# Ask the Socialist candidate for the European Parliament election **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 31, 2009, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-socialist-candidate-for-the-european-parliament-election/498252 "2009-05-31T10:14:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-socialist-candidate-for-the-european-parliament-election/498252/281 "2009-06-11T15:37:33Z")
> [@Dead\_Badger](#): > > Oh, absolutely. People cease to have any sense of relative value as soon as you abolish prices. This is why black markets never spring up in command economies, after all. > > Wait, what? Yeah, what? Where in the modern world have prices ever been abolished? Even the Soviet Union continued to have prices, wages, fees, and salaries. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-socialist-candidate-for-the-european-parliament-election/498252/282 "2009-06-11T16:25:06Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > Yeah, what? Where in the modern world have prices ever been abolished? Even the Soviet Union continued to have prices, wages, fees, and salaries. They also had shortages and poor quality of consumer goods, so they had the greedy aspects of capitalism with none of the benefits, i.e. companies competing to get their goods to market efficiently. My mom and I have a running joke anytime we’re at a supermarket that involves looking around at the tens of thousands of affordable cheerfully-coloured goods and saying “Ah, capitalism”, in contrast to Soviet-era shopping that involved waiting in hours-long lines for a _chance_ of getting some low-quality commodity like tin cookware or Grade-C meats. Yeah, yeah, yeah, under _true_ socialism, goods will be plentiful. Tell us more wonderful stories of the magical land just around the corner. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-socialist-candidate-for-the-european-parliament-election/498252/283 "2009-06-11T17:29:05Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > Yeah, what? Where in the modern world have prices ever been abolished? Even the Soviet Union continued to have prices, wages, fees, and salaries. Ah right, yes, of course; back to “it’s never been tried.” Goodness me, but this socialism is a fragile beast. Has to be done with the whole world, requires infinite goods and infinite goodwill from all men. It’s all a bit “six impossible things before breakfast,” n’est-ce pas? ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-socialist-candidate-for-the-european-parliament-election/498252/284 "2009-06-11T17:34:02Z")
> [@Dead\_Badger](#): > > Capitalists might think it would be better if socialist nations embraced free trade, property ownership and personal freedom, but this doesn’t stop them continuing perfectly happily while those socialist countries make their own mistakes. The Paris Commune was ruthlessly crushed by the French and Prussian armies, while the Russian Civil War witnessed the invasion of Russia by fourteen countries (including the United States). The numerous examples of US intervention in the Caribbean and Latin America in the twentieth century (Cuba and Nicaragua leap first to mind) are proof enough that capitalism is perfectly happy to let ideologies hostile to its interests go their own way. Again, to remove any uncertainty, I do _not_ hold Cuba or Nicaragua to be socialist, but they were certainly hostile to US imperialist aims in their respective regions. > [@](#): > > _No-one argues that capitalism can not exist while there remains a single socialist country_ Which is an argument based on an assumption I do not hold - so this statement is irrelevant at best. > [@](#): > > _Remember, you said that it’s the corrupting influence of capitalism’s mere existence that causes things like black markets in socialist countries. Can you explain why?_ That would be like saying the mere existence of cars causes drunk driving fatalities - clearly there are more factors at work. Black markets arise only under certain conditions, namely when a given commodity is unavailable domestically and restrictions are placed on its import. Nothing capitalism is immune from, for certain! It’s not hard to imagine black markets arising in countries resolutely trying to remain capitalist in a period when socialism is on the rise, _if_ the balance of political power is in socialism’s favor - that is, the economically more powerful countries have undergone workers’ revolutions and are working towards the worldwide project. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-socialist-candidate-for-the-european-parliament-election/498252/285 "2009-06-11T17:56:52Z")
> [@Olentzero](#): > > It’s not hard to imagine black markets arising in countries resolutely trying to remain capitalist in a period when socialism is on the rise, _if_ the balance of political power is in socialism’s favor - that is, the economically more powerful countries have undergone workers’ revolutions and are working towards the worldwide project. Eh? But a country based on free markets wouldn’t _need_ black markets. Because it’s got, y’know … markets. You only get black markets in things whose trade is prohibited. > [@](#): > > Black markets arise only under certain conditions, namely when a given commodity is unavailable domestically and restrictions are placed on its import. So when a socialist country sees something produced externally that it would quite like (whisper it: something that its people value), its only solution to protect itself is to subsume the producer? The very knowledge of capitalist-produced goods causes iniquitous valuations to arise in the minds of socialist citizens? Again, this seems like an awfully fragile system, in which every known good must be controlled and produced in unrealistic abundance in order to stop the people making valuations. What a lot of effort to go to, to prevent the simple human trait of preferring one thing to another. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-socialist-candidate-for-the-european-parliament-election/498252/286 "2009-06-11T18:32:10Z")
