Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist' Watch

This discussion is closed.
ckingalt
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4501
Report 6 years ago
#4501
(Original post by ckingalt)

2. Is there a limit set on how much wealth a family is allowed to accumulate regardless of their methods or level of thrift and saving?

3. Is there any inheritance permitted at all?
Is anyone interested in providing an answer for these two questions?
0
Gremlins
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#4502
Report 6 years ago
#4502
(Original post by Keckers)
It is human nature to acquire ownership over material items. This is an observable fact. Denying people the most basic aspect of their being is far more violent than discouraging theft.
It's also 'human nature' to show compassion to other people, share possessions, and work together. Denying this aspect of being a person by subsuming us in market relations is far worse, turning some idea of humans needing material possessions (probably true) into a whole ideology centered on the idea that anything or anyone can be owned - which is not, of course, a logical corollary of your statement on human nature.
2
Keckers
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#4503
Report 6 years ago
#4503
(Original post by Gremlins)
It's also 'human nature' to show compassion to other people, share possessions, and work together.
Which is done voluntarily in free market enterprise.

The rest of your post is just a socialist platitude for the 'big bad market system' which I don't really see the point of commenting on since it's been refuted time and time again by people who have articulated it far better than I can.
0
Gremlins
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#4504
Report 6 years ago
#4504
(Original post by Keckers)
Which is done voluntarily in free market enterprise.

The rest of your post is just a socialist platitude for the 'big bad market system' which I don't really see the point of commenting on since it's been refuted time and time again by people who have articulated it far better than I can.
"The big bad market system", as you so eloquently deride the point I'm trying to make, is a social structure which significantly effects how people relate to each other, in ways that are very rarely good. If you can show me where this has been refuted then go for it.
0
mevidek
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#4505
Report 6 years ago
#4505
What are your views on grammar schools?
0
Keckers
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#4506
Report 6 years ago
#4506
(Original post by Gremlins)
, in ways that are very rarely good.
That's a bold claim to make.
0
Gremlins
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#4507
Report 6 years ago
#4507
(Original post by Keckers)
That's a bold claim to make.
Well obviously it's something of a subjective statement but I'm not massively enamored with the idea of being reduced to a commodity. Are you? Nor, if I were in a less developed country, would I be hugely pleased at the idea of being priced out of being able to eat. But there you go.

To copy Jerry Cohen's thought experiment. Imagine we were all on a camping trip and I'm the only person who bought any saucepans. If I were to say that because they're my saucepans everyone else on the trip has to sell their time to me to cook what they need to eat and I'll take a bit of each of their meals you'd think I was being obnoxious. Or imagine that because you're taller you were able to reach some apples but then refused to share them with anyone else because they were too short to get them. We (quite intuitively, imho) know this kind of behaviour is wrong but somehow we tolerate our economy being run on the same principles.
0
ckingalt
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4508
Report 6 years ago
#4508
When there are no more wealthy in the world, do industries that cater to the wealthy with exotic and luxurious merchandise just simply get replaced. Things like exotic cars, high fashion, luxury yachts, and glamourous jewelry may be unattainable to the majority of us, but it could be argued that they represent a type of art?

Do the people who invent and/or develop a new product get any monetary incentive above and beyond the normal collective or do they just get a ribbon that says good citizen?

What if someone is capable of providing a service that others are willing to pay for without them needing to own assets or property to provide it? Are they permitted to charge for that service beyond the social state's allowance? Example: Can a master violinist be permitted to play for money (on the street or at an event) outside of his normal performances for "money on the side"?
0
Keckers
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#4509
Report 6 years ago
#4509
(Original post by Gremlins)
To copy Jerry Cohen's thought experiment. Imagine we were all on a camping trip and I'm the only person who bought any saucepans. If I were to say that because they're my saucepans everyone else on the trip has to sell their time to me to cook what they need to eat and I'll take a bit of each of their meals you'd think I was being obnoxious. Or imagine that because you're taller you were able to reach some apples but then refused to share them with anyone else because they were too short to get them. We (quite intuitively, imho) know this kind of behaviour is wrong but somehow we tolerate our economy being run on the same principles.
It's a ridiculous thought experiment because it reduces the whole concept into absurdity. It's simply not at all valid because micro social situations resolve themselves in an entirely different fashion to situations on a larger scale.

Our economy isn't 'run' at all. You've made the mistake of assuming the economy is about goods and services when in fact the economy is completely based on human choice and action.
0
ckingalt
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4510
Report 6 years ago
#4510
Will work place theft be more common place when the managers and owners are the system instead of an invested interest? How will we keep the farmer from stealing a portion of the crop for his dinner table? After all, it's not his land it's ours.

Will the permitted retirement age be a standard age, or will it be based on health as well?

What if in one family both partners choose to work and they have no kids, and in another family only one partner chooses to work and they have three kids? Do their salaries reflect their needs based on these choices or are they paid a standard flat salary to ensure "social equality".

How do we pay professions that don't realistically work in a manner the utilizes working hours? The arts comes to mind. A writer or painter can't really be judged by their working hours. Do we just provide them their standard living wage and trust that they are properly creating. If they create a masterpiece can no one buy it? Or does every great work of art go in a museum? Maybe we could hold a big social equality raffle and give the next Picasso to the lucky guy with ticket G-20388.

I think I would decide to be an artist in a social utopia. I would paint my turds the national colors and say, "Here, I offer what you pay me for. Now give me my living wage." That would be art!
0
LaszloZapacik
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4511
Report 6 years ago
#4511
Hi, another socialist here.
3
LaszloZapacik
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4512
Report 6 years ago
#4512
(Original post by ckingalt)
How do we pay professions that don't realistically work in a manner the utilizes working hours? The arts comes to mind. A writer or painter can't really be judged by their working hours. Do we just provide them their standard living wage and trust that they are properly creating. If they create a masterpiece can no one buy it? Or does every great work of art go in a museum? Maybe we could hold a big social equality raffle and give the next Picasso to the lucky guy with ticket G-20388.

I think I would decide to be an artist in a social utopia. I would paint my turds the national colors and say, "Here, I offer what you pay me for. Now give me my living wage." That would be art!
Who's 'we'?
0
Fusilero
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4513
Report 6 years ago
#4513
(Original post by ckingalt)
How do we pay professions that don't realistically work in a manner the utilizes working hours? The arts comes to mind. A writer or painter can't really be judged by their working hours. Do we just provide them their standard living wage and trust that they are properly creating. If they create a masterpiece can no one buy it? Or does every great work of art go in a museum? Maybe we could hold a big social equality raffle and give the next Picasso to the lucky guy with ticket G-20388.

I think I would decide to be an artist in a social utopia. I would paint my turds the national colors and say, "Here, I offer what you pay me for. Now give me my living wage." That would be art!
Coincidentally, Picasso did not earn that much over his lifetime. Bad example there really.

EDIT: Not to mention he was a member of the French Communist Party until his death. :holmes:

I am aware I haven't answered the question but I'm not actually certain, I'm afraid I don't have all the answers.
0
Molts
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4514
Report 6 years ago
#4514
ckingalt,


Whilst I can provide an answer to what would probably happen, there is nowhere that it says that the following MUST happen. It may seem counter - intuitive that there is no plan for after the revolution but during this transition power would be given to the proletariat and they themselves decide how things should be done. Of course the question remains if the proletariat are capable by themselves to do this, and the reply you would get you vary from different tendencies e.g. : Marxist - Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists, Luxemburgists, Anarcho - Communists etc. The stand point I will be answering would be from a fully formed communist society, therefore not so radical leftists may disagree or I could be factually wrong.

(Original post by ckingalt)
When there are no more wealthy in the world, do industries that cater to the wealthy with exotic and luxurious merchandise just simply get replaced. Things like exotic cars, high fashion, luxury yachts, and glamourous jewelry may be unattainable to the majority of us, but it could be argued that they represent a type of art?
Yes, they would get replaced. They would be turned to produce things of actual use and value, perhaps build better and more housing, transfer labour from there to the fields to supply food for the hungry etc. From the early stages these things would be done so basic needs are catered for all . Of course, if there is a huge demand from the people for a luxury item to be produced then there will be. However by this stage the mentality people would have would be different from what there is now. One such difference would be the removal of the consumerist culture, so these luxury items may not even be wanted in the first place. This ‘mentality’ that I talk about is what Marx called ‘historical materialism’. Essentially, the mode of production whatever it would be e.g. corporatism, capitalism, feudalism, socialism etc would express itself through ‘the superstructure’ - the culture, art, mentality etc. that a society would have. Since in the examples I gave you we have a socialist (orthodox use of the word) mode of production people would think differently they would shed this greedy and obsessive consumerist culture. Keep this in mind as I talk about your other questions.

EDIT:
Here is a diagram that explains this better :
*Note* I copied this in Paint from a very good book called Political Ideologies : An Introduction (4th Edition) by Andrew Heywood


(Original post by ckingalt)
Do the people who invent and/or develop a new product get any monetary incentive above and beyond the normal collective or do they just get a ribbon that says good citizen?
How many of these money incentives are beneficial for most people? The biggest money making research today is done for beauty products or in new and more efficient ways of killing people new. If you look at some of the biggest inventions over recent history you would see a lot of them are not done for profit. The internet is a good example! Sir Tim Berners-Lee isn't driving around Maserati and living it up in his mansion.

I'm sure there is enough satisfaction in reaching cures for cancer and HIV. Being heralded as the person or being part of a team that cured cancer or HIV and has saved millions of pointless deaths is enough as a motivator for me as it would be for most people.
In fact since there would be more labour around and as it would be more organised so people would have to spend less and less and work. The work day would be shorted to 6 hours or 5. More so for those in the east working 14 hour day shifts every day. As a result more time would be devoted to their own activities, doing things that make us human. One of these things is discovering and inventing things, so in turn you have a higher chance of something new being invented etc.

(Original post by ckingalt)
What if someone is capable of providing a service that others are willing to pay for without them needing to own assets or property to provide it? Are they permitted to charge for that service beyond the social state's allowance? Example: Can a master violinist be permitted to play for money (on the street or at an event) outside of his normal performances for "money on the side"?
There would be no money. If a musician wants to play then he plays, although I'm not sure why a master violinist would play on the street. Then again, the streets would not be notorious for harbouring the people that are unfortunately looked down upon by the society we live in now.

(Original post by ckingalt)
Will work place theft be more common place when the managers and owners are the system instead of an invested interest? How will we keep the farmer from stealing a portion of the crop for his dinner table? After all, it's not his land it's ours.
The farmer would have everything he needs, what incentive would there be to steal? Why would he risk a punishment?

(Original post by ckingalt)
Will the permitted retirement age be a standard age, or will it be based on health as well?


This sort of ties in what I said before. Firstly, it depends on what the proletariat do for them. (Although by now the bourgeoisie are gone, the proletariat in effect would be emancipated as well). Secondly, as time goes on people would work less and less; the same is true with the retirement age. If a person can no longer work due to health reasons, then he won’t.

(Original post by ckingalt)
What if in one family both partners choose to work and they have no kids, and in another family only one partner chooses to work and they have three kids? Do their salaries reflect their needs based on these choices or are they paid a standard flat salary to ensure "social equality".
They would get what they need accordingly, ample amounts anyways.

(Original post by ckingalt)
How do we pay professions that don't realistically work in a manner the utilizes working hours? The arts comes to mind. A writer or painter can't really be judged by their working hours. Do we just provide them their standard living wage and trust that they are properly creating. If they create a masterpiece can no one buy it? Or does every great work of art go in a museum? Maybe we could hold a big social equality raffle and give the next Picasso to the lucky guy with ticket G-20388.

I think I would decide to be an artist in a social utopia. I would paint my turds the national colors and say, "Here, I offer what you pay me for. Now give me my living wage." That would be art!

People would work, including the artists. However, as I said people would have more and more time for themselves and those around them - to, in effect, live their life. If someone creates a masterpiece then they can do whatever they want with it.


Phew ! I hope I haven't screwed up my explanation too bad. Anyways, time to start revision..
4
username202682
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#4515
Report 6 years ago
#4515
(Original post by mevidek)
What are your views on grammar schools?
I do not support it. I have been a fervent supporter of the comprehensive school system my whole life.
ckingalt
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4516
Report 6 years ago
#4516
Thanks for the reply. The reason for my tone and method of just posting a flurry of questions was a result of I me thinking original ones were ignored simply because the socialists here wanted to avoid the implications of the answers. The original ones were;
(Original post by ckingalt)
1. Is there a limit set on how much wealth a family is allowed to accumulate regardless of their methods or level of thrift and saving?

