Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Wouldnt socialism by neccesity have to be drug and alcohol free?

Posted 1 year ago on Sept. 26, 2012, 12:01 a.m. EST by TheRazor (-329)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Drug abuse and alcoholism would be breaking the social pact.

9 Comments

9 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

Huh ? I beg your pudding !! Exsqueeze me occifer !! Hic !

in vino veritas ...

[-] 2 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

In true socialistic world everyone is basically responsible for and more importantly TO everyone else.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

Yes, I agree but a glass of wine &/or a shared joint wouldn't go amiss either, bro' ;-) Also, please see :

verbum sat sapienti ...

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

no,.

[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 1 year ago

The left goes back to its roots:

Prohibition

Most progressives, especially in rural areas, adopted the cause of prohibition.[34] They saw the saloon as political corruption incarnate, and bewailed the damage done to women and children. They believed the consumption of alcohol limited mankind's potential for advancement.[35] Progressives achieved success first with state laws then with the enactment of the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1919. The golden day did not dawn; enforcement was lax, especially in the cities where notorious criminal gangs, such as the Chicago gang of Al Capone made a crime spree based on illegal sales of liquor in speakeasies. The "experiment" (as President Hoover called it) also cost the treasury large sums of taxes and the 18th amendment was repealed by the Twenty-first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1933.[36] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States#Prohibition

[-] 0 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

But where do you get your information from? You throw out all these random statements about socialism that have nothing to do with socialism.

Socialism has nothing to do with drugs.

.

WHAT IS SOCIALISM?

American libertarian socialist Benjamin Tucker defines socialism best: It's simply a system where workers get paid the full value of what they produce.

It's summed up in the socialist slogan, "To each according to their contribution" which means income in the economy is allocated based on how much you contribute.

Socialism is defined in the Merriam Webster dictionary as, "a stage of society in Marxist theory between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done."

Karl Marx in Critique of the Gotha Program wrote, "Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society - after the deductions have been made - exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor."

Socialism is a worker movement against capitalism because workers get a bad deal in capitalism - they get exploited. I explain what socialism is in this post and why it opposes capitalism in this post.

.

In order to pay to pay workers the full product of what they produce, a socialist economy would pay 100% of the income to workers since they do 100% of the work and pay no money to investors.

In capitalism, half of all the income that workers produce, as shown here, gets paid to a small handful of gamblers who got lucky investing in the market like bankers and entrepreneurs.

Investment income is just welfare for the lucky. It allows guys like Mitt Romney to get paid $20 million per year every year without working a single day merely because he got lucky in the market a few decades ago. Workers produce that $20 million every year, not Mitt Romney.

Just like the central bank can provide the economy with the necessary supply of money, it can provide the economy with the necessary supply of investment money as explained here.

Workers don't need to pay private investors. Workers shouldn't have to work for free for 6 months every year just to pay off the gambling winnings of investors.

And in order to pay workers based on how much they contribute, a socialist economy would pay workers based on how hard they work instead of based on how much bargaining power they have.

The economy would no longer allocate income based on how much bargaining power you have from merely being unique like athletes and celebrities. It would no longer pay Kim Kardashian hundreds of times more than a brain surgeon for each hour worked merely because she is more unique.

Instead, it pays you based on how hard you work which you do by limiting differences in income to only what is necessary to get workers to do hard jobs and to give their maximum performance in performance based jobs.

.

If the economy was socialist and paid workers 100% of the income and paid them based on how hard they work, it would pay workers from $115,000 per year to $460,000 per year for working just 20 hours per week.

[-] -2 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

And you just make statements unsupported by logic or fact. Your ideas are not real. For example, you say everyone should earn $65/hr. Thats stupid. A maid cleaning motel rooms isnt worth $65 hr.

Socialism demands a very high level of personal responsibilty. You dont undrestand that. A physician treating pediatric cancer is worth 100s of times what a motel maid is worth. And. motel maid who is drug addicted or grossly overweight is not worth the same as an honest hardworking maid.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

"And you just make statements unsupported by logic or fact"

Every claim I make is linked to a citation. You provide zero sources for your claims. Show me a socialist organization that says a socialist society must have a pact that everyone cannot do drugs.

.

"you say everyone should earn $65/hr. Thats stupid."

I do not say everyone should earn $65 per hour.

I say 100% of the economy's income should be paid to workers since they do 100% of the work and that income should be allocated based on how hard you work which you do by limiting differences in income to only what is necessary to get people to work hard jobs and give their maximum performance in performance based jobs.

.

"A maid cleaning motel rooms isnt worth $65 hr. "

So then don't hire any maids.

But if you do hire a maid to clean your room, you are going to pay them per hour the same as everyone else who works just as hard as maids do each hour.

.

"A physician treating pediatric cancer is worth 100s of times what a motel maid is worth."

No they are not.

They don't work hundreds of times harder than maids. And we don't need to pay doctors hundreds of times more than maids in order to get people to work as doctors.

.

" motel maid who is drug addicted or grossly overweight is not worth the same as an honest hardworking maid."

This is where I check out of the debate!

[-] -1 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

. "A physician treating pediatric cancer is worth 100s of times what a motel maid is worth." No they are not. They don't work hundreds of times harder than maids. And we don't need to pay doctors hundreds of times more than maids in order to get people to work as doctors.

Yes they are and yes you do have tp pay them 100s times more. You wont get any physician to take "call" without paying them 100s times more than a maid. They hate taking call now and they make 100s more than a maid. They sure as hell wont take it for $460k.

Please dont answer with one of your trite pat answers.