The (civil) (Obama-free) socialism thread

[skippy740]

Now, the converse to my post is asking "what about the poor?" What about those that don't have ambition or skills to invent and produce?

Well, we are all Capitalists. As wage earners, our job is to sell the value of our time/skills/energy/education to an employer for a negotiated wage. If you are continually improving yourself, you can take advantage of the opportunities that come your way.

Little / no skills or education? You're stuck at the bottom of the economic ladder. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Yes, there are plenty of people who cannot take care of themselves. We live in a merciful society and provide for these people... according to their 'need'.

But what I see, is that the definition of 'disability' is expanding... so much that more people are being swayed in their voting to help "keep the goodies" coming. Therefore, voting to get more stuff at the expense of others really constitutes a 'conflict of interest'. Ever notice that almost every single government facility has forms to help you register to vote? That's not just a 'convenient service', IMO.

Now business owners are being forced to provide services... or be fined. So business owners are going to make changes to avoid being fined and avoid the costs. I think it's funny because not every business/job is designed to be a lifelong career, but since jobs are hard to find, the Government wants to regulate every business to provide long-term benefits... or else.

Jim Rohn said "America is unique. It's a ladder to climb. It starts around $8/hour (today). If you're going to stay at the bottom, then maybe it should be higher. But that's a pitiful way to live - start and not grow? Start and not change? Start and not develop? Part of the mystery of life is to start #1, and to become better #2."

Always invest in yourself, unless you feel that you are a poor investment.

But, isn't the Government investing in you through student loans? Only if you are studying in a field that is growing. If students are studying 'underwater basketweaving'... they will reap the benefits of studying for that field. That's not the government's fault... that's poor planning on behalf of the student.

Yes, my opinions are strong. I put them out there, because I want to see where others see the benefits of Socialism... for the health of society... not just the benefits of the individuals.

Socialism is a great theory... if we had human beings who were perfect, without cravings, without malice, without prejudice, without desire, drive or ambition. It's also great if no additional inventions were perceived to be needed. No needs = no need for invention.

[volgadon]

I'm not following. Jezreel Valley is under Israeli Government - Parliamentary democratic.

It is now, but read about what happened to the swamps.

[volgadon]

Jim Rohn said "America is unique. It's a ladder to climb. It starts around $8/hour (today). If you're going to stay at the bottom, then maybe it should be higher. But that's a pitiful way to live - start and not grow? Start and not change? Start and not develop? Part of the mystery of life is to start #1, and to become better #2."

You don't think that a low minimum wage impedes growth in the slightest?

[skippy740]

It is my opinion (notice that I'm not stating anything as factual), that a lower minimum wage allows lower-end businesses to hire basic help... and increases the labor pool to grow their skills and find more positions that will pay them for those skills.

No work skills = no transferrable skills to take to the next position and grow your value to your employer(s).

[Vort]

Why are we discounting this example? (Genuinely curious.)

Because it's not socialism.

[Guest]

You don't think that a low minimum wage impedes growth in the slightest?

Not at all. Including an absence of minimum wage regulation.

Case in point: The minimum wage in North Dakota is $7.25/hour. You won't find anybody making that much in Williston, North Dakota. Not even the floor sweepers. The local McDonald's had to raise their lowest wage to $15/hour to prevent their employees from jumping ship to Taco Bell next door. And Taco Bell had to raise their wage to $15/hour to prevent their employees from taking an unskilled laborer job for $12 at the oil company in town that provides overtime.

So, why have minimum wage? Basically, minimum wage means - this is the least amount of money you need to hire somebody. If your business does not make enough profit to pay your required minimum number of employees $7.25/hour, then your business is not viable and should close down.

This is good if you are in a profitable market that has no competition. This is not good if you have a high unemployment rate because, for every business that closes down, that's that much less employed workers.

In a no minimum wage regulation environment, demand dictates wage. Upward mobility is dictated by skill marketability. If your skill has very small demand - or there's a boatload of people with the same skill that floods the market - then you have a choice, take the lower wage commensurate to your marketability, or train for a more marketable skill.

Of course, unionized workers complicate this.

