Use the drop-down boxes above to navigate through the Website  
Return to Reasoning List
 

Here is a link to this page:
http://www.jah-rastafari.com/forum/message-view.asp?message_group=5549&start_row=11


Socialism or capitalism or Monarchy?

1 - 1011 - 2021 - 25
Time Zone: EST (New York, Toronto)
Messenger: Ark I Sent: 3/4/2014 10:40:47 PM
Reply

The reality is, in a pseudo-socialist system, which is the only kind of socialism we could get with the mindset of today's population, the capitalists would either join the government or their close friends would join the government.

If people were Righteous enough for socialism to be applied truly, then they would be Righteous enough that no such system would need to be in place.



Messenger: Ark I Sent: 3/4/2014 11:43:39 PM
Reply

Correction
I guess socialism does account for what I said below. So I guess the problem may not actually be a problem with it at all. Anyway, what I said below, whether or not it fits with socialism, is what I think will work the best with people, at least people today, we may change the future.


Socialism is better than capitalism, but one problem with socialism, is that people like to be rewarded, and people are willing to put in more effort if they will receive something more in exchange, and on the other side, they become dissatisfied when time passes and they don't have more than before. Good or bad, that is how most people are. Every society needs its people to want to work and to put in enough effort when they work, or there will not be enough energy to sustain a prosperous society.

Every person who works should make enough to fulfill their needs and the needs of their family and to have enough for enjoyment and savings. And there should also be enough for people who truly can't work, or can't work to full capacity. I also think that there is merit for people to get more if they work harder or their work is more specialized and difficult, or have a larger impact on society. But the range of salaries should be honesty distributed, so people get what they deserve, instead of the dishonest and wicked distribution that is used today. And if society becomes more wealthy, then everybody should enjoy it.



Messenger: Sister Sent: 3/5/2014 10:59:36 AM
Reply

There is difficulty in establishing what is of value to society or has a 'larger impact on society' and what 'enough' means in terms of the enjoyment and savings you suggest. Pressumably 'reward' means money and aquisition of material comfort. There are and have been societies that work along other lines than this. Yes todays people are in a loop of material gain but it doesnt apply to Rasta thinking or ideology for a start.

Out of interest, where does motherhood / raising a family and keeping a home come in the spectrum of 'impact on society'? This is the most notoriously undervalued 'job' in terms of monetary value, to the extent it is worth nothing at all and women are expected to participate in tax production alongside this 'free of charge' occuptation.

You seem to be assuming that all people are inherently unrighteous because of the current circumstances. Thats one way to see it. It could be that all people have the capacity to find a better way if only certain powers can be disarmed. You say if people were righteous enough there would be no need of a system - can you describe what that could be, the systemless community. If society becomes more wealthy everyone should enjoy it - sounds like socialism to me!


Bless



Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 3/5/2014 11:51:02 AM
Reply

Don't let the corrupted and failed pseudo-Socialist regimes of Europe put you off. Sister a good point, the worth of the woman as a teacher and main carer of the child and often the keeper of the home; is truly undervalued.

The idea of everyone living by survival means only and slaving away all week at work with no incentive is a Capitalist lie.

I found excerpts from this piece which explains it better than I:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1953/socialistamer.htm


Even at the present stage of economic development, if everybody worked and there was no waste, a universal four-hour day would undoubtedly be enough to provide abundance for all in the advanced countries. And once the whole thought and energy of society is concentrated on the problem of increasing productivity, it is easily conceivable that a new scientific-technological-industrial revolution would soon render a compulsory productive working day of four hours, throughout the normal lifetime of an individual, so absurdly unnecessary that it would be recognised as an impossibility.
All concepts of the amount of necessary labour required from each individual, based on present conditions and practices, must be abandoned in any serious attempt to approach a realistic estimate of future prospects and possibilities in this basic field. The labour necessary to produce food, clothing, shelter, and all the conveniences and refinements of material life in the new society will be operative, social labour—with an ever-increasing emphasis on labour-saving and automatic, labour-eliminating machinery, inventions and scientific discoveries, designed to increase the rate of productivity.

Withering away of labour and money
This labour will be highly organised and therefore disciplined in the interests of efficiency in production. There can be no anarchy in the cooperative labour process; but only freedom from labour, to an ever-increasing extent as science and technology advance productivity and automatically reduce the amount of labour time required from the individual.
The progressive reduction of this labour time required of each individual will, in my opinion, soon render it impractical to compute this labour time on a daily, weekly, or even yearly basis. It is reasonable to assume—this is my opinion, but only my opinion, and not a program—that the amount of labour time required of the individual by society during his whole life expectancy, will be approximately computed, and that he will be allowed to elect when to make this contribution. I incline strongly to the idea that the great majority will elect to get their required labour time over with in their early youth, working a full day for a year or two. Thereafter, they would be free for the rest of their lives to devote themselves, with freedom in their labour, to any scientific pursuit, to any creative work or play or study which might interest them. The necessary productive labour they have contributed in a few years of their youth will pay for their entire lifetime maintenance, on the same principle that the workers today pay for their own paltry “social security” in advance.

