Philosophy topic

[anathoth8]

Not sure, Thepal. I am inclined to think they are very similar. We refer to the former Soviet Union as being communist, but just look at the official name of that country: United Soviet Socialist Republic.

[Vildern]

Or is it just that people don't think it through enough to realise they would both be the same?

United Soviet Socialist Republic.

Communism is a very well-thought and defined policy. Socialism is any activity in favor of the weak groups of society. It is not the same thing at all.

Several strong differences:

Communism lacks freedom, while in socialism it is a key-element

In communism, the country owns all the factories, resources, etc - in socialism the country supports private tycoons to have those.

In communism, the state is responsible to help the citizens with everything. If you don't have an apartment, the state will provide you one, for example. In socialism, the state helps only to a certain extent. For example, each year you pay a minimum fee, let's say 35$, and in exchange you get free medical treatments, if you need them. In the USA, if I got it right, a surgery might cost you 5,000$, while here it's free, for the state sponsors it.

Socialism supports taking from citizens a small portion of their freedom, in favor of equality, while communism extracts freedom entirely, if favor of absolute equality.

The differences are many and major.

Naturally, communism is a kind of a socialist policy, the most extreme example of one.

[Meerbat]

There was no real communist country, as far as I know. Communism was the utopic goal all the socialist countries were striving to achieve. Socialism was the first step towards communism, it was supposed to be a transition towards the brightest future of them all!

Communist countries only named themselves after their common goal, but a truly communist country never really existed, as the transition was interrupted and the goals got redefined. I have to say, my memories of the socialist times are grey and mostly negative, but not as negative as the years right after the end of it. Funnily enough, things that I only associated with socialism, happen to be quite common in the USA as well. I am talking about things that may appear superficial at first, but did make an impression to me... "Sameness" is probably the word that sums it up nicely - school uniforms, same light switches, same exit doors and door handles in public buildings, same toilet seats and urinals, same malls in every city, etc...

Interesting how a discussion that was supposedly about philosophy took a turn to politics...

Anyway, there is no such thing as pure altruism, there is at best mutualism or reciprocal altruism. Will only mention psychological/biological research, game theory and the evolution of memes as support, without going much into it.

[Thepal]

Well, if your definitions are correct, Vildern, then Socialism seems pretty useless. You can't just do a little bit of helping weak groups. It wouldn't work. Probably why the "communist" countries fail. They don't go all the way.

And about Communism lacking freedom, how does it? It doesn't say "You must do as we say". It doesn't say "You can only have what everyone else has". It merely says "Everyone contributes to society and everyone gets their share". It doesn't say how you contribute, that's up to you. If you want to be a lawyer, be a lawyer. If you want to be a garbage collector, you be a garbage collector. As it is, an actor can make millions for a few months work. While a garbageman might get thirty thousand a year. Communism would just even out the distribution of wealth. Because all jobs (well, almost all) are important to society, why should one person get more than another?

[Vildern]

Well, if your definitions are correct, Vildern, then Socialism seems pretty useless. You can't just do a little bit of helping weak groups.

Oh, really, cannot you? There are tons and tons of examples around the world for countries that have a successful social policy.

Why do you think the taxes in Sweden are so high? Just so the country could socially help the its citizens. That is, the country sponsors medical care, education, etc. In the USA, for example, the country does not do that, and so you end up paying a lot for your medications and for the universities, if you decide to go there.

Here is a close example - until 1994 Israel led a strong social policy. The unemployment rate was very low, people without jobs were being sponsored by the country, just so you won't be poor, medications were very cheap, etc.

Probably why the "communist" countries fail. They don't go all the way.

They didn't fail cause they *didn't go all the way* (which is pretty much incorrect, the Soviet Union did go a long way, please study it before saying so, The unemployment rate in the Soviet Union was near 0% and the country sponsored almost anything. If you didn't have an apartment, the country would give you one free.), they could have led it to any place they wanted to. One of the major reasons for its failure is that the market was a decadent one (after they've gone a long way to achieve communism, if only partially), this is what communism brings.

"Everyone contributes to society and everyone gets their share".

Here is your first mistake. It says: "Everyone contribute to society the best he can, and everyone gets the same share". That's why I was saying that such a society would not last. Cause you can be a street cleaner or you could just as well be a doctor, a brilliant one, and yet both
will get pretty much the same from the state. Your salaries won't be that different, your apartments will pretty much be at the same size, etc. And it's simply not fair that a man that devoted much more, 7 years to study medication, will end up getting the same as a street cleaner, who spent but 5 minutes to study the subject.

In the Kibuts, for example, each member got the same amount of shirts. You could be a business man or secretary - both will get X amount of shirts.

