Do Socialists hate making money?

[Afrocentric]

The principal idea behind Socialism is the famous line: to each according to his need, from each according to his abilities. This does not mean equal (or equal pay), it merely means equal opportunities; i.e. everyone should get the opportunity to go to school and become the doctor, and not have to face burdens and fall to become clowns.

A person's ability to have access to a quality education is not dependent upon their country's economic system.

In the end, this creates a system where the actual producers of value, the kid who sowed the shoes, gets a very low, inhumane salary, while the big capitalist companies and the elites, would sell that same shoes for $200 a pair.

A person making shoes should expect to be paid a low salary, however. If anything, I would assume the child would be happy with what little income he does receive.

Of course, some would say 'why did the kid do the job? why accept it?'. It is because there is little other choice. These people are born in poverty, they get little opportunity to get out, and they have little choice. Either earn those 2 cents an hour or starve. That is not a choice, that is companies holding them ransom and hostage to their situation, and of course these companies would not hesitate to use such a situation to their advantage. This discrepancy is what socialism aims to target. But in a capitalist society, this discrepancy is good for business, and good for the prosperous few (and this includes most of, if not all, of us on this forum in the developed west, which only represents 1/7th of the world)

It's a choice. A job is a PRIVILEGE, not a right and if he doesn't feel wanted, then he can take his talents somewhere else. It's not as if he's a slave and cannot leave on his own.

In a socialist system, there would be no cheaper way to a product; all workers would be paid and valued the same, and they all reap the same reward. They cooperatively own the entire means of production, and so the all benefit from it in a more or less equal way, definitely more equal than now.

Socialism is supposedly based around the idea of egalitarianism; workers own and share everything. Why then are you contradicting yourself by saying there would be equal pay? I'm confused.

Education and healthcare should be free of charge, and accessible to everyone.

And how do you pay for all of that, or are you content with running extremely high amounts of debt in the process? Countries that have extremely large welfare states and operate under this same idea are now facing economic issues. They've had to cut back on these free services and it's resulted in severe backlash from the populace. The problem with operating a large welfare state is that people become dependent and no longer want to work when everything is given to them by the government. That's a very dangerous mindset to operate under.

And here comes the ideal society of many socialist: a society without currency. In this society, farmers would join and band together, and grow crops strategically, so as to not have an over-abundance of a current crop that would lead to some of it being thrown out. They recognise that they are experts in providing food, and so they provide food for everyone. Doctors would recognise that they are the healers, so they heal people when necessary, and aid with prevention. The designers will design for everyone, the steel workers will manufacture for everyone, the teacher will teach.

In this society, all of these people would band together in order to maximise their knowledge, and the efficiency of using resources. It is ridiculous that there are 25 supermarkets in a small areas, each selling 44 different brands of milk. In a socialist society, would have on milk dispensary that is able to supply a neighbourhood, or a city. No wasted resources, no competition that leads to lower salary and/or quality milk for those who can't afford it.

Human nature will prevent us from becoming a cashless society.

As well, some socialists believe that in such an environment, science can thrive as the main 'belief system' and that would ultimately lead to a technological revolution where many jobs can be automated, leading to people doing stuff they actually want.

Is this a PC way of saying religion would be banned? Correct me if I'm wrong, but we currently live in a world that is mostly religious and the past 25 years have seen advances in technology.

Of course, this is a dream world, where everyone would have to accept and give this theory a chance, where the elite and powerful would have the give up their social status, and where most people would actually be willing to do things for the greater good, and not be greedy or a slacker. This of course is the major hurdle. Along with humanistic tendencies to get corrupt with power in such a socialist situation.

You give humanity too much credit. Even under a Socialist system, there will be greed and it's foolhardy to think people will play by the rules.

In the end, money is just a mean to get goods and services, and for socialists, this mean has gotten overvalued so much so that it is being hoarded by a few while the rest suffer without even getting a chance at prosperity.

Ironic coming from a person who'd probably belong to the middle class...no offense.

So, for socialists, capitalism is a system where you are forced to work at a job you hate to be able to live and survive and thrive for yourself, while socialism is a system where you work and do what you love to better quality of life for everyone.

And you can't be happy under Capitalism?

I can ask the same thing: do capitalists only love money?

Don't be ridiculous.

