Socialism is realism, liberalism is fiction

Discussion in 'Religion & Politics' started by Zaichata, Jan 5, 2012.

Encyclopedia Dramatica Forums
A very friendly community
  1. Zaichata

    Zaichata
    Expand Collapse
    Here for the "Intellectual Debates"

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    810
    Occupation:
    Lazy college senior
    Socialism, contrary to liberalism (not: liberal as in American politics, but the political ideology that strives for lesser government interference and a free market economy*) has a 'negative' human identity, as it always presumes that when a human is left alone unbounded by rules it will take advantage of society in every way it can without suffering from immediate physical or social backlash. Liberalism on the other hand has a 'positive' human identity, as it always presumes that people are inherently friendly and don't actually need to be bounded by rules, as it's natural feeling for moral responsibility will prevent it from taking advantage.

    For example, socialism believes that solidarity should be a government task and thus obligatory through taxes, because if you'd make solidarity 'optional', you would have the free-rider problem: people would initially give money to the poor on a voluntary base but would give that up eventually because they'd figure they could use the money more to get a blow-job downtown or buy a new iPad instead. Liberalism on the other hand believes that even if solidarity is optional, people would still choose to donate money, even if they aren't bounded by government rules, because the need to help the weaker is an inherent part of the human identity.

    I don't believe in the liberal ideology. I believe in the socialist ideology. The liberal ideology seems unrealistic. Homo homini lupus est.


    DISCUSS.





    * for all my confused American compatriots: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
     
  2. Dr. Rice

    Dr. Rice
    Expand Collapse
    Girlvinyl

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    8,979
    Occupation:
    Small Business Wizard
    Home Page:
    Yes, Liberalism is a silly concept. Laissez faire economic and social policy can only work in small economic regions, like Hong Kong (pre-1997) and Singapore.
     
  3. Baya Rae 4900

    Baya Rae 4900
    Expand Collapse
    Lawlman

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    37,936
    Occupation:
    Nazi Chocolate (25.8069)
    Home Page:
  4. TheDukeOfCrowns

    TheDukeOfCrowns
    Expand Collapse
    EDF Elite

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,608
  5. Zaichata

    Zaichata
    Expand Collapse
    Here for the "Intellectual Debates"

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    810
    Occupation:
    Lazy college senior
    Proof?
     
  6. molb*

    molb*
    Expand Collapse
    EDF Hero

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,076
    Occupation:
    Bulbous
    Advocates of social control seem to imagine themselves as much smarter than the masses. In my experience, the opposite is true.
     
  7. Baya Rae 4900

    Baya Rae 4900
    Expand Collapse
    Lawlman

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    37,936
    Occupation:
    Nazi Chocolate (25.8069)
    Home Page:
    I don't think you grasp the concept of "central planning."
     
  8. molb*

    molb*
    Expand Collapse
    EDF Hero

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,076
    Occupation:
    Bulbous
    Since I'm probably the only one who actually bothered to read that, I'll highlight the most important paragraph:

     
  9. Akula

    Akula
    Expand Collapse
    EDF Hero

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,586
    Occupation:
    n/a
    Home Page:
    Socialism is the bane of mankind. A man has the right to the product of his labor. No one else.
     
  10. Seku

    Seku
    Expand Collapse
    EDF Elite

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    3,883
    Occupation:
    bad bich
    Home Page:
    Your mother is the bane of mankind.
     
  11. Baya Rae 4900

    Baya Rae 4900
    Expand Collapse
    Lawlman

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    37,936
    Occupation:
    Nazi Chocolate (25.8069)
    Home Page:
    The only way I can see socialism properly functioning is if money is abolished. Socialism is simply centralised feudalism. Except that feudalists were much more efficient. Perhaps because they were decentralised and ended up having to embrace a de facto market? But that's what decentralised socialism is: feudalism.
     
  12. Baya Rae 4900

    Baya Rae 4900
    Expand Collapse
    Lawlman

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    37,936
    Occupation:
    Nazi Chocolate (25.8069)
    Home Page:
    Also, socialists don't know (understand or comprehend) the difference between government and society so self-confessed socialists really shouldn't be listened to.
     