> [@Dr.Love](#): > > I’ve been following this thread with some interest and frustration, so let me present a real-world problem and ask for a socialist solution. The problem is immigration into the United States (or, substitute “the geographical region occupied by the former United States” in the stateless, socialist future–I will abbreviate by just writing “the United States”): > > First, I present three facts: > [ol] > [li]There are currently more people who wish to immigrate into the United States than the government believes is optimal. This is evidenced by the fact that there is [at least one](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigrant_population_of_the_United_States) person currently residing in the United States illegally.[/li][li]There is at least one person in the United States who believes that more people should be allowed to legally enter the country than are currently allowed, as evidenced by the existence of [this editorial](http://www.reason.com/news/show/117320.html).[/li][li]There is at least one person in the United States who believes that fewer people should be allowed to enter the country than currently are, as evidenced by the existence of [this political advocacy group](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Coalition_for_Immigration_Reform).[/li][/ol] > > Now, what is the socialist solution to this problem? Specifically, answer: > [ol] > [li]By what method would a socialist world determine the optimal number of people who should immigrate to the United States, or, equivalent, determine the optimal number of people who should reside in the United States? Presumably this will be determined by a vote, but who gets to vote (e.g., only current residents of the United States? Only those who want to immigrate? Both? The entire world?)? If there are more than two options on the ballot (e.g., 250 million, 300 million, 350 million, etc.), what voting method is used (this can make a significant difference in the outcome)?[/li][li]**(a)** Suppose that the optimal population of the United States determined by the algorithm you gave is less than the number of people who wish to reside in the United States. What method will be used to determine which individuals are allowed to reside in the United States? **(b)** If the situation described in (a) is impossible (the optimal population will always be at least the number who wish to reside there), please provide an argument for why this is the case.[/li][li]For that matter, what if the determined optimal population is greater than the number that wish to reside there? What then?[/li][/ol] I grant you that your three facts are presently true, but that does not mean that they are going to be true in socialism (or even in future capitalism). This makes your questions moot. Why is it that people want to enter the United States? For most people it is because the conditions in their countries are not as good. And why are they not as good? Barring personal preferences in climate, it’s not because of anything inherently better about America’s land or geography. Rather, it’s because the system of production is further developed there. There are better opportunities for employment and for access to goods and services. In a socialist society, with free access to goods and services, there would be no reason for mass economic migration. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-socialist-candidate-for-the-european-parliament-election/498252/287 "2009-06-11T18:34:55Z")
OK, **Badger** , firstly you’re confusing two separate concepts of value: monetary value and use value. The two are not the same thing. In fact, sometimes those two concepts are quite opposed: industrial diamonds are worth far less, but are far more practically useful, than jewel-quality diamonds. In capitalism, the monetary value of a commodity has to be realized (i.e. paid for) before its use value can be realized (i.e. put to work). Under socialism, the monetary value is done away with but not the use value. People can still find things useful (and pretty) without contradiction in a socialist society. Secondly, if a country based on free markets doesn’t need black markets, what exactly would you call the illegal drug economy in the US? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-socialist-candidate-for-the-european-parliament-election/498252/288 "2009-06-11T18:45:38Z")
> [@Olentzero](#): > > Secondly, if a country based on free markets doesn’t need black markets, what exactly would you call the illegal drug economy in the US? I dunno about badger, but I’m okay with calling the drug trade a “black market”. Trouble is, in places where socialism has been tried, the “black markets” run more to mostly-harmless goods like, y’know, books and shoes and other stuff the government-run factories can’t or won’t produce in quantity or quality. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-socialist-candidate-for-the-european-parliament-election/498252/289 "2009-06-11T18:46:57Z")