-------------------------------------------------------

BTW, this is probably the clearest and most concise answer I've gotten. It just confirms my beliefs that by and large, alot of Socialists operate with a pie in the sky mentality, completely ignorant to the realities of the real world like budgets and human nature. What incentive do I get out of being paid the same amount as a ditch digger? I go to college for 8 years and find out I'm making the same amount of money as a guy/gal who has no degree whatsoever and is probably an ex-con...what?

Why should are talents be valued the same? In a Capitalist system, I would be payed more because I'm clearly the more qualified of the bunch and have put in the necessary work as opposed to somebody who has no education and is only required to dig a ditch. Finally, and I want to preface this by saying my beef is with those who are poor and refuse to work, not those who are hard workers and happen to be impoverished. Not to be mean, but what is the obsession of trying to "save" the poor? Could it be that they're poor because they made the wrong choices?

Some of those people do NOTHING about it, except live off the taxpayer and refuse to work and now your'e telling me they deserve free HC and education in the process? Even those who are hard working and poor, do you think giving them access to HC and education (something they get under a Capitalist system) will be the things that save them? There are plenty of poor people who went to school and got a degree. What do you say to that?

[UniSocAll]

In other words, Brave New World really is the Socialist dream. But it's good that you mention Soviet Russia - they probably have gotten closest to try the second part of socialism you describe (with no money and everybody doing things for the greater good instead of personal gain), and they did a really good job at showing how well that works. It's also enlightening that you see democracy as an actual obstacle to socialism, so much that it becomes necessary to use military forces against the citizens.

I fear I must have misrepresented a few things. Socialism doesn't work on a country-to-country basis. So that is why it's not attainable, not even with military force. I'm not saying that democracy is a hurdle to socialism; it's only a hurdle to individual countries trying to implement a socialist system. So while I can see that dictatorship and the military are useful in such situation if I were a narcissistic psychopathic dictator, I do not condone those actions and it is not true actions of a socialist.

But if this kind of socialism can only be attained if countries cease to exist, and everyone wants a system where they don't get what they think they deserve for their work (as their wages will now be paid in kind, and what they receive is no longer up to them), in other words, if that kind of socialism needs a utopia to be able to come into existence in the first place - how is it a good idea to follow that ideology?

The same reason vegans follow their belief even though there is no hope that their ultimate goal will be achieved: small changes can be hugely influential and beneficial to society as a whole. As such, some aspects of the general ideas of socialism are taken up by modern socialist and social democratic parties.

Edit: I have to be fair and recognise, though, that almost all socialists I know don't think the second part even remotely possible, and consequently don't strive towards that. So this is less against what's called socialism today, then against some form of naive communism.

I suppose you mean a no-currency based society. No, it's not attainable, because humans have lived so long with it. Then again, modern socialism is many times a watered-down version, fit to work in modern day liberal democracy and a capitalist system.

It's not only about having no common currency anymore (after all, barter societies still usually don't have any of the perks you described that a no-currency society would have according to this kind of socialist ideology). It's true that there was a time before currency, but I don't think there ever was a time without the concept of being wealthy, or of luxury. I mean what makes people rich is usually not money, it's the possibility to buy things with money (and it's usually more than money - it's enterprises). And this possibility will just be transferred to natural goods, if money is taken away.

Well, there was also a time that a man can invade and kill his neighbour and rape the wife as he pleased, but we moved on from that, haven't we? The concept of wealth and luxury would need to be abandoned by the few who have amassed it (or those who don't abandoned it excluded, or the wealth and luxury taken away, or won't be able to amass it without force).

[soysauce]

BTW, this is probably the clearest and most concise answer I've gotten. It just confirms my beliefs that by and large, alot of Socialists operate with a pie in the sky mentality, completely ignorant to the realities of the real world like budgets and human nature. What incentive do I get out of being paid the same amount as a ditch digger? I go to college for 8 years and find out I'm making the same amount of money as a guy/gal who has no degree whatsoever and is probably an ex-con...what?

Unfortunately thousands of years ago the men of Hermes discovered that not even the will of the Pharaohs could transform limestone into emerald without the divine assistance of the Ibis son of the eye that sees' all....

