motivates everyone. I assume you don't get paid in hugs, so can I assume that you are greedy for wanting money so you can, you know, survive?

Greed =/= survival and the two can't be compared. Greed is about desiring far more than you actually need to survive, as per your pre-emptive response below.

Obviously in the society I live in I am compelled to work to provide a basic standard of living for myself and my daughter, but it's very important to me to do work that gives me some satisfaction and fulfillment too. I've worked some very menial jobs in the past (briefly in the recent past), and it really doesn't agree with my mental health and well being, I was also lucky enough to work almost entirely self-employed for several years doing rewarding and creative work helping others and even though at times this meant temporary financial insecurity, I know which situation I'd rather be in.

You might reply that greed is an excessive desire for possessions, but who arbitrates on what is excessive and what it luxurious?

I agree that there could be a lot of subjectivity in making such distinctions, but I think it's entirely plausible that some logical standard could be devised, probably based on utility for both the individual and for society as a whole.

Am I greedy bastard for wanting a GPS in my car because reading printable directions while driving is dangerous to not only myself but other motorists?

Not really greedy, lazy maybe :) A sat-nav is a tool so it does have some utility but I'm highly sceptical that an electronic device with flashing lights and sounds that you have to manually enter data into is any safer to use while driving than an old fashioned map or sheet of directions.

Most importantly you, nor I, are exempt from natural selection or the struggle to survive. If the lion doesn't have to apologize for surviving then why should you?

Sure we do, and I'll stand up and fight to survive with everyone else, but at the same time, I can also politely suggest that increased co-operation could improve the survival rate and lifestyle standard of all of us.

I would of course have the utmost respect for a lion (especially if I met him on open ground) but am I wrong to suggest that in terms of moral integrity humans have the potential to be superior to a lion and we shouldn't be judged by the same standards?

Lions eat other lion's babies and stuff; I think we should be better than that.