Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Why is socialism seen as a 'nice' philosophy? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noobynoo)
    Well if you live in a city you have to pay your membership fees.

    If you don't like living in a city then you can always go live in Siberia or somewhere. But then again if you get attacked by a neighbouring tribe they'll be no police to stop them, if you get ill, you'll die, and if your house catches fire then good luck with that!

    So you can either live in a city, work 9-5 and buy the latest plasma TVs, or go live in the wilderness and get eaten by polar bears.

    Up to you.
    City dwellers have to pay their landlords rent in exchange for access to the local area, why then do I have to pay taxes to the state on top? Who exactly is providing the services you refer to and if the state is providing them as you suggest why do landlords get to charge a locational value as if they're the service providers?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DK_Tipp)
    Some of the greatest minds in history were socialists. I don't actually happen to be one of them, I believe a balance between left and right is essential. I suppose in some cases I can understand why socialism appeals to people and may appear to be just.
    I don't believe in a balance between the left and right. Here's why (it's called Dog S*** Yoghurt Fallacy):

    "It goes like this: one side of this debate thinks that the best thing to put in yoghurt is fruit; the other side is of the view that what really needs to be added to yoghurt is a nice bit of dog poo. Now suppose we were to compromise. Suppose the latter faction were to concede sufficient ground to agree that only a tiny quantity of dog poo should go into the mainly fruit-rich yoghurt, would this constitute a victory for commonsense?

    Of course it wouldn't. Even if just the smallest, smidgen of a fraction of dog poo were to go into that yoghurt it would still be irredeemably tainted".
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    I don't believe in a balance between the left and right. Here's why (it's called Dog S*** Yoghurt Fallacy):

    "It goes like this: one side of this debate thinks that the best thing to put in yoghurt is fruit; the other side is of the view that what really needs to be added to yoghurt is a nice bit of dog poo. Now suppose we were to compromise. Suppose the latter faction were to concede sufficient ground to agree that only a tiny quantity of dog poo should go into the mainly fruit-rich yoghurt, would this constitute a victory for commonsense?

    Of course it wouldn't. Even if just the smallest, smidgen of a fraction of dog poo were to go into that yoghurt it would still be irredeemably tainted".
    I laughed and learned something at the same time. Reps++
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    I don't believe in a balance between the left and right. Here's why (it's called Dog S*** Yoghurt Fallacy):

    "It goes like this: one side of this debate thinks that the best thing to put in yoghurt is fruit; the other side is of the view that what really needs to be added to yoghurt is a nice bit of dog poo. Now suppose we were to compromise. Suppose the latter faction were to concede sufficient ground to agree that only a tiny quantity of dog poo should go into the mainly fruit-rich yoghurt, would this constitute a victory for commonsense?

    Of course it wouldn't. Even if just the smallest, smidgen of a fraction of dog poo were to go into that yoghurt it would still be irredeemably tainted".
    I will save this. LOL. ++
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noobynoo)
    I laughed and learned something at the same time. Reps++

    (Original post by dj1015)
    I will save this. LOL. ++

    I've used it a few times now! But alas I can't say it's my own work. I forgot to add the link:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...metic-fallacy/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Socialism is an inflantile ideology, it suggests that we can split everybody up in two groups: 'workers' and 'capitalists' (or good guys and bad guys) and then rearrange things so the good guys get all the stuff. Brilliant!

    There's another name for this and it's called nepotism. Socialists want to enrich themselves and their chums through cheating and theft because they know they'll never get their on merit. You can dream I suppose...
    Yet you were agreeing with me the other day that labour creates value.

    You're all over the shop.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Yet you were agreeing with me the other day that labour creates value.

    You're all over the shop.
    How many times have we been over this?

    Yes labour creates values yes but it isn't solely responsible for all the value in existence. We don't scrabble around in the dirt on our hands and knees if we need to dig a hole for example we use shovels and spades (aka tooling or capital), and in turn those shovels and spades were crafted out of wood and metal which are natural resources (land).

    No one factor is more responsible than another for creating value, they all have their part to play and they all deserve their respective returns: wages, profit and rent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    How many times have we been over this?

    Yes labour creates values yes but it isn't solely responsible for all the value in existence. We don't scrabble around in the dirt on our hands and knees if we need to dig a hole for example we use shovels and spades (aka tooling or capital), and in turn those shovels and spades were crafted out of wood and metal which are natural resources (land).

    No one factor is more responsible than another for creating value, they all have their part to play and they all deserve their respective returns: wages, profit and rent.
    We did this the other day too.

    Tools are a product of labour. We have to apply labour to natural resources.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    We did this the other day too.

    Tools are a product of labour. We have to apply labour to natural resources.
    Right...so If I apply my labour to a piece of wood and turn it into valuable tooling, like a bow say or a mallet, who's the legitimate owner of the subsequent uplift in value, me or someone else? Furthermore if the state decides that somebody else deserves the additonal value don't you think it will have an impact on how much we produce? I won't make a mallet if it's only going to be stolen, the 'economy' works using the exact same logic only on a more glorified scale.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by roh)
    Even the world's more capitalistic countries have some form of income tax, it's hardly a concept that's unique to socialism.
    Higher rates of income tax are required to fund the public services of a socialist society. If we lived in a free market society, the employed would have much higher post-tax wages, which they can spend on whatever they wish.

