I know most of you aren't from the United States, but for some reason, I feel the need to post this.
I've become incredibly infatuated with Socialism. The overthrow of the capitalist empire! It makes me want to participate in an armed rebellion just to read about it. Anyhow, I was wondering if any of you had opposition/support for Socialism, and particularly, the SPUSA (http://sp-usa.org). If so, I'd like to discuss it.
-Regards, Comrade Akumayo
I've been fascinated with communism for a long time, Guevara is a great hero of mine. However I'm realistic in knowing people are much too greedy to have communism work. It's why its failed so much. It's not a fault of the system, just the people. I'm even realistic in knowing I myself do enjoy many aspects of capitalism. Next year I will be voting for Australia's Socialist Party though.
Neat! I wish US's Socialist Party was strong enough to put up big candidates... my state doesn't even HAVE a socialist party. I can't vote anyhow... the voting age should be 15... I am offended...
Quote from: [Cameron] on Sat 04/11/2006 04:39:20It's not a fault of the system, just the people.
I think that communism's inability to work without the mobilization of some ideal, morally superior supermen with a "work for the common good" mindset is a major fault of the system.
But Socialism in general is stronlgy against the types of communism that have been implemented in the world thus far (Leninism/Marxism).
Every government is socialistic to a certian degree, are you referring more to a utoptian socialistic government? I'll assume you are for sake of argument.
After everyone voluntarily forfits their personal belongings, and everyone gets "equal opportunity", what's their incentive to keep on trucking? Communism is a lot like Anarchy. In the sense that it's a cute idea, in a hands-across-the-water, fairytale way. Capitalism works because people love to have stuff.
On another note, Cameron, why would you vote for socialism, if you know people are far too imperfect for it work?
I envision a Socialistic society that is Socialistic almost solely because it has overthrown capitalism, which I strogly disagree with.
The basic idea might sound great to somebody living in Utopia, but this is the real world. And here, socialism failed. Again and again.
Here's a popular joke about it: What would happen if the Sahara desert would be ruled by socialists? For ten years, nothing. Then they'd start running low on sand.
Socialism has never been given a proper chance. You can't count the USSR or Soviet Russia, they were/are too influenced by communism. Holland and Canada are good examples though.
Earlwood, because it'll never rise to power, and that way when the person in charge screws up or does something I'm against, and that always happens, I can definitely say I didn't vote for them and don't support them.
A lot of people become communists because they hate what their country has become. Others became communists because they loved their country.
Quote from: [Cameron] on Sat 04/11/2006 04:39:20
I've been fascinated with communism for a long time, Guevara is a great hero of mine. However I'm realistic in knowing people are much too greedy to have communism work.
Cameron very clearly pointed out what's wrong with the ideas of socialism and communism.
I was BORN during communist regime and remember it quite well, though I was only 8 years old when it ended.
I personally love socialism (with its branch, communism) as a way for people to co-exist. With government handling ALL science, technology, etc research & progress and people all working together to supply with needed funds and manpower sounds like a progressive way to live for humankind. Way more progressive than these people working just to fill some capitalist's greedy pockets.
But that... just doesn't work. Because people don't really want communism.
And that's what spoiled this extremely powerful step of the last century - the Soviet Union.
If all people were in the same boat, the horrors of the Union wouldn't have to exist. Like building everything on heavy propaganda, market blockades, absolute state control and endless repressions of those suspected to not co-operate.
And then there wasn't those abandoned houses in my home city, where 1x1 cubic meter rooms (cells) can be found, with 0.3 meters thick floor of human droppings turned into concrete. Yes, the reminders of KGB...
Communist state must have only one leader. A powerful one. Like Stalin was.
But it's a bit too much power for one human being. So whole thing sucks.
All kind of democratic mess ruins the thing.
Because democracy is opportunity to have different points of view. But socialism has only one.
So democracy and socialism WON'T work together. Never.
I don't want communism back. Fact is, I'm simply too lazy for this. But a true socialist must be hardcore worker.
Like socialism? Study bees. Best example of this thing in work.
