Thread in the Shields Gazette
- This topic has 6 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Banished, what I will say is this, Socialism will only come about when a "Majority" understand and want it and moreover, work to bring it about in a conscious way.
Given this consciousness, then a "Majority" will not, as Barnstable will no doubt say, "take but not contribute", as they will realise that this would lead to the failure of a new society. As for people exaggerating their need, once again I will draw your attention to the prime precondition of this "societal change", consciousness. The majority will not exaggerate their needs in this event.
Once again, as Barnstable does so often, you are thinking about a "New Society" in terms of the old. In this case, Capitalism.
As for getting food to the right places, food production, even in Capitalism, is worldwide. However, if it is necessary to move food "to people", then, reminding you once again of the "majority consciousness" necessary before a "new society" is possible, then those living at that time will move the foodstuffs, its as simple as that.
Why would people do all of these things? Produce the things we all need to live, distribute it, contribute and take in a socially responsible way? Well the aforementioned "consciousness", a realisation that if these things were not done, the new society would be impossible and just as important, knowing that when we contribute our needs are met from the common store of wealth produced. Unlike Capitalism, where in the U.K. alone, hundreds of thousands of working class people contribute but are paid so little, they must rely on charitable handouts from foodbanks to survive and must also rely on the State topping up the pathetically low wages a lot of employers get away with paying.
So the problem of distribution exists "Now", under Capitalism, a system its supporters claim, laughingly, works.
So for many folk, people still contribute in this insane social system, even though their "needs" are not met.
Can New Social System (call it Socialism) work? It will have to be tried, (it hasn't been yet). One thing is for certain, for the majority of people on the Earth, Capitalism is certainly "Not" working and never has!!!Feel free to visit the Gazette and contribute.
A self explanatory post on this thread! Barnstable10:38 AM on 18/11/2014You keep stating that there's enough to go around, but who would work to produce it if they did not benefit from their toils?As I've stated before, I don't work for what I need, I work for what I want. This is similar for most of the working population. In a world where you can have anything you need without working, where is the incentive ?We will never agree on this issue as we are arguing different concepts. You are arguing for an ideal and I am arguing for reality.Any system you care to put in place will very quickly be abused and manipulated by people to get the most out of it they can.I never stated a distribution of poverty was the way to go (Yet again another political invention of something I never said), no-one who can afford a TV, takeaways etc is in poverty. I said that it is easy to say everyone should have what they need when you have more than you need – I'd just pay more attention if I saw actions rather than words.If you and your fellow party members all gave up everything they did not need, you could make a small difference. But you never will, as you are just like the rest of us, basically greedy.Make a gesture and arrange for you and the rest of your party to give up everything they don't need to help those worse off.I can manage to understand your concept, I'm just realistic about the rationality of it all – As stated previously, I agree with the principle and agree the world would be a better place; however I am also intelligent enough to realise that the one thing that would prevent it from ever happening is people.Rich or poor, people always want a little more.
Two more posts on this thread;Barnstable9:18 AM on 19/11/2014Finally? I think I've always stated that many people abuse the benefit system.I must start being a little more precise with my posts if you haven't managed to understand that.Just to be clear, I'll state yet again my view on the matter.Your ideal would be a wonderful place if it were possible and I would love to be a part of it.But it isn't – people are naturally greedy and will always want a little more – Yes that includes those who you think are poor.(And again, before you twist my words, I'm discussing the UK, not the world)I am not affiliated to any political party, particularly the Conservative Party; however I am open enough to accept that on occasion they may have a good concept. Mr Tebbit's idea of relocating to find work was one of them, which I followed by moving to London when I was unemployed.The main reason for the impending failure of your ideal is that most people will do as little as possible if they know someone else will do the work for them.You could easily disprove this my putting your money where your mouth is and giving up everything you don't need to help those worse off than you, but you won't as you too are like the rest of society.Why not request that all your members sell their homes, possessions etc and set up a small socialist commune and show the rest of us how wonderful and easy it could be. You could merrily produce your own food and allow anyone to take whatever they want.Actions speak louder than words. (0) (0)You voted Rate: 0Name withheldBarnstable10:57 AM on 19/11/2014"What I do know for certain is, that if the society I and others envisage comes about, no one will die from hunger, as food will be produced to eat, full stop."By who? Who decides who does what, when and where? Do we just leave it up to individuals to decide? What do you do about those who refuse to help out? What happens if someone takes more than their fair share? Who ensures that the dirty, hard jobs are done when others have easier roles? How do you solve a problem like Maria?Ditto, for the comment – "No one will die of treatable or preventable disease"There you go, the rest of your post hasn't been ignored and I'd go as far as saying that if you can answer the above questions I may even convert.
Comrades, these threads are a good oppurtunity to get our message across. Why not join the site (free) and answer some of the points raised?
Another post on this thread;SILENCED1:15 PM on 19/11/2014@STEVECOLBORN – the system you envisage, where food & shelter will be available for everyone, that no-one will die of treatable or preventable diseases.Who exactly is going to pay for all of this? How will the costs of research to the medicine required to treat these diseases be funded?I wholehearted agree with Barnstable in that, in the UK and other capitalist countries, the opportunity exists for you to help yourself if you so desire.It's not always about greed, people want to LIVE, not merely exist. Any money that I've earned that doesn't go on bills, goes on things and experiences for my family. That isn't me being greedy, that is me living and wanting to give my family the best that I can.The money people earn is what society/circumstances has deemed their role to be worth. Should a scientist be earning the same amount of money as a cleaner? Should the scientist be no better off than a cleaner despite their work having a greater effect on the society they're part of?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.