PDA

View Full Version : Ask A Socialist



Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 10:22 AM
I was originally going to write out an accompaniment thread to "Correcting Misconceptions About Socialism" detailing what, exactly, socialism was, but I decided this was a better method.

So, whatever questions you have about socialism, ask away. You will get only honest answers from me.

nic34
10-16-2013, 10:24 AM
Do you like Bernie Sanders....?

Captain Obvious
10-16-2013, 10:24 AM
Are you a pure socialist or do you prefer socialistic (vs. absolute socialism)?

And if the former, why do you think a socialist system is optimal and give me a modern day example of such a working system?

Thanks!

Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 10:26 AM
Do you like Bernie Sanders....?

I love the shit out of Sen. Sanders! I wish I lived in Vermont so I could vote for him. Unfortunately, by the time I can move to Vermont, he'll likely have retired.

Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 10:29 AM
Are you a pure socialist or do you prefer socialistic (vs. absolute socialism)?

And if the former, why do you think a socialist system is optimal and give me a modern day example of such a working system?

Thanks!

I'm a pure socialist. I think a socialist system is optimal because it's an equalizer. Everyone has the same opportunities to succeed, and there's nobody with infinitely more money than you holding you down to keep from having to share their pedestal. Everyone is rewarded for their contribution, so rather than the system we have now, where workers do the biggest portion of labor but receive the smallest fruit while the CEOs and bankers do the smallest portion of labor but receive the vastly largest fruit, those who do more work receive more while those who do less work receive less.

As for a modern day example, I'd point to the Amish (a blend of anarcho-socialism and anarcho-capitalism), among others.

Guerilla
10-16-2013, 10:36 AM
Do you believe, under the right circumstances, that everyone could actively and happily be apart of a socialism? Or do you think it is just inherent, or in their nature, for some individuals to only want to work for their own benefit?

Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 10:38 AM
Do you believe, under the right circumstances, that everyone could actively and happily be apart of a socialism? Or do you think it is just inherent, or in their nature, for some individuals to only want to work for their own benefit?

I think everyone could actively and happily live in a socialist society, yes. However, they have to come to that conclusion on their own, freely, without force or compulsion.

Chris
10-16-2013, 11:03 AM
Imagine a wood working shop. How would socialim allocate resources--space, tools, wood?

nic34
10-16-2013, 11:11 AM
Imagine a wood working shop. How would socialim allocate resources--space, tools, wood?

Just don't get into sharing school "grades" as an analogy.

Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 11:14 AM
Imagine a wood working shop. How would socialim allocate resources--space, tools, wood?

Well, obviously everyone won't be a woodworker, so it's just a matter of gathering up everyone who wants to be one, and dividing the resources among them.

Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 11:14 AM
Just don't get into sharing school "grades" as an analogy.

Ugh, I hate that analogy. Irritates the crap out of me.

Chris
10-16-2013, 11:31 AM
Well, obviously everyone won't be a woodworker, so it's just a matter of gathering up everyone who wants to be one, and dividing the resources among them.

Still, how? As in all things, resources are limited, wants unlimited. How decide who gets which and how much and for how long etc?

Also how is it deecided how much wood goes to the woodshop as opposed to the pencilmaker, papermaker, homebuilder, and other consumers of the same resource?

Also how is it decided that these jobs are done?

These are simple questions without easy answers.

Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 11:33 AM
Still, how? As in all things, resources are limited, wants unlimited. How decide who gets which and how much and for how long etc?

Also how is it deecided how much wood goes to the woodshop as opposed to the pencilmaker, papermaker, homebuilder, and other consumers of the same resource?

Also how is it decided that these jobs are done?

These are simple questions without easy answers.

I would suggest having all the resources in a community pile or something like that. Allot everyone a certain amount of wood. If they run out and need more, they can go back to the pile and request more.

Chris
10-16-2013, 11:53 AM
I would suggest having all the resources in a community pile or something like that. Allot everyone a certain amount of wood. If they run out and need more, they can go back to the pile and request more.

Again, limited resources, unlimited wants.

How allocate?

Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 12:24 PM
Again, limited resources, unlimited wants.

How allocate?

I've given you the only answer I can. *shrug* Not sure what else to say.

Kalkin
10-16-2013, 12:26 PM
As a socialist, do you feel an industrious man owes a lazy man a portion of his labor just because the
lazy man exists?

KC
10-16-2013, 12:34 PM
Green Arrow

Cool thread. I'll give it a go.

How would a socialist community (since I think the socialism you prefer is a more communal based system) get a hold of the resources it is unable to produce?

How would a socialist community know what to produce for the community? How would it learn how much of each good to produce for the community? How would shortages be avoided?

kilgram
10-16-2013, 12:35 PM
Again, limited resoyces, unlimited wants.

How allocate?
Well, you know the demand of this product, so you can organize the resources according to the demand.

KC
10-16-2013, 12:36 PM
Well, you know the demand of this product, so you can organize the resources according to the demand.

