By - zowhat
Thing is in a communist state there is no free ride, if anyone is under the illusion that true socialism is an easy ride then that person also couldn’t tell you their arse from their elbow.
Most people would get designated a job and expected to work a lot more hours, every single day, until they reached an age were they were unable to work again.
For some reason people think that socialism would be basically living in America with all the goods and services, minus any of the work. It’s actually comical some of the arguments you come across on the internet.
The biggest difference between Communism and Capitalism is that in a capitalist system you are free to make your own choices. You can work here or there, or not work at all. If you want to bet on yourself and take out a loan out to go to school or start a business and better your life, you can - but if you fuck around, there are consequences.
In a communist society you have no choices. If the state decides that you are qualified to do something important, you get to do that. If they decide you're a fuckup and can only handle a broom on the street, that's what you'll do. Don't want to work? We have a nice labor camp for you to work at 3800 miles to the east.
Yeah im honestly curious how much intellectual freedom exists under socialist regimes.
Loads of examples through out history, USSR, Eastern Europe, Cuba, Latin America, Cuba and south East Asia.
Short answer being practically none
I know you included Eastern Europe, but can I suggest you include Germany, specifically ?
It underscore the fact that socialism can exist on the left and on the right, and in both cases it ends more or less the same way.
The more I learn about history, the less I found USSR and Germany to be different. Except on the speed factor and which genocide they decided to do. Horrible times.
Eastern Germany was a real hell hole, even to this day after unification they lack behind western Germany in terms of development.
There are some aspects of socialism which could be incorporated into a system and be successful and beneficial to society, for example health care and education. However past that it’s a one way road to disaster.
The Nazi movement wasn't a right wing movement. I actually stumped a college professor on that and got him to "move on" with the lecture. It met all the marks for a socialist regime.
It did, good point. I just didn't wanted to go there.
It's arguably a regime that had elements of the left - socialism, identitarianism - and right - economy centric, focus on industrial research, religious fervor - along with being authoritarian to the core.
They did make great technological advancements. But I don't want to get into that.
"True socialism" can exist in small communes where everyone becomes essentially minimalist and self sufficient in their basic needs.
Add too many people or start demanding things like free education and healthcare at the highest level possible (read as 100% paid by somebody else and service that leaves you wanting for nothing) and you run into the issue of supply and demand. Nobody with an in-demand service should be forced to supply that service to others for free or well below market value just because people "need" it.
Im curious to know what china and vietnam envisage for their full socialism goal by 2050. Im pretty sure things like natural resources and machine productivity are intended to be used to pay people. Nobody would design a system where people are forced to provide for others for free.
They don’t have socialism, they have state capitalism. True there are socialist aspects but they aren’t socialist governments. Ed is correct what people want can be had in small communes but even then there is no free ride, everyone will have to work everyday. What they want isn’t possible on a national scale, it’s failed every time it’s been attempted.
Yeah but to them socialism comes after state capitalism and I wonder what they envisage their full socialism will look like.
When has socialism been attempted?
The USSR was a socialist state.
Ok, so the second fastest developing state in history that defended multiple other states at the same time against the most powerful state in the world that won the space race was socialist ?
And? Slavery built the Pyramids would you like to live under the same system the ancient Egyptians lived under?
No one is disputing what the USSR achieved, but also let’s remember the 10s of millions of people who died, and worked as basically slave labour for the entirety of their lives, so the state could achieve this. No freedom to choose where they worked, no freedom to decide how long they worked, no freedom to spend what they earned through said work, and no freedom to voice their opinions about anything.
If you would like to work in some factory for the rest of your life, in exchange for a shoe box sized flat and eat what is given to you because it’s free then by all means go and live in North Korea. We all good over here broski 👍🏽
Oh I know. There i also this, if they didnt shape up and get disciplined as fuck, the nazis would have turned the whole region into a holocaust factory and later mad prevented the US nuking ussr and china back to the stone age. And all the lives saved by rolling out healthcare and good nutrition.
The nuclear shield and military might led to billions of lives being saved in china, more in Vietnam and so on.
It a multi tiered system. Government elites experiences “socialism” in a much different way than everyone else.
Yeah we have socialism for the the rich.
But im curious to see what they envisage as socialism in 2050 when its socialism for everyone.
The free rider argument is interesting to me because both political wings use it.
