Turn on thread page Beta

Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist' watch

Announcements
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    As stated before, one these communes start to develop, they receive hostility from capitalism. As for me setting up my own commune, I'm not rich. Also we need to set up voluntary citizens' militas (such as the Kronstadt sailors), trade unions, co-operatives, then we need to seize private property and establish trade links/military support from neighbouring socialist countries that would support us from the hostile capitalist world. It's not as simple as you think it is. Capitalism will do everything to destroy our communities.
    BS. Citation please? Communes are tried all the time. They always eventually fail because clash of egos, combined with no real structure or rules, leads to resentment and eventually people leave. Plus there are always people who dont pull their weight but still expect to be fed, housed and clothed.

    As for your citizens militias - what gives you the right to seize property from a system supported by the majority and distribute it to your minority. You might not recognise property rights invidiually, but you've certainly recognised them on a group level if you feel you can 'take' things from others.

    How would a socialist country even have a military? What reason would there be to follow orders? Ideology? What if you disagree with an order? Or want to sleep in that day?

    Please give evidence of Capitalism conspiring to destroy a commune that was not itself set up in defiance of capitalism (ie on stolen land). Show me one example of a commune on privately owned land that has been suppressed by some capitalist conspiricy.


    You don't understand the differences between private property and personal property. You get to own your own things. You can have your own living space (which no-one else can violate or enter without good reason - e.g. you have invited them in.).
    There isnt such a distinction. Theres no obvious place to draw a line. If I ride horses can I own a horse? How about the barn they live in? How about the field they need to exercise? How about the one next to that where I grow their food? If I dont own any of these things what stops someone else coming in a bulldozing it all?
    Private property is large areas of uninhabited land, mansions and factories, industries and business that are not managed and owned by the workers.

    http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html
    What an arbitrary definition.

    Mansions are owned by the people who live in them! Are you happy for people to own mansions provided they only own the one? What about companies like the co-operative, where the assets literally are owned by the workers? Can they keep their stores, factories, warehouses etc?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Jesus, we already answered all these in your other thread. We do not advocate the above!!



    Why is it fair that some people earn all their money through interest, accumulation of capital and inheritance?



    Have they? Also communists don't support taxation. Read.



    By destroying political and economic despotism, everyone will be "'richer' in health, 'richer' in friendships, 'richer' in happiness etc." Your argument essentially makes no sense because you have admitted that one does not necessarily need money to be happy. We want everyone to have enough money to get by so they can enjoy those other qualities of life and forget about bills, mortgages and finances.



    It offends me because we've answered most of this before and you still carry on saying the same old things. Here, READ:

    http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html
    Some socialists do advocate what I've said. The question was targetted at those individuals actually.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LawBore)
    Why abolish schools that select based on intelligence?
    I feel that the different types of schools creates elitism in education. Why should a child receive superior education because of intelligence? Everyone should have the same education to ensure that we all have the same opportunities in life.

    Also, if you raised taxes beyond a certain amount, and found that your tax income actually decreased (as it would), would you ignore it, raise taxes more, increase the nation's borrowing, or cut spending?
    I would never increase tax above 50%. I would ideally like to have people earning over £100,000 have 50% taken in tax, have the 20% and 40% thresholds merged to a 30%; so all average people pay a flat rate of 30%. Anyone earning under £15k will not pay any Income Tax.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    Some socialists do advocate what I've said. The question was targetted at those individuals actually.
    Still, it is not completely unjustified for some to have such principles (though I do not directly advocate statism or nationalisation, rather commune-ism and socialisation). Also, you still need to do some more reading on the ideologies you oppose so rigorously. The link I posted is highly comprehesive and makes for good reading. You probably won't be so enthusiastic about capitalism any more when you realise how many social injustices it creates. Then again, it has provided for you alright from the sounds of it, so why would you care about the people below you?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    Aye, I hope not also.

    My Nan grew up in poverty, went on to get married, had 9 kids, lived in a council house, all of her children grew up to be successful and middle class. Quite impressive I'd of thought.

    Indeed! That is really impressive!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Calling him a troll does nothing.

