Topic: Socialist life (Read 1005 times)

The socialist will be a civilized and scientific society, in which we will have only science and correct spiritual life and ignore passions, supernatural.

Socialist is a society with a high economy, science and technology. All people for the common goal of society, self-interest and exposure will disappear, no class, class, people for the common goal of society.

I think it is a utopian society that is difficult to achieve when capitalism is going on now and the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Those rich people will never accept such a society, we will find a way to maintain their position.

Social life depends on individual differences, actually socialisation make people to be expose or to be exposure to their society, in other way round some activities attracts in some numerous function which will likely needs someone who are social.

It's plain that before someone partakes in some religious function you most be capable of associating with different calibers of people, and through your social activities it can enable the individual to secure employment opportunity. So in all ramifications some peoples in have to be smart in life

the truth is everybody will look at it on their point of view.
we have democratic world and we live in human rights world and power to the people kind of world.
the poor people will choose sure the socialism ,communism or similar to those.
the rich will choose capitalism sure.
but if the problem is most of the people are poor now and money is only in hands on few then we have democraty and people will choose and they choose the socialism only reason becouse they dont have nothing so they want to share their zero things with capitalists.
the socialism ie communism is like quick marriage just to get 50/50 assets after divorce lol:D when nobody owns nothing then there is no responsebility
but what regime or power we will have in democratic world where bigger part of population decides whats good for the rest of the people as this bigger part of population is poor ,sure they want bigger taxes and more sharing more caring.
capitalists who been working their way up or been just lucky they are less in the world right now.

and all those crisis has created clearly good base for socialism
as i said everybody want the world according their own point of view:)

but will be interesting to see situation when we will have a lot capitalists in society and less poor people it means everybody will have decent job or business it can be only possible if most of the people will be self employed instead of just working for someone and paying their own taxes it will create the full capitalists society

Proudhon and other market socialists would disagree. Even staunch American individualists like Lysander Spooner would scoff at that sort of characterization.

One of the most effective anti-socialist ploys in recent history was to fool people into believing Marxism was the entirety of socialist theory. This lead to the erroneous framing of the discussion as free markets vs. planned economies, allowing capitalists to erroneously lump all socialists in with Stalin and Mao.

The true debate between capitalists and socialists is about whether private property and absentee ownership are morally legitimate. Capitalists accept them, while socialists unequivocally oppose them. It has nothing to do with this idea that capitalists believe in free markets and socialists believe in planned economies. Plenty of socialists acknowledge that free markets are the most efficient way to distribute goods in an economy.

The thing about the religious people keep saying "why don't you steal or kill if you do not believe in god" makes me really scared of where we are living. We live in a world that has people who actually do not kill only because they are afraid of an imaginary being they have created in their minds. I mean is god the only thing that made you not kill a person? If the reason why you do not kill anyone is either god or even the law, you are really screwed and you are not a good person.

For example the reason why I don't kill anyone is the fact that... I do not, and I can't stress this enough I DO NOT want to kill anyone, isn't that a better reason? This could be applied to anything that is morally wrong and that is the place where people miss out, if it is legal and if it is religiously accepted, they can do something morally wrong.

That’s the truth, if employees are not getting incentives for putting in extra hard work in their job, they wouldn’t be encouraged to work that hard another time. I do not agree with such an idea.

If I’m working hard than my counterparts and at the end I still get paid the same amount of money with them, trust me I am never going to work that hard next time, I am going to even reduce the rate of work I do to be less than my counterparts, because it doesn’t make any sense. This idea of equality of outcome will only encourage a lot of people to become even more lazy.

Moral concerns one's inner attitude. Mental intentions are not included in the reach of the law, on the contrary in the context of morality mental attitude is very important. Whereas in religion, the rules between outer and inner are both considered very important so that these two things must be accommodated.

Morals teach what is good and what is bad according to general truth without a clear rule regarding the penalty. Religion is very broad in scope, not just a measure of good and bad according to the truth of the heart and clean mind, not really only orders, prohibitions, and sanctions that are outward in nature, but broader than what is the basis of the two rules, namely there are sanctions on life after humans died.

The law regulates prohibitions and necessities with clear sanctions rules made by the state, the very existence of laws influenced by human rationality. The rules that live in society, no matter how beautiful the concept is, will not be obeyed by all members of society if, without a force that has validity in power and authority to enforce these rules, so anyone will be penalized if he commits an offense.

What people do not like about capitalism is extremely obvious, in capitalism there are winners and there are losers, and those that want to change the system for the most part are on the losing side, they think they are or they are trying to defend those on the losing side.

This is why communism for the most part begins with the idea of equality of rights and then morphs to equality of outcome which is simply impossible, if someone performs better at a job then that person needs to be paid more or move up the ladder and if that does not happen and instead of receiving incentives that person receives disincentives like more work for the same pay or even a reduced pay then other people will notice and they will stop working that hard, this is why despite the promises of communist and socialist regimes the end game always looks the same, a market with empty shelves and no products to buy regardless of how much money you may earn.

