Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist' Watch

This discussion is closed.
Aeolus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3701
Report 8 years ago
#3701
(Original post by wilkinson1291)
socialism doesn't work because of the fundamental human faculties to compete, empathise only with people immediately close to them and in a similar social group. the divisions of these social groups often being completely arbitrary. Why am i wrong?


Because you are making unfounded assumptions about human nature.
0
Bax-man
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3702
Report 8 years ago
#3702
(Original post by SciFiBoy)
hmm, im admitedly no expert on the BNP, but can you actually back this claim up? people make it alot, but I have never actually seen anyone produce any evidence of it.

personally im not sure how they can be, Left Wing economics is about equality, the BNP seem fundementally opposed to equality unless people are White, Christian and "Anglo-Saxon"

I would not consider equality for just one small group of society to be true equality at all.
Left-wing economics, as far as the term has any meaning, is about collectivism. The British National Party support nationalisation of major industry, as well as protectionist measures not usually associated with the "right".
0
burnedmind
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3703
Report 8 years ago
#3703
(Original post by wilkinson1291)
socialism doesn't work because of the fundamental human faculties to compete, empathise only with people immediately close to them and in a similar social group. the divisions of these social groups often being completely arbitrary. Why am i wrong?
For something to be a "fundamental[ly] human" it would have to be applicable throughout the ages, from the dawn of time through to the present day, and it would have to be applicable to all people, from men in Tahiti to women in Sweden. Most primitive societies were based on communal ownership of land, a more or less equal share of the products of labour, minimal division of labour, etc. That's not to say that these socities were perfect (or even remotely desirable), but that for a long time the earth was inhabited by human beings who lived in socities not based on competition. Human nature is adaptable, it develops and changes based on economic and social conditions; there is no One, absolute notion of 'humanity' that can be applied to all people, all of the time.

In capitalist society the vast majority of people are not 'competitive' - they go to work, they produce something for someone, they go home. Day in, day out. For most people competition does not occur in the workplace ('cept if they are challenging their workmates to see who can do most in x amount of time), but on football pitches, at the pub, on running tracks, etc., and it goes without saying that competition in this sense would still exist in a capitalist society. Competition in the economic sense is something that involves very few people at all, in the grand scheme of things. Companies can only compete if they have people to work for them, and people sell their labour to individuals who own companies because they need a wage to eat, drink, and sleep with a roof over their head - the fact that the company they work for is in competition with another is a moot point (unless, of course, they lose their job as a result...).

Socialism does not, however, require that all people are selfless, altruistic beings. Under capitalism most people essentially give too much away; they sell their labour to somebody who takes a slice of the wealth that they have created. As socialists we argue that the means of production should be owned and controlled - democratically - by the workers who use them, in order to produce what they need to live a comfortable life. Marx described socialism as man's "positive self-consciousness" because it is based on the realisation that the current mode of production is not in the interest, and such a realisation undeniably involves a degree of egoism, a developed understanding of self-interest. It's telling that when opponents of socialism wish to discredit socialism 'intellectually' they always bring up socialism being about self-sacrifice and against a natural human inclination to be competitive / selfish, and when they wish to descredit socialist / left-wing movements in practice they denounce them as selfish and greedy.
2
username202682
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#3704
Report 8 years ago
#3704
(Original post by Bax-man)
Left-wing economics, as far as the term has any meaning, is about collectivism. The British National Party support nationalisation of major industry, as well as protectionist measures not usually associated with the "right".
What kind of pejorative logic is this? All you are doing is throwing dyslogistics around when clearly these geriatric concepts just do not work.

The only sense in which the British National Party would be in favour of Nationalisation would be through protectionism - In order to prevent or limit foreign competition or having foreign take overs as a result of FDI.

Socialists would nationalise to limit the extent that the free market has in influence - Most predominantly resources such as Gas, Water, Electricity. Socialists are historically internationalist.
StatusRed
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#3705
Report 8 years ago
#3705
(Original post by LawBore)
QFA
Hello.

I'm here to reply on the microchipping issue.

