CDZ What is socialism?

[sakinago]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

Socialism done right would solve most of our problems but socialism will not be done right because we are human. We strive to have more than our fellow man and want to keep it. That is human nature. However, some degree of socialism is needed in society because what happens to others effects us all in one way or another.

The question should not be whether we need socialism but rather how much.

You have the key point right, IMO: human nature, specifically the avarice concomitant of it, is the reason a number of systems don't work more closely to their ideal conception than they do.

• Want more than the other guy and want to keep it --> capitalism
• Want enough and don't care about having more than enough --> socialism

Greed is the undoing of both those systems, but the way in which it does so differs.

I think there is another factor besides greed not being said. That factor is power, power in the sense you can tip the scales in your favor. In capitalism this should not happen, and is one of the main things to guard against . In socialism those scales are already being tipped by nature. In respects to capitalism and socialism, this creates a manufactured and false sense of supply and demand.

It also depends on your definition of greed. Is greed simply wanting more than what you have? If that's the case, I don't see anything wrong with that. Or is greed doing something morally wrong or unfair to obtain more? If that's your definition, then yes it is wrong.

Avarice is more than merely wanting additional "whatever." It's the combination of (1) wanting more than is necessary to sustain oneself and those for whom one is responsible, (2) acting to get it, (3) obtaining it, (4) refusing to share that thing with others, especially in the face of their palpable and observed desperate need for it, and (5) treating/viewing the whole matter of wanting, obtaining and keeping hold of those things as a zero-sum matter. It is, then, both the act of wanting "whatever" and the attitudes/thoughts one adopts in obtaining and retaining that which one wants.

I realize that many people want a simple, perhaps binary, way of determining in advance and in the abstract what deeds and thoughts are and are not greedy, unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. I don't think there is such a clear and simple way to assess every instance that may be manifestations of one's greed. I think the only way to make that determination is to apply the principles given in both Christian and non-Christian modes of thought:

• Christian --> Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
• Native American --> Walk a mile in another man's shoes before you judge him.
• Confucianism --> What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others.
• Sikhism --> Precious like jewels are the minds of all. To hurt them is not at all good. If thou desirest thy Beloved, then hurt thou not anyone's heart.
• Buddhism --> Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. Just as I am so are they, just as they are so am I.
• Islam --> Woe to those who, when they have to receive by measure from men, they demand exact full measure, but when they have to give by measure or weight to men, give less than due.
• Taoism --> Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss.
• Wicca --> That that which ye deem harmful unto thyself, the very same shall ye be forbidden from doing unto another.
• Ancient Egyptian --> Do to the doer to make him do. That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another.

Those are just a few examples, but the same axiomatic principle exists in numerous segments of human culture. Which one opts to apply matters not for, at the end of the day, there is no substantive difference among them.

Lastly, you mentioned power. Power itself isn't the problem. Power accrues to oneself as a result of one's actions and luck/circumstance. Merely having power isn't the problem. How one exercises power can be a problem or not a problem.

For example, if one uses one's power to both obtain a resource and also to deny others from obtaining enough of that same resource to sate themselves too, yet there is enough of the resource that none need be unsated, it is one's greed, not one's power, that is the problem. The only reason those who are denied see one's power as the problem is because they are innately aware they cannot, in what they consider a timely enough manner and perhaps not at all, alter one's greedy attitude, but they may be able to erode or remove one's power to exercise one's greedy intentions.

P.S./Edit:
If you desire to learn of an illustration of greed in non-human nature, read this: Wolverines Give Insight into the Evolution of Greed .

Wolverines are expert hunters, rarely preyed upon, and comfortably at the top of their food web. Because their food sources are all in common with many other predators, they have become fierce competitors. Wolverines are known to chase other scavengers away from a carcass and they have no shame in stealing a hard earned kill from a smaller wolverine or even a different animal entirely.

They are voracious eaters, which gave rise to their various names in other languages such as “glutton” (in French), “gluttonous badger” (in Romanian), and “fat belly” (in Finnish). In fact, the scientific name of the wolverine is Gulo gulo, from the Latin word for gluttony. Although wolverines sound rather like playground bullies, this is all pretty standard food competition. Where does the greed come in? Well, after a wolverine has eaten all it can whether from its own kill or find, or something it has stolen from some unfortunate shlemazl, it will actually spray the leftover food with its marking scent.

This might not seem so weird and biologists once thought that the wolverines were simply marking the food to protect its next meal of leftovers. However, this doesn’t seem to be the case. The wolverines rarely return to their leftovers. Sure, the distinctive wolverine scent alone is probably enough to dissuade many animals, but it turns out that the spray of wolverines, unlike that of skunks, is highly acidic. By spraying noxious carboxylic acids onto the leftover food, the wolverines actually accelerate the spoiling process.

To summarize, the wolverines have consumed all they can fit into their stomachs, and then they try to spoil any leftovers so that other predators and scavengers can’t eat them. This fits part of our description of greed. It’s not just about acquiring things; it’s about having more than others have.​

I don't think that #4 is an overt problem in America, refusing to give it away to others in need. Sure there are some bad apples, but The people of America are the most charitable people there has ever been on the face of this earth, by a mile. No other civilization is able to hold a candle to our charitable nature. Now why is that? Socialism hasn't comparatively been a strong force in America at all. And those on the right do not see the government as the most effective vector to deliver charity. Yes there are places where it is needed, but simply throwing more money at a government that is intent on growing itself, that doesn't have a NEED to become the most effective vessel and deliverer of charity, is not the answer. Not only is it not the answer, but it also gives government a powerful bargaining chip to continue to grow itself, with or without the peoples best interest in mind.

 

[sakinago]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

Socialism done right would solve most of our problems but socialism will not be done right because we are human. We strive to have more than our fellow man and want to keep it. That is human nature. However, some degree of socialism is needed in society because what happens to others effects us all in one way or another.

The question should not be whether we need socialism but rather how much.

You have the key point right, IMO: human nature, specifically the avarice concomitant of it, is the reason a number of systems don't work more closely to their ideal conception than they do.

• Want more than the other guy and want to keep it --> capitalism
• Want enough and don't care about having more than enough --> socialism

Greed is the undoing of both those systems, but the way in which it does so differs.

I've always though it strange that people would argue against any form of socialism because it's as inevitable as sunrise and sunset. Civilization began with despotism where only the strongest survived. As civilizations grew, leadership became vested in governments that saw their function more in terms of service. With disappearing frontiers, urbanization, education, growth of population, people became aware that problems in one segment of society created problems in other segments. Disease, poverty, crime in slums effected the rich, the poor, and the growing middle class. By the 19th century in both Europe and America government was providing more services for the people. Life saving medical care for the indigent was becoming common as was public education, and other services available to all. In the 20th century, those services expanded as did the wealth of nations.

With a near exponential growth in technology, strong economic growth among the most wealthy, and a growing global middle class, those that are left behind will be demanding a larger piece of the pie and they will get it. There're several factors that support this conclusion. First, we are placing a much higher value on human life and not just life but the quality of life. Second, the media exposes social problems as never before and argues strongly for social equality. Lastly, only government can provide the services. We have long passed the point where charitable organization can meet the demand.

I don't think the question is binary in nature, socialism or no socialism. I think the question is do we need more of it, or do we need less. Will more solve our problems, or create new ones? Will less solve our problems or create new ones? Again it comes down to my OP, what is socialism, and does it bring our desired solutions

However evil socialism has proven itself to be, in the near future, when every work is replaced by automation, socialism is the only available theory to provide for human life without the opportunity to work.

I disagree, I feel there is a responsibility of government to break up monopolies. Now I think the formation of monopolies is rare without the help of governments. But I see the coming automation and age of robotics as a monopoly of labor. And while I don't agree with over regulation, I do see a need of the government to protect the citizen from the monopoly of labor. One way I see us accomplishing this is by making laws that automation, and robotics needs to be privately owned by individual citizens, to be rented by businesses and corporations.

 

[2aguy]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

No...socialism is the step between capitalism and true communism...where the government takes control of the means of production until the true communist state can be formed....of course it has always led to mass murder....about 100 million people around the world.

and marx stated that primitive peoples....2 stages behind the adoption of the communist state would have to be destroyed.....

 

[jasonnfree]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

No...socialism is the step between capitalism and true communism...where the government takes control of the means of production until the true communist state can be formed....of course it has always led to mass murder....about 100 million people around the world.

and marx stated that primitive peoples....2 stages behind the adoption of the communist state would have to be destroyed.....

I always hear that '100 million people murdered' accusation. That was under extreme regimes. Most first world countries like USA and those in Europe practice a mix of socialism and capitalism. I wouldn't want to live under pure capitalism or pure socialism.

 

[2aguy]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

No...socialism is the step between capitalism and true communism...where the government takes control of the means of production until the true communist state can be formed....of course it has always led to mass murder....about 100 million people around the world.

and marx stated that primitive peoples....2 stages behind the adoption of the communist state would have to be destroyed.....

