General Discussion

tavalon

(27,985 posts)

68. It depends on the person or persons

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 11:12 PM

Nov 2012

It only takes one to have the attitude you have but we have four adults in my house and we work under a socialist model. One of us just had an car accident and all of us are trying to get extra shifts to help pay for it from the family account. I don't see a lack of initiative at all.

We each have an equal stipend and while some work is valued higher monetarily outside the house, within it is valued equally and the stipend helps reflect that. Now, we do have an added agreement that the individual can, if he or she wishes, keep half of their worked overtime, after taxes, etc. I'm choosing not to do that right now, because we need the second car back sooner rather than later. I don't make that choice for the other members of the household. I suppose you might say that that is where the individual initiative comes from, but all of us prefer more time to more personal money, so any of us actually trying to get extra overtime is unusual.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

204 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why Not Socialism?: The Right�s red-baiting has been far too effective [View all] marmar Nov 2012 OP

K&R PETRUS Nov 2012 #1

You may have read this article, but here is Einstein's take on socialism. white_wolf Nov 2012 #2

Brilliant. Thank you so much! n/t OneGrassRoot Nov 2012 #49

That was effing amazing. n/t Whovian Nov 2012 #161

What does that mean? David__77 Nov 2012 #3

And like we used to have--at least more than now. truebluegreen Nov 2012 #61

The Democrats are so Right, the GOP can only go Left leftstreet Nov 2012 #4

+1. HiPointDem Nov 2012 #31

Socialism crushes individual initiative - that is why. banned from Kos Nov 2012 #5

Yes, SS and Medicare recipients lack motivation leftstreet Nov 2012 #7

That is why Sweden is a place where there is no creativity nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #9

Sweden is not socialist. Private property is still respected there. banned from Kos Nov 2012 #15

No, it is a social democracy with a mixed economy nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #44

A social democracy is not "socialism". banned from Kos Nov 2012 #51

Who said it was? You did. nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #58

Heritage Definition Democracyinkind Nov 2012 #96

Thank you! "state-capitalism" - that's what has lots of people confused. nt patrice Nov 2012 #119

Sweden has a capitalist economic system, with some social programs. Just like the U.S. Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #16

You used the word "communes." Hissyspit Nov 2012 #20

Communism is a GOVERNMENT. Socialism is an economic system. Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #30

Ok, here is your assignment nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #39

Here is your assignment: look up the definition of socialism, then look up Denmark.... Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #43

Alas I know nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #45

Honeycombe8 Diclotican Nov 2012 #83

wait, you said sweden was capitalist...now i'm really confused... HiPointDem Nov 2012 #85

A co-op is no way in hell capitalist eridani Nov 2012 #66

"Getting paid according to how much time you put is no way in hell a "wage."...??? BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #122

They are to fairly allocate 100% of the income to those who work to generate it eridani Nov 2012 #154

some people's time is more valuable others. BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #164

Irrelevant. What is relevant is that 100% of the take goes to workers, and only workers eridani Nov 2012 #176

those that own the production equipment deserve a cut of the proceeds. BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #187

I don't think so. Why should anyone get to own anyone else's means of production? eridani Nov 2012 #190

to compare factory machinery to human slavery is just plain ludicrous. BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #193

They got the capital by taking surplus value from workers eridani Nov 2012 #194

how do you know how they got the capital...? BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #195

Then he owns his own means of production. Why should he own other people's? n/t eridani Nov 2012 #196

he may own his own means of production- but he needs labor to make it work... BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #198

Or he could invite other people to become co-owners eridani Nov 2012 #200

Exactly- by means of an IPO. If people want to be co-owners they can buy stock in the "company"... BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #201

Members of our species have been breathing for 100K years, minimum eridani Nov 2012 #202

civilization takes time. BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #203

If they got more of the money that they are responsible for generating, they'd have plenty eridani Nov 2012 #204

Communism is anarchy tama Nov 2012 #179

Thank you for a ray of reality here. banned from Kos Nov 2012 #22

Well, we'll go to our room without supper now Hissyspit Nov 2012 #90

It s a mixed economy with a very strong government sector nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #37

You really need to learn the definitions of economic and political terms, nadin. Sweden Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #47

They are a social democracy nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #48

