"In socialism, everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them. All work would be on a voluntary basis. Producing for needs means that people would engage in work that has a direct usefulness. The satisfaction that this would provide, along with the increased opportunity to shape working patterns and conditions, would bring about new attitudes to work."
http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/what_is_socialism.php, World Socialist Movement.
"My motivations were not financial, other than necessities, I loved my work, took pride in it, sought the acknowledgement of my peers and was rewarded by the satisfaction of a job well done. My employees were renumerated at scale, set bycorporate. They were excellent, responding to respect, being listened to and given credit fortheir ideas and treated as persons of value in their own right."
As you can see, the two quotes are similar in meaning for labor. The second quote was from a very good friend of mine. However, as he also acknowledged, there are some that are motivated by money more than satisfaction. Moreover, my friend more than likely would accept a system as outlined in the first quote as long as he had his needs met.
We must remember that anything used as money is just a means of exchange. We must also remember that any form of economy is subject to the laws of supply and demand not just free enterprise. My friend also said "Capital is the difference between our pay and our value to our employer." This would acknowledge that the difference could be negative or positive.
This last quote of my friend can be translated into the relationship a business has with the community it does business in. Capital is the difference between the number of those employed and the value of the business to the community. However, there be glaring problems with the socialist viewpoint on these terms.
The first problem is that under a socialistic system as described everyone must participate and do so voluntarily in order for it to work. This would support the idea of full employment that socialism promises. This would require the elimination of those that cannot or will not produce his share. This can only occur in a perfect state of existence.
Socialism can only exist by imposition of laws. It is not a natural system of economics. Thus, to say that people participate willingly is a oxymoron in itself.
Socialism is designed to meet the needs of everyone. I can’t see a time where only the needs of a person will satisfy everyone. People seek to have luxuries in their life also. Even the poor of today possess some luxuries that they must have sacrificed some need in order to possess them if we are to consider them as really being poor.
Each person must be seen in terms of being a positive asset not a liability in this system. If that person is not an asset then he is not producing what he needs to produce in order to meet demand.
Therefore, just from this we can see that demand will always be greater than supply in a system as advocated by the World Socialist Movement. Failure of the system, itself, is the result. Society becomes the victim of those that imposed it in the first place.
So, my friends, when you go to the polls this November do so informed. Be sure of what you are voting for. Remember some things advertised as being free can be the most expensive thing you will ever buy.
WELCOMES YOU to his little home in cyberspace.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Solicalism has failed Worldwide ...
yes, but there are still those who believe and argue that it can work for the betterment of society. or that just elements of it, like universal health care, can be used without harm to society.
If something appears to good to be true there is usually a catch, and the catch to socialism is HUGE!
Canadians got stuck with socialized health care. They aren't impressed. A friend of mine just wrote a post on his opinion of it.
http://www.abfreedom.blogspot.com/
Tis Labor Day....a fitting day for pondering the place of labor. :)
Yeah Gail it's like don't get sick! LOL
I say no thanks to socialized anything!
Oops it's Gayle sorry
but pondering can be very laborous too, bb. as you know a lot of work can be involved once we start pondering. lolol
happy labor day to all too. enjoy the bbq's.
Yes indeed, World Socialist Movement is in Barack Obama's corner and these foolish Libs can't see it.
saint,
they see it but just don't care.
The miniscule membership of the WSP
are charactors (putting it kindly)
They fight over whether Sweden's
social democrat government is socialist or capitalist. Now as for all of us working voluntarily, the pile in the jobjar my wife keeps for me shows the utter futility of that! :)
Remember some things advertised as being free can be the most expensive thing you will ever buy...that we can all agree on! :)
he chuckles as he replies to both, bb and woman. well said, well said.
I guess I'll just start by responding to the post itself and than I'll deal with the comments.
One thing I've been thinking about in relation to Socialism and Capitalism is that in Capitalism, charitable donations are voluntary or optional and some do and it some don't. In Socialism, working towards one's full potential is voluntary or optional and some do it and some don't. In Socialism, a lot of laziness goes unchecked, but in Capitalism a lot of greed goes unchecked. Which is worse?
I guess it could even be argued that greed is worse than laziness. This is just food for thought.
In spite the fact that Capitalism offers extra incentives for good work, there are still those within Capitalism that choose not to work. Perhaps this is because it takes a little more than just money to move some people. Perhaps it's because they are so injured inside that they just can't function like they should. Perhaps they are just crippled by fear. At any rate, just money alone is often not enough of an incentive in order to persuade some people to work.
It is not possible for everyone to be an asset. There are some handicapped people that just plain aren't and like it or not, that's just the way it is.
"Demand will always be greater than supply in this system."
hmmmm. That's an interesting comment.
Griper,
In response to "pondering can be very laborous too.", when I went through a bout of clinical depression, as I've already decided to not be afraid to talk about even on the web, I was often accused of laziness, just as many others have also acknowledged that depression can often be misunderstood. After reading some of my writings, however, my counselor told me that I was far from lazy and my writing proves it.
Of course, I wasn't making any money at it because my thoughts were too scattered. Unfortunately, in order to make money, the effort has to be focused, organized and pointed in the right direction. Effort alone just doesn't cut it. Yet the point I'm trying to make here is that laziness and lack of effort was not the issue.
lista,
"I guess it could even be argued that greed is worse than laziness"
when you are speaking of qualities alone i agree that it could be argued that way. but we are talking about economies not qualities of a person. which quality will be more favorable to a prosperous economy is the question?
"Perhaps this is because it takes a little more than just money to move some people."
when talking of money, lista, you need to understand its purpose. money, by definition, is nothing but a "medium of exchange". thus when thinking of money you need to think in terms of what it can be exchanged for. in other words, lista, it is not money itself that moves people. it is what they hope to have from the exchange of money, or in layman's terms, what they hope to possess by buying it with money.
and one more thing, lista, stop using extremes to present your argument. it doesn't work. if you want people to see the benefits of being in the middle then present a case for the middle. when you use extremes all you are doing is presenting a case for the extreme position.
but laziness does exist, lista. and to deny it will not cure it either.
Some people are more motivated by the things that money can not buy.
I disagree with what you are saying about extremes. The best argument against the extremes and in favor of the middle is pointing out the negatives in the extremes.
I really believe that laziness is misunderstood, more often than not and in order to cure it, we need to understand the underlying cause. Just judging it never works.
lista,
"The best argument against the extremes and in favor of the middle is pointing out the negatives in the extremes."
to say that is to presume that the middle is all positives without negatives. and that isn't true either. and if you disagree with that then how can any argument be put against it or for it unless it revealed what the middle advocates.
arguments against the extremes are just that, argument against them. it says nothing for something except, by assumption, for the opposite extreme.
since when is there a cure for laziness? i never realized it was a medical condition necessitating a cure.
No workie no playie!
You work then you may have you don't then the hell with ya!
Doggie dog life isn't it! If folks don't like it move to Europe!
Post a Comment