Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 84
Like Tree83Likes

Thread: Socialism defined by the World Socialist Movement

  1. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    133
    > Nationalism is a concept only useful to separate people, and is therefore anti-working class.

    Nationalism is also used to prevent one group of working class being replaced by another.

    For example, the Native American Indian, if they had no sense of national group, they would vanish and be replaced by some other culture / group of people.

    Surely no one would agree that would be a good thing ?

    Once you mention 'concept only useful to separate people' you really mean, 'we want to invade your country and are going to use some fancy words to make it legal to do so.', this tends to alienate your potential socialists who happen to live in that country. :-)

    TVP had the same kind of issue I noticed when talking to people about it in various countries, they did not see it as anything more than some kind of fancy excuse to come in and plunder their natural resources, and move a bunch of strangers into their lands !

    As such, I see it as a pointless extra thing to include as to what socialism is, why can't we just remove that bit, it would make the whole thing much more palatable to folk.

    Incidently, is there a historical record of when that bit was added on and by who ?

    Just I'm reminded of TZM lore where lost in the mists of time are various additions to what TZM actually is, which was tacked on by various people over time, and there appears no real record of who said what when.

    It makes me ponder that perhaps socialism has been tinkered with a little over the years and altered for other purposes, behind its initial pure intentions.


    Plus, shouldn't any great theory on how to do things, be open to evolving and changing, eg. improving itself over time ?

  2. #32
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    133
    > In this sense, the working class are exploited by the capitalist class.

    One could also look at it as a symbiotic relationship, in that the capitalist class are also exploited by the working class..

    I notice that people generally can be divided into two groups:

    Those that want to be capitalists.

    Those that want to be working class.

    Often, to become a capitalist, first one has to be working class, not everyone is born into the trade. :-)

    Then you find an idea, either one you see someone else has, or you come up with it yourself, and at that point, you have to decide if you are always going to be working class, or will you risk and try being a capitalist, and employ others to build your dream.

    Now, I used to think in the past that most workers if they had that opportunity, would take it, but after talking to many over the decades, most of them tell me they wouldn't !

    They much prefer the lower stress and lower working hours of being working class, than the risk and hard work involved in trying to be a capitalist.

    Sure they would like the increased wealth, but they don't like the increase in work !


    As such, there are levels of complexity in the argument that one initially is not aware of.


    If we had a profit sharing cooperative where everyone had a stack in a company, and there was no capitalist leader to exploit the workers, the workers would then have to make decisions about how to run the company.

    They might be able to do that just as well, but would they want to.. ?

    And what do you do with those workers who are lazy and sit around all day and don't want to work, do you fire them ?

    If you did not, then wouldn't everyone then decide not to work also..

    Related link:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chance...me_(1950_film)


    I would look forward greatly to your input in the design of a working socialist computer game for us to try and implement these ideals and test them with humans players.

  3. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    133
    > opposes all war and claims that socialism will inherently end war

    How could it possibly end war if aliens from another solar system decided to show up and steal our resources by force ?

  4. #34
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Lismore, Australia
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by YouTuber View Post
    > In this sense, the working class are exploited by the capitalist class.

    One could also look at it as a symbiotic relationship, in that the capitalist class are also exploited by the working class..

    I notice that people generally can be divided into two groups:

    Those that want to be capitalists.

    Those that want to be working class.

    Often, to become a capitalist, first one has to be working class, not everyone is born into the trade. :-)

    Then you find an idea, either one you see someone else has, or you come up with it yourself, and at that point, you have to decide if you are always going to be working class, or will you risk and try being a capitalist, and employ others to build your dream.

    Now, I used to think in the past that most workers if they had that opportunity, would take it, but after talking to many over the decades, most of them tell me they wouldn't !

    They much prefer the lower stress and lower working hours of being working class, than the risk and hard work involved in trying to be a capitalist.

    Sure they would like the increased wealth, but they don't like the increase in work !


    As such, there are levels of complexity in the argument that one initially is not aware of.


    If we had a profit sharing cooperative where everyone had a stack in a company, and there was no capitalist leader to exploit the workers, the workers would then have to make decisions about how to run the company.

    They might be able to do that just as well, but would they want to.. ?