How do you know the demand of the product?

Chris
10-16-2013, 12:48 PM
Green Arrow

Cool thread. I'll give it a go.

How would a socialist community (since I think the socialism you prefer is a more communal based system) get a hold of the resources it is unable to produce?

How would a socialist community know what to produce for the community? How would it learn how much of each good to produce for the community? How would shortages be avoided?

That's partly whayt I was asking.

No answers.

Chris
10-16-2013, 12:50 PM
Green Arrow

Cool thread. I'll give it a go.

How would a socialist community (since I think the socialism you prefer is a more communal based system) get a hold of the resources it is unable to produce?

How would a socialist community know what to produce for the community? How would it learn how much of each good to produce for the community? How would shortages be avoided?

That's partly what I was asking.

No answers.

Chris
10-16-2013, 12:52 PM
Well, you know the demand of this product, so you can organize the resources according to the demand.

How is that known? How is it communicated and coordinated?

Kalkin
10-16-2013, 01:21 PM
Ugh, I hate that analogy. Irritates the crap out of me.
Why? It amply illustrates the detrimental effects on productivity inherent in the socialist model.

Captain Obvious
10-16-2013, 02:06 PM
I'm a pure socialist. I think a socialist system is optimal because it's an equalizer. Everyone has the same opportunities to succeed, and there's nobody with infinitely more money than you holding you down to keep from having to share their pedestal. Everyone is rewarded for their contribution, so rather than the system we have now, where workers do the biggest portion of labor but receive the smallest fruit while the CEOs and bankers do the smallest portion of labor but receive the vastly largest fruit, those who do more work receive more while those who do less work receive less.

As for a modern day example, I'd point to the Amish (a blend of anarcho-socialism and anarcho-capitalism), among others.

Amish?

Oh man, I'm going to have to defriend you.

:laugh:

Peter1469
10-16-2013, 03:02 PM
Do you think that there is a size limit that a socialist society can't exceed?

kilgram
10-16-2013, 03:11 PM
How do you know the demand of the product?
You know that, you have techniques to know this. For example by orders, and mainly in the beginning. Then you can know how many products you will need to produce.

kilgram
10-16-2013, 03:12 PM
Why? It amply illustrates the detrimental effects on productivity inherent in the socialist model.
It does not.

Mister D
10-16-2013, 03:16 PM
I was originally going to write out an accompaniment thread to "Correcting Misconceptions About Socialism" detailing what, exactly, socialism was, but I decided this was a better method.

So, whatever questions you have about socialism, ask away. You will get only honest answers from me.

So you take it you reject both internationalism and national bolshevism. I sympathize to some extent with the former and fascism as well.

Kalkin
10-16-2013, 03:18 PM
It does not.
It does.

Libhater
10-16-2013, 03:20 PM
Ask a Socialist?

What part if not all of America's failed experiment with communalism (socialism) of our Pilgrims in colonial Massachusetts do you still favor here in our 21st century? Check out the link I leave so as to get a clearer looksee into how and why socialism fails every time its implemented.

http://www.libertyunderfire.org/2011/11/1430/

Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 04:33 PM
As a socialist, do you feel an industrious man owes a lazy man a portion of his labor just because the
lazy man exists?

Nope.

Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 04:36 PM
@Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868)

Cool thread. I'll give it a go.

How would a socialist community (since I think the socialism you prefer is a more communal based system) get a hold of the resources it is unable to produce?

How would a socialist community know what to produce for the community? How would it learn how much of each good to produce for the community? How would shortages be avoided?

The resources necessary are part of our natural world. It'll take hard work, but it's not impossible to obtain them.

You know what to produce based on how many people are in the community. If you have a family of five, you know how many materials you'll need to build a home big enough for five people. With a head count, you know how much food needs to be produced to ensure everyone is fed.

Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 04:37 PM
Why? It amply illustrates the detrimental effects on productivity inherent in the socialist model.

No, it perpetuates a misconception. It has no basis in fact.

Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 04:38 PM
Do you think that there is a size limit that a socialist society can't exceed?

Eh, it depends. I, personally, would not recommend going above 10,000 people per community, but even that is too large in my opinion. 50-100 should be sufficient.

Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 04:39 PM
So you take it you reject both internationalism and national bolshevism. I sympathize to some extent with the former and fascism as well.

I do reject both, yes.

Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 04:40 PM
Ask a Socialist?

What part if not all of America's failed experiment with communalism (socialism) of our Pilgrims in colonial Massachusetts do you still favor here in our 21st century? Check out the link I leave so as to get a clearer looksee into how and why socialism fails every time its implemented.

http://www.libertyunderfire.org/2011/11/1430/

Communitarianism has not failed every time it has been implemented, that is a lie. The Amish are the purest example that it can thrive if managed properly.

Kalkin
10-16-2013, 04:44 PM
Nope.
Then you're not really a socialist, are you?

