My quick education in socialism
You: what is the ideal society
Stranger: Well, I'm a socialist, which means that I believe that the ideal society is one that supports and upholds all of its people, no matter what they suffer.
Stranger: I also believe that if society says that something is vitally important, then the government should provide it - not necessarily for free, and not necessarily be the sole provider, but there should be something there.
You: do you think the united states government, in it's current form, could do such a service?
Stranger: I don't know enough about it. I'm Canadian.
Stranger: But I don't doubt that it needs some serious changes.
You: Heh, you're lucky.
Stranger: That has been said, actually.
Stranger: All economic models deal differently with human greed. In pure communism, they ignore it, assuming that people will work for the greater good no matter what; in capitalism they call it "ambition" and turn it from vice to virtue. Socialism recognizes it and says "let's mitigate the damage done."
You: can you explane the socalism aspect a little more please?
Stranger: Well, to the ideal socialist model, the people on top don't fully subsidize the people on the bottom, but they do support them.
You: so is there a low, middle and high class?
Stranger: In it's perfect form (which we're a long, long way from, don't get me wrong!) the most ambitious still get ahead, but not to the absolute detriment of others.
Stranger: It should hopefully be moderated enough that any class structure doesn't become rigid and codified.
You: i see, so what would motivate people to "do" if there is no risk of failing
Stranger: There's still a risk of failure, it's just that that risk doesn't include starving to death.
Stranger: I mean, someone who needed government aid for all things would likely be at subsistence-level, and the incentive to get away from there would be the usual reasons for ambition - better stuff.
You: i see, this is extremely educating! So, in the US if your in the "subsistence-level" now, you usually just get a check and a house at the expense of others, and it's usually better then the homes of people who work. In ideal socialism, does that still occur?
Stranger: I don't think that people on welfare are that well off; certainly, they're not here. But I would think that in the perfect socialist system, you wouldn't worry about a roof overhead - but without upgrading, it wouldn't necessarily be a good place.
Stranger: The biggest problem we have now is that it's not possible for the poor to stop being poor, which is why so many turn to crime.
You: yes, very much yes
Stranger: Crime is the response of the powerless, not of the moneyless.
You: well, some rich still commit crime
Stranger: Yes, but that's greed.
You: what if they murder their wife
Stranger: ... Okay, fair enough. Property crime is the response of the powerless.
Stranger: Or the bored.
You: ok, got'cha
You: now, are people guaranteed jobs?
You: or do they have to "work" to get in a higer possition
Stranger: I don't know how you can guarantee anyone a job without owning the business in question, and that becomes communism very quickly.
Stranger: Socialism is more like proof against poor luck.
You: in the US the fear is that the poor will "drag" the rest of everybody down, would that happen?
Stranger: It doesn't and can't happen now; more likely, giving the poorest some purchasing power will actually serve to uplift the local economy.
Stranger: Consider what happens if you give me money. I'm not poor, exactly, but I'm living a little better than subsistence.
Stranger: All my money goes to groceries, supporting local business; rent, supporting local building owners; and taxes in their various forms, supporting the various levels of government.
Stranger: If you give someone who has all their necessities covered more money, they may well do things like travel overseas, or import fancy things, or hide it in tax shelters - not good for the locals.
You: so, it's like capitalism, but no one gets kicked in the ass
Stranger: Basically. You mitigate the harm done by human greed, rather than ignoring it or embracing it.
You: so, in socailism, the society functions as a whole, insteed of in capitlism, indivisuals compeating for the top. What if society as a whole cannot suport it self
Stranger: Well, then something needs to change!
Stranger: That can happen under any system, actually - see Afghanistan.
You: yes, you are correct
You: now, what would the structure of a government have to look like to support such a system
Stranger: Any government structure can do it, actually.
Stranger: Of course, in a democracy, it has to be an option to the voters, and neither of us have that choice.
You: this is a very interesting conversation. it has cleared up a lot of misconseptions
Stranger: Glad to be of service.
You: now, would a person in the society be forced to help another person, or in other words, punished for greed
Stranger: Well, you'd need to run the government; taxation works best.
Stranger: That's a government's source of income.
Stranger: I think the best way to run an income tax is a simple flat rate for all people with no deductions whatsoever.
You: you are awesome
Stranger: Thanks.
You: now, would a health care system be apart of the govt. or independent of it
Stranger: Given the mess that your system is in compared to ours... I'd take government-run any day over private, for-profit systems.
