(January 30, 2012 at 11:59 pm)Godschild Wrote: and how it should work that it never can,

rev.j Wrote:Not true either. China has been quite successful at socialism, yet they are authoritarian as hell, and they have now integrated what i consider some of the worst parts of capitalism as well. Northern Europe, on the other hand, keep slowly working their way towards a coopoerative system of anti-authoritarian likes. All countries have their moments of ups and downs.

I'm not sure why you see the China model of socialism successful, they have had to use force to put down revolts, the young people are extremely unhappy with how things are in China and the china government will only allow it's propaganda to reach the rest of the world. Unhappy people do not IMO spell successes.

GC Wrote:in a socialistic society opinions are out and that goes against human nature.

rev.j Wrote:It depends on the nature of the commune and the nature of the opinion.

Example: The commune that the followers of Jesus set up right after his crucifixion can easily be described as an authoritarian theocratic commune. All members had to sell their possessions and had to surrender the money to the church leaders. If they didnt, they were killed right on the spot. The bible says that God killed the people, or made them "give up the ghost". this could be translated however you like, but the fact is they were killed for trying to hold back some of their money from the commune. Their opinion on how to run a commune, regardless of wether god existed or not, did not succeede because we no longer see it today.

I have to totally disagree with this statement, no one had to sell their property, this was a voluntary practice. Those who did could even choose to keep part of the money for themselves. Please read Acts 5:1-6. Ananias and his wife conspired to keep some of the money, to me this means that they had promised to give all the money to the church and then out of greed conspired to keep some of the money. In v. 4 Peter tells Ananias that it all belonged to them until they had promised it to the church. No one was forced to give anything to the church, it was and still is voluntary.

GC Wrote:There is no way to have a society that goes against human nature and it work unless force is used and even then we see how ineffective that can be with the changes in the Middle East.

rev.j Wrote:I keep hearing that same argument again and again. That people are greedy and hateful, and therefore must have a greedy and hateful government.

Why not ask the Sami about that? They seem to have successfully snubbed the current idea of humanity and government, and they are still going strong.

I do not know about the Sami, will look into them as soon as I get a chance. The argument you keep hearing is true to an extent, a lot of people are greedy and hateful and this alone is enough to do away with a pure socialist country. People do not necessarily need a government that's greedy or hateful, I do not believe our democratic republic to be either. In actuality our government is the people with representatives, yes those in office want to run things their way but in the end the people choose. Good system that most of the world would like to have, I personally want it to be our system even with it's flaws.
[/quote]

Quote:I'm not sure why you see the China model of socialism successful, they have had to use force to put down revolts, the young people are extremely unhappy with how things are in China and the china government will only allow it's propaganda to reach the rest of the world. Unhappy people do not IMO spell successes.

Well, for some reason some people on this forum equate success with "still existing"...*cough* Moros *cough*... I tend to agree with you that happiness is also a factor in successful social systems.

Quote:I have to totally disagree with this statement, no one had to sell their property, this was a voluntary practice. Those who did could even choose to keep part of the money for themselves. Please read Acts 5:1-6. Ananias and his wife conspired to keep some of the money, to me this means that they had promised to give all the money to the church and then out of greed conspired to keep some of the money. In v. 4 Peter tells Ananias that it all belonged to them until they had promised it to the church. No one was forced to give anything to the church, it was and still is voluntary.

So therefore they deserve to be killed by God? It seems to me that would be a good learning and teaching situation for all members of the group. Yet, as is typical with the god of the bible, the punishment for anything, even things that are slight, is always DEATH. Perhaps I should have pointed that out earlier. Frankly I felt like I didnt have too, the punishment obviously did not fit the crime.

Quote:I do not know about the Sami, will look into them as soon as I get a chance. The argument you keep hearing is true to an extent, a lot of people are greedy and hateful and this alone is enough to do away with a pure socialist country.

"Pure socialist"? What does that mean? As I have mentioned before, there isnt just one single "socialism" out there. there are MANY types, all being categorized under authoritarian or anti-authoritarian. You have communism, state capitalism, syndicalism, anarcho-socialism, Trotsjyism, Marxism, Leninism, european socialism...

Which "pure" socialism are you talking about?

Quote:People do not necessarily need a government that's greedy or hateful, I do not believe our democratic republic to be either.

Our republic is not inherently Greedy or hateful, but it doesnt help that hateful and greedy politicians on both sides of the R and D make it so. It doesnt help that they have the worst form of capitalism (crony capitalism) as its economic direction...but hey...its not MY fault. I didnt do it.

Quote:In actuality our government is the people with representatives, yes those in office want to run things their way but in the end the people choose. Good system that most of the world would like to have, I personally want it to be our system even with it's flaws.

