The Irony of Collectivists?

imo, the agreement upon basic rights of all members of a society isn't greedy (at least not on the individual level).
individualism vs collectivism = yin&yang imo , neither is right

 

Another good point is that the most hardcore collectivist regimes have been forced upon people at the barrel of a gun. Think about that for a second.

For the rest of my opinion refer to my signature.

 

I don't think greed is the basis for collectivism or capitalism, I think greed is the worst human nature has to offer and no matter what economic system you have, the greedy power mongers will find a way to exploit it so they get bigger slice of the pie than anyone else or better yet the whole pie so they can hand out crumbs for labor.

sure some economic systems are easier to exploit than others (capitalism) but no system is incorruptible because the problem isn't the system its people.

peace

 

An interesting point raised here. I think the difference is that we socialists believe that our 'greed' in wanting universal health care, social security etc is justified as these things (at least in theory) are worked for by everyone and are beneficial to everyone, rather than 'capitalist greed' being worked for by 'everyone' (bad phrase but you know what I mean) but serving first and foremost the rich wealthy man at the top and wealth given to everyone else is 'trickle down effect' - crumbs from their table, to put it poetically if not a little dramatically.

Greed IS greed, either way - I don't think anyone can argue that point. I prefer this greed to serve the benefit of society rather than serving those at the top first and serving those at the bottom only as a consequence of those at the top getting their way, you dig?

 

That's where you get me wrong. I don't support the idea of some kind of big central government. I support workers councils dictating what is produced, how much of it etc - workers councils working in relation and interdependence with each other rather than a state dictating to the workers what to create. I actually believe that as soon as you have 'a select few individuals with a monopoly on law', you fuck up the entire point of socialism, which is EQUALITY. How can everyone be equal if a few people have power over everyone? Thus, I don't support the idea of some kind of big government state, the only role of the government should be to uphold those few fundamental laws (murder, rape and such) and basically to do the paperwork.

And I don't attribute capitalism to having given us 'the wealth that is commonplace in the modern, industrialised world' - a lack of scarcity (or an abundance of resources) has done that at the end of the day. Put it this way, under the capitalist system at the time of the industrial revolution the worker was poor as all hell, while the capitalist owners were the only ones with wealth. Over time this has changed and the average person (the worker, if you will) has much more wealth, for a simple reason. This is that the rich have so, so much and that we have such an abundance of resources that they can afford to throw the workers a bone and give them some of these resources or 'wealth'. The cumulative trickle down effect that is a well ackowledged principle of capitalism has resulted in a progressively increasing standard of life, more technology etc for everyone over time, but if you drastically cut back the number of resources and 'wealth' in circuit, I have no doubt that this 'wealth' would be primarily in the hands of the capitalist producers.

Sure, the capitalist system gave us the resources for which to end this lack of scarcity and thus enrich us with an abundance of resources, but the actual results (the modern, industrialised world that is a consequence of an abundance of resources) could have been achieved under socialism also. To state again, the only reason we're wealthy is because of a lack of scarcity, and properly executed socialism could have just as easily created this lack of scarcity and enriched society - without 'tragedies of the commons' and other unfortunate side effects of capitalism and the free market.

 

Collectivists tend to forget the individual, while the individualists tend to forget that we're collectively one organism.

I personally find the people who say "You have no right to what I've earned" to be far more greedy than those who say "I would like universal healthcare". Sharing is caring, you bastards.

I support a collective one world government, because when we plant a flag on Mars it's not going to be the American flag, it's going to be the flag of the Republic of Earth, or some shit like that.

 

I think there's a few levels of greed.

With something like universal health care, you have folks that are against it because it does actually spreads the wealth to those who can't afford health insurance. People in the high class, have this common assumption that their money is going to a person who doesn't want to work. To me that's sort of a corrupt greed; they're plenty of people who are unable to work or they do work and still can't afford much (and I know not everybody's situation is that bad).

 

I'm not in the higher class and I oppose wealth redistribution. Not because they "don't deserve it", but because it's fucking us all in the end. The government sucks at managing artificial markets.

It's also immoral and destructive to the creative forces of society.

 

Middle class here. I don't support the wealthy class or the parasitic class.

The leeches don't deserve a cent of my or other citizens hard earned money.

It is Unconstitutional. It is illegal and we will put a stop to confiscatory taxation.

The entitlements will be coming to an end, the American people are fed up.