> [@badlyburnttoast](#): > > No, but you could (in theory) save up your money and buy your own factory, and produce your own goods and see if you can do better then your current employer. This is a common argument—that workers remain workers simply because they don’t have the motivation to become successful capitalists. It’s simply spurious. Most workers can’t even afford their own house, let alone an entire factory. Even those that do go into business for themselves are unlikely to be able to free themselves from full-time labour. In Britain alone there are millions of people who are self-employed, but the vast majority aren’t rich and still have to work themselves. Why aren’t they all successful capitalists? They can’t all be lazy or incompetent. Another argument to consider is that not everyone wants to run a business for a living. Take me; I’m a computational linguist. I love the sort of work I do. Why can’t I be economically satisfied and politically empowered as a computational linguist? Why should I have to switch careers to business administration, a job which holds no interest for me? > [@](#): > > More realistically, you could gather up all your fellow workers, pool your money, and buy a factory (or farm, or whatever) and go work there for yourselves instead. Yes, and we’d all still have to work under the same poor conditions as our competitors if we wanted to stay in business. See, it’s not just about a small number of workers owning and controlling any one particular means of production; it’s about _everyone_ owning _all of them_. Only then can we collectively decide to run them in our own interests, rather than have them all competing against each other to turn a profit. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-socialist-candidate-for-the-european-parliament-election/498252/290 "2009-06-11T18:48:58Z")
> [@Olentzero](#): > > Secondly, if a country based on free markets doesn’t need black markets, what exactly would you call the illegal drug economy in the US? You missed something. > [@Dead Badger](#): > > You only get black markets in things whose trade is prohibited. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-socialist-candidate-for-the-european-parliament-election/498252/291 "2009-06-11T18:50:51Z")
> [@Henrichek](#): > > I recently watched this video presentation about something called the Zeitgeist Movement. > > [Video Translation Services - Translation Software | Dotsub](http://dotsub.com/view/a34fba0d-4016-4807-b255-021b58dbc9a4) > > They seem to work towards very similar goals as socialism, though with more focus on technology and science as the solution. They argue for increased automation and building everything to last, be recycleable and sustainable, to reach their resource-based economy without scarcity. > > They seem to make many of the same conclusions as have been discussed in this thread regarding for example crime and human behavior, that crime is mostly an aspect of the monetary system and scarcity inherent in the capitalist system. > > Reading their FAQ though, they seem to argue that they are not like socialism and that socialism is a failed concept, while in my eyes they have very much in common. Both seem to be international ideas where nations don’t exist, private property is not necessary, and artificial scarcity does not exist. > > I found it rather interesting, has anybody else heard about this movement before? What do you socialists, anarchists, and others think about it? Coincidentally, we recently screened this film as part of a public film series at our head office in London. The members and visitors present made many of the same observations. The Zeitgeist folks draw upon much the same research as we do to show that things such as scarcity and religion could be eliminated. Beyond what I’ve seen in their two films, though, I don’t know much about them. Perhaps we should open a dialogue. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-socialist-candidate-for-the-european-parliament-election/498252/292 "2009-06-11T19:17:10Z")
> [@Dervorin](#): > > Apologies if this question has already been asked, but I was pondering this on the way to work, in light of various discussions I’ve been having with friends lately. I have two basic questions: > > 1. What sort of standard of living do you envisage for people under the new Socialist government - are all people going to have the same standard, or if it varies, who decides who gets what? Can you compare the expected standard of living to what we have today? Yes, this has been discussed earlier in the thread, but to summarize: A great deal of the labour carried out under capitalism is concerned solely with the administration of the money system and the defence of private ownership of the means of production. This includes jobs in sectors such as banking, insurance, the military, taxation, customs, border control, etc. This labour is socially unproductive in the sense that it doesn’t go towards making the goods and services (food, shelter, and entertainment) that humans need. Were all the people working in these industries freed from these unproductive jobs and able to engage in socially productive pursuits, we would all have to work a much shorter work week in order to maintain the same quality of life. > [@](#): > > 1. How are you going to deal with problems of raw material supply to fuel your “post-scarcity” economy? Not everything is artificially made expensive through control - some basic raw materials, including many metals, are going to be exhausted within the next 100-200 years, even at current rates of usage. [Cite](http://www.24hgold.com/english/news-gold-silver-global-metal-reserves.aspx?contributor=Mike+Hewitt&article=1427726620G10020&redirect=False). How will these be supplemented or replaced if, as it seems, demand will actually increase rather than decrease? I didn’t say that capitalism makes things artificially expensive; I said that it makes them artificially _scarce_. There is a difference. In capitalism, the price of goods depends, generally speaking, by the amount of socially necessary labour needed under average conditions to produce them. (Some manipulation of prices is possible, for example through monopolization and taxation, but