Are you socialist, capitalist, or neither?

Newbie Joined: Jan 16, 2008 Posts: 16

You see the difference between the StarTrek world and our system of capitalism is perspective on value. The commodity is always what is valued. So in our system, if money is value, that is what is traded as a commodity. But in the StarTrek world, the perspective of value is on quality of life, learning, and exploring. With a shift of what is valued, we would not need money. Farmers would farm because thats what they enjoy, that is their heritage. Scientists would do their thing and so on. My only major question is, what would be those things that no one would want to do if this perspective shifted away from money?

Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 5:09 pm

offero wrote:

You see the difference between the StarTrek world and our system of capitalism is perspective on value. The commodity is always what is valued. So in our system, if money is value, that is what is traded as a commodity. But in the StarTrek world, the perspective of value is on quality of life, learning, and exploring. With a shift of what is valued, we would not need money. Farmers would farm because thats what they enjoy, that is their heritage. Scientists would do their thing and so on. My only major question is, what would be those things that no one would want to do if this perspective shifted away from money?

I imagine dirty, menial, thankless jobs that no one wants to do, but society nevertheless needs done in order to function. As MockingGods suggested, there could be automated systems in place to see that they're done.

Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 8:37 pm

Eon wrote:

Granted, this explanation did come from a hardcore libertarian who hates Star Trek with a passion (except the original series).

This makes sense; most libertarians do love their capitalism. The first series had no indictments against capital based economics (as least as far as I can remember); it shared more the human love for exploration and I think a desire to see our species work together in a less segregated manner. Only in subsequent series did Gene begin to express his views on future economics, or lack thereof. The entire Ferengi race was an obvious parody of current human capitalism taken to an extreme. There was a particular NG episode where three 21st century, cryogenically-frozen humans were revived that he specifically address this issue. The revived banking tycoon was shocked to discover banking no longer existed and money was no longer a concern or a method by which to gain or express power.

Quote:

I imagine dirty, menial, thankless jobs that no one wants to do, but society nevertheless needs done in order to function. As MockingGods suggested, there could be automated systems in place to see that they're done.

Yes, this certainly would be a goal, but more precisely would be to have humans engaged only in what they're passionate about and never laboring for survival-based income. We've already replaced a great deal of menial labor with machines, and I only see this trend continuing to accelerate.

Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 9:37 pm

MockingGods wrote:

This makes sense; most libertarians do love their capitalism. The first series had no indictments against capital based economics (as least as far as I can remember); it shared more the human love for exploration and I think a desire to see our species work together in a less segregated manner. Only in subsequent series did Gene begin to express his views on future economics, or lack thereof. The entire Ferengi race was an obvious parody of current human capitalism taken to an extreme. There was a particular NG episode where three 21st century, cryogenically-frozen humans were revived that he specifically address this issue. The revived banking tycoon was shocked to discover banking no longer existed and money was no longer a concern or a method by which to gain or express power.

The Neutral Zone , final episode of the first season of TNG actually. I have the complete series on DVD. ¬_¬

MockingGods wrote:

Yes, this certainly would be a goal, but more precisely would be to have humans engaged only in what they're passionate about and never laboring for survival-based income. We've already replaced a great deal of menial labor with machines, and I only see this trend continuing to accelerate.

Funnily enough, I just listened to an old IG episode on transhumanism that explored precisely that issue.

Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 2:05 am

Eon wrote:

The Neutral Zone , final episode of the first season of TNG actually. I have the complete series on DVD. ¬_¬

Thanks, I'll try to remember that title. One of my favorite episodes.

Quote:

Funnily enough, I just listened to an old IG episode on transhumanism that explored precisely that issue.

If transhumanism could be expressed as an economic category, I might take it up as a banner; it does express my ideal situation better then common economic systems, even though it's mostly hypothetical. The Atheist Network used to carry Hugh Lafallotte's (a transhumanist) show, Ideas and Issues. Reggie has a few of his shows in the archive that you might find interesting, I always enjoyed Hugh's shows.

Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:45 pm

Hugh LaFollette? I believe I used a philosophy textbook edited by an H. LaFollette; 'Ethics in Practice'. Are, they the same person?

Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:52 pm

Eon wrote:

Hugh LaFollette? I believe I used a philosophy textbook edited by an H. LaFollette; 'Ethics in Practice'. Are, they the same person?

It's certainly possible, I seem to remember Hugh is quite the academic and interested in ethics.

Confident Learner Joined: Jun 09, 2008 Posts: 72

MockingGods wrote:

This makes sense; most libertarians do love their capitalism.

Strange I never knew why they love their capitalism .

Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 8:13 am

First of all, geeze, it's been a long time since I've posted here.

Secondly, I am a Socialist in the modern sense of the term, I suppose, in that I support a steeply progressive taxation system that funds things such as universal health care, a living wage system to replace the minimum wage, and so on and so forth. And I suppose a bit of a Trotskyist in that I feel a greater debt and kinship with the poor in other nations than I do the wealthy in my own.

