<p>" i literally punkd u guys. i ■■■■■■■ =u guys down. what a useless argument. all i had to do was mention socialism and i got 8 pages in response in less than a day. good job, nxt time dont waste ur nights on collegeconfidential arguing about stupid economic theories. who cares anyway? "</p>
<p>One of the dumbest attempts i’ve seen in a long time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or…you could have people share. That works too. </p>
<p>And most communists argue that, given certain conditions which they propose maintaining in various ways, people will want to work toward the common good.</p>
<p>
Silly argument, no incentives can ever trump greed :)</p>
<p>^ Greed is very much a byproduct of Western, capitalistic culture.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First of all, just to nitpick:
I’m sure you didn’t mean greed to be the incentive. Did you mean money, or property, or something?
Well, biologically, sex is arguably the ultimate incentive. Some radicals (not necessarily communists - some were religious radicals) have supported societies with complex marriage, in which everyone in the community was “married” in some sense to everyone else. Naturally, this system would have to be tied to some kind of economic system that would support it.</p>
<p>But like romani said, greed is not universal. Look at the San in southern Africa. Not to perpetuate the myth of the noble savage, but many societies like that are fairly peaceful and lack much of the greed we find here in the Western world, for better or for worse.</p>
<p>Forcing people to share their wealth so that everyone has equal economic opportunities too is hard to apply in reality. If you’re born smarter than the average person, does that mean you should work harder and do something that’s very challenging and yet you obtain the same salary as everyone else? To be honest, it makes some degree of sense because you should be willing to contribute everything you do to the good of society and it’s just “lucky” (or rather “unlucky”) that you have to try harder than everyone else. However, a person would only be willing to do this if, like you said, all people are virtuous in that they all want the same goal, which is a condition that can never be met as well.</p>
<p>I’m against socialism. In the future I expect to be rewarded for all of my dedication and effort in high school, college, and in the work place with high paychecks. I do not want that money to go to people who did not work as hard. That said, I wouldn’t mind donating money I make to organizations for unfortunate families, kids, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You think America is a meritocracy? I think we already discussed the part about working hard, too.
The idea is that in an ideal socialism, everyone should be better off. “To each according to his need, from each according to his abilities.” And there would also be a stronger spirit of community.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Haha, smart people don’t always work as hard. Look at doctors. They have a few years of hell and then they’re mostly off for the rest of their lives. Plus, doing what you love shouldn’t be work anyway.</p>
<p>Plus, the concept of “salaries” wouldn’t exist in many versions of a purely socialist government. One would get whatever one needs.</p>
<p>Rational people will never favor collective self-interest over their own self-interest. End of story. </p>
<p>It’s the same thing that would be wrong with evolution if every single animal were allowed to reproduce. Bad systems need to fail, bad companies need to fail, bad individuals need to fail.</p>
<p>Google “tragedy of the commons.”</p>
<p>Well, the whole issue with Marxist ideology opposed to Capitalism is the culture instill in the people who are practicing it. In a capitalist nation, the people are encouraged to be selfish. We are working for our own common good for our OWN pursuit of happiness, not for the happiness of our community. For America to become a socialist state, that very culture must be undone, and people must see the community before themselves. </p>
<p>I’d hate to evoke religion, and in no way am I trying to convert anyone, but the Bible is a prime example of the sort of culture that should be instilled in people to obtain a somewhat-socialist state. For example, on the seventh year that a slave is working for a master, the master must release the slave in addition to giving him a number of supplies to allow that slave to build his own farm. In addition to just GIVING, the master must GIVE and be HAPPY that he IS GIVING (excuse if there are bits of specifics that I am missing, I’m no word-for-word expert). A capitalist nation would more advocate you giving a third (if that much) of what is needed, and doing that unwillingly, as if swallowing a spoonful of Buckley’s… which is terrible.</p>
<p>And just to like, address this–
"If something works in theory, but not in practice there is a major problem with your theory. " </p>
<p>Someone said that a few pages ago, and I have to respectfully disagree. Theory usually works, and practice fails, especially in politics, due to human variable change. As I stated before culture, and other factors such as greed. For example, the American supported governments of Nationalist China and South Vietnam in the Cold War, which were basically taking money for themselves, thus giving way to the communist rebellions in those nations. </p>
<p>Just my two cents. :D</p>
<p>^Imagine how much better America would be if everyone had to release their slaves after 7 years.</p>
<p>I also happen to be the person you are quoting.