    (Original post by .Ali.)
    Thirdly, why is everyone equal? Some people have more advantages in different areas, it'll always be like that. Some are more athletic, some are arty, some are more social...so you'll never eradicate 'rich' and 'poor'. Even if you took physical wealth out of the equasion, some people would be 'richer' in health, 'richer' in friendships, 'richer' in happiness etc. Thoughts?
    We all know that the fastest runner is going to be the first to the bunker when the velociraptors start giving chase. What's important is a system in which the slowest person isn't eaten. This is the fundamental leftist idea, and it is of course disputable, but it seems to me (and I'd guess most people of the Socialist Party on TSR - though I'm not one of them) a moral constant in every human culture that the man who runs to save himself is a coward and the man who runs to save others a hero. If you believe you're validated in the partisan and private accumulation of wealth through whatever means you really can't attack anyone else doing the same, whether they do it through assuming ownership of you as a slave, replete with chains and malnourishment, etc. Or through a redistributive tax system.

    As for disparities in health and happiness, I don't know anyone who wouldn't regard these factors as relating directly to equality. On QI just last week they mentioned the gap between rich and poor as being proportional to how happy people were in any given state, and one only needs to glance at any of the Death Rate / Gini Coefficient images on wikipedia to see the huge correlation there. Of interest too is this talk on TED by Hans Rosling. It's pretty relevant, about child mortality and female education.

    I do think it's important to recognise the difference between two given people being equal and two given people being identical, the fastest runner is always going to be faster than the others, but your father, it would be claimed, is not rich because he's the fastest runner. He's rich because he owns the means of production, because of privilege. Why he should pay higher taxes is mostly explained in Das Kapital, which is definitely worth reading if you really want to understand why a redistribution via a graduated tax system is necessary. Alternatively you can refuse to educate yourself and beleaguer how unfair it is that you're forced to play fairly, for the rest of your life
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    I am not suggesting that. I am not suggesting that we should abolish privilege at all; I am in favour of allowing rich people, who have earned that money through work, to buy nice cars and fancy houses. However, it is unfair that people are born into a family that is rich and have money given to them through inheritance for doing nothing. I would want to increase the general level of income tax for everyone earning over £100k and increase inheritance tax.
    I'm not against increasing inheritance tax - its hardly a disincentive to working hard. Income tax however, gets punitive above the 50% mark. Most people who earn over 100k put in insane hours, why shouldnt they be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their hardwork?

    We won't allow schools to be set up. The state will always provide schools and will select pupils equally and fairly; not through positive discrimination.
    Who will? Some dictatorship? How will you stop, for example, parents gaming geographic selection. What will you do if no underprivileged people live within 30 minutes of the school? bus them in?


    Bad parents? I hope you aren't implying that poorer parents are bad parents?
    ITs a commenly raised arguement against allowing selection in schools that pro-active parents make a huge difference to the school - making a good school even better, whereas sink schools often suffer from parents who, perhaps through no fault of their own, take little interest in their childrens schooling.

    Its an undeniable fact that interested, involved parents vastly improve a childs and schools performance.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    I feel that the different types of schools creates elitism in education. Why should a child receive superior education because of intelligence? Everyone should have the same education to ensure that we all have the same opportunities in life.



    I would never increase tax above 50%. I would ideally like to have people earning over £100,000 have 50% taken in tax, have the 20% and 40% thresholds merged to a 30%; so all average people pay a flat rate of 30%. Anyone earning under £15k will not pay any Income Tax.
    Out of interest, why shouldnt a more intelligent child have more opportunities?

    what is inherently wrong with elitism?

    Should a labourer who works for 10 hours be paid the same as a brain surgeon who works for 10 hours?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by no chance)
    Calling him a troll does nothing.



    We all know that the fastest runner is going to be the first to the bunker when the velociraptors start giving chase. What's important is a system in which the slowest person isn't eaten. This is the fundamental leftist idea, and it is of course disputable, but it seems to me (and I'd guess most people of the Socialist Party on TSR - though I'm not one of them) a moral constant in every human culture that the man who runs to save himself is a coward and the man who runs to save others a hero. If you believe you're validated in the partisan and private accumulation of wealth through whatever means you really can't attack anyone else doing the same, whether they do it through assuming ownership of you as a slave, replete with chains and malnourishment, etc. Or through a redistributive tax system.

    As for disparities in health and happiness, I don't know anyone who wouldn't regard these factors as relating directly to equality. On QI just last week they mentioned the gap between rich and poor as being proportional to how happy people were in any given state, and one only needs to glance at any of the Death Rate / Gini Coefficient images on wikipedia to see the huge correlation there. Of interest too is this talk on TED by Hans Rosling. It's pretty relevant, about child mortality and female education.