The Founding Fathers never intended for our Republic to support an entire dependent class of people. Learn some history, the redistribution of wealth has only produced failure.

Prosperity can only be achieved when a man can keep what he earns and it is not confiscated from him by a bloated, criminally inclined government.


Disclaimer: *I will not reply to whiny, shrill sounding emotional appeals. Logic and facts only.

 

Shade - I understand this socialism thing is kinda is off topic (I mean, it's collectivism, but it's not exactly sticking with the original post either), so I'll post my responses for clarification and try not to pose any new questions or anything like that.

There's nothing really to corrupt. I mean, what would you have to gain by being the big leader of, say, the local boilermaking faculty? There's no profit, so there's no incentive for greed - unless someone wants power, which wouldn't work because every worker is equal in these 'councils' and every worker has equal access to the means of production. The point about businessmen versus workers councils isn't really viable, because the workers councils (the concept I understand is a bit vague, I'll clarify it later if you're interested) ARE the people and ARE the consumers - the're producing essentially for themselves just as well as everyone else. Everything they produce is for the people, ie the consumer and society, and it would make no sense to make goods that no one wants. I've actually devised an interesting little 'socialist invisible hand' economics mechanism (again, I'll fill you in later if you're interested, it basically revolves around a 'need-want' equilibrium in accordance with available resources) which hopefully covers this quite well, but in spite of this the principle I back is that the consumers/society are the people catered to by socialism, so the system is always going to revolve around serving their wants and needs - anything else would be ineffective and wasteful.

This will never be changed, and that's good - social versatility and variability makes for a dynamic society. The brain surgeon is obviously 'intellectually superior' (for want of a less smug phrase), and that's just nature. However, they both would have equal access to the produce of society, which at the moment they obviously don't because the surgeon recieves a far greater pay - the result is equality, at least as far as access to wealth goes. You might say this gives people less incentive to be the best they can be, but I'd remind you that, like everything, everyone has equal access to education and training under libertarian socialism. So rather than limiting the surgeons capabilities by removing incentive to make a whole lot of money, he (and everyone else) has more options available to him and the opportunity for almost unlimited intellectual growth through unlimited access to pursue continued education and such. Thus, he can pursue his PASSIONS, pursue the things that he loves and the things he's always wanted to learn about. So while the brain surgeon and janitor both have equal access to wealth, the brain surgeon's capacity to be 'better' than the janitor is fostered more efficiently under socialism - the incentive to access education is in love and passion in the subject, rather than individual greed.

Industrialisation came about under capitalism, but a socialist system could (as I've said) just as easily mix labour with resources to produce cars, phones and whatever else. It hasn't - as you make a point of - for many reasons. One is that we've only really seen Communism in place, and very poorly executed Communism. Even so, Stalin's Magnitogorsk is a (again, shoddily executed, but whatever) testament to industrialisation and modernisation under Communism.

People were impoverished, sure. But it's not as if capitalism made them wealthier in relation to the great wealth increase seen by the producers. Simply, the wealth created went almost straight to the pockets of the rich.

Yeah, 'a man's labour increases in value because he is capable of producing more goods in less time' - but only because this leads to more goods to be sold and more money to be made, and who is it that actually profits from this surplus of goods? The 'fat-cat businessmen' primarily, and the workers get the secondary benefits that the businessman can afford to give them because he's made so much fucking money out of their surplus labour. What you're saying is right, but the source of everything that you say lies in the fact that we have an abundance of resources. If this fact wasn't so, the businessman wouldn't be able to pay the worker as much out of the profits of the workers own surplus labour, but he himself would still have more wealth and money than the worker. You see what I'm getting at? The only reason that the workers have wealth is because as industrialisation increases more goods can be made, meaning that the businessman makes more money out of increased surplus goods production, meaning that out of their greatly increased wealth they can afford to give the worker more of this wealth.

 

How are you going to put a stop to taxation when the vast majority
of your country support the current system ?

Just curious...

 

Action taken for the greater good of your fellow man such as free healthcare and welfare assistance is not greed..
Greed is having more than you need and not wanting to share any of it..
Did your mom never tell you it is good to share ?

 

Maybe as an individual you see this as greedy.
I would see it as fair.

But if i am greedy for wanting to see my fellow man get adequate health care and support then so be it..

 

What ?

I just stated that to an individual like yourself, i would be greedy.

I see it as fair that my fellow man has access to healthcare and support..

What arguments am i ignoring ?