    And what do you do with those workers who are lazy and sit around all day and don't want to work, do you fire them ?

    If you did not, then wouldn't everyone then decide not to work also..

    Related link:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chance...me_(1950_film)
    Employee-owned businesses: Number of companies owned by workers is growing

    Quote Originally Posted by YouTuber View Post
    I would look forward greatly to your input in the design of a working socialist computer game for us to try and implement these ideals and test them with humans players.
    Not sure who you are addressing here but are you designing the game and looking for input or are you thinking that a game would be a good thing to create?

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,129
    Quote Originally Posted by HAL9000 View Post
    So the socialists are the trolls now?
    That's a good point & they tend to be that way; it's actually not something new. I guess I've been overlooking this because I accept socialism and socialists for what they are, a system where its supporters impose themselves and their ideology on others and try to bully, pressure, and push people around. They've been doing this to TZM since long before Spinout showed up with this thread, and I suspect (and wouldn't be surprised) if they tried to do this with Jacque Fresco as well; it would probably explain why he has to point out that TVP is not socialism, since socialism still has money, banks, manual labor, etc.

    On the original TZM forum, it had dozens of mods, several admins, and there was so much activity that some of the mods were designated for certain sections of the forum, and a small handful were global mods. PJ was one of the few admins, and actively participated on the forum. PJ and the other mods & admins would sometimes intervene by posting a response in a thread to make a statement about TZM's position on something, warn a member to stop doing things such as spamming the forum, attacking other forum members or mods for the decisions they made (with insults, ad hom attacks, behavior that was out of line, etc.), to temporarily or permanently ban members, and even to lock threads that got out of hand. I could be mistaken, but if I recall correctly, there were times where the mods (including PJ, I think) either had to intervene by stating that TZM is not socialism, or locking threads that were about socialism because they had nothing to do with TZM, or possibly because the thread got out of hand. I don't think they went after every case of discussion of socialism; I think they might have only stepped in when the situation would go on a tangent or off topic, for example. Usually discussions about similarities or differences between TZM and ideologies such as socialism, for example, were acceptable, as long as forum members weren't breaking the forum rules or threads weren't going way off topic.

    Socialists also want you to listen to they tell you and comply with their rules that they want to impose on you, but don't you dare try to get them to listen to you or try to get them to agree with you on what the rules ought to be. They'll try to scold you. Jacque Fresco has talked about how he tried to attend their meetings and he would try to ask questions and make suggestions; they would tell him that he's deviating and kick him out of the meetings. Other members who weren't just attendees, but part of the leadership of the organizations, would say let's listen to what JF has to say, and they'd also get kicked out. Again, I could be of with some of my facts or details about this; it's been over 5 years since the original forum was shut down.

    Quote Originally Posted by HAL9000 View Post
    one link is enough bro. i agree with what's written there but its only words, a theory... when tested in the real world does it work???
    Unfortunately there's also a pitfall when they're asked about this; they'll claim that it has been tested and that it does work. What they don't do is explain what they mean. I have found that they might be doing things such as cherry picking cases or coming to premature conclusions; they might also be interpreting data or the facts incorrectly, or defining or interpreting things in such a way to make things fit an explanation or definition. For example, they'll offer certain countries in Europe as examples of socialism working, but they fail or neglect to take into account that not all things scale up, for example. The countries in Europe are small, and Europe as a whole doesn't have a one size fits all socialist system. The countries in question are rather small, comparable to a state in the United States.

    Even if we were to assume that it is socialism and it does work, then it seems that at least the logical thing for Americans in their states (and for Europeans in their countries) to do is to limit a political policy that even leans socialist limited to within each state. New York and California, for example, would have their own separate political policies, even if they're similar, as long as they work well for everyone within their states. Other states such as Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, might either want to have their own individual socialist-leaning policies, or maybe they might find that they're better of without such a system altogether; maybe they'll even find that it's more efficient to pool some resources; who knows?