I’m speaking about the general case here.) This includes the price of raw materials like metal. It doesn’t matter how rare a particular metal is; the price is going to correspond roughly to how much labour it takes to extract it from the ground, refine it, and ship it to where it’s needed. If a particular resource were to become naturally scarce, obviously a socialist society would need to deal with that somehow, whether that means finding a way of recycling or reusing the resource, using replacements, or finding some way of synthesizing it. Certainly a great deal of resources in capitalism are wasted or used inefficiently or unproductively, and without the profit motive and private ownership of land and resources, socialism would curb or greatly reduce the amount of such waste. As I mentioned above, much of our economy is tied up in industries which are not socially productive; many of these industries are the worst offenders when it comes to use of resources such as paper, plastic, and metal. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-socialist-candidate-for-the-european-parliament-election/498252/293 "2009-06-11T19:21:39Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Well, that’s the problem. No one is forced to live under capitalism if they don’t want to. Go ahead and set up a socialist society if you want to. The only thing you will not be allowed to do is try to get me to give you things if you don’t pay for them. I’m curious, what is it that you have that you think others, in socialism, would want to buy? Do you actually own any factories or locomotives? > [@](#): > > But it seems that every time y’all try this, it somehow gets sabotaged because there are people who don’t go along with it. If it is so self-evidently better, why does the presence of unbelievers make the whole thing into the kind of fiasco it always winds up? This has never been tried. We established this back in post #1. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-socialist-candidate-for-the-european-parliament-election/498252/294 "2009-06-11T19:35:27Z")
> [@Olentzero](#): > > OK, **Badger** , firstly you’re confusing two separate concepts of value: monetary value and use value. No I’m not. None of us are. We’re trying to convince _you_ that just because you abolish the former doesn’t mean the latter ceases to exist. As long as people have a preference relation over objects, they will have to communicate this preference relation to others. You can do this monetarily (i.e. with a common means of exchange), or you can do it with a barter system; either way, it’s trade, and it will spring up as long as finite resources are imperfectly allocated. You handwave this away with the ludicrous assumption that everything produced under socialism will be effectively infinite, and that those goods a socialist country can’t produce will have to be either banned or their producers subsumed. You claim to abolish the very meaning of value, but in effect this requires your citizens to have no knowledge of anything save for what their own country produces, lest they value it more than their present lot. It’s yet another bonkers pre-requisite for a system that seems in essence to rely on the refrain, “under socialism, all problems will be defined not to exist.” > [@](#): > > Secondly, if a country based on free markets doesn’t need black markets, what exactly would you call the illegal drug economy in the US? **Bryan Ekers** and **jayjay** had no problem in spotting that I would call this a black market, because: > [@me](#): > > You only get black markets in things whose trade is prohibited. Unlike you, I don’t feel the need to define away the failings of free market countries by claiming that they’re not true Scotsmen; I think the failed suppression of the drug trade is proof positive that you can not, in fact, stop people wanting things you tell them they can’t have. I would also just quickly like to note the irony inherent in your bemoaning the cruelty of capitalist countries towards socialist ones, when considered in the light of your denial that there has ever been a socialist country. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-socialist-candidate-for-the-european-parliament-election/498252/295 "2009-06-11T19:35:51Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I am guessing that, since there is no society where material possessions have no value, you can’t produce a cite for this. When I said that nothing would have value, I was speaking of exchange value in a hypothetical socialist society. Value exists only under certain social conditions and relationships, where things (including human labour power) take the form of commodities to be bought and sold on the market. In a socialist society there will be common ownership, and so no commodities, just freely given and taken services and. products. So exchange value will not exist, and the law of value will not hold—leaving only use value. All production will be for use, or for the satisfaction of human need. However, under the primitive communism practiced by our pre-agrarian, pre-monetary ancestors, value similarly did not exist. So yes, there’s your cite for a society where material posesssions had no value. Amazingly, this value-less society was able to thrive for hundreds of thousands of years. If it hadn’t, you wouldn’t be around today. > [@](#): > > And here, of course, you have taken the first step back to archism. > > Someone apparently decides what is an appropriate request, and what is not. That person, whether you admit it or not, is in charge. Yes, we will all be in charge of defining our needs. Congratulations on grasping this concept. 🙂 > [@](#): > > Or put it this way - we have just established the socialist utopia. Maybe in your dreams; socialism is certainly not utopia. It’s simply a system which we hold will be better than capitalism. > [@](#): > > I and my friends run over to the Colt factory. What Colt factory? I posited that pistols are produced to kill people, and therefore, as socially unproductive tools, would not be manufactured in socialism. You haven’t challenged the antecedent. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-socialist-candidate-for-the-european-parliament-election/498252/296 "2009-06-11T19:44:05Z")