Venezuela was in trouble long before oil pries fell and it's because the government looted the wealth of the country by sacking everyone who knew what they were doing and installing cronies and corrupt politicians who would kick the money back to the political leaders. The infrastructure that produces oil is literally breaking down and the purge of intellectuals in the country has left them with scarcely anyone who knows how to fix it.  The drop in oil prices is just the icing on the cake since what they can still produce is worth so much less than it used to be.

Advantages of socialism? I'm really curious what those are. Care to elaborate? Socialism is about cooperation, but a guided one. This means that you have to work for the common good, but how this common good will look like is not for you to decide. It's like building a house that is supposed to belong to your whole family but one person in the family holds the plans and decides who will live in each room and what size the rooms will be.

Sure we can.  Morality doesn't come from religion, religion just hijacked the concept in an attempt preserve the favored status their members have historically enjoyed in different societies by telling you that there are arbiters of morality and you need them to believe you're a good person in order to have eternal life.  Organized religion governs through fear.  The regularity with which religious folks violate their own rules proves what a scam it is, and they're the ones trying to tell everyone else how to live.

And religion is not equal to morality. Religion can order its followers to do immoral things like killing people who have different beliefs, that's why terrorism (and all sort of intolerance) exist.

Better stay away from discussion about religion (off-topic) on this section and remain on-topic about economics.

The one with the most food is not necessarily the one who can pass the gene. They need protection, or they will be killed, robbed, etc. Even the king and queen fell in the French Revolution. Hence, even if you are a manly alpha male, you won't have a chance if dealing with angry mobs. We need each other as a social animal.

From this we can see that religious values are absolute and can be used as standardization and, their application in everyday life, can be used as indicators, whether civilized humans or not. We cannot separate religious values from our daily lives. A healthy civilization's thirst is based on awareness of reality. Like the joys of life represented by democracy and liberalism must be transformed into the principle of reality. If socialism and capitalism cannot bring prosperity to mankind on earth, then maybe we should review that the fault lies in their goals or strategies.

Socialism makes the assumption that the economy can be controlled. The economy cannot be controlled, or even predicted, any more than the weather.

It's a fair point on the degree of selfishness being destructive at a point, however economics and money is an entirely man-made construct, it doesn't exist in nature. Money is just a stand-in for food or anything that allows you to survive, and in terms of survival, those with the most are the ones who are most likely to pass their genes along. Society thrives in groups, but man survives without it just fine. It's society that is threatened by excessive selfishness, not necessarily the individual.

The thing about capitalism that doesn't work in people's eyes is the fact that when there are so many homeless people and very poor people who cannot defend themselves politically because they do not have the means for it (what are they going to do, build a homeless voting network?) other people will have to defend them, right now I can easily say that capitalism worked for me, I am doing great and my economy is not bad at all, but I am willing to give 10% more taxes just so other people who are poorer than me could live a better life, 10% more tax from every single human and company would mean there would never be people who are homeless or starving, you can end world poverty with it.

However the problem with socialism is that you can tax as much as you want but if politicians are crooked and corrupt that money won't go to people who need it, that money will go to politicians pockets.

I sincerely prefer the current model, capitalism. In my opinion this is an interesting model, however, several actions are necessary to make it more fair for everyone and not just for the upper class.

I agree with the point that evolutionary biology has rewarded a degree of selfishness, and that natural selection has embedded it in our natures. But I would argue that our evolutionary history has in general only rewarded mild degrees of selfishness, and that higher levels of selfishness have been counterproductive to an individual's survival and ability to pass on their genes. We have evolved as social animals, living in tribal groups of somewhere of the order of 100 people. Arguably much of our intelligence has evolved through the need to build and maintain a complex web of inter-personal bonds, knowing who to trust and who not to, and establishing reciprocal altruism. We can argue convincingly that for a species of solitary creature, selfishness will certainly be selected for, and selflessness will not. I think we are on less solid ground arguing the same for social animals.

Beyond this... I'm not in favour of outright communist-style absolute equality of outcome, I'm more in favour of democratic socialism, a capitalism-lite where truly progressive taxation of both income and wealth work to remove some of the most egregious excesses, and government intervention works for the benefit of the whole population, and removes all innate privilege. This may be a dream that is unlikely to see reality.

I would say that most modern national governments do exhibit extremely selfish tendencies, but I think this is not because all or most people are extremely selfish, but rather that the sort of people who seek power tend to be more selfish than those who do not. If instead we base our assessment of human nature not on politicians, but on volunteers and charity workers, and for example the employees of MSF, who could work extremely well-paid jobs in private healthcare, but instead choose to risk their lives in war zones in the most troubled parts of the world... if we base our assessment on these people, then I would say humans don't seem particularly selfish at all.

Right, this is my point.  Socialism can only work of everyone in society ignores basic human nature and millions of years of evolutionary biology that have ingrained the need to be selfish for survival into our genes. Our survival is now longer predicated on that level of selfishness, but you're not going to reverse the wiring in our brains that reward it.  Religious views won't help you get there either since just about all major religions are based on a hierarchy and have spent hundreds of years preserving traditional and oppressive power structures.

actually there are advantages and disadvantages of each, but if they are shown further, more negative impacts will be generated by socialists, if indeed everyone works together then there will be no more competition and integrity will decrease. But cooperation is also needed in building a relationship country.