Socalism out of neccesity

[Monte_RCMS]

If the government bureaucrats decide everything, then what happens when some citizen comes up with some new technical innovation that the populace like but which is not understood by the bureaucrats?

Government bureaucracies typically dislike change.

Change and innovation tend to be developed and embraced by the private sector.

But what happens when the government decides to not allow the change and innovation?

What happens if the people want to voice their opinions, but those opinions differ from the views supported by the bureaucracy?

If we have a bureaucracy running things and controlling speech, then what happens to things like the First Amendment to the Constitution?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Yes, of course, atheistic communism. is wrong’ evil, but that is not what Mind over Matter is saying. Or what I am saying. Why can’t a Democracy have a Government that is a balance of enterprise and compassion when the people are hurting and in need.
Churches and charities do their part and why not Governments also? I can’t see that being a bad thing. All should consider “the sermon on the mount”. It does seem to fall on deaf ears in these times.Peace, Carlan

Because government is the wrong entity to turn to for compassion. Government power is ALWAYS coercive and government creates NOTHING.

We are supposed to turn to GOD to provide for our needs, not our fellow man, and not any institution formed by men.

What the idealist/socialist/communist does not seem to understand is that we are FALLEN and will never in this world live in peace and harmony until Jesus returns. Have you ever worked in a church ministry? Ever been on the financial committee? You will see power grabbers galore. In fact I think Catholics are the worst, because Protestants don’t believe you have to earn your salvation but we do believe in works, so people try to get points for Heaven while gathering power and control here on earth.

The best way to take care of the needy:

Family takes care of its own needs------> if parents need care, you take them in.
Church help ------> if problem too large for family
Community help--------> if problem too large for one church, or the churches can unite and work as one
And then as a true emergency, State help (and I mean each individual state, not State as in Statist) But that would be so rare as to be an anomaly.

And this is how it used to be. It was a matter of pride to take care of your own family, and people would turn to charity only as a last resort. We stuck together and pulled together. Neighbors helped each other too. Churches still help a lot of people.

The government should not be involved in this. Especially the federal government.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Expense of many lives? Who is dying? Are there masses of starving, shoeless citizens in your country? Where do you live?

If you are not interested in reading the OP properly and engaging honestly with what i presented i prefer if you didn’t post.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

First of all, the use of expressions such as “kneejerk emotions” and “you’re not serious” give away your real position.

Your real position is that the people with college educations DESERVE the best jobs.

Everybody deserves a wage that is dignified and fulfilling of ones nature. Having more than others or being in a better job should never come at the expense of the vulnerable or the weak, or people in general. The lowest wage ought to also be a fulfilling wage; a wage that fulfills human dignity; class is not the problem under discussion here and doesn’t have to be a problem.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Communism just doesn’t work.

I never said that it does work.

 

[Carlan]

Hello again,
Since we are all Catholics here,at the moment, and opinions seem to be causing much upset,I would like to suggest something again from Scripture to ponder.

Luke6 17-46
I like Luke’s version of “The Sermon on the Mount”
Christ describes the Christian as distinctive for his poverty…

Jesus cautions against the dangers of wealth…

Jesus talks about how to act toward our enemy…

The “Sermon on the Mount” though concerned with the relationship between God and the individual, the social implications are evident.
And I think a Government should take notice, in that sense ,of the welfare of it’s people.
Peace, Carlan

 

[ManOnFire]

If you are not interested in reading the OP properly and engaging honestly with what i presented i prefer if you didn’t post.

Sorry, I didn’t realize you were only positing a hypothetical. I skimmed through it quickly and I don’t know where you live.