Kalkin
10-16-2013, 04:45 PM
No, it perpetuates a misconception. It has no basis in fact.
What misconception? You seem heavy on denial and light on evidence, tbh.

Mister D
10-16-2013, 04:57 PM
I do reject both, yes.

I meant the latter. Sorry. I dislike internationalism. I am not a socialist ut I do conisder myself a communitarian.

nic34
10-16-2013, 04:57 PM
Eh, it depends. I, personally, would not recommend going above 10,000 people per community, but even that is too large in my opinion. 50-100 should be sufficient.

If a socialist society cannot work for large cities, there is no point in discussing it is there? The world is not getting smaller at this point....

Have you considered democratic socialism?

No country has fully implemented democratic socialism, but parties and labor movements of other countries are good examples we can learn from.

The welfare state maintained by the Swedes, Canada’s national health care system, France’s nationwide childcare program, and Nicaragua’s literacy programs, to name just a few.

Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 04:58 PM
Then you're not really a socialist, are you?

Of course I am. The disconnect seems to be that you believe the common misconception that socialism rewards laziness. It doesn't.

Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 04:59 PM
What misconception? You seem heavy on denial and light on evidence, tbh.

I haven't seen much evidence from you, either.

KC
10-16-2013, 05:01 PM
The resources necessary are part of our natural world. It'll take hard work, but it's not impossible to obtain them.

Most consumer goods require materials from all over the world. How does a socialist community get a hold of raw materials that don't exist in their community?

Also, you say it will take hard work. No doubt. What is the motivationfor people to work hard in a socialist community?

(Note: I only emphasize the community thing because I thought I saw you write somewhere that you prefer a voluntary socialist model. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me)


You know what to produce based on how many people are in the community. If you have a family of five, you know how many materials you'll need to build a home big enough for five people. With a head count, you know how much food needs to be produced to ensure everyone is fed.

What is big enough for five? Is it the bare essentials, or enough to live comfortably? How does a socialist community decide what level of comfort to guarantee all of its members? Keep in mind that more luxurious the lifestyle, the more people it will take to make it possible, the more people that will be need to be provided for.

Also, with food, how does a socialist community figure out what foods to produce? If you just eat what the soil will produce, the diet is probably going to be pretty bland and tasteless.

Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 05:02 PM
If a socialist society cannot work for large cities, there is no point in discussing it is there? The world is not getting smaller at this point....

I disagree. The larger our cities get, the worse off the people in those cities get. Man was not made to be shoved on top of each other by the millions like sardines. Cram millions of people into one city and you're guaranteed to have the crime and corruption problems all major cities have.

No, sir. Returning to a more small community-based style of living will benefit everyone.


Have you considered democratic socialism?

Indeed. I find it noble, but misguided.


No country has fully implemented democratic socialism, but parties and labor movements of other countries are good examples we can learn from.

The welfare state maintained by the Swedes, Canada’s national health care system, France’s nationwide childcare program, and Nicaragua’s literacy programs, to name just a few.

I think the term you are looking for is "social democracy," sort of an in-between state, between capitalism and socialism. I don't mind social democracy. I think if we're to have a government, it needs to be a social democracy.

Mister D
10-16-2013, 05:03 PM
If a socialist society cannot work for large cities, there is no point in discussing it is there? The world is not getting smaller at this point....

Have you considered democratic socialism?

No country has fully implemented democratic socialism, but parties and labor movements of other countries are good examples we can learn from.

The welfare state maintained by the Swedes, Canada’s national health care system, France’s nationwide childcare program, and Nicaragua’s literacy programs, to name just a few.

The world may very well contract.

nic34
10-16-2013, 05:06 PM
I think the term you are looking for is "social democracy," sort of an in-between state, between capitalism and socialism. I don't mind social democracy. I think if we're to have a government, it needs to be a social democracy.

Sure, I agree.

And I hope you aren't expecting to downsize our cities anytime soon are you ..... I hope...?

Kalkin
10-16-2013, 05:07 PM
Of course I am. The disconnect seems to be that you believe the common misconception that socialism rewards laziness. It doesn't.
Does it transfer wealth from those who have earned it to those who have not?

Kalkin
10-16-2013, 05:08 PM
I haven't seen much evidence from you, either.
Evidence of what?

Chris
10-16-2013, 05:09 PM
The resources necessary are part of our natural world. It'll take hard work, but it's not impossible to obtain them.

You know what to produce based on how many people are in the community. If you have a family of five, you know how many materials you'll need to build a home big enough for five people. With a head count, you know how much food needs to be produced to ensure everyone is fed.

How do you know? Who decides this?

Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 05:10 PM
Most consumer goods require materials from all over the world. How does a socialist community get a hold of raw materials that don't exist in their community?

Trade with other communities or nations would be an acceptable method, I think.


Also, you say it will take hard work. No doubt. What is the motivationfor people to work hard in a socialist community?

