Library Day of Action

[PermaBanned]

I never said you did.

But you've both gone of on your typical rants that require radical changes in human nature.

In both systems there is huge opening for exploitation you both seem to gloss over with "people will change" and leave it at that.
You never seemt o get that no competitio nwill not always lead to the lowest prices they'll end up price fixing on some level among others. (


super's was best illustrated in one thread where when someone asked about after putting the taxes up to massive levels "what do you do when they leave" and was responded by someone else with "stop them" (thus forgoing all attempts at even masquerade as free) supers one of if the whole world was the same yada yada yada.



But simply what i'm trying to say is in system so mind numbingly complex as the whole of human kind and their economies wants and needs no fully "designed" system will work, it's coming about the same way we did.
By slowly changing the best idea's thriving and carrying on till they fail and are replaced by newer ones as the goal posts move with time.

A designed system will be outdated by the time you start to implement it and instantly fail, the current "organic" approach is working nicely over time it will have ups and downs but not the brick walls you'd face.

You raise fair points, but it boils down to the old 'human nature' argument, doesn't it? There's no actual evidence to suggest that this exists, and besides, it's not Socialism that allows evil, corrupt individuals to flourish, it's Capitalism.

Fair enough if you think neither my nor Dolph's alternatives are viable at the minute, but you can't be content with the system as it is, can you? Change is absolutely necessary, and will come sooner or later.

 

[Dolph]

I didn't ask that.

I'd also add I have never seen that in Scotland. I'm not talking mere access, I'm talking tables chairs PC's and internet with option of paying for printing.

McDonalds round here sells burgers and fries.

I would not want reduce children to learning in an environment likely to make the fat anyway.

Does anyone know the costs of these provisions?

That's why I used the scout group example, they provide everything you mentioned, and sold drinks to cover the cost, but it wasn't compulsory to have to buy drinks to use the facilities.

 

[Tefal]

You raise fair points, but it boils down to the old 'human nature' argument, doesn't it? There's no actual evidence to suggest that this exists, and besides, it's not Socialism that allows evil, corrupt individuals to flourish, it's Capitalism.

No it;s not either.

Neither system encourages them to, people just do.


it only takes say 5% of the population to be cunning ruthless and goal driven they will **** any system to the point of tearing to get what they want.

Dolphs sytem at least has the more Grey to white area for them to flourish in (in terms of morality/legality) but socialism does not these people then enter into the much darker black market areas of life and more importantly you both espouse freedom so much that you could not justify suppressing them without coming off as hypocritical.

Fair enough if you think neither my nor Dolph's alternatives are viable at the minute,

And they never will be.

but you can't be content with the system as it is, can you? Change is absolutely necessary, and will come sooner or later.

Did you read what i wrote?

they "system" is not sa permanet thing like both of you are trying to impose it is felxible and ever changing.

pure socialism will never work neither will pure capitalism and tbh the centre middle road will not work either, it changes.

It changes according to it's need, some points in time it will need to be more socialist other more capitalist some more authoritarian and others more liberal.

Trying to enforce one continuous style will not work without brutal enforcement which will only lead to it's downfall sooner.

For a crappy metaphor, you can just as much change the systems of interaction among the worlds population as you can your own evolution.

 

[Dolph]

To understand Socialism and why it's needed you first need to understand the flaws in the current system, if you're not even going to make an effort to do that then why should anybody take your opinion seriously?

I don't share your opinion of what is flawed in the current system, just as you do not share my opinion of what is flawed in your proposed system, and what it will inevitably lead to.

International figures mean nothing as long as people can get treated when they need to, which has always been the case with every experience i've had or heard of. There's no way privatizing it would increase the quality of the service, because privatizing means selling, and selling means somebody buys it. This person would only buy it to make a profit from it, and the profit could only be achieved by providing a worse service. It's the same for almost every other service (although the education system does not do as it's name suggests, but that's a flaw in the system as a whole and not with the way it's managed), so i won't bother you with each.

Did you actually, seriously say that international standards don't matter? The whole point is that, compared to other countries, our healthcare provision and outcomes are poor, our education outcomes are poor, these things do matter. You keep arguing that privatisation can only lead to a worse system, yet other countries out there are already proving you wrong with (for example) universal healthcare systems that provide better outcomes for the people using alternative structures, including for profit companies.

Well the 'safety net' would be the people, would it not? Generally speaking, of course. If it were any other way then all you get is an endless spiral of corruption, 'who watches the watchers' etc.

No, the safety net is in the form of a combined taxation and benefit system.

But the concept of money is something which takes away freedom. Take away this restriction and then, and only then, can people even start to understand what 'freedom' even means.

No, it doesn't. This is a statement made as fact that it nothing more than opinion. Money doesn't take away freedom, it simply provides a means to measure and control access and balance supply and demand. A socialist setup doesn't get rid of this, because unless supply is infinite, there is always a need for demand control. At best, socialist setups provide an alternative means of demand control, unfortunately whenever it has been implemented, it always results in an authoritarian state conducting the demand control.