I cant say that i care much for this system.

I'm quite curious as to what your socialism entails rev. You talk a good bit about socialism in general and in other parts of the world, but I don't know if I've ever heard you describe the kind which you would want to see. Could you elaborate on the economic conditions, the social liberties, the role of government, the role of the people, etc.?

(January 31, 2012 at 7:08 pm)Perhaps Wrote: I'm quite curious as to what your socialism entails rev. You talk a good bit about socialism in general and in other parts of the world, but I don't know if I've ever heard you describe the kind which you would want to see. Could you elaborate on the economic conditions, the social liberties, the role of government, the role of the people, etc.?

FINALLY! Somebody has asked...

My primary goal is syndicalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism

Quote:Syndicalism is a type of economic system proposed as a replacement for capitalism and an alternative to state socialism, which uses federations of collectivised trade unions or industrial unions. It is a form of socialist economic corporatism that advocates interest aggregation of multiple non-competitive categorised units to negotiate and manage an economy.

Mind you that I am negotiable. I am willing to vote for other types of libertarian left cooperatives, such as the American Green Party. I have some problems with European type socialism, but I find the grand scale of it to be positive and going in the right direction.

Chinese and Soviet type socialism I find to be utterly distasteful....more to come soon

---

Quote:Could you elaborate on the economic conditions,

Well, it would pretty much mean anything goes. It would be as free as a market could be (slavery discounted of course) all types of trade would be accepted. foreign money, trade, barter, labor certificates, all managed by the individuals dealing with each other in the labor exchange, and not by some currency fiat system enforced by the state...in the sense that the word "state" means much less than we perceive it to be now if a syndicate was in place. Political borders would not mean much other than jurisdictional boundaries between trade unions, which may differ from trade to trade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money

there will bo no stocks, no land ownership, no wall street, and no K street.

Quote: the social liberties,

Social liberties are to be maximised as much as possible. Social laws would be very basic; "Dont kill", "Dont steal", etc. the community would police itself, or, in the cases of larger communities, allow the detective trade union to handle the deduction of guilt or innocence. Since profit is no longer involved (as land is in common ownership and it is no longer a profit driven society) the law enforcement would have a much more reduced capacity for coruption. Those who are demed guilty of the law are put into sanitariums for their safety and the safety of the populace. The psychiatric trade will then step in to deduce the mental health of the individuals, ensure overal health, and try to retrain the offender to return to life in society. Drugs will be legalized.

Quote: the role of government,

the government will be replaced by labor councils and local councils. there will be no centralised government.

Quote: the role of the people, etc.?

to live their lives and work in a trade....could you be a bit more specific?

Quote:I do not know about the Sami, will look into them as soon as I get a chance. The argument you keep hearing is true to an extent, a lot of people are greedy and hateful and this alone is enough to do away with a pure socialist country.

rev.j Wrote:"Pure socialist"? What does that mean? As I have mentioned before, there isnt just one single "socialism" out there. there are MANY types, all being categorized under authoritarian or anti-authoritarian. You have communism, state capitalism, syndicalism, anarcho-socialism, Trotsjyism, Marxism, Leninism, european socialism...

Which "pure" socialism are you talking about?

One where no one is valued above another, where money is not part of society, where no government exists, laws are minimal, where many moral laws would not exist, where there is no creative incentives, in general a system that does not reward people for most anything in life, where success in measured in the mundane. A purely boring life.

Quote:People do not necessarily need a government that's greedy or hateful, I do not believe our democratic republic to be either.

rev.j Wrote:Our republic is not inherently Greedy or hateful, but it doesnt help that hateful and greedy politicians on both sides of the R and D make it so. It doesnt help that they have the worst form of capitalism (crony capitalism) as its economic direction...but hey...its not MY fault. I didnt do it.

Agree with you. However it is the fault of all whether they participate or not. Who represents us is who we choose and if we do not like it we should vote them out for not representing our interest. It is the people who have the power in our society we only need to exert that power.

[/quote]

(January 29, 2012 at 8:49 pm)Perhaps Wrote: I thought I provided a 'fix'?

Quote: instead of including demographics on applications for college or employment, only the necessary aspects of acceptance are included such as GPA, community service, etc..

Your tone in discussions is often angry. I don't say things to fight, I say them to promote the discussion.

Then, from you view, show how the affirmative action that ended segregation did not help the black community by showing the whites the right way to end the wholesale discrimination that was going on in that day.

Regards
DL

---

(January 31, 2012 at 2:45 pm)Stue Denim Wrote:

(January 27, 2012 at 4:45 pm)Greatest I am Wrote: Democracy, religion, women and equality. Justice demands affirmative action.