Honeycomb8 Diclotican Nov 2012 #65

Wait, you do live there nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #69

nadinbrzezinski Diclotican Nov 2012 #73

Utter nonsense. Selling on ebay has exactly jackshit to do with capitalism eridani Nov 2012 #63

i think you're confused. yeah, sweden is capitalist. the rest... HiPointDem Nov 2012 #84

Free market capitalism is the core of the Swedish economy. hack89 Nov 2012 #91

Every time I read one of your post it becomes more and more clear why you were banned from Kos. white_wolf Nov 2012 #11

It is plainly obious. Democracyinkind Nov 2012 #97

Tell that to Volvo, Saab and Mercedes Benz. All companies that succeed in socialist countries Canuckistanian Nov 2012 #12

Germany is socialist? This is laughable. banned from Kos Nov 2012 #19

Yes, merkel is from a Conservative party nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #40

You just agreed with me. Germany is not socialist! banned from Kos Nov 2012 #46

I did? Where? By any standard definition, it is nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #70

Germany is most definitely a Social Democracy Canuckistanian Nov 2012 #57

Lol, again, you have no clue what Socialism is. sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #81

Denmark has a capitalistic economic system, like Sweden. It has a liberal trading Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #23

It is a mixed economy nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #41

Honeycombe8 Diclotican Nov 2012 #78

denmark ain't a socialist country. HiPointDem Nov 2012 #87

Profits don't go to artists/inventors under capitalism PETRUS Nov 2012 #14

Artists who are the creators own the copyrights of their work. Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #25

Onliy sometimes. PETRUS Nov 2012 #29

Yes, if I write a song, I file for the copyright. Unless I sell it or give it away. Period. nt Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #34

okay... PETRUS Nov 2012 #36

If you write a song while you're working for X Inc. and your job involves songwriting in any way gollygee Nov 2012 #127

Only if you're not an independent artist, but EMPLOYED by the co. or your CONTRACT Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #175

What about the Michael J. and Paul M. dispute? YOHABLO Nov 2012 #77

Written like someone who has no motivation beyond acquisition. Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #17

Wow, ignorant, stereotyped and absolutist. Hissyspit Nov 2012 #18

In what way? nt Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #26

yeah, there were no writers in communist countries & if there were, their books HiPointDem Nov 2012 #33

The very best books are written for profit? maddiemom Nov 2012 #72

sarcasm indicator broken? it's the other poster you should be talking to, not me. HiPointDem Nov 2012 #82

HiPointDem Diclotican Nov 2012 #178

saecasm detector needs adjustment HiPointDem Nov 2012 #183

Hey Diclotican Nov 2012 #185

I'd rather this country have socialism and everybody Jamaal510 Nov 2012 #53

Japan does not have single-payer Art_from_Ark Nov 2012 #192

So much bullshit, so little time. rug Nov 2012 #64

Probably to better effect than arguing with one who is blinded by Randian horseshit. nt patrice Nov 2012 #88

It depends on the person or persons tavalon Nov 2012 #68

You are confusing your terms. Socialism will not take away your sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #80

What is the point of doing anything that has no intrinsic motivation? That's what you're saying, patrice Nov 2012 #86

There are many reasons to write a book even IF "the profit is not yours" Ken Burch Nov 2012 #93

Capitalism crushes all individual initiative that is not based upon FEAR. nt patrice Nov 2012 #116

That is SUCH horse sh*t! BarackTheVote Nov 2012 #191

you have a very limited imagination indeed if you think profit quinnox Nov 2012 #197

They KNOW it's a viable alternative Canuckistanian Nov 2012 #6

'So they fight it with the most vehement propaganda, designed to misrepresent' marmar Nov 2012 #8

Yup nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #10

I saw that Canuckistanian Nov 2012 #13

As i've said countless times before... Blue_Tires Nov 2012 #35

Let's do it. Jack Sprat Nov 2012 #21

As I have said here many times.. sendero Nov 2012 #24

We have some social programs in the U.S. What you mean is that people will want Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #27

That is exactly what I mean... sendero Nov 2012 #59

We Already Have Socialism To An Extent... WillyT Nov 2012 #28

In other words we have a mixed mode economy. banned from Kos Nov 2012 #38

Yes... But... WillyT Nov 2012 #54

People have all different ideas in their heads about what socialism means, so limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #32