    That's why OP describes it as 'confiscating income'. They force you to spend a certain proportion of your income on public transport, healthcare etc. Even if you never use those services.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Right...so If I apply my labour to a piece of wood and turn it into valuable tooling, like a bow say or a mallet, who's the legitimate owner of the subsequent uplift in value, me or someone else? Furthermore if the state decides that somebody else deserves the additonal value don't you think it will have an impact on how much we produce? I won't make a mallet if it's only going to be stolen, the 'economy' works using the exact same logic only on a more glorified scale.
    Indeed. This is exactly the point that Marx makes. The owners of the means of production pay the labourer less than the value the labourer adds. The difference, they take as profit. In effect, stolen from the worker merely because they own the factory.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Heizenburg)
    Higher rates of income tax are required to fund the public services of a socialist society. If we lived in a free market society, the employed would have much higher post-tax wages, which they can spend on whatever they wish.

    That's why OP describes it as 'confiscating income'. They force you to spend a certain proportion of your income on public transport, healthcare etc. Even if you never use those services.
    Everyone benefits from those services. Try running a business with an unhealthy, uneducated workforce who can't get to work.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    God how I hate it when people (both on the right and left) use the term 'socialism' to refer to liberal Keynesian and or social democratic states. Keynes wanted to avoid socialist revolution ffs.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Indeed. This is exactly the point that Marx makes. The owners of the means of production pay the labourer less than the value the labourer adds. The difference, they take as profit. In effect, stolen from the worker merely because they own the factory.
    This position isn't wholly without merit but by and large I disagree with Marx's analysis here.

    Lets say a budding capitalist dreams of opening up a bridge building firm. He creates his own tools, spends hours upon hours devising the blueprints, organises the labour, organises the materials and finally puts his plan into action and builds the bridge, can he legitimately be described as a parasite if he draws an income from the operation? I would say not because he was expended a lot of effort that was integral to the bridge being built.

    There's wiggle room here of course as company bosses -like everyone- will take advantage if they can, but it's plain wrong to suggest they bring nothing to the party.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Right...so If I apply my labour to a piece of wood and turn it into valuable tooling, like a bow say or a mallet, who's the legitimate owner of the subsequent uplift in value, me or someone else? Furthermore if the state decides that somebody else deserves the additonal value don't you think it will have an impact on how much we produce? I won't make a mallet if it's only going to be stolen, the 'economy' works using the exact same logic only on a more glorified scale.
    Learn the difference between economic theory and legal concepts.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Learn the difference between economic theory and legal concepts.
    What a disappointing post. It wasn't even worth the click of the mouse.

    Up your game anarchism, you're better than that.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Lets say a budding capitalist dreams of opening up a bridge building firm. He creates his own tools, spends hours upon hours devising the blueprints, organises the labour, organises the materials and finally puts his plan into action and builds the bridge, can he legitimately be described as a parasite if he draws an income from the operation? I would say not because he was expended a lot of effort that was integral to the bridge being built.
    So did plenty of other people who aren't even considered in the equation. For example, Edison spent a lot of time and effort inventing the lightbulb. That invention has been integral to anything built involving lightbulbs ever since. Does that mean Edison deserves (or would deserve if he was alive) a slice of the profits of every enterprise involving lightbulbs?

    This is essentially what Peter Kropotkin argued - it's impossible to work out everyone's responsibility or lack thereof for the creation of something so it's pointless trying, and so we should base our arguments of what we consider a just system on consumption rather than production.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If I had it my way I would love society to be "pure" socialist. However, the impracticality of "pure" socialism is virtually impossible because we as humans are greedy little so-and-so's. Therefore, inequality is always inevitable...

    such a shame though! I've only touched upon the Marxism etc, but I would love to read more into it if anyone has any suggestions! thanks
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    What a disappointing post. It wasn't even worth the click of the mouse.

    Up your game anarchism, you're better than that.
    You referred to a 'legitimate owner of value'. How one can have a legal entitlement to a theoretical economic concept is a mystery to me and so there wasn't really much of a response to give.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    This position isn't wholly without merit but by and large I disagree with Marx's analysis here.

    Lets say a budding capitalist dreams of opening up a bridge building firm. He creates his own tools, spends hours upon hours devising the blueprints, organises the labour, organises the materials and finally puts his plan into action and builds the bridge, can he legitimately be described as a parasite if he draws an income from the operation? I would say not because he was expended a lot of effort that was integral to the bridge being built.

    There's wiggle room here of course as company bosses -like everyone- will take advantage if they can, but it's plain wrong to suggest they bring nothing to the party.
    Yes, Marx's analysis is a macro analysis and he acknowledges that people can play different roles. The main thing to draw from this discussion is that production is almost always a collective effort.
 
 
 
Poll
Should MenACWY vaccination be compulsory at uni?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.