    I do think it's important to recognise the difference between two given people being equal and two given people being identical, the fastest runner is always going to be faster than the others, but your father, it would be claimed, is not rich because he's the fastest runner. He's rich because he owns the means of production, because of privilege. Why he should pay higher taxes is mostly explained in Das Kapital, which is definitely worth reading if you really want to understand why a redistribution via a graduated tax system is necessary. Alternatively you can refuse to educate yourself and beleaguer how unfair it is that you're forced to play fairly, for the rest of your life
    Quite apart from the fact that this is semi-meaningless, please could you explain how I, who own no means of production but worked two jobs and got into masses of debt to put myself through oxbridge, and now work 100 hour weeks, should now pay a higher rate of tax than someone who, despite starting from an equal position has made little or no effort in life and is on the dole living with his parent. Just because I am more successful?

    Where is the equality in that?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by no chance)
    Calling him a troll does nothing.



    We all know that the fastest runner is going to be the first to the bunker when the velociraptors start giving chase. What's important is a system in which the slowest person isn't eaten. This is the fundamental leftist idea, and it is of course disputable, but it seems to me (and I'd guess most people of the Socialist Party on TSR - though I'm not one of them) a moral constant in every human culture that the man who runs to save himself is a coward and the man who runs to save others a hero. If you believe you're validated in the partisan and private accumulation of wealth through whatever means you really can't attack anyone else doing the same, whether they do it through assuming ownership of you as a slave, replete with chains and malnourishment, etc. Or through a redistributive tax system.

    As for disparities in health and happiness, I don't know anyone who wouldn't regard these factors as relating directly to equality. On QI just last week they mentioned the gap between rich and poor as being proportional to how happy people were in any given state, and one only needs to glance at any of the Death Rate / Gini Coefficient images on wikipedia to see the huge correlation there. Of interest too is this talk on TED by Hans Rosling. It's pretty relevant, about child mortality and female education.

    I do think it's important to recognise the difference between two given people being equal and two given people being identical, the fastest runner is always going to be faster than the others, but your father, it would be claimed, is not rich because he's the fastest runner. He's rich because he owns the means of production, because of privilege. Why he should pay higher taxes is mostly explained in Das Kapital, which is definitely worth reading if you really want to understand why a redistribution via a graduated tax system is necessary. Alternatively you can refuse to educate yourself and beleaguer how unfair it is that you're forced to play fairly, for the rest of your life

    In response to the second paragraph:
    Wouldn't you agree it's based on intelligence? That people are poorer simply because they're unintelligent? (Not in every case, I know). For example, we all have the same opportunities, we can all do well, the education is there...however, some choose not to take it.

    The more intelligent will usually do well academically, thus meaning better jobs. Better jobs will mean more money. Their children will grow up in a wealthier family, and they will raise their children 'right' (with books, taking them to museums, educating them, NOT sticking them in front of a TV) due to their intelligence, and the cycle will continue. Obviously, it will work the other way around too, hence why people who are poorer are less educated.

    I know that's a huge generalisation and there are exceptions, but the point is valid.

    In response to the last bit of that:

    Yes, I will read it, I'm very interested in it. I disagree with what you've said, however. I don't agree with redistribution of wealth, as I fail to understand why someone who has worked hard and got to 'the top' should be forced to pay for those who haven't. If someone is irresponsible with their own personal finances, it's not up to us to look after them. Anyone can save money, anyone can invest. Anyone can achieve if they wish to. If they do not, why should those who have support them? How is that fair? I agree that we shouldn't let the slowest runner get eaten alive, but if people aren't willing to help themselves, why should they rely on handouts?

    It's very interesting though, thanks.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    Out of interest, why shouldnt a more intelligent child have more opportunities?

    what is inherently wrong with elitism?

    Should a labourer who works for 10 hours be paid the same as a brain surgeon who works for 10 hours?
    This. I don't get what's wrong with an intelligent child having more opportunities either.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    This. I don't get what's wrong with an intelligent child having more opportunities either.
    Its kind of like arguing that a pilot and a musician should be treated equally when deciding who gets to fly a plane...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    BS. Citation please?
    Francisco Franco destroyed the civil militias of Spain in 1939 (military intervention).

    Communism in the USSR suffered as a result due to the worldwide hostile capitalist market (trade links) - not anarchism or whatever, but still.

    As for your citizens militias - what gives you the right to seize property from a system supported by the majority and distribute it to your minority. You might not recognise property rights invidiually, but you've certainly recognised them on a group level if you feel you can 'take' things from others.
    Only uninhabited property and property that is used violently against anarchists (self-defense) would be seized. The rich would be expropriated from their capital through alternatives provided by communes, etc. for the workers.

