My Two Cents on Socialism

on Sep 26, 2004

It seems true that "real" socialism has not been tried but by that criteria - neither has "real" communism or "real" capitalism.

From what I can see, these economic paradigms HAVE all been tried - but not in their purest forms. Now that the playing field is level, it is easy to see which one consistently produces the best quality of life, technological innovation (which is what allows 1 man to produce for 10,000 in the 1st place), and long term success, not to mention fundamental fairness.

17

Bunnahabhain

on Sep 26, 2004

Since socialism doesn't work well except in small doses as America has it, why even bother supporting some make-believe utopia that'll never be? It might be nicer, but niceness doesn't do as much for the world as practicality.

But Messy, the socialists that you are discussing with are only trying to discount the failures of implementing socialism, not socialism itself. What they mean to say is that socialism is so self-evidentially right that you cannot dismiss socialism, you just have to excuse those who have failed to implement it correctly!

Grim Xiozan:

Only thing worth recycling that is actually cheaper to recycle than make new ones is aluminum cans.

I don't want to hijack this thread, but this statement is woefully wrong. It is cost effective to recycle many items (eg. cars, newspapers).

Back to Messy:

Not only that, but each time I recycle, I take away another opportunity from a homeless person to make some money.

I don't know where you live, but there is no opportunity (market) for scavengers in my town. Besides, if you extend this logic then every time that you do something for yoursefl (wash your car, shovel your walk, cut your grass), then you are taking away from a homeless person. That's not quite accurate.

18

Grim Xiozan

on Sep 26, 2004

I don't want to hijack this thread, but this statement is woefully wrong. It is cost effective to recycle many items (eg. cars, newspapers).

Paper is not cost effective to recycle, maybe cars, but paper produces more pollution, and does not save trees, since Paper Companies in the US plant Paper trees and in fact if the Paper Companies did not exist there would be LESS trees in the US now. Seriously watch Penn and Teller's BS Show, it is some good stuff.

Hell, they thought like I had thought that recycling some stuff is worth it, but when you check into the facts and such you find out how wrong that is. Only a couple of key items which aluminum cans and cars(?) are cost effective to recycle, seriously check into it.

- GX
"I have no answers to your questions, but I can question your demands." - Motto Inspired by Laibach's WAT

19

spirit of the sixties

on Sep 26, 2004

If more people had Socialist values, the world would be a MUCH nicer place to live in. You don't need a Socialist Government to make socialism work.....You yourself can make it work in your macro world. What is wrong with a society based on equallity of opportunity and social welfare?..Have a nice day y'all.

20

messybuu

on Sep 26, 2004

If more people had Socialist values, the world would be a MUCH nicer place to live in. You don't need a Socialist Government to make socialism work.....You yourself can make it work in your macro world. What is wrong with a society based on equallity of opportunity and social welfare?..Have a nice day y'all.

I honestly don't see how those with socialist values improve the world any better than those without them.

21

drmiler

on Sep 26, 2004

Reply #18 By: Bunnahabhain - 9/26/2004 3:28:25 AM
I don't know where you live, but there is no opportunity (market) for scavengers in my town. Besides, if you extend this logic then every time that you do something for yoursefl (wash your car, shovel your walk, cut your grass), then you are taking away from a homeless person. That's not quite accurate.

So I take it there are NO recycling centers where you live? If so then there IS a market! Because that's where you turn it in! If not *where* do you send your recyclables?

22

Bunnahabhain

on Sep 26, 2004

Paper is not cost effective to recycle, maybe cars, but paper produces more pollution, and does not save trees, since Paper Companies in the US plant Paper trees and in fact if the Paper Companies did not exist there would be LESS trees in the US now.

I don't have the numbers on pollution or trees planted, but I do believe that the paper industry has come a long way in the last 20 years. While I am opposed to purposely destroying our planet, I don't support recycling for some feel-good, group hug, socialist inspired reason. It needs to make financial sense as well.

What I do know is that we have a recycling program in our town, and that the city makes money from some products and loses it on others. Prices fluctuate based on market conditions. Right now, aluminum cans pay well, and paper doesn't lose money. Recently a friend sold a Hyundai Pony (useless for parts, scrap value only) to a company for $50, and they towed it away. If it was not cheaper to recycle, then there would be no money in it.

Seriously watch Penn and Teller's BS Show, it is some good stuff.

Don't get that show here, and a Google search led me to http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/home.do. The page says, "We at Showtime Online express our apologies; however, these pages are intended for access only from within the United States.".

23

Bunnahabhain

on Sep 26, 2004

So I take it there are NO recycling centers where you live? If so then there IS a market! Because that's where you turn it in! If not *where* do you send your recyclables?

We have a recycling program run by the city. Collection cycle varies a bit based upon where you live, but there is a blue box for bottles, cans, and certain plastics. There is a gray box for paper products. Trash is separate. A pilot project exists for compostable materials,. but I don't know much about it.

If there is some sort of recycling center around, I don't know about it. With the city running the program that they do, I don't know if that leaves much room for competition.

24

drmiler

on Sep 26, 2004

Reply #24 By: Bunnahabhain - 9/26/2004 10:08:15 PM
So I take it there are NO recycling centers where you live? If so then there IS a market! Because that's where you turn it in! If not *where* do you send your recyclables?