Rather than all businesses taking business overseas, I sometimes wonder about artificial U.S. bankruptcy at the hands of the elitist oligarchs puppetmasters, who will retain their money in overseas banks, while they screw the #2 guy in the race by forcing redistribution as you posit, while the untouchables remain protected. It would be their way of faux charity: force “others” to sacrifice in the name of equality. I want to vomit just thinking about the faux democracy.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

What has that got to do with anything i have said? In a socialist society you would have to work, or you can’t eat. Working is a natural law of nature regardless the system invoked. Charity evidently cannot help everyone, and neither can the market place if it is focused on individual success rather than the success of the common good.

You just won’t have to work too hard.

 

[ManOnFire]

Hello again,
Since we are all Catholics here,at the moment, and opinions seem to be causing much upset,I would like to suggest something again from Scripture to ponder.

Luke6 17-46
I like Luke’s version of “The Sermon on the Mount”
Christ describes the Christian as distinctive for his poverty…

Jesus cautions against the dangers of wealth…

Jesus talks about how to act toward our enemy…

The “Sermon on the Mount” though concerned with the relationship between God and the individual, the social implications are evident.
And I think a Government should take notice, in that sense ,of the welfare of it’s people.
Peace, Carlan

It would help to discern between the true needy and the false needy. It’s important to true justice with so much drug use, optional expensive entertainment, etc.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Everybody deserves a wage that is dignified and fulfilling of ones nature.

Who ever told you that? What a terrible work ethic.

 

[cmgc]

What you describe comes closest to a developing nation in the 60’s and 70’s, before export processing zones were developed, when export-oriented agricultural multi-nationals were big in newly independent colonies. In that case, a country like Guatemala for example had vast parts of the country owned by foreign corporations, and because they were selling their products abroad and exploiting local labor, they conferred very little benefit on the local economy. I believe in Guatemala, most all the infrastructure of the country was owned by and restricted to use by these companies.

In addition, because of corrupt governments and the breakdown of civil law, the native populations living in the mountains were being pushed off their agricultural lands. This meant they could no longer support themselves by growing crops themselves, so they had no choice but to work on these companies’ plantations in harsh conditions for very little pay.

This is at least a real-life example of a population that because of corrupt forces has no access to means of production. Okay, so what did they do? Well, Castro sent in some guerillas, and Marxism turned out to be an attractive practical solution, so they started engaging in militancy and revolutionary activities.

But that’s the problem with socialism: basically the only path it ever takes is revolution, and wherever it succeeds in taking over, the people always pay for it later.

Perhaps if you can head into the countryside, round up some peasants and stir up a socialist revolution, then if you’re still alive and in power, you could enact some sort of neo-authoritarian program of economic development, ala Taiwan, and boom, you’ve got a pretty fair economy.

You’re saying that all the production has left the country. Or it’s cordoned off and the population is shoved off the productive land. Hmm… how about the homelands in South Africa, the districts where huge numbers of blacks were sent by law, where the land could not possibly support them? What does socialism do for you in that situation? Why would it be necessary? They tried unions, they tried all leaving their pass books at home to gum up the system; but in the end it was a freely elected white man who dismantled apartheid. They organized and there was militancy, but it wasn’t socialism.

I hope that adds something to the conversation. Sorry, I’m not very good at hypotheticals.

 

[John21652]

I agree that socialism in general, when properly understood, is not morally sufficient. It is also true that to kill another human being, in general, is not morally sufficient. However there is a context in which the rule is not absolute, and that is when killing is absolutely necessary. If all private businesses took all the means of production else where and what was left could only sustain the common good (men women and children) by systematic government imposed sharing, then it seems, insofar as the common good is concerned, that socialism would be the least of two evils until some kind of just economy could replace it. The greatest evil would be to let many people starve for the sake of the few. Please note that i am not trying to justify socialism as a moral system in and of itself, but rather i believe that God would nevertheless permit it in certain extreme circumstances; and it may even be necessary, as a temporary phase, in order to bring about a just form of capitalism based on the common good rather than just the individual. I do not believe that God would permit capitalism at the expense of many lives, since private property is not an absolute right. When private property becomes oppressive, either physically of psychologically, this is the same as stealing from the common good.