The only situation Communism has proven to excel historically is in a constant state of war, and that is precisely why Stalin got Soviet Russia's war machine going and did his best to keep it that way with the Cold War. Fortunately (or unfortunately) it does not do well at all in peace time, whereas Capitalism can function in both situations because there's always profit to be made.
Capitalism functions great in a state of peace by fuelling and being fuelled by the regurgitated atrocity of manufactured war elsewhere. Please check facts, write back, thanks.
Communism != Socialism
Helm:
Yes, yes it does. However, capitalism also opens the doors for over powerful corrupt corporations, organizations, and individuals. Look at WalMart! It's sickening!
Please read what I said again. Then apply those critical thinking skills on whatever else material about politics you might be perusing at this time period, it will benefit you.
QuoteCapitalism functions great in a state of peace by fuelling and being fuelled by the regurgitated atrocity of manufactured war elsewhere. Please check facts, write back, thanks.
Where does this disagree with my statement, and why do you find it necessary that I check my facts? List sources for your claims before asking people to qualify their own, thanks.
Quotewhereas Capitalism can function in both situations because there's always profit to be made.
I'll let Las hit you with a pile of numbers. Capitalism cannot operate without some war happening, somewhere that is to its benefit. I was objecting on the 'both' part of your statement.
Communism only works when people are not greedy or lazy. Capitalism only works when people are greedy and lazy. Which do you think people are?
Also, arguing that capitalism only functions when there is a war is hardly evidence based, as since the invention of the wheel there hasn't been a significant period of time when there hasn't been a war going on somewhere.
But there's territorial wars, and there's wars manufactured and clearly run for the benefit of capitalist economy. I'm not exactly brining ground-breaking controversal news to the table here.
I'm behind historical materialism, but I'm not sure socialism works as a modern political movement in the context of western capitalism. How can you define a 'worker's party' in an society whose proletariat are being relocated to free trade zones?
Democratic socialism doesn't work because any attempt to use parliament to change the fundamental status quo of capitalism that works in our global economy would be highly contested. Removing capitalism is not something I have any faith in, for people are self-interested individuals.
Also, the lack of a substantial "working class" here in the UK (and the subsequent growth of the middle class who really have no place in democratic socialism) makes this "rule by the workers/ownership of means of production" a bit unwelcoming.
Now social democracy, which seeks to redistribute wealth whilst not challenging the necessity of capitalism, does work much better (until progressive taxation and nationalised industries prove ineffective and inefficient). This is the slightly more realistic version of "socialism".
Saying that, the hey-day of socialism has gone here in the UK, and the governments are all centre/centre-right and deeply in love with their liberal laissez-faire economics. Capitalism has triumphed! I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it's better than anything else.
QuoteI'm not saying it's a good thing, but it's better than anything else.
It's not better of what we have to think up for the future. Unless you think massive economical inequality which breeds extreme suffering, loss of life and war, is the best we can do, ever.
I meant that it's the best we have right now.
But are we working for something better, or solidifying the status quo?
You know, the best thing you have is the only thing you have right now.
I think it's silly to say man is lazy, man is greedy, or even not willing to work as bees, yet we have people who visualise of such. It's not like we're all the same here and run by our minds. Rather, I find it so, that most of us find this "status quo" too comforting to do anything about it. I'm a bit with Akumayo here. Not that I'm a socialist, what ever that means then. I'm a follower of Bernstein's ideas, not Marx's. And I am part of the Finnish social democratic party. I do not support capitalism at all, it is but opression and doesn't lead t any good. True, time has shown us that Marxism-Leninism works when there is war, as we've seen economic growth in capitalist Countries during war time. Then thing is, that the communism we have seen needed the war to survive. And it wouldn't have had Lenin not died, remember it was he who warned people about Stalin. And then we have the US government who start a war, get their stockmarkets flowing and prices up and suddenly everything is better again, forgetting the fact that people die for it.
