Whats wrong with socialism?

[padren]

However, we also use greed (as a tool) to our personal benefit without crossing a moral line. Saving money, storing more food than you need, buying land, etc. It's both part of survival and reaching for that contented life.

 

Which is why I see any healthy society using facets of both socialist and capitalist ideas.

 

Well, it's kind of nit-picky but I do disagree on a finer point. Stockpiling of any resource to levels more than you need is just how you deal with an uncertain world - since we need to be prepared for the unknown you could say it's not really "more than you need."

 

Acquiring more than "needed" is often good as it gives you more options, more security, and depending on your ambitions your needs may be a lot higher than basic survival. The "desire to flourish" with perhaps grand aspirations in my mind then, is different than greed.

 

Greed, at least to me, is when hording is done as it's own end, like a financial form of gluttony where eating more actually is bad for your health. Whether we are too obsessed to realize it or not, we have better things to do than work for the sake of work. Works of passion, work to achieve goals or provide for others can be pretty obsessive but still healthy but to do so for things that do not meaningfully benefit your life (to me) seems to cross over into an almost illness.

 

I may make that distinction (it's probably a personal and subjective one) because I find the dichotomy of altruism/greed to be both false and potentially misleadingly damaging. If anything I think codependent*/altruistic/ambitious/greed is a better scale with negative extremes on both sides.

 

*not sure if that's the best term, but essentially some people are obsessed with helping others as a means to avoid their own problems, which is a self-defeating and selfish end, and just as unhealthy as greed.

 

It's as potentially unhealthy to blur codependents with altruism as it is to blur ambition with greed.

[The Bear's Key]

I entirely agree Pangloss. When someone tries to kill one widespread system by elevating another, that's usually where I draw the line. Expert balance and a reasonable approach go a long way.

 

The most freedom, least corruption, and overall healthiness in society, environment and personal/private business are good indicators, in my view.

 

Just to throw some numbers out there, here's what I consider a more perfect gauge of fair wealth: that the richest 20% in the U.S. is not more rich than the combined lower 55% of people's wealth. Because then something's more healthy about the economy's workings and people's opportunity for wealth.

 

Yet as of now the richest 1% in the U.S. is richer than the combined lower 90% of people's wealth.

 

I'd be happy if the government decided on a fair percentage gap where a healthier number of people can still become fabulously wealthy, in the same manner: hard work, perserverence and occasionally just dumb luck. If the perceptange gap isn't met, then experiment is necessary with variables from education to having business tools be more accessible. Of course as important is for their aimed value on wealth gap to be a permanently set one, not changing except by a major nationwide ratification as per constitutional amendments.

 

 

 

So, you're saying that taking all the resources you can to ensure you have access to them in the future is not a survival trait?

 

Mind, survival isn't just response to immediate danger, it's a continuum of interplay between organism and environment. So, it's self preservation to doom others to the fire in order to be a survivor, it is also self preservation to horde food so that you'll be able to eat during the lean seasons.

 

That does not mean you can't also survive the theater fire by pooling resources with others (we three can crash the locked door down!) as well as survive the lean season (We can hunt together and catch more food than the three of us will need!)

I know you revealed it to be somewhat off context, but your response is still interesting enough to have provided mental food that I'll now share.

 

Keeping in mind, there are lots of people who view survival as you have writen it.

 

 

So, you're saying that taking all the resources you can to ensure you have access to them in the future is not a survival trait?

 

Now pause and think a bit deep. If people will kill you for the same reason that you hogged all the resources in effect leaving others with barely nothing, then it's actually a survival trait to get everyone into sharing habit.

 

 

Mind, survival isn't just response to immediate danger, it's a continuum of interplay between organism and environment.

 

Interesting that if the survival's not a response to immediate danger, then by logic it's premeditated. With such a level of time available, might it not be to your best interest to problem-solve the difficulty rather than jumping the gun and screwing over potentially new enemies (as a result of your seemingly malicious actions)?

 

 

So, it's self preservation to doom others to the fire in order to be a survivor, it is also self preservation to horde food so that you'll be able to eat during the lean seasons.

 

And how would any survivors you'd trampled over bode for your self-preservation down the road?

 

 

That does not mean you can't also survive the theater fire by pooling resources with others (we three can crash the locked door down!) as well as survive the lean season (We can hunt together and catch more food than the three of us will need!)

