11-25-2006, 04:27 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Socialists did not enough time to create your utopia? You haven't attained the ideal situation yet, you say?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't ask the same questions of a capitalist. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> Why?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Common ownership of the means of production? Where have your ilk attained such a thing, and made a success out of it?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rome wasn't built in a day. It will take time, particularly because it involves a lot of innovation. Again, you never ask these questions to a capitalist, who also has failed to deliver your utopia. Why these double standards?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> And, how were you going to avoid the concept of money? By ration cards? Is that where you think we should be going?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a common mistake made by people who aren't familiar with socialist economics. Money is not wealth. Whilst it's true that socialism believes in equitable distribution of wealth, money doesn't come under that category at all. Money is just a medium of exchange, so where's the question of getting rid of it? Even if you did, you'd have to replace it with another medium of exchange, such as barter system, or what else not.
The socialist idea is to focus on PROPER wealth generation, distribution and consumption, which involves the common ownership of the means of production. These means of production (and the produce itself) are called wealth. Equitable distribution depends on the concept of common ownership, implementing which 'wages' will lose meaning because there is no capitalist-worker relationship. Everything that comes from COOMOP will be treated as profits and shared amongst all workers. Money will then have its rightful place in the larger scheme of things. This avoids the inequality that often characterizes capitalism.
You don't ask the same questions of a capitalist. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> Why?<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Common ownership of the means of production? Where have your ilk attained such a thing, and made a success out of it?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rome wasn't built in a day. It will take time, particularly because it involves a lot of innovation. Again, you never ask these questions to a capitalist, who also has failed to deliver your utopia. Why these double standards?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> And, how were you going to avoid the concept of money? By ration cards? Is that where you think we should be going?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a common mistake made by people who aren't familiar with socialist economics. Money is not wealth. Whilst it's true that socialism believes in equitable distribution of wealth, money doesn't come under that category at all. Money is just a medium of exchange, so where's the question of getting rid of it? Even if you did, you'd have to replace it with another medium of exchange, such as barter system, or what else not.
The socialist idea is to focus on PROPER wealth generation, distribution and consumption, which involves the common ownership of the means of production. These means of production (and the produce itself) are called wealth. Equitable distribution depends on the concept of common ownership, implementing which 'wages' will lose meaning because there is no capitalist-worker relationship. Everything that comes from COOMOP will be treated as profits and shared amongst all workers. Money will then have its rightful place in the larger scheme of things. This avoids the inequality that often characterizes capitalism.