The principle of distribution. You are given your portion of wealth based on your contribution. See, in our current system, it's reversed. The CEO and the banker do the least amount of work, but receive the vastly larger portion of wealth. The worker, on the other hand, does the largest amount of work, but receives the smallest portion of wealth. In socialism, thanks to the principle of distribution, it's flipped. If you do the smallest amount of work, you receive the smaller portion of wealth. If you do the largest amount of work, you receive the larger portion of wealth.

It incentivizes you to work harder.


(Note: I only emphasize the community thing because I thought I saw you write somewhere that you prefer a voluntary socialist model. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me)

You are correct.


What is big enough for five? Is it the bare essentials, or enough to live comfortably? How does a socialist community decide what level of comfort to guarantee all of its members? Keep in mind that more luxurious the lifestyle, the more people it will take to make it possible, the more people that will be need to be provided for.

As you pointed out, you want to be careful not to allot too much per person/family, because then you end up getting the same society we have now. I would say allotting each person/family what they need to live comfortably, plus a little extra for wants, should be sufficient. Here, incorporating Thomas Paine's idea of a community-wide wage would be good.


Also, with food, how does a socialist community figure out what foods to produce? If you just eat what the soil will produce, the diet is probably going to be pretty bland and tasteless.

Fruits, vegetables, and meat. Simple farming (which includes animals) accomplishes this. You can also plant all the herbs necessary to get sugar and spices.

Chris
10-16-2013, 05:11 PM
If a socialist society cannot work for large cities, there is no point in discussing it is there? The world is not getting smaller at this point....

Have you considered democratic socialism?

No country has fully implemented democratic socialism, but parties and labor movements of other countries are good examples we can learn from.

The welfare state maintained by the Swedes, Canada’s national health care system, France’s nationwide childcare program, and Nicaragua’s literacy programs, to name just a few.

We live in a social democracy, same thing. How's that working?

Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 05:11 PM
How do you know?

How do I know what, specifically?


Who decides this?

Whatever leadership apparatus the community decides on.

Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 05:11 PM
We live in a social democracy, same thing. How's that working?

Ehhhh, yes and no.

Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 05:13 PM
Sure, I agree.

And I hope you aren't expecting to downsize our cities anytime soon are you ..... I hope...?

No, no. That would be barbaric. A natural, voluntary transition to a more agrarian, communitarian lifestyle is the way to go. People like myself and my allies would form our communities, and show the world that our lifestyle is better. People can either choose the same or continue on as they are.

nic34
10-16-2013, 05:15 PM
We live in a social democracy, same thing. How's that working?

We live in a constitutional monarchy controlled by the SCOTUS 9.

Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 05:15 PM
Does it transfer wealth from those who have earned it to those who have not?

No. That is state socialism. Original socialism was a different animal than state socialism. It operates under the Principle of Distribution, To each according to his contribution.

Chris
10-16-2013, 05:16 PM
How do I know what, specifically?



Whatever leadership apparatus the community decides on.


The question referred to what you'd said, please look back.

I'm finding your responses somewhat vague if not vacuous. No wonder people are having trouble understanding. I'm beginning to understand why the promised thread on what socialism is is not forthcoming. I would expect an explanation of a socialist economic system.

Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 05:17 PM
Evidence of what?

That your analogy is at all representative of anything socialist. It isn't. Socialism requires that everyone contribute, save for the obviously mentally or physically handicapped. In your analogy, something is being taken from a contributor and given to a non-contributor who is capable of contributing but does not. That is not socialism, that is just government.

Chris
10-16-2013, 05:17 PM
No. That is state socialism. Original socialism was a different animal than state socialism. It operates under the Principle of Distribution, To each according to his contribution.

How is that measured?

Provide some details.


"Original socialism was a different animal than state socialism."
"Whatever leadership apparatus the community decides on."

How does leadership not imply the central planning of a state?

Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 05:18 PM
The question referred to what you'd said, please look back.

I assume you're referring to food production and, to use my example, the materials necessary to build a house for a family of five, correct?


I'm finding your responses somewhat vague if not vacuous. No wonder people are having trouble understanding. I'm beginning to understand why the promised thread on what socialism is is not forthcoming. I would expect an explanation of a socialist economic system.

I'm answering the best I can to the questions posited. If the question is rather vague and unspecific, I can only answer so well.

Libhater
10-16-2013, 05:22 PM
Communitarianism has not failed every time it has been implemented, that is a lie. The Amish are the purest example that it can thrive if managed properly.

And you think this Communitarianism as seen with the Amish is an example of a thriving community? Perhaps their lifestyle is what you wish for the rest of America, no?

nic34
10-16-2013, 05:22 PM
The question referred to what you'd said, please look back.

I'm finding your responses somewhat vague if not vacuous. No wonder people are having trouble understanding. I'm beginning to understand why the promised thread on what socialism is is not forthcoming. I would expect an explanation of a socialist economic system.

Is this a quiz or a paper? When is it due?

You grading on a curve?