Emancipation of women
Thirty or 40 million women every day of the year trudging to the market, each one loading her separate basket and lugging it home to cook 30 or 40 million different meals for 30 or 40 million different families. What a terrible waste of energy, waste of productivity; to say nothing of the cultural waste; to say nothing of the imposition upon the women victims. The enlightened socialist women will knock the hell out of this inefficient, unjust and antiquated system. The mass emergence of the socialist women from the confining walls of their individual kitchens will be the greatest jail break in history—and the most beneficent. Women, liberated from the prison of the kitchen, will become the free companions of free men.
The drudgery of housework will be organised like any other division of labour, on an efficient communal basis, so that women can begin to have some leisure too. Cooking and house cleaning, like any other work, can be done much better, much quicker, in an organised, scientific manner. Proper airconditioning and dust-catching “precipitrons”—which will be standard equipment for every home—will take care of most of the house cleaning automatically.
I cannot see why the average housewife, who isn’t specially trained for it or specially adapted to it, should want to bother with it. I cannot see why cooking, house cleaning, and janitor work shouldn’t be one of the national divisions of labour, for which various people take their turns in the process for a certain number of hours a day, a certain number of weeks in a year, however it may be allocated. Or if some people prefer to live communally, as many have found it advantageous, they’ll do that and simplify things still more.
By this forecast I do not mean to draw a picture of regimentation. Just the opposite, for any kind of regimentation such as that imposed by the present social order will be utterly repugnant to the free and independent citizens of the socialist future. They will live the way they want to live, and each individual—within the limits of his general obligation to society—will decide for himself. Better, in this case, say “herself”—for old-fashioned reactionaries who ignorantly think they know what “woman’s place” is, will run up against the hard fact—for the first time since class society began—that women will have something to say about that, and what they will say will be plenty.
What kind of homes will the people have under socialism, what kind of home life? I don’t know, and neither does anyone else. But they will have the material means and the freedom of choice to work out their own patterns. These two conditions, which are unknown to the great majority today, will open up limitless vistas for converting the “home” from a problem and a burden into a self-chosen way of life for the joy of living.


Messenger: Ark I Sent: 3/5/2014 10:30:06 PM
Reply

It is not that I think that all people are unrighteous, it is just that those that are unrighteous will take advantage of the situation. I didn't say that if people were Righteous there would not be a need for a system, I said no such system would be needed, meaning socialism and other forms of control.

In regards to motherhood and raising children, that is an important and significant contribution.

In an ideal society, people would treat each other as One Life, as One Family. So all would do their best to contribute energy, and people would just go to a store to get what they need, with no need to exchange money. People wouldn't take too much, and people wouldn't give too little.

A government needs to work for all kinds people, because a society is made up of all kinds of people, both the righteous and unrighteous and those in between.

Some people may not seek material gain, but most people do, including many, if not most RasTafarI people. That doesn't mean the desire for excess, but most people want some kind of reward for their effort, and most people are not satisfied without at least some increase in their "living standard" over time.



Messenger: Black heart Sent: 3/6/2014 2:53:51 AM
Reply

Any system of Gorvenment dat promote inequality of de people haffe burn. Monarchy is one system dat promote injustice. I know dis fo I man ina Monarchy land. In a monarchy de leader n his or her family are ussualy not questioned over many matters such dat dem can run things as they like. Monarchy promote de worshiping of mankind instead of de creator. worshiping of mankind has made many Africans to be subjected to inequality n injustice at de hands of fellow Africans.


Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 3/6/2014 9:19:17 AM
Reply

^^I hear you brother. Monarchys are only as good as the ruling heir. But some of our (African) greatest civiliations have been Monarchy based. Maybe not appropriate for this time period; ideologically we can't and won't move past the Throne of Haile. The only Monarch fit for uniting Africans at home and abroad in this Iwa. Blessed-I


Messenger: Jah Dub Sent: 3/9/2014 3:03:06 PM
Reply

How about anarchy instead?


Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 3/9/2014 3:11:46 PM
Reply

Anarchy just leads the door wide open for imperialism and colonialism, although the principle is a right one.


Messenger: Jah Dub Sent: 3/9/2014 10:03:17 PM
Reply

I choose capitalism, then. I prefer the free market that capitalism provides. There's also a sense that lots of hard, hard work can give you a better life full of opportunities - yes because of money but you earned it

Socialism has many benefits but taxes are way high and then people expect to be compensated with college tuition and health care

A monarchy is kinda like a dictatorship.

The newer Constitutional Monarchies that are around today would be good,tho


1 - 1011 - 2021 - 25

Return to Reasoning List




RastafarI
 
Haile Selassie I