Democracy, Religion and Secularism all talks a great line of freedom and equality for all. Our Western democracies and Religions preach this wonderful line; while at the same time forcing our women to walk behind our men and denying women true equality. True democracy and religions are then a sham. We have no working model, political or religious with true equality. We all contribute to this hypocrisy.

Does not follow.

On Affirmative action. I'm conflicted on it. On one hand any form of discrimination, especially state sanctioned, annoys me. On the other, do the people benefiting from it not encounter negative discrimination? Did their ancestors (which would affect their current situation)?

Does the affirmative action not just counterbalance the discrimination?

Is that not what law's job is?

A thief discriminates against those he will steal from and the law is there to counter ballance after the fact and warn/deter thieves not to steal.

I recognize that A A laws are disgusting and an insult to all who do not need them and shame all who must live under them but without them, the inequality that we presently have could stain our social fabric forever. We must look at them as diversity training for those who need it.

Regards
DL

Quote:One where no one is valued above another, where money is not part of society, where no government exists, laws are minimal,

Okay

Quote:where many moral laws would not exist,

What do you mean by "moral" laws? Do you mean religious beliefs in being moral? I must point out who I am talking to. Someone who considers worshipping Jesus as part of a morality system. You have to be much more descriptive on this term.

Quote: where there is no creative incentives,

I have no idea what you are talking about. Creativity exists regardless of capitalism or not. Unless you mean to tell me that you never do anything unless there is profit involved in it.

Quote: in general a system that does not reward people for most anything in life,

Isnt a shared survival enough? Must we place ourselves on the backs of others? Is the reward to be superior to your fellow beings? So if I have a million more than you then I should be given preference for survival compared to you and your children? If you honestly feel this way, then clearly you accept that the likes of Richard Dawkins is much more better than you, and you deserve to give him respect. Surely you dont believe this. You are merely picking and chosing, and there is nothing universal about this system. What if I am good at being a thief? then surely I should enjoy the rewards? If I am good at finding ways to deny insurance services to people, then surely you think I deserve to enjoy the benefits of the money I helped keep.

Quote:where success in measured in the mundane. A purely boring life.

So MONEY=success? And without success, then you have a boring life? I disagree 100% and consider your view of society and life to be dismal.

GC Wrote:where many moral laws would not exist,

rev.j Wrote:What do you mean by "moral" laws? Do you mean religious beliefs in being moral? I must point out who I am talking to. Someone who considers worshipping Jesus as part of a morality system. You have to be much more descriptive on this term.

OK, IMO religion can not exist in a true socialist society, people would be at odds with each other, if for no other reason than a moral code of law.

GC Wrote:where there is no creative incentives,

rev.j Wrote:I have no idea what you are talking about. Creativity exists regardless of capitalism or not. Unless you mean to tell me that you never do anything unless there is profit involved in it

No, that's not what I mean, I do things and never look to profit from them, creative or not. Some however earn a living on being creative and that earning is subjective to those who are willing to or not willing to pay for said creative work i.e. a painting. So if one has to deal with the subjective does this not go against a socialistic society where ideas are discouraged.

GC Wrote:in general a system that does not reward people for most anything in life,

rev.j Wrote:Isn't a shared survival enough? Must we place ourselves on the backs of others? Is the reward to be superior to your fellow beings? So if I have a million more than you then I should be given preference for survival compared to you and your children? If you honestly feel this way, then clearly you accept that the likes of Richard Dawkins is much more better than you, and you deserve to give him respect. Surely you dont believe this. You are merely picking and chosing, and there is nothing universal about this system. What if I am good at being a thief? then surely I should enjoy the rewards? If I am good at finding ways to deny insurance services to people, then surely you think I deserve to enjoy the benefits of the money I helped keep.

No,no and no, shared survival, like I said mundane. Answering your next three questions, I believe in an equal opportunity for all and for those who do not take advantage only have themselves to blame, all societies will have to carry some, the mentally ill, physically disable, criminals and ect. I believe all are created equal and no one should be revered above another, but all should be respected unless they do something that deems otherwise. Being a thief or denying people insurance they deserve (which by the way would not exist in a social system) would be a crime and not rewarded. Though it seems to be that way in this country at times, I mean rewarded.

GC Wrote:where success in measured in the mundane. A purely boring life.

rev.j Wrote:So MONEY=success? And without success, then you have a boring life? I disagree 100% and consider your view of society and life to be dismal.

Money does not always necessitate success, and yes life without achievements would be a bit boring.

[/quote]

Quote:OK, IMO religion can not exist in a true socialist society, people would be at odds with each other, if for no other reason than a moral code of law.

..and of course you can hold that opinion. Others that have come before you have considered otherwise. Christian socialism, Christian anarchy, even the followers of Jesus created a system very similar to communism in the book of acts. I am of the opinion that a socialist type society can have a diverse population of different religious types. What must be emphasised in these situations is that those citizens must keep it to them selves. In other words, you cant have a "pure" socialism (as you called it) where people are allowed to make laws based on their personal religions. The Christians would quickly legislate Jesus as God and the Muslims would be up in arms over it. So, IMO, a "pure" socialism would have to have a very strong secular lean in order to survive and in order to make equity more apparent and atainable.

One of my other personal opinions that one of the many screw ups of the soviet union was it insistance in pushing atheism to its citizens. I am pretty hard core about my atheism, but in no way would I want my government or ANY government to tell me how I should be an atheist, or that my liberal christian mother should be an atheist, or that YOU should be an atheist. The soviets should have stuck to strict secularism. By choosing a side on a metaphysical debate, they made themselves less socialist and antagonistic to vast amounts of people on the opposite side of the metaphysical divide. Secularism isnt easy, but if utilized with caution will not alienate the people whom you wish to bring together in solidarity.

Quote:No, that's not what I mean, I do things and never look to profit from them, creative or not. Some however earn a living on being creative and that earning is subjective to those who are willing to or not willing to pay for said creative work i.e. a painting. So if one has to deal with the subjective does this not go against a socialistic society where ideas are discouraged.

These are traits dealing with the authoritarian left. This is where you concpet of "pure socialism" no longer holds well. I will also argue that there is no "pure capitalism" either, but that is probably for another topic. When you have an authoritarian collective, which is what the soviets turned out to become, the state becomes to controller of all things. This means the collectivisation of goods and resources under a single centralised power. Immediately you start to have problems with it as what is good for city populations is not necesarily good for agrarian. I just finished reading up on car manufacturing in Russia, and the storms of complaints that came from them: Too expensive, took forever to get one, didnt work well, etc... This is because a centralisation of everything into the executive control of the few negates any meaningful trial and error. The system is no longer bottom up (bottom being the workers, top being the rich powerful), but is now top down. The exact thing that Marx railed against. A huge centralised state is a terror to many people. this means that many legitimate complaints and suggetions that could have fixed the problem with these automobiles would never be heard for fear of angering or embarassing those who are higher up the pyramid than you are.

In an anti-authoritarian structure, centralisation of power and goods is removed. Everything is locally owned and controlled by those who live in its jurisdiction. There would no longer be a pyramid of authority (workers on bottom, leaders on top) because the workers WOULD be the leaders. This is what "syndicate" means. It is not perfect, and much arguing would take place. the system would be slow but the product produced would be a higher quality. Trial and error would be inherent in the system and doing what it should, as opposed to fear of the state comming down upon you. Those jurisdictions that make the best cars would naturally draw the resources towards it to continue their excellent trade. Jurisdictions of high populations would have their own specialties where agrarian jurisdictions would not be encumbered with having to follow the same centralised system of the city dwellers. Thus desentralised collectivisation becomes syndicated cooperation in solidarity and respect of the other trades.

Quote:I believe in an equal opportunity for all and for those who do not take advantage only have themselves to blame, all societies will have to carry some, the mentally ill, physically disable, criminals and ect. I believe all are created equal and no one should be revered above another, but all should be respected unless they do something that deems otherwise. Being a thief or denying people insurance they deserve (which by the way would not exist in a social system) would be a crime and not rewarded. Though it seems to be that way in this country at times, I mean rewarded.

Everything you just said is exactly what a syndicalist would say. Granted, syndicalism is not the only system that would agree with these concepts as well...but it was still worthy of mention.

Quote:Money does not always necessitate success, and yes life without achievements would be a bit boring.

Well, its hard to base an economical discussion on something as diverse as an opinion as "boring". I have no problem sitting around all day reading books. I find it to be a great acheivement, fulfilling, and enjoyable. Others have told me I am stupid for reading science books, biographies and history books. Get that, LOL, I am STUPID for educating myself in the machanics and facts of this world to them. Oh well, I deffinitely do not agree with them but it is their opinion.

Catch me on a good day and I would be willing to sit down and read the bible with you GC. We may not agree on opinions, but one thing you will notice is that I do take the book seriously on a personal level. As far as taking it serious on a historic or factual level...well...LOL...dont hold your breath on that one.

@ rev.j I would enjoy reading the Bible with you some day, of coarse we would need a brisk discussion after.