Some of the terms you use are a little confusing, or not properly defined. What exactly do you mean by “morally sufficient”? And, how are you defining “socialism”? And what do you exactly mean by “a just economy”?

I understand your description of how the rule against killing has its riders, such as self defense, or as in a Just War, but I fail to see how you then swing into an argument that attempts to justify socialism as somehow being a condoned break of a rule. Socialism, strictly speaking, is ownership of the means of production by the state. Of course, in the real world, many countries have a mix of socialism and capitalism and aften not without tension between the two ideologies. In the scenario you give, it would seem that for some reason, private business took all the means of production out of the country. I would contend that that is impossible. If there was a sudden flight of capital from a country, the factors of production would still remain. From what you write, you seem to be suggesting a sudden flight of capital, which then depresses markets. Correct? You are then advocating that the government step in to re-distribute whatever resources are available so the population doesn’t starve. So in reality you are wanting the government to impose rules and regulations to ensure the ‘proper’ (whatever that means?!) allocation and utilisation of resources because of an ‘emergency’.

The first question to ask is can governments effectively regulate markets? From your scenario, from which capital seems to have suddenly fled, the answer would be “no”. Otherwise, why was the capital exodus so profound? Why was it so unnatractive for the owners of capital to stay? After all, there is always a certain amount of government control in the marketplace, even if that control is little more than consumer protection legislation, or Fair Trading legislation. If you want governments to take over control of the economy, why is it not the case that the government’s first move should be to adopt measures to immediately entice back the capital that fled? The rub, of course, is that once you give economic power to governments, they wish to retain control, because they are made up of individuals who think they can create a fairer system and you have actually given the power to think that way. If they didn’t think that way and believe in that ideal, they wouldn’t take control, but would instead take whatever measures were deemed necessary to entice capital back once again.

The government that is willing to take control will wish to retain control. Governments and their attendant bureaucracies become self serving entities themselves. In the process, they create inneficiencies within a system of distribution because firstly, they have a cost and secondly, because they set themselves up between producer and consumer, so distorting the real value of goods and services. Then, with government bureaucracies in place and producers wishing to gain favour, rent seeking behaviours set in. There is ample evidence of this from around the world, where private citizens learn to band together in larger groups to manipulate and coerce the political and economic system and government departments for largesse. Under socialism, the government is a monopoly. Under socialism, people learn how to win monopolistic favours and priviliges. This is where socialism fails. Rent seeking behaviour causes such gross inneficiencies in an economy that it imposes substantial losses on society. The so called “common good” becomes a fallacy. Individual self interest is subverted into a collective selfishness. The morality is of the mob. In fact, and furthermore, the role of government under a socialist system subverts personal morality, because the government is deemed to be responsible for ‘moral decisions’ about what is fair, equitable and just.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

What you describe comes closest to a developing nation in the 60’s and 70’s, before export processing zones were developed, when export-oriented agricultural multi-nationals were big in newly independent colonies. In that case, a country like Guatemala for example had vast parts of the country owned by foreign corporations, and because they were selling their products abroad and exploiting local labor, they conferred very little benefit on the local economy. I believe in Guatemala, most all the infrastructure of the country was owned by and restricted to use by these companies.

In addition, because of corrupt governments and the breakdown of civil law, the native populations living in the mountains were being pushed off their agricultural lands. This meant they could no longer support themselves by growing crops themselves, so they had no choice but to work on these companies’ plantations in harsh conditions for very little pay.

This is at least a real-life example of a population that because of corrupt forces has no access to means of production. Okay, so what did they do? Well, Castro sent in some guerillas, and Marxism turned out to be an attractive practical solution, so they started engaging in militancy and revolutionary activities.

But that’s the problem with socialism: basically the only path it ever takes is revolution, and wherever it succeeds in taking over, the people always pay for it later.