  13. molb*

    molb*
    Expand Collapse
    EDF Hero

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,076
    Occupation:
    Bulbous
    It's really, really funny listening to them harp about how evil the state and all governments are, then propose strict limitations on behavior which are determined and maintained by "society".
     
  14. Zaichata

    Zaichata
    Expand Collapse
    Here for the "Intellectual Debates"

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    810
    Occupation:
    Lazy college senior
    You are mixing up socialism with communism. Socialism is a political ideology that's situated in a liberal free market economy using the moral principles of communism, though never being communism itself.

    It's kinda like libertarianism and liberalism, can't compare those two.
     
  15. Seku

    Seku
    Expand Collapse
    EDF Elite

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    3,883
    Occupation:
    bad bich
    Home Page:
    It sounds better when you say "Socialism is centralised feudalism". You should say that instead.
    [​IMG]
     
  16. Baya Rae 4900

    Baya Rae 4900
    Expand Collapse
    Lawlman

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    37,936
    Occupation:
    Nazi Chocolate (25.8069)
    Home Page:
    No, socialism is the total accumulation of power and property for its own sake. Communism is syndicalist anarchy.
     
  17. Zaichata

    Zaichata
    Expand Collapse
    Here for the "Intellectual Debates"

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    810
    Occupation:
    Lazy college senior
    Communism is not a syndicalist anarchy in its ultimate form. How can there be syndicates if all classes (including working class) is abolished and thus the workers don't need syndicates any more to protect their interests from greedy corporate bosses?
     
  18. Baya Rae 4900

    Baya Rae 4900
    Expand Collapse
    Lawlman

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    37,936
    Occupation:
    Nazi Chocolate (25.8069)
    Home Page:
    Therein lies the bullshit.

    Though, I think I should point out, syndicalism is when the "means of production" is under the control of decentralised labour unions.
     
  19. Zaichata

    Zaichata
    Expand Collapse
    Here for the "Intellectual Debates"

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    810
    Occupation:
    Lazy college senior
    As an economic and state system on itself, yes, but that is another thing. I'm talking about the unions organizing labour (strikes etc.).
     
  20. Baya Rae 4900

    Baya Rae 4900
    Expand Collapse
    Lawlman

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    37,936
    Occupation:
    Nazi Chocolate (25.8069)
    Home Page:
    Labour unions don't exist to protect workers from from "greedy corporate bosses" but to establish a coercive power base within the service sector. They're cartels, you see. But instead of artificially raising the price of goods, they artificially raise the price of services. In order to benefit a few individuals. At the cost of society.
     
  21. Zaichata

    Zaichata
    Expand Collapse
    Here for the "Intellectual Debates"

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    810
    Occupation:
    Lazy college senior
    Well that is a post factum economic explanation. They were established to protect them from unhealthy/ unworthy working environments. Nowadays they do raise the price of services artificially, but not arbitrarily by any means. If the standard of living goes up but paychecks don't, that's when syndicates act.
     
  22. Baya Rae 4900

    Baya Rae 4900
    Expand Collapse
    Lawlman

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    37,936
    Occupation:
    Nazi Chocolate (25.8069)
    Home Page:
    Actually, no. They were established (or at least finalised) during the late 1800s. At the time the vast majority of those who worked in factories (of their own accord) came from rural areas where their families owned land. At any point, the majority of workers could've moved back to their homes. They chose not to because the working conditions (and pay) were better in the factories than on the farms. The imagine of the factories the most have today come from the use of de facto slaves. These de facto slaves were orphans under the care of the government which were leased/loaned to businessmen who were part (or in bed with) the British oligarchy at the time.

    The only way for salaries to go up is if there competition between employers for employee contracts. Standard of living (by which I assume you mean the price of consumer goods and services) usually goes up because of cartel practices enforced or inadvertently created by the government. Usually because of monetary inflation caused by the government printing money but also because the government's doing things governments usually do like waging wars or impeding trade.
     
  23. Baya Rae 4900

    Baya Rae 4900
    Expand Collapse
    Lawlman

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    37,936
    Occupation:
    Nazi Chocolate (25.8069)
    Home Page: