EuroSoviets
Defence Forces
Founders of the Allied States of EuroIslanders.
Posts: 697
|
Post by EuroSoviets on Oct 1, 2005 17:32:21 GMT
I don't know about 'socialist' Kibbutzim but I have heard from those who have experienced Jewish Kibbutzim that they used to be energetic but now are stifling and opposed to any form of radicalism. Naturally any form of collectivity based on religion is inherently bigotted.
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Oct 1, 2005 21:44:23 GMT
Indeed.
Could someone go into a little more detail with collective education? Never head the specific terms before and google was shockingly uninformative!
|
|
gilligus
Diplomat
Ambassador from the Alliance of Socialist States
Posts: 100
|
Post by gilligus on Oct 2, 2005 1:33:36 GMT
First off, when I say socialism, I do not mean to imply a welfare state.
I personally believe that the best way to go about making the world a better place is to:
1) Bring major industries under government control, leaving small businesses free to compete with each other 2) Promote workers' rights and a higher minimum wage 3) Have drastic tax differentials, not only decreasing the wealth of the rich, but also helping the poor by letting them keep the vast majority of their income 4) Make education the major priority of the government (more funds, free schooling through an undergraduate degree, etc.), in order to promote informed decision making on the part of the people, and to give everyone the opportunity to succeed. 5) Promote social welfare and grant tax deductions based on the percent of income given yearly to charitable organizations.
...and so on and so on.
So yes, social capitalism is close enough to my vision. I think that, without the element of competition that a socialist welfare state lacks, people get lazy and don't do their part. A competitive job market is necessary in order to encourage hard work; we can't just trust everyone to do their part.
Which leads me to communism. The holy grail of leftist idealists. It looks simply incredible on paper: there's a gift economy, everyone takes care of each other, everyone does their part; basically, life is good.
But how long will it take before a bunch of radicals get their hands on some guns, swords, sharp sticks, whatever, and start killing people and making threats. And without a government to keep order, what's to stop them from setting up a totalitarian society, where the toughest get into power, and rule with absolute control? Or an anarchic society, where anyone without weapons gets killed, and their crap gets stolen? Exploitation in a communist society is even easier than a capitalist one; all you need is a posse, a bad attitude, and weapons.
|
|
EuroSoviets
Defence Forces
Founders of the Allied States of EuroIslanders.
Posts: 697
|
Post by EuroSoviets on Oct 2, 2005 6:38:51 GMT
Does anyone else want to hit something? I'm going to work. I'll deal with this deluded fool when I get home.
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Oct 2, 2005 9:33:37 GMT
I must admit that ive always had trouble with the competition issue and I havnt read up enougth yet to be able to provide an answer. However I believe that competition is entirely possible by looking at what I do know. That is when looking at the USSR's arms infrastructure you notice that while all industry is nationalised most of it is duplicated. The two RnD groups work and manufacture for the state but compete against one another. A good example that everyone knows is the RSK MiG and Sukhoi aircraft companies, they both produced fighters and other aircraft but there was a definant element of competition between the two.
|
|
gilligus
Diplomat
Ambassador from the Alliance of Socialist States
Posts: 100
|
Post by gilligus on Oct 3, 2005 0:05:56 GMT
Also, look at what happened during the power of Lenin: when he tried to make peasants give up their grain by threatening them, they decided to hide it and stop everything they had from being taken. As a result, over two million people died of starvation in the cities.
And guess what? When Lenin reintroduced the element of competition by allowing the peasants to sell their grain in the city, the economy improved and people stopped starving.
|
|
|
Post by small green plants on Oct 3, 2005 0:13:23 GMT
I never had much of an opinion on this until today.
Today we had to have a mad dash to the hospital when my wife heard that her son (my stepson) had suffered a suspected heart attack. When we got there we found that although he still has a problem, it wasn't a heart attack. Watching my wife hug him with the tears of relief and every other emotion in her eyes......
This is a level of support that the state could not provide to a child.
|
|
gilligus
Diplomat
Ambassador from the Alliance of Socialist States
Posts: 100
|
Post by gilligus on Oct 3, 2005 0:27:24 GMT
While I agree wholeheartedly, I'm sure that some skeptics (ES?) will say that there's no "scientific" proof that a random person doesn't love a child as much as it's birth parents. I think it's horse crap, but hey, some people need science to believe. Not everyone is fortunate enough to have a loving family of their own, who, for me, act as proof of such a thing. But hey, life isn't fair, is it?
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Oct 3, 2005 10:56:07 GMT
For reasons I have explained above, science can speculate on why a birth parent feels more of a connection between the child.
|
|
|
Post by Star City on Oct 6, 2005 19:11:30 GMT
Abolition of the family holds one problem for me (though I'm sure there are others): The family is an agent of socialisation (taken in its negative form, the family indoctrinates children into capitalist values and norms), but it is also a biological unit - a natural one which has evolved in the human species, along with compassion, for the better.
|
|
|
Post by Dobbyniania on Oct 6, 2005 23:42:33 GMT
I never had much of an opinion on this until today. Today we had to have a mad dash to the hospital when my wife heard that her son (my stepson) had suffered a suspected heart attack. When we got there we found that although he still has a problem, it wasn't a heart attack. Watching my wife hug him with the tears of relief and every other emotion in her eyes...... This is a level of support that the state could not provide to a child. *smashes head against the wall* sorbyl the state wouldn't friggen exist if the family wasn't around.
|
|
|
Post by small green plants on Oct 7, 2005 1:39:32 GMT
I know what your saying Dobby
The British ruling class have always maintained the standard of having their children raised by other means, as in private schooling away from the home environment. Give them a wet nurse at birth and a nanny to keep them until they start school. Sounds like shite to me
How do these pampered inbred idiots cope!!
A child needs the full support that they get from their immediate family and the state has no business deciding whether this is good or bad.
This is NOT the business of government in a free society
We all have and should always have a free will
|
|
|
Post by Dobbyniania on Oct 7, 2005 1:44:52 GMT
I agree, I merely think of this in conceptual terms. The elimination of the nuclear family model is something to be hashed out over generations after the abolition of capitalism and the capitalist state. Personally I'm in between; two sole parents is not that optimal a situation, but no parents doesn't sound too enticing too my petit Bourgeoisie notions.
|
|
|
Post by small green plants on Oct 7, 2005 2:02:56 GMT
And to add Learning is the greatest achievement of the human race It is something we start doing at (and quite possibly before)birth. For it to be diverted to another persons dogma is a crime. We are all born and we will all eventually die. Our lives are our own to choose what we do.
For the state to interfere in this process is unacceptable. Bringing up a child in this state controlled environment would severely hamper original thinking and individual diversity and ultimately result in a stale and unhappy society
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Oct 7, 2005 11:33:32 GMT
For the state to interfere in this process is unacceptable. Bringing up a child in this state controlled environment would severely hamper original thinking and individual diversity and ultimately result in a stale and unhappy society
Depends on how the education was achieved in my opinion, a state brainwashing program will of cause be a damage, but there are other ways! Still despite the highly controlled society in the USSR they still managed to achieve some amazing thinkers!
|
|