Objections to Socialism

[Bern80]

Pure socialism could never work. Societies cannot survive without the poor. If everyone was guaranteed an education, food, and shelter, the result would not be a loss of creative motivation, as some people suggest. It would result in no one willing to collect the trash, clean the hotel rooms, or bus the tables. The vast majority of people would pursue more stimulating work.

Except history has shown that's EXACTLY what happens. Again it is human nature and a fairly fundamental concept. One learns that x amount of effort yields x amount of gain. If increased effort does NOT yield increased gain than one does not put forth extra effort. That IS why socialism will and in FACT has failed.

I agree that it doesn't work, or hasn't worked, but not for your reasons. You are only taking into consideration that the only valid reward is money.

Actually no I'm not. I would refer you to the tales of William Bradford and what happened when it was tried when he landed in the new world. In a nuthshell they decided to intially set up society such that all the yield from production woudl be pooled and divided equally. So we're not just talking about money we're talking about the means to survive. Many wound up starving to over the winter as a result.

 

[Ravi]

Except history has shown that's EXACTLY what happens. Again it is human nature and a fairly fundamental concept. One learns that x amount of effort yields x amount of gain. If increased effort does NOT yield increased gain than one does not put forth extra effort. That IS why socialism will and in FACT has failed.

I agree that it doesn't work, or hasn't worked, but not for your reasons. You are only taking into consideration that the only valid reward is money.

Actually no I'm not. I would refer you to the tales of William Bradford and what happened when it was tried when he landed in the new world. In a nuthshell they decided to intially set up society such that all the yield from production woudl be pooled and divided equally. So we're not just talking about money we're talking about the means to survive. Many wound up starving to over the winter as a result.

I thought that was set up as a society where they were free to worship as they saw fit. I'm pretty sure the lack of resources and food and cold had more to do with their failure than a lack of being compensated by some corporation.

 

[Bern80]

I agree that it doesn't work, or hasn't worked, but not for your reasons. You are only taking into consideration that the only valid reward is money.

Actually no I'm not. I would refer you to the tales of William Bradford and what happened when it was tried when he landed in the new world. In a nuthshell they decided to intially set up society such that all the yield from production woudl be pooled and divided equally. So we're not just talking about money we're talking about the means to survive. Many wound up starving to over the winter as a result.

I thought that was set up as a society where they were free to worship as they saw fit. I'm pretty sure the lack of resources and food and cold had more to do with their failure than a lack of being compensated by some corporation.

You would be wrong. Bradford journals were well published and the evidence is there for you to draw your own conclusions. religious freedom may have been the reason they left. But when they left and arrived here they had to come up with a functioning society of some type to provide for people's needs. There obviosly were no corporations so that was a little ridiculous of you. What Bradford decided to do after the pooling and equal dividing among all failed was a lot plots of land proportionate to the size of the individual families to work food. The crop yield for the following year proved considerably higher now that the individuals were directly responsible for their survival and got to keep for themselves what they produced rather than put into the community pool.

 

[Peejay]

Except history has shown that's EXACTLY what happens. Again it is human nature and a fairly fundamental concept. One learns that x amount of effort yields x amount of gain. If increased effort does NOT yield increased gain than one does not put forth extra effort. That IS why socialism will and in FACT has failed.

I would argue that "X amount yields Y amount" is exactly what socialist are working towards. The X amount of effort yields drastically different results in capitalism. It doesn't take effort to yield gain, only capital. A stone mason puts forth a huge amount of effort to yield $150 a day. An investor makes little to no effort. He simply puts some money out there and ask it to return with 19% of it's friends.

I think you have to consider how you are defining effort. Yes a stone mason puts forth a lot of physical effort. But how much mental effort?

Most jobs require a degree of mental effort and focus. An auto mechanic is paid little but must use a ton of mental effort to perform his work. Imagine if a surgeon had to learn a dozen or so new makes and models of humnan anatomy every year. Acruing interest or waiting for investments to climb requires no effort, only time.

 

[manifold]

What I find intellectually offensive is that income from invested capital is taxed at a lower rate in many cases than income from manual labor. I'd find it preferrable to make no such distinction in the tax code. Money earned is income, period.

 

[Ravi]

Actually no I'm not. I would refer you to the tales of William Bradford and what happened when it was tried when he landed in the new world. In a nuthshell they decided to intially set up society such that all the yield from production woudl be pooled and divided equally. So we're not just talking about money we're talking about the means to survive. Many wound up starving to over the winter as a result.

I thought that was set up as a society where they were free to worship as they saw fit. I'm pretty sure the lack of resources and food and cold had more to do with their failure than a lack of being compensated by some corporation.

