I have been following the conversation between Astyanax and StellarX with great interest. I think we are not ENTIRELY socially constructed, though we are largely so. While I don't agree that "human nature" (this is a debatable term, but I use it for lack of a better one at the moment) is unchangeable and unchanged throughout history, I do concede that some characteristics of the individual appear to be defined at birth or even before. Still, social forces have to be taken into account whenever an historical or literary figure, or a particular period in the history of a particular people, is considered.

Regarding the original topic of this thread (what might make socialism work?) I would personally be happy to see socialized medicine in this country in the very near future. America should be responsible for the health care of all of its people--that should be a fundamental right, not just a privilege. I agree with some of the other writers that the democratic process should be preserved. I would also venture that adequate food, shelter and clothing should be the right of everyone--that would enable each member of society to develop her or his mind and talents to the best of his or her potential. I agree that a high rate of employment is necessary, and that it would be most desirable to have that work be meaningful and at least somewhat satisfying to the worker.

Those ideals having been stated, the "hows" are much more problematic. A couple of other posters have detailed how our elected representatives could be made more responsible to those they serve. Others have stated their concern that the period of upheaval following a major social change could give rise to tyrants and/or fascists. It seems that England and France are now retreating somewhat from socialism. Sweden still seems to be a good model. Some say Chile when Allende was in power was a very promising socialist experiment (before the U.S. engineered his overthrow). I look forward to more of this discussion.

IMO, the only thing that will allow socialism or communism (or for that matter, pure laissez-faire capitalism) to work would be a massive change in human nature. It wouldn't be a matter so much of everyone having the right set of beliefs, as the right neurology. Perhaps such people would appear to us normal-modern-ones as both highly intelligent and hopelessly autistic, at the same time!

You are once again presuming that human nature has run it's course and that we are in fact observing in our daily lives the true expression of whatever nature we might have. Can you tell me what in human nature in fact dictates that we so frequently end up with leaders that lie to us while doing exactly the opposite of what they told us they would? How, according to you, does that work?



So now it's a question or neurology? Please clarify why you think we are 'wired' the wrong way to achieve the freedoms we keep fighting and dying for. Why do we seem to articulate exactly what we want while so persistently failing to achieve it? What 'wrong' with us?



So we are not highly intelligent? If that is the case why do they need to assassinate our leaders and propagandize us year in and year out and twenty four hours a day? If we were so unintelligent why are we not all working in sweat shops for 10 cents a hour? Why are some so much better off than others and why are those that do well subject to so much less violence and or propaganda?

Stellar

i love how ppl judge human nature to be greedy, evil, sinful, and than turn that argument against ppl with a good dream for society. The truth is, greed evil and sin are a result of the infrastructure inherent in a system known as capitalism. Did the native americans worry about greed? No because they had gambling for such an urge. The land was managed by the community and the elders with the most experience living in balence on the land had a highly valued opinion. The native american way of life would have lasted forever on this planet if not for the capitalist imperialists. We now realize that capitalism is unsustainable and we are in so much debt in the US that a great depression is coming and will enevitably be a new dark ages where new bio plagues are released to cull the population. Aids was invented by the US gov so what next?

I believe direct democracy is the only way to make total socialism work. Businesses need to be run by the workers in whats called participatory economics. These businesses have a hard time competing with slave labor in china ect so i suggest that we end free trade and make fair trade agreements.

Look at the infrastructure that Venezuela is setting up. Food has become a right, healthcare, and many things are now rights. Even though the elite tried to shut everything down there, the problems in Venezuela are becoming less as the country men take back the industry.

In socialism it would be nice to increase the volunteer movement. People that volunteer easily get more passion out of life than those that seek profit and superficial materalistic identities.

I dont think human nature needs to change. We need to teach love in schools and tell our children that they are a spirit in a body and that we are all one. If our education system taught love and didnt give ppl detention for hugging someone, society wouldnt be so bad. Instead of teaching facts from historians that appear objective because they monopolized history in the faking, we should teach them questions that they can come to their own conclusions about. This is real critical thinking skills.