[Amazeroth]

I fear I must have misrepresented a few things. Socialism doesn't work on a country-to-country basis. So that is why it's not attainable, not even with military force. I'm not saying that democracy is a hurdle to socialism; it's only a hurdle to individual countries trying to implement a socialist system. So while I can see that dictatorship and the military are useful in such situation if I were a narcissistic psychopathic dictator, I do not condone those actions and it is not true actions of a socialist.

But if this kind of socialism can only be attained if countries cease to exist, and everyone wants a system where they don't get what they think they deserve for their work (as their wages will now be paid in kind, and what they receive is no longer up to them), in other words, if that kind of socialism needs a utopia to be able to come into existence in the first place - how is it a good idea to follow that ideology?

The same reason vegans follow their belief even though there is no hope that their ultimate goal will be achieved: small changes can be hugely influential and beneficial to society as a whole. As such, some aspects of the general ideas of socialism are taken up by modern socialist and social democratic parties.

Veganism is hardly a political ideology though - and it makes sense even if it can't stop the consuming of meat and animal products, because veganism is not about ending the consuming of meat and animal products altogether, it's about yourself not participating in it. For various reasons - the vegans I know do it because they think it's healthy, not because they have some larger agenda.
But the socialism you've described doesn't make sense in small doses, it only makes sense when utopia is already reached. It's like throwing away guns - it makes sense if the utopia of a world without violence has already been reached, but it's a stupid thing to do if that utopia hasn't been reached.

I suppose you mean a no-currency based society. No, it's not attainable, because humans have lived so long with it. Then again, modern socialism is many times a watered-down version, fit to work in modern day liberal democracy and a capitalist system.

It's not only about having no common currency anymore (after all, barter societies still usually don't have any of the perks you described that a no-currency society would have according to this kind of socialist ideology). It's true that there was a time before currency, but I don't think there ever was a time without the concept of being wealthy, or of luxury. I mean what makes people rich is usually not money, it's the possibility to buy things with money (and it's usually more than money - it's enterprises). And this possibility will just be transferred to natural goods, if money is taken away.

Well, there was also a time that a man can invade and kill his neighbour and rape the wife as he pleased, but we moved on from that, haven't we? The concept of wealth and luxury would need to be abandoned by the few who have amassed it (or those who don't abandoned it excluded, or the wealth and luxury taken away, or won't be able to amass it without force).

There never was such a time. Or rather, there never was a time when that behaviour was accepted by all. However, amassing wealth, or experiencing luxury is widely accepted, even by the poor, as long as it doesn't happen on their expense. And wealth and luxury hasn't been amassed by just a few, (besides being sought by almost everyone), almost everyone in the First World is experiencing luxury right now - and is far more wealthy than the poor in the Third World.

[UniSocAll]

The principal idea behind Socialism is the famous line: to each according to his need, from each according to his abilities. This does not mean equal (or equal pay), it merely means equal opportunities; i.e. everyone should get the opportunity to go to school and become the doctor, and not have to face burdens and fall to become clowns.

A person's ability to have access to a quality education is not dependent upon their country's economic system.

How so not? A capitalist, free-market society would make it harder for people to get decent and affordable access to education. There is a reason that Scandinavian countries are doing well in education, prosperity and well-being, when compared to the United States.

In the end, this creates a system where the actual producers of value, the kid who sowed the shoes, gets a very low, inhumane salary, while the big capitalist companies and the elites, would sell that same shoes for $200 a pair.

A person making shoes should expect to be paid a low salary, however. If anything, I would assume the child would be happy with what little income he does receive.

The child would be forced to work because their families live in a land that has been plundered due to colonialism, and despotic regimes support by the west for corporate benefits. And sure, if you think that the shoe maker deserves a low salary, that's okay. But 14 hours a day and extremely low pay is not justifiable, especially not when the shoes are sold at way way way more the cost of labour and production. Does the brand and the company deserve to be paid more than the manual labourer?

Of course, some would say 'why did the kid do the job? why accept it?'. It is because there is little other choice. These people are born in poverty, they get little opportunity to get out, and they have little choice. Either earn those 2 cents an hour or starve. That is not a choice, that is companies holding them ransom and hostage to their situation, and of course these companies would not hesitate to use such a situation to their advantage. This discrepancy is what socialism aims to target. But in a capitalist society, this discrepancy is good for business, and good for the prosperous few (and this includes most of, if not all, of us on this forum in the developed west, which only represents 1/7th of the world)

It's a choice. A job is a PRIVILEGE, not a right and if he doesn't feel wanted, then he can take his talents somewhere else. It's not as if he's a slave and cannot leave on his own.

