Social Ingredientism.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

I have a few things to say:
1. What if you changed some aspects of socialism to create a new socialism, not a democratic and communist society at the same time.

Then it wouldn't be socialism.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

For example, You can elect you leader, while having the same things a normal comunist society would. Someone might say to me, socialism is socalism, how can the leader make dicisions? I bet not, but I will answer: They could regulate such things as what is asigned to whom, and foreign aspects,for examle, the USA and what it is doing to harm the state, bad relations, public relations, and the military.

This is to some extent the ideal of Stalinists, Totalitarian democrats and Social Monarchists. But it simply doesn't work: people would still be submit to a single centraliced body (being undemocratic) and the whole economy would depend on the efficience of said body instead of relying in every person's knowledge and conviction, being thus weak.

alex-CCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

2. Could you explain in greter detail about "relative prices. I have a good idea, but I would like to know for sure, all aspects, of what it is.

In socialism there's no such thing as "relative prices" for there's no intrasocietal trade. There are "relative values" which are proportional to the difficulty it implies to obtain that product. However, since there's no alienation thus no trade, that is irrelevant.

alex-CCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

3. Could you have a Socialist society where it is doing so well that the people are "rich" (Ferrari affording) , but where everyone is still equeal?
Please enlighten me, I command you poor delude souls!....sorry.

In socialism you don't have to afford anything. Everything is just produced and distributed according to need. Basically, everyone wanting a Ferrari could have one but the way they're produced and distributed would be determined democratically, that is, if a small portion of the population wants a Ferrari they have two options: Either wait for workforce to be available to suffice Ferrari's production (for example when no more workforce is being used for construction of infrastructure and so is available to work in Ferrari production) or work in the construction of them themselves.

Socialist economy works very differently from Capitalist economy. In fact, we socialists can't even talk about the details of how socialist economy would work except for the next: Socialist economy is democratic and egalitarian. It is based in the end of alienation and is planned.

I myself have my proposal for socialist economic models and I'm working on it. I'm writting an essay and made some calculators and mathematical models for them. When I have them ready I'll probably post them here.

Thank you for enligting me on these issues, but i have a few questionss/comments: what if the elected leader only being the representive, they don't have to rely on them. What if the leader disagrees with the people, or just does horrible, radical things? Stalin was not elected, and he killed thousands of preists.You mentioned there being relative prices/values, so if you said there was no such thing, aren't you cancelling yourself out? Of course I could be interpreting you wrongly, so don't take what I am saying agressively. And when i said relative prices, I meant within the state, but I need enlightening no more, as you have answered the question in the 3rd last paragraph. As well, I never implied that a social-democratic society would be socialist, but if that would be a new socialistic party/stance, one with a few aspects changed. Like rather than taking away things from a democratic society, taking things from no where. Imagine a word document. Instead of copying " voting" , you jsut take it from a clipboard alltogether... Its hard for me to express. Lastly, you must remember, don't think I agree with what I have said and responded,but that I am jsut saking on these issues.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

Thank you for enligting me on these issues, but i have a few questionss/comments: what if the elected leader only being the representive, they don't have to rely on them.

There are no leaders in socialism.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

What if the leader disagrees with the people, or just does horrible, radical things?

"Radical" means, much more importantly, "from the roots" than "extreme". Else, "extreme" is not necesarily a negative term.

Once again, there are no leaders. Socialism is ruled by direct democracy.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

Stalin was not elected, and he killed thousands of preists.

I'm sorry but I fail to understand the relevance of this to the discussion.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

You mentioned there being relative prices/values, so if you said there was no such thing, aren't you cancelling yourself out?

One thing is "price" and other is "value". Theoretically, prices are based on the value. Value is proportional to the difficulty to obtain the product.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

Of course I could be interpreting you wrongly, so don't take what I am saying agressively.

No worries.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

And when i said relative prices, I meant within the state, but I need enlightening no more, as you have answered the question in the 3rd last paragraph.

Ok.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

As well, I never implied that a social-democratic society would be socialist, but if that would be a new socialistic party/stance, one with a few aspects changed. Like rather than taking away things from a democratic society, taking things from no where. Imagine a word document. Instead of copying " voting" , you jsut take it from a clipboard alltogether... Its hard for me to express. Lastly, you must remember, don't think I agree with what I have said and responded,but that I am jsut saking on these issues.