I always hear that '100 million people murdered' accusation. That was under extreme regimes. Most first world countries like USA and those in Europe practice a mix of socialism and capitalism. I wouldn't want to live under pure capitalism or pure socialism.

No.....Germany was a modern nation state...with the rule of law, modern universities......democratic institutions....and what happens under socialism...the power of the state gets concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and becomes more and more powerful with vast networks that control the daily interactions of the people. Then, a bad guy gets in charge, and the tools needed to oppress the people have already been put into place...

In the United States our government was set up to fracture power in the Government...checks and balances and separations of power to keep any one group from becoming too powerful and ending up oppressing the people...socialism is the opposite of this....it seeks to concentrate the power into an ever smaller group of people..who are supposed to do good things with that power...and then it all goes wrong....

That is why socialism has to be fought...no matter how good it is now.......in countries that are wealthy and do not have to spend money in their own defense, so they can spend all of their money on social welfare programs....eventually the money runs out...and then the squabbling over limited resources starts...and the strong, small group of bad guys get in charge, and everything is set up for them to start killing people....

The concentration of power under socialism is what leads to mass murder.......it may not be right away...especially if a nation is wealthy and has a history of democratic institutions...but because socialism undermines the individual, and gradually degrades the society..the bad guys will always rise up......

 

[320 Years of History]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

Socialism done right would solve most of our problems but socialism will not be done right because we are human. We strive to have more than our fellow man and want to keep it. That is human nature. However, some degree of socialism is needed in society because what happens to others effects us all in one way or another.

The question should not be whether we need socialism but rather how much.

You have the key point right, IMO: human nature, specifically the avarice concomitant of it, is the reason a number of systems don't work more closely to their ideal conception than they do.

• Want more than the other guy and want to keep it --> capitalism
• Want enough and don't care about having more than enough --> socialism

Greed is the undoing of both those systems, but the way in which it does so differs.

I think there is another factor besides greed not being said. That factor is power, power in the sense you can tip the scales in your favor. In capitalism this should not happen, and is one of the main things to guard against . In socialism those scales are already being tipped by nature. In respects to capitalism and socialism, this creates a manufactured and false sense of supply and demand.

It also depends on your definition of greed. Is greed simply wanting more than what you have? If that's the case, I don't see anything wrong with that. Or is greed doing something morally wrong or unfair to obtain more? If that's your definition, then yes it is wrong.

Avarice is more than merely wanting additional "whatever." It's the combination of (1) wanting more than is necessary to sustain oneself and those for whom one is responsible, (2) acting to get it, (3) obtaining it, (4) refusing to share that thing with others, especially in the face of their palpable and observed desperate need for it, and (5) treating/viewing the whole matter of wanting, obtaining and keeping hold of those things as a zero-sum matter. It is, then, both the act of wanting "whatever" and the attitudes/thoughts one adopts in obtaining and retaining that which one wants.

I realize that many people want a simple, perhaps binary, way of determining in advance and in the abstract what deeds and thoughts are and are not greedy, unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. I don't think there is such a clear and simple way to assess every instance that may be manifestations of one's greed. I think the only way to make that determination is to apply the principles given in both Christian and non-Christian modes of thought:

• Christian --> Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
• Native American --> Walk a mile in another man's shoes before you judge him.
• Confucianism --> What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others.
• Sikhism --> Precious like jewels are the minds of all. To hurt them is not at all good. If thou desirest thy Beloved, then hurt thou not anyone's heart.
• Buddhism --> Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. Just as I am so are they, just as they are so am I.
• Islam --> Woe to those who, when they have to receive by measure from men, they demand exact full measure, but when they have to give by measure or weight to men, give less than due.
• Taoism --> Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss.
• Wicca --> That that which ye deem harmful unto thyself, the very same shall ye be forbidden from doing unto another.
• Ancient Egyptian --> Do to the doer to make him do. That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another.

Those are just a few examples, but the same axiomatic principle exists in numerous segments of human culture. Which one opts to apply matters not for, at the end of the day, there is no substantive difference among them.

Lastly, you mentioned power. Power itself isn't the problem. Power accrues to oneself as a result of one's actions and luck/circumstance. Merely having power isn't the problem. How one exercises power can be a problem or not a problem.

For example, if one uses one's power to both obtain a resource and also to deny others from obtaining enough of that same resource to sate themselves too, yet there is enough of the resource that none need be unsated, it is one's greed, not one's power, that is the problem. The only reason those who are denied see one's power as the problem is because they are innately aware they cannot, in what they consider a timely enough manner and perhaps not at all, alter one's greedy attitude, but they may be able to erode or remove one's power to exercise one's greedy intentions.

P.S./Edit:
If you desire to learn of an illustration of greed in non-human nature, read this: Wolverines Give Insight into the Evolution of Greed .

Wolverines are expert hunters, rarely preyed upon, and comfortably at the top of their food web. Because their food sources are all in common with many other predators, they have become fierce competitors. Wolverines are known to chase other scavengers away from a carcass and they have no shame in stealing a hard earned kill from a smaller wolverine or even a different animal entirely.

They are voracious eaters, which gave rise to their various names in other languages such as “glutton” (in French), “gluttonous badger” (in Romanian), and “fat belly” (in Finnish). In fact, the scientific name of the wolverine is Gulo gulo, from the Latin word for gluttony. Although wolverines sound rather like playground bullies, this is all pretty standard food competition. Where does the greed come in? Well, after a wolverine has eaten all it can whether from its own kill or find, or something it has stolen from some unfortunate shlemazl, it will actually spray the leftover food with its marking scent.

This might not seem so weird and biologists once thought that the wolverines were simply marking the food to protect its next meal of leftovers. However, this doesn’t seem to be the case. The wolverines rarely return to their leftovers. Sure, the distinctive wolverine scent alone is probably enough to dissuade many animals, but it turns out that the spray of wolverines, unlike that of skunks, is highly acidic. By spraying noxious carboxylic acids onto the leftover food, the wolverines actually accelerate the spoiling process.

To summarize, the wolverines have consumed all they can fit into their stomachs, and then they try to spoil any leftovers so that other predators and scavengers can’t eat them. This fits part of our description of greed. It’s not just about acquiring things; it’s about having more than others have.​

I don't think that #4 is an overt problem in America, refusing to give it away to others in need. Sure there are some bad apples, but The people of America are the most charitable people there has ever been on the face of this earth, by a mile. No other civilization is able to hold a candle to our charitable nature. Now why is that? Socialism hasn't comparatively been a strong force in America at all. And those on the right do not see the government as the most effective vector to deliver charity. Yes there are places where it is needed, but simply throwing more money at a government that is intent on growing itself, that doesn't have a NEED to become the most effective vessel and deliverer of charity, is not the answer. Not only is it not the answer, but it also gives government a powerful bargaining chip to continue to grow itself, with or without the peoples best interest in mind.

You can think that and I will respect that you do. You may even be correct; however, your comments don't illustrate that you are correct.

Red:
That may be so. Even granting that it is so does not establish that American magnanimity at an individual, local, regional or national level is sufficient to meet the standard in #4. The measure of sufficiency is given by the people who need one's munificence, not by its benefactors.

Let's say (1) I have X and my neighbor has twice the quantity of X, and (2) that you, my neighbor, and I each need 25% of X to be sated, and (3) you are unable on your own to obtain 25% of X. I may give you nothing and my neighbor may give you 10% of X. You remain unsated, yet my neighbor has given more than anyone else, and my neighbor and I both have more than enough to be sated. That my neighbor has been more charitable than anyone else doesn't mean s/he's not greedy, nor does it mean s/he's less greedy than I. It just means s/he's more generous than I, but the fact remains that s/he and I are both greedy.

There are also things my neighbor and I could be in addition to greedy:

• We could also be lazy...too lazy to notice that you remain unsated.
• We could be envious of one another and by it focus on one another's states rather than on your state of desperation.
• We could also be gluttonous.

As you can tell, I'm working my way through "the seven deadly sins." There's a reason for that; they don't function in isolation.

 

[jasonnfree]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

No...socialism is the step between capitalism and true communism...where the government takes control of the means of production until the true communist state can be formed....of course it has always led to mass murder....about 100 million people around the world.

and marx stated that primitive peoples....2 stages behind the adoption of the communist state would have to be destroyed.....

I always hear that '100 million people murdered' accusation. That was under extreme regimes. Most first world countries like USA and those in Europe practice a mix of socialism and capitalism. I wouldn't want to live under pure capitalism or pure socialism.

No.....Germany was a modern nation state...with the rule of law, modern universities......democratic institutions....and what happens under socialism...the power of the state gets concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and becomes more and more powerful with vast networks that control the daily interactions of the people. Then, a bad guy gets in charge, and the tools needed to oppress the people have already been put into place...

