Because capitalism and previous social paradigms have forced you into this particular mental framework to get things done. When things don't need to get done, that framework will no longer be necessary.Originally Posted by Marou
Wrong. Socialism does not assert this at all. The common adage is: "To each according to his contribution". But even assuming what you said is true, your statement in a capitalist system is patently absurd statement as there are complete leeches to society that are thoroughly rich and powerful through no skills of their own and no effort of their own in the current system.Originally Posted by Marou
Again, "To each according to his contribution".Originally Posted by Marou
Thank you for saying that. Now I'm allowed to call you a philistine which I knew you were all along.Originally Posted by Marou
Because they know that they will be paid a higher dividend than others and use that leverage to exploit the system further. This system is unsustainable and is destined to reach critical mass because of that contradiction among others.Originally Posted by Marou
And this is where you make a fatal flaw, but attempt to hide it by qualilfying your point with "most all" in order to account for the ones which don't. You're purposefully ignoring the actual reasons for why amateur innovation is not as good as professional innovation. That being because of access to proper resources and access to free time (leisure).Originally Posted by Marou
People don't do hard things when they simply can't due to work schedules. The simply matter of fact is that you aren't compelled to spend your life writing software and catching fraud by altruistic means because:
a) you know you can get paid to do it which helps you subsist.
b) because you don't truly love the work enough that without that incentive, you would still do it.
You, personally, don't care enough about the work which is fine. However, you're not satisfied with simply saying that. You decide instead to apply that brush and paint all of humanity as uncaring, greedy individuals who act just as you do. They simply aren't. There are people who act truly because they care about their craft.
Say hello to Black Mesa Source which I'm sure you're familiar with. However, if you're not, it's a completely stand-alone mod that recreates all of Half Life 1 under the source engine because Valve did a terrible job with that. A mod that was created back in 2004 and just released around a week ago. It is a stellar mod that costs nothing:
"Black Mesa is a free modification; the developers will never charge you for playing mainly because they wouldn't want to make people pay to play, but also because it would be illegal to do so. As long as you have Steam installed on your computer, Black Mesa will cost you nothing."
I leave it into the hands of everyone here whether you think they're motivated to spend 8 years creating a mod mainly on altruistic means to not require people to play, or because their hands are tied.
In conclusion, in lieu of the common criticisms that no innovation will come from a non-capitalist system and that people will act deviously, all you're effectively doing is making baseless accusations that socialism is untenable. Interestingly enough, you've decided not to address my rebuttal to your main point that you're simply arguing from a capitalist perspective and attempting to base that on a system that vastly different than the one you're arguing from. It's a false equivalency fallacy that you seem intent on committing every time you respond. Further, you provide little concrete evidence to support your assertions and the claims that you do; namely that past systems which called themselves socialist or communist were disastrous; are refuted by an introductory understanding of the theory of socialism and a little 20th century history. You've effectively demonstrated that the only understanding of socialism comes from the histories of regimes which we know, demonstrably, are not socialist under any reasonable criterion.
Let me make this perfectly clear. In order to refute my argument, you have to somehow discredit Dialectical Materialism and socialist theory. All I've stated is that if history is any guide of our path as a species living in a civilization, there is no reason to think that we will not progress to the next stage of human society as planned. I don't care whether you make sweeping claims about socialism as that's nothing more than your personal predictions about what is going to happen which end up being baseless without any evidence to support them. And given your apparent ignorance of socialism, I don't imagine that carries much weight.
I also want to leave this by simply stating that it's telling that you're not responding at all to any of the concrete points that I've made and instead are now arguing with sweeping claims like:
I am not compelled to spend my life writing software to catch fraud and mine statistical information by altruism, but by material gain and survival.
All while being oblivious to the fact that this argument I summarily refuted in every response I've made with the exception of the first one. I can only assume that you've conceded the point and abandoned it.