    For example, there is something similar to that near where I live; there's a public transportation system that runs DC Metrorail and Metrobus & it covers parts of Maryland, parts of Northern Virginia, and Washington DC. The 2 states, DC, and the US federal government together have an interstate government agency called WMATA which runs the Metrorail & Metrobus system. They also have their own police force that has law enforcement jurisdiction in DC, and some of the cities and counties in Md and Va surrounding DC. I think New York and New Jersey also have a similar interstate transit system.

    Another problem with socialist's claims of tested or working examples is that the European countries they mention either don't actually work as well as advertised, or they're not really as socialist as advertised. When it comes to socialist countries that have either failed or turned out miserably (such as the now defunct Soviet Union, North Korea, Venezuela), the socialism advocates will try to deny that they're failed experiments. They'll say "oh no, that's not socialism, because socialism is supposed to be or have this or that (result or outcome that the real world tests failed to produce)" It's a red herring tactic; the point of contention is not the outcome, it's the plan or strategy that was being attempted that is the issue. Imagine a salesperson who sells you a TV, you take it home and find that the display doesn't work, you take it back to the store, and the salesperson won't let you return it because by their logic it's not a TV, since TVs are things that display images. Socialists literally destroy countries, then they'll deny they had anything to do with it.

    Socialism can and does also create a more contrasting class disparity of increasing number of proles and a few aristocrats, with a large gap in between (virtually no middle class, because almost all of them became proles); I'm sure the small handful of aristocrats in a socialist society will say that socialism works (for them, maybe).

    When a socialist country makes a scientific achievement, such as when Cuba developed a cure or treatment for lung cancer, it makes headlines around the world; this probably creates the appearance that socialism is better for scientific research. On one hand, I think there may actually be some truth to this - at least when it comes to healthcare because of the pharmaceutical industry conflict of interests controversy, anyways. On the other hand, in general, how often does something like this happen with socialist countries? Once a year? Once every 10 years? Once, ever? How often does something like this happen in countries that aren't socialist or very socialist? Once a month/week/day/hourly? When it stands out very noticeably that a scientific achievement has been made in certain types of countries because of their political system, it's probably because it's very unusual. Overall, this means socialism is not likely a good place to try to make scientific achievements, with possible some rare exceptions; there's no reason why a post-scarcity system couldn't have the best of both worlds.

    Here in the US, socialism is destroying our healthcare system, but in a different way (i.e., Obamacare); some damage with permanent setbacks has aleady happened, and if something isn't done about Obamacare, the damage it's causing will continue to make things much worse. What people actually need is access to a healthcare system that works well; having health insurance is merely secondary to that, and it doesn't necessarily translate to always actually having access to healthcare (Canada is an example). When what was a good healthcare system is ruined, having healthcare insurance isn't going to magically make it work, and there's not much left for people who need it to access. The politicians and their political allies who are opposed to repealing Obamacare make it seem like it's the end of the world by stating that millions will lose their health insurance, and the imlication is that as a result people will lose access to healthcare. There's a false dilemma fallacy involved here, because lack of health insurance doesn't necessarily mean loss of access to healthcare. I'm not going to get into this too much on this thread, because it goes off in a tangent; all I'll say at this point is that there is a need here in the US for a replacement, fix, or modification of Obamacare, and it has to be something that preserves access to a healthcare system that works well, without the need for people to be dependent on having health insurance. If anyone would like to discuss this further, let's create a separate thread for that purpose.

    The mission of TZM is to promote the application of the scientific method for social concern. Socialism has a far worse track record of accomplishing such a goal than free-market capitalism, so either socialism doesn't provide a way to pursue that mission, or it has some other mission. TZM and socialism have nothing meaningful in common; socialism is not what I think qualifies as a related organization.
    Last edited by Neil; 1 Week Ago at 11:00 PM.

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    678
    So you want Healthcare to be decided by Free-Market competition? That can't end well
    droneBEE and HAL9000 like this.

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    So you want Healthcare to be decided by Free-Market competition?
    Yes, of course! It improves the quality of the goods and services and makes them less expensive when providers have to compete for your business. Right now we don't have free-market competition for healthcare, which is why it's becoming more expensive and its quality is being negatively impacted. That's what can happen to any good or service, not just healthcare.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    That can't end well
    Why not? Explain.