If you are a business man, you can earn more than a secretary - but all that you earn will go to the safe of the Kibuts. And from that safe EVERYBODY will get THE SAME. Same salary, same amount of food, etc. That is just that way it works in communism. Now, how would one feel, if he were a business man that struck a deal of 10,000 $ and he had to give it to the Kibuts, and from that the Kibuts will give him a salary of 2000$, the same salary it would give everybody else?

Don't say "I would feel great", don't put yourself in the middle of the picture, put society in the middle of the picture, and see that in a society there are many people, and only a few of them would feel comfortable with it.

If you want to be a lawyer, be a lawyer. If you want to be a garbage collector, you be a garbage collector.

Here is your second mistake. The country tells YOU what the country needs, and so the country leads you to pick a subject. You might want to go to the university and be a doctor, because this is your dream, yet the country might tell you: "There are enough doctors! Yet we are in a dire need for Engineers! So you will go and study engineering!". Most times, you don't get to pick, as the country tells you what it needs (in communism).

Bottom line regarding socialism, it works great and proved itself (the party I'm supporting, btw, the second biggest here, is a social one).

[Thepal]

Here is your first mistake. It says: "Everyone contribute to society the best he can, and everyone gets the same share". That's why I was saying that such a society would not last. Cause you can be a street cleaner or you could just as well be a doctor, a brilliant one, and yet both will get pretty much the same from the state. Your salaries won't be that different, your apartments will pretty much be at the same size, etc. And it's simply not fair that a man that devoted much more, 7 years to study medication, will end up getting the same as a street cleaner, who spent but 5 minutes to study the subject.

And while the doctor was studying at university (and probably partying half the time :P ) the street cleaner is out working. The fact the doctor had to study for years to become a doctor doesn't mean his job is more important to society. Streets need to be kept clean.

In the Kibuts, for example, each member got the same amount of shirts. You could be a business man or secretary - both will get X amount of shirts.

If you are a business man, you can earn more than a secretary - but all that you earn will go to the safe of the Kibuts. And from that safe EVERYBODY will get THE SAME. Same salary, same amount of food, etc. That is just that way it works in communism. Now, how would one feel, if he were a business man that struck a deal of 10,000 $ and he had to give it to the Kibuts, and from that the Kibuts will give him a salary of 2000$, the same salary it would give everybody else?

Do you really think the business man does more work than the secretary? Of course not. So why should the businessman get more money?

So the businessman strikes a $10,000 deal. Guess what. He couldn't have done it if his secretary wasn't there to handle his paperwork and answer the phones. If he had to do everything himself he wouldn't have the time to do his job as well. If the street cleaner didn't clean the roads they might have become damaged and he couldn't get to work, or maybe the diseases that are created from all the rubbish could have killed him before he could make this deal.

You look at jobs like lawyers and doctors and politicians as more important. That somehow those people deserve more money. But people in other jobs work just as hard. And without the other people society would fall apart. They are all important and to say one deserves ten times the salary is just ridiculous.

Don't say "I would feel great", don't put yourself in the middle of the picture, put society in the middle of the picture, and see that in a society there are many people, and only a few of them would feel comfortable with it.

All of them would if they understood it. Even rich people would probably end up living better.

Here is your second mistake. The country tells YOU what the country needs, and so the country leads you to pick a subject. You might want to go to the university and be a doctor, because this is your dream, yet the country might tell you: "There are enough doctors! Yet we are in a dire need for Engineers! So you will go and study engineering!". Most times, you don't get to pick, as the country tells you what it needs (in communism).

Oh, really. Tell me, why do universities only take a certain amount of medical students every year if capitalist society says everyone can be a doctor? This is one of the arguments I hear all the time, and it is one of the stupidest. No society cannot support everyone doing the same job. A communist, or socialist, or capitalist society would all work exactly the same. There would be a certain amount of positions for each job to be filled, and if they are all filled you can't work in that area. That is something that happens in *every* society.

Bottom line regarding socialism, it works great and proved itself (the party I'm supporting, btw, the second biggest here, is a social one).

It doesn't work great. Australia is digging itself a grave because it can't support it. We have a public medical system. We can go to the doctor, get x-rays, etc for free. But that can't support itself because we aren't going all the way. Taxes keep getting higher, services keep getting less. Medicare is one of the big political issues because we all know it can't be supported, yet we all still want it.

We have a public school system (as most countries do). But it can't support itself either. Parents of children going to public schools usually have to pay fees even though the schools are meant to be publicly funded. And still public schools work off ten year old textbooks that the private schools no longer want. The government just doesn't have the money because it is what you define as socialist.

As long as governments don't go all the way they will never have the money to support these socialist services.

[Vildern]

Do you really think the business man does more work than the secretary? Of course not. So why should the businessman get more money?

It doesn't matter if he actually works more hours than a secretary. The fact that he has to give his money to the safe of the state is why a man like this wouldn't like to live in such a society. She earns 2000$ and gets to keep them, he earns 10,000$ and has to keep but a significant smaller amount.