Stranger: Mind you, ours isn't too pretty either.
Stranger: The problem with running health care for profit is that health care is a necessity, and you can charge a dying man anything you want for CPR and he'll pay it.
You: now, what about medical research, it's not good when the govt. messes with science for selfish reasons
Stranger: Some research needs to be fully funded and fully independant from its funding sources, whether it's business or government footing the bill.
Stranger: I mean, proprietary research should obviously be done for and by those who want the product or the improvement to the product, but research into, say, a new drug - not the development so much as the testing - should be done arms-length from everyone.
You: i see
You: Why do you think a perfict socialism has not ever been done?
Stranger: Because the people that actually have some control don't want it to happen.
Stranger: That sounds like a conspiracy theory, I know.
Stranger: But the people with the money like to be able to accumulate more - for no reason, sometimes, than to have more - and in a democracy, the will of the people, often swayed by the biggest advertising budget, wins. Or, more accurately, the people villified by the rich usually lose.
Stranger: It doesn't go that way all the time, but a truly ideal socialist government would would have such a hard time convincing society's power brokers that they should be supported that it's next to impossible to get that sort of government in place.
You: Obama Vs McCain being a perfict example
Stranger: Even so, the Democrats (irate Republican shouting notwithstanding) are not socialists.
You: Is Barack Obama a socialist?
Stranger: Not especially, I don't think.
You: cool, not all i have to do is convice my grandmother of that
Stranger: Even if he was - the president of the U.S. doesn't do a whole lot to set policy; he can really only stop things, if I understand the mechanics properly.
You: yes that's pretty much what he can do. The president can submit bills to congress, but they must pass through the houses first
Stranger: And he has the veto himself.
Stranger: My conception of the American political machine is more or less that everyone has some power to stop everyone else from screwing things up, on the assumption that they will screw things up.
Stranger: Our is a little more trusting, but not a lot more effective.
You: yes, that's pretty much it, but the stoping can only be done by the majority
Stranger: Or the president, provided that there isn't a two-thirds majority backing the bill in Congress, right?
You: yes
You: in your opinion, are americans arrogant
Stranger: There is an arrogant streak in the American psyche; they're not ALL arrogant, to be sure.
Posted 3 years ago with 0 notes
Tags: politics socialism education
Stranger: Well, I'm a socialist, which means that I believe that the ideal society is one that supports and upholds all of its people, no matter what they suffer.
Stranger: I also believe that if society says that something is vitally important, then the government should provide it - not necessarily for free, and not necessarily be the sole provider, but there should be something there.
You: do you think the united states government, in it's current form, could do such a service?
Stranger: I don't know enough about it. I'm Canadian.
Stranger: But I don't doubt that it needs some serious changes.
You: Heh, you're lucky.
Stranger: That has been said, actually.
Stranger: All economic models deal differently with human greed. In pure communism, they ignore it, assuming that people will work for the greater good no matter what; in capitalism they call it "ambition" and turn it from vice to virtue. Socialism recognizes it and says "let's mitigate the damage done."
You: can you explane the socalism aspect a little more please?
Stranger: Well, to the ideal socialist model, the people on top don't fully subsidize the people on the bottom, but they do support them.
You: so is there a low, middle and high class?
Stranger: In it's perfect form (which we're a long, long way from, don't get me wrong!) the most ambitious still get ahead, but not to the absolute detriment of others.
Stranger: It should hopefully be moderated enough that any class structure doesn't become rigid and codified.
You: i see, so what would motivate people to "do" if there is no risk of failing
Stranger: There's still a risk of failure, it's just that that risk doesn't include starving to death.
Stranger: I mean, someone who needed government aid for all things would likely be at subsistence-level, and the incentive to get away from there would be the usual reasons for ambition - better stuff.
You: i see, this is extremely educating! So, in the US if your in the "subsistence-level" now, you usually just get a check and a house at the expense of others, and it's usually better then the homes of people who work. In ideal socialism, does that still occur?
Stranger: I don't think that people on welfare are that well off; certainly, they're not here. But I would think that in the perfect socialist system, you wouldn't worry about a roof overhead - but without upgrading, it wouldn't necessarily be a good place.
Stranger: The biggest problem we have now is that it's not possible for the poor to stop being poor, which is why so many turn to crime.
You: yes, very much yes
Stranger: Crime is the response of the powerless, not of the moneyless.
You: well, some rich still commit crime
Stranger: Yes, but that's greed.
You: what if they murder their wife
Stranger: ... Okay, fair enough. Property crime is the response of the powerless.
Stranger: Or the bored.
You: ok, got'cha
You: now, are people guaranteed jobs?
You: or do they have to "work" to get in a higer possition
Stranger: I don't know how you can guarantee anyone a job without owning the business in question, and that becomes communism very quickly.
Stranger: Socialism is more like proof against poor luck.
You: in the US the fear is that the poor will "drag" the rest of everybody down, would that happen?
Stranger: It doesn't and can't happen now; more likely, giving the poorest some purchasing power will actually serve to uplift the local economy.
Stranger: Consider what happens if you give me money. I'm not poor, exactly, but I'm living a little better than subsistence.
Stranger: All my money goes to groceries, supporting local business; rent, supporting local building owners; and taxes in their various forms, supporting the various levels of government.
Stranger: If you give someone who has all their necessities covered more money, they may well do things like travel overseas, or import fancy things, or hide it in tax shelters - not good for the locals.
You: so, it's like capitalism, but no one gets kicked in the ass
Stranger: Basically. You mitigate the harm done by human greed, rather than ignoring it or embracing it.
You: so, in socailism, the society functions as a whole, insteed of in capitlism, indivisuals compeating for the top. What if society as a whole cannot suport it self
Stranger: Well, then something needs to change!
Stranger: That can happen under any system, actually - see Afghanistan.
You: yes, you are correct
You: now, what would the structure of a government have to look like to support such a system
Stranger: Any government structure can do it, actually.
Stranger: Of course, in a democracy, it has to be an option to the voters, and neither of us have that choice.
You: this is a very interesting conversation. it has cleared up a lot of misconseptions
Stranger: Glad to be of service.
You: now, would a person in the society be forced to help another person, or in other words, punished for greed
Stranger: Well, you'd need to run the government; taxation works best.
Stranger: That's a government's source of income.
Stranger: I think the best way to run an income tax is a simple flat rate for all people with no deductions whatsoever.
You: you are awesome
Stranger: Thanks.
You: now, would a health care system be apart of the govt. or independent of it
Stranger: Given the mess that your system is in compared to ours... I'd take government-run any day over private, for-profit systems.
Stranger: Mind you, ours isn't too pretty either.
Stranger: The problem with running health care for profit is that health care is a necessity, and you can charge a dying man anything you want for CPR and he'll pay it.
You: now, what about medical research, it's not good when the govt. messes with science for selfish reasons
Stranger: Some research needs to be fully funded and fully independant from its funding sources, whether it's business or government footing the bill.
Stranger: I mean, proprietary research should obviously be done for and by those who want the product or the improvement to the product, but research into, say, a new drug - not the development so much as the testing - should be done arms-length from everyone.
You: i see
You: Why do you think a perfict socialism has not ever been done?
Stranger: Because the people that actually have some control don't want it to happen.
Stranger: That sounds like a conspiracy theory, I know.
Stranger: But the people with the money like to be able to accumulate more - for no reason, sometimes, than to have more - and in a democracy, the will of the people, often swayed by the biggest advertising budget, wins. Or, more accurately, the people villified by the rich usually lose.
Stranger: It doesn't go that way all the time, but a truly ideal socialist government would would have such a hard time convincing society's power brokers that they should be supported that it's next to impossible to get that sort of government in place.
You: Obama Vs McCain being a perfict example
Stranger: Even so, the Democrats (irate Republican shouting notwithstanding) are not socialists.
You: Is Barack Obama a socialist?
Stranger: Not especially, I don't think.
You: cool, not all i have to do is convice my grandmother of that
Stranger: Even if he was - the president of the U.S. doesn't do a whole lot to set policy; he can really only stop things, if I understand the mechanics properly.
You: yes that's pretty much what he can do. The president can submit bills to congress, but they must pass through the houses first
Stranger: And he has the veto himself.
Stranger: My conception of the American political machine is more or less that everyone has some power to stop everyone else from screwing things up, on the assumption that they will screw things up.
Stranger: Our is a little more trusting, but not a lot more effective.
You: yes, that's pretty much it, but the stoping can only be done by the majority
Stranger: Or the president, provided that there isn't a two-thirds majority backing the bill in Congress, right?
You: yes
You: in your opinion, are americans arrogant
Stranger: There is an arrogant streak in the American psyche; they're not ALL arrogant, to be sure.
Posted 3 years ago with 0 notes
Tags: politics socialism education