In a bit of an ironic twist, those things which make me a Socialist today, would make me a bourgeois liberal in the heyday of Debs.

It seems to me that most free-marketeers suffer from the delusion that the wealthy are so because they earned it. Most of the wealth of the upper classes was made on the backs of the American and foreign wage-laborers who have been increasingly taken advantage of and disenfranchised by neo-classical economics. And not satisfied with the absurd amounts they have, as further insult to injury, the wealthy continue to fight for ways to have more money taken from the mouths of the starving to cram into their own overstuffed gullet.

For that matter, there is always a redistribution of wealth. The past eight years in America, especially, should have at least served to shine a bright, burning light on that fact. The question is whether we should redistribute it for the extravagances of the very few, or the needs of the many.

Newbie Joined: Nov 23, 2008 Posts: 22

Well put reply oneNation.

I think the extremes of capitalism and socialism are bad. Too socialist and you end up like Russia or even a more contemporary example France. Too capitalist and you end up with places like the US, where despite being a rich country, nearly 10 times more people are in prison compared to Australia and yet gangs still control areas of the major cities and street people abound with untreated medical conditions.

A capitalist system based on a system of good basic government supplied infrastructure like Hospitals, Roads and Rail is the best way to go. One needs to ensure the bulk of the population buys in to the system, this can only happen where discrimination is kept to a minimum and access to basic and vocational education is easy.

I don't think Australia is doing too bad all up, in our case we are a little too generous with welfare for people who don't want to work.

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:56 pm

black190 wrote:

Too socialist and you end up like Russia or even a more contemporary example France.

I was under the impression that the French system of socialism is actually working quite well... am I wrong? I know they have health care for everyone and the electric grid is completely non-CO2 emitting, which seem like two fairly significant accomplishments.

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:03 pm

OneNation wrote:

For that matter, there is always a redistribution of wealth.

This is precisely right. Any system that deals in capital and markets is always in a constant state of redistribution. The difference is "who" does the redistribution. I would honestly prefer a mechanism of distribution that didn't involve greed and selling; a system based upon facts, needs and rationality. Market based capitalism doesn't, in my opinion, work from that premise.

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:11 pm

carx wrote:

MockingGods wrote:

This makes sense; most libertarians do love their capitalism.

Strange I never knew why they love their capitalism .

It's because I think market based capitalism allows for personal, not group, choice. Being independently minded myself, I understand this attraction.

Newbie Joined: Nov 23, 2008 Posts: 22

MockingGods wrote:

black190 wrote:

Too socialist and you end up like Russia or even a more contemporary example France.

I was under the impression that the French system of socialism is actually working quite well... am I wrong? I know they have health care for everyone and the electric grid is completely non-CO2 emitting, which seem like two fairly significant accomplishments.

Ok MockingGods I think the France example was wrong.

Now that I have checked it seems the information I was working with was wrong. It seems that the unemployment rate in France while high compered to Australia and the US is not significantly different from the rest of Europe. However in general the high unemployment rate in Europe has been attributed to the level of unemployment benefits.

France's CO2 status is almost completely down to nuclear power. I am not a fan nuclear power when alternatives are clearly available and are only not viable due to slightly increased cost. The use of carbon or nuclear fuel is leaving a problem fro your kids. I pay about $200 extra a year for the "Green power" scheme. For every kilowatt of electricity my family uses, a kilowatt of power is added to the grid from renewable sources.

Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 7:18 pm

black190 wrote:

Ok MockingGods I think the France example was wrong.

I wasn't sure.

Quote:

Now that I have checked it seems the information I was working with was wrong. It seems that the unemployment rate in France while high compered to Australia and the US is not significantly different from the rest of Europe. However in general the high unemployment rate in Europe has been attributed to the level of unemployment benefits.

I'm wondering if the unemployment rate in France is currently high compared to the US... because it's much higher here now then in years past. Also, I don't think employment rates are necessarily a perfect guide to judge the overall living standards of a country.

I did a little checking...
France 7.4
US 8.5

Quote:

France's CO2 status is almost completely down to nuclear power.

Quite true.

Quote:

I am not a fan nuclear power when alternatives are clearly available and are only not viable due to slightly increased cost.
The use of carbon or nuclear fuel is leaving a problem fro your kids. I pay about $200 extra a year for the "Green power" scheme. For every kilowatt of electricity my family uses, a kilowatt of power is added to the grid from renewable sources.

I prefer nuclear to anything CO2 emitting. While it definitely has its potential safety drawbacks, it has proven itself to be a reliable and mostly safe alternative to carbon emitting sources. Have you actually checked the cost difference between nuclear (which by the way is a green source of energy) and other sources like solar or wind? You'll find that right now nuclear is many factors cheaper, even though you personally might not be experiencing these cost differences.

Don't get my wrong, I'm a huge proponent of alternative non-fission based power sources, but as it stands right now I think it's a good, efficient alternative source. France has exploited nuclear power and I applaud them for it.


Login/Register New account	Home · FAQ · News · Shows · Videos · Forums · Arcade · Listen & Chat · Book Store · Contact Us · Go Mobile