 

And in the cases above, your best survival tool would be to continually keep aware that the others's survival instincts might kick in from desperation and may leave you to die in order to save themselves. Yet in order to keep yourself from such take-over by instincts, keeping a level head about you becomes the most important part of survival.

Edited September 22, 2009 by The Bear's Key
grammaring

[JillSwift]

I know you revealed it to be somewhat off context, but your response is still interesting enough to have provided mental food that I'll now share.

 

Keeping in mind, there are lots of people who view survival as you have writen it.

 

 

So, you're saying that taking all the resources you can to ensure you have access to them in the future is not a survival trait?

 

Now pause and think a bit deep. If people will kill you for the same reason that you hogged all the resources in effect leaving others with barely nothing, then it's actually a survival trait to get everyone into sharing habit.

1. I know where the food is, kill me and you starve.

2. Hey, Grog and Trog you big strapping guys, want to earn yourself extra food? Use your brute selves to keep those suckers under control.

(Hey, starting to sound capitalistic... )

 

 

Mind, survival isn't just response to immediate danger, it's a continuum of interplay between organism and environment.

 

Interesting that if the survival's not a response to immediate danger, then by logic it's premeditated. With such a level of time available, might it not be to your best interest to problem-solve the difficulty rather than jumping the gun and screwing over potentially new enemies (as a result of your seemingly malicious actions)?

Of course. That doesn't mean the solution will be altruistic.

 

 

So, it's self preservation to doom others to the fire in order to be a survivor, it is also self preservation to horde food so that you'll be able to eat during the lean seasons.

 

And how would any survivors you'd trampled over bode for your self-preservation down the road?

Depends on quite a few variables.

 

 

That does not mean you can't also survive the theater fire by pooling resources with others (we three can crash the locked door down!) as well as survive the lean season (We can hunt together and catch more food than the three of us will need!)

 

And in the cases above, your best survival tool would be to continually keep aware that the others's survival instincts might kick in from desperation and may leave you to die in order to save themselves. Yet in order to keep yourself from such take-over by instincts, keeping a level head about you becomes the most important part of survival.

And that's the thing about where human intellect is. Intellectually, we know that careful problem solving and teamwork bring us exceptional results. Instinctively, "Trog preserve genes! Scroo da rest!!"

 

Trog's such a jerk.

[The Bear's Key]

Conversely....

 

1. I know where the food is, kill me and you starve.

2. Hey, Grog and Trog you big strapping guys, want to earn yourself extra food? Use your brute selves to keep those suckers under control.

(Hey, starting to sound capitalistic... )

1. He knows where the food is? Ok, let's wait until other food comes along, then he's on his own in this wasteland.

2. Hey Peter and Frank you smart reasonable people, want to ensure this doesn't occur again? Let's keep our wits and stick to the plan.

(Hey, starting to sound futuristic... )

 

Of course. That doesn't mean the solution will be altruistic.

But the goal's problem-solving efforts is to favor altruistic results. If that weren't a consideration, it'd be far less of a possibility.

 

Depends on quite a few variables.

So name a few.

 

 

And that's the thing about where human intellect is. Intellectually, we know that careful problem solving and teamwork bring us exceptional results. Instinctively, "Trog preserve genes! Scroo da rest!!"

That's why your scenario is mostly a caveman era thing, although we don't really know that 's how cavemen behaved. Where mine's a futurisic scenario of civilized minds.

 

Trog's such a jerk.

And Frank's a reasonable enough guy who doesn't take crap like someone hogging up all essentials among a group that's desperately surviving in the outlands.

[JillSwift]

Conversely....

 

 

1. He knows where the food is? Ok, let's wait until other food comes along, then he's on his own in this wasteland.

2. Hey Peter and Frank you smart reasonable people, want to ensure this doesn't occur again? Let's keep our wits and stick to the plan.

(Hey, starting to sound futuristic... )

 

 

But the goal's problem-solving efforts is to favor altruistic results. If that weren't a consideration, it'd be far less of a possibility.

 

 

So name a few.

 

 

 

That's why your scenario is mostly a caveman era thing, although we don't really know that 's how cavemen behaved. Where mine's a futurisic scenario of civilized minds.