I also think we need a new educations system that can be done completely home schooled or in a library. Using the internet, scholars and academics could compose courses as well as supply all the learned information so that kids and people of all ages could visit and request to learn for free at their own leasure. People learn more when they inquire and create, let them self discover. Once they learn it or become exposed to it have them write a journal entry and than try to teach this information to their parents or another child. let them see if the can master the material.

Most jobs dont require 20 years of education but more like a few months of training. So lets get rid of the worthless prison endoctrination education and empower students with a free and meaningful education experience.

Original Capitalism. It got Adam and Eve thrown out of Eden, you know.


Capitalism is an invention of the Industrial Revolution. Are you telling me people weren't greedy, evil and sinful before that?


If you think they didn't, you're living in Pollyanna land.

Who hunted the bison to extinction? White men? They just finished off what the Sioux and the Apache started.


Ah yes, the Dictatorship of the Stupid. Do you really want Crosseyed Billy over there involved in the discussion? All he's interested in is getting drunk and shooting pool. You think his opinion ought to count?


Panem et circe. Also known as bribing the people. I know exactly where that leads because I live in a country where it was tried. Believe me, it isn't a solution to anything -- it's a way of heaping even more problems upon a nation and people. Just you wait and see what happens to Wonderland Venezuala when the oil price drops.


Don't worry; it never will.

It would be nice if the world was the way you wish it was, and people were the way you think they are. But it isn't and they aren't. Don't you think it's significant that, in the end, no-one has been able to answer the OP question? That's because Socialism cannot be made to work. And that's because human nature is what it is. And because human nature cannot be changed.

How so?



'People' , presuming a significant proportion, are greedy, evil and sinful?



The 'white man' did in fact hunt those large game to extinction last time i checked. Can you tell me when the history books got changed?



So the people of the world are too stupid to government themselves? Is that why those in charge must murder and destroy us by the hundreds of thousands to keep us from 'hurting' ourselves?



Given that we can prevent 'crosseyed' bill's' children from watching the corporate media and being perpetually indoctrinated with the exact logic we hate we can deal with him for now and do our best to make sure his kids do not take too much after their father!



So when the people are given back the money that was taken from them they are bribed? Imperial thinking at work!



And if it failed why do you think it did?



How could the impoverished masses that are now doing better do worse unless the same old imperialist get involved to set the country back even further?



The price of oil is being massively manipulated and since those who do the manipulating are pretty well organized i doubt it's going to go back to what it should cost any time soon. There is more than oil wealth to Venezuala and the people of such countries DO have some historic perspective and that's why they keep fighting the imperialist and accept the sanctions, and worse, the west then imposes.



And it doesn't have to!



So the history of resistance against oppression tells you all of that? What's with all the pessimism and what are you basing it on!



Socialism has been made to work! Why are you ignoring the few instances when it thrived until destroyed by interventions or suppressed before it could ever find it's feet? Why do so many presume that socialism of any variety should or can work without democratic systems that yields democratic results?



And what is human nature again and why should we want to change it? Why should we consider the effective suppression of human' nature', the struggle for freedom, as evidence that the oppressors actions reflects our nature? What about human nature ( not the nature of some of our so called, and normally entirely unelected, 'leaders' ) has you so very worried?

Stellar

reply to post by JessicaS

---

I've been thinking about this for years and I'm pretty sure I've got it. I call it social capitalism.

The system that I call social capitalism does not actually cut out the capital, it merely collects it differently, and rewards the investors differently: with goods and services rather than a return of capital.

The tax payer is essentially made a share holder in a national company, entitling him to a certain share of the national company's output.

Let us take the example of a hypothetical national biodiesel/ethanol fuel producer.

At the startup, the target output of the producer is determined and the participating segment of the population is identified. The cost of achieving the target output is divided among the participating population (those who will use the product) in proportion to their projected use.

The project is undertaken and the participants are given accounts from which they may draw (and within set limits, overdraw) their portion of the supply of the product, with no cost at the pump, as they have already paid for it via their taxes.