> [@An\_Gadai](#): > > What do you think of [Joe Higgins’](http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2009/06/0803.html) election as an MEP? Higgins represents a left-wing political Party espousing the ideology of Trotsky and Lenin. They stand for a state capitalist society—that is, one where industries are owned and controlled by the state, rather than by private capitalists; such an arrangement does not abolish capitalism but merely turns the government officials into the capitalists. As vanguardists, they claim to be acting for the benefit of the working class, but actually hold it in contempt, believing it to be incapable of achieving its emancipation on its own. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-socialist-candidate-for-the-european-parliament-election/498252/297 "2009-06-11T19:57:32Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > First, you already acknowledged that there will be some. What do you propose to do about those people? If they are as few in number as we expect, then nothing. > [@](#): > > How will they be coerced into participating? They don’t need to be coerced into participating. If they want to sit around all day doing nothing, while taking what they need from the common store, then I’m sure society will be able to cope. After all, we already live in a society where the owning class can live parasitic lives of leisure, and we’re able to absorb this expense. However, they will probably be ridiculed and denigrated by most everyone else; do not underestimate the power of social pressure to conform. > [@](#): > > And what if your expectation is wrong in regards to the # of dissenters? Well, if it’s so large that a vast majority of the population no longer supports socialism, then obviously we will have a problem. If people wanted to return to capitalism then, we’d have to do so. > [@](#): > > There are currently 6+ billion people on the planet…by the time people start coming around to your brand of Socialism there might be 10 billion or very many more. Even 1% of that is a whole big bunch of people. 1% is tiny compared to the number of people who currently do not need to work in capitalism. > [@](#): > > What are you going to do about those folks? Will they be allowed to have a little pocket of Capitalism, they way Communists can have little pockets of Communism today? There are no pockets of communism today, except perhaps in isolated hunter-gatherer tribes, so your analogy is spurious. However, I did address the issue of people practicing capitalism within socialism in a previous post. I suppose they would be free to do so, but who would join them? Why would anyone want to subjugate themselves to the interests of an employer, and limit the fulfillment of their needs to what they can afford to buy with their wages, when they could have free access to goods and services elsewhere? The scenario doesn’t make sense. > [@](#): > > And what will you do if people do decide that they like the lifestyles of those in that little Capitalist corner of the world, and they want to join it? And it keeps getting bigger and bigger? How does your theory deal with that possibility? This would mean that socialism wasn’t working, and that it would have to be abandoned. What did you expect me to say, that we’d round up all these counterrevolutionaries and throw them in a gulag? ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-socialist-candidate-for-the-european-parliament-election/498252/298 "2009-06-11T20:17:33Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > This would mean that socialism wasn’t working, and that it would have to be abandoned. What did you expect me to say, that we’d round up all these counterrevolutionaries and throw them in a gulag? Of course not…I expected you to say what you did. Which _should_ show you why your idea will never work, as nice as it would be if it did. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-socialist-candidate-for-the-european-parliament-election/498252/299 "2009-06-11T20:24:16Z")
I for one, am still not convinced. Not one bit. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-socialist-candidate-for-the-european-parliament-election/498252/300 "2009-06-11T20:29:35Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > They don’t need to be coerced into participating. If they want to sit around all day doing nothing, while taking what they need from the common store, then I’m sure society will be able to cope. After all, we already live in a society where the owning class can live parasitic lives of leisure, and we’re able to absorb this expense. However, they will probably be ridiculed and denigrated by most everyone else; do not underestimate the power of social pressure to conform. Boy, are you in for a surprise. I’m an atheist, liberal, gay fattie. I _swim_ in social derision pretty much every day. I’m also eminently capable of completely ignoring it until it impacts me directly by government action. Then I get mad. I seriously doubt I’m the only one. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-socialist-candidate-for-the-european-parliament-election/498252.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-socialist-candidate-for-the-european-parliament-election/498252.md?page=16)