 

 

And Frank's a reasonable enough guy who doesn't take crap like someone hogging up all essentials among a group that's desperately surviving in the outlands.

Ehhh. I think we're talking past one another here.

 

We are still driven by instinct, and we have our civilization.

 

What I'm trying to get at is the instinctive selfish self-preservation tools we have are tempered by our social survival-by-group instincts. This survival system has some damn wierd emergent properties, not the least of which are behaviors that appear conter-productive but can work anyway, like greedy behavior. In short, I do not see an absolute "this way works best", just a collection of "works well enough some or most of the time".

[The Bear's Key]

What I'm trying to get at is the instinctive selfish self-preservation tools we have are tempered by our social survival-by-group instincts. This survival system has some damn wierd emergent properties, not the least of which are behaviors that appear conter-productive but can work anyway, like greedy behavior.

Sure. Quite a few babies display the gimme! mine! habits and tendencies. But I've also seen plenty display a tendency to share as one of their first behaviors. Plus I've seen both tendencies displayed in the same baby.

 

In short, I do not see an absolute "this way works best", just a collection of "works well enough some or most of the time".

The one working most of the time is the one done the smart way and taking many variables into account while maintaining simplicity and elegance, and so there's always both a smart and very faulty way of doing things.

[padren]

Sure. Quite a few babies display the gimme! mine! habits and tendencies. But I've also seen plenty display a tendency to share as one of their first behaviors. Plus I've seen both tendencies displayed in the same baby.

 

Just a note that, if we are talking about instincts, we are talking about emergent traits that evolved over time, that were not planned but just happen to improve the individual's chances of procreation. When those instincts aid personal survival by promoting group survival the end is still selfish, even if the emergent behavior is cooperative.

 

It is exceptionally complex and instinctual responses can be completely self sacrificing sometimes, if the same attribute that causes that does so only in rare circumstances, while far more frequently leading to survival benefits. I don't know this discipline well enough myself but I do know it's not always easy to decipher.

[JillSwift]

The one working most of the time is the one done the smart way and taking many variables into account while maintaining simplicity and elegance, and so there's always both a smart and very faulty way of doing things.

How do you come by this conclusion?

[The Bear's Key]

How do you come by this conclusion?

Proper Manuscript Format

 

a lot of paragraphs all missing capital letters punctuation and double spaces is way more difficult to read even if spelled correctly

 

Peeling gar

 

And that's just for starters It applies to many things.

 

 

The one working most of the time is the one done the smart way and taking many variables into account while maintaining simplicity and elegance....

 

Good kitchen skills.

Organization habits.

Cover letter on a resume.

Work smarter, not harder.

 

Plus even the way our very scienceforums.net is far more neatly and intuitively organized than many forums around the web.

[Syntho-sis]

Proper Manuscript Format

 

a lot of paragraphs all missing capital letters punctuation and double spaces is way more difficult to read even if spelled correctly

 

Peeling gar

 

And that's just for starters It applies to many things.

 

 

The one working most of the time is the one done the smart way and taking many variables into account while maintaining simplicity and elegance....

 

Good kitchen skills.

Organization habits.

Cover letter on a resume.

Work smarter, not harder.

 

Plus even the way our very scienceforums.net is far more neatly and intuitively organized than many forums around the web.

 

 

Even going back and reading the previous posts I'm having trouble understanding how this is at all relevant to "What's wrong with socialism?"

 

Seems to me the discussion has drifted into topics of Theoretical psychology and.....garlic.

 

Can someone please explain the relevance?

[JillSwift]

Proper Manuscript Format

 

a lot of paragraphs all missing capital letters punctuation and double spaces is way more difficult to read even if spelled correctly

 

Peeling gar

 

And that's just for starters It applies to many things.

 

 

The one working most of the time is the one done the smart way and taking many variables into account while maintaining simplicity and elegance....

 

Good kitchen skills.

Organization habits.

Cover letter on a resume.

Work smarter, not harder.

 

Plus even the way our very scienceforums.net is far more neatly and intuitively organized than many forums around the web.

None of this supports your conclusion.

 

Manuscript format: Arbitrary format, followed only to keep to an industry standard. Nothing about it is proven to be the smartest or best way to produce a manuscript.

 

Peeling garlic: Two different techniques? Which is the proper way and which is the faulty one? Seriously, doesn't this suggest there are more options than one?