Edited November 15, 2012 by anatess

[FunkyTown]

I'm not sure we're arguing the same thing here. Socialism is an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and a co-operative management of the economy.

Obviously, since every economy, even capitalism, is a co-operative management of the economy(Insomuch as you purchasing and selling things manages the success or failure of said economy), we have to be talking about social ownership of the means of production.

It's not even a social ownership of the means of production, but rather the social ownership of the means of production. This means that owning one or two things - Such as a government owned factory that pushes out fighter jets and the like - Doesn't constitute 'socialism'.

I guess what I'm asking is: What are you hoping to gain from this thread, JAG? I suspect(Although I could definitely be wrong) that there were some threads where the word 'socialism' was used as a club to decry whatever political party the person using it as a club happened to not like, and other people defended whatever thing they were attacking as 'Not so bad'.

With this being the civil thread, I'd love to put in my own two cents, but I'm unsure It'd be helpful in any sense. Specifically, I'd put forth the various micro-societies that exist in Vancouver where there is group ownership of the land and the means of production therein.

That, of course, is dependent upon the dictionary definition. If you're referring to the concept of 'Socialism' as decried by various prophets and apostles(Such as Marion G. Romney), then I would state that none of those states described as 'Socialist' survived. As, in that time, 'Socialism' and 'communism' was a byword for social justice used by people who actually were looking to achieve a tyranny, talking about that sort of Socialism is a very different thing.

During the time of the USSR, Socialism meant something very different than the definition of the word 'Socialism', just like a cartoon song insisting 'We'll have a gay old time' has a very different meaning now than then.

I think if I can get a bit more info on why you're asking those specific questions, I can be a bit more helpful with regards to the topic. I apologize if I'm reading too much in to your specific questions, JAG.

[Just_A_Guy]

Come visit the Jezreel Valley. Show me the swamp and I'll show you how socialism kills ambition.

I'd love to hear more. Link?

[Just_A_Guy]

Funky, what drove this was a recent thread wherein someone insisted that by definition, socialism is voluntary and not coercive even when implemented by government (my paraphrasing). This frankly struck me as mutually contradictory, and I'm trying to explore that idea of "voluntary" state socialism (or socialistic policies) a bit more.

[Just_A_Guy]

Not something I can answer as a pure hypothetical, especially with no details provided.

What details or factors would influence your answer?

[Backroads]

Darn. Four pages in and I didn't see as many answers to JaG's original questions as I hoped. I personally believe socialism [as I imagine it] would only work if we as human beings were more perfect.

I do think socialism would work today if everyone involved were committed to the ideal. Like a small group of people getting together to form some co-op. But as a general government? How do you guarantee everyone would be committed? If the driving force of socialism to care for everyone, you couldn't very well kill, imprison, or let them starve. The only options I really see is to shrug it off and let them have a free ride, or ignore them and let them do what they need to do to survive.

Anne's probably right and all we can do at this point is integrate some principles, but really, I was hoping for a more theoretical answer from someone.

[Just_A_Guy]

. . . really, I was hoping for a more theoretical answer from someone.

As do I; though I think a couple of people here (Volgadon? FunkyTown?) are building towards something and am interested to see how it plays out.

[FunkyTown]

As do I; though I think a couple of people here (Volgadon? FunkyTown?) are building towards something and am interested to see how it plays out.

For me, I'm not really building towards anything so much as wary of where conversations like this tend to go: There are 'levels' of Socialist behavior which are acceptable to even the most strident anti-Socialist who is being intellectually honest.

For instance:

The development of the atom bomb - Fat man and little boy. The means of production for this was owned by the government. It was co-operatively managed(I assume by 'co-operative', you mean by 'The government'. If not, I'd need to get a more firm definition of what you mean.) and the production was socially owned.

As a counterpoint: Should the means of production and the management of the creation of atomic weaponry be privately owned?

Some might say that this is a ridiculous question, but it really isn't. If the argument is 'All socialism is bad' and thus anything that privatizes government control of a means of production is bad, then that means that nuclear weapons would have to be privatized as well. That means that anyone - Even those who do not like your particular coountry - should have access to the means to create that sort of weapon.