It's not a choice. This kid loses (or if an adult, lost) the opportunity to go to school and get education due to the state of poverty he was born, and he needs to do this in order to be able to survive in the current system. How can you justify sweatshops, horrible labour conditions and extremely low pay for hard manual work? Are you not aware of the concept of 'wage slavery'?

In a socialist system, there would be no cheaper way to a product; all workers would be paid and valued the same, and they all reap the same reward. They cooperatively own the entire means of production, and so the all benefit from it in a more or less equal way, definitely more equal than now.

Socialism is supposedly based around the idea of egalitarianism; workers own and share everything. Why then are you contradicting yourself by saying there would be equal pay? I'm confused.

This was still referring to the shoe producer: all shoe producer would have more or less the same wages, across the world. So there is no cheaper production cost for a shoe, for example.

Education and healthcare should be free of charge, and accessible to everyone.

And how do you pay for all of that, or are you content with running extremely high amounts of debt in the process? Countries that have extremely large welfare states and operate under this same idea are now facing economic issues. They've had to cut back on these free services and it's resulted in severe backlash from the populace. The problem with operating a large welfare state is that people become dependent and no longer want to work when everything is given to them by the government. That's a very dangerous mindset to operate under.

Socialism doesn't recognise the current system, where the world owes itself more money than it has (what a great system this is, right?). Education and healthcare would be public goods, and be paid through taxes. The more healthy and educated the populace, the more able bodied worker you'd have. The better your society, the cheaper the costs.

And which countries are you referring to? The Scandinavian welfare states, the most welfare of them all, are thriving and prospering.

And here comes the ideal society of many socialist: a society without currency. In this society, farmers would join and band together, and grow crops strategically, so as to not have an over-abundance of a current crop that would lead to some of it being thrown out. They recognise that they are experts in providing food, and so they provide food for everyone. Doctors would recognise that they are the healers, so they heal people when necessary, and aid with prevention. The designers will design for everyone, the steel workers will manufacture for everyone, the teacher will teach.

In this society, all of these people would band together in order to maximise their knowledge, and the efficiency of using resources. It is ridiculous that there are 25 supermarkets in a small areas, each selling 44 different brands of milk. In a socialist society, would have on milk dispensary that is able to supply a neighbourhood, or a city. No wasted resources, no competition that leads to lower salary and/or quality milk for those who can't afford it.

Human nature will prevent us from becoming a cashless society.

I've acknowledged this

As well, some socialists believe that in such an environment, science can thrive as the main 'belief system' and that would ultimately lead to a technological revolution where many jobs can be automated, leading to people doing stuff they actually want.

Is this a PC way of saying religion would be banned? Correct me if I'm wrong, but we currently live in a world that is mostly religious and the past 25 years have seen advances in technology.

No, religion wouldn't be banned, but people would see little need in religion, and science has little to do with religion. A scientific technological revolution would be where people are interested in science in such a way that there will exist a boom of researches, scientists, designers and technicians. As such, with more people in the field, more innovations can happen and faster. With religion being out of usage, there will be little resistance to innovation.

Of course, this is a dream world, where everyone would have to accept and give this theory a chance, where the elite and powerful would have the give up their social status, and where most people would actually be willing to do things for the greater good, and not be greedy or a slacker. This of course is the major hurdle. Along with humanistic tendencies to get corrupt with power in such a socialist situation.

You give humanity too much credit. Even under a Socialist system, there will be greed and it's foolhardy to think people will play by the rules.

Quite right, this is a dream world scenario. Humanity doesn't seem ready for true socialism in our lifetime, or the next few lifetimes.

In the end, money is just a mean to get goods and services, and for socialists, this mean has gotten overvalued so much so that it is being hoarded by a few while the rest suffer without even getting a chance at prosperity.

Ironic coming from a person who'd probably belong to the middle class...no offense.

None taken, however I don't know in which class I am exactly. In the world view of things, though, I am in the upper middle class, as are you (probably).
Consider this: anyone that earns $25.000 a year, is in the top 10% of income group in the world. Simply having access and using the internet, you belong in the top 35% of the world.

