TexasSam13
New member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2010
- Messages
- 21
- Reaction score
- 14
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I believe that building character and living a purposeful life is the key to happiness, regardless of how your financial situation is.
We dont feel that money is necessary for a happy life, but we understand that our world revolves around money; if you dont have it, there's a lot you cant do. I'm sure there are people who can be and are happy scrounging through the trash while living under an overpass.In my opinion, the socialist worldview is more materialistic than the capitalist view because it's based on the idea that you have to have money in order to be a happy person.
Socialists might not believe that you have to be rich in order to be happy, but they believe that being "poor", not having a good healthcare plan, etc etc is guaranteed unhappiness.
You cant eat purpose or character. It's a good thing to have self-confidence and purpose, but in the realistic view, neither of these things will do you much good if you cant get food to eat.I disagree. I believe that building character and living a purposeful life is the key to happiness, regardless of how your financial situation is. The stereotypical view of capitalism is that it values materialism - I don't see how this is. Capitalists just believe that if you want money, or want to be rich, you should find a way to get there on your own, instead of just having the government hand you everything.
Were would you get these handouts?I don't have much money, but I don't see why I need free handouts either.
That's nice, but not everyone is poor because of their own mistakes and even if they are, why should being poor be a punishment?And personally, if I keep misspending my own money and end up poor as dirt, then I'd rather be poor and just accept my own financial responsibiity, with an incentive to change my spending habits, than go crying for other people to pay for my own mistakes.
Except that view is factually incorrect, we do not believe that money = happiness.I don't think that in the grand view of things, financial stability has a big role in individual happiness. That seems to be the socialist worldview, but it isn't mine.
Then the nice men with brass knuckles and baseball bats take your car and your house to pay for the medical bills. Unpaid bills and debt will wreck your credit score and make it difficult to buy anything big in the future, even if you DO have money.So what if I can't always afford my medical bills?
Dying or suffering from preventable afflictions does seem pretty miserable and if adequate healthcare were provided, people would die and suffer LESS from preventable afflictions. Less suffering usually makes people happier.Most people in India and Africa can't afford a doctor at all - does that mean (according to the socialist mindset) that every Indian and African must be a purely miserable person, just because they don't have things that were considered luxuries for most of the world's history? Not only is this short-sighted, but it also seems patronizing if you ask me.
No, it doesnt. Socialism says "we have enough to go around, why dont we make sure we all have enough before we start worrying about seconds?"In summary, socialism teaches that monetary "necessities" buy happiness, to the point that it's fair to take from other people just because they've earned more than you have.
In my opinion, the socialist worldview is more materialistic than the capitalist view because it's based on the idea that you have to have money in order to be a happy person.
Socialists might not believe that you have to be rich in order to be happy, but they believe that being "poor", not having a good healthcare plan, etc etc is guaranteed unhappiness.
I disagree. I believe that building character and living a purposeful life is the key to happiness, regardless of how your financial situation is. The stereotypical view of capitalism is that it values materialism - I don't see how this is. Capitalists just believe that if you want money, or want to be rich, you should find a way to get there on your own, instead of just having the government hand you everything.
I don't have much money, but I don't see why I need free handouts either. Money feels a lot better to spend when it's earned than when it's just handed to you anyway, especially if other people had to lose it without their consent. And personally, if I keep misspending my own money and end up poor as dirt, then I'd rather be poor and just accept my own financial responsibiity, with an incentive to change my spending habits, than go crying for other people to pay for my own mistakes.
I don't think that in the grand view of things, financial stability has a big role in individual happiness. That seems to be the socialist worldview, but it isn't mine. That's why I see socialism as a very short-sighted and materialistic ideology. So what if I can't always afford my medical bills? Most people in India and Africa can't afford a doctor at all - does that mean (according to the socialist mindset) that every Indian and African must be a purely miserable person, just because they don't have things that were considered luxuries for most of the world's history? Not only is this short-sighted, but it also seems patronizing if you ask me.
In summary, socialism teaches that monetary "necessities" buy happiness, to the point that it's fair to take from other people just because they've earned more than you have. Capitalism teaches that your monetary situation should be left up to you. Personally I'll take capitalism. I used to think that having a lot of material stuff given to me would make me happy, but then I moved out of my parents' house - and I haven't wanted those things sense. That's my view anyway.
onsidering that Marxism, upon which modern Socialism is based, is an explicitly materialist ideology blah blah blah
and supports the suppression of non-materialist ideas (religion being the biggest one of course).
Um, wow. Materialism is a philisophical branch. It has nothing to do with the colloquial use of the word.
Marx never supported the suppression of religion. In fact, he argued against it.
The rest of your post follows logically, i.e. it's completely wrong. In fact you very clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. That reads like a fifth grader wrote it.