In the United States our government was set up to fracture power in the Government...checks and balances and separations of power to keep any one group from becoming too powerful and ending up oppressing the people...socialism is the opposite of this....it seeks to concentrate the power into an ever smaller group of people..who are supposed to do good things with that power...and then it all goes wrong....

That is why socialism has to be fought...no matter how good it is now.......in countries that are wealthy and do not have to spend money in their own defense, so they can spend all of their money on social welfare programs....eventually the money runs out...and then the squabbling over limited resources starts...and the strong, small group of bad guys get in charge, and everything is set up for them to start killing people....

The concentration of power under socialism is what leads to mass murder.......it may not be right away...especially if a nation is wealthy and has a history of democratic institutions...but because socialism undermines the individual, and gradually degrades the society..the bad guys will always rise up......

Maybe it depends what we call socialism. But I said we need a mix of both systems. We need government for certain protections, and people call this socialism. Look what's happening in Flint with the water crisis as just an example. Switching to the cheaper water source harmed thousands. Capitalists wouldn't care about this since profit is the only motive. Capitalism has to have something to counterbalance it.

 

[anotherlife]

Socialism done right would solve most of our problems but socialism will not be done right because we are human. We strive to have more than our fellow man and want to keep it. That is human nature. However, some degree of socialism is needed in society because what happens to others effects us all in one way or another.

The question should not be whether we need socialism but rather how much.

You have the key point right, IMO: human nature, specifically the avarice concomitant of it, is the reason a number of systems don't work more closely to their ideal conception than they do.

• Want more than the other guy and want to keep it --> capitalism
• Want enough and don't care about having more than enough --> socialism

Greed is the undoing of both those systems, but the way in which it does so differs.

I've always though it strange that people would argue against any form of socialism because it's as inevitable as sunrise and sunset. Civilization began with despotism where only the strongest survived. As civilizations grew, leadership became vested in governments that saw their function more in terms of service. With disappearing frontiers, urbanization, education, growth of population, people became aware that problems in one segment of society created problems in other segments. Disease, poverty, crime in slums effected the rich, the poor, and the growing middle class. By the 19th century in both Europe and America government was providing more services for the people. Life saving medical care for the indigent was becoming common as was public education, and other services available to all. In the 20th century, those services expanded as did the wealth of nations.

With a near exponential growth in technology, strong economic growth among the most wealthy, and a growing global middle class, those that are left behind will be demanding a larger piece of the pie and they will get it. There're several factors that support this conclusion. First, we are placing a much higher value on human life and not just life but the quality of life. Second, the media exposes social problems as never before and argues strongly for social equality. Lastly, only government can provide the services. We have long passed the point where charitable organization can meet the demand.

I don't think the question is binary in nature, socialism or no socialism. I think the question is do we need more of it, or do we need less. Will more solve our problems, or create new ones? Will less solve our problems or create new ones? Again it comes down to my OP, what is socialism, and does it bring our desired solutions

However evil socialism has proven itself to be, in the near future, when every work is replaced by automation, socialism is the only available theory to provide for human life without the opportunity to work.

I disagree, I feel there is a responsibility of government to break up monopolies. Now I think the formation of monopolies is rare without the help of governments. But I see the coming automation and age of robotics as a monopoly of labor. And while I don't agree with over regulation, I do see a need of the government to protect the citizen from the monopoly of labor. One way I see us accomplishing this is by making laws that automation, and robotics needs to be privately owned by individual citizens, to be rented by businesses and corporations.

This is interesting, and makes sense theoretically, but it is usually the banks and the insurers that own legislation, so citizens don't get the ball. I guess aspiring business owners can rent them from the banks, like mortgages today.

 

[sakinago]

Socialism done right would solve most of our problems but socialism will not be done right because we are human. We strive to have more than our fellow man and want to keep it. That is human nature. However, some degree of socialism is needed in society because what happens to others effects us all in one way or another.

The question should not be whether we need socialism but rather how much.

You have the key point right, IMO: human nature, specifically the avarice concomitant of it, is the reason a number of systems don't work more closely to their ideal conception than they do.

• Want more than the other guy and want to keep it --> capitalism
• Want enough and don't care about having more than enough --> socialism

Greed is the undoing of both those systems, but the way in which it does so differs.

I think there is another factor besides greed not being said. That factor is power, power in the sense you can tip the scales in your favor. In capitalism this should not happen, and is one of the main things to guard against . In socialism those scales are already being tipped by nature. In respects to capitalism and socialism, this creates a manufactured and false sense of supply and demand.

It also depends on your definition of greed. Is greed simply wanting more than what you have? If that's the case, I don't see anything wrong with that. Or is greed doing something morally wrong or unfair to obtain more? If that's your definition, then yes it is wrong.

Avarice is more than merely wanting additional "whatever." It's the combination of (1) wanting more than is necessary to sustain oneself and those for whom one is responsible, (2) acting to get it, (3) obtaining it, (4) refusing to share that thing with others, especially in the face of their palpable and observed desperate need for it, and (5) treating/viewing the whole matter of wanting, obtaining and keeping hold of those things as a zero-sum matter. It is, then, both the act of wanting "whatever" and the attitudes/thoughts one adopts in obtaining and retaining that which one wants.

I realize that many people want a simple, perhaps binary, way of determining in advance and in the abstract what deeds and thoughts are and are not greedy, unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. I don't think there is such a clear and simple way to assess every instance that may be manifestations of one's greed. I think the only way to make that determination is to apply the principles given in both Christian and non-Christian modes of thought:

• Christian --> Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
• Native American --> Walk a mile in another man's shoes before you judge him.
• Confucianism --> What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others.
• Sikhism --> Precious like jewels are the minds of all. To hurt them is not at all good. If thou desirest thy Beloved, then hurt thou not anyone's heart.
• Buddhism --> Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. Just as I am so are they, just as they are so am I.
• Islam --> Woe to those who, when they have to receive by measure from men, they demand exact full measure, but when they have to give by measure or weight to men, give less than due.
• Taoism --> Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss.
• Wicca --> That that which ye deem harmful unto thyself, the very same shall ye be forbidden from doing unto another.
• Ancient Egyptian --> Do to the doer to make him do. That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another.

Those are just a few examples, but the same axiomatic principle exists in numerous segments of human culture. Which one opts to apply matters not for, at the end of the day, there is no substantive difference among them.

Lastly, you mentioned power. Power itself isn't the problem. Power accrues to oneself as a result of one's actions and luck/circumstance. Merely having power isn't the problem. How one exercises power can be a problem or not a problem.

For example, if one uses one's power to both obtain a resource and also to deny others from obtaining enough of that same resource to sate themselves too, yet there is enough of the resource that none need be unsated, it is one's greed, not one's power, that is the problem. The only reason those who are denied see one's power as the problem is because they are innately aware they cannot, in what they consider a timely enough manner and perhaps not at all, alter one's greedy attitude, but they may be able to erode or remove one's power to exercise one's greedy intentions.

P.S./Edit:
If you desire to learn of an illustration of greed in non-human nature, read this: Wolverines Give Insight into the Evolution of Greed .

Wolverines are expert hunters, rarely preyed upon, and comfortably at the top of their food web. Because their food sources are all in common with many other predators, they have become fierce competitors. Wolverines are known to chase other scavengers away from a carcass and they have no shame in stealing a hard earned kill from a smaller wolverine or even a different animal entirely.

They are voracious eaters, which gave rise to their various names in other languages such as “glutton” (in French), “gluttonous badger” (in Romanian), and “fat belly” (in Finnish). In fact, the scientific name of the wolverine is Gulo gulo, from the Latin word for gluttony. Although wolverines sound rather like playground bullies, this is all pretty standard food competition. Where does the greed come in? Well, after a wolverine has eaten all it can whether from its own kill or find, or something it has stolen from some unfortunate shlemazl, it will actually spray the leftover food with its marking scent.

This might not seem so weird and biologists once thought that the wolverines were simply marking the food to protect its next meal of leftovers. However, this doesn’t seem to be the case. The wolverines rarely return to their leftovers. Sure, the distinctive wolverine scent alone is probably enough to dissuade many animals, but it turns out that the spray of wolverines, unlike that of skunks, is highly acidic. By spraying noxious carboxylic acids onto the leftover food, the wolverines actually accelerate the spoiling process.

To summarize, the wolverines have consumed all they can fit into their stomachs, and then they try to spoil any leftovers so that other predators and scavengers can’t eat them. This fits part of our description of greed. It’s not just about acquiring things; it’s about having more than others have.​

I don't think that #4 is an overt problem in America, refusing to give it away to others in need. Sure there are some bad apples, but The people of America are the most charitable people there has ever been on the face of this earth, by a mile. No other civilization is able to hold a candle to our charitable nature. Now why is that? Socialism hasn't comparatively been a strong force in America at all. And those on the right do not see the government as the most effective vector to deliver charity. Yes there are places where it is needed, but simply throwing more money at a government that is intent on growing itself, that doesn't have a NEED to become the most effective vessel and deliverer of charity, is not the answer. Not only is it not the answer, but it also gives government a powerful bargaining chip to continue to grow itself, with or without the peoples best interest in mind.