You would be wrong. Bradford journals were well published and the evidence is there for you to draw your own conclusions. religious freedom may have been the reason they left. But when they left and arrived here they had to come up with a functioning society of some type to provide for people's needs. There obviosly were no corporations so that was a little ridiculous of you. What Bradford decided to do after the pooling and equal dividing among all failed was a lot plots of land proportionate to the size of the individual families to work food. The crop yield for the following year proved considerably higher now that the individuals were directly responsible for their survival and got to keep for themselves what they produced rather than put into the community pool.

How do you know that is the reason? A lot of them died off the first year, maybe the rest learned how to garden and hunt...maybe the weather was better. It doesn't make sense what you are saying because even if they were pooling their resources growing extra would have still given individuals more food.

Anyway, it sounds interesting...is there a good book about them?

 

[Bern80]

I would argue that "X amount yields Y amount" is exactly what socialist are working towards. The X amount of effort yields drastically different results in capitalism. It doesn't take effort to yield gain, only capital. A stone mason puts forth a huge amount of effort to yield $150 a day. An investor makes little to no effort. He simply puts some money out there and ask it to return with 19% of it's friends.

I think you have to consider how you are defining effort. Yes a stone mason puts forth a lot of physical effort. But how much mental effort?

Most jobs require a degree of mental effort and focus. An auto mechanic is paid little but must use a ton of mental effort to perform his work. Imagine if a surgeon had to learn a dozen or so new makes and models of humnan anatomy every year. Acruing interest or waiting for investments to climb requires no effort, only time.

Making assumption is no way to make an argument. And the assumption itself isn't even all that accurate. If collecting on a stock purchase were so simple and one could only gain from doing so you may have a case, but as is abundantly clear right now, you can also lose big. Finding a sound investment that will yield a return take a bit more mental effort than you are giving credit for. Not to mention haveing the money to make a investment that would yield a substantial sum in the first place. And the people who are making money doing so are people smart enough to recognize levels of risk vs. payoff. Something that not all quite obviously are mentally capable of.

And of course the assumption itself that that is the most common way people accumulate wealth, which isn't anywhere near accurate.

 

[Bern80]

I thought that was set up as a society where they were free to worship as they saw fit. I'm pretty sure the lack of resources and food and cold had more to do with their failure than a lack of being compensated by some corporation.

You would be wrong. Bradford journals were well published and the evidence is there for you to draw your own conclusions. religious freedom may have been the reason they left. But when they left and arrived here they had to come up with a functioning society of some type to provide for people's needs. There obviosly were no corporations so that was a little ridiculous of you. What Bradford decided to do after the pooling and equal dividing among all failed was a lot plots of land proportionate to the size of the individual families to work food. The crop yield for the following year proved considerably higher now that the individuals were directly responsible for their survival and got to keep for themselves what they produced rather than put into the community pool.

How do you know that is the reason? A lot of them died off the first year, maybe the rest learned how to garden and hunt...maybe the weather was better. It doesn't make sense what you are saying because even if they were pooling their resources growing extra would have still given individuals more food.

Anyway, it sounds interesting...is there a good book about them?

I think his actual journal has been published in book form a few times. Here is some of it in the link below. I dont' know how good you are at reading old english (it sucks), but i think you can get the gist.

Modern History Sourcebook: William Bradford: History of Plymouth Plantation

 

[Peejay]

I would beg to differ on the definition of "earned". Using daddy's estate as principle and taking the interest in profit is hardly what most would consider "earned".

 

[Ravi]

Thanks, that was interesting. I'll have to think about it. Wonder why there are big gaps in the years written about?

 

[Peejay]

I think you have to consider how you are defining effort. Yes a stone mason puts forth a lot of physical effort. But how much mental effort?

Most jobs require a degree of mental effort and focus. An auto mechanic is paid little but must use a ton of mental effort to perform his work. Imagine if a surgeon had to learn a dozen or so new makes and models of humnan anatomy every year. Acruing interest or waiting for investments to climb requires no effort, only time.

Making assumption is no way to make an argument. And the assumption itself isn't even all that accurate. If collecting on a stock purchase were so simple and one could only gain from doing so you may have a case, but as is abundantly clear right now, you can also lose big. Finding a sound investment that will yield a return take a bit more mental effort than you are giving credit for. Not to mention haveing the money to make a investment that would yield a substantial sum in the first place. And the people who are making money doing so are people smart enough to recognize levels of risk vs. payoff. Something that not all quite obviously are mentally capable of.

And of course the assumption itself that that is the most common way people accumulate wealth, which isn't anywhere near accurate.