I'm always surprised by the resistance to move more left. Starry Messenger Nov 2012 #42

"I'm always surprised by the resistance to move more left". Jamaal510 Nov 2012 #56

The problem is that they're calling only the most extreme, radical form of Capitalism gollygee Nov 2012 #50

Harry Truman quote about Socialism redwhiteblue Nov 2012 #52

redwhiteblue Diclotican Nov 2012 #74

ONE PROBLEM JEFF9K Nov 2012 #55

America isnt an economic system sigmasix Nov 2012 #60

I'm in. Diyames Nov 2012 #62

If he won't listen to us, he would do well to emulate FDR and LBJ tavalon Nov 2012 #67

Looking over the thread, I'm seeing two different definitions of socialism eridani Nov 2012 #71

This War Horse Nov 2012 #95

Do you think government ownership is an essential trait of Socialism? without it, without government patrice Nov 2012 #110

Absolutely not. The anarchists of the 19th century opposing Marx-- eridani Nov 2012 #136

Thank you!! Trying to explain that down-thread & to refute the notion that profit for profit's sake patrice Nov 2012 #158

No. It's a very common definition, prob. THE most common, War Horse Nov 2012 #170

The search I just did didn't think that they are. & Prob is people can conceive of NO patrice Nov 2012 #171

I think you pretty much nailed it there War Horse Nov 2012 #173

It's frustrating because THAT's how things are now for the 1% & Socialist principles try to patrice Nov 2012 #174

According to the original definition, no. According to Harry Truman, yes. n/t eridani Nov 2012 #177

Quite true. Democracyinkind Nov 2012 #98

Harry Truman would definitely agree n/t eridani Nov 2012 #149

social economics and social politics often gets confused. NuttyFluffers Nov 2012 #165

One major issue to be overcome in these discussion is the conflation of politcal & economic theories Snarkoleptic Nov 2012 #75

K&R! hrmjustin Nov 2012 #76

On some things, I'll take a socialistic stance. For the most part, socialism is crap nt RomneyLies Nov 2012 #79

Would you care to be more precise about exactly how that is so? Or shall we just take your patrice Nov 2012 #89

Socialust roads, fire departments, and police are cool. Socialist farms and factories sucks. nt RomneyLies Nov 2012 #94

I'm honestly interested in why those things suck. Which ones are you referring to? China? patrice Nov 2012 #100

Socialism is government owning and administering the means of production RomneyLies Nov 2012 #101

So what you oppose is government ownership? Is Mondragon Socialism? patrice Nov 2012 #103

Nope, Mondragon is free enterprise. It's a cooperative, but the government does not own and... RomneyLies Nov 2012 #108

So Mondragon is Capitalism? patrice Nov 2012 #109

Yes. RomneyLies Nov 2012 #112

Wrong. Those who do the work DECIDE all of that. The profits are the workers' NOT a capitalist's. patrice Nov 2012 #113

The decision is private in a private corporation, ergo, it is capitalistic. nt RomneyLies Nov 2012 #141

Fail: There are MANY private entities that are not capitalistic. Private entities in which profit is patrice Nov 2012 #148

Profit is NEVER the sole goal in ANY corporation RomneyLies Nov 2012 #150

Any OPTIONAL secondary goals are served ONLY by profit. Look at our Capitalist history. How can patrice Nov 2012 #153

The profits are based upon SOCIAL principles & processes, not the idiosyncracies of Capitalism. patrice Nov 2012 #117

Just because they make a profit doesn't mean that they are Capitalists. nt patrice Nov 2012 #118

What Capitalists has "social welfare and Insurance" as the 2nd & 3rd objectives of FINANCE, link: patrice Nov 2012 #123

It is still capitalistic RomneyLies Nov 2012 #125

You mistake the natue of Capitalism. It's SOLE objective is profit. The purpose of profit at Mondrag patrice Nov 2012 #129

Well, if you redefine terms they can mean whatever you want RomneyLies Nov 2012 #132

And you don't get that that applies to you too? Who died & made you God? patrice Nov 2012 #134

I am not the one who is redefining any terms, YOU ARE. RomneyLies Nov 2012 #135

Me? Tell me that profit is not the SOLE motive of Capitalism. You are the one redefining here. patrice Nov 2012 #140