    What gives them the right to deprive society from the right to property? Most of their capital is gathered from their accumulation of capital (wealth makes more wealth), interest and inheritance - hardly hard work is it? Not even the libertarian right can argue with me that in the vast majority of cases, the rich have far from earnedtheir wealth. Thus I ask you, what right to private property do they have? Is it not a violation of a poor man's rights when the bailifs expropriate him from his house because he has not paid the bills? Is force not utilised by the state acting on the behalf of capitalists, employing the bailifs? Does not every man have a right to personal space and a roof over his head?

    How would a socialist country even have a military? What reason would there be to follow orders? Ideology? What if you disagree with an order? Or want to sleep in that day?
    Research this. Many socialst countries have had militaries. If you disagree with an order it is your right to leave at any point. Many militaries have still functioned well even working upon these principles: Spain in 1936.

    There isnt such a distinction. Theres no obvious place to draw a line. If I ride horses can I own a horse?
    Did you create the horse?

    How about the barn they live in? How about the field they need to exercise? How about the one next to that where I grow their food? If I dont own any of these things what stops someone else coming in a bulldozing it all?
    Communes collectively own property and organise all that you have mentioned. Society is, effectively "at the steering wheel".

    Mansions are owned by the people who live in them! Are you happy for people to own mansions provided they only own the one? What about companies like the co-operative, where the assets literally are owned by the workers? Can they keep their stores, factories, warehouses etc?
    To the bold part: no. Mansions will be utilised as offices, military bases. Their extensive land: housing, national parks, etc. Co-operative companies may function with communes in order to receive goods and services from societies. The management of the co-operatives would, as decided by the workers when entering into such voluntary arrangements, be organised by themselves and the ownership will be that of society. Small businesses (pubs, etc.) may stay privatised and co-operate with society. There is no need to be fussy with some form of centralised, Stalinistic planning concept, as long as private property is abolished.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    Its kind of like arguing that a pilot and a musician should be treated equally when deciding who gets to fly a plane...
    Best. Analogy. Ever.

    It's exactly like that. Or saying a doctor should be paid the same as a toilet cleaner because "their jobs are equally important". Both are needed, but really, how can you not think it right a doctor deserves higher wages? They're saving lives for goodness sake! :lolwut:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    I'm not against increasing inheritance tax - its hardly a disincentive to working hard. Income tax however, gets punitive above the 50% mark. Most people who earn over 100k put in insane hours, why shouldnt they be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their hardwork?
    I agree and I am against raising Income Tax over 50% for anyone. I believe that people with broader shoulders should carry more of the burden and have to pay more tax. All parties believe that those who are better off should pay more tax.

    Who will? Some dictatorship? How will you stop, for example, parents gaming geographic selection. What will you do if no underprivileged people live within 30 minutes of the school? bus them in?
    Before the General Election, people weren't allowed to set up their own schools. Its only since the Conservatives were elected that this setting up your own school was allowed. I want to improve the quality of education, so that other schools aren't needed.

    Schools will select pupils purely on geographical location. If more richer pupils live nearer the school then more will be accepted; at least the system is fair and based on location.

    ITs a commenly raised arguement against allowing selection in schools that pro-active parents make a huge difference to the school - making a good school even better, whereas sink schools often suffer from parents who, perhaps through no fault of their own, take little interest in their childrens schooling.

    Its an undeniable fact that interested, involved parents vastly improve a childs and schools performance.
    You are suggesting that poorer parents care less about their children and their education; you cannot generalise people to that extent. Parents can still make a difference to a school through meetings and consultations; selection is an elitist process and is a barrier to creating equality in the UK.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    Out of interest, why shouldnt a more intelligent child have more opportunities?

    what is inherently wrong with elitism?

    Should a labourer who works for 10 hours be paid the same as a brain surgeon who works for 10 hours?
    How is that fair? We should not be ploughing money into one child, but into all children and providing them with a good education.

    A brain surgeon should be paid more than a labourer because he is being paid for the skills that he has obtained and because the supply for his position isn't as high as the demand. The demand for a labourer is relatively low in comparison to the supply.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Francisco Franco destroyed the civil militias of Spain in 1939 (military intervention).

    Communism in the USSR suffered as a result due to the worldwide hostile capitalist market (trade links) - not anarchism or whatever, but still.
    Pathetic - you were trying to claim that capitalism wont let communes exist, and thats the best you can do? What stops you buying a farm right now and setting up a commune?


    Only uninhabited property and property that is used violently against anarchists (self-defense) would be seized. The rich would be expropriated from their capital through alternatives provided by communes, etc. for the workers.