Of course not, inheritance is among the most popular ways to become wealthy. The effort must be agonizing.

 

[Charles_Main]

What are you fools talking about. Anarchy? Anarchy is an oxymoron. Anarchy can not ever really exist.

Why? Simple. Anarchy is the absence of government or authority. However In the absence of any Government or Authority the person with the biggest gun, or the most followers will become the Authority. Anarchy is like trying to defy a law of Physics. You create a power vacuum and someone is going to fill it. Therefore you will never have your true anarchy, you will always have some war lord or another trying to run you.

 

[Bern80]

Most jobs require a degree of mental effort and focus. An auto mechanic is paid little but must use a ton of mental effort to perform his work. Imagine if a surgeon had to learn a dozen or so new makes and models of humnan anatomy every year. Acruing interest or waiting for investments to climb requires no effort, only time.

Making assumption is no way to make an argument. And the assumption itself isn't even all that accurate. If collecting on a stock purchase were so simple and one could only gain from doing so you may have a case, but as is abundantly clear right now, you can also lose big. Finding a sound investment that will yield a return take a bit more mental effort than you are giving credit for. Not to mention haveing the money to make a investment that would yield a substantial sum in the first place. And the people who are making money doing so are people smart enough to recognize levels of risk vs. payoff. Something that not all quite obviously are mentally capable of.

And of course the assumption itself that that is the most common way people accumulate wealth, which isn't anywhere near accurate.

Of course not, inheritance is among the most popular ways to become wealthy. The effort must be agonizing.

Another dumb assumption. If your argument rests on a faulty premise (in this case that most wealth is initially generated via inheritance) you have no argument. Perhaps you can do what everyone before you has failed to do when I call them on this particular line of bullshit. PROVE IT.

Which will be kinda hard to do considering studies have been done about wealth accumulations. One such stating that 80% of millionaires (assets totaling a million dollars less liabilities) are first generation millionaires (as in they did not come from money).

 

[Peejay]

Making assumption is no way to make an argument. And the assumption itself isn't even all that accurate. If collecting on a stock purchase were so simple and one could only gain from doing so you may have a case, but as is abundantly clear right now, you can also lose big. Finding a sound investment that will yield a return take a bit more mental effort than you are giving credit for. Not to mention haveing the money to make a investment that would yield a substantial sum in the first place. And the people who are making money doing so are people smart enough to recognize levels of risk vs. payoff. Something that not all quite obviously are mentally capable of.

And of course the assumption itself that that is the most common way people accumulate wealth, which isn't anywhere near accurate.

Of course not, inheritance is among the most popular ways to become wealthy. The effort must be agonizing.

Another dumb assumption. If your argument rests on a faulty premise (in this case that most wealth is initially generated via inheritance) you have no argument. Perhaps you can do what everyone before you has failed to do when I call them on this particular line of bullshit. PROVE IT.

Which will be kinda hard to do considering studies have been done about wealth accumulations. One such stating that 80% of millionaires (assets totaling a million dollars less liabilities) are first generation millionaires (as in they did not come from money).

Millionaires ? You're kidding right ? You think millions is wealth ? You should talk to some recently busted millionaires and get an idea of what wealth is. But still, the level of effort for even these "wealthy" people is relatively small compared to people who actually have to make a meaningful mental and physical effort in order to survive.

Dumb isn't called for. Really. Around 20% of the nations wealth is inherited. I wouldn't want to even try and figure how much of the wealth is gained by virtue of interest, dividends and other non product, non asset based profits.

Perhaps our definitions of wealth differ here. When your portfolio collapses over night, that wasn't wealth that dissappeared. That was just the smoke clearing from the mirror.

 

[Bern80]

Of course not, inheritance is among the most popular ways to become wealthy. The effort must be agonizing.

Another dumb assumption. If your argument rests on a faulty premise (in this case that most wealth is initially generated via inheritance) you have no argument. Perhaps you can do what everyone before you has failed to do when I call them on this particular line of bullshit. PROVE IT.

Which will be kinda hard to do considering studies have been done about wealth accumulations. One such stating that 80% of millionaires (assets totaling a million dollars less liabilities) are first generation millionaires (as in they did not come from money).

Millionaires ? You're kidding right ? You think millions is wealth ? You should talk to some recently busted millionaires and get an idea of what wealth is. But still, the level of effort for even these "wealthy" people is relatively small compared to people who actually have to make a meaningful mental and physical effort in order to survive.

Dumb isn't called for. Really. Around 20% of the nations wealth is inherited. I wouldn't want to even try and figure how much of the wealth is gained by virtue of interest, dividends and other non product, non asset based profits.