If the argument is, "Don't be ridiculous, Funky. Obviously, I don't want to privatize the creation of weapons of mass destruction and thus allow it to fall in the hands of extremists and terrorists", then my counter-argument would be:

Obviously, then, you agree with some level of socialism. If that's the case, and it isn't all bad, then simply arguing something as being 'Socialism' no longer has meaning. If the argument is that this particular level of socialism will stifle growth and encourage bureaucratic tyranny, then the burden of proof must be on those stating this as the obvious outcome.

On the other hand, if you feel that everything - Even the most extreme cases - of production should be privatized, then I would say your beliefs are internally consistent. They don't represent the majority, but they are internally consistent.

[volgadon]

What details or factors would influence your answer?

One factor, for instance, would be how much of a threat was posed. If said group was going to overthrow the state by force of arms, then of course harsher measures would have to be taken than otherwise.

Other options include voluntary emigration, fines, and limitations.

All of this, of course, would require a means for judicial appeal and also elections, to lessen the risk of abuses.

[Anddenex]

The beginning of 4 Nephi is the most obvious example.

That is a Zion mentality, which isn't socialism at all. Thus I am still confused where people talk about socialism in the BoM.

[volgadon]

Because it's not socialism.

Then what is it?

[volgadon]

That is a Zion mentality, which isn't socialism at all. Thus I am still confused where people talk about socialism in the BoM.

A Zion mentality is communism or communlism, which is a form of socialism.

[Anddenex]

A Zion mentality is communism or communlism, which is a form of socialism.

Communism or communlism, is an imitation of Zion. It is not a Zion mentality. It takes on the appearance, but in substance it is nothing like it.

Socialism, Communism - A force of the people's will by government with penalties when disobeyed.

Example, Obama forcing a tax on the rich to aid others. If the rich don't comply, they are then penalized.

Zion mentality doesn't need a government force, it is a government educated and run by the grace, and mercy of fellow citizens. People think upon their brothers and sisters more than they do themselves.

Zion mentality doesn't need a forced tax increase to support people.

EDIT: Force and Zion mentality do not mix.

[estradling75]

We really need to be clear on how we are defining our terms to keep from talking in circles..

For example if I am talking about the United Order, the Law of Consecration, Zion mentality, or any scripture were God's people had all things in common... I will not use the terms Socialism, or communism or really any other -ism because to me those mean the opposite of what God intended. But know that in the past that Annewandering (an probably others) has stated that the above is what she means when she says Socialism.

For me the various -ism are Satan's counterfeit to God's plan. The counterfeit being the removal of the agency of man and the use of Force to Compel obedience. This is what I believe the various prophets are meaning when they warn against the 'evils' of socialism and other -isms. This what and why I am against them when I hear the terms lobbed around willy-nilly... at least until I understand that is not really what they mean. (presuming that is case)

Edited November 15, 2012 by estradling75

[Windseeker]

It seems like the defenders of socialism are watering it down to the point where any tax, regulation, law or contract is considered socialist. If that's the case then all government is socialism. I would like to understand myself.

I would say that Norway is about as good an example as you will find. Sweden (another Socialist Country) is actually paying people between 18 to 28 to leave Sweden and go to Norway to find work. People in Scandanavia seem pretty happy.

But I'm a Capitalist, I like this guy so I can't really answer JAGS questions.

Milton Friedman

[skippy740]

FunkyTown & Volgadon are both bringing up good points in that there are SOME things that are better done cooperatively than individually.

Farming is one area that can be done this way.

In terms of government: Police, Fire, Roads (building & repair), national defense all come to mind as something that should be planned and coordinated by the government, versus individuals. ("You DIDN'T build that" comes to mind on these things.)

But there's one part that I'd like to discuss - enforcement.

Annewandering said "In an ideal socialist state there would be no need for enforcement."

Is it really?

Is it truly voluntary?

All of us serving the 'needs of the state'?

Happily, without murmuring?

Be happy with our 'work assignments' - for the 'greater good'?

