Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Martell Spy

Workable Socialism

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

My point was that this ‘human nature ‘ in regards to valuing family over strangers wasn’t invented by capitalism, and socialism won’t make it go away.

 

It wasnt invented by capitalist, but they sure as fuck take advantage and promote that part of "human nature". And i belive you are again oversimplifying, its also  "human nature" to live in societies and to have empathy and sympathy for the other, and valuing other humans or strangers, not becouse they are my friends or family but, becouse they are living people with complex feelings and thoughts and lives, you know, just like my family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

No, but why would we want to?

I live in a socialistic country, so I pay a little more in taxes than you Americans do. In exchange I get access to one of the best medical healthcare systems in the world so I don't have to worry about me or anyone in my family falling sick, even if it's a serious illness. If my spouse or I can't work we'll get unemployment benefits and regulations mean we have insurances to help us in such cases on top of that. Socialized education means that not only did I get paid to study (yeah, being a poor kid and a straight-A student I was given money to study) but I could stay in school and get a PhD without worrying about the expense. Similarly my kid(s) will have access to free education and will be able to be whatever the fuck they want to be (go to law school or med school for almost nothing for instance) as long as they have the grades and the motivation to do so. They can even be artists and struggle to make a living: they'll have a special status providing them slightly better unemployment benefits so they can at least pay rent and buy food.
And when I grow old I'll be able to retire without worrying about my pension being lost through financial dealings because my pension is a state-guaranteed right.
Oh, and let's remember public housing means I can afford to live in one of the most expensive cities in the world without ruining myself in spite of a very humble salary.

So riddle me genius, why the fucking fuck would my self-interest make me a capitalist?
 

Aren’t you French?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Aren’t you French?

You have a witty remark about France being capitalist now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rippounet said:

You have a witty remark about France being capitalist now?

As far as I’m aware France has a mixed economy, but maybe we need to go back and have the conversations about the definitions of socialism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

As far as I’m aware France has a mixed economy,

It has. It's why I said "socialistic" country and not "socialist."

But that's not the point at all! The point is that self-interest doesn't necessarily lead to individualism. It is in my self-interest for my country to have socialist programs. ; in fact, it's in the interest of about 80% of citizens.

You know what's specific about human nature? The level of cooperation. According to evolutionary anthropologist Michael Tomasello humans are the only species that can truly set aside their individualism in order to work together toward a common goal. He thinks that's why we're the dominant species.
Our ability to not be too individualistic.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Conflicting Thought said:

I would want 100% tax for estates over a certain size. But i dont know much about tax implimentation , so im open to being educated on the subject. 

If you want me to tell you at what size we decide is a100% tax, i dont know. 

Then your answer is “no” you do not want a 100% inheritance tax for all.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

100% inheritance tax for everyone leads to some bizarre laws.

You would agree though that there has to be a point at which it is taxed at 100%? Say after a billion dollars? The Founders, after all, did not really want to create super dynastic families. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You would agree though that there has to be a point at which it is taxed at 100%? Say after a billion dollars? The Founders, after all, did not really want to create super dynastic families. 

That's a fucking lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You would agree though that there has to be a point at which it is taxed at 100%? Say after a billion dollars? The Founders, after all, did not really want to create super dynastic families. 

Are we talking a graduated level where anything over X level automatically escheats to the State?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You would agree though that there has to be a point at which it is taxed at 100%? Say after a billion dollars? The Founders, after all, did not really want to create super dynastic families. 

You want to tax it based on what society needs. Also enough to at least blunt the influence of money in politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Are we talking a graduated level where anything over X level automatically escheats to the State?

This is kind of the entire idea of the giving pledge right?  But that pledge can't be enforced.  So, yeah, if they don't follow through - or are just dicks like Bezos - then tax 'em.  Should it be a hundred percent?  I don't know, that seems a bit much.  Maybe 95% after the first billion or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, DMC said:

This is kind of the entire idea of the giving pledge right?  But that pledge can't be enforced.  So, yeah, if they don't follow through - or are just dicks like Bezos - then tax 'em.  Should it be a hundred percent?  I don't know, that seems a bit much.  Maybe 95% after the first billion or something.

That would leave only 50,000,000 for my KIDS!!! YOU FUCKING COMMUNIST HOW CAN THEY SURVIVE!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

That would leave only 50,000,000 for my KIDS!!! YOU FUCKING COMMUNIST HOW CAN THEY SURVIVE!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Your kids are inherently doomed anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DMC said:

This is kind of the entire idea of the giving pledge right?  But that pledge can't be enforced.  So, yeah, if they don't follow through - or are just dicks like Bezos - then tax 'em.  Should it be a hundred percent?  I don't know, that seems a bit much.  Maybe 95% after the first billion or something.!!

Or, maybe, after the first billions, spend several billion building housing for those with incomes 5 figures and below?

O NOES! SOCIALISM!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Typical. I only find this thread now, when it is over the 400 post limit...

Anyway, I'd just like to agree with those who say it's a matter of definitions. Socialism generally is a giant grab-bag of ideologies - Social Democracy (which started out as building socialism via incremental change, and which has long since become being a Nicer Type of Liberalism), Democratic Socialism, Christian Socialism, Anarchism and its sub-variants, Syndicalism, Marxism, Marxism-Leninism (not the same as Marxism), Maoism (not the same as traditional Marxism-Leninism), Trotskyism, and god knows what else.

Capitalism itself is hard to define, seeing as between the 1930s and the 1970s, the only people who used the term were the Communists - it was considered a dirty word in the West, and associated with the Great Depression. The preferred term was Free Enterprise (and, of course, the semi-planned Mixed Economy would be utterly alien to nineteenth century liberals).

Oh, and as a bonus - there was nothing inherently socialistic about the Soviet planning model. Moscow borrowed the model from wartime Imperial Germany of all places.  

Edited by The Marquis de Leech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zorral said:

Or, maybe, after the first billions, spend several billion building housing for those with incomes 5 figures and below?

O NOES! SOCIALISM!

Oh, but they already did. They are called prisons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Typical. I only find this thread now, when it is over the 400 post limit...

Anyway, I'd just like to agree with those who say it's a matter of definitions. Socialism generally is a giant grab-bag of ideologies - Social Democracy (which started out as building socialism via incremental change, and which has long since become being a Nicer Type of Liberalism), Democratic Socialism, Christian Socialism, Anarchism and its sub-variants, Syndicalism, Marxism, Marxism-Leninism (not the same as Marxism), Maoism (not the same as traditional Marxism-Leninism), Trotskyism, and god knows what else.

Capitalism itself is hard to define, seeing as between the 1930s and the 1970s, the only people who used the term were the Communists - it was considered a dirty word in the West, and associated with the Great Depression. The preferred term was Free Enterprise (and, of course, the semi-planned Mixed Economy would be utterly alien to nineteenth century liberals).

Oh, and as a bonus - there was nothing inherently socialistic about the Soviet planning model. Moscow borrowed the model from wartime Imperial Germany of all places.  

Well, we are basically talking about the revenge of the Mensheviks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Oh, and as a bonus - there was nothing inherently socialistic about the Soviet planning model.

I don't know about that.  Lenin and Trotsky may have been straight up communist, but they tried to implement a socialistic type of model.  Later Brezhnev and Gorbachev were pretty damn close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×