Perhaps our definitions of wealth differ here. When your portfolio collapses over night, that wasn't wealth that dissappeared. That was just the smoke clearing from the mirror.

I think I was quite specific as to how I defined a millionaire. If the a million in assets is chump change I suggest you figure out how close you are to that and let me know if it's peanuts. For the majority of people the biggest contributor to that level of net worth would be there home. And even then you have to remember you only get to count equity in the home. If you have a middle class home fully paid for congratulations, you're maybe a quarter to a third of the way there.

Dumb IS called for when you're philosphy is predicated on an innaccurate assumption that you clearly have not taken the time to determine is that notion is what constitutes reality. Objectively think for a second about how you arrived at that particular notion. Was it through any real hard evidence indicating that's how most people accumulate wealth? Again PROVE IT. If it's substiable I'd be more than happy to see, because it would directly contradict most of the actual data I've read on the subject. Perhaps you should speak to the 10s of million entrepreneurs out there and ask them what a cake walk it is running a successful business. That would be as good a place as any to start. You could even start with some people on this board. Skull is business owner, I bet he's a millionaire if not close. I'm sure he'll tell you how easy it was to take the risks he took and that all he had to do was sit on his ass and watch the money roll in.

If wealth accumulation is so damn easy explain to me why so many people aren't wealthy? If all I have to do is throw a dart at the stock ticker, throw in my hundred and watch it roll in baby, sign me up.

 

[Agnapostate]

A peasant army won't cut it, as evidenced by the mere three years it took to defeat the Black Army. I would assume that you would want the anarchist system to last longer ?

I don't believe the eventual downfall of the Black Army had so much to do with the failure of anarchist principles as with their limited access to productive assets. For instance, Trotsky had a diabolical little habit of inadequately supplying anarchist allies of the Red Army, and then blaming decentralization for their failures...which then served as a basis for his arguments that they should not receive significant supplies.

The Black Army was able to function effectively, scoring impressive victories over Anton Denikin's White Army forces. The Durruti column was much the same way during the Spanish Civil War, and was the most renowned of the anarchist forces. My personal belief is that military forces are capable of functioning in the same direct democratic manner as workplaces.

For instance, we might adopt a scheme in which military policy decisions are discussed and made by entire platoons, companies, battalions, regiments, or even the entire army in the case of major policy decisions, in which case delegates from smaller units would form horizontal federations governed in a bottom-up manner. It would also be commendable if officers functioned as instantly recallable elected officials whose commands would not be considered as infallible as they are today.

Principal-agent problems are typically discussed in an economic scheme, but I consider it likely that they apply to some extent in other social groupings such as military organizations, and that direct democratic organization of the military would therefore generate efficiency gains.

Except history has shown that's EXACTLY what happens. Again it is human nature and a fairly fundamental concept. One learns that x amount of effort yields x amount of gain. If increased effort does NOT yield increased gain than one does not put forth extra effort. That IS why socialism will and in FACT has failed.

Incentive issues are only a problem for state socialism. (Properly called state capitalism in its more authoritarian manifestations.) Most conventional varieties of socialism retain wage differentiations in response to input and production differentiations, and even communism, which does not place primary focus on individual production differentiations, retains a remunerative and compensatory system in that there persons who are able to work but simply unwilling are denied access to public goods and services, and may be expelled from the commune in which they reside.

As I did before, I would also recommend having a look at Samuel Bowles's research on the nature of incentives, specifically selfish incentives, as opposed to altruism, which can theoretically satisfy some forms of self-interest. "In Haifa, at six day care centers, a fine was imposed on parents who were late picking up their children at the end of the day. Parents responded to the fine by doubling the fraction of time they arrived late. When after 12 weeks the fine was revoked, their enhanced tardiness persisted unabated...The fine seems to have undermined the parents' sense of ethical obligation to avoid inconveniencing the teachers and led them to think of lateness as just another commodity they could purchase."

Are you sure you've read the entire thread? I'm certainly repeating some comments at this point.

It is also an example of why it socialism fails. If even one member of the group didn't buy into the team concept. If even one member had been more about individual accolades than the group accomplishments they would not have won that game. that is why the other poster was correct when he said socialism works only on small scales. It is pretty hard to get large numbers of people to all give 100%.

Actually, that doesn't function as such an example, primarily because of the fact that legitimate socialism is based on libertarian social principles of voluntary association, which is why the example of the Spanish Revolution's direct or indirect involvement of eight to ten million people directly contradicts your position about "small scales," for instance.

What are you fools talking about. Anarchy? Anarchy is an oxymoron. Anarchy can not ever really exist.

Why? Simple. Anarchy is the absence of government or authority. However In the absence of any Government or Authority the person with the biggest gun, or the most followers will become the Authority. Anarchy is like trying to defy a law of Physics. You create a power vacuum and someone is going to fill it. Therefore you will never have your true anarchy, you will always have some war lord or another trying to run you.

To be honest with you, I don't believe that analysis is consistent with anarchist theory. Anarchism primarily focuses on opposition to hierarchical authority, not merely government or the state. If the formal state were abolished and replaced by a series of warlords, this would not constitute an anarchist victory because hierarchical authority and coercion would continue to exist.

In fact, anarchists have traditionally organized in horizontal federations of decentralized, non-hierarchical, direct democratically managed collectives and communes, as was the case in the Spanish Revolution and the Free Territory of Ukraine, and continues to be the case in the parts of Chiapas controlled by the Zapatista Army of National Liberation.

 

[editec]

Instead of defining Socialism as "collective ownership of the means of production", perhaps if it were defined as "collective taking of the profits", you would get a different result?

One doesn't get to simply redefine socialism.

It is what it is, and if a situation does not meet the requirements to be socialism, it is something other than socialism.

This is my (and anyone who actually understands political science) objection to the way many people (usually cluelss right wingers) want to call everything they object to socialism.

I'm not especially fond of okra, but that doesn't mean that I'm being anything but an ignoramous if I decide to call okra socialism.

 

[manifold]

I'm not especially fond of okra, but that doesn't mean that I'm being anything but an ignoramous if I decide to call okra socialism.

I don't mind a little socialism in my gumbo.

 

[Peejay]

Another dumb assumption. If your argument rests on a faulty premise (in this case that most wealth is initially generated via inheritance) you have no argument. Perhaps you can do what everyone before you has failed to do when I call them on this particular line of bullshit. PROVE IT.

Which will be kinda hard to do considering studies have been done about wealth accumulations. One such stating that 80% of millionaires (assets totaling a million dollars less liabilities) are first generation millionaires (as in they did not come from money).

Millionaires ? You're kidding right ? You think millions is wealth ? You should talk to some recently busted millionaires and get an idea of what wealth is. But still, the level of effort for even these "wealthy" people is relatively small compared to people who actually have to make a meaningful mental and physical effort in order to survive.

Dumb isn't called for. Really. Around 20% of the nations wealth is inherited. I wouldn't want to even try and figure how much of the wealth is gained by virtue of interest, dividends and other non product, non asset based profits.

Perhaps our definitions of wealth differ here. When your portfolio collapses over night, that wasn't wealth that dissappeared. That was just the smoke clearing from the mirror.

I think I was quite specific as to how I defined a millionaire. If the a million in assets is chump change I suggest you figure out how close you are to that and let me know if it's peanuts. For the majority of people the biggest contributor to that level of net worth would be there home. And even then you have to remember you only get to count equity in the home. If you have a middle class home fully paid for congratulations, you're maybe a quarter to a third of the way there.

Dumb IS called for when you're philosphy is predicated on an innaccurate assumption that you clearly have not taken the time to determine is that notion is what constitutes reality. Objectively think for a second about how you arrived at that particular notion. Was it through any real hard evidence indicating that's how most people accumulate wealth? Again PROVE IT. If it's substiable I'd be more than happy to see, because it would directly contradict most of the actual data I've read on the subject. Perhaps you should speak to the 10s of million entrepreneurs out there and ask them what a cake walk it is running a successful business. That would be as good a place as any to start. You could even start with some people on this board. Skull is business owner, I bet he's a millionaire if not close. I'm sure he'll tell you how easy it was to take the risks he took and that all he had to do was sit on his ass and watch the money roll in.

If wealth accumulation is so damn easy explain to me why so many people aren't wealthy? If all I have to do is throw a dart at the stock ticker, throw in my hundred and watch it roll in baby, sign me up.

I think we are on different wave lengths here. If someone has built a business and made themselves a nice living, that's great. I know it doesn't come easy and there is a great deal of effort, mental and physical that goes into that. That person wholly deserves what they have. OTHOH, there are a lot of Paris Hilton types running around. You think Paris and company have put forth any amount of effort even close to what a successful small business owner has ? So if Skull is a millionaire, by definition, and we compare his effort to Paris Hilton's effort in life, you would somehow conclude that Paris and her ilk have demonstrated an amount of effort that is proportionate to the amount of wealth she has beyond your hard working friends ?

Or is it like I suspect, she doesn't do jack shit compared to most people that have to make an effort with something besides getting their lip waxed ?

And yes, my home is paid for. I paid cash.

 

[Agnapostate]

What happened to our resident anti-socialists?