At the end of the year, the accounts are balanced in a process which could be compared to filing a tax return (though the use of accounts makes it far more automatic). If your share of the product (consumption) has exceeded your share of the investment (taxes paid) you owe. If your share of the product is less than your share of the investment, you are owed.

Because no investor has taken a profit, but the people have invested with the motive of attaining a good at cost, the price is reduced. This reduces the need for aggressive redistribution of wealth. Progressivism, as well as a deterrent to waste, can be achieved through a progressive scale of charges for over-use, which can either be flat-rate, or variable based on the income of the individual.

So if I use 110% of my share, and each of my two brothers uses only 95% of his.

On a non-progressive system, I would pay 10% of my original investment at tax time, and each of my brothers would recieve 5%, thus the system encourages them to make ends meet through thrift.

On a slightly progressive system, I might pay in proportion to my overuse, times 2. Thus I would pay 20% of my initial investment, and each of my brothers might recieve a refund of 10% rather than 5%. Thus their thrift recieves an extra progressive reward and my overuse recieves a penalty.

A more progressive system could take our incomes into account. Perhaps for every 10% above the median household income that I earn, the penalty for overuse goes up, and for every 10% below median income that my brothers earn, their refund for underuse goes up.
So if the median income is 60k, and I earn 100k, but my brothers each earn 20k, perhaps they get 50% more refund and I get 50% more penalty than described above.

In that case my 10% overuse times 2 equals a 20% penalty, + 50% for income adjustment, so I pay an overage equal to 30% of my initial investment rather than the flat rate of 10%, and their rebate is 15% rather than the flat rate of 5%.


This might operate across many essential industries as well. So if I overuse on fuel, but i underuse on electricity and water, my accounts are linked so that I don't end up pushing a bunch of paper and sending and recieving checks, but they just offset and i end up having to send one payment or recieve one rebate. Thus if my improvrished brother has a long commute to work and can't get ahead on the fuel, saving in other areas might offset that.



So there's the system in general. I haven't crunched the numbers- i just tossed out example figures. I don't know what the rates would have to be and therefore I can't design a progressive system for it that wouldn't put anyone in a bind- I'd need realistic numbers to see all of the eventualities and to design incentives and penalties that wouldn't end up being windfalls or shackles to anyone.

Also there are a few general principles that go along with my idea.

The first is that socialized programs must never compete with or share the burden with market programs. That's the problem with healthcare in America. The best people and products will naturally gravitate to the more lucrative private system, resulting in substandard service for those using the social program. Furthermore the existence of a private aspect preserves redundancies and overheads that socialism is supposed to avoid.

Second: A social program that doesn't take big capital out of the loop isn't really socialism- it doesn't do anything that a tax credit wouldn't do, and it does it less efficiently. If the government taxes you for a service, then subs it out to a for-profit company, you are being raped. Just for the record, you are, at this very moment, being raped when it comes to defense spending, courtesy of both mercinary firms like Blackwater and manufacturers like General Dynamics.

Second, Part B: It is stupid and wasteful to tax an entity which derives its income from tax dollars. The government pays General Dynamics to build tanks, then taxes General Dynamics for profiting. Why not wiave those taxes and demand a price cut which equivalent to the amount normally paid in taxes, plus half the amount that General Dynamics spends preparing its taxes? Any entity which is allowed to exist after the implementation of part 2A must be handled in accordance with this principle.

Third: "Social Capitalism" is for non-differentiated necessities. Electricity is electricity and fuel is fuel, but when you apply it to chicken, how do you decide who gets the drumstick?

Four: Profit motive must be preserved through outcome based pay for individuals in a position to innovate. Capitalists rely on trickle-down. They hope that if they give profit motive for innovation to investors that investors will push CEOs and CEOs will push engineers. you don't need investors for that. The government can offer profit motive to the engineer and he'll probably do even better under that system, because he is never in a position of working without thanks, no matter how stupid his boss is.

Five: A large capitalist sector, particularly for luxuries or for customizable necessities, is desireable for the purposes of self-organization. It also provides a good tax base for progressive support of socialized industries.

