Can Socialism Provide a Stable Political Framework?

  • News
  • Thread starter alexandra
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Stable
In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of political paradigms and how they can be used to understand history and current events. The speaker notes that growing up in South Africa and studying politics led them to see the explanatory power of Marxist theory in understanding the confusing and oppressive political system of apartheid. They reject ideas such as Huntington's 'clash of civilizations' and argue that it is a strategy used by the powerful to obscure the real reasons for conflicts. When prompted for testable predictions made by Marx, the speaker mentions increasing disparities in wealth and concentration of immense wealth in the hands of a few, which they believe has come true. They also mention the poverty that still exists in the world despite progress in some areas.
  • #106
Smurf said:
By "Native-Cubans" I think they meant indigenous. It's curious that the CIA factbook doesn't even give a figure for the number of indigenous in Cuba (quite possibly they were all killed off - but then why did wikipedia say that)
This requires further investigation.

CIA world factbook, as I was told on this forum, is a compliation of independant sources. Don't blame them.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #107
Pengwuino said:
CIA world factbook, as I was told on this forum, is a compliation of independant sources. Don't blame them.
No I googled it. Indigenous cubans were wiped out by the start of the 18th century just like most of the islands.
 
  • #108
I just said don't blame them for not having the info. Don't get all defensive :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
  • #109
nah nah nah nah Townsend. Your precious Wiki article is gone (edited by none other than yours truely).
 
  • #110
Smurf said:
RIIIIGHT Mary Kay. Thank you
http://www.marykay.com/home.aspx

These guys. okay Townsend. That's who I was talking to. These guys make previously calm mild-mannered house wives into fanatical sales persons all the bloody time (come on - didn't you see that "American Dad" episode?)

Now, I'm not suggesting we brain wash them like they do (because they have help from the entire capitalist system). But it just goes to show that people work for things other than salaries.

What on Earth are you talking about? They work hard because the harder they work, the more money they get. You're right that they don't earn salaries; they earn commission, which gives them even more incentive to work their butts off.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #111
Smurf said:
nah nah nah nah Townsend. Your precious Wiki article is gone (edited by none other than yours truely).

Oh well... I guess you're right then Smurf. People would all be happier and healthier if they were forced to give away their money so someone else who didn't earn it can benefit from it. And I'm totally sure that you're correct to assume everyone would show up bright and early and be happy to shovel crap for the rest of their days with no hope of ever doing a job they could actually be happy with.

Sorry for ever thinking that liberty is more important than creating social equality. And sorry of believing that social equality is impossible no matter what kind of government system is used.

In any case...I have better things to waste my time on then this...
 
Last edited:
  • #112
Townsend said:
Oh well... I guess you're right then Smurf. People would all be happier and healthier if they were forced to give away their money so someone else who didn't earn it can benefit from it. And I'm totally sure that you're correct to assume everyone would show up bright and early and be happy to shovel crap for the rest of their days with no hope of ever doing a job they could actually be happy with.

Sorry for ever thinking that liberty is more important than creating social equality. And sorry of believing that social equality is impossible no matter what kind of government system is used.

In any case...I have better things to waste my time on then this...

I haven't been online in over a week due to lack of internet, so I haven't responded in a while. (In case you were wondering).

Townsend, do you consider someone who works eight hours a day as a CEO to have worked harder than someone who works eight hours a day as a factory worker?
 
  • #113
Smasherman said:
Townsend, do you consider someone who works eight hours a day as a CEO to have worked harder than someone who works eight hours a day as a factory worker?

Over the course of their life... probably!

What is a CEO vs. a factory worker. Factory worker = possibly no education, no expectations, can start out anytime. CEO = almost has to be educated, huge expectations, has to climb an incredibly difficult ladder, sometimes has to fly all around the country/world, and has their work effect the entire company. Their laziness can be magnified an incredible amount and end up making them lose their job. A factory worker can be pretty lazy without being noticed many times...

Plus what kind of CEO works 8 hours a day? My cousin is a CEO and ... he DOESN'T work for about 8 hours a day for about the last 3 years (I mean he works 16 hours a day if that didn't read like i wanted it to read).

And since my name isn't Townsend... i feel equally as obligated to have answred your question!
 
  • #114
Smasherman said:
Townsend, do you consider someone who works eight hours a day as a CEO to have worked harder than someone who works eight hours a day as a factory worker?

The question is not there, I think. It doesn't matter "who works harder" or "who suffers most". You could flaggelate yourself for eight hours, and say that you've been far more miserable (and somehow implicitly assume that this means that you should get at least the same compensation) as someone who enjoys his job and cannot really tell the difference between his spare time and his job. What matters is the value that is created. The guy flaggelating himself didn't create zilch of value (ok, except if he did it in front of a camera :devil:), while the person enjoying himself might very well have done something way more valuable. As such, a (good) CEO would normally take decisions in his 8 hours which create far more value than the factory worker. (now, I will of course be the first to say that I think that corporate CEOs are often a bunch of vastly overpaid idiots whose salary is not in relation to the value they really create but that's one of the many problems of corporatism).

The point is that "one hour of your time" has not the same value, it depends on how much value you create during that hour.
 
Last edited:
  • #115
I would have to agree with the Penguin and Vanesch. The value of the job done by the worker and the rarity of skill, talent, what have you, make that worker worth more. And I would have to agree with Vanesch that very many CEOs and CEO type workers probably very well make much more money than there job really is worth. There are probably also some individuals placed at high positions making large sums of money that hardly work at all as favors or some such thing but again this isn't necessarily the product of capitalism so much as corporatism, or oligopolies as selfAjoint might say. These things can likely be avoided and I'd have to look but I think there probably are capitalist countries where it is avoided.
 
  • #116
Townsend said:
Sorry for ever thinking that liberty is more important than creating social equality. And sorry of believing that social equality is impossible no matter what kind of government system is used.

In any case...I have better things to waste my time on then this...
I know you are no longer interested in this debate, Townsend - but maybe others are. The thing is - 'liberty' and 'social equality' need not be diametrically opposed to one another. It is possible, I think, to have both. At the moment, there are already constraints on individual 'liberties' in 'democratic' countries, aren't there? And everyone agrees that there should be some constraints on individual liberties if they threaten the liberties of others. It would be no different in a socialist society. In capitalist societies, if you decide not to work you starve. Why should this not be an acceptable norm in a socialist society as well? The only difference is that in a socialist society, no-one would be able to make money off the back of others' work, that's all: liberty (to survive or starve) and social equality (nobody can profit from the labour of others). What's the problem :confused:
 
  • #117
Why was my post deleted? Because I didn't conform to some kind of standard? Or my content was considered irrelevant or inflammatory? Anyway, my main point was

Huge wealth gap tends to destabilize our society. I believe America is still considered a stable one(It is, right?), to a certain extent, because socialist programs such as welfare programs were introduced to diminish direct conflict between the rich and the poor. They acted as buffer.

Redistribution of wealth is not really a character of capitalist society, if I understand capitalism correctly.

And the scholarhip that has been mentioned, IMO, in one kind of buffer, and it creates an impression that we always have the resources to promote ourselves in a capitalist society.

I don't really agree with communism, but I somehow believe in what I said above.
 
  • #118
JungleWorld said:
Why was my post deleted? Because I didn't conform to some kind of standard? Or my content was considered irrelevant or inflammatory?
No, it was deleted at your request.
JungleWorld said:
Edit: the topic seems changed here. Hehehe
Just disregard this post
You're digging up dead threads.
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
21
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
975
  • General Discussion
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
15K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
7
Views
925
Back
Top