Socialism (Moved from Grapes of Wrath)

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Most anarchists associate their opinions with socialism and consider capitalism to be diametrically opposed to anarchism.

You are right, I agree. My whole point in this thread was that socialism is different from being social.
xris was always defending them as one.
I would say anarchism is opposed to socialism. Capitalism is closer to anarchism, socialism is at the other end at the spectrum.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by EmperorNero

You are right, I agree. My whole point in this thread was that socialism is different from being social.
xris was always defending them as one.
I would say anarchism is opposed to socialism. Capitalism is closer to anarchism, socialism is at the other end at the spectrum.

I don't agree, but it depends on many things.

Why do you believe that last sentence?

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

I don't agree, but it depends on many things.

Why do you believe that last sentence?

Here is how I have come to see it lately. Please correct me. (I can't figure out how to make the picture bigger, you might have to save it.)
http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum...1&d=1240496676

I see a spectrum of how ownership is distributed between state, individual and common ownership. Note that all transitions are flowing and a matter of degree, and not stark.
On the left there is state ownership (yellow), on the right private ownership (blue), and even further right we have common ownership (red).
If we start all the way left, there is complete state ownership. Which I would define as the communism we have seen in history.
As we move towards right, more ownership is by individuals, until we come to a point where all ownership is private. I would call that point capitalism.
Now we move even further to the right, we again have less private ownership and instead more and more common ownership. I would call that anarchism or "true" communism.

I think what we usually discuss in western politics is in which direction we should move. I am advocating moving towards the right. We are moving towards the left.
The optimum to me is a point with maximum private ownership, yet somewhat state ownership. On that picture somewhat to the right of where I put the united states.
The question is, as always, finding the right middle ground. The extreme on the left is untenable (how did it work out for soviet russia), and the extreme to the right is a utopian fantasy, that can ever happen.

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

I agree that the tax system should attempt to be as fair as possible. But what makes a flat tax or the so-called Fair Tax any more fair than a progressive tax?

The social contract is a interaction between the state and every individual. Rights and obligations are not given groups.
What does someone elses income matter, when calculating your tax rate?

[xris]

I appreciate many here are more educated and better at forming their response but i still claim the high ground on this subject morally.We have a situation developing now where pure capitalism has had a devastating effect on all our lives.
Due to Americas history African Americans have not fully developed a middle class structure of riches to riches.Like my working class background, aspirations of life are not always improved by your parents and it is only the reasonably rare individual that breaks the chain of working class expectations.
With this economic climate the first to suffer in large numbers are those who have not built this structure and we see certain sections receiving charitable hand outs.Charity is fine but in my opinion a hindrance to social improvements.I have no problem with those receiving unemployment benefit doing social duties as long as it does not develop into cheap labour.As a socialist it means we all have responsibilities, not just the rich giving more in taxes.My socialism is, we all need to be aware of our neighbours need but no one gets a free meal ticket.

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by xris

Charity is fine but in my opinion a hindrance to social improvements.

I largely agree with your last post. And I think that this sentence is a really important.
You do have the moral high ground if you are the one advocating to help others, but the 'giving' part does always require a 'taking' part, and some say that the ends don't always justify the means. Few can deny that giving is a good thing or that there is a need for it. But you got to remember that this requires telling someone: We know what you should earn, better than you, and we take the rest. Until some point it creates order and equality of opportunity, but what I see happening is just giving stuff to people for votes, and often it doesn't even help anyone. We should limit that.

And all morality aside, I just think what works best is... well... you gotta be tough to be kind. Just giving stuff to people, like affirmative action does, makes them soft and keeps them down. I think giving blacks an excuse for lacking achievement has way worse effects than racism.

Again back on the taxes topic. Take a look at this: The taxes, the Rich, the Poor and fairness | Arohan's investing life

[xris]

Originally Posted by EmperorNero

I largely agree with your last post. And I think that this sentence is a really important.
You do have the moral high ground if you are the one advocating to help others, but the 'giving' part does always require a 'taking' part, and some say that the ends don't always justify the means. Few can deny that giving is a good thing or that there is a need for it. But you got to remember that this requires telling someone: We know what you should earn, better than you, and we take the rest. Until some point it creates order and equality of opportunity, but what I see happening is just giving stuff to people for votes, and often it doesn't even help anyone. We should limit that.

And all morality aside, I just think what works best is... well... you gotta be tough to be kind. Just giving stuff to people, like affirmative action does, makes them soft and keeps them down. I think giving blacks an excuse for lacking achievement has way worse effects than racism.

Again back on the taxes topic. Take a look at this: The taxes, the Rich, the Poor and fairness | Arohan's investing life

Does it require a reply? How you decide to tax certain citizens is not my concern as long as the outcome benefits the taxation.
I dont like certain tax, it hisses me off and i hate the waste and the way my so called socialist government runs this country.
My core beliefs are that we protect the vulnerable and the very poorest.not scroungers, of our society.
We institute a national health system paid for by everyone by a common standard payment method,free at the point of use.
Certain parts of societies needs stay in government possession but not necessarily run by them.

[BrightNoon]

The ideal of socialism differs greatly from the practice. No, I don't mean that in the sense that all ideals fall short in an imperfect world. I mean that, while you may be fed visions of a 'worker's paradise,' that is not what the most influential supporters of socialism have in mind. The greatest friends of socialism and communism have always been the financiers, bankers, and international corporations. Why? J.P Morgan once said, "competition is a sin." The free market is good for everyone and all businesses on average, but a monopoly via central planning is best for whichever companies control the monopoly. For example, the Russian revolution from funded by western banks at the same time that the governments of western europe and U.S. were publicly denouncing Bolsheviks. Without subsequent decades of lending to the Soviet Union, it would have collapsed much sooner. Are you familiar with the various 19th century societies in which workers lived in a planned town built, owned and operated by their employers? The workers would earn wages just like any others, but they spent their money in the company store, or on company housing, or at the company theatre, or the company hospital. In effect, this is a feudal system, under which workers do not really sell their labour, but work the lord's land or factory in exhange for the neccessities of life. This is what the people behind the socialist movement, who funded and financed it apparently against their own interests, had in mind. To understand the socialism/capitalism dichotomy you really have to take a long historical view. Before the rise of free market capitlism, there was a more or less feudal system, a system of authoritarian control in one manner or the other, far back into time. In the 18th century, via the free market, the common man for the first time was free and truly controlled his own destiny. Free-market capitalism developed in tanden, naturally, with democracy in various forms. These changes were anathema to the ruling class, which, like any ruling class at any point in history, wants primarily to maintain its power. However, they could do nothing about it directly; the power of the free market and democracy is too great to be reversed by the order of some king or noble. Collectivism, in whatever form, is the solution; it is a means by which the rights of individuals can be abolished in the name of serving the common good. Of course, the rulers determine what best serves the common good. Socialism is not progress toward some ideal, but regression toward feudalism, directed by the ruling class. Think about it.

[EmperorNero]

A very informative post.

But I see benefit in a little degree of the state helping the downtrodden.

Also, socialism is the method, stealthy Marxists use to disorder the functioning of capitalism,
seeking to abolish it, to implement their fictitious utopia.

[BrightNoon]

I'm not neccessarily opposed to some moderate form of state assistance for the poor, the handicapped, etc. However, in the U.S., that can only be done by the states or local governments, not the federal government. The federal government has no such authority. That is one of the advantages of a federation. If some state, let's say California, implements very expensive welfare programs and has to raise taxes, cut other services, go into debt, etc, the people can vote with their feet and those policies will either be changed or the whole state will be marginalized. Competition is a beautiful thing.