2. Is there any inheritance permitted at all?

(Original post by Molts)
, they would get replaced. They would be turned to produce things of actual use and value, perhaps build better and more housing, transfer labour from there to the fields to supply food for the hungry etc. From the early stages these things would be done so basic needs are catered for all . Of course, if there is a huge demand from the people for a luxury item to be produced then there will be. However by this stage the mentality people would have would be different from what there is now. One such difference would be the removal of the consumerist culture, so these luxury items may not even be wanted in the first place. This ‘mentality’ that I talk about is what Marx called ‘historical materialism’. Essentially, the mode of production whatever it would be e.g. corporatism, capitalism, feudalism, socialism etc would express itself through ‘the superstructure’ - the culture, art, mentality etc. that a society would have. Since in the examples I gave you we have a socialist (orthodox use of the word) mode of production people would think differently they would shed this greedy and obsessive consumerist culture. Keep this in mind as I talk about your other questions.
I understand the sentiment that materialism is bad, and for the most part it is. Do we really want to live in a world where the only things we are allowed to produce are things of actual use? I know it seems silly on the surface, but doesn't that seem quite boring? Is it necessarily materialistic and evil to be frivolous sometimes? Materialism can be oppressive, but having choice eliminated may be more so.

(Original post by Molts)
How many of these money incentives are beneficial for most people? The biggest money making research today is done for beauty products or in new and more efficient ways of killing people new. If you look at some of the biggest inventions over recent history you would see a lot of them are not done for profit. The internet is a good example! Sir Tim Berners-Lee isn't driving around Maserati and living it up in his mansion.

I'm sure there is enough satisfaction in reaching cures for cancer and HIV. Being heralded as the person or being part of a team that cured cancer or HIV and has saved millions of pointless deaths is enough as a motivator for me as it would be for most people.
In fact since there would be more labour around and as it would be more organised so people would have to spend less and less and work. The work day would be shorted to 6 hours or 5. More so for those in the east working 14 hour day shifts every day. As a result more time would be devoted to their own activities, doing things that make us human. One of these things is discovering and inventing things, so in turn you have a higher chance of something new being invented etc
I don't agree that the incentive is enough but I accept that you might. You do have an argument with a group of funded scientists working on cancer research, but the tinkerer in his garage who tirelessly uses his own time and resources on an idea that only he believes in will require tangible incentive to bring his invention to fruition. Apple began is such a manner, and you could argue that was the beginning of the internet. Other examples of such innovation would be TV, WD-40, the airplane, super-glue, and Facebook. The truth is most all original ideas come from such home grown innovation. The industry/state driven innovation is usually an expansion or improvement on the original, because cooperation is rarely creative.

The problem is that it isn't just a matter of these so called innovators requiring a more selfish rewards. It is also a matter of the inventor now feels resentment that he has been taken advantage of. Such a system actually creates a level of resentment which serves as an incentive not to create. Remember, this is often someone whose idea was never taken seriously by the establishment. He then, sometimes at great cost and risk to himself, pursued and achieved his goal. He may have a sense of accomplishment but he will never incur the cost and risk in the first place just to get his picture in the paper.

Do you truly believe that we will create and produce as much in a social society or does you ideology just require you to say you do?

(Original post by Molts)
The farmer would have everything he needs, what incentive would there be to steal? Why would he risk a punishment?
I'm assuming that this society still has some excess and luxuries beyond necessities. A small yield of the crop would find it's way to his table so he could use money/credits/or whatever to save on his food allowance and acquire a luxury. This is of course just an analogy. There would be examples for all professions to take advantage of their access to resources, especially in a society where they are limited.

(Original post by Molts)
They would get what they need accordingly, ample amounts anyways
Does this not create a system where people benefit by having greater needs? After all $10 can provide better for two people than $5 can provide for one. You can't just adjust for that sort of thing.

(Original post by Molts)
this transition power would be given to the proletariat and they themselves decide how things should be done.

This sort of ties in what I said before. Firstly, it depends on what the proletariat do for them. (Although by now the bourgeoisie are gone, the proletariat in effect would be emancipated as well). Secondly, as time goes on people would work less and less; the same is true with the retirement age. If a person can no longer work due to health reasons, then he won’t.
This scares the hell out of me. I don't care how the proletariat is chosen and what checks and balances are put on them. They will have to much power from the onset. People will use position and privilege to seize more power. This is why our capitalist system is self destructing. Capitalism is not failing, opportunism is taking over. Socialism has the same problem. Our tyrants are seizing power with wealth, your tyrants will seize it with positional authority. At least wealth has to be acquired and utilized. This proletariat is essentially endowed from the onset with decision making authority over every facet of our lives.

