Discussion

[Valodya Bassarov]

This is a new area strictly for political debate.

[Helene]

I've heard a lot about socialism lately. Personally, I dont think it could possiblily work because of human greed. One of the many flaws of being carbon based is that we cant stand someone having all that we have and we desire more. More money, more clothes, more hair, more of everything. We cannot simply accept that everyone is equal, no, because our #1 desire is to be big.

What do you all think.

[Jareth]

I don't know a lot about socialism all i know is that i agree with a lot of their ideals and their positions.

I believe that we all are a product of our environments and that if we had been brought up in a different way perhaps we would not be the greedy bastards we are today.

[Cassinda "The Dove"]

I dont know about all that. I am not a greedy bastard. Give me a library with books I like and Ill be content.

Anyone else have an opinion?

[Valodya Bassarov]

There is no such thing as human nature, so human nature arguements can not be used.

Psychologist and scientists have never been able to pin down perfectly a grand infalable sceme of human behavior.

Throughout time and across cultures humans have proven themselves able to react in diverse ways to their society and environment.

Humans are not greedy or war like, and defining us in this matter serves only to support capitalism

True, humans have had a history of war, and in some industrialized societies today people certainly have greedy and materialistic inklings, but humans also throughout history have been peaceful and selfless in many more instances


War although present at least some place at any given time, is still an anomaly, as most people live peacefully most of the time.

Anyway, I don't believe in human nature.

[Satsujin]

I may be incorrect in thinking this, but don't Socialists believe in no god much as anarchists don't? If that were true, I believe that there is no way it would ever work. Humans need something to tie them down. You may argue in opposition to this, stating your own life living without any religion, but a huge percentage of the world is religious. If you cant disprove their beliefs, which is impossible due to their nature, then I cannot see how religion could be taken out of the picture completely.

[Void]

There is no such thing as human nature, so human nature arguements can not be used.

I must disagree because there are traits that it is fairly safe to say are inherently human nature. This goes back to the nature vs. nurture argument, how much of our personalities are defined by nature and how much is defined by nurture. That statement is a strictly nuture viewpoint, but research is showing that it is a combination of both nature and nurture that defines our personality.

Also, certain traits are fairly common in humans. For example, we as a species are very much concerned with ourselves. When we hear something, we try to connect it back to ourself, when we learn something, we learn it much better if we can apply it to ourselves.

Another issue to look at is the issue of self-esteem. You can go on about how everyone is equal and you can treat everyone equally, but in the long run it does more harm than good. To simply be TOLD that you are great while being protected from failure is empty self-esteem. When you do fall (and trust me, no matter how "perfect" society becomes you WILL fall, it is the fact of life within imperfect beings such as ourselves) you will be hit even harder. It is important for us, as children, to learn how to recover from our failures and come back stronger than before. What truly builds our self-esteem is accomplishment, and it is nigh impossible to build a sense of accomplishment when there is nothing to accomplish.

I am very much a capitalist, and I feel that while it is not a perfect system, it is the best that we can hope for. The concept of currency evolves very quickly amongst growing societies, once a society is able to develop the exchange of money or goods for other goods or services is commonplace and natural. We as a people are wired to ask "what's in it for me?". I believe it is something of a survival mechanism, altruism is all well and good but we as a race simply cannot live in a state of utter altruism, it just doesn't work and it doesn't fit within the inherent nature of humanity (and yes, I am using this as support because of the psychological studies that support such a statement).

I have my problems with America, but I do believe that it is, at the moment, the best country that a person can live in. A free, democratic and capitalistic society is preferable, and as corrupt as the system is, it is as close to this as we have ever acheived.

[Valodya Bassarov]

Many socialists are atheists, but not all, there are christian socialist movements.

The local leader of my party started off as a christian socialist

I don't think there is anything in religion that goes against socialism, since religions tend to teach stewardship of the environment, loving one another, a value of life, living in peace, and selflessness.

If anything, the values of world religions are OPPOSED to the values of capitalism.

Religion does not have to be outlawed in a socialist society.
Marx said that religion was the opiate of the masses, because the promise of heaven keeps people complacent here on Earth. We accept injustices since oh...in heaven things will be okay.

I don't believe in an afterlife so personally I have a greater urgency to better this world, and also a greater hope that it can be bettered.

If socialism is ever achieved, it is thought that religion will gradually melt away, since as life becomes more equitable and peaceful, people will no longer need to have these superstitions and place their hopes in God and Heaven.


But if people still want religion, as I stated before, it compliments socialism.

[Valodya Bassarov]

To argue from the other side then.

Let's say that humans are selfish and that is a part of our nature.

I can think of nothing more selfish than liberating ourselves and taking back the profits stolen from us by our capitalist oppressors.

Profit comes from the surpluss value of labor.

Socialism is a system where rather than giving our labor and the profits from it to capitalists, the workers control it and how it is used.

Socialism is the act of taking back profit and putting it back in the hands of the workers it was stolen from.

There is nothing selfless about that. It is very self interested.