I'm quite happy here, we have a social democratic president and people seem to think she is a commie, which she isn't, we're just one of the most lefty nations in the world, and wow, things are going swell even though we fight a bit over ridiculous matters. And hey, people tend to envy the scandinavian welfare system, well, I'm not complaining. But capitalism is really the worst thing that could happen. You think it's ok, when everyone goes on their own and live longer if they are born in certain families, because that's how it is. I bet an unemployed hobo under a bridge would agree. It's shit here too, we have poor people. None of them are poor enough for others to care, but they have problems coming along, even though the difference between wealthy and poor is minimal, it's bound to grow should we stray to the path of capitalism. Hm, and no, I'm not a communist anymore, it just doesn't work, but it does work better than capitalism.
I'm happy with the system we have here in the states. Sure, it's in the gutter right now, and it needs some serious repairs and revisions, but it's pretty cool, I guess.
The only way socialism will work is if all people are implemented with brain controlling devices, thus destroying any chance of free thought. people are greedy. full stop x 10
I don't think we can talk about absolutes in human nature - some may genuinely be gregarious and prepared to work for the good of the community, but others are self-interested and will work hard only to further their own aims and desires. As long as people are individuals, you cannot say that a socialist complete redistribution of wealth is possible, and that everyone will be better off under a socialist banner.
I personally think that equality of opportunity and access to education, healthcare, benefits and infrastructure are more important and realistic than complete economic equality. I don't think we have acheived equality of opportunity either, and I appreciate that we do have a long way to go.
I miss Communism in my country, it meant everyone worked hard and helped one another. Now people do not understand the work ethic and have become idle and disinterested. Communism to me meant the whole state helped one another to become grater, greater then the capitalist scum of the Americas. But I do believe democracy in Communism could work, as Marx once said.
That guy was great... I loved the scene of the cabin in "A night at the Opera".
I hate labels. >:(
Quote from: BeckyCapitalism has triumphed!Ã, I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it's better than anything else.
I strongly disagree.Ã, As Helm brought up, Capitalism is a war-based system.Ã, Production for profit only works when there is profit to be had, when there is demand, when there is war.Ã, Capitalism promotes destruction over peace, oppresion over freedom.
Quote from: Helm on Sat 04/11/2006 12:01:41
QuoteI'm not saying it's a good thing, but it's better than anything else.
It's not better of what we have to think up for the future. Unless you think massive economical inequality which breeds extreme suffering, loss of life and war, is the best we can do, ever.
Excellently put.
Quote from: Raggit on Sat 04/11/2006 14:18:09
I'm happy with the system we have here in the states. Sure, it's in the gutter right now, and it needs some serious repairs and revisions, but it's pretty cool, I guess.
Ahh, but it could be
better, don't you think?Ã, True democracy cannot exist without Socialism, our [United States] system is not a democracy at all, as it claims.Ã, It is a republic.Ã, Those serious repairs and revisions could come about much more swiftly under Socialism, I believe.
Quote from: Layabout on Sat 04/11/2006 14:56:57
The only way socialism will work is if all people are implemented with brain controlling devices, thus destroying any chance of free thought. people are greedy. full stop x 10
I highly disagree.Ã, Socialism would work because people WEREN'T brain controlled.Ã, It would allow a true democracy by the people.Ã, People are greedy?Ã, Yes, some people are, by nature.Ã, Does that mean we should rely on a system that
promotes that greed, and plants it in people who might've otherwise been humble?Ã, I think not.
Quote from: BeckyAs long as people are individuals, you cannot say that a socialist complete redistribution of wealth is possible, and that everyone will be better off under a socialist banner.
As long as people are individuals, you cannot say that any form of government or society will make everyone better off under its banner.Ã, I'm not saying that Socialism is a door to utopia, rather, I think it is just a noch better than the capitalist system.
This is a topic I think about all day long.Ã, Ã, As a bleeding heart liberal, the political mess in my country breaks my heart.Ã, Ã, I'm in the USA and the elections are just a few days away.
I highly recommend the books by Howard Zinn- especially "A People's History of the United States"- especially for anyone who lives in the states.Ã, Ã,Â
I don't know what the answer is for a fair, just, and equitable government for any country and/or all countries in this new world order.Ã, Ã, I understood the idealism of the Kim Philby's - but we are in a new kind of mess.Ã, Ã,Â
QuoteAs a bleeding heart liberal, the political mess in my country breaks my heart.