Chris
10-16-2013, 05:24 PM
Is this a quiz or a paper? When is it due?

You grading on a curve?

What's your problem, nic?

Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 05:24 PM
How is that measured?

Provide some details.

Every worker receives wages and benefits according to the quantity and value of his labor. A farmer's labor is more valuable than the toymaker's labor, for example, so the farmer's wages may be higher. His labor also has more quantity. Benjamin Tucker argued that this means the worker should receive the full benefit of his labor, as that prevents exploitation. The farmer, for example, could trade his beef, and everything he receives from that trade goes directly to him, without a government or his neighbor taking a portion.


"Original socialism was a different animal than state socialism."
"Whatever leadership apparatus the community decides on."

How does leadership not imply the central planning of a state?

Because there's a difference between "state" and "government." All states have governments, not all governments are states.

Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 05:25 PM
And you think this Communitarianism as seen with the Amish is an example of a thriving community? Perhaps their lifestyle is what you wish for the rest of America, no?

It is a thriving community, and yes, I would like if America returned to the agrarian lifestyle of the founders.

Chris
10-16-2013, 05:26 PM
I assume you're referring to food production and, to use my example, the materials necessary to build a house for a family of five, correct?



I'm answering the best I can to the questions posited. If the question is rather vague and unspecific, I can only answer so well.



I've given you very specific and detailed questions. They have been answered at best as well it will just happen. Go back to the woodshop, asked how you would allocate resources to and within the shop you basically said divide them up. My question was how would you divide them up? So far what I understand is socialism is socialism.

KC
10-16-2013, 05:27 PM
Is this a quiz or a paper? When is it due?

You grading on a curve?

It's on a curve. More specifically, a production possibilities curve. This also happens to be what socialist societies and communities struggle with the most.

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/research_papers/estimating_multifactor_productivity_in_truck_trans portation/images/figure_02.gif

nic34
10-16-2013, 05:30 PM
What's your problem, nic?

OK.

In a socialist economic system, the means of production is used to satisfy economic demands and human needs. Accounting would be based on physical quantities or a direct measure of labor-time instead of on profits.

A capitalist society doesn't use their resources to maximum potential in the interests of the public. Instead, it focuses on satisfying market-induced wants as opposed to human needs.

Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 05:30 PM
It's on a curve. More specifically, a production possibilities curve. This also happens to be what socialist societies and communities struggle with the most.

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/research_papers/estimating_multifactor_productivity_in_truck_trans portation/images/figure_02.gif

Indeed. The theory is far from perfect and needs working on, but it's fixing that can't be done without it being put into practice as a trial period without outside influence. Too often, the old socialist communities were attacked and conquered by outside governments before they could really test the theory.

Chris
10-16-2013, 05:32 PM
Every worker receives wages and benefits according to the quantity and value of his labor. A farmer's labor is more valuable than the toymaker's labor, for example, so the farmer's wages may be higher. His labor also has more quantity. Benjamin Tucker argued that this means the worker should receive the full benefit of his labor, as that prevents exploitation. The farmer, for example, could trade his beef, and everything he receives from that trade goes directly to him, without a government or his neighbor taking a portion.



Because there's a difference between "state" and "government." All states have governments, not all governments are states.



Every worker receives wages and benefits according to the quantity and value of his labor.

How is work valued? How is it determined? What is the "full benefit of labor"?




"the farmer's wages...everything he receives from that trade goes directly to him"

So your version of socialism include private ownership and is capitalistic?



Because there's a difference between "state" and "government." All states have governments, not all governments are states.

Right, the difference is power and monopoly of force. How is "Whatever leadership apparatus the community decides on" enforced? And if not, how is it meaningful?

Libhater
10-16-2013, 05:32 PM
Is this a quiz or a paper? When is it due?

You grading on a curve?

I'm led to surmise that the green arrow sees the Communitarian lifestyle of the Amish as a perfect example of how that particular brand of socialism thrives here in America. Let me leave you again with the Pilgrim's attempt to enact socialism into the colonial landscape and see if that failed experiment is enough of a harbinger for you to see the writing on the 21st century wall of modern day socialism as being another failed experiment.

http://www.libertyunderfire.org/2011/11/1430/

Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 05:34 PM
I've given you very specific and detailed questions. They have been answered at best as well it will just happen. Go back to the woodshop, asked how you would allocate resources to and within the shop you basically said divide them up. My question was how would you divide them up? So far what I understand is socialism is socialism.

I believe I answered that in response to someone else already, but I imagine one way you could do it would be to get in everyone's requests for, using the wood shop example, wood, and why they need so much. From there, allow the owner of the wood shop to divide up the wood. He can either divide up everyone's requests as is, or verify that the need is proper. If he runs out of wood, more can be acquired. Extra wood can be returned to the wood shop.

Chris
10-16-2013, 05:35 PM
OK.