I fully acknowledge our current system of capitalism has major flaws. I don't expect to change anyone's mind on this forum. I understand why you may believe socialism could produce a better fairer society. I just hope you also understand that socialism/communism has massive potential to be more oppressive than the most fascist dictatorship. At least a tyrannical dictator dies and gets succeeded. A system of oppression can last for a millennium. I chose Capitalism because a capitalist society has to at least pretend not to be authoritative, A Socialist society has to embrace being authoritative. That is where we differ.
0
Molts
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4517
Report 6 years ago
#4517
(Original post by ckingalt)
Thanks for the reply. The reason for my tone and method of just posting a flurry of questions was a result of I me thinking original ones were ignored simply because the socialists here wanted to avoid the implications of the answers.
I'm sure many other socialists here could answer these questions better than me, but they probably don’t procrastinate as much as me! Whatever the implication of an answer is, it must be addressed as it is just as important to criticise our own philosophy (constructively of course) as we criticise Capitalism at the same time.

(Original post by ckingalt)
2. Is there a limit set on how much wealth a family is allowed to accumulate regardless of their methods or level of thrift and saving?

3. Is there any inheritance permitted at all?
Ah yes, Sorry, I saw them but forgot to quote them!

There wouldn’t not be any set limit, since when they receive whatever good they can do whatever they want with it.

As for inheritance, there would be none, as private property would be abolished. Marx and Engels wrote this in The Communist Manifesto in Chapter 2: Proletarians and Communists. There they make a list of short term demands, one of which calls for the: "Abolition of all right of inheritance."


(Original post by ckingalt)
I understand the sentiment that materialism is bad, and for the most part it is. Do we really want to live in a world where the only things we are allowed to produce are things of actual use? I know it seems silly on the surface, but doesn't that seem quite boring? Is it necessarily materialistic and evil to be frivolous sometimes? Materialism can be oppressive, but having choice eliminated may be more so.
I understand where you are coming from; I used to think the same thing. However, if there is such a high demand for something even if it seems 'materialistic' by our society than it would be produced. People often get the impression of 'all work and no play' with tall, grey factories and housing, but this is not the case. People would find and make ways to entertain themselves, libraries, cinemas, discos, TV, video games or whatever would still exist, and perhaps become even more popular as more people would have the time to enjoy them.

Of course, this might be less so for a society that is just underway to becoming socialist as its industry and economy is less developed as it can be. It is important to look historically, that most countries that attempted socialism in the east did not have a real capitalist mode of production beforehand as Marx would have predicted or intended, as was the case with Russia or China. The rapid industrialisation they had to undertake soon after their revolution was the cause of the stereotypical 'bloc' housing and other imagery people usually have of the East. There was not much point producing fancy toys or whatever when the majority of the country were living it their own **** and were starving. Like anything, over time things improve such was the case later in the East and such will be the case for any society in the future.

(Original post by ckingalt)
I don't agree that the incentive is enough but I accept that you might. You do have an argument with a group of funded scientists working on cancer research, but the tinkerer in his garage who tirelessly uses his own time and resources on an idea that only he believes in will require tangible incentive to bring his invention to fruition. Apple began is such a manner, and you could argue that was the beginning of the internet. Other examples of such innovation would be TV, WD-40, the airplane, super-glue, and Facebook. The truth is most all original ideas come from such home grown innovation. The industry/state driven innovation is usually an expansion or improvement on the original, because cooperation is rarely creative.
The tinkerer who works tirelessly' does what he does because he is obsessed or deeply interested in the domain he works in. That in it is enough motivation for him. No one said, "If you create something that flies, I will pay you" or "I will pay you if you make something that can display moving images from a transmission thousands of miles away". Inventors or tinkerers do what they do since they enjoy it, and they would do it regardless of the society around them- they would still invent in a socialist society and if they invest something, why keep it a secret? In fact, research into the motivation behind creativity shows that a financial reward is in fact hampering the ability of those to find a creative solution, what I'm talking about here is the 'Candle experiment'

Here is a video that talks about it :
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html


(Original post by ckingalt)
The problem is that it isn't just a matter of these so-called innovators requiring a more selfish rewards. It is also a matter of the inventor now feels resentment that he has been taken advantage of. Such a system actually creates a level of resentment which serves as an incentive not to create. Remember, this is often someone whose idea was never taken seriously by the establishment. He then, sometimes at great cost and risk to himself, pursued and achieved his goal. He may have a sense of accomplishment but he will never incur the cost and risk in the first place just to get his picture in the paper.
This sort of ties in on what I said in the paragraph above. When you talk about 'It is also a matter of the inventor now feels resentment that he has been taken advantage of ' and 'Remember, this is often someone whose idea was never taken seriously by the establishment'. Which society are you talk about here? If you try to claim that this would happen in a socialist/communist society this would not be the case as one has not existed yet - hence you could not claim this.