You can think that and I will respect that you do. You may even be correct; however, your comments don't illustrate that you are correct.

Red:
That may be so. Even granting that it is so does not establish that American magnanimity at an individual, local, regional or national level is sufficient to meet the standard in #4. The measure of sufficiency is given by the people who need one's munificence, not by its benefactors.

Let's say (1) I have X and my neighbor has twice the quantity of X, and (2) that you, my neighbor, and I each need 25% of X to be sated, and (3) you are unable on your own to obtain 25% of X. I may give you nothing and my neighbor may give you 10% of X. You remain unsated, yet my neighbor has given more than anyone else, and my neighbor and I both have more than enough to be sated. That my neighbor has been more charitable than anyone else doesn't mean s/he's not greedy, nor does it mean s/he's less greedy than I. It just means s/he's more generous than I, but the fact remains that s/he and I are both greedy.

There are also things my neighbor and I could be in addition to greedy:

• We could also be lazy...too lazy to notice that you remain unsated.
• We could be envious of one another and by it focus on one another's states rather than on your state of desperation.
• We could also be gluttonous.

As you can tell, I'm working my way through "the seven deadly sins." There's a reason for that; they don't function in isolation.

It is indeed true that the American people are by far the most charitable, sure there are variables to account for, but overall it is telling. It is true that the charitable nature of the individual may or even often does not provide for the need of those without. My point was that capitalism does eliminate the charitable nature of people (which is how it is commonly characterized) but it encourages it.

My other point was, is that there is not much of an alternative to emerge if government is in control of "charity". There is not much incentive for government to be the best at charity. It becomes "this is just the way we do things." The incentive is actually to grow itself requiring more tax payer dollars, and not necessarily in an effective way. The incentive is that people will want more and more things provided for them, those people are votes, so we will expand and provide it to them. And what usually happens when one of these providing programs fail to provide, they say the problem lies with the fact that they do not have enough money. Look at FEMA, the VA, department of education, etc. When a school fails its students in some way, it usually asks for more money, when they don't receive that money, or have their budgets get cut, instead of cutting down on redundant, highly overpaid management positions, they cut down on teachers, make the classrooms bigger and the students suffer from that. They then say see, we told you we needed more money.

And my last point was that having the government in charge of "charity" also gives them a very strong bargaining chip with the citizens. It provides them with a powerful carrot and stick. You can have more of this if you vote for me, or if you vote for this guy, he's going to take away what we have been giving you.

 

[sakinago]

You have the key point right, IMO: human nature, specifically the avarice concomitant of it, is the reason a number of systems don't work more closely to their ideal conception than they do.

• Want more than the other guy and want to keep it --> capitalism
• Want enough and don't care about having more than enough --> socialism

Greed is the undoing of both those systems, but the way in which it does so differs.

I've always though it strange that people would argue against any form of socialism because it's as inevitable as sunrise and sunset. Civilization began with despotism where only the strongest survived. As civilizations grew, leadership became vested in governments that saw their function more in terms of service. With disappearing frontiers, urbanization, education, growth of population, people became aware that problems in one segment of society created problems in other segments. Disease, poverty, crime in slums effected the rich, the poor, and the growing middle class. By the 19th century in both Europe and America government was providing more services for the people. Life saving medical care for the indigent was becoming common as was public education, and other services available to all. In the 20th century, those services expanded as did the wealth of nations.

With a near exponential growth in technology, strong economic growth among the most wealthy, and a growing global middle class, those that are left behind will be demanding a larger piece of the pie and they will get it. There're several factors that support this conclusion. First, we are placing a much higher value on human life and not just life but the quality of life. Second, the media exposes social problems as never before and argues strongly for social equality. Lastly, only government can provide the services. We have long passed the point where charitable organization can meet the demand.

I don't think the question is binary in nature, socialism or no socialism. I think the question is do we need more of it, or do we need less. Will more solve our problems, or create new ones? Will less solve our problems or create new ones? Again it comes down to my OP, what is socialism, and does it bring our desired solutions

However evil socialism has proven itself to be, in the near future, when every work is replaced by automation, socialism is the only available theory to provide for human life without the opportunity to work.

I disagree, I feel there is a responsibility of government to break up monopolies. Now I think the formation of monopolies is rare without the help of governments. But I see the coming automation and age of robotics as a monopoly of labor. And while I don't agree with over regulation, I do see a need of the government to protect the citizen from the monopoly of labor. One way I see us accomplishing this is by making laws that automation, and robotics needs to be privately owned by individual citizens, to be rented by businesses and corporations.

This is interesting, and makes sense theoretically, but it is usually the banks and the insurers that own legislation, so citizens don't get the ball. I guess aspiring business owners can rent them from the banks, like mortgages today.

Yes banks do have both the citizens and the politicians balls in their hands. This does need to be addressed. While I wouldn't mind seeing Mr sanders break up the big banks, I think there are other ways to do it without government force. In our world of technology, I don't think there is much of a need for banks, especially not the banks we see today. For instance the site called cabbage (I believe that's the one) but what they did was have people provide loans to other people, private citizens, not banks. And loans for whatever, business, auto, home, or just spare cash. As long as those loaners realized that they're taking a risk on giving the loan, it gives them an opportunity to make money, while helping out people who need money. Now that site, or that aspect of the site got shut down by the government. Why, you might ask, because the banks wanted government to shut that noise down. Because banks don't want people making up their own rules on how to loan money.

And my solution of breaking up the monopoly of labor was a very general one. I recognize that there are many variables I did not mention. And there are other things id like to add to that, but for the sake of not spending all day typing on my phone I left it out. But one thing I'd want to add is that a small business could own maybe up to 3 or 5 of it's own robots, so if there's a landscaping robot that's invented, a guy wanting to start a landscaping business can get those and help his business get on it's feet. Until it grows and he has to start renting more robots from private citizens. But even starting out, it might be cheaper for that person just to rent for a while, until he can buy one.

But anyway, the first step is getting the government and business's to stop playing nice with each other, and let the people decide how and what kind of loan they're going to get, or what kind of service they want and how much they'll pay for it, etc.

I also see what I suggested as a ladder upward for people. Let's hypothetically say a poorer family saves up 1000 bucks to buy a self check out computer system that a grocery store uses. And the a grocery store rents it out from them for 1000 bucks a year (keep in mind this is all hypothetical). That family can use that extra income to buy another one in a couple to a few years. And so on and so forth. I think the thought is fascinating, we almost (almost is the key word) turn back into a weird form of an agrarian society, except instead of animals and crops, we deal in robots and computers.

I think that government and corporations want us to think that with the coming dawn of robotics the only answer for us is things like more socialism, and a standard government income for everybody. I think that will create an absolute and even bigger disparity between the haves and the have nots.

 

[320 Years of History]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

No...socialism is the step between capitalism and true communism...where the government takes control of the means of production until the true communist state can be formed....of course it has always led to mass murder....about 100 million people around the world.

and marx stated that primitive peoples....2 stages behind the adoption of the communist state would have to be destroyed.....

I always hear that '100 million people murdered' accusation. That was under extreme regimes. Most first world countries like USA and those in Europe practice a mix of socialism and capitalism. I wouldn't want to live under pure capitalism or pure socialism.

No.....Germany was a modern nation state...with the rule of law, modern universities......democratic institutions....and what happens under socialism...the power of the state gets concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and becomes more and more powerful with vast networks that control the daily interactions of the people. Then, a bad guy gets in charge, and the tools needed to oppress the people have already been put into place...

In the United States our government was set up to fracture power in the Government...checks and balances and separations of power to keep any one group from becoming too powerful and ending up oppressing the people...socialism is the opposite of this....it seeks to concentrate the power into an ever smaller group of people..who are supposed to do good things with that power...and then it all goes wrong....

That is why socialism has to be fought...no matter how good it is now.......in countries that are wealthy and do not have to spend money in their own defense, so they can spend all of their money on social welfare programs....eventually the money runs out...and then the squabbling over limited resources starts...and the strong, small group of bad guys get in charge, and everything is set up for them to start killing people....

The concentration of power under socialism is what leads to mass murder.......it may not be right away...especially if a nation is wealthy and has a history of democratic institutions...but because socialism undermines the individual, and gradually degrades the society..the bad guys will always rise up......

Maybe it depends what we call socialism. But I said we need a mix of both systems. We need government for certain protections, and people call this socialism. Look what's happening in Flint with the water crisis as just an example. Switching to the cheaper water source harmed thousands. Capitalists wouldn't care about this since profit is the only motive. Capitalism has to have something to counterbalance it.

Red:
That's one way of looking at the matter, and I get why you've presented that view. It goes straight to the question asked.