  8. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Lismore, Australia
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    That's a good point & they tend to be that way;it's actually not something new.
    Pointless and immature comment!! Just your misguided interpretation of the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    I guess I've been overlooking this because I accept socialism and socialists for what they are, a system where its supporters impose themselves and their ideology on others and try to bully, pressure, and push people around.
    You have read none of the link or you would not say such things and actually target the literature in the link.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    They've been doing this to TZM since long before Spinout showed up with this thread, and I suspect (and wouldn't be surprised) if they tried to do this with Jacque Fresco as well; it would probably explain why he has to point out that TVP is not socialism, since socialism still has money, banks, manual labor, etc.
    Once again a prime example you haven't read the link and only going off what you think is the case. JF would have at least addressed the link of what was said and not write a response to it out of emotion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    On the original TZM forum, it had dozens of mods, several admins, and there was so much activity that some of the mods were designated for certain sections of the forum, and a small handful were global mods. PJ was one of the few admins, and actively participated on the forum. PJ and the other mods & admins would sometimes intervene by posting a response in a thread to make a statement about TZM's position on something, warn a member to stop doing things such as spamming the forum, attacking other forum members or mods for the decisions they made (with insults, ad hom attacks, behavior that was out of line, etc.), to temporarily or permanently ban members, and even to lock threads that got out of hand. I could be mistaken, but if I recall correctly, there were times where the mods (including PJ, I think) either had to intervene by stating that TZM is not socialism, or locking threads that were about socialism because they had nothing to do with TZM, or possibly because the thread got out of hand.
    If I recall they treated libertarians the same. Probably more harshly as they were often not up for a discussion and would get quite irrate when proven wrong. The capitalist were the worst especially the free market type.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    I don't think they went after every case of discussion of socialism; I think they might have only stepped in when the situation would go on a tangent or off topic, for example. Usually discussions about similarities or differences between TZM and ideologies such as socialism, for example, were acceptable, as long as forum members weren't breaking the forum rules or threads weren't going way off topic.
    This was the whole point of the thread but for some reason it has gone off on a tangent mmmm,?? #37 post in and I think most of them has been me trying to bring it back to the point of the post. Some people just can't do it though because they are too wound up in themselves that they fail to see the point or the attempt/reason of the thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    Socialists also want you to listen to they tell you and comply with their rules that they want to impose on you, but don't you dare try to get them to listen to you or try to get them to agree with you on what the rules ought to be. They'll try to scold you.
    You naughty boy trying to project your behaviour on others. Oh by the way I'm not a socialist. I am part of TZM being the change I want to see!! I have studied as a Social Scientist though so I have read quite a bit on socialism and what you have been saying about it is way off centre. Way off to the right I might add. Hearsay kind of stuff.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    Fresco has talked about how he tried to attend their meetings and he would try to ask questions and make suggestions; they would tell him that he's deviating and kick him out of the meetings. Other members who weren't just attendees, but part of the leadership of the organizations, would say let's listen to what JF has to say, and they'd also get kicked out. Again, I could be of with some of my facts or details about this; it's been over 5 years since the original forum was shut down.
    Who's meetings, read what's in the link and posts some facts that we can all check, please!! This thread is about The World Socialist Movement. If you want to talk in general about stuff you may or may not have heard go on some other thread!!


    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    Unfortunately there's also a pitfall when they're asked about this; they'll claim that it has been tested and that it does work.
    Not in this link they haven't, once again hearsay!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    What they don't do is explain what they mean. I have found that they might be doing things such as cherry picking cases or coming to premature conclusions; they might also be interpreting data or the facts incorrectly, or defining or interpreting things in such a way to make things fit an explanation or definition.
    This is all you have been doing throughout this post!

    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    For example, they'll offer certain countries in Europe as examples of socialism working, but they fail or neglect to take into account that not all things scale up, for example. The countries in Europe are small, and Europe as a whole doesn't have a one size fits all socialist system. The countries in question are rather small, comparable to a state in the United States.
    So by this example you are saying TZM and its ideas are not in any way possible. Why are you here on this forum then??

    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    Even if we were to assume that it is socialism and it does work,... maybe they'll even find that it's more efficient to pool some resources; who knows?
    Yeah, who knows?