[Void]

Everything humanity does is selfish at some level, even if it is doing a good act just so one gains the pleasure of having done such an act.

Socialism just doesn't appeal to me, I do not feel it is the proper form of government and I do not think that it would work. You talk about taking back what the rich have, well that's all well and good but such a thing is bound to happen again. It is impossible to keep everyone equal, different talents and abilities and interests will eventually cause another societal rift. Class-less society isn't really viable, it just doesn't work beyond the initial establishment thereof.

[Mikhael Nadyezhda (Mischa)]

To address Void's point... Are you talking about that article in Time magazine, by the way?

The human nature argument is not a new one, in that I think the nature vs. nurture arguments sorely downplay the nurture side, and up-play the nature side. Truth be told, it's really not that hard to disprove a lot of the nature arguments by looking at other cultures that weren't raised in a society like ours.

First of all, Native American culture. Marx argues that through more than 90% of human existance, we've lived in a state of primitive communism, the hunter/gatherer kind of societies. Where people had to share, otherwise they would die. That, alone, says to me that the normal human nature argument that humans are naturally greedy is just blatantly false.

Perhaps a better way to explain that human nature doesn't exist is to look at what the normal qualities of human nature are, and see exactly where they come from. For example, greed. Well, look at a lot of primitive societies, and everyone lives a lot more communally than they do today, capitalism needs people to be greedy in order for it to survive. Mass media is so incredibly dominant in our lives, that we don't even question its existance. We see an ad, and it's the same as seeing a tree, or something. These ads have so saturated our environment, that they target us on a subconscious level, where we're most vulnerable.

And before this gets any longer, I'm going to post this and write another response...

[Void]

No, I am not. I am refering to many studies and such that we have gone over in my psychology class, actually.

The communist society DOES work in some cases, there is evidence of this. However, given our modern world and large numbers, it is far less likely to work out. Remember that in primitive times the populations were extremely small.

The development of technology starts with the discovery of farming. From farming comes the ability to stay in one place, allowing more time for crafts and education, and from there, government and society.

Depending on the size of the culture that has begun developing, communism may very well be the best choice. In the Native American tribes, for example, they are small and thus able to live in such a community. The same goes for the African tribes. Size is a major factor, as well as development. If there is no need to stop the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, then such a society is viable.

Look at where we stand today. Technology has allowed for a myriad of lifestyles and interests. What is heaven for one is quite literally hell for another. To use this very example, you might consider communism a sort of heaven, whereas for me it would be hellish, to say the least.

It may change someday (though I do not predict such a thing) but right now, communism is not considered by many to be an ideal government. It just doesn't seem to work, the variables and inconsistencies in the human personality are so myriad that one should not expect them all to go along with one whole. I far prefer the freedom to live as I will, even if I have to shell out $20 every time I want to refuel the car.

[Cassinda "The Dove"]

Humans are selfish. Capitalist (but that is a greater deal of it) or not. Not many of us could say we would throw ourselves in front of a stranger to take a bullet. 5/10 I probably wouldnt.

Anyways...

I have a very limited undestanding seeing as I never knew a Socialist existed before I joined this RP. And even now, its still a little gray. I guess, in order to establish truthfully is Socialism would acctually work, we have to have a clear understanding of what it is and what it would do.

So, for anyone how can answer, what exactly is soicalism?

[Mikhael Nadyezhda (Mischa)]

#2.
People really have this bleak, Orwellian view of socialist society. Let's use the argument that humans are selfish by nature, which I disagree with, but let's just say you're right. Even the most selfless of acts would be seen as a way of bettering one's self, right? So, what's more selfish than taking back what's yours, wanting a 4 hour work day, tripling your income, not having to pay for your house/school/health care? The very "nature" of society would change so drastically in a socialist world. People would own their own factories, there would be no bosses as we know them now, the very things you would produce in a factory would used in your own community! You could work in a shoe factory, look at a pair of shoes in your local store, and say "holy crap, I MADE these! My own two hands, making union wages, and not some 5 year old child working for $.50 an hour!"

When things are created on the basis of need, and not profit, society drastically changes, and so does human nature. You wouldn't HAVE to be greedy when you get free social services, or when you see that everything is being provided for. You could spend the extra time doing other things in life, like learning to play an instrument.

[Mikhael Nadyezhda (Mischa)]

#3.
As for the population/technology argument...

The better technology today is actually beneficial to socialist end goals, and as for population, well it's true easy to say that this won't work on a large scale, but on the contrary! (I get excited about this, if you can't tell) The reason technology sometimes sucks is because it's being aimed against us, for the sole purpose of creating a better edge over another capitalist manufacturer. If a company A comes in with this new technology that allows them to undersell company B, of course company A will want to lay off their workers. But if company A and company B aren't working for profit, and are instead, working on behalf of the needs of the people, in cooperation with each other, rather than in competition with each other, that technology could be used to shorten the work day. 30, 20, 10 hours work for 40 hours pay. And hell, if they're still making the same amount of money by using this technology (as it would only make sense), then they could afford this. Whereas under capitalism, that extra edge over their competitor will go into their own pockets.