We have a recycling program run by the city. Collection cycle varies a bit based upon where you live, but there is a blue box for bottles, cans, and certain plastics. There is a gray box for paper products. Trash is separate. A pilot project exists for compostable materials,. but I don't know much about it.

If there is some sort of recycling center around, I don't know about it. With the city running the program that they do, I don't know if that leaves much room for competition.

If you have a recycling program then you *have* a recycling center!

25

Wingman412

on Sep 27, 2004

If you have a recycling program then you *have* a recycling center!

That does not neccesarily mean that a person can redeem cans for money. Look at your cans and bottles. It says right on them which states have a plan in place that gives rebates to industrious recyclers. Many states have recycling programs but offer no financial incentive. There is only an emotional incentive or a legislation that mandates recycling. Not everyone lives in the same system that you guys apparently do.

Capitalism favors the risk takers, the investors, the people with fire and ambition and lets those lacking drive and commitment to suffer at their own hands.
Socialism would bring up those who have no amibition and bring down those with the drive.

Explain to me why that would be right? That, to me, would be the greatest injustice of all..and the biggest failing of socialism in any form.

I would have to agree with this statement. Without a motive to innovate and work hard, the society stagnates and the industrious among them emigrate to places where they are not stifled but instead, rewarded. Which is a good thing for America since immigrants that come here seeking opportunity typically do very well and contribute greatly to our society, economy, and culture. Now if only the homegrown populace would "get it."

26

KarmaGirl

on Sep 27, 2004

It says right on them which states have a plan in place that gives rebates to industrious recyclers.

That's not a rebate- that is a return (you pay a deposit when you buy it. In Michigan, for example, you pay $.10 a bottle/can when you buy a carbonated beverage, and you get that back if you return it).

You can get money for recycling other things. If you take scrap mettal, paper, cardboard, etc. to a recycling center there is a dollar amount given per pound.

Recycling for free also makes sense if you pay per bag for garbage removal.

Socalism would in itself destroy innovation. Why achieve if there is no greatness behind it?

True, very true.

27

cactoblasta

on Sep 27, 2004

Socalism would in itself destroy innovation. Why achieve if there is no greatness behind it?

In some countries because you have a gun stuck to your head, in others for national pride and simply to be the best or because you can. Most innovation doesn't come from the promise of monetary reward or the wonders of capitalism but because the innovator has a passion for their work. The money is useful and affects how often innovative people are able to do their thing, but lack of money has never been an enormous barrier to anything except commercialisation of an idea. Consider open-source software (largely free and unpaid) or even eye-correcting surgery (first developed using scalpels in Russia).

A socialist country does not necessarily have to crush innovation - consider the many hundreds of heroes used commonly in socialist propaganda, especially Chinese propaganda. Inspiration and the threat of violence can be as effective as money in motivating people to improve their designs.

28

Wingman412

on Sep 28, 2004

Inspiration and the threat of violence can be as effective as money in motivating people to improve their designs.

Alright. Now look around you at the innovations that you appreciate. Then consider what kind of system birthed them. I think that you will find that freedom and capitalism brings to us the bulk of the innovations that we all love so much despite containing a minority of the world's populace.
The field of health care is easier to disect with respect to economics (vs. an entire economy). Look at where new medicines and medical proceedures come from. Do they come from nations with Socialized Medicine?
(Yes I know some will posit that the US has partially socialized medicine but that occurance is far more limited in the US than other places - still supporting my hypothesis that the less socialism in an industry, the better that industry will perform.)

29

Grim Xiozan

on Sep 28, 2004

In some countries because you have a gun stuck to your head, in others for national pride and simply to be the best or because you can. Most innovation doesn't come from the promise of monetary reward or the wonders of capitalism but because the innovator has a passion for their work.

Than what point is there behind inventing new technology or anything new for that matter, if it were not for monetary and social recognition, in a socialist world that person would be only recognized a functioning cog in the machine, not as the brilliant inventor, such as Thomas Edison, or Nicolai Tesla, etc. What point is there to proceed forward? Granted they just don't do it for the two above, but for all three reasons: monetary, social recognition, and the benefit of society, take two away and you will see fewer inventors and fewer innovations period. Am I the only one who can see that?

- GX

30

cactoblasta

on Sep 28, 2004

Whew, a gun to the head, huh? That's alot better than capitalism..invention by threat.

I didn't say it was nice, just that it was effective.

Than what point is there behind inventing new technology or anything new for that matter, if it were not for monetary and social recognition, in a socialist world that person would be only recognized a functioning cog in the machine, not as the brilliant inventor, such as Thomas Edison, or Nicolai Tesla, etc. What point is there to proceed forward? Granted they just don't do it for the two above, but for all three reasons: monetary, social recognition, and the benefit of society, take two away and you will see fewer inventors and fewer innovations period. Am I the only one who can see that?

There were a large number of communist scientists, both in Russia and in China, who achieved considerable social status and material possessions as a result of their success. But communist countries are more dictatorial than socialist, so certainly I'm prepared to disregard their successes for you.

Cuba or Nicaragua were probably the closest countries to the socialist ideal, but they were/are impoverished and weak due to exclusion from world markets, constant attack and subversion from larger neighbours and the inherent weaknesses of the leadership/system. I don' t think they are a good example of innovation as they fail to do so even now under capitalism.