    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    Another problem with socialist's claims of tested or working examples is that the European countries they mention either don't actually work as well as advertised, or they're not really as socialist as advertised. When it comes to socialist countries that have either failed or turned out miserably (such as the now defunct Soviet Union, North Korea, Venezuela), the socialism advocates will try to deny that they're failed experiments.
    Again, hasn't read the link.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    They'll say "oh no, that's not socialism, because socialism is supposed to be or have this or that (result or outcome that the real world tests failed to produce)" It's a red herring tactic; the point of contention is not the outcome, it's the plan or strategy that was being attempted that is the issue. Imagine a salesperson who sells you a TV, you take it home and find that the display doesn't work, you take it back to the store, and the salesperson won't let you return it because by their logic it's not a TV, since TVs are things that display images. Socialists literally destroy countries, then they'll deny they had anything to do with it.
    What's wrong with that TV's are things that display images!! We socialists have this saying it goes a little like this, " Come join the socialist party it's just like a tv only better."

    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    Socialism can and does also create a more contrasting class disparity of increasing number of proles and a few aristocrats, with a large gap in between (virtually no middle class, because almost all of them became proles); I'm sure the small handful of aristocrats in a socialist society will say that socialism works (for them, maybe).
    Ok now I know I'm talking sociology with a computer scientist!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    When a socialist country makes a scientific achievement, such as when Cuba developed a cure or treatment for lung cancer…
    Haven't read the link

    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    Here in the US, socialism is destroying our healthcare system...
    No idea about universal healthcare in other countries!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    The mission of TZM is to promote the application of the scientific method for social concern. Socialism has a far worse track record of accomplishing such a goal than free-market capitalism, so either socialism doesn't provide a way to pursue that mission, or it has some other mission. TZM and socialism have nothing meaningful in common; socialism is not what I think qualifies as a related organization.
    When you watch this and understand what PJ is saying then you will begin to understand what a stupid point you have made here. You may also have the realisation that TZM is not for you.

    YouTuber and droneBEE like this.

  9. #39
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Lismore, Australia
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    So you want Healthcare to be decided by Free-Market competition?
    Yes, of course! It improves the quality of the goods and services and makes them less expensive when providers have to compete for your business. Right now we don't have free-market competition for healthcare, which is why it's becoming more expensive and its quality is being negatively impacted. That's what can happen to any good or service, not just healthcare.
    Based on a socialist health care systemhttp://www.chemistwarehouse.com.au/b...er-CFC-Free-S3

    Based on a free-market capitalist system https://www.goodrx.com/ventolin-hfa

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    That can't end well
    Why not? Explain.
    PJ explains it in the vid in the above post. ^^
    Last edited by Spinout; 1 Week Ago at 09:09 AM.
    Ernest and droneBEE like this.

  10. #40
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    133
    > are you designing the game and looking for input or are you thinking that a game would be a good thing to create?

    Building said game, once the barebones of something is up and running, then I'll ask for input from everyone here to steer the design to be as accurate as possible in a quest to study how we might get humans to transition to a better future.

    RBE simulator if you will, though could easily be World Socialist Movement simulator too, and a capitalist one!

    The point is that any feature someone wants included so we can test X, Y, or Z aspect of RBE/Socialism/Capitalism/etc. I can build into it, so we aren't limited to current games that just give a single view of their universe, we can adjust it.

    For example, one game I played, had spaceships, but no postal service !

    Luckily I was able to engineer a solution using the ingame items to make a functional post office service, but it was certainly not part of the original game design !


    Games can also be plugged into robots, so via telepresence, we could go from people playing games, to people working remote machines doing the hard work that no one wants to do..

    If the game is also designed to have an API that allows AI access, then in time folk could design software that works the machines, so we don't have to do anything. :-)

    I can see it as a stepping stone to one day being able to build things, rather than us just all sit around talking about it for another decade.

    Plus it might be fun too. :-)

    And we will probably learn things about how humans work together and adjust our theories of solutions accordingly when we find out X and Y don't work, but Z does !
    Last edited by YouTuber; 1 Week Ago at 09:46 AM. Reason: Spelling error
    HAL9000 and Ernest like this.

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
web statistics
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1