So, for socialists, capitalism is a system where you are forced to work at a job you hate to be able to live and survive and thrive for yourself, while socialism is a system where you work and do what you love to better quality of life for everyone.

And you can't be happy under Capitalism?

Depends. Thinking of only personal prosperity and wellbeing, then sure, I can be happy. When you add the world view of how lucky I am to be born on the right piece of land, and that most of the world are living in terrible conditions, then no, capitalism doesn't make me happy. It doesn't make me happy when I go to a supermarket that throws food away if they don't sell it. It doesn't make me happy to see non-fair trade items on sale. It doesn't make me happy that I have to go through extraordinary effort to make sure clothes I buy or other items are labour-friendly and environmentally-friendly. As someone who is studying public health, it doesn't make me happy when meat and sugary items are cheaper than vegetables. That McDonalds is found everywhere but a health foods store would go out of business.

BTW, this is probably the clearest and most concise answer I've gotten. It just confirms my beliefs that by and large, alot of Socialists operate with a pie in the sky mentality, completely ignorant to the realities of the real world like budgets and human nature. What incentive do I get out of being paid the same amount as a ditch digger? I go to college for 8 years and find out I'm making the same amount of money as a guy/gal who has no degree whatsoever and is probably an ex-con...what?

Again, it's not the same. However, while ditch-digging, as per your example, isn't as valued as a college job, it is still hard manual work, done by someone who may have had no opportunities to go to college. In a capitalist system, he is deprived of opportunity to afford-ably access education, ends up in ditch-digging, with no job security, little talent, and maybe no healthcare. So while by no means he needs to be earning the same as a doctor, the discrepancy between a doctor's salary and the ditch-digger shouldn't be exorbitantly large either.

Why should are talents be valued the same? In a Capitalist system, I would be payed more because I'm clearly the more qualified of the bunch and have put in the necessary work as opposed to somebody who has no education and is only required to dig a ditch. Finally, and I want to preface this by saying my beef is with those who are poor and refuse to work, not those who are hard workers and happen to be impoverished. Not to be mean, but what is the obsession of trying to "save" the poor? Could it be that they're poor because they made the wrong choices?

Or, the more likely and scientific explanation, could they be because many are born poor and kept poor by the capitalist system? It's called 'the cycle of poverty'.

Some of those people do NOTHING about it, except live off the taxpayer and refuse to work and now your'e telling me they deserve free HC and education in the process? Even those who are hard working and poor, do you think giving them access to HC and education (something they get under a Capitalist system) will be the things that save them? There are plenty of poor people who went to school and got a degree. What do you say to that?

Yes, there are slackers, but be it a capitalist, socialist, theocratic or whatever system, slackers will still be slackers. But those are a very small percent of the populace. And many times, these are people who have given up on society and the system. And yes, I think that with proper and easy access to quality and affordable education and healthcare can save them. It did wonders for the Scandinavian people and countries, as it did for the Netherlands and other European welfare states. There is a reason why the Scandinavian countries constantly top the list in happiness, health, longevity, wellbeing, quality of life, and educational competition.

They might get it in a capitalist system, but they would have to work hard and get a bit lucky. And there are some poor who went to school and got a degree, but that is a small percentage. They had to work hard, save up, risk anything, live day-by-day, month-by-month, getting a bit lucky here and there, having friends, incurring debt, all for the chance of the degree. And when they get it, they still have to find a job, pay off debt, pay the rent. The current situation would mean they might end up being hired but underpaid and overqualified. Is this really the life you want to promote as 'normal'? And do you think this really is a viable options for the millions in abject poverty? There are 3 billion people living on $2,50 a day. Is this really the 'normal' world we want?

[UniSocAll]

Veganism is hardly a political ideology though - and it makes sense even if it can't stop the consuming of meat and animal products, because veganism is not about ending the consuming of meat and animal products altogether, it's about yourself not participating in it. For various reasons - the vegans I know do it because they think it's healthy, not because they have some larger agenda.
But the socialism you've described doesn't make sense in small doses, it only makes sense when utopia is already reached. It's like throwing away guns - it makes sense if the utopia of a world without violence has already been reached, but it's a stupid thing to do if that utopia hasn't been reached.