    What gives them the right to deprive society from the right to property? Most of their capital is gathered from their accumulation of capital (wealth makes more wealth), interest and inheritance - hardly hard work is it? Not even the libertarian right can argue with me that in the vast majority of cases, the rich have far from earnedtheir wealth. Thus I ask you, what right to private property do they have? Is it not a violation of a poor man's rights when the bailifs expropriate him from his house because he has not paid the bills? Is force not utilised by the state acting on the behalf of capitalists, employing the bailifs? Does not every man have a right to personal space and a roof over his head?
    The libertarians are just as nutty as the socialists.

    Tell me what happens to a lazy person in a socialist commune. Someone who refuses to help, to work, to do anything for the group. What happens?

    Research this. Many socialst countries have had militaries. If you disagree with an order it is your right to leave at any point. Many militaries have still functioned well even working upon these principles: Spain in 1936.
    There aren't any, nor have there ever been any, socialist countries in the sense of true abolition of private property and communal ownership of the means of production


    Did you create the horse?
    Lets say i bred its parents, or replace horse with car, and say I built it (and feed = fuel)

    Communes collectively own property and organise all that you have mentioned. Society is, effectively "at the steering wheel".
    Who is society? Leaders? they just become the replacement for the wealthy they have overthrown.


    To the bold part: no. Mansions will be utilised as offices, military bases. Their extensive land: housing, national parks, etc. Co-operative companies may function with communes in order to receive goods and services from societies. The management of the co-operatives would, as decided by the workers when entering into such voluntary arrangements, be organised by themselves and the ownership will be that of society. Small businesses (pubs, etc.) may stay privatised and co-operate with society. There is no need to be fussy with some form of centralised, Stalinistic planning concept, as long as private property is abolished.
    What you are describing is a autocracy with devolved elements. At its heart, you have a single entity (be it a person or group of people) who set the agenda, rules, policy or whatever that structures how communes work or how property works or what is or isnt allowed to happen. In short, a dictatorship.

    Disagree? Ok what would happen if one of the communes decided to re-implement internal capitalism and private ownership, and over time people joined this commune until it was bigger than all the others and controlled most of the means of production? Wouldnt be allowed would it?

    In fact, thats a pretty good rough description of how early capitalism arose.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    I am not suggesting that we take money from the rich and literally give it to the poor through welfare. I am proposing that we ensure that those are poor have the same opportunities as those who are rich; ensure everyone has the same access to health care, ensure that everyone has access to a free education. This would involve investing money into the NHS and into education; we should abolish private hospitals and schools which select pupils based on wealth, intelligence or religion.

    Money does not grow on trees and we must raise taxes for those who are well-off.
    "We should abolish private hospitals and schools" presumably being code for "we want to limit freedom of association"?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    I agree and I am against raising Income Tax over 50% for anyone. I believe that people with broader shoulders should carry more of the burden and have to pay more tax. All parties believe that those who are better off should pay more tax.
    Very few people dont believe that, it no more distinguishes you as a socialist than believing in freedom of thought makes me a libertarian.

    Before the General Election, people weren't allowed to set up their own schools. Its only since the Conservatives were elected that this setting up your own school was allowed. I want to improve the quality of education, so that other schools aren't needed.

    Schools will select pupils purely on geographical location. If more richer pupils live nearer the school then more will be accepted; at least the system is fair and based on location.
    Do some research on this, people already MASSIVELY abuse geographic selection - its why house prices within the environs of the best state schools are so vastly higher than elsewhere. Middle class, concerned parents will definitely move house to ensure their kids go to a better school, and in doing so this creates ghetto schools full of kids whose parents cant move house due to poverty, or simply dont care enough to.



    You are suggesting that poorer parents care less about their children and their education; you cannot generalise people to that extent. Parents can still make a difference to a school through meetings and consultations; selection is an elitist process and is a barrier to creating equality in the UK.
    No I'm not. I'm saying that proactive parents have more successful kids, and schools benefit from pressure and support from proactive parents. Proactive parents will always game the system - its part of being proactive!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    How is that fair? We should not be ploughing money into one child, but into all children and providing them with a good education.

    A brain surgeon should be paid more than a labourer because he is being paid for the skills that he has obtained and because the supply for his position isn't as high as the demand. The demand for a labourer is relatively low in comparison to the supply.
    Why shouldnt we focus educational resources on those who are best placed to make the most out of them (ie motivated and intelligent). It benefits society the most to make efficient use of the resources. What purpose does educating someone who is not intelligent enough to do a job that requires a high level of education? Satisfying some statistical 'fairness' quotient?

    And dont tell me everyone is capable of every job given equal opportunities. Even you cant believe that.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?

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

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