Great start, guys. Now click on this link to read two short texts on the issue of socialist theory.
The first is a short explanation of the term “socialism.” It claims that all forms of socialism are critical of personal property and favor a more equal distribution of wealth. The second is a modern take on socialism which was written and originally published in 1999. This spin on socialism is named “Bill of Rights Socialism.” The author states that not only are the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer (as most socialist theories point out), but that technological advances are speeding up this process. Nearly eight years have passed since the publication of this article; therefore, do you see that the article predicted accurately or do you feel it elicited unwarranted fears? What do you think about the article’s title?
October 17, 2007 at 8:53 pm
I feel like in this case I have no outside evidence to back up my statements. I think that in our school, for the most part, we are sheltered from seeing the poverty and struggle of others. Due to my lack of outside information I will have to base my answer on my small amount of previous knowledge and the second article. I think that the theory makes sense, that because technology is increasing, people are losing their jobs to machines. This in turn leads to the owners of these companies and machines are getting more money, while workers can’t work and are falling farther into poverty. I don’t think that the situation has gotten as severe as predicted but I do see the trend. I also believe that the author is bias so would intentionally try to make the future sound worse than what it actually is. Since the author is trying to make socialism better, obviously he is only going to state the bad points of the capitalist system and is going to use the points that make socialism seem better. As I previously stated I don’t know much about politics, economics, or poverty so most of my statements are inferred or come from my own observations or stories I hear. If any one has a better idea of the topic and would like to enlighten me I would be glad to get a response to my post.
October 18, 2007 at 5:55 pm
I agree with what Kurstyn says about our school being sheltered from seeing poverty and struggle of others. I also agree with her about socialism in the future. What I think about the articles is that socialism is very government related and Kurstyn sorry but I have to disagree with you a little bit. I think the author of the second article is making socialism sound like a horrible thing and that it is getting to be terrible and we are seeing it everyday. I think the author is making it sound worse than it really is. Maybe in other countries but in the US we do not see very much of that as you may would in Europe. I do not think that we see much of socialism. But I may be blind or completely wrong. Any thoughts?
October 18, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Hi! Taylor, I’m sorry but I’ll have to disagree with you. The second article is titled “Socialism Would Benefit Society” and talks about how socialism is in the near future and that capitalism has many faults. I actually agree with alot about what the second article talked about. I especially agreed with the “the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer”. America itself is based on power and corporations. Everyone wants to be a big shot and it seems like the whole focus is on one thing that everyone wants: money. In my opinion, alot of what the second article predicted came true. Our health care is rapidly declining and you start to see more and more people without it. The article states that the working class works really hard, yet they don’t usually get to see any of the money they worked for. It is complete exploitation and is just a way for corporate managers to get more money without having to do the work. This is a major fault of capitalism. I would like to hear other peoples’ comments so write back! Hannah
October 18, 2007 at 7:59 pm
As Taylor does, I agree with Kurstyn on saying that we are very sheltered on what is happening on the outside world. I think that we hear about it happening, but few of us have actually gone through it. I think that the second article makes some good points through out it, but at times I feel like the author was going to the extreme of the sisuation. I think Hannah is right on with agreeing with “the richer are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer”. Although I don’t agree with the author saying that many jobs will be lost in a little while. To me that doesn’t seem realistic. But I agree with the fact that more kids are working in sweatshops and more people are infected with AIDS and doing drugs. Those facts seem realistic. The title is a very strong title for the subject. I think it covers the entire thought of the article. But as I have said before, I don’t know much about these topics. So if some one could give feedback that would be great.
October 18, 2007 at 8:02 pm
I would like to point out that what we are talking about here is 100% related to the book. I think that the book is a very good example of capitalism. You have Napolean going supervising and giving orders, similar to a corporate owner, and then the animals working their tails off and not getting equal rations or shares of their work. The rest of the animals represent the working class. Napolean doesn’t have to do anything, but he still gets the apples and milk, and he still gets shares of all the food. The reason no one tells him that he is wrong is because he manipulates them and sends squealer to make them believe that Napolean is only doing what’s best for the entire farm, when in reality he is doing what’s best for him. They also don’t say anything to Napolean because he has gaurd dogs behind him that no one is willing to fight with. It seems to me that in Animal Farm once Napolean has gotten control he isn’t going to let up and he is going to continue to work the animals harder and continue to take more than his share. It makes me wonder if that is what our society is going to come to. Any thoughts?
-Kurstyn
October 19, 2007 at 1:15 pm
I am still having a hard time understanding the relation between these subjects and the book. Like I kind of understand that these things have a relation in what is going on in the book, but I see why we have to know more than two types of government. In the book I only see socialism being used in the begining. So is this just for our own knowledge?
October 19, 2007 at 3:47 pm
I agree very much with what Hannah said. Capitalism seems like it allows people who were born rich get richer, yet the people who are born poor get poorer. It seems odd that a very small percentage of the people hold almost all of the money, and it seems lately that that pecentage is getting smaller and smaller. Whereas the larger percent of the population is bairly getting by, and the poverty stricken people seem to be getting larger and larger. Why does 10% of the people determine how outsiders veiw them? If 50% of of the country is poverty stricken, then why deos 10% of the people who are rich make the country look like a prosperous and full of oppertunities? Compared to this, Socialism looks like a wonderful idea with money and oppertunity being spread to everyone. But in order to carry out this plan, the people need someone in charge. But once you put someone in charge, they are suddenly ‘richer’ than the other people, and after awile it is almost impossible to avoid a transformation back to Communism. So how are you supposed to avoid that? I think it is naturally part of human nature to want to be higher than other people. What do you think?
October 19, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Hi! I completely agree with Paige. Its true that everyone who is “more important” in our country makes more money. We tend to view certain jobs as “higher” and therefore pay them more money. The way we view managers of big corporations and other people in the same “rank” is much like we view celebrities. In America, we are so obsessed with movie stars and follow them everywhere and tell the world every single little thing they say. They can’t even eat at McDonalds without people watching them! We treat them like kings, even though they are just doing their job, which is entertainment. We think that being a CEO is sooooo much better than being a salesman. That is only true because WE put them up high and said that their job was more important than a “normal job”. I also agree with what Paige said about having more power and being richer than everyone else. In this way, Communism and Socialism is good. They believe in equal treatment and their whole society is not based on becoming more rich or more powerful than the other person! What do you think?
October 22, 2007 at 12:12 pm
In the second article I belive that the author described what is happening fairly accuratly, but I don’t really pay attention to politics these days so I don’t really know whether this is still going on today. I definantly agree with alot that it has to say, but I think the title could have been better. The title implies that scocialism would make our society better, but instead of pointing out how it could help us it points out all of the things that our society needs changing. I feel a better title for this would be something like ” Our scociety needs a change” or something to that extent. I think the article could tald more about what our society would be like if it was a socialist society. I think over all that what this article is talking about is still going on, though the media tries to hide it or describe it in a way that makes it sound good, especially with the war going on. I am also wondering how a country or society would stay a socialist society, with everything that I mentioned in my earlier post going on. I don’t how it could stay that way. Any ideas?