Most vegans I know practice it as an ideology. It's an entire lifestyle where animal well-being is taken into account. From the food you eat or buy, to the clothes you buy and wear. They actively campaign for reduction of meat, better treatment of animals, better conditions in farms, and discontinuing inhumane practice and slaughter.

Modern socialism does work: welfare state, subsidised education and healthcare, minimum wage. How can it not be in small dosis?

Well, there was also a time that a man can invade and kill his neighbour and rape the wife as he pleased, but we moved on from that, haven't we? The concept of wealth and luxury would need to be abandoned by the few who have amassed it (or those who don't abandoned it excluded, or the wealth and luxury taken away, or won't be able to amass it without force).

There never was such a time. Or rather, there never was a time when that behaviour was accepted by all. However, amassing wealth, or experiencing luxury is widely accepted, even by the poor, as long as it doesn't happen on their expense. And wealth and luxury hasn't been amassed by just a few, (besides being sought by almost everyone), almost everyone in the First World is experiencing luxury right now - and is far more wealthy than the poor in the Third World.

The amassing of wealth was also not accepted by all. I would counter that taking the spoils of war was as widely accepted as amassing luxury and wealth.

And almost everyone in the First World is the few. Between Europe and North America, we're talking 1 Billion people (assuming for the sake of argument that these people have luxury.) How does that compare to the rest of the 6 billion in the world, 3 billion of them in poverty and living on less than $2,50 dollars a day?

[UniSocAll]

I enjoyed your post, UniSocAll. You've broadly discussed theory. Could you say some more about what you believe would be a practical and desirable political programme for countries in today's world? Can Socialism Lite work?

There are socialist principals that can work, however most of these would have to be worldwide to work.

Subsidised healthcare and education, minimum wage, limit on working hour, welfare, food pricing limits, environmental restrictions, providing essential services and goods like roads, infrastructure, parks, safe neighbourhoods, etc. These of course all cost a lot of money, and would need to be funded through a proportional taxation system where those who can give more will give more (from each according to their ability), and those who need more assistance will receive more (to each according to their need).

This of course doesn't work perfectly: private education and healthcare (within nations and abroad) would mean that the best and the brightest might be enticed to move abroad. As well, high taxes would could mean people going to extreme lengths to cheat the system, avoid the taxes, put them offshore, or even emigrate away. Minimum wage and fair labour policies and conditions could be undermined by the company going somewhere else, less developed, more corrupt, and where the labour scene is less organised and easily exploitable, and use cheap labour there. Same thing with environmental restrictions. Unfortunately it's a balance of socialism and what the people/elite would accept.

All of this in the basis of democracy, means that the socialist parties would have to be popular enough to get in government. The corporate capitalist system has more money to fund anti-socialist movement. Advertisements of course would basically tell people that consumerism is good, that price and taste/look is the only thing that matters when making a decision. This undermines healthier, environmentally and labour friendly alternatives. And that's a damn shame, but that is what the right want to call 'freedom of choice'. You can buy all the shoes and food you want, and waste it if you'd like. I mean, it's not really your fault that there are millions in abject poverty.

[Amazeroth]

Veganism is hardly a political ideology though - and it makes sense even if it can't stop the consuming of meat and animal products, because veganism is not about ending the consuming of meat and animal products altogether, it's about yourself not participating in it. For various reasons - the vegans I know do it because they think it's healthy, not because they have some larger agenda.
But the socialism you've described doesn't make sense in small doses, it only makes sense when utopia is already reached. It's like throwing away guns - it makes sense if the utopia of a world without violence has already been reached, but it's a stupid thing to do if that utopia hasn't been reached.

Most vegans I know practice it as an ideology. It's an entire lifestyle where animal well-being is taken into account. From the food you eat or buy, to the clothes you buy and wear. They actively campaign for reduction of meat, better treatment of animals, better conditions in farms, and discontinuing inhumane practice and slaughter.

Modern socialism does work: welfare state, subsidised education and healthcare, minimum wage. How can it not be in small dosis?

Because it's a socialism very different from the one where everyone works as good as he can without getting more than what he needs to survive for it. All of the things you describe only make sense in a system where people work for their own gain, because they rely on them being effective, so that when you tax them, you get a percentage out of a lot of money, instead of almost nothing. I'm not saying that socialism in general needs the utopia, but the kind of socialism that needs no borders and everyone wanting to participate eagerly, that one is pointless.