 

[Biohazard]

That's why I used the scout group example, they provide everything you mentioned, and sold drinks to cover the cost, but it wasn't compulsory to have to buy drinks to use the facilities.

I've had a look and there is apparently a similar scheme here for scout members.

I think long term funding could certainly be an issue, especially if you want to keep access to open to the same demographics as before.

 

[Dolph]

I've had a look and there is apparently a similar scheme here for scout members.

I think long term funding could certainly be an issue, especially if you want to keep access to open to the same demographics as before.

I guess that depends on the area and the group. The area I'm aware of (my parents are heavily involved in scouting in East Anglia), the scout group is pretty much the biggest charity and community involvement thing in the village concerned, to the point where they used to take other charities in the local area under their wing and help them raise money as well. They provide a lot of additional services to the local community, host the local playgroups and after school schemes and so on, the scout hut is pretty much a community hub in that case, and there's pretty much always constant use of the facilities they provide. It certainly gets a lot more use for community support than the local government provided community centre, due to being more flexible towards the communities needs.

Given that it was the group I grew up in and so on, perhaps that's why I have more faith than many in charity, because I've seen it in action and working well.

 

[Biohazard]

And they never will be.

I actually think Tefal's right here.

I'm torn, because I am a mix between a sort of moral socialism and slight leaning economic right. But this invariably changes depending on which theatre we are talking because of my split argument UK/Independence etc.

I can see the attraction of both actually in a world with no history they broadly come to the same end effect, but I agree it would be a chance in a million for either ideology to come to fruit.

 

[PermaBanned]

A future based on past failings is not a future i want to believe in. As Marx said, eventually an inferior system will be replaced by a superior one, from bartering to feudalism to capitalism and everything else in between. Is it not a bit naive to think that where we are now is the best we're ever going to do and that this is where all progress stops?

 

[Dolph]

A future based on past failings is not a future i want to believe in. As Marx said, eventually an inferior system will be replaced by a superior one, from bartering to feudalism to capitalism and everything else in between. Is it not a bit naive to think that where we are now is the best we're ever going to do and that this is where all progress stops?

Socialism as you advocate is not progress though.

 

[Tefal]

A future based on past failings is not a future i want to believe in. As Marx said, eventually an inferior system will be replaced by a superior one, from bartering to feudalism to capitalism and everything else in between. Is it not a bit naive to think that where we are now is the best we're ever going to do and that this is where all progress stops?

No one has said that.

It's you and dolph who want to put in a system that is concrete, unchanging and eternal.

The current way of doing things (and the past and in reality the future) is to be adaptable to change to what you need to be to at that moment i ntime and the foreseeable future.


People will manipulate every system if the system doesn't flex with that it'll break.

 

[Energize]

Local libraries are a relic of the past, hardly see anyone ever use them, the internet has replaced many functions of a library and honestly I don't see why taxpayers money should be used for others entertainment. People who want to use them can pay like they do at blockbuster.

 

[PermaBanned]

Socialism as you advocate is not progress though.

Don't be silly, of course Socialism as i advocate it is progress. The only debatable point is if it's possible.

No one has said that.

It's you and dolph who want to put in a system that is concrete, unchanging and eternal.

The current way of doing things (and the past and in reality the future) is to be adaptable to change to what you need to be to at that moment i ntime and the foreseeable future.

People will manipulate every system if the system doesn't flex with that it'll break.

So how much more will it take for you to realize that the current system has outlived it's potential by more than 100 years, probably at least 200? It is unable to sufficiently manage our affairs in a way that benefits everyone, which is what the majority of people want in the 21st century.

 

[Tefal]

So how much more will it take for you to realize that the current system has outlived it's potential by more than 100 years, probably at least 200? It is unable to sufficiently manage our affairs in a way that benefits everyone, which is what the majority of people want in the 21st century.

the current system is very different to what we had 100 years ago let along 200, it's pretty different from what we had 50 years ago.


Massive sudden change is unneeded continual gradual changes as we learn is much safer as you're not exposed to the horrible beta testing phase on a mass scale.

 

[PermaBanned]

the current system is very different to what we had 100 years ago let along 200, it's pretty different from what we had 50 years ago.

Massive sudden change is unneeded continual gradual changes as we learn is much safer as you're not exposed to the horrible beta testing phase on a mass scale.

The democratic system is much the same. Adjusted for inflation the economy is also similar to as it's ever been - with far too much being in the hands of the few who do nothing useful and the masses who work, often in useless jobs, living in comparative poverty.

Ideally you might be right, but the current system is based on the principle of 'every man for himself'. No amount of bending or flexing is going to change that. And every day more and more people are realizing that that's not the sort of world they want to live in. Real change is only going to come from dismantling the current system and building a completely new one from scratch. One that is designed to meet all demands of it's people, present and future and one that ensures a fair spread of the 'wealth' that is on this Earth for us to use.

 

[Dolph]

Don't be silly, of course Socialism as i advocate it is progress. The only debatable point is if it's possible.

In your opinion. I disagree, so far you haven't managed to persuade me because your argument relies on far too much random handwaving with authoritarianism as a fallback.