Economics is, after all, a social science; it's about people and their observed behavior, that is, it's about describing and predicting what they do, describing and predicting how they will behave in response to the scarcity of and choices among resources and how to obtain them. To contrast, psychology is about why people behave as they do rather than how they behave. There are, of course, areas of overlap.

Looking at any economic system, one has to first recognize that all of them deal with one thing: the management of scarcity and choice in human society. Accordingly, the issue, that which is better or worse about any given economic system, is the extent to which the system in question allows and/or encourages what is best/better and worse/worst in human nature. Someone, perhaps you (?), earlier wrote of the role human nature plays. Overlooking human nature in considering any economic system's merits and demerits is to ignore the most central factor driving the behavior those systems aim to manage.

As a society, we aim to implement the principles of "this or that" system, and we implement laws to enforce (or reprimand) individuals' adherence to those principles. That's all well and good; however, the thing that is needed is enhanced morality and ethics. Unfortunately, laws cannot make someone care about another; one cannot legislate compassion and empathy.

Social pressure can make us as a society exhibit greater (or lesser) degrees of compassion, for we are individuals, creatures, who prefer to "fit in." That is, we are social animals; we want to be like our peers. Dissatisfaction with "this or that" economic system, specifically the one in which we find ourselves, results when we see another individual who, by all outward appearances, is like us, but who has more resources than we do. We consider ourselves their peer; thus, we think we should have that which they have; we know more of the same resource(s) exist or can be found; we then want what they have in more or less equal measure with them, even though we may not covet the exact resource(s) they physically possess.

We want to be like them, and we understand their not wanting to be like us, at least with regard to the comparative extent of resources we each currently possess. All the while wanting our bit of the given resource, we inaccurately discount the fact that we weren't given the opportunity to obtain those resources to the extent that other person has; we have not and/or are unwilling to do that which the other person did to obtain them in the quantities they have; and the Fates have not just dropped them in our lap.

Humans have long understood the value of ethics and morality. In this age of Facebook, Twitter and so on whereby social pressure is far more easily expressed and exerted, that we have high morals and rigorous ethics is essential. Regrettably, as a society, we don't. In that regard, tools like Facebook, Instagram and Twitter are ahead of their time; they've come about before we are ethically ready to have them.

From whence do I come to this conclusion? For me, it's seen in the braggadocious and "look at me" manner in which those tools are used far more often than their use as means of rebuking the appearance of that which is worst about us as humans. It's seen too in the extent to which we use those tools to insult, to boost our own ego, to tear down that of others, etc.

I will change my mind on this when it becomes clear to me that we are society that does not seek and use the public approbation of others, when we stop using the comparative, as our individual bar of what is or is not acceptable, good, better and best (or their opposites). Put another way, what we need is a society that overwhelmingly and without exception lives by the "Golden Rule."

 

[Fishlore]

The classic answer comes from Plato, "There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands."

The Enlightenment answer was democracy with a faith not unlike Adam Smith's faith in the Invisible Hand of the Market, that an invisible hand of the people, what Rousseau called the General Will, would create a social consensus based on the common understanding of the good.

When the Industrial Revolution seemed to show that democracy by itself wasn't up to the job, Marx and Engels added the requirment of economic equality to political democracy and modern socialism as a political philosophy was born.

If we have learned anything since Marx it is that government is an essential incredient. The state cannot "wither away" under the beneficent glare of equality as Marx and his disciples thought, it must remain central and activist in maintaining both equality and democracy. The socialism which dominates political economic thought in advanced democracies is one which constantly adjusts laws of all sorts in order to sustain and advance democracy and social justice.

This constant adjustment and tinkering is now accepted as the best system we can get in this imperfect world and the original vision of a climactic revolution that would bring about permanently stable social institutions seems now as naive as the faith of those Millerites who stood clad in white garments on hillsides of America in the 1840s, confidently expecting the end of the world at dawn

Plato's solution was platos republic. And while the idea of a beneficent philosopher king, or a beneficent philosopher oligarchy is nice...how long will they remain beneficent? Is there something to the saying of absolute power corrupted absolutely? I find it strange that there are those who view our current system as an oligarchy of the powerful businessmen, want to shift to an oligarchy of powerful politicians and expect better results. How much does the centralized power care about those who live on the ends of the "social bell curve".

And there is a significant difference between democracy and a constitutional republic. And what Kant was referring to was not democracy. Nor was democracy the main subject matter in his piece in what is enlightenment. But the bad in the industrial revolution was not the result of capitalism run amok, much of it was the result of cronyism, which is the stifling out of alternatives usually with the aid of government or others in power positions, banks and etc. That being said it's still undeniable that much of our technical progress today can be attributed to the industrial revolution. Yes there were many things wrong with the industrial revolution, but many of those problems were addressed by offering better alternatives, and not all with the help of government. Don't confuse that as me saying that there's no room for regulation, but that regulations should be judged by a set of principles as opposed to whatever the current interests are at the time.

Plato's solution is, I agree, purely theoretical. He didn't say it was about to happen or how to bring it about.

Yes it was, I still disagree with it. I don't want my life, and what to do with it to be dictated by a class who considers themselves the "philosopher kings". There's a hubris into thinking that the few have all of the answers for us.

I think you are taking my reference to Plato a bit out of context. I cited his famous idea not because I think socialism or the platonic republic are my ideals but because you asked how government can prevent and remove the evil which some people bring into society. Plato's observation merely says, it can't, at least not under the circumstances in which we live.

Democracy was introduced in the American Constitution out of the belief that, as a practical matter, ratification by the majority was the best method of preventing government by the evil or the insane. The system isn't fool-proof, as the twentiety century demonstrated with bloody ferocity. The majority may be persuaded to evil or madness

Socialsts think that electoral democracy is, by itself, not sufficient. "Democracy is the path to socialism," said Karl Marx. Democracy points the ship in the right direction but glaring inequality leads to class conflict and social instability which destroy democracy. It is not enough to set up a system in which the vote of one genius is equal to the vote of one fool, the society itself must provide a necessary foundation of social justice for the democratic process to work successfully.

Again there is a big difference between democracy and a constitutional republic. Democracy in a sense is mob rule, or two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. A constitutional republic sets up a system where no one, not even the highest official can take away your unalienable rights. That government can only operate in these perimeters, and in those perimeters you elect someone at your local, and state, and federal levels. Those in New York cannot have a say in how those in Kansas should live, all while within the limited perimeters of government. The problem today is that government on local, state, and especially federal level has been overstepping their boundaries for a long time. And it's given more power to traditional democracy, where people can vote away the things they see that they do not like, even when it's overstepping the governments power. Even worse those with lots of money are lobbying for laws to tip the scales in their favor, overstepping the government boundaries.

"Constitutional republic" describes a government organization, it does not describe how the constituent members are established, only that they are created according to a constitution. The constitution could, for example, create a republic based on race, caste or astrological sign and it would still be a constitutional republic.

"Demorcacy" describes a mechanism for establishing government. Democracy can establish a republic, a dictatorship or coven of witches as the form of government.

"Socialism" describes a guiding principle of government, it does not describe the structure of the government or how the structure is established. Socialist government can be a monarchy (as it is in the scandinavian countries) or a federated republic like Italy, or a tribal structure as is found in parts of South America and New Guinea.

Scrambling different categories of taxonimy is sloppy thinking and produces useless, often contentious, results.

 

[sakinago]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

No...socialism is the step between capitalism and true communism...where the government takes control of the means of production until the true communist state can be formed....of course it has always led to mass murder....about 100 million people around the world.

and marx stated that primitive peoples....2 stages behind the adoption of the communist state would have to be destroyed.....

I always hear that '100 million people murdered' accusation. That was under extreme regimes. Most first world countries like USA and those in Europe practice a mix of socialism and capitalism. I wouldn't want to live under pure capitalism or pure socialism.

No.....Germany was a modern nation state...with the rule of law, modern universities......democratic institutions....and what happens under socialism...the power of the state gets concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and becomes more and more powerful with vast networks that control the daily interactions of the people. Then, a bad guy gets in charge, and the tools needed to oppress the people have already been put into place...

In the United States our government was set up to fracture power in the Government...checks and balances and separations of power to keep any one group from becoming too powerful and ending up oppressing the people...socialism is the opposite of this....it seeks to concentrate the power into an ever smaller group of people..who are supposed to do good things with that power...and then it all goes wrong....

That is why socialism has to be fought...no matter how good it is now.......in countries that are wealthy and do not have to spend money in their own defense, so they can spend all of their money on social welfare programs....eventually the money runs out...and then the squabbling over limited resources starts...and the strong, small group of bad guys get in charge, and everything is set up for them to start killing people....

The concentration of power under socialism is what leads to mass murder.......it may not be right away...especially if a nation is wealthy and has a history of democratic institutions...but because socialism undermines the individual, and gradually degrades the society..the bad guys will always rise up......

Maybe it depends what we call socialism. But I said we need a mix of both systems. We need government for certain protections, and people call this socialism. Look what's happening in Flint with the water crisis as just an example. Switching to the cheaper water source harmed thousands. Capitalists wouldn't care about this since profit is the only motive. Capitalism has to have something to counterbalance it.

