Shouldn't socialists support Ron Paul? - Page 2

Olof · #11 09-03-2007, 01:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If I joined your little group, what would my incentive be to actually earn income? What's the incentive of people who already have a very high incomes to join?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think quite a few productive individuals might join because of idealism, quality of life etc. Though obviously there would never be enough of them to sustain a community that was open to anyone regardless of their ability to contribute.

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: I think Jim Jones came very close to creating a voluntary socialist community, but with the perverse incentives created, it couldn't hold together. In the end, he had to resort to guns too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the Israeli kibbutzim used to work quite well, and to at least some extent still do, without anyone having to resort to guns.

ALawPoker · #12 09-03-2007, 02:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If I joined your little group, what would my incentive be to actually earn income? What's the incentive of people who already have a very high incomes to join?

[/ QUOTE ]

What would be my incentive to let you join (and remain in) the group if I didn't think you'd be an asset to it?

Why would you want to join if the terms weren't attractive to you?

You're probably right that socialism, even in a voluntary form, can never magically be *more* efficient than self-dependence. Some goods and services are probably used more efficiently when shared (in a decentralized way), so I think it's at least debatable, but that isn't really my point anyways. Socialism, when voluntary, can *approach* efficiency (and keep all the warm and fuzziness). So all I'm really saying is that socialism in the absence of centralized law seems to trump forced socialism in just about every way.

When I said I'd join that commune, I was being part facetious. I might. But mostly I just meant that would be a much better option than centralized socialism.

Taso · #13 09-03-2007, 04:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: I think Jim Jones came very close to creating a voluntary socialist community, but with the perverse incentives created, it couldn't hold together. In the end, he had to resort to guns too.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Native Americans created a voluntary socialist commnunity, it worked pretty well for them. Well, until Columbus came and enslaved them anyways.

surftheiop · #14 09-03-2007, 04:52 PM

No thats my point though, if socialists want to live in some sort of socialist state it would be easier than trying to make the whole country socialists. (This would apply to buddhists, fundamentalists, enviromentalists, etc. as well)

TomVeil · #15 09-03-2007, 05:14 PM

Socialism is the best government possible, in my opinion. However, the bigger it gets the worst it becomes.

My friends and I had this discussion once: If you had an island to yourself to make your own government, what kind would it be. What if there were 10 other people? 100? 1000? We agreed that at 1000ish people, things start to deteriorate because of the monkeysphere. ---Edit: take out monkeyshphere link, as it no longer works [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] --- Once you don't care about every single person who lives there, you start to get more and more selfish........

And by the way, I'm totally in that commune. I'll even work harder to make sure that it succeeds than I would our current government. Surely I'm not the only one........

zasterguava · #16 09-03-2007, 05:21 PM

Not all socialist are for big government e.g. Libertarian socialists and anarcho-syndicalists. I would consider someone a "true" socialist (if there is such a thing) if they denounced state power (and capitalism- but I wont get into that).

TomVeil · #17 09-03-2007, 05:28 PM

Certainly, I didn't mean to infer that they are. Myself, I'd consider myself a socialist libertarian. We can handle our own [censored], thank you very much, get out of my buisness otherwise. Our group can make decisions based on the good of the group. I have no problem with capitalism as long as the capitalism helps the group, and not just the few who own the most. That seems to be the problem with our country today. The pendulum has swung a little bit too much into the CEO side, and they are looking for any way possible to earn more profits, but those increased profits aren't passed on to the "grunts" who are actually making it happen. In my opinion this is because the farther away the CEO is from the grunts, the less he cares about them. (Again, monkeysphere!)

TomVeil · #18 09-03-2007, 05:52 PM

Found where monkeysphere went!

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html

The once and future king · #19 09-03-2007, 06:07 PM

No one has mentioned that in true Marxist theoretical system there is no State. He predicted that after the revolution of the proletariat the state would dissolve and all associations would be voluntary.

zasterguava · #20 09-03-2007, 06:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No one has mentioned that in true Marxist theoretical system there is no State. He predicted that after the revolution of the proletariat the state would dissolve and all associations would be voluntary.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a transitional period wherin the state has HUGE control and full control over capital. It is not clear exactly how the state would dissolve and seize to exist.