Profit does not enter into the definition, you are adding it to the equation RomneyLies Nov 2012 #143

Try to tear yourself away from other support and think. Tell me now, logically, that there'd be such patrice Nov 2012 #152

You reject that there'd be no such thing as Capitalism without profit for profit's sake alone? patrice Nov 2012 #138

I reject that it enters into the definition of capitalism RomneyLies Nov 2012 #144

Oh! hoh! That's rich! Perhaps you'd like to discuss the definition of "is". :-)))))) nt patrice Nov 2012 #159

Profit for profit's sake alone is clearly proven in the Capitalist financial history of the USA. nt patrice Nov 2012 #130

That is a redefinitiion of Capitalism. RomneyLies Nov 2012 #139

LOGIC: HOW can Capitalism even survive unless profit is it's SOLE motive? Please answer. patrice Nov 2012 #142

LOGIC: If profit is the SOLE motive, an enterprise WILL NOT SURVIVE. RomneyLies Nov 2012 #145

NONE of those other goals would be goals at all without profit. PROFIT first always, otherwise the patrice Nov 2012 #155

What kind of Capitalist allows WORKER-directed Research? patrice Nov 2012 #126

What kind of Capitalist allows WORKERS to manage & guide their own education & training? patrice Nov 2012 #128

Any can. RomneyLies Nov 2012 #133

YOU are limiting the entire, REAL LIFE, discussion to an entry in a dictionary. nt patrice Nov 2012 #160

Come on, own up, you're a "Libertarian" aren't you. nt patrice Nov 2012 #162

So what you oppose is government ownership, i.e. government as CAPITALISM. Me too. nt patrice Nov 2012 #114

Then by definition, you oppose Socialism. nt RomneyLies Nov 2012 #137

You are wrong - and - you are narrow-minded & refuse to at least recognize that FACT. patrice Nov 2012 #157

Anarchists are socialists and don't think the government should exist at all. white_wolf Nov 2012 #146

My definition of socialism is the ONLY defintion of socialism RomneyLies Nov 2012 #147

So we should just ignore all the anarchist writers and theorists because you say they don't count? white_wolf Nov 2012 #151

How can anyone who does not identify with a set of values define them? You may HYPOTHESIZE patrice Nov 2012 #156

For the most part, capitalism is crap. Hissyspit Nov 2012 #92

So, If I Am To Understand... WiffenPoof Nov 2012 #99

I really don't like it when Social Democrats are called "Socialists" War Horse Nov 2012 #102

Well, one thing they are doing is assuming that old saw about government owning the means of patrice Nov 2012 #105

Many European Social Democratic parties tama Nov 2012 #180

"Socialism" means different things to different people. gulliver Nov 2012 #104

True! and yet, there must be some essential trait in common that makes it all Socialism, otherwise patrice Nov 2012 #107

Rec. n/t Smarmie Doofus Nov 2012 #106

I Like John Lennon's Defintion Of Socialism DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #111

+++1! patrice Nov 2012 #115

credit for Obama's re-election is not "owed" to any one group or demographic over others. BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #120

"Am I my brother's keeper?" - Socialism says "yes". Capitalism says "Fuck you." Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2012 #121

Full-on socialism woulf be just as bad as full-on capitalism. BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #124

Agreed. Socialistic/workers'-profit-sharing for the necessities. Capitalism for everything else. patrice Nov 2012 #131

You asked everything else tama Nov 2012 #181

Just talking about the USA & what's doable, compared to 0 change. Perhaps I should point patrice Nov 2012 #182

I don't think tama Nov 2012 #184

Name one great country populated by anti-socialists. Old and In the Way Nov 2012 #163

Why Not Indeed colsohlibgal Nov 2012 #166

Right on! Health & cognitive benefits from reduced stress = more EFFICIENT economies at patrice Nov 2012 #172

Less GDP tama Nov 2012 #186

Could you explain that please? nt patrice Nov 2012 #188

Why TPTB tama Nov 2012 #189

Post removed Post removed Nov 2012 #167

Welcome to DU my friend! hrmjustin Nov 2012 #168

This message was self-deleted by its author uppityperson Nov 2012 #169

Democrats are not a socialist party, they are center-left davidn3600 Nov 2012 #199