Perhaps if you can head into the countryside, round up some peasants and stir up a socialist revolution, then if you’re still alive and in power, you could enact some sort of neo-authoritarian program of economic development, ala Taiwan, and boom, you’ve got a pretty fair economy.

You’re saying that all the production has left the country. Or it’s cordoned off and the population is shoved off the productive land. Hmm… how about the homelands in South Africa, the districts where huge numbers of blacks were sent by law, where the land could not possibly support them? What does socialism do for you in that situation? Why would it be necessary? They tried unions, they tried all leaving their pass books at home to gum up the system; but in the end it was a freely elected white man who dismantled apartheid. They organized and there was militancy, but it wasn’t socialism.

I hope that adds something to the conversation. Sorry, I’m not very good at hypotheticals.

I happen to have personal experience in Central America.

The “stuff” about how the big corporations took over and none of the locals benefited is just plain false.

In order to entice local people to work for them, the corporations had to pay higher than prevailing wages. That money worked its way into the local economy. THEN, a lot of the local people, when they had worked enough to suit themselves, gave their ID cards to their brothers or uncles or friends, and pretty soon, the corporation was supporting the whole community.

For their own operations, the corporations set up companies locally to manufacture plastic bags and packaging. The products were so desirable, that pretty soon, the local plastics companies were making food storage products for the local market and they even got into manufacturing things like irrigation pipe, water pipe, and drainage pipe for the local community. The corporations set up subsidiaries that opened retail stores or booths at the local farmers markets where most of the people bought their food, so that people could buy the plastic baggies conveniently.

The corporations wanted to retain local help who were experienced, so they set up technical training schools for the local people who prospered and their families prospered. When people changed jobs they took their knowledge with them and enriched the local communities. The corporations paid very well to retain people, but folks move around anyway, as people do everywhere. In addition, as local operations were more and more computerized, the corporations trained whole local IT departments which created another whole local industry as they began hiring local IT experts; there are local people everywhere who just have natural talent and can hire themselves out for healthy fees. More for the local economy.

And the business about transportation infrastructure is also false. If a road or a railroad goes from a mine to the ship pier or from a farm to a pier, then it is a point-to-point transportation facility with dedicated vehicles as part of the manufacturing or agricultural process. [Keep in mind that much of the production was for export because the varieties of crops were grown specifically for export. Local food products grew everywhere naturally because of the beneficial climate and employees all had gardens or small farms for their own use and for growing crops to sell on the local market.] But the local roads were often improved so that employees could get to the facilities from home.

In addition, the corporations needed telecommunications for their operations and soon their facilities were being used as common carriers by large segments of the local population.

So the accusations of exploitation are totally bogus and false.

In addition, without outside money and shipment of arms, the guerilla forces were unsuccessful. The Sendero Luminoso in Peru got heavy support from outside and Cuba supported a lot of the terrorists as did the drug rings.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Just found this on Piven:

discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2505

 

[JimG]

Yes, of course, atheistic communism. is wrong’ evil, but that is not what Mind over Matter is saying. Or what I am saying. Why can’t a Democracy have a Government that is a balance of enterprise and compassion when the people are hurting and in need.
Churches and charities do their part and why not Governments also? I can’t see that being a bad thing. All should consider “the sermon on the mount”. It does seem to fall on deaf ears in these times.Peace, Carlan

This part about churches and charities vs government reminded me of my father-in-law.

He was very active in Catholic charitable functions within his parish, especially the St. Vincent De Paul Society. He would visit people who had fallen on hard times, determine what they needed (furniture, food, clothing, etc), and then provide it, usually from donated goods. I went with him on several calls, and it was amazing to me that this little parish organization was so effective in meeting people’s needs.

I worked for the government at the time, and I recall thinking, if the government did this, it would take at least one case worker, one reviewer, one supervisor, a big case file, two signatures, and authorization from the fiscal department to obtain the needed goods which would be obtained at a high price and delivered by a contractor.

I was impressed by subsidiarity at work.