The right uses a hypothetical "welfare queen" archetype of a person who could work but prefers the government dole
The left will make the same free rider argument against people like the Waltons. They make up several of the 10 richest people in the country but make their money by owning Walmart (but the actual *work* is done by the workers [who are often on the government dole even while employed])
Both exist, for sure, but when it comes to the larger state of affairs I think it's clear who has more power in setting the world to be as they want
>The left will make the same free rider argument against people like the Waltons.
Actually, I believe the arguments about Wal-Mart being a welfare queen is because they pay their employees so little that their employees are qualifying for welfare like SNAP and other assistance, therefore Wal-Mart's high profits are subsidized by the US welfare system.
But you are correct that the left does make claims like that about corporations like Wal-Mart.
Also people that make money just by owning things and being paid out of workers productivity.
Do you believe that if public welfare programs were dissolved then the workers would demand more pay as a result? It's an interesting thought.
No - removing assistance for poor people makes them more desperate, and more accepting of bad working conditions
Well yeah because if people are not breaking even they cannot live and should either move or do something else. Since when you cannot make ends meet... you can't make ends meet... its only kicking the can down the road currently... there is no decent long term solutions being presented by people for the benifits problem.
Something I realize about the current economic climate is there is some form of "rebalance" coming. Like it or not this happens with animals eg if a population outgrows its food supply its either going to move to somewhere else or starve and die... people kinda are like that only our food is really money which we get for labours, goods, services etc. and we trade it for homes, quality of life and food etc.. effectivly natures brutal rules always emerge and dictate the answer.
The problem with a benifit system as a whole which is a serious problem in the UK is that if you cut benifits tomorrow about 25% of people would be homeless by next week so obviously thats not a good short term solution.... However the 2nd problem with the benfifit system propping up a broken system is that when it reaches critical mass there is no more benfifits to give eventually. So... the system also fails and you are likly to get the same outcome (all socialist endevors typically fail / implode like this sooner or later).
This is going to happen to a certain degree this winter in the UK. Anyone on the breadline last winter who is on the same amount this year is totally screwed. The eletric and gas(heating type) have both had 3x30% increases this year. So anyone who was just having their head above water... now can't keep it there they have to cut something somehow from somewhere just to treat water and for some people that actually means finding an extra 1-2 months salary this winter. Ok so whats the solution? Increase benifits? Ok how to do that? Increase taxes? Nope... I start working a 3 day week.... so you actually collect less money from the better off than leaving them alone. To put it in perspective Mon = 0% Tues = 20%, Weds = 32.5%, Thurs+Friday=52.5% tax rates which is why it makes sense to cut to a 3 days week and its not like I am taking a 20% pay cut its closer to 10% because of the progressive tax system. Or I leave the country....
This isn't a new problem. One of the main problems of "hand outs" per say is that the people are not self sufficent inside the system. So its either a problem with the people (unlikly because its happening in large numbers) but more a problem to do with the system its self or society and a fair amount of it is a society problem. A lot of people in their youth partied real hard in the last 20 years didn't do much and didn't figure out where they are going in life. They basically lived the good times up and now when the bad times are coming they are not prepared and don't have anything of value to offer in trade. They had the freedom to chase what they wanted to chase rather than what their future life needed them to chase. Kinda like failing to cut wood in the summer and dry it for the winter months coming only for people this is more like over 15-20 years of their life eg aged 12+ up to about 30 which is when you need to establish yourself or you get kicked out sideways.
Either way when people get pushed below the minimum... some will sell out to survive eg accept any work and multiple jobs other will simply riot, protest and loot because they basically have nothing left to loose or to live for. Of course the better of the people will leave and build a new life somewhere else making the problem worse... So the thing about benfifits systems to prop up people its its basically paying them to "be quite and not rise up" and is really treating a symtome of the problem not the problem its self.
Now heres another kicker.... the economic climate is reaching a point where its so damm difficult to actually compete or add something of new value that isn't expotentially more difficult to create than the last thing added which already has market control in a particular area people basically can't innovate any more and system the current system is based on infinate growth.... its going to really suck at some stage in the future.
Like for example. I looked at doing some apps. Then I realized that any idea I came up with already has 50+ items in the app store for. It actually has > 1 million apps now.... and I would be playing catch up.....