I was actually confused when I wrote that. What I was actually meaning is that I wouldn't mind my DNA being stored on businesses' systems for a form of identification of me, as no one else would be able to imitate that data.

I did not mean "microchipping", I am sorry for the confusion and I also don't want it to reflect badly upon The Socialist Party as I hold no grudge against them. Please understand that it was something that I, individually said wrongly.

I also understand the potential danger of the Government having that kind of information. It is best to disregard what I originally said, it is incredibly misleading.
0
Lord Hysteria
Badges: 16
#3706
Report 8 years ago
#3706
(Original post by Aeolus)
There aren't enough resources for everyone on the planet...... True, though you have simplified it as with everything you do so as to dodge a complicated debate. But then again I am not interested in starting another long winded and fruitles argument.

So the question becomes: Why do you insist on these resources being distributed in such insanely unequal amounts?

I merely stand for these resources being distributed as equally as possible.
"distributed as equally as possible"

No, no, no. Read my post again please.

There aren't enough resources. I keep on saying this, and you seem to agree but show no sign of comprehension. I am not "simplifying" anything (as you put it). I am starting at first principles. If there aren't enough resources to go around for all people in society, then it is impossible for equal distribution. Months ago, I made a massive transition away from normative politics and wishful-thinking economics.

:facepalm2: The best results are entirely subjective. Obviously.
Libertarians and socialists both equally desire a world where man's standards of living improve & there is an increase in happiness and prosperity. In fact, that is one of my axioms. Subjective as it may be, that doesn't refute the fact that such a view is almost universal with the main serious political ideologies. Subjective but agreed upon by communists, anarchists, socialists and libertarians. So, yes it is "subjective" but so what?

I hope you can see how frivolous your little remark (and overused smilie) is to what I was trying saying.

Well that is what you seem to stand for. You stand for an elite being educated and an underclass not being educated. This is what happens when all you value is the means rather than the end. Like I said before, a sad and depressing existence, Darwinian and Ballardian to the extreme.
Blah blah blah .... this is where you get boring & wearisome.

I am loving the Anarchist thread on TSR because they don't resort to such juvenile, counterproductive & pathetic name-calling. They actually have arguments that I find engaging and interesting.

As they say: "Haters gonna hate" :yy:
Lord Hysteria
Badges: 16
#3707
Report 8 years ago
#3707
(Original post by Norfolkadam)
Why do I think that people need basic literacy and mathematics skills? To be able to live a normal life within society? You seem to be implying that us evil Libertarians, once we're done with Universities, will be scrapping primary education.
This is what happens when central planning is involved in teaching literacy & numeracy. This is a disgrace.

But education is seen, by Alex and others, through the eyes of "central planning". They have the "central planning" glasses on. It's obvious. The moment you start declaring what people "must have", "ought to do" and "need" then the discussion tends towards central planning - as opposed to letting people choose for themselves what they want and what they value. It's imposing your vision of what is "good" & "fair" on everyone else. Any decent and consistent libertarian would allow people to do what they want to do.
Aeolus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3708
Report 8 years ago
#3708
(Original post by Lord Hysteria)
"distributed as equally as possible"

No, no, no. Read my post again please.

There aren't enough resources. I keep on saying this, and you seem to agree but show no sign of comprehension. I am not "simplifying" anything (as you put it). I am starting at first principles. If there aren't enough resources to go around for all people in society, then it is impossible for equal distribution. Months ago, I made a massive transition away from normative politics and wishful-thinking economics.

Congratulations but once again you dodge the point. Why, given the fact that resources are not infinite do you support instead, as utterly unequal a distribution as possible of what does exist?

Hopefully you will understand my point now.



Libertarians and socialists both equally desire a world where man's standards of living improve & there is an increase in happiness and prosperity. In fact, that is one of my axioms. Subjective as it may be, that doesn't refute the fact that such a view is almost universal with the main serious political ideologies. Subjective but agreed upon by communists, anarchists, socialists and libertarians. So, yes it is "subjective" but so what?

Subjective is what one perceives as 'better'. Jesus christ do I have to spell everything out for you? :sigh:

I hope you can see how frivolous your little remark (and overused smilie) is to what I was trying saying.