These are MY questions... with a total socialistic endeavor. These questions make me wonder if man is surrendering his freedom for his government master... for some porridge.

Now, some things work better cooperatively... like police, fire, etc. And they are paid according to their skills, education, experience, etc. They don't work for free. Because of their personal risk on the job, they are compensated for taking such risks. The also have (at least should) have extensive benefit packages... all provided for by their employer, who taxes their local citizens to pay for such services.

Money is the equalizer. Being paid in currency is better than just determining my some (government) formula what you should receive. At least with currency, one has the choice and responsibility to budget for their individual needs. If it's not enough money, increase your skills and you can earn more. (But that's a capitalistic attitude, versus socialism, IMO.)

Also, with money (capital) in the hands of the people, the people determine where to shop, who they choose to do business with. It's not all just 'handed from the state'. There is economic freedom and choice.

In order for Socialism to work, IMO, the strongest among them would need to be willing to be paid - not according to their strengths, but according to their need. It's fabricating a different kind of economy where workers show their 'need'... instead of their seed.

Today, workers need to show their 'seed' to their employers - what to they bring to the table? No seed = no job/low earnings. If you are talking about how much you 'need' this new job... it's a turn-off for employers who are looking to add talent to their organization. Talented people are able to provide for their needs... not beg for them.

It doesn't matter if you have 10 kids and a wife... but no skills. If a guy who just graduated from business school with an MBA and has no family... he may earn 10x the person who has the greater need. That's capitalism in the workforce... (and poor planning for the person who has 10 kids and unable to provide for them).

Socialism seems to take the consequences out of poor proper planning. "Oh, you messed up? Here, have some goodies. That'll help you since you're in such a bind."

After a while, even in a socialistic society, the strong among them are seeing how their talents are being used for the benefit of the weak... and may begin to not put forth their best effort towards the collective good. That begins the erosion of a purely socialistic society because every society needs the strong to lead.

[Connie]

Some are apparently equating socialism with consecration. So the question is asked, how that can work without a righteous people? I would add another question. How can that work without a prophet of God to implement it? Not something i understand at all as those are, to me, some of the great differences between socialism and consecration.

Socialism is government controlled, and, as George Washington so rightly stated, "government is force." The founders knew this. They studied lots of governments. They read John Locke’s Second Trestise on Government. Those were great influences on the writing of the constitution. People today would do well to read those things that influenced the founders. It is very helpful in better understanding the constitution they gave us.

Consecration is a celestial law that must be implemented by a prophet of God and followed by a righteous people. No force can control it but covenants, obedience and volunteerism. It is remarkable that the founders believed only a righteous people would be able to keep the republic they gave us and that the law of consecration can only be lived by a righteous people. They really do go hand in hand. Cleon Skousen in The Cleansing of America states how he believes consecration and free enterprise will live side by side in a Zion society. It was a very interesting read, and I would highly recommend it.

[skippy740]

A Zion mentality is communism or communlism, which is a form of socialism.

The United Order is FAITH based... with those who choose to participate. It isn't compulsory. All things are shared, but through a shared moral code that each give according to their strengths.

Because of that choice, it's easier to choose to build up Zion... than to have it forced amongst and throughout a country.

One is choice; the other can be construed as slavery.

You cannot legislate morality. But you can have a group of people who share strengths, talents and morality to build up a society.

That can't be fabricated by man. The natural man will always find a way to dominate over another. It takes higher ideals than purely one's own self-interest.

But it must be voluntary with a shared moral code. No moral code? It dissintegrates.

[Vort]

A Zion mentality is communism or communlism, which is a form of socialism.

Here is the root of misunderstanding: The pro-socialists insist that any and all communal activity or feeling is, by definition (at least by their definition), socialist.

Baloney. I might as well say that any and all attempts to buy or barter any item or good is, by definition, capitalism, and therefore that all those "socialists" who participate in exchange of goods are hypocrites. Pretty much the identical argument.

[Vort]

Then what is it?

It is an example of a Zion society, with members who enter freely, of their own will, by covenant. Surely even a socialist like you can make the distinction between that and socialism, where the government seizes and owns all means of production.