The private sector is very motivated and very good at figuring out how many people want a red Ford Ranger with charcoal interior and a four cylinder with manual transmission and a highway gear that makes the dang thing stall at every stop sign, plus no airconditioner or powersteering. There would be no such creature in a command economy, unless the country were poor as hell. Only the private sector would take it upon themselves to make a couple hundred of those pathetic little things just to get the business of a few practical guys like my grandpa.

Lets not even get into how bad the government would be at socializing trivial items like softdrinks. Good luck finding a bureaucrat who is passionate about effectively managing the supply of diet cherry vanilla dr pepper sold in a six pack of wide mouth cans. I'm guessing that stuff would only be available at the fountain, if at all, if some dang accountant were running the show.

In the process of drafting my previous response I seem to have stricken something which I intended to say.

It bears mentioning that I realize the system I describe above is by no means all that revolutionary (in fact I have an uncanny habbit of describing things that already exist in other people's books without knowing that those books exist) and basically just pick and choose from various systems that aren't doing all that well in their current practice. Perhaps that will save one or several of you the trouble of digging up too much background for me when the problems I may have overlooked are unmasked for me.

On that note, the exchange between StellarX and Astyanax was indeed interesting (and quite entertaining, kudos on the original capitalism bit).


I'd like to weigh in on the subject of human nature. I have to agree with Astyanax that human nature is not malleable or perfectable. An improvement of human nature that would take us beyond the historically demonstrated pattern would require a physical evolution of the human brain. I believe that one must deny the supremacy of the physical operation of the brain in the determination of human behavior in order to claim that human nature can easily be changed and perfected.

The reptilian brain and lymbic system retain a great deal of influence over us. We have a primal drive to acquire secure necessities to the point of eliminating any discomfort born of want, and if unchecked will do so at all costs. What's more we get rather emotional about it. We remember the trauma of hard times and will feel great fear and stress if we recognize signs of their reemergence, and will preempt that by acquiring at all costs.

The modern mamalian brain DOES include a check on such primitive behavior (which is why we don't eat our young). We have evolved far enough that we are not blind to the infliction of suffering and we will seek to avoid it if we can. But we still retain those strong primal drives because we haven't had it so good for so long that evolution has stopped selecting for people who will do what it takes to get what they need. Thus we have a downshifting mechanism whereby under stress the neo cortex will reduce its function and we will act more on impulse (the fight of flight response) which likely has quite a bit to do with criminal behavior.

That being the case, the fundamental motives by which an economy can operate are, for the time being, fixed towards the low end of Maslow's heirarchy of needs.

We will work, first and foremost, to live and to have security that we will continue to live, and connected to that drive is a more general avoidance of discomfort, meaning a preference for work that does not keep us up at all hours, drag us out into the cold, etc.

We can get up a little higher into the heirarchy. We will want to do something that gets us sex on top of survival. We will want to do something that gives us status, and that of course can be as simple as doing something we're good at- some people can get by managing the kwikee mart if they are recognized as the only thing keeping the joint running.

But very very few of us are working for self-actualization. Virtually nobody is looking at what they are in the universe when they go to work. How many people are there out there who decided that they are going to work at the water district and do absolutely everything they can to make that place better, and wouldn't quit if they won the lottery, because in that capacity they are a functioning part of humanity, helping keep other people alive and in the process having experiences which give meaning to their own life? Not only do I doubt such a person exists, but i kinda suspect that i wouldn't get along with her if she did (and let's face it, that person, if she's out there, is certainly of the fairer sex).


We're just not there yet. We may get there in a few millenia. If our technology and our management of our society are good enough that the biological pressure really drops, and people who take joy in other people and who by some fluke are slightly more neurologically wired to not sweat the small stuff end up having more sex that people who are really good at looking out for number one, then there's a fair chance that the evolution of our brains will take human nature to new heights.

But it's sort of a catch 22, because a perfect economy seems to require that men be angels, and for men to be angels seems to require a perfect economy to prevail for many generations, because our imperfect economy is selecting for men who know how to be devils.