Quote Originally Posted by IDCrewDawg View Post
Tom, I agree, we are far from being a sociocratic, though the country is headed in that direction. If we were there, I don't think there would be a large emphasis on getting the poverty stricken areas of the country to side with a particular candidate. I could be wrong on that point however.
How is the country heading there? If you don't mind explaining.

I consider myself so******t. But so******m can be different things to different people. Karl Marx I'd say is still the father of so******m and no matter how much Lenin, Stalin and Mao tried, for me they haven't changed the original meaning of it. What Karl Marx didn't want was static classes. ie, people born into the wealthy families where privileged and knew they'd become rich no matter what they did in life. Similarly people born into poverty would never have the means or education to raise themselves out of their station no matter what they do. So******m for me is simply combating that.

Another way to put it, allowing the American dream to be a possibility for all of USA's citizens.

I'm not a big fan of welfare. I don't think it's an inherently So******t thing. Yes, so******m has as a goal to give the poor the same sense of security as the ruling classes, so they won't be ruled by fear of starvation when pursuing their goals. This would mean some sort of financial safety net. But it should never be a means of sustenance. It should never be a situation where everybody knows that no matter how much of a fuck up they are in life, the state will always be there ready to pick up the burned out pieces.

Why this is so common in countries with so******t oriented governments I think is simply because it's a way for so******t parties to buy votes. And it'll always be the poor who vote for them... so... yeah. It's a problem with democracy. The poor will be the uneducated classes, so they're not likely to vote very cleverly.

For me so******m is things like state sponsored education. State subsidised health care. Extensive drug rehabilitation and support for ex convicts. The criminal lifestyle is typically a symptom that a poor person cannot find a dignified means of support. Just being hard on crime naturally doesn't solve the underlying problem.

The state cannot give people jobs. State run companies will always be inefficient, (= everybody loses). This is just one of those facts of life all those in-duh-lectual commie nerds with red star badges need to deal with. We need private citizens to start companies that will hire people. Hopefully give jobs to the poor that allows them to support themselves so they can stay away from crime and climb the ladder of life.

In my opinion there's no conflict with low taxes for companies and catering to increased rights for private companies to aid their means of expansion. But me mustn't be so liberal as to give the employer the ability to take advantage of his uneducated and ill-informed work force. If we do, we're back to Karl Marx's original complaint with capitalism. Unchecked the class system will be static and their will be no hope for the hard working poor to rise from their station in life. If classes are static, we can't blame the poor for turning to a life of crime. There must be a balance. Realising this and working toward maintaining that balance is what so******m is for me.

I don't see paying out social welfare under long periods to the same individuals as an intrinsic part of so******m. I think the result will be the opposite. A poor uneducated and un-networked person that also receives money falling from the sky, will be locked into lethargy. They will never get enough money to invest or get an education. All they have is enough to sustain them. This is not only expensive but counter productive. This is not social mobility or the goal of so******m.

But we can't give out welfare under short periods as if that by itself will mean that the poor feels the stress to get an education for a more qualified job. One intrinsic factor with being poor is that they're uniformed. They're utterly clueless of what possibilities they have in life. I mean... if they did know they wouldn't be poor would they?!?!?! It's easy to sit with a cushy job, like I have today and say... "hey, I had to study for ages to get this job. They're just lazy who haven't". The reasons I took this journey is complex and supported by a rich social network. I both worked hard and I was lucky. Damned fucking lucky.

We also have working class culture which is seldom instrumental in aiding them to rise from their station. They're very often their own worst enemies. But this is not their fault. This is a fault in the system.

In my opinion, Karl Marx's greatest achievement as a philosopher was to point out that the position in life you are born into is not part of some kind of divine plan. It was just luck. That you're not inevitably stuck in it. He also pointed out that the poor are held down from climbing by a complex system of rules that have evolved into place to keep the status quo. This is of course because it is the people in power who make the rules. Yes, even in a democracy. It's just the natural order of human social interaction. And if the poor classes don't realise this and demand that this status quo is constantly challenged the system will become static and the whole country will rot from within and we'll see nepotism and corruption rather than a meritocracy. And why a meritocracy is in the best interest for a countries economy, I'm sure nobody needs to have explained to them.

And I also hope that nobody needs to have explained to them how dangerous people without hope are. This is equally as true for members of Al Qaeda as of South Central gang bangers. We get the society we shape. These are modern times and with the Internet nobody with any form of higher education should miss to see the link between state policy and the symptoms of a system out of balance.

So this was a long winded explanation of what so******m means to me and how it can and should be implemented to reach it's explicit goals. There are many interpretations of what equality means. I don't interpret it as the same amount of stuff no matter what choices to make in life. But maybe that's just me.