In a socialist economic system, the means of production is used to satisfy economic demands and human needs. Accounting would be based on physical quantities or a direct measure of labor-time instead of on profits.

A capitalist society doesn't use their resources to maximum potential in the interests of the public. Instead, it focuses on satisfying market-induced wants as opposed to human needs.


In a socialist economic system, the means of production is used to satisfy economic demands and human needs.

Same with a free-market capitalistic system.


Accounting would be based on physical quantities or a direct measure of labor-time instead of on profits.

How are these quantities valued? How is labor-time valued?


A capitalist society doesn't use their resources to maximum potential in the interests of the public.

Invisible hand.


Instead, it focuses on satisfying market-induced wants as opposed to human needs.

Who decides what is a need and what is a want?

Chris
10-16-2013, 05:36 PM
I believe I answered that in response to someone else already, but I imagine one way you could do it would be to get in everyone's requests for, using the wood shop example, wood, and why they need so much. From there, allow the owner of the wood shop to divide up the wood. He can either divide up everyone's requests as is, or verify that the need is proper. If he runs out of wood, more can be acquired. Extra wood can be returned to the wood shop.

You're now describing a capitalist system where the capital is privately owned.

nic34
10-16-2013, 05:37 PM
.... and to think this is the nation that has explored the moon, has several rovers on Mars and has probes beyond the solar system...

Kalkin
10-16-2013, 05:41 PM
No. That is state socialism. Original socialism was a different animal than state socialism. It operates under the Principle of Distribution, To each according to his contribution.
Ah. Well, that's not as bad. As a matter of fact, I'm all for the freedom of you and like-minded folks establishing any socialist construct you'd like. Just don't force those who don't want to participate into your collective and it's all good. It seems that most who describe themselves as socialists nowadays have an authoritarian streak that compels them to force everyone else to fall in line. If you're not that guy, I have no qualms with you or your agenda. =)

Mister D
10-16-2013, 05:45 PM
Ah. Well, that's not as bad. As a matter of fact, I'm all for the freedom of you and like-minded folks establishing any socialist construct you'd like. Just don't force those who don't want to participate into your collective and it's all good. It seems that most who describe themselves as socialists nowadays have an authoritarian streak that compels them to force everyone else to fall in line. If you're not that guy, I have no qualms with you or your agenda. =)

He's not from what I can tell.

Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 05:48 PM
How is work valued?

A farmer's work is more valuable than a toymaker's, for obvious reasons. Food is far more important than toys.


How is it determined?

How do you mean?


What is the "full benefit of labor"?

If I milk a cow, and nobody else milks that cow, and you sell that bucket of milk to someone who needs it, I get the money for the bucket of milk, because that is the full benefit of my labor.

Some socialist systems define it differently, of course.


"the farmer's wages...everything he receives from that trade goes directly to him"

So your version of socialism include private ownership and is capitalistic?

No. In capitalism, goods and services are produced for profit. In socialism, goods and services are produced for direct use.


Right, the difference is power and monopoly of force. How is "Whatever leadership apparatus the community decides on" enforced? And if not, how is it meaningful?

The difference is more complicated than that. States rule over territory and people, a socialist "government" would not.

As to how it is enforced, read up on the Irish Tuatha.

Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 05:49 PM
You're now describing a capitalist system where the capital is privately owned.

Not really. There is no "capital" in what I'm describing.

Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 05:51 PM
Ah. Well, that's not as bad. As a matter of fact, I'm all for the freedom of you and like-minded folks establishing any socialist construct you'd like. Just don't force those who don't want to participate into your collective and it's all good. It seems that most who describe themselves as socialists nowadays have an authoritarian streak that compels them to force everyone else to fall in line. If you're not that guy, I have no qualms with you or your agenda. =)

I am not that guy, I assure you. I would be perfectly content if me and a few friends were the only people in America to want to pursue this lifestyle, just so long as everyone else allowed us to. I have no desire to force or otherwise compel anyone to follow me. I merely share my ideas, and allow people to make up their own minds.

Dr. Who
10-16-2013, 05:51 PM
I've given you the only answer I can. *shrug* Not sure what else to say.

Resources should be allocated based on need, so if there is not so much need for pencils, and more need for houses, wood would be allocated accordingly. In a socialistic system, there is no need to overproduce goods that are not required. People must therefore have more than one interest. If the pencil maker is not at times needed to make pencils, he might alternatively be a carpenter.

Green Arrow
10-16-2013, 05:52 PM
Resources should be allocated based on need, so if there is not so much need for pencils, and more need for houses, wood would be allocated accordingly. In a socialistic system, there is no need to overproduce goods that are not required. People must therefore have more than one interest. If the pencil maker is not at times needed to make pencils, he might alternatively be a carpenter.

This is pretty much correct, yes. It's the same message I was trying to convey by comparing the farmer and the toymaker.

Dr. Who
10-16-2013, 05:57 PM
How is that known? How is it communicated and coordinated?