This display of causality is startling.
Quote from: SSH on Sat 04/11/2006 10:11:39
Communism only works when people are not greedy or lazy. Capitalism only works when people are greedy and lazy. Which do you think people are?
Also, arguing that capitalism only functions when there is a war is hardly evidence based, as since the invention of the wheel there hasn't been a significant period of time when there hasn't been a war going on somewhere.
Give me a single year since WW2 where there wasnt a single active US soldier in any foreign nation in the world.
p.s. you wont find one
As stupid as this sounds I've been trying to come up with my own political theory for a while (just incase my idiot Serbia allows US to build bases on mainland soil and Im forced to overthrow them :| lol ). The one that I keep coming up with, I will show here. It dosent really have a name so name it what you want.
It is based around an absolutely and constantly artificial adaptation to the worldly factors for self-benefit. If one country becomes a world power and the other falters you immediately switch to that country as your "big brother" but without actually having "loyalty" or "ally" based allegience. If communism is the best thing for your economy at the time, switch to it. If capitalism is, you switch to it. The key here being that you never retain 'attachment' to any of the systems. You never actually try to advance or improve the system of the government (US spreading capitalism, USSR spreading Communism) but rather you USE the systems to advance and improve, in an adaptation-like way, the state itself.
The people ARE the state but the state is higher than the people, if that makes sense. You work to advance the state. I found out that this is similar to one of the Facism axioms so Im really wondering if this is a smart idea or not :/ .
The state must be multi-ethnic, period. No one-ethnicity countries with this political theory. The country must be a unification of multiple ethnicities, with the loyalty being to the country and not the ethnicities. The reason for this being to destroy the poision of ethnic-based nationalism, and to create a climate of social understanding and openess to different cultures.
The country is lead by TWO bodies of government. The military and the more common "political government". The political government is responsible for the economic, social, foreign relations and actual functionallity of the state. However they do not dictate the existance of the state. They do not control the military directly, and they 'are not the state'. If this body of government is destroyed in war the country is not defeated. As long as the military body exists the state is legitimately in existance regardless of invaders inhabiting the land.
What inspired the previous thought was looking at WW1 Serbia. The state itself was defeated and it became German-Austrian. However the army still survived REGARDLESS of economy of Serbia and inexistance of the political-side of the state (and for a while the army wasnt even on Serbian soil, it fought for its own country from foreign territory). The key here being that the army functioned withOUT economic backup of the political state. That country survived WW1 because the army survived. The existance of a state is dictated by the status of the army not by borders or political governance.
Sorry if you read all this and felt you wasted your time. This idea probably sucks to most of you :p. Just felt like getting it out of my brain and seeing how bad people think it is.
Well, I haven't seen democracy or socialism ANYwhere really working.
Take a country. At the start, it doesn't matter on what system people build it up, be it cooperative socialsim or oppressing capitalism. If the country advances and strengthens enough to make difference on Earth, someone has to control it. Someone almost alone.
At the top of the pyramid, there's a man with others balls in his fist. Who cares who elected him? Who cares how the system is called? At the moment he reaches the throne, others either sing along or hide.
There's way too much references from history to prove this. Ask your grandparents, last time someone misused his power turned soil of Europe into a mass grave. Yes, Hitler. And his two co-killers, Truman (used atom bomb against human) and Stalin (competed Hitler in creating graves).
As I write, George W. Bush walks around with a black suitcase in his hands, capable of ending my life really fast and ensuring that there won't be even the country I'm residing in. For next thousand years.
Americans whine and hate their own leader. So does rest of the world. Ain't you democratic country? Why is he still in power if you don't like him and his doings? Do dropping polls and ratings save any of lives in Middle East? Nah. People are powerless.
And there's more of those men. Another one sits few thousands kilometres east and thinks how to remove country with history very similar of mine.
Whatever the system is, things stay same. There can only be more anarchy or less. But casual people never have power over their life.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."
--Josef Stalin
But talking about human absolutes - war is and will be one kind of basic human behaviour. This is what we are.
The fact that human is predator to other human is something that makes me want to be something else than a
human being.