Well, there was also a time that a man can invade and kill his neighbour and rape the wife as he pleased, but we moved on from that, haven't we? The concept of wealth and luxury would need to be abandoned by the few who have amassed it (or those who don't abandoned it excluded, or the wealth and luxury taken away, or won't be able to amass it without force).

There never was such a time. Or rather, there never was a time when that behaviour was accepted by all. However, amassing wealth, or experiencing luxury is widely accepted, even by the poor, as long as it doesn't happen on their expense. And wealth and luxury hasn't been amassed by just a few, (besides being sought by almost everyone), almost everyone in the First World is experiencing luxury right now - and is far more wealthy than the poor in the Third World.

The amassing of wealth was also not accepted by all. I would counter that taking the spoils of war was as widely accepted as amassing luxury and wealth.

I said widely accepted, not accepted by all. There are always a few crackpots. And taking the spoils of war is still accepted, we haven't moved on from that a bit. But waging war for any reason is no longer accepted.

And almost everyone in the First World is the few. Between Europe and North America, we're talking 1 Billion people (assuming for the sake of argument that these people have luxury.) How does that compare to the rest of the 6 billion in the world, 3 billion of them in poverty and living on less than $2,50 dollars a day?

If 3 billion live in poverty, there are, according to your numbers 4 billion that don't. But even if you were to say that just the First World would be few, it's still wouldn't be true. Even if they were just on seventh of the earth's population, 1 billion still are a lot.

[Afrocentric]

How so not? A capitalist, free-market society would make it harder for people to get decent and affordable access to education. There is a reason that Scandinavian countries are doing well in education, prosperity and well-being, when compared to the United States.

The US' failings have more to do with inept policy than with economics.

The child would be forced to work because their families live in a land that has been plundered due to colonialism, and despotic regimes support by the west for corporate benefits. And sure, if you think that the shoe maker deserves a low salary, that's okay. But 14 hours a day and extremely low pay is not justifiable, especially not when the shoes are sold at way way way more the cost of labour and production. Does the brand and the company deserve to be paid more than the manual labourer?

Yes they do.

It's not a choice. This kid loses (or if an adult, lost) the opportunity to go to school and get education due to the state of poverty he was born, and he needs to do this in order to be able to survive in the current system. How can you justify sweatshops, horrible labour conditions and extremely low pay for hard manual work? Are you not aware of the concept of 'wage slavery'?

I can't and I won't; sweatshops and horrible labor conditions are things which should not be common place in today's labor sector, regardless of country. Those however, do not justify the employee being paid the same as someone who sits in a cubicle for a living. It's all about value as you've pointed out on numerous occasion. Which is more valuable to a company; the manual laborer whose job could easily be performed by a robot or the person in accounting who crunches the numbers and balances the books? Mind you, one takes actual skill and education over the other.

Socialism doesn't recognise the current system, where the world owes itself more money than it has (what a great system this is, right?). Education and healthcare would be public goods, and be paid through taxes. The more healthy and educated the populace, the more able bodied worker you'd have. The better your society, the cheaper the costs.

So you'd tax the living hell out of your citizens in the process? What about the private sector? I'm assuming the government would be taking over the role of being the primary (and sole) provider, correct? Do you not trust the private sector to do a better, more efficient job than the government or do you believe that government is more efficient and cost effective in the long run?

And which countries are you referring to? The Scandinavian welfare states, the most welfare of them all, are thriving and prospering.

I'm referring to Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France and the UK. Countries who've had/have large welfare states and ran into economic trouble because of that. The Nordic Model works well in those countries because of their low population, homogeneous demographics and small economies.

No, religion wouldn't be banned, but people would see little need in religion, and science has little to do with religion. A scientific technological revolution would be where people are interested in science in such a way that there will exist a boom of researches, scientists, designers and technicians. As such, with more people in the field, more innovations can happen and faster. With religion being out of usage, there will be little resistance to innovation.

Thanks for clearing this up.

Quite right, this is a dream world scenario. Humanity doesn't seem ready for true socialism in our lifetime, or the next few lifetimes.

Or maybe it's because it's been proven time and time again to be a failed economic system. It sounds good in theory, but it relies on the idea that humans have an interest in the greater good instead of themselves.