 

My point here being; The "best" way to go about something is a value judgment and is often dependent on the specific goal. It's still a collection of "things that work well enough most or some of the time".

[insane_alien]

i think this thread has gone so far off topic that its in danger of leaving the galaxy.

[JillSwift]

i think this thread has gone so far off topic that its in danger of leaving the galaxy.

Perhaps, but is this the best way to leave the galaxy?

 

Seriously, the comparison between capitalism and socialism is viable only if there's some reason to think there's a "best" way to go about things, instead of a vast array of options that need to be considered individually against current goals. Isn't that on topic? At least a little bit? Within the galaxy by some measure?

[Syntho-sis]

i think this thread has gone so far off topic that its in danger of leaving the galaxy.

 

haha..seriously...

 

Here, I'll put us back on topic.

 

Socialism sucks!

 

If you take away my compensation what makes me wanna go out and be successful? The good of my neighbor? To "help" the government?

 

Haha yea right...

[insane_alien]

that wasn't the origional topic either.

 

probably time for this thread to die. it served its purpose a few pages ago anyway.

[Syntho-sis]

that wasn't the origional topic either.

 

probably time for this thread to die. it served its purpose a few pages ago anyway.

 

Well can you at least provide us with what conclusions you came to?

[insane_alien]

that it is the media simply adopting the word socialism as a scare word like they did with communism or radiation or nuclear rather than an inherent evilness of socialism.

[Syntho-sis]

that it is the media simply adopting the word socialism as a scare word like they did with communism or radiation or nuclear rather than an inherent evilness of socialism.

 

I agree. But I'd be slow to forget that socialism and communism have become very attractive ideologies over the years to some very sinister leaders. Wonder why that is?

 

I would further state that if I had to make a choice between the two economic systems- Capitalism and Socialism...Or even a hybrid of both...

 

I know that I'd probably have more than a few people to disagree with me on both sides of the table.

 

Cheers,

[bascule]

Socialism sucks!

 

What is socialism, and why do you think it sucks?

[The Bear's Key]

Manuscript format: Arbitrary format, followed only to keep to an industry standard. Nothing about it is proven to be the smartest or best way to produce a manuscript.

a lot of paragraphs all missing capital letters punctuation and double spaces is way more difficult to read even if spelled correctly

 

But the above (italics) was separate from the manuscript piece. Have you ever seen a post on these forums where it's all in lower case, no spaces, and humongously long? Yeah, those A simple vote would reveal that the vast majority consider writing in spaced, punctuated, and capitalized lettering to be far better in getting the reader's attention efficiently.

 

 

i think this thread has gone so far off topic that its in danger of leaving the galaxy.

On the way back in I noticed it did relate to the topic indirectly

 

 

If you take away my compensation what makes me wanna go out and be successful? The good of my neighbor? To "help" the government?

Where do you get take away your compensation? Or do you mean partly?

 

Secondly, what makes you go out and/or do something is to prevent your life from becoming utter emptiness. Really, you've never seen the people you could try helping and who'd entirely refuse it? Or the people who don't retire? Or the many people with strongly ingrained ambitions?

 

Do you really need the government to provide motivation? Not that I support communism, but Russia was 2nd in the world in the space race.

 

And China's making headway and becoming a runaway economic juggernaut -- and communism's even supposed to be a more extreme version of socialism. I'm certain though it took real motivation by engineers to nearly match the world's #1 capitalist and fully indutrial nation.

 

So your claims are a wee bit off maybe?

[Syntho-sis]

 

Where do you get take away your compensation? Or do you mean partly?

 

Secondly, what makes you go out is to prevent your life from becoming utter emptiness. Really, you've never seen the people you could try helping and who'd entirely refuse it? Or the people who don't retire? Or the many people with strongly ingrained ambitions?

 

Do you really need the government to provide motivation? Not that I support communism, but Russia was 2nd in the world in the space race.

 

And China's making headway and becoming a runaway economic juggernaut -- and communism's even supposed to be a more extreme version of socialism. I'm certain though it took real motivation by engineers to nearly match the world's #1 capitalist and fully indutrial nation.

 

So your claims are a wee bit off maybe?

 

 

Nope my "claims" are opinions and you are drawing false conclusions.

[insane_alien]

mods, kindly put this thread out of its misery.