I guess I don't quite understand youre last idea. Would you mind to make yourself more clear?

Quote :

In socialism you don't have to afford anything. Everything is just produced and distributed according to need.

Not necessarily.
Also, parasites are annoying.

Stos wrote:

Quote :

In socialism you don't have to afford anything. Everything is just produced and distributed according to need.

Not necessarily.

What do you mean exactly?

As I understand it, it would only take you labour to acquire what you need.

Stos wrote:

Also, parasites are annoying.

They're not to be tolerated, at least that's my view, after all, to a great extent is what we try to get rid off though revolution.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

Thank you for enligting me on these issues, but i have a few questionss/comments: what if the elected leader only being the representive, they don't have to rely on them.

There are no leaders in socialism.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

What if the leader disagrees with the people, or just does horrible, radical things?

"Radical" means, much more importantly, "from the roots" than "extreme". Else, "extreme" is not necesarily a negative term.

Once again, there are no leaders. Socialism is ruled by direct democracy.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

Stalin was not elected, and he killed thousands of preists.

I'm sorry but I fail to understand the relevance of this to the discussion.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

You mentioned there being relative prices/values, so if you said there was no such thing, aren't you cancelling yourself out?

One thing is "price" and other is "value". Theoretically, prices are based on the value. Value is proportional to the difficulty to obtain the product.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

Of course I could be interpreting you wrongly, so don't take what I am saying agressively.

No worries.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

And when i said relative prices, I meant within the state, but I need enlightening no more, as you have answered the question in the 3rd last paragraph.

Ok.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

As well, I never implied that a social-democratic society would be socialist, but if that would be a new socialistic party/stance, one with a few aspects changed. Like rather than taking away things from a democratic society, taking things from no where. Imagine a word document. Instead of copying " voting" , you jsut take it from a clipboard alltogether... Its hard for me to express. Lastly, you must remember, don't think I agree with what I have said and responded,but that I am jsut saking on these issues.

I guess I don't quite understand youre last idea. Would you mind to make yourself more clear?

Ok, scrach the idea of the counry still being socilaist. What I was trying to say is that you have a socilaistic country, and then you add "voting" and make it a whole new type of socilaism, that has voting. The relevance with Stalin was that he was not elected, so the people could not have prevented his killing of the priests, but of course, You could never know what the canidate you elect will do. But what Stalin did, was, well, dreadful;herendous. The population should never rely, as you said,on the leader, and still use their own knowledge and wisdom to be strong. And there is no leader, I stated that. I said "representitive" at one point, I don't know why I used leader.But even the representitive can do very bad things, like the killing of the preists. My last point was that, voting may be an aspect of democracy, but don't look at it that way, look at it as if democracy did not exist, and you just put votiting in a socailist frame. Remember, I don't nessecarly support what I am saying, I'm just asking about things.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

Ok, scrach the idea of the counry still being socilaist. What I was trying to say is that you have a socilaistic country, and then you add "voting" and make it a whole new type of socilaism, that has voting.

1. What do you define as "voting"?
2. What for to add it?

People make the decisions in socialism based on councils and direct democracy. What for would you need a centralized voting system?

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

The relevance with Stalin was that he was not elected, so the people could not have prevented his killing of the priests, but of course, You could never know what the canidate you elect will do. But what Stalin did, was, well, dreadful;herendous.

I still don't see the importance this event has when discussing about socialism. Else, I don't see how wether a population "elects" or not a leader it would prevent said leader from commiting, or well, ordering oters to commit attrocities.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

The population should never rely, as you said,on the leader, and still use their own knowledge and wisdom to be strong. And there is no leader, I stated that. I said "representitive" at one point, I don't know why I used leader.But even the representitive can do very bad things, like the killing of the preists.

Representative towards whom?

In socialism every person is his/her own representative towards the others.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

My last point was that, voting may be an aspect of democracy, but don't look at it that way, look at it as if democracy did not exist, and you just put votiting in a socailist frame.

If democracy doesn't exist, automatically the framework is not socialistic. Socialism implies direct democracy.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

Remember, I don't nessecarly support what I am saying, I'm just asking about things.

Of course.