Oh, really. Tell me, why do universities only take a certain amount of medical students every year if capitalist society says everyone can be a doctor? This is one of the arguments I hear all the time, and it is one of the stupidest. No society can support everyone doing the same job. A communist, or socialist, or capitalist society would all work exactly the same. There would be a certain amount of positions for each job to be filled, and if they are all filled you can't work in that area. That is something that happens in *every* society.

Cause there is only a certain amount of seats, cause they want only the best, take your pick, it would not matter. In a democratic state the saying "Everybody can be a doctor" implies that nobody would stop you from being one, if this is what you want. Just work and study hard enough and you might end up being one.

In a society the demand for certain subjects is sometimes higher than for others. More people want to be Y and not Z, yet a communist state have the right to tell them NO, and direct them to study what serves the country best IN A CERTAIN TIME. And guess what - this is what happens in such society, not in theory, but in fact. This is what happened in Kibutses and in other communist societies. We've all here read the stories about a Kibuts member who wants to be a gardener, but in stead the Kibuts tells him that he has to something else, as they have needs elsewhere.

The fact that it didn't work in Australia means nothing. It can be a ton of different reasons compiled together; ineffective governments might be one of them. The fact that it works in so many other places around the globe proves this.

As long as governments don't go all the way they will never have the money to support these socialist services.

You can say this as much as you like, but fact of the matter is that it does work.

It's not a utopian dream that failed, it's something that had been tested and found successful. That's to it.

[Thepal]

It doesn't matter if he actually works more hours than a secretary. The fact that he has to give his money to the safe of the state is why a man like this wouldn't like to live in such a society. She earns 2000$ and gets to keep them, he earns 10,000$ and has to keep but a significant smaller amount.

But he shouldn't be earning five times as much. Everyone should do the same amount of work, and everyone should get the same benefits. It shouldn't matter if the job is in law or teaching or gardening, everyone should get the same amount.

Cause there is only a certain amount of seats, cause they want only the best, take your pick, it would not matter. In a democratic state the saying "Everybody can be a doctor" implies that nobody would stop you from being one, if this is what you want. Just work and study hard enough and you might end up being one.

And why would that be different in a communist society? You seem to think that communist means the government gives the people no freedom. That the government chooses everything for them. But people could still choose what they want to do, at least in an ideal communist society. The main difference in regards to the workforce is that less time would be wasted, and unemployment would be lower (or non-existant). Everyone would be working together for the benefit of society, which would mean more production, more advances in technology, and my favourite, more holidays since the work needed by each person would be significantly less.

In a society the demand for certain subjects is sometimes higher than for others. More people want to be Y and not Z, yet a communist state have the right to tell them NO, and direct them to study what serves the country best IN A CERTAIN TIME. And guess what - this is what happens in such society, not in theory, but in fact. This is what happened in Kibutses and in other communist societies. We've all here read the stories about a Kibuts member who wants to be a gardener, but in stead the Kibuts tells him that he has to something else, as they have needs elsewhere.

Yes, this is what happened in some communist societies. But that is not the way it has to happen. The only thing that is required is that everyone do their part. So if they can't find a gardening job, then they need to do something else in the meantime (which is what people should do in any society anyway).

The fact that it didn't work in Australia means nothing. It can be a ton of different reasons compiled together; ineffective governments might be one of them. The fact that it works in so many other places around the globe proves this.

You can say this as much as you like, but fact of the matter is that it does work.

It's not a utopian dream that failed, it's something that had been tested and found successful. That's to it.

It always fails eventually.

[Vildern]

And why would that be different in a communist society? You seem to think that communist means the government gives the people no freedom.

I wish it was not. Once I did not think so, when I was young and liked the concept, but didn't study it.

It takes one's freedom, because it forces everybody to get the same. It takes your social and economical freedom.

It takes one's freedom, because it sacrifices the individuals, in favor of the society.

It takes one's freedom, because it sacrifices it for absolute equality.


I thought the idea of communism was beautiful for a whole year back then. If it works somewhere around the world for a long time, I'll be happy and be one of the first ones to pay a visit there.

[1eyedParrot]

I don't think i'd want world peace, really think about it.

Millions of soldiers and military support personal would become jobless.
Military bases provide large economical bonuses to the communities they reside in, those would all be closed.
Technology design companies that contract with the military would lose huge revenue and fire alot of employees.
Millions of law enforcement agents would lose their jobs.
The bulk of the movie industry would collapse.(Not just the U.S.)
The TSA would collapse, how many thousands of jobs would be lost there?

In short, world peace would devastate the world economy.

[Broomie]

I thought I'd reincarnate this thread since it was interesting and start a new question you can all... philosophize about.

You may have heard this one before but I thought it was quite interesting.

