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

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

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    I used my brain. Socialists want to force cooperation on us from above, therefore they must believe that it isn't a natural tendency at all.
    What would an unforced cooperation look like?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Which socialists want to do that? I'm a socialist, I believe in grassroots organisation.
    You believe in grassroot organisation as a means to end, the end being control over the levers of state to effect a socialist outcome. Therefore socialism as a concept isn't a natural tendency. Unless of course you just sit around with your socialist chums drinking fairtrade coffee and agreeing on how great Lenin was?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    No, it took tooling and labour to extract the metal, hence the 3 factors of production: labour; capital (tooling) and land (metal).

    As humans we can only manipulate the resources around us, we didn't create the earth with all natural minerals it contains: it's existence predates the human race.
    You're agreeing with me. We only create value by manipulating the resources around us. This is Marx's argument in Capital.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeneas)
    What would an unforced cooperation look like?
    It would look like cooperation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and Nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between himself and Nature. He opposes himself to Nature as one of her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, head and hands, the natural forces of his body, in order to appropriate Nature’s productions in a form adapted to his own wants."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    You believe in grassroot organisation as a means to end, the end being control over the levers of state to effect a socialist outcome. Therefore socialism as a concept isn't a natural tendency. Unless of course you just sit around with your socialist chums drinking fairtrade coffee and agreeing on how great Lenin was?
    Yeah, thanks for telling me what I believe. Arrogant fool.

    You think Leninism is the be all and end all of socialism? Ignorant too.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    It would look like cooperation.
    Which looks like what
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    You're agreeing with me. We only create value by manipulating the resources around us. This is Marx's argument in Capital.
    Then at the very least he must accept there are two factors of production: land and labour?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Then at the very least he must accept there are two factors of production: land and labour?
    Marx wasn't stupid. He knew full well that resources and labour were necessary. The point here is that land and natural resources don't transform themselves.



    "The elementary factors of the labour-process are 1, the personal activity of man, i.e., work itself, 2, the subject of that work, and 3, its instruments.

    The soil (and this, economically speaking, includes water) in the virgin state in which it supplies man with necessaries or the means of subsistence ready to hand, exists independently of him, and is the universal subject of human labour. All those things which labour merely separates from immediate connexion with their environment, are subjects of labour spontaneously provided by Nature. Such are fish which we catch and take from their element, water, timber which we fell in the virgin forest, and ores which we extract from their veins. If, on the other hand, the subject of labour has, so to say, been filtered through previous labour, we call it raw material; such is ore already extracted and ready for washing. All raw material is the subject of labour, but not every subject of labour is raw material: it can only become so, after it has undergone some alteration by means of labour."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)
    Even as a theory it is truly repugnant. I do not want to live in a world where there is no incentive or competition, where people can freeload. To be honest socialism just confirms the "it is nice to share your toys, Timmy" command from parents to their 4 year old son. It is completely unworkable and goes against human nature. The easily led will be led by the ideas of socialism, unfortunately.
    You so silly. In fact this whole thread is rather ridiculous.

    I suggest anyone who agrees with the OP read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome and do some further research into the benefits of living in a more socialist country. Maybe you should read up on the mess that is the American private healthcare industry? Stop being ignorant.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The problem is that socialism is lambasted by idiots. A mate of mine sees every single socialist buzzword as a pointer towards communism, which he only dislikes because I think he played too much Red Alert 2 a while ago. Socialism is for people with morals, a sense of community and general goodness. Capitalism is for the bad people who don't care about others at all. Makes no sense. We're all human 'brothers' and all that. Capitalistis decisions are so detrimental.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheHairyArmenian)
    I'm sorry but what you said (and what you're totally convinced by) is utterly and factually wrong. There's is nothing I can say except go and read a political philosophy book. It's the doctrine fundamental to all socialist thought, and is also the idea least disputed by different types of socialists. It's like me saying that bananas are blue. Please go read up on it.
    Of course a socialist political philosophy textbook is going to tell me that socialism is the answer to all our prayers, what do you expect? It really annoys me when posters are so lazy that instead of debating the points say 'go away and read up on subject x until you agree with me'. I could read of entirety of Marx's Das Kapital and still believe you were talking rubbish because socialism as an ideology is full of holes. You're just wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Of course a socialist political philosophy textbook is going to tell me that socialism is the answer to all our prayers, what do you expect? It really annoys me when posters are so lazy that instead of debating the points say 'go away and read up on subject x until you agree with me'. I could read of entirety of Marx's Das Kapital and still believe you were talking rubbish because socialism as an ideology is full of holes. You're just wrong.
    So engage with the arguments and tell us how its full of holes.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    Because an individual's right to swing his fist ends at anyone else's face. Committing a robbery is a restriction on an individual's freedom - it is a restriction on the individual you are robbing.
    This approach simply doesn't fit with how are criminal law works though, you would wipe out half the crimes in England and Wales, crime is about harm to society not the individual victim.

    So, in your assault example what if I say 'want to take this outside?' to a guy, we go outside and proceed to beat seven shades of **** out of each other? Presumably this isn't infringing our freedom as our actions suggested we wanted to do it, but we could still both go down for assault/ABH/GBH because our actions are judged to be harming society more widely. Ditto if you organise to have a Western style shootout in a car park and kill the other guy, you're still going to be charged with murder even though you have both tacitly consented to the possibility.

    Other crimes also don't even have to include any harm whatsoever to an individual other than yourself, such as drunk/unlicensed driving or possession of illegal drugs.

    You would also have to put an end to pretty much every case of attempt (with possible exceptions where the victim was aware of it) and every conspiracy to commit as in those cases the individual whose rights are planned to be infringed upon will have no idea at the time of the arrest.

    These are just come examples, but hopefully they show why crime cannot be about individual ham but instead about wider societal condemnation.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    So engage with the arguments and tell us how its full of holes.
    Well for starters it drives a great big wedge inbetween the worker and the value of his or her output. Because socialists are so intent on collectivising (confiscating) everything it sends out the message that productivity isn't worth the effort, why bother when the taxman will take everything you produce anyway?

    This is one hole, but there are many, many others.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Well for starters it drives a great big wedge inbetween the worker and the value of his or her output. Because socialists are so intent on collectivising (confiscating) everything it sends out the message that productivity isn't worth the effort, why bother when the taxman will take everything you produce anyway?

    This is one hole, but there are many, many others.
    Eh? Work is a collective activity anyway, as I have shown. At the moment, surplus value is extracted from workers as profit.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Eh? Work is a collective activity anyway, as I have shown. At the moment, surplus value is extracted from workers as profit.
    No, the surplus value is extracted from the economy as rent. Until you come to terms with this concept you'll always be an enemy of the working class.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    No, the surplus value is extracted from the economy as rent. Until you come to terms with this concept you'll always be an enemy of the working class.
    Labour is the source of value as i have shown.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Classic chefdave thread.

    What are the drawbacks? You say there are any but don't mention them. Other than the implied drawback being the "right to confiscate my income".
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Labour is the source of value as i have shown.
    No, labour in conjunction with land produces the goods and services we require to survive. If there was no land value would be impossible to add, how are you going to grow crops without the terra firma necessary to do it?
 
 
 
Poll
Which pet is the best?
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.