Or, the more likely and scientific explanation, could they be because many are born poor and kept poor by the capitalist system? It's called 'the cycle of poverty'.

Which can be broken if the person is willing to work hard and get an education. I know several people who were dirt poor and have made it out of the inner city. Don't give me that BS.

Yes, there are slackers, but be it a capitalist, socialist, theocratic or whatever system, slackers will still be slackers. But those are a very small percent of the populace. And many times, these are people who have given up on society and the system. And yes, I think that with proper and easy access to quality and affordable education and healthcare can save them. It did wonders for the Scandinavian people and countries, as it did for the Netherlands and other European welfare states. There is a reason why the Scandinavian countries constantly top the list in happiness, health, longevity, wellbeing, quality of life, and educational competition.

What works in one country will most likely fail in another. You are ignoring the glaring differences between the Nordic Countries and the rest of the world. BTW, as I've pointed out before, those countries with the large welfare states are facing economic trouble. You may not have a problem with a populace that's dependent upon the government to coddle them from birth till death, but I do. You may find it okay to tax the top 1% at a tax rate of 70%, but I don't. There are consequences to these actions and it's not always sunshine and happiness. Surely you are a realist about all of this?

They might get it in a capitalist system, but they would have to work hard and get a bit lucky. And there are some poor who went to school and got a degree, but that is a small percentage. They had to work hard, save up, risk anything, live day-by-day, month-by-month, getting a bit lucky here and there, having friends, incurring debt, all for the chance of the degree. And when they get it, they still have to find a job, pay off debt, pay the rent. The current situation would mean they might end up being hired but underpaid and overqualified. Is this really the life you want to promote as 'normal'? And do you think this really is a viable options for the millions in abject poverty? There are 3 billion people living on $2,50 a day. Is this really the 'normal' world we want?

I never said I wanted the world to be like this. However, it's ignorant to blame all of this on Capitalism.

[UniSocAll]

Most vegans I know practice it as an ideology. It's an entire lifestyle where animal well-being is taken into account. From the food you eat or buy, to the clothes you buy and wear. They actively campaign for reduction of meat, better treatment of animals, better conditions in farms, and discontinuing inhumane practice and slaughter.

Modern socialism does work: welfare state, subsidised education and healthcare, minimum wage. How can it not be in small dosis?

Because it's a socialism very different from the one where everyone works as good as he can without getting more than what he needs to survive for it. All of the things you describe only make sense in a system where people work for their own gain, because they rely on them being effective, so that when you tax them, you get a percentage out of a lot of money, instead of almost nothing. I'm not saying that socialism in general needs the utopia, but the kind of socialism that needs no borders and everyone wanting to participate eagerly, that one is pointless.

I acknowledge this, there is little to no point in following that stateless ideal. However, the stateless ideal is the means to the outcome of a fairer, egalitarian society. So I think it still prudent for socialists to actively advocate for public education and healthcare, etc.

The amassing of wealth was also not accepted by all. I would counter that taking the spoils of war was as widely accepted as amassing luxury and wealth.

I said widely accepted, not accepted by all. There are always a few crackpots. And taking the spoils of war is still accepted, we haven't moved on from that a bit. But waging war for any reason is no longer accepted.

Fair point. Exactly why I don't find the idea of people deciding that amassing wealth while many other suffer because of it isn't the right thing to do not that farfetched. Of course, it's still far far far off from becoming a reality. But perhaps in the far future there will be a turning point in humanity.

And almost everyone in the First World is the few. Between Europe and North America, we're talking 1 Billion people (assuming for the sake of argument that these people have luxury.) How does that compare to the rest of the 6 billion in the world, 3 billion of them in poverty and living on less than $2,50 dollars a day?

If 3 billion live in poverty, there are, according to your numbers 4 billion that don't. But even if you were to say that just the First World would be few, it's still wouldn't be true. Even if they were just on seventh of the earth's population, 1 billion still are a lot.

3 billion live on less than $2.50 a day. Over 5 billion people, 80% of the world, live on less then $10 a day. Only 10% of the world earns $25,000 a year. People who have internet access (including internet cafes, universities etc.) account for less than 40% of the world population.

So it all depends on how poverty is defined. However, with 5 billion people living on $10, I think it's safe to say that more people are not success story of the current system.