The Soul of Man Under Socialism

[Ibby]

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/his...ilde_soul.html


Once again, I fall even more in love with Oscar Wilde. He agrees with me fully on almost every single point he raises in his essay. It sums up how I feel better than I can on all but the most modern of issues.


Your thoughts?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Since he's been dead over 100 years, I'd say he doesn't agree with you, but you with him.

Yes in the 1800s people were wishing for a workable socalist utopia.... they still are, because in practice it doesn't work. It flys in the face of basic human hardwiring that has enabled man to survive and flourish. It was and will remain a pipe dream.

[Griff]

The chief advantage that would result from the establishment of Socialism is, undoubtedly, the fact that Socialism would relieve us from that sordid necessity of living for others which, in the present condition of things, presses so hardly upon almost everybody. In fact, scarcely any one at all escapes.

Is it Backwards Day again?

[Clodfobble]

Yeah, his whole argument seems to be that it is a chore to have to choose to help the less-fortunate, and we would all in fact be happier if this were mandated and done for us because then we wouldn't have to think about it.

I thought Socialists/Communists were supposed to be atheists, soul?
Must be backward day.
If one man works harder, invents more than another, his work is his, to do with as he/she pleases. State theft is still theft & still immoral.

[piercehawkeye45]

Yet, capitalism will create an imbalance in class and it isn't fair to the people born into poverty.

Trying to be fair all of the time isn't fair. Some people do better than other, some families have more than others, just the facts.
If you are born to a family that has superior genetics in one area, should you be handicapped, lobotomy, have your Achilles clipped perhaps?
Fair, stupid concept.

[elSicomoro]

Socialism and communism always sound so nice, but they never take into account that people (IMO) are by nature greedy. Capitalism has its bad side, but I'll take it over anything else any day.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by sycamore

Socialism and communism always sound so nice, but they never take into account that people (IMO) are by nature greedy. Capitalism has its bad side, but I'll take it over anything else any day.

I have wondered this many times. Are humans naturally greedy or greedy because we have been raised in a capitalistic society, which is greedy by nature?

I would like to know if we could train humans to effectively live in a far left society (anarchism to communism).

[Perry Winkle]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I have wondered this many times. Are humans naturally greedy or greedy because we have been raised in a capitalistic society, which is greedy by nature?

People tend to take care of themselves and the people close to them first. If grabbing more than your fair share (greed) allows you to take care of things more comfortably, it's natural to do so.

Humans survive by nature, and amassing plenty tends to ensure survival (and cause heart-disease, et al).

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I have wondered this many times. Are humans naturally greedy or greedy because we have been raised in a capitalistic society, which is greedy by nature?

Pierce, just think back to when you were three or four -- and if that doesn't give you a clear picture, think back to when you were under five and had siblings. How did you react -- mentally as well as physically -- when encouraged, or flat told, to share? Was there not a certain -- resistance?

It's not so unexpected that the living organism seeks its own advantage.

I would like to know if we could train humans to effectively live in a far left society (anarchism to communism).

The short answer is No.

Longer answers may be found even in fiction writing: LeGuin's The Dispossessed, Zamyatin's We. Cautionary tales all. Over on StrikeTheRoot, a libertarian BBS, there's a quote bandied about whose author at present escapes me though I'll see if Google can net him: "Communism -- interesting idea. Wrong species."

Sure enough, StrikeTheRoot yields the name of Edmund O. Wilson. Other quotes cite either E.O. Wilson or Edward Wilson... Googley moogley lickety split... more careful checking in a little bit...

Sigh... Google's leaving me none the wiser. It doesn't help that there was an Edward O. Wilson, famous in entomology, and with a name similar enough that the two were indeed confused from time to time. To get to the bottom of this minor point means doing more digging, and likely in a different hole.

[piercehawkeye45]

But what if the person with the better genes is held back to begin with? Everyone should have the same starting point and let the strong pull away from the weak and then the next generation the same process continues.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

But what if the person with the better genes is held back to begin with? Everyone should have the same starting point and let the strong pull away from the weak and then the next generation the same process continues.

Are you saying you would agree to holding those with natural talents back?

You are born with the same opportunities to do well or screw-up, there are advantages and disadvantages to wealth and being poor. I know wealthy kids that grew-up with no ambition and poor kids that have excelled due to the road-blocks they had to overcome.
You play the hand you are dealt as well as you can.

My communist/socialist scenario:
Woods, cabin A, cabin B.
A busts ass all summer/spring long chopping wood, growing and putting up veggies, hunting and storing meat, repairing and maintaining cabin so it is tight and dry, barn is large and in good shape for animals, plenty of hay harvested for the long winter, working hard all season long, taking care of well so there is plenty of fresh water.
Cabin B
Lazy, just enough to get by all summer and spring, traded cow for wood and drink, not really harvesting or growing much at all, not really doing many repairs much less any maintenance.