If a theory is dealing solely with humans (like socialism), and it fails because human behavior does not allow for it to work, then I feel there is something wrong with it.</p>
<p>I also have no idea what you were talking about in your example of US, China and Vietnam.</p>
<p>^^^^ People are not rational. Economics posits that rational decision-makers do not take sunk costs into consideration when making a choice, but in daily life, we all do.</p>
<p>Bad individuals need to fail?.. So people should be left to suffer just because they weren’t born under as lucky of a star as others? A gang member might be called bad, but he was forced to be a gang member due to poor familial circumstances, over which he had no control while he was growing up as a child.</p>
<p>And what if an individual is in a bad position through no fault of his own?</p>
<p>Can individuals be defined as bad if they aren’t sly enough to rip other people off? Can they be defined as bad for feeling sympathy for others and wanting to help them? In other words, can they be defined as bad, and in dire necessity of failure, for being nice?</p>
<p>^Actually, the irrationality of people is a major part of the theories of some radical libertarians. People like Hayek were very interested in that king of stuff.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I totally see where you’re coming from, but I think it’s hard to press the case that a gang member was forced to become a gang member.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, you’re saying that millions of brilliant people were “irrational”? I advise you think about it more before so readily dismissing it. But in any case, socialists contend that socialism would raise quality of life for nearly everyone, just as many radical libertarians contend that libertarianism will ultimately help the poor.'</p>
<p>And your argument about business failure doesn’t apply to socialism. You’re thinking of socialism like France, which really isn’t very socialist. In socialism, the government doesn’t keep alive inefficient businesses, because the businesses are collections of people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which I think is a good argument, and I agree with you. I don’t think America should become socialist. I don’t think it’d work for us. (I’m not really a socialist, I’m just saying you guys shouldn’t dismiss it so readily.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which is ironic considering how much Marx hated religion. To him, it was an instrument to maintain the status quo. In a lot of European countries, though, there are Christian socialist parties.</p>
<p>Not to say that someone put a gun to his head and explicitly demanded that he become a gang member, but if one does not have a strong family unit or tight circle of friends, he would be more inclined to joining a gang, where he would find some sort of camaraderie and support. Thus, being born into such a family in an area with a high rate of gang membership would increase your chances of joining a gang when you are older, through no fault of your own.</p>
<p>I dislike socialism both in theory and practice.</p>
<p>If a theory is dealing solely with humans (like socialism), and it fails because human behavior does not allow for it to work, then I feel there is something wrong with it.
<p>Imagine how much better America would be if everyone had to release their slaves after 7 years.
<p>I also have no idea what you were talking about in your example of US, China and Vietnam.
<p>proletariat2, after reading your post, I fear that our disagreement may be more linguistic than substantive. Why don’t you define exactly what you mean by socialism (or Marxism, if that’s the case)? </p>
<p>Firstly, when I said “rational people” I meant economically rational people. Economically rational people only choose a course of action if the benefit outweighs the cost – i.e. no economically rational person would endure 13 years of hell to get a Med degree if he could make the same salary by becoming a janitor (or some other occupation that required as little work on his part as possible). While it’s a nice notion on the surface, any society which rewards brilliance and mediocrity, hard work and laziness, with the exact same payoffs will collapse. This is why socialism (as I understand the term) simply doesn’t work. </p>
<p>Secondly, when I said “individuals need to fail” I certainly didn’t mean that children should be left to starve in the streets. I meant it in a Darwinian sense. If each creature that ever lived were given an equal chance to reproduce regardless of genetic deficiencies, what sort of world would we live in? My bet is, not a very good one. The analogy also holds true for businesses and even ideas.</p>
<p>^
I certainly didn’t mean that children should be left to starve in the streets. I meant it in a Darwinian sense.
<p>As for the economical rational people… they sound terrible. Even if one were to receive the same pay as a doctor being a janitor, I do personally think the majority of people (or I hope…) would enjoy a more rewarding job, and feel safe that they would be alright if it comes down to it and they need to be a janitor. I don’t think they would be receiving the same pay as a doctor, and simply would be allowed to survive under the government given that if they cannot put food on their own table, the government would do it for them. Then again, I haven’t studied it yet.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I guess it depends on context. What I’ve been using here is a more radical definition: An economic system in which all property is communally owned (and may refer to a government used to keep that economic system in place). I’m not talking about France, nor am I talking about any typical democratic socialism. A lot of time, I refer to “some socialists,” which may include figures such as Marx, Gandhi, Fourier, Goldman, or Debs, who all have pretty different views. So yeah, it’s complicated.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right, but in socialism, the idea of failure is different. I can’t really explain unless you can explain how exactly someone can be caused to fail in a Darwinian sense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s a huge debate in economics as to whether people are actually economically rational, and most people say no. Even hugely free-market figures. As I mentioned earlier, some free-market theories use economic irrationality as the basis of their operation.</p>