Well I disagree, capitalist would absolutely care about the water quality. Why...because their customers would flip shit, and they'd be broke and out of business, and be getting sued with huge class action suits, and probably be in prison because they've caused harm to people. But that's not happening right now, is it. Let's not forget that flint Michigan WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE GOVERNMENT, and they did it because there's not much alternative to the public water works system that they run. I find it fascinating that people are finding a way to blame flint michigan on capitalism.

 

[2aguy]

Capitalismism has to ask...how can I serve you?....socialism tells you...get in line....

 

[sakinago]

Plato's solution was platos republic. And while the idea of a beneficent philosopher king, or a beneficent philosopher oligarchy is nice...how long will they remain beneficent? Is there something to the saying of absolute power corrupted absolutely? I find it strange that there are those who view our current system as an oligarchy of the powerful businessmen, want to shift to an oligarchy of powerful politicians and expect better results. How much does the centralized power care about those who live on the ends of the "social bell curve".

And there is a significant difference between democracy and a constitutional republic. And what Kant was referring to was not democracy. Nor was democracy the main subject matter in his piece in what is enlightenment. But the bad in the industrial revolution was not the result of capitalism run amok, much of it was the result of cronyism, which is the stifling out of alternatives usually with the aid of government or others in power positions, banks and etc. That being said it's still undeniable that much of our technical progress today can be attributed to the industrial revolution. Yes there were many things wrong with the industrial revolution, but many of those problems were addressed by offering better alternatives, and not all with the help of government. Don't confuse that as me saying that there's no room for regulation, but that regulations should be judged by a set of principles as opposed to whatever the current interests are at the time.

Plato's solution is, I agree, purely theoretical. He didn't say it was about to happen or how to bring it about.

Yes it was, I still disagree with it. I don't want my life, and what to do with it to be dictated by a class who considers themselves the "philosopher kings". There's a hubris into thinking that the few have all of the answers for us.

I think you are taking my reference to Plato a bit out of context. I cited his famous idea not because I think socialism or the platonic republic are my ideals but because you asked how government can prevent and remove the evil which some people bring into society. Plato's observation merely says, it can't, at least not under the circumstances in which we live.

Democracy was introduced in the American Constitution out of the belief that, as a practical matter, ratification by the majority was the best method of preventing government by the evil or the insane. The system isn't fool-proof, as the twentiety century demonstrated with bloody ferocity. The majority may be persuaded to evil or madness

Socialsts think that electoral democracy is, by itself, not sufficient. "Democracy is the path to socialism," said Karl Marx. Democracy points the ship in the right direction but glaring inequality leads to class conflict and social instability which destroy democracy. It is not enough to set up a system in which the vote of one genius is equal to the vote of one fool, the society itself must provide a necessary foundation of social justice for the democratic process to work successfully.

Again there is a big difference between democracy and a constitutional republic. Democracy in a sense is mob rule, or two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. A constitutional republic sets up a system where no one, not even the highest official can take away your unalienable rights. That government can only operate in these perimeters, and in those perimeters you elect someone at your local, and state, and federal levels. Those in New York cannot have a say in how those in Kansas should live, all while within the limited perimeters of government. The problem today is that government on local, state, and especially federal level has been overstepping their boundaries for a long time. And it's given more power to traditional democracy, where people can vote away the things they see that they do not like, even when it's overstepping the governments power. Even worse those with lots of money are lobbying for laws to tip the scales in their favor, overstepping the government boundaries.

"Constitutional republic" describes a government organization, it does not describe how the constituent members are established, only that they are created according to a constitution. The constitution could, for example, create a republic based on race, caste or astrological sign and it would still be a constitutional republic.

"Demorcacy" describes a mechanism for establishing government. Democracy can establish a republic, a dictatorship or coven of witches as the form of government.

"Socialism" describes a guiding principle of government, it does not describe the structure of the government or how the structure is established. Socialist government can be a monarchy (as it is in the scandinavian countries) or a federated republic like Italy, or a tribal structure as is found in parts of South America and New Guinea.

Scrambling different categories of taxonimy is sloppy thinking and produces useless, often contentious, results.

A constitutional republic is a form of government to protect the individual from the government and the democratic mob rule. Does that mean ours is perfect, no. And the founding fathers admitted that, and said it was up to the future generations to be vigilante and correct and search out our mistakes. Could it be based on race, sure...but I wouldn't call that a constitutional republic

As far as socialism as its set of principles, those principles are based on consequentiality. On outcomes, as opposed to, or maybe even with conjunction to a guiding set of principles. But still based on what are the outcomes that we want to happen, and do what it takes to reach those outcomes.

 

[sakinago]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

No...socialism is the step between capitalism and true communism...where the government takes control of the means of production until the true communist state can be formed....of course it has always led to mass murder....about 100 million people around the world.

and marx stated that primitive peoples....2 stages behind the adoption of the communist state would have to be destroyed.....

I always hear that '100 million people murdered' accusation. That was under extreme regimes. Most first world countries like USA and those in Europe practice a mix of socialism and capitalism. I wouldn't want to live under pure capitalism or pure socialism.

No.....Germany was a modern nation state...with the rule of law, modern universities......democratic institutions....and what happens under socialism...the power of the state gets concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and becomes more and more powerful with vast networks that control the daily interactions of the people. Then, a bad guy gets in charge, and the tools needed to oppress the people have already been put into place...

In the United States our government was set up to fracture power in the Government...checks and balances and separations of power to keep any one group from becoming too powerful and ending up oppressing the people...socialism is the opposite of this....it seeks to concentrate the power into an ever smaller group of people..who are supposed to do good things with that power...and then it all goes wrong....

That is why socialism has to be fought...no matter how good it is now.......in countries that are wealthy and do not have to spend money in their own defense, so they can spend all of their money on social welfare programs....eventually the money runs out...and then the squabbling over limited resources starts...and the strong, small group of bad guys get in charge, and everything is set up for them to start killing people....

The concentration of power under socialism is what leads to mass murder.......it may not be right away...especially if a nation is wealthy and has a history of democratic institutions...but because socialism undermines the individual, and gradually degrades the society..the bad guys will always rise up......

Maybe it depends what we call socialism. But I said we need a mix of both systems. We need government for certain protections, and people call this socialism. Look what's happening in Flint with the water crisis as just an example. Switching to the cheaper water source harmed thousands. Capitalists wouldn't care about this since profit is the only motive. Capitalism has to have something to counterbalance it.

Red:
That's one way of looking at the matter, and I get why you've presented that view. It goes straight to the question asked.

Economics is, after all, a social science; it's about people and their observed behavior, that is, it's about describing and predicting what they do, describing and predicting how they will behave in response to the scarcity of and choices among resources and how to obtain them. To contrast, psychology is about why people behave as they do rather than how they behave. There are, of course, areas of overlap.

Looking at any economic system, one has to first recognize that all of them deal with one thing: the management of scarcity and choice in human society. Accordingly, the issue, that which is better or worse about any given economic system, is the extent to which the system in question allows and/or encourages what is best/better and worse/worst in human nature. Someone, perhaps you (?), earlier wrote of the role human nature plays. Overlooking human nature in considering any economic system's merits and demerits is to ignore the most central factor driving the behavior those systems aim to manage.

As a society, we aim to implement the principles of "this or that" system, and we implement laws to enforce (or reprimand) individuals' adherence to those principles. That's all well and good; however, the thing that is needed is enhanced morality and ethics. Unfortunately, laws cannot make someone care about another; one cannot legislate compassion and empathy.

Social pressure can make us as a society exhibit greater (or lesser) degrees of compassion, for we are individuals, creatures, who prefer to "fit in." That is, we are social animals; we want to be like our peers. Dissatisfaction with "this or that" economic system, specifically the one in which we find ourselves, results when we see another individual who, by all outward appearances, is like us, but who has more resources than we do. We consider ourselves their peer; thus, we think we should have that which they have; we know more of the same resource(s) exist or can be found; we then want what they have in more or less equal measure with them, even though we may not covet the exact resource(s) they physically possess.

We want to be like them, and we understand their not wanting to be like us, at least with regard to the comparative extent of resources we each currently possess. All the while wanting our bit of the given resource, we inaccurately discount the fact that we weren't given the opportunity to obtain those resources to the extent that other person has; we have not and/or are unwilling to do that which the other person did to obtain them in the quantities they have; and the Fates have not just dropped them in our lap.

Humans have long understood the value of ethics and morality. In this age of Facebook, Twitter and so on whereby social pressure is far more easily expressed and exerted, that we have high morals and rigorous ethics is essential. Regrettably, as a society, we don't. In that regard, tools like Facebook, Instagram and Twitter are ahead of their time; they've come about before we are ethically ready to have them.