How do you know what groceries you need to buy each week? People are quite capable of putting in an order for X in a community. With technology it is even easier to co-ordinate supply and demand. In the capitalistic world, there is far less assurance of a buyer for a product than in a socialistic world where the supply would be directly in response to the demand.

Chris
10-16-2013, 06:08 PM
A farmer's work is more valuable than a toymaker's, for obvious reasons. Food is far more important than toys.



How do you mean?



If I milk a cow, and nobody else milks that cow, and you sell that bucket of milk to someone who needs it, I get the money for the bucket of milk, because that is the full benefit of my labor.

Some socialist systems define it differently, of course.



No. In capitalism, goods and services are produced for profit. In socialism, goods and services are produced for direct use.



The difference is more complicated than that. States rule over territory and people, a socialist "government" would not.

As to how it is enforced, read up on the Irish Tuatha.


A farmer's work is more valuable than a toymaker's, for obvious reasons. Food is far more important than toys.

So things are valued not by the person producing a good and not by the person purchasing or consuming the good but by some external person who forces his judgement on all.


How do you mean?

Look at your words that I responded to to figure the meaning.


If I milk a cow, and nobody else milks that cow, and you sell that bucket of milk to someone who needs it, I get the money for the bucket of milk, because that is the full benefit of my labor.

How is that determined? You're really not answering the question. The value of your labor is determined by what a consumer values it? That's capitalism, free-market capitalism. Also, "sell" implies I own it to be able to sell it--that's capitalism again.

Like nic you're really not distinguishing what socialism is.


No. In capitalism, goods and services are produced for profit. In socialism, goods and services are produced for direct use.

No, in capitalism they are produced for the profit of the producer and the profit of the consumer. Here you're defining socialist value as determined by consumption whereas with "full benefit of my labor" you're defining value as determined by production. --If it's both, then it profits both and we're back at free-market capitalism.


What specifically is socialism and how specifically does it differ from free-market capitalism? (Excluding statist versions of each.) To me the one key distinction is socialism is defined by public ownership of property and free-market capitalism by private ownership. But your answers drift back and froth over that distinction. So how do you distinguish the two?

Chris
10-16-2013, 06:09 PM
Not really. There is no "capital" in what I'm describing.

You have spoken of ownership and selling which imply capital and capitalism. Up to you to distinguish.

Chris
10-16-2013, 06:10 PM
Resources should be allocated based on need, so if there is not so much need for pencils, and more need for houses, wood would be allocated accordingly. In a socialistic system, there is no need to overproduce goods that are not required. People must therefore have more than one interest. If the pencil maker is not at times needed to make pencils, he might alternatively be a carpenter.

Same question, who determines "needs" (in economics the word is wants) and how are they determined?


"People must" pretty much answers it.

Chris
10-16-2013, 06:16 PM
How do you know what groceries you need to buy each week? People are quite capable of putting in an order for X in a community. With technology it is even easier to co-ordinate supply and demand. In the capitalistic world, there is far less assurance of a buyer for a product than in a socialistic world where the supply would be directly in response to the demand.

I decide what I want and then I seek out those who have that and are willing to trade for what I have and they want. That's all that's needed. Out of that emerges a social order we call the market or economy.

Anyone can put in an order but how is it decided in your social system what to order, how much, when? And how do you coordinate supply and demand on the scale of an economy?

The same risks exist in your socialist world because you cannot get away from the fact that we are face with limited resources and unlimited wants.

Peter1469
10-16-2013, 06:22 PM
Eh, it depends. I, personally, would not recommend going above 10,000 people per community, but even that is too large in my opinion. 50-100 should be sufficient.

I could agree with that. My point was only that it can't work on the large scale.

Dr. Who
10-16-2013, 06:27 PM
Same question, who determines "needs" (in economics the word is wants) and how are they determined?


"People must" pretty much answers it.How many people are restricted to only one interest? I'm sure you have more than one thing that you like to do. To each one in such a community there can be several ways in which they might contribute to the whole in accordance to the needs of the community. The house builder clearly likes to work with his hands, how many other opportunities could he find to work with his hands when not building houses. He could learn and assist with carpentry, or he could help with farming. This is how the Amish work. One who likes to farm, may have little to do in winter apart from feeding his livestock, so in winter he could help with community work, clearing roads etc. Some people might be very good at producing clothing, but have children that require minding. Someone else might be very good with children and would mind several. Someone else might be very mechanically inclined and would therefore fix and repair equipment and farm machinery. He who wishes to do nothing all day, could be rewarded expulsion from the community depending on the attitude of the community. If the lazy bones has children, the community might opt to care for the kids and rebuke the loafer.