Winter hits and it is a doozy, cabin A has just enough to get by safely with enough to be able to have enough to continue to survive after the winter into the following seasons.
It is clear that cabin B will die after the second month of snow.

No sane person would think that it is ok to "distribute" cabin A's hard work to cabin B so they both die... he/she should die as their obvious suicide intended.
It does not matter if cabin A was, perhaps, a bit smarter, stronger or naturally more talented in farming arts, some of us just have to try harder.
It could have just as easily been the other way around with B being the more talented and A working four times as hard to do ten times as much.
I grew-up on a ranch/farm and I know this scenario, if you don’t do, you don’t get.
This does not apply to the disabled and mentally ill, but being lazy is not a mental illness or disability, those who work harder and apply themselves should get paid more, those who save and invest more wisely should reap the benefits of those wise habits, it is right and, ironically, fair, even though that is not relevant… what is, is that it is just.

I am dyslexic in math, it is very, very hard for me, but I have a near photographic memory and extremely fast at making spatial and abstract connections.
I had to work three times harder in math than average students, but loved the higher math classes and physics.
In lit, art, writing, and those kinds of classes I, literally, never studied. Cannot tell you how many times I have had the words "it is not fair" said to me in regards to my grades/test scores... bullshit.
I graduated on the national presidents list, Gold Key… now, my math was torture. Most like me actually went to the school and were tested so they could get their math requirements waived. I just worked harder, studied three times as much as most, so my degree was real, earned and not given with a caveat. I would not have been able to accept that.

Is it fair when the lion eats the gazelle or if the lion cubs go hungry, when one pride does better than another?
It is a stupid word.
Natural selection is the way of the world; the human race is no different.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

My communist/socialist scenario:
Woods, cabin A, cabin B.
A busts ass all summer/spring long chopping wood, growing and putting up veggies, hunting and storing meat, repairing and maintaining cabin so it is tight and dry, barn is large and in good shape for animals, plenty of hay harvested for the long winter, working hard all season long, taking care of well so there is plenty of fresh water.
Cabin B
Lazy, just enough to get by all summer and spring, traded cow for wood and drink, not really harvesting or growing much at all, not really doing many repairs much less any maintenance.

Winter hits and it is a doozy, cabin A has just enough to get by safely with enough to be able to have enough to continue to survive after the winter into the following seasons.
It is clear that cabin B will die after the second month of snow.

No sane person would think that it is ok to "distribute" cabin A's hard work to cabin B so they both die... he/she should die as their obvious suicide intended.
It does not matter if cabin A was, perhaps, a bit smarter, stronger or naturally more talented in farming arts, some of us just have to try harder.
It could have just as easily been the other way around with B being the more talented and A working four times as hard to do ten times as much.

But that's bullshit. Sure, it happens sometimes, but I think a better scenario would be:

Cabin A and fifty of cabin A's paid buddies grow all their food very quickly and efficiently. So it goes, A has the cash to pay the buddies, fine. But with his cash A also grabbed all the decent land around cabin B and is paying B enough to survive on over the summer to grow food for A. Consequently, B doesnt have any land to grow food on, nor the time to grow his own food because he's growing food for A for pitiful wages. Winter rolls around and A has a massive store of food, wheras B is already freezing to death and starving to boot.

Now, A has two options. A can be charitable, nice, and reasonable and give B some food, or can just blame B for the lack of food.


What anarchosocialism proposes is not that A has to give B anything, but that society should be restructured so that A would willingly give B the food because thats just how it should be.
No sane person would think that it is ok for B to starve because A had more money to begin with.

[Sundae]

I believe that humans are naturally greedy - nature supports this.

But I don't believe that contributing to society, to community is theft. I don't believe in extreme forms of socialism, where people are not left with any benefits from their own work. But I also do not believe that leaving those incapable (for whatever reason) to support themselves in conditions of squalour (in developed countries) or to die (in undeveloped countries) is theft.

I have no religion and I'm quite hard when it comes to the sanctity of human life, but I believe people should be given a living chance. I believe in charity, but I also believe people should sometimes be obliged to give for the greater good. I think many posters here will disagree fundemantally.

In a trite analogy - I haven't paid UT a penny since coming here. But I have £20 ($40) which comes out of my bank account every payday to Save the Children and Help the Aged. I also give spare change to any charity around when I have it (have mentioned before, was brought up on the Gospel of St Matthew).

I'm not suggesting UT is a charitable cause, but he wasn't in my face. I've benefited from his community without contributing. I will in future. That's not theft. I appreciate it's not set up in a socialist way (enter your salary, we will bill your card the appropriate amount). But neither is it capitalist - which is a world which wants to exclude people like me who are basically honest, but pure dreadful with money.