From whence do I come to this conclusion? For me, it's seen in the braggadocious and "look at me" manner in which those tools are used far more often than their use as means of rebuking the appearance of that which is worst about us as humans. It's seen too in the extent to which we use those tools to insult, to boost our own ego, to tear down that of others, etc.

I will change my mind on this when it becomes clear to me that we are society that does not seek and use the public approbation of others, when we stop using the comparative, as our individual bar of what is or is not acceptable, good, better and best (or their opposites). Put another way, what we need is a society that overwhelmingly and without exception lives by the "Golden Rule."

I completely agree with your assessment of the Facebook, and twitter ego jungle we see today. Although I do think it's the ego starved people we see do it the most, and we tend to shake our heads at them. However Facebook, Instagram and etc. do encourage those behaviors from all.

But is it the governments job to enforce the golden rule? Can giving them the power effectively carry it out?
Or will they take that power and use it for their own self interest?

 

[Flopper]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

Socialism done right would solve most of our problems but socialism will not be done right because we are human. We strive to have more than our fellow man and want to keep it. That is human nature. However, some degree of socialism is needed in society because what happens to others effects us all in one way or another.

The question should not be whether we need socialism but rather how much.

You have the key point right, IMO: human nature, specifically the avarice concomitant of it, is the reason a number of systems don't work more closely to their ideal conception than they do.

• Want more than the other guy and want to keep it --> capitalism
• Want enough and don't care about having more than enough --> socialism

Greed is the undoing of both those systems, but the way in which it does so differs.

I think there is another factor besides greed not being said. That factor is power, power in the sense you can tip the scales in your favor. In capitalism this should not happen, and is one of the main things to guard against . In socialism those scales are already being tipped by nature. In respects to capitalism and socialism, this creates a manufactured and false sense of supply and demand.

It also depends on your definition of greed. Is greed simply wanting more than what you have? If that's the case, I don't see anything wrong with that. Or is greed doing something morally wrong or unfair to obtain more? If that's your definition, then yes it is wrong.

Greed is not just wanting more than you have. Greed is the overwhelming insatiable longing to have more than you will ever need. Everyone wants more of the pie, but most people aren't willing to sacrifice their soul all they love for it.

 

[sakinago]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

Socialism done right would solve most of our problems but socialism will not be done right because we are human. We strive to have more than our fellow man and want to keep it. That is human nature. However, some degree of socialism is needed in society because what happens to others effects us all in one way or another.

The question should not be whether we need socialism but rather how much.

You have the key point right, IMO: human nature, specifically the avarice concomitant of it, is the reason a number of systems don't work more closely to their ideal conception than they do.

• Want more than the other guy and want to keep it --> capitalism
• Want enough and don't care about having more than enough --> socialism

Greed is the undoing of both those systems, but the way in which it does so differs.

I think there is another factor besides greed not being said. That factor is power, power in the sense you can tip the scales in your favor. In capitalism this should not happen, and is one of the main things to guard against . In socialism those scales are already being tipped by nature. In respects to capitalism and socialism, this creates a manufactured and false sense of supply and demand.

It also depends on your definition of greed. Is greed simply wanting more than what you have? If that's the case, I don't see anything wrong with that. Or is greed doing something morally wrong or unfair to obtain more? If that's your definition, then yes it is wrong.

Greed is not just wanting more than you have. Greed is the overwhelming insatiable longing to have more than you will ever need. Everyone wants more of the pie, but most people aren't willing to sacrifice their soul all they love for it.

That definition is wayyy too subjective. Whose is going to decide you have too much? And if your making good money providing something that people want, in a fair way, I miss seeing any wrong doing in that

 

[320 Years of History]

You have the key point right, IMO: human nature, specifically the avarice concomitant of it, is the reason a number of systems don't work more closely to their ideal conception than they do.

• Want more than the other guy and want to keep it --> capitalism
• Want enough and don't care about having more than enough --> socialism

Greed is the undoing of both those systems, but the way in which it does so differs.

I think there is another factor besides greed not being said. That factor is power, power in the sense you can tip the scales in your favor. In capitalism this should not happen, and is one of the main things to guard against . In socialism those scales are already being tipped by nature. In respects to capitalism and socialism, this creates a manufactured and false sense of supply and demand.

It also depends on your definition of greed. Is greed simply wanting more than what you have? If that's the case, I don't see anything wrong with that. Or is greed doing something morally wrong or unfair to obtain more? If that's your definition, then yes it is wrong.

Avarice is more than merely wanting additional "whatever." It's the combination of (1) wanting more than is necessary to sustain oneself and those for whom one is responsible, (2) acting to get it, (3) obtaining it, (4) refusing to share that thing with others, especially in the face of their palpable and observed desperate need for it, and (5) treating/viewing the whole matter of wanting, obtaining and keeping hold of those things as a zero-sum matter. It is, then, both the act of wanting "whatever" and the attitudes/thoughts one adopts in obtaining and retaining that which one wants.

I realize that many people want a simple, perhaps binary, way of determining in advance and in the abstract what deeds and thoughts are and are not greedy, unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. I don't think there is such a clear and simple way to assess every instance that may be manifestations of one's greed. I think the only way to make that determination is to apply the principles given in both Christian and non-Christian modes of thought:

• Christian --> Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
• Native American --> Walk a mile in another man's shoes before you judge him.
• Confucianism --> What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others.
• Sikhism --> Precious like jewels are the minds of all. To hurt them is not at all good. If thou desirest thy Beloved, then hurt thou not anyone's heart.
• Buddhism --> Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. Just as I am so are they, just as they are so am I.
• Islam --> Woe to those who, when they have to receive by measure from men, they demand exact full measure, but when they have to give by measure or weight to men, give less than due.
• Taoism --> Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss.
• Wicca --> That that which ye deem harmful unto thyself, the very same shall ye be forbidden from doing unto another.
• Ancient Egyptian --> Do to the doer to make him do. That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another.

Those are just a few examples, but the same axiomatic principle exists in numerous segments of human culture. Which one opts to apply matters not for, at the end of the day, there is no substantive difference among them.

Lastly, you mentioned power. Power itself isn't the problem. Power accrues to oneself as a result of one's actions and luck/circumstance. Merely having power isn't the problem. How one exercises power can be a problem or not a problem.

For example, if one uses one's power to both obtain a resource and also to deny others from obtaining enough of that same resource to sate themselves too, yet there is enough of the resource that none need be unsated, it is one's greed, not one's power, that is the problem. The only reason those who are denied see one's power as the problem is because they are innately aware they cannot, in what they consider a timely enough manner and perhaps not at all, alter one's greedy attitude, but they may be able to erode or remove one's power to exercise one's greedy intentions.

P.S./Edit:
If you desire to learn of an illustration of greed in non-human nature, read this: Wolverines Give Insight into the Evolution of Greed .

Wolverines are expert hunters, rarely preyed upon, and comfortably at the top of their food web. Because their food sources are all in common with many other predators, they have become fierce competitors. Wolverines are known to chase other scavengers away from a carcass and they have no shame in stealing a hard earned kill from a smaller wolverine or even a different animal entirely.

They are voracious eaters, which gave rise to their various names in other languages such as “glutton” (in French), “gluttonous badger” (in Romanian), and “fat belly” (in Finnish). In fact, the scientific name of the wolverine is Gulo gulo, from the Latin word for gluttony. Although wolverines sound rather like playground bullies, this is all pretty standard food competition. Where does the greed come in? Well, after a wolverine has eaten all it can whether from its own kill or find, or something it has stolen from some unfortunate shlemazl, it will actually spray the leftover food with its marking scent.

This might not seem so weird and biologists once thought that the wolverines were simply marking the food to protect its next meal of leftovers. However, this doesn’t seem to be the case. The wolverines rarely return to their leftovers. Sure, the distinctive wolverine scent alone is probably enough to dissuade many animals, but it turns out that the spray of wolverines, unlike that of skunks, is highly acidic. By spraying noxious carboxylic acids onto the leftover food, the wolverines actually accelerate the spoiling process.

To summarize, the wolverines have consumed all they can fit into their stomachs, and then they try to spoil any leftovers so that other predators and scavengers can’t eat them. This fits part of our description of greed. It’s not just about acquiring things; it’s about having more than others have.​

I don't think that #4 is an overt problem in America, refusing to give it away to others in need. Sure there are some bad apples, but The people of America are the most charitable people there has ever been on the face of this earth, by a mile. No other civilization is able to hold a candle to our charitable nature. Now why is that? Socialism hasn't comparatively been a strong force in America at all. And those on the right do not see the government as the most effective vector to deliver charity. Yes there are places where it is needed, but simply throwing more money at a government that is intent on growing itself, that doesn't have a NEED to become the most effective vessel and deliverer of charity, is not the answer. Not only is it not the answer, but it also gives government a powerful bargaining chip to continue to grow itself, with or without the peoples best interest in mind.

You can think that and I will respect that you do. You may even be correct; however, your comments don't illustrate that you are correct.

Red:
That may be so. Even granting that it is so does not establish that American magnanimity at an individual, local, regional or national level is sufficient to meet the standard in #4. The measure of sufficiency is given by the people who need one's munificence, not by its benefactors.

Let's say (1) I have X and my neighbor has twice the quantity of X, and (2) that you, my neighbor, and I each need 25% of X to be sated, and (3) you are unable on your own to obtain 25% of X. I may give you nothing and my neighbor may give you 10% of X. You remain unsated, yet my neighbor has given more than anyone else, and my neighbor and I both have more than enough to be sated. That my neighbor has been more charitable than anyone else doesn't mean s/he's not greedy, nor does it mean s/he's less greedy than I. It just means s/he's more generous than I, but the fact remains that s/he and I are both greedy.

There are also things my neighbor and I could be in addition to greedy:

• We could also be lazy...too lazy to notice that you remain unsated.
• We could be envious of one another and by it focus on one another's states rather than on your state of desperation.
• We could also be gluttonous.

As you can tell, I'm working my way through "the seven deadly sins." There's a reason for that; they don't function in isolation.

It is indeed true that the American people are by far the most charitable, sure there are variables to account for, but overall it is telling. It is true that the charitable nature of the individual may or even often does not provide for the need of those without. My point was that capitalism does [not] eliminate the charitable nature of people (which is how it is commonly characterized) but it encourages it.

My other point was, is that there is not much of an alternative to emerge if government is in control of "charity". There is not much incentive for government to be the best at charity. It becomes "this is just the way we do things." The incentive is actually to grow itself requiring more tax payer dollars, and not necessarily in an effective way. The incentive is that people will want more and more things provided for them, those people are votes, so we will expand and provide it to them. And what usually happens when one of these providing programs fail to provide, they say the problem lies with the fact that they do not have enough money. Look at FEMA, the VA, department of education, etc. When a school fails its students in some way, it usually asks for more money, when they don't receive that money, or have their budgets get cut, instead of cutting down on [waste, excess and questionable redundancies], they cut down on [the wrong things] and the students suffer from that. They then say see, we told you we needed more money.

And my last point was that having the government in charge of "charity" also gives them a very strong bargaining chip with the citizens. It provides them with a powerful carrot and stick. You can have more of this if you vote for me, or if you vote for this guy, he's going to take away what we have been giving you.

Red:
My edit in this statement is a reflection of my belief that you've made an omission typo. I'm calling attention to my edit because what I believe is the omitted word is critical to the sentence's meaning. If I've misunderstood your intent, please disregard my "red" comments.

I agree that capitalism does not eliminate humanity's charitable nature. I do not experientially know of anything that preponderantly demonstrates that capitalism encourages munificence; therefore I disagree (at the moment) with your assertion in that regard. If you can credibly make the case that it does, or point me to someone's scholarly paper that does make the case, I'm amenable to seeing it. I don't promise to concur, but I am willing to be open minded about it. I have no need or desire to be right, nor have I one that you be right or wrong. Right now, I don't know; I know only what I believe, and I know I'm no expert on the matter of capitalism's encouraging charity; however, there's no question in my mind that by it's great ability to produce great wealth, it certainly enables great charity. Enablement and encouragement aren't, however, the same.


Blue:
I don't think it requisite that government be in charge of charity, but it certainly can be, and it can be efficient and effective as such. Ideally, I'd just as soon government have no role is the distribution of charity, but in the non-ideal world in which I live, left to our own devices absent government intervention, we private individuals and entities don't willfully exhibit enough charity to ensure that nobody must endure critical insufficiencies of critical resources. In light of that reality, government is the only entity able and willing to take on the challenge of ensuring people are not starved, homeless, uneducated and naked.


Green:
Okay, for the most part. I think governments motivation to be the best at anything is largely driven by fiduciary duty.

As one who's mentored young folks for the past 20+ years, I give what anyone would consider a lot in terms of money, time and intangible content, both emotional and intellectual. I can do it efficiently enough and with no "red tape," as it were. What I give at any moment depends on what I have most available to give at that time.

For example, when I have time, I give lots of it and tangible resources, but when I have little time, I give mostly tangible resources. At all times, I try to be cognizant that physical resources may not be the thing most needed at that moment, regardless of what I have at that moment to give. When what my mentorees need is my time, I don't give them physical resources, and vice versa.

The difference between my giving of my own various resources -- time, money, material, etc. -- is that the resources given are mine to give. I'm not being entrusted to distribute resources others have given to me expecting that I'll do so on their behalf. There's no fiduciary duty.


Pink:
In my own charitable giving experiences I have not observed that. Indeed, not one of my mentorees has come to me asking me to aid them in doing things except when they simply cannot accomplish them and need help -- help with a homework problem, help understanding something they read or saw, help attending/participating in an event, help paying college application fees, etc. The few who've graduated from college reach out to me for things like references and to wish me a happy birthday or merry Christmas, or just to chat; they aren't looking for me to keep "holding their hand" or provide for X, Y and Z as I did when they were younger.

For example, I invited one of my mentorees and his mother to join me at my daughter's wedding overseas. Neither of them has approached me about providing them with another vacation. Time will tell whether they do or not, I suppose, but I doubt they will.

Are there folks who will abuse a benefactor's bounty? Of course there are. That's still, IMO, no reason to deny all those would and will not. The concept of taking that stance is comparable to suggesting that one bad apple spoils the tree from which it grows and soil that nourishes the tree. That is preposterous and one would be hard pressed to convince me otherwise.


Orange:
They do indeed do that. I don't think that every problem needs money to be solved, but it does take money to overcome many of them. Moreover, I think that too often and too many of us think of money as a suitable surrogate of that for which it is not. My remarks above about my mentoring offer a high level illustration of that.


Purple:
As my preceding remarks allude, I realize that poorly implemented means can prevent one from achieving noble ends.


Brown:
Well, until we get to a point that government doesn't have to collect, maintain, and distribute the majority of charitable resources, that's unlikely to change. We can't have our cake and eat it too. Assuming we agree that our fellow citizens' insufficient access to and possession of critical resources is something we find unacceptable, it will not be until private concerns show themselves willing to, capable of, and in fact effecting that end without government intervention, what alternative is there? The role government is forced to play has a direct impact on the extent of it's influence on the beneficiaries of societal largesse.

For example, I have no problem helping a person in, say, Denver, get food, shelter and education, but I'm not in Denver, so that person is SOL if they must rely on me for that. If the government uses my specific tax dollar to feed, house and educate that person, s/he doesn't see me as their "savior," but they do see the government thus. They also do not see a Denver resident as their benefactor. That the recipients of charity have that perspective is an unavoidable consequence of the folks in Denver (and/or myself) not making it unnecessary for the government to be that person's savior, as it were.

Do you think my several now grown mentorees see me or the government as the source of their rising out of the desperation they knew as children? I'm sure they don't, even though the government make possible the roof over their head and the overwhelming majority of meals they consumed. By the same token, if you think I didn't have a great sum of influence over the ways they perceived things, you'd be grossly naive. The question isn't whether I had such influence, but rather what I did with it. The fact is I didn't do anything with it, at least nothing that benefitted me beyond my feeling good from helping someone realize their own potential.

 

[320 Years of History]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

Socialism done right would solve most of our problems but socialism will not be done right because we are human. We strive to have more than our fellow man and want to keep it. That is human nature. However, some degree of socialism is needed in society because what happens to others effects us all in one way or another.

The question should not be whether we need socialism but rather how much.

You have the key point right, IMO: human nature, specifically the avarice concomitant of it, is the reason a number of systems don't work more closely to their ideal conception than they do.

• Want more than the other guy and want to keep it --> capitalism
• Want enough and don't care about having more than enough --> socialism

Greed is the undoing of both those systems, but the way in which it does so differs.

I think there is another factor besides greed not being said. That factor is power, power in the sense you can tip the scales in your favor. In capitalism this should not happen, and is one of the main things to guard against . In socialism those scales are already being tipped by nature. In respects to capitalism and socialism, this creates a manufactured and false sense of supply and demand.

It also depends on your definition of greed. Is greed simply wanting more than what you have? If that's the case, I don't see anything wrong with that. Or is greed doing something morally wrong or unfair to obtain more? If that's your definition, then yes it is wrong.

Greed is not just wanting more than you have. Greed is the overwhelming insatiable longing to have more than you will ever need. Everyone wants more of the pie, but most people aren't willing to sacrifice their soul all they love for it.

That definition is wayyy too subjective. Whose is going to decide you have too much? And if your making good money providing something that people want, in a fair way, I miss seeing any wrong doing in that

Some definitions cannot be objective and binary. Bright and well educated people know this and can deal with it. The art of compromise is essentially the art of managing uncertainty. It takes a lot of knowledge, a lot of intellect and a lot of patience to do it well. A lot of folks have a little bit of those three traits, perhaps even a lot of one or two of them. but not many folks have a lot of each.