So how much more will it take for you to realize that the current system has outlived it's potential by more than 100 years, probably at least 200? It is unable to sufficiently manage our affairs in a way that benefits everyone, which is what the majority of people want in the 21st century.

Evidence needed?

Remember, your system was tried, and failed completely in less than 100 years....

 

[Tefal]

Ideally you might be right, but the current system is based on the principle of 'every man for himself'.

because however much you might want to deny it when it comes down to it that's what people want and that's what people are like.

Both yours and dolphs idea's are flawed simply because people are flawed.

 

[PermaBanned]

In your opinion. I disagree, so far you haven't managed to persuade me because your argument relies on far too much random handwaving with authoritarianism as a fallback.

Evidence needed?

Remember, your system was tried, and failed completely in less than 100 years....

It's not my argument that was in question here. It's the system. Say what you will about how valid you think it is, or how stupid you think i am, but ultimately the real form of Communism that many people don't begin to understand is the sort of society that people want to live in. It's just a shame they don't think it's possible.

You think my system needs authoritarianism to stay in place? What the current system does is use exactly that technique to keep itself there, stopping the masses from overthrowing it by drowning them in sorrow and finances, worrying about how they're going to care for their family rather than what world their family will be born into. It says to people 'well you weren't born into wealth, you don't deserve the same rights' and forces most of the population to undertake tedious manual labor in producing products that, for all intents and purposes, people don't need nor actually want.

The Russian Revolution is not the only example of any sort of Socialist society (and it definitely wasn't Communist by it's very definition), nor should it prevent it from being used in future. If at once you don't succeed, consign it to the history books and never speak of it again? Is that your reasoning? Cuba has done amazingly well given it's circumstances, but logic dictates that any sort of Socialist society must be or have the potential to be entirely self sufficient, which is pretty impossible for any single, isolated area to be in this world. Until we see a global or large scale revolution, or a collection of soviets able to supply and care for each other, then it's unlikely we'll see real progress. Especially when they're being highly restricted by the US.

 

[PermaBanned]

because however much you might want to deny it when it comes down to it that's what people want and that's what people are like.

Both yours and dolphs idea's are flawed simply because people are flawed.

People are flawed. That's what makes us great. It doesn't consign us to a horrible world and life. Because we do what we can to overcome these flaws.

Say somebody stole a loaf of bread because they were starving and could procure work or money for themselves. Would you consider them to be a bad, evil person? No, you would consider them to be a victim of circumstance. What this really means is a victim of the system. By that same logic an employer which pays as little tax as possible and pays as low wages as possible so as to get the most surplus wealth for themselves can't be considered to be a bad person, because almost anybody in their situation would do the same thing. It's not the people that are to blame, but the system.

 

[RDM]

You think my system needs authoritarianism to stay in place? What the current system does is use exactly that technique to keep itself there, stopping the masses from overthrowing it by drowning them in sorrow and finances, worrying about how they're going to care for their family rather than what world their family will be born into. It says to people 'well you weren't born into wealth, you don't deserve the same rights' and forces most of the population to undertake tedious manual labor in producing products that, for all intents and purposes, people don't need nor actually want.

So the best argument for the authoritarianism you would need to implement your system is "Well, you are already slaves, so why not have a different master?". As a matter of interest is this computer I am typing on one of those things people don't need or actually want? Just wondering how far back you want us to go in your utopian society.

The Russian Revolution is not the only example of any sort of Socialist society (and it definitely wasn't Communist by it's very definition), nor should it prevent it from being used in future. If at once you don't succeed, consign it to the history books and never speak of it again?

To be fair, I think it is more looking back and saying "Pretty much every time someone has tried to implement a socialist system it has failed really badly and got an awful lot of people killed along the way, maybe doing it again might not be quite so good an idea?" Any reason why your proposed revolution won't lead to the same mistakes?

 

[PermaBanned]

So the best argument for the authoritarianism you would need to implement your system is "Well, you are already slaves, so why not have a different master?". As a matter of interest is this computer I am typing on one of those things people don't need or actually want? Just wondering how far back you want us to go in your utopian society.

To be fair, I think it is more looking back and saying "Pretty much every time someone has tried to implement a socialist system it has failed really badly and got an awful lot of people killed along the way, maybe doing it again might not be quite so good an idea?" Any reason why your proposed revolution won't lead to the same mistakes?

My point was more 'if you're against imaginary, theorized authoritarianism then why aren't you against the real, existing authoritarianism that we fall victim to every day'

Because we learn from mistakes. We improve ourselves because of them. A world with no mistakes would be a sickeningly dull one. I've explaned why i think the Russian Revolution failed (that and Stalin probably wasn't the best 'head guy' in that situation, Lennin or Trotsky would have stayed truer to the ideology). Also, you can count the number of genuine Socialist revolutions on one hand, probably with less than three fingers. That Cuba is doing so well given it's circumstances is a great sign, especially since 'Socialism' is a transitional phase towards 'Communism', therefore logic dictates that any progress is good progress.