Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JALU3
Socialism . . . to go off topic . . . is a wonderful theory. However, I don't think it will work due to the greedy, self-serving, nature of mankind. In an ideal world, socialism would work, because everyone would strive for the common good, making products and services that others need, and getting back an equal share of products and services in return. Yet, that would assume that all people are putting an equal amount of effort, and all things were valued equally.
This doesn't work due to the nature of mankind. max consumption with minimal amount of effort, self advancement over the advancement of the group/community, the needs of the self out waying the needs of the whole or the many, the not in my backyard mentality, etc. Now, if someone would like to argue that the nature of mankind is predisposed towards socialism . . . I would like to see it . . . but I think that the nature of mankind can be seen in the kindergardens and high school open areas, when people are allowed to be themselves. Sorry for the bleak outlook, but there it is, my opinion.
|
I'm sure that there was a time when they thought the idea of democracy on the scale which we have as being as ridiculous as your own assertions. People grow, and so do societies. Its all about development. Within the lifetime of every strand of genetic code disseminated through my family from beginning til ultimate disapperance from the gene pool I'm sure we won't see the kind of 'socialist' ideas in practise that I think about. Does that mean it will never happen? I don't think so. I think its rather arrogant to sum up the potential of human nature. And, should you choose to believe it, evolution adds many special advantages over time. The way I see it the ego and self-serviance of people is related to natural instincts of animals mixing with emotional self-awreness born in our own evolution. Whos to say this is the end, aside from the christians, of our growth?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by August
Yeah right, well foreigners have been predicting my countries imminent demise ever since we became independant. That is over two centuries of market based economy and we've done pretty darn well for ourselves so far.
Socialist governments on the other hand have always either failed or turned despotic rather quickly, except in a few small communities which, imo, are the only places that such a political system can work.
|
So America is the example of success. Does the existance, however long, of America's predominance as an economic power (and to say over 200 years is a bit of a stretch, much the same as calling the Roman empire as going as far back as the moment the Republic was formed prior to its conquests) immediately preclude the success of any other system? This single minded capitalism or naught business is rather pig headed and small minded. History is much bigger than America and the world will out live this brief period of American dominance. Systems have grown dominated and disappered in favour of others. Maybe you could approach the subject with a bit less emotional bias face it as a neutral entity.
What can work? Citing examples of failures is by no means exhaustive. You interpret the broad and very negotiable nature of socialist concepts with very pejorative slants and by imposing very limited imaginings of them on the entire circus. And within the very restrictive environment of a capitalist dominated world the growth of socialist ideas has been severely retarded by countering forces invested in preserving the status quo. Did many ideas fail because they couldn't work? Or were they prevented from succeeding before they had a change to sh1t the bed?
Its never so simple as saying "Capitalism Won".