Likewise the value being added like machines / robots and replacing or augmenting existing jobs to cut staff... if you increase the wage you will get a machine to replace them faster. So trying to fix the issues can actually make the issue work... after all the people (like me) doing this eg building machines are also simply trying to make a living as well but this process as a whole doesn't quite replace jobs... It changes them. eg what would have been somebody cooking burgers becomes a process / machine operation / machine maintenance job. Which often increases the minimum skill bar significiantly which in turn cuts the bottom line out of society but at the same time society still produces the same good, services as a whole.
So no its not as simple as remove welfare to fix this as it would probably make the situation immediatly worse. However not dealing with issue is going to make the problem even more worse in the medium/long term....
People need to be empowered one way or another to be self sufficent inside the economic system.... or there going to be hell to pay if they are not.
Another problem with the whole. "Well lets just increase minimum wage" well that doesn't work either.... if you increase minimum wage and the prices of a lot of materials don't go up at the same rate.. the process of doing so too much is simply likly to invalidate business models.
An example of what I mean by that. Going to bar / club here is a "nice to have" now .... people just have parties now because the price of a pint in a bar is £7 the price of a beer from a can is £1.... so if you put 50 friends together and get them 10 beers each the overall price difference is 6 \* 50 \* 10 = £3000. You can simply rent a room and a DJ well inside that cost and throw the party yourself..... funny enough I am a member of several private social clubs which are basically that which charge £3 a beer and a £50/yr membership and time is spent there before heading for a single drink in the town to top the night off. Its also why some places are now £9 and even the odd £11 beer is being see (this is all pre-covid btw)
So no its not a simple just cut this and fix the problem. The other problem is people start jumping the supply line. The supermarket and large corps are "shit" for quality and its constantly dropping.... people are going to the farmers markets and butches directly. Likewise they are ordering close and closer to the suppler (this is what amazon is - its also why its succeeding) We are actually intercepting the supply chains where I am and this is what I mean by a "rebalance" is coming....
They are designed to prevent people over throwing the system.
Before welfare liberalism there were riots and unrest.
A very intereating thing about denmark is this, you notice it right away. You see lots of small and locally owned business and dont see all the usually shit pay corporate franchises and chains.
The unions regulate the pay, and the pay is twice the European average.
So, it appears that ordinary people out preform the big corps when the wages are decent .
>Before welfare liberalism there were riots and unrest.
That's a pretty unilateral explanation of a multivariate problem. Welfare is prolific in poor black communities, but unrest, riots, and murder are rampant there right now.
I don't think I've heard of a single riot in the US over economic issues.
>dont see all the usually shit pay corporate franchises and chains.
That's all over Europe. My sister lives in Switzerland and it's the same there as well.
>The unions regulate the pay, and the pay is twice the European average.
I can imagine taxes are far higher as well. So it levels out.
We ended welfare liberalism in the late 70s and there has been decline since then.
Cut the welfare state to the point its not providing good jobs and full employment and replace that with dole checks and you bought a shit show..
\>I don't think I've heard of a single riot in the US over economic issues.
blm? Opposition to authoritarian policing of poverty?
And a long history before that.
\>I can imagine taxes are far higher as well. So it levels out.
You can work the ;lowest paid job there for 35 hours a week and have decent life, good health care, paid holidays. And drop out any time and get paid to study, or just do what you want.
Everyone there is born owning resource wealth.
Blowing off the group of people who drive the discussion around the societal value systems is a big mistake.
Always has been.
What do they contribute, then?
There is a trend in economics where its not tol bad to have economics and a philosophy degree. Because you can bring new points of view. Philosophy also makes you able to think in multiple views and consider different ways how something can affect you or others.
Think of the popularity of stand up comedy. Some of them are more or less modern social / moral philosophers with a sense of humor.
They directly contribute towards the establishment of societal value systems.
It's very much like saying the guys who write the software that your car's computer uses have no value and contribute nothing.
Without their contribution your car will do nothing.
Interestingly, this question is asked about artists too. What value do they contribute? As an artist it can be very hard to convince people to donate money to me to make art. Like if I say I want 50K to paint the next Sistine Chapel, who is going to contribute to that?
Invented modern society, enlightenment and democracy.
So they haven’t contributed anything for the last 2000 years?
Read 1984 for in idea of what it might be like if its forgotten about.
1984 is about totalitarianism, written by a socialist. It is not about what would happen if we didn’t have democracy.