(Original post by ckingalt)
Do you truly believe that we will create and produce as much in a social society or does you ideology just require you to say you do?
I believe it.

(Original post by ckingalt)
I'm assuming that this society still has some excess and luxuries beyond necessities. A small yield of the crop would find it's way to his table so he could use money/credits/or whatever to save on his food allowance and acquire a luxury. This is of course just an analogy. There would be examples for all professions to take advantage of their access to resources, especially in a society where they are limited.
Sorry if I repeat myself again but this again in part comes down to the 'mentality' I was talking about in my pervious post. However, to be specific to your example it would depend entirely if a system is created where a 'food allowance' does exist. If this 'allowance' does occur that means food must be rationed, hence there is a serious problem with the economy in providing the output to meet basic human necessity, so I doubt in that troubled situation people would be worrying about producing luxuries.

(Original post by ckingalt)
Does this not create a system where people benefit by having greater needs? After all $10 can provide better for two people than $5 can provide for one. You can't just adjust for that sort of thing.
Of course this is true when thinking about it from a monetary point of view, this would not be the case, as money in itself would put aside, as it becomes redundant. Yes, people with greater needs would benefit. A family of five would get a bigger house than just one person, as an example. This does not been the single person would get a crap house, but he does not need all the extra space that a house for a family of five would need. Then again, it is entirely dependant on what the population wants, because it is now they who own the means of production. If they on the whole want bigger housing on average, then it will be so.

(Original post by ckingalt)
This scares the hell out of me. I don't care how the proletariat is chosen and what checks and balances are put on them. They will have to much power from the onset. People will use position and privilege to seize more power. This is why our capitalist system is self destructing. Capitalism is not failing, opportunism is taking over. Socialism has the same problem. Our tyrants are seizing power with wealth, your tyrants will seize it with positional authority. At least wealth has to be acquired and utilised. This proletariat is essentially endowed from the onset with decision making authority over every facet of our lives.
But the best part is that 'the checks and balances' are self regulating, as the complete democratic nature of socialism ensures that no one would 'use position and privilege to seize power' and what power would there be to be seized? The society itself would be de-centralised so there is very little chance of this happening.

What most people criticise the USSR and the rest of the east was due to the high level of corruption and the ease the 'ruling class' could size power. This is true, but that is because they never had a socialist mode of production to begin with!



(Original post by ckingalt)
I fully acknowledge our current system of capitalism has major flaws. I don't expect to change anyone's mind on this forum. I understand why you may believe socialism could produce a better fairer society. I just hope you also understand that socialism/communism has massive potential to be more oppressive than the most fascist dictatorship. At least a tyrannical dictator dies and gets succeeded. A system of oppression can last for a millennium. I chose Capitalism because a capitalist society has to at least pretend not to be authoritative, A Socialist society has to embrace being authoritative. That is where we differ.
Many socialists/ communists (my self included) are fully aware of this 'potential' for authoritarian oppression. It is a big conundrum, to the point where has formed many different and opposed 'tendencies' within leftist thought. While an 'authoritative' nature can occur and it is unfortunate, it is essential to understand that this is the transition period between the society that existed before and to communism.
0
ckingalt
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4518
Report 6 years ago
#4518
Thanks for your time and effort. Great responses. I believe my resistance to these ideas is inheriant in me and only enforced by my social upbringing. I think there are many like me. You see I'm a control freak. I get upset at the mere idea of so many decisions being taken from/made for me without my consent (my one vote is not a consent).

With capitalism I can protect and take back my ability to have some control by acquiring wealth. In socialism/communism the only way I could do so would be to become a member of the proletariat. I feel that acquiring wealth is an aspiration I will probably achieve. The latter is an even smaller and more elite group than the former. Hence, it is much less likely to be attainable. Regards,
1
ForKicks
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#4519
Report 6 years ago
#4519
Why abolish inheritance? If someone works their life to leave something to their kids, who is to decide what they can spend their money on (given the money they have has already been taxed).
0
Fusilero
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4520
Report 6 years ago
#4520
(Original post by ForKicks)
Why abolish inheritance? If someone works their life to leave something to their kids, who is to decide what they can spend their money on (given the money they have has already been taxed).
In a later stage Socialist society you would hope to abolish the concept of money and therefore taxation. With private property out of the window I'm not certain what there would be left for a child to inherit in the first place.
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

Did you get less than your required grades and still get into university?

Yes (71)
30.34%
No - I got the required grades (132)
56.41%
No - I missed the required grades and didn't get in (31)
13.25%

Watched Threads

View All