(February 9, 2009 at 4:25 pm)leo-rcc Wrote:(February 9, 2009 at 3:23 pm)bozo Wrote:(February 9, 2009 at 1:15 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: One flaw in that argument, I am a socialist and not exactly poor. I pay a whopping amount of taxes and do not complain about it. Okay, I am not Bill Gates either, or the sultan of Brunei. But still.
Leo, what flaw?
I don't know you but I guess you will be pretty close to me on the scale of wealth.
Do you not consider yourself nearer the underclass than the mega rich?
As a socialist, do you not have more affinity for the underclass and do you not want to see capitalism replaced eventually?
I guess that depends on what boundary you set for mega-rich. I am closer to zero than a million dollars, sure. I earn about 2 times the standard income in the Netherlands.
More affinity with the underclass, sure, I have been there so I know how hard it can be.
Capitalism replaced, the Netherlands isn't really a capitalist nation like the U.S. so I am not as gung ho to change our national politics as my more left colleagues. I am more the PVDA than the S.P. to coin the phrase.
But I do concede that the most of the socialists would like the distribution of wealth more evenly than is the case now and rightfully so. But I also see that humans do need an incentive to strive to the best of their ability. Rewards do need to come for a job well done, not because it is a given right. But the split between rich and poor is to great at the moment. So in that aspect you are correct and your argument is not flawed.
Thank you Leo!
Regarding " incentive ", in capitalist society what you describe translates into a quest for money, status and " power ".
In a truly socialist society, the incentive would be a fair and equitable, peaceful society/world.
A man is born to a virgin mother, lives, dies, comes alive again and then disappears into the clouds to become his Dad. How likely is that?