Its about a potential future totalitarian system where knowledge is gone.
And philosophical thought is all but impossible due to the control of the language taken by the government.
The contempt for so called useless degrees and anti liberal education rhetoric, banning abortion, banning lgbtq education and hatred of liberal universities and ideas points in the direction of the 1984ish world orwell was warning about.
It feeds into the useless degrees narrative, as if the only point in knowledge is mking money. If we lost these "useless degrees" we'd be an ignorant species.
Ignorant of what?
Our culture, arts, literature.
I studied philosophy in university. It was a complete waste of time. And I’m a full time photographer.
What do you do?
I enjoy learning for its own sake. Maybe it's just not a subject your interested in, I'm sure though you would find value in some classes even if they didn't contribute to your income. Not all value is monetary
We are all photographers now.
And philosophers for that matter.
They work at the philosophy store selling philosophy. There is a great demand for essentialism this week.
And you think the average person is aware of these?
Its passed along, taught about and kept alive in universities.
>Ignorant of what?
Why would powerful billionaires pay millions to politicians and propaganda media to save trillions by creating a system that charges them [**just 3.4% in taxes**](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2021/jun/08/richest-25-americans-jeff-bezos-elon-musk-tax)
…while useful idiots portray any critics of this as lazy and entitled.
It’s a mystery.
[Eventually when I *do* pay taxes…] “…basically, my actual tax rate is 53%”
This is a blatant lie.
Doesn't matter. When he sells... he needs a buyer and the money has to come from somewhere else. Thats the problem with trying to tax somebody who is rich on paper by valuation and somebody who has money in their account.
Elon there has 170 million shares in Tesla.... and they are $1014 each which is $172b so take 20% tax on that... you need 34.5b from somebody else to buy it to get it liquidated he doesn't have the cash. If your doing this with all stocks every year for all people above a certain threshold it simply doesn't work cause there no money/people to buy the stock so you get 3.4% of 0.
First thing that would actually happen is new york stock exchange closes and stock exchange of the cayman island opens moving it out of your legal jusistiction to tax in the in the first place.
So when people like you come in here suggesting things like this. Well yeah you need to understand the actual system first rather than just trash everyones pension pots in the long term....
**Makes up a bullshit tax scheme then shows it’s bullshit*
“So when people like you come in here suggesting things like this…”
Um that was your suggestion not mine 😊
His actualy tax rate is what he states it to be... when his options expire he has to chose to keep them or sell them if he sell those shares and then pay tax on them.
Oh wait... here we go
"Combined, the state and federal tax rate will be 54.1%. So the total tax bill on his options, at the current price, would be $15 billion."
The only person brining bullshit here is you.... because you don't understand how the system works....
Its like me having $10k investing it with you. Because you promise to pay be back $20k in 5 years. But because I have no money to live I then borrow from the bank $10k to cover it. I am liable for that (but good for it because your promise). You are liable for your $10k to me at least.... Then your basically suggesting I pay tax on the money I leant to you? Guess what as part of the agreement I am going to make you pay the tax on it or you ain't getting any money in the first place to start your business.
You may not realize it but this is actually what your suggesting....
Wait - so, the taxing systems you’re making up then heroically tearing apart
Are they bullshit or not?
I would like a definition of what is capitalism and what is socialism in this case. Because what americans understand is very different from the rest of the world.
First thing i learned in my studies is, if you use word, provide a definition. Or be precise with your language, as JBP would say.
Why wouldn’t a group of individuals (of which don’t contribute to society) want a system that provides for the individuals who don’t contribute to society? The idea is very seductive…
Damn, they're going against the philosophers now?
Not really a mystery...ideology is simple and brilliant smart people who want to be intellectually lazy and not think deeply about things are attracted to it. Also Bastiat says in the Law that the fatal tendency of mankind is to live off the fruits and labors of others.
In the JBP sub your saying philosophers don’t contribute to society??
And why does Reddit keep promoting the r/antiwork ?
When your job is automated, or you work long enough to only get by you will crying for a bit of socialism.
No, if you’re informed you’ll be crying for capitalism.
I’m sure they would if they were capable and would like a merit based system. But the can’t is the reason they don’t like the merit based systems.
Depends on your definition of “well”. I think basic food, shelter and basic medical care can be taken care of but hesitant on any UBI model.