No LH, as usual I have to simplify everything I say to the nth degree before you actually adress any kind of point. It is a problem I do not have with the vast majority of other members.



Blah blah blah .... this is where you get boring & wearisome.

I am loving the Anarchist thread on TSR because they don't resort to such juvenile, counterproductive & pathetic name-calling. They actually have arguments that I find engaging and interesting.

No, they have arguments which you can actually keep up with. As far as I am concerned it is a rather tame and boring mutual masturbation session. That anarchist fellow has a remarkable patience which I am sure he will discard once he has been a member for a while. I notice you have stopped replying in the ask a Libertarian thread after being soundly defeated not only by me, but by two other members who took it upon themselves to point out a glaring fact which you wasted thousands of words trying to deny; before stomping off in a petulant hissy fit. I really do not know why you even bother replying to my posts anymore. It always seems to end with your defeat and subsequent tantrum. I am not the only one who can testify to this. Oswy and most other Marxists, even the most knowledgable Libertarians like Hy~ can and do often testify.

As they say: "Haters gonna hate" :yy:
I don't hate. It's just so boring.
0
Hy~
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3709
Report 8 years ago
#3709
(Original post by Lord Hysteria)
Months ago, I made a massive transition away from normative politics
No you didn't.
0
Bourgeois
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#3710
Report 8 years ago
#3710
Wtf are non-normative politics?
0
Bourgeois
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#3711
Report 8 years ago
#3711
(Original post by Melancholy)
"The hell where youth and laughter go".

It's the view that morality does not exist and the belief that this entails that values and appeal to human rights and such things cannot inform arguments about how societies "should" be run, loosely-speaking.
Lol, thank you. But it was more of a rhetorical question.
0
Melancholy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3712
Report 8 years ago
#3712
Ahh, sorry :o:
0
Lord Hysteria
Badges: 16
#3713
Report 8 years ago
#3713
(Original post by Aeolus)
I notice you have stopped replying in the ask a Libertarian thread after being soundly defeated not only by me, but by two other members who took it upon themselves to point out a glaring fact which you wasted thousands of words trying to deny; before stomping off in a petulant hissy fit. I really do not know why you even bother replying to my posts anymore. It always seems to end with your defeat and subsequent tantrum. I am not the only one who can testify to this. Oswy and most other Marxists, even the most knowledgable Libertarians like Hy~ can and do often testify.
Oh, no. I got fed-up of responding to you. But I don't think I was "defeated" at all. We're talking about predatory pricing? No? If you like, we can continue it.

I am not sure why you think I'd have a hissy-fit over a discussion on the internet. lol!
Aeolus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3714
Report 8 years ago
#3714
(Original post by Lord Hysteria)
Oh, no. I got fed-up of responding to you. But I don't think I was "defeated" at all. We're talking about predatory pricing? No? If you like, we can continue it.

:facepalm2: I think the user Saichu has buried any argument you had. I would be interested to see your response to his latest refutation.
0
Lord Hysteria
Badges: 16
#3715
Report 8 years ago
#3715
(Original post by Aeolus)
:facepalm2: I think the user Saichu has buried any argument you had. I would be interested to see your response to his latest refutation.
Where?
The last piece of our discussion - that I can see - is here.
Anyway, I'm happy to discuss it with you. I'll try to adopt a more productive style, and hopefully discussions could become fruitful?
ByronicHero
  • PS Reviewer
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3716
Report 8 years ago
#3716
Have you lot got a new C1 yet?
0
StatusRed
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#3717
Report 8 years ago
#3717
(Original post by paddy__power)
Have you lot got a new C1 yet?
It's Stricof.
0
ByronicHero
  • PS Reviewer
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3718
Report 8 years ago
#3718
Lol, fair enough.
0
Adorno
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#3719
Report 8 years ago
#3719
Help!
0
Nothos
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#3720
Report 8 years ago
#3720
(Original post by Adorno)
Help!
Bugger me! :poke:

What's up?
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (91)
26%
No (259)
74%

Watched Threads

View All