Chris
10-16-2013, 06:34 PM
How many people are restricted to only one interest? I'm sure you have more than one thing that you like to do. To each one in such a community there can be several ways in which they might contribute to the whole in accordance to the needs of the community. The house builder clearly likes to work with his hands, how many other opportunities could he find to work with his hands when not building houses. He could learn and assist with carpentry, or he could help with farming. This is how the Amish work. One who likes to farm, may have little to do in winter apart from feeding his livestock, so in winter he could help with community work, clearing roads etc. Some people might be very good at producing clothing, but have children that require minding. Someone else might be very good with children and would mind several. Someone else might be very mechanically inclined and would therefore fix and repair equipment and farm machinery. He who wishes to do nothing all day, could be rewarded expulsion from the community depending on the attitude of the community. If the lazy bones has children, the community might opt to care for the kids and rebuke the loafer.

People have interests regardless socialism or capitalism, not sure your point.

Interests and skills lead to specialization and trade, from the dawn of history this has been so.

It seems to me a free-market capitalist system allows people the freedom to choose while your socialist system requires central planners, or should I say commanders.

Dr. Who
10-16-2013, 07:02 PM
People have interests regardless socialism or capitalism, not sure your point.

Interests and skills lead to specialization and trade, from the dawn of history this has been so.

It seems to me a free-market capitalist system allows people the freedom to choose while your socialist system requires central planners, or should I say commanders.

In a small community it is easy enough to achieve consensus. People have chosen a lifestyle. When you multiply to tens of thousands, it is much harder to get away from central planning. Bring on the replicator from Star Trek and then we can have socialism on a large scale.

Chris
10-16-2013, 07:32 PM
In a small community it is easy enough to achieve consensus. People have chosen a lifestyle. When you multiply to tens of thousands, it is much harder to get away from central planning. Bring on the replicator from Star Trek and then we can have socialism on a large scale.

Agree with the bold. Pockets of socialism within a free market with statists trying to manage it.

But it doesn't yet answer how when the inevitable disagreement, over scarce resources in the face of unlimited wants, consensus will be reached and whether if it is it's any longer voluntary.

Dr. Who
10-16-2013, 07:39 PM
Agree with the bold. Pockets of socialism within a free market with statists trying to manage it.

But it doesn't yet answer how when the inevitable disagreement, over scarce resources in the face of unlimited wants, consensus will be reached and whether if it is it's any longer voluntary.
It is certainly possible that the offspring of the voluntarists might have different ideas. It happens even among the Amish.

Chris
10-16-2013, 08:25 PM
It is certainly possible that the offspring of the voluntarists might have different ideas. It happens even among the Amish.

Voluntary as opposed to statist. But we drift away from economics and toward politics.

kilgram
10-17-2013, 01:04 AM
I have a difficult question for you, Green Arrow.

How do you achieve the socialism? What methods would you use? How the workers will recover what is theirs: the means of productions? If the system, the state, corporations resort to violence, something that I expect what would you do? Also, what kind of civil disobedience would you use if it is necessary?

Libhater
10-17-2013, 05:05 AM
For the third time now, is the type of failed socialism as depicted from our Colonial Pilgrims the type of socialism that you wish for modern day 21st century America?

http://www.libertyunderfire.org/2011/11/1430/

Ravi
10-17-2013, 05:11 AM
No, no. That would be barbaric. A natural, voluntary transition to a more agrarian, communitarian lifestyle is the way to go. People like myself and my allies would form our communities, and show the world that our lifestyle is better. People can either choose the same or continue on as they are.
I'm curious to know why you haven't done it yet. What are you waiting for?

Green Arrow
10-17-2013, 09:30 AM
I have a difficult question for you, @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868).

How do you achieve the socialism? What methods would you use? How the workers will recover what is theirs: the means of productions? If the system, the state, corporations resort to violence, something that I expect what would you do? Also, what kind of civil disobedience would you use if it is necessary?

I don't believe in force, so we'd have to build our own community and the means of production ourselves. There will be no seizing of anything. If they resort to violence, we resist nonviolently.

Not sure what you mean by the kind of civil disobedience. Explain?

Green Arrow
10-17-2013, 09:31 AM
I'm curious to know why you haven't done it yet. What are you waiting for?

My family, mostly. My wife is in another state going through school.

Green Arrow
10-17-2013, 09:32 AM
For the third time now, is the type of failed socialism as depicted from our Colonial Pilgrims the type of socialism that you wish for modern day 21st century America?

http://www.libertyunderfire.org/2011/11/1430/

I answered that. I said no, that I wanted the successful sort of agrarian living our founders had.

Libhater
10-17-2013, 11:22 AM
I answered that. I said no, that I wanted the successful sort of agrarian living our founders had.

I'm amused at what type of living arrangements you deem successful where no one has an incentive to grow and become successful. But that's just me being me.

Green Arrow
10-17-2013, 11:24 AM
I'm amused at what type of living arrangements you deem successful where no one has an incentive to grow and become successful. But that's just me being me.

The culture our founders loved had no incentive for people to grow and become successful?

Libhater
10-17-2013, 11:42 AM
The culture our founders loved had no incentive for people to grow and become successful?

It didn't with their failed experiment with socialism.