Say you come across a burning house, you notice two people are trapped inside and unless you do something, they both will die. However you only have time to save one of them. Yet there's also something else, one of the people trapped is your Father, the other one is a very intelligent scientist who has the cure to Cancer, yet he only has the formula in his head.

You only have time to save one, you can't carry both as you're skinny and have no muscles. Who would you save?

[Blackthorne519]

The doctor with the cure to cancer.

My father would sacrifice his own life to let that secret survive.  So, I take a cue from his judgement.

The loss would be a blow to me and my family, but the repercussions for the rest of humanity would be inmeasureable.

Again, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.


Bt

[Vildern]

Again, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

Demagogy! This example does not support that statement.

I would sacrifice my life to save both, even if impossible.

[Blackthorne519]

Again, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

Demagogy! This example does not support that statement.

I would sacrifice my life to save both, even if impossible.

Then all three die?  Interesting choice, for sure.

The example certainly supports that statement.


Bt

[Vildern]

When all attempts fail, I'll prefer to save my father, but only after trying to save both

No, it does not, because it's an extreme case (not a good one, there are better), when you need to save as many lives as possible. For example - you are given a choice, saving one stranger, or many other strangers. You cannot but choose to save the many strangers.

But it should never be the policy of a government, for instance. If you are the government and need to buy medicine, from time to time you must also buy those very expensive medicine the help only a very small group, in expense of the cheap medicine that help many others, as no group ever should be disregarded, simply for not being the majority.

This is why it's demagogy, as you use this statement as if it were a policy touching all aspects of life, while it's not, it's just the enforced action, a must, in extreme cases only.

[Angelus3K]

How about this scenario (sorry if its already been asked here).

What if someone said to a veggie/vegan if you dont eat this chicken I'll go an kill another 2 chickens.

What would you do? (If you were veggie/vegan)

[Blackthorne519]

When all attempts fail, I'll prefer to save my father, but only after trying to save both

No, it does not, because it's an extreme case (not a good one, there are better), when you need to save as many lives as possible. For example - you are given a choice, saving one stranger, or many other strangers. You cannot but choose to save the many strangers.

You have to go with the exact scenario as written.  The other man is a scientist who HAS THE CURE to cancer.  His life is more important to many others.  Saving your father is a selfish move; think about people that would sacrifice their own life to save cancer victims.  In this exact case, this other man could save billions of lives.  Making a sacrafice for the greater good is always a priority.  If not, the human race will collapse upon itself.

The ramifications of saving your father only have a merit to you during your own lifetime.  So for say 20-30 years of your own happiness, you may inadvertantly cause millions of more deaths.  It's a selfish choice.


Bt

[Klytos]

I'd save the Doctor first then go back in and try and save my father, even at the risk of my own life.

[Brainiac]

I'd go for my father and get someone else to save the doctor.  If there was no one else, I'd still go for my father, although (presuming he knew who the doctor was), he'd tell me to save the other guy.  Once I got him out, I'd go back for Dad, even if it cost me my own life.

As to the veggie/vegan question, I've posed this to someone before and I got what I felt was an excellent answer - "One person can only control their own habits, no one else's.  I will not change who I am to satisfy another's whim.  No matter what I do, other people will eat animals; all I can do is not eat them myself."

[Klytos]

Damn me Brainiac, thats a good quote.

[Angelus3K]

Damn good qoute it is!!!!

[Brainiac]

Glad you guys like it.  The basic principle of it, that a person must live as they feel is right, is something I try to live by.  I stick by my principles and act as I feel I should.  Of course, that results in misunderstanding and disagreements every now and then, but all in all, it's an effective way to live, I think.

How about another great quote, this time from Einstein (I may have posted this once before, but here it is anyway).  My framed poster of him in my room reads, "The ideals which have lighted my way, and time after time have given me new courage to face life cheerfully, have been Kindness, Beauty, and Truth."

Good stuff.

I think it could be appropriate to bring up a philosophical/moral discussion of Einstein and his involvement in the Manhattan Project at this point, but I think I'll leave that particular powder keg alone...

[Blackthorne519]

People who don't eat meat are retarded, and therefore should die.
(WARNING:  The previous sentence contains EXTREME sarcasm, and therefore should not be viewed or even read by anyone.)


Bt

[Charlemagne]

How about another great quote, this time from Einstein (I may have posted this once before, but here it is anyway).  My framed poster of him in my room reads, "The ideals which have lighted my way, and time after time have given me new courage to face life cheerfully, have been Kindness, Beauty, and Truth."

My favourite quote by Einstein has always been "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen". Cynical, I know, but all too true. I often think the ignorant spouting their "common sense" will be the bane of my existence. Hell, I'm probably no better than any of them myself.

[Klytos]

My favorite quote would be by a guy called John Safron, and it's

"Go To Hell."

That quote speaks to me.