How is recognizing that a group of people can accomplish much more than a single person being altruistic to a fault? Humans have evolved to be social creatures, we dont do very well on our own.Great post. I like the way you think. It'll serve you well your whole life long. Don't agree with all of it, but that's not the important thing. I don't really have a problem with socialists in and of themselves. They are altruistic, which is a good thing in the world -- but to a fault -- at the expense of self-reliance.
How is recognizing that a group of people can accomplish much more than a single person being altruistic to a fault? Humans have evolved to be social creatures, we dont do very well on our own.
How is recognizing that a group of people can accomplish much more than a single person being altruistic to a fault? Humans have evolved to be social creatures, we dont do very well on our own.
Not sure that I'd put it that way, but you arent off base.In my opinion, the socialist worldview is more materialistic than the capitalist view because it's based on the idea that you have to have money in order to be a happy person.
Considering human nature, that's probably a good thing.Socialism attempts to subvert human
Considering human nature, that's probably a good thing.
Incorrect. Socialism (in the most general sense) advances that far more can be provided to the individual if the individual works with the group and it's provided in a more sustainable manner. Under the current system, we throw in needs and wants (manufactured and real) and hope greed and a hyper-competitive culture will balance itself out.That wouldn't be a fault...if that's all socialism was. Socialism believes humans should work together with either a highly limited or no incentive structure.
Except, they arent. The incentive in Capitalism is NOT to work together, it's to stab each other in the back because if you're the only one still standing, you'll win. Dishonesty and cheating the system are cornerstones of a system that sees only progress and does not care about anything except #1.Capitalism has humans working together all the time, but giving incentives to do so (primarily in the form of wage/salary/benefits).
In it's idealistic form, yes. However in it's practical form, properly implemented Socialism banks on people recognizing that combined and supported effort yields far better results than independent and competing effort.In its most idealistic form, people are supposed to work with each other out of a sense of altruism or community (neither motivation is completely absent from human actions, but neither provides a lot of motivation except in responding to a specific, immediate crisis or with the small number of particularly altruistic people).
The Soviets were a Communist system. There has been a widespread problem of improperly implementing Socialism across the world. Often it's forced into place where the population is not ready and predictable problems arise.More "practical" socialism tends to recognize the motivation problem and decide that coercion can replace incentives (the collapse of economies using the Soviet system has proved that to also be ineffective over the long term).
How so? And do you have an examples?What I meant was that some socialistic programs do more harm than good to a person.
Force? Capitalism did it in most first world countries without firing a shot.Considering the amount of force that it takes to do so, I'd beg to differ.
Doubtful.Considering human nature, that's probably a good thing.
Considering that Marxism, upon which modern Socialism is based, is an explicitly materialist ideology
Incorrect. Socialism (in the most general sense) advances that far more can be provided to the individual if the individual works with the group and it's provided in a more sustainable manner. Under the current system, we throw in needs and wants (manufactured and real) and hope greed and a hyper-competitive culture will balance itself out.
Except, they arent. The incentive in Capitalism is NOT to work together, it's to stab each other in the back because if you're the only one still standing, you'll win. Dishonesty and cheating the system are cornerstones of a system that sees only progress and does not care about anything except #1.
And besides, as has been demonstrated many times over, salary is not as good a motivator as we've convinced ourselves it is.
In it's idealistic form, yes. However in it's practical form, properly implemented Socialism banks on people recognizing that combined and supported effort yields far better results than independent and competing effort.
The Soviets were a Communist system. There has been a widespread problem of improperly implementing Socialism across the world. Often it's forced into place where the population is not ready and predictable problems arise.
Force? Capitalism did it in most first world countries without firing a shot.
tch... all economics is "materialist"... economics is formal "materialism", the science of the acquistion and distribution of "stuff" based on the 'material' (ie, concrete, physical) nature of existence as opposed to the 'transcendent' or 'spiritual' .... capitalism is "materialism"... marxism is referred to as 'historical materialism', a phrase derived from marx's "materialist conception of history.", which, regardless of your view of his conclusions, is probably the single most rational approach to history anyone ever undertook.
it is also known as 'dialectical materialism', a term coined by Joseph Dietzgen, derived from Hegel's dialectics and Feuerbach's materialism (Feurbach was an 18th c. christian philosopher.)
kee rist... if ever a case of the pot calling the kettle names....
geo.
Marx's approach to history has certainly be helpful, and even transformative (though modern historians move beyond simply parroting class conflict). But his focus on the means of production as the answer to everything was far too limited. Marx pushed history in directions it needed to go, but that doesn't mean his view of history didn't have major weaknesses or that modern historians haven't moved a bit farther away from that. Probably one of his biggest limitations was the assumption that class and the means of production could be used to describe people's psychology and while they certainly have an impact, modern psychology goes much, much further.
But his focus on the means of production as the answer to everything was far too limited.
Probably one of his biggest limitations was the assumption that class and the means of production could be used to describe people's psychology and while they certainly have an impact, modern psychology goes much, much further.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?