Quote from: InCreator on Sun 05/11/2006 01:42:40
Well, I haven't seen democracy or socialism ANYwhere really working.
Take a country. At the start, it doesn't matter on what system people build it up, be it cooperative socialsim or oppressing capitalism. If the country advances and strengthens enough to make difference on Earth, someone has to control it. Someone almost alone.
At the top of the pyramid, there's a man with others balls in his fist. Who cares who elected him? Who cares how the system is called? At the moment he reaches the throne, others either sing along or hide.
There's way too much references from history to prove this. Ask your grandparents, last time someone misused his power turned soil of Europe into a mass grave. Yes, Hitler. And his two co-killers, Truman (used atom bomb against human) and Stalin (competed Hitler in creating graves).
As I write, George W. Bush walks around with a black suitcase in his hands, capable of ending my life really fast and ensuring that there won't be even the country I'm residing in. For next thousand years.
Americans whine and hate their own leader. So does rest of the world. Ain't you democratic country? Why is he still in power if you don't like him and his doings? Do dropping polls and ratings save any of lives in Middle East? Nah. People are powerless.
And there's more of those men. Another one sits few thousands kilometres east and thinks how to remove country with history very similar of mine.
Whatever the system is, things stay same. There can only be more anarchy or less. But casual people never have power over their life.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."
--Josef Stalin
But talking about human absolutes - war is and will be one kind of basic human behaviour. This is what we are.
Killing is a necessity and natural.
QuoteWell, I haven't seen democracy or socialism ANYwhere really working.
The democratic/capitalistic system we have here in Norway works great. In fact, it has been claimed to be the best country to live in, three years in a row.
Quote from: the vict0r on Sun 05/11/2006 02:04:35
QuoteWell, I haven't seen democracy or socialism ANYwhere really working.
The democratic/capitalistic system we have here in Norway works great. In fact, it has been claimed to be the best country to live in, three years in a row.
What factors is "best" based off of?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
Literacy, health, GNP, associated factors. Uncontroversiallly quantifiable stuff.
Quote from: Helm on Sun 05/11/2006 00:09:11
QuoteAs a bleeding heart liberal, the political mess in my country breaks my heart.
This display of causality is startling.
Forgive the poor writing, I was rotting my brain (or growing my brain) and watching something on the tv as I was typing. Ã, As I am doing now- danm.
Quote from: Las Naranjas on Sun 05/11/2006 02:27:44
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
Literacy, health, GNP, associated factors. Uncontroversiallly quantifiable stuff.
I call h4x.
All you vikings are h4x0rz.
Quote from: Las Naranjas on Sun 05/11/2006 02:27:44
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
Literacy, health, GNP, associated factors. Uncontroversiallly quantifiable stuff.
What about partying? Hmmmm? You're like last, kthxbai ._.
There's lots of reasons Norway, Sweden and such have arrived at such happy states of life, and it has to do with a lot of factors that do not apply to other parts of the world. You can't apply the same sort of political system in Turkey and expect it to prosper in the same way. All this stuff is a lot beyond my ability to coherently discuss, so I'm sorta forced to information-snipe people when they write things. I can't offer a coherent point of view of my own, as I don't really have concrete political beliefs anymore.
I used to be democratic-socialist, very red in economical matters, very libertarian in social matters, but I... I guess I grew tired of having political opinions, when I realized they were just opinions, like party-tricks. I've read a few books and I've spoken to a few people, so what. human relations are infinitely complex and any simplification is just dumb. I defined myself with dumb stuff that carried no real weight in life. I abandoned morality labeling at the same time I abandoned named political belief. My upbringing and social programming will forever remain strongly liberty and equality based, but that doesn't say much, 99% of you people in here are just like me.
But the 1% who aren't like you, they change the world. They cause Revolution, Genocide, War, and other Capitalised words.
I don't feel that way, empowered comrade of fervent 15 years of age. I feel war and such occurs because it occurs, it has to occur and there's a predetermined path towards it and everything else. The way the world works I think is holistic, everything interfaces with everything else. There is no masterplan, there are no people that change the world any more than the world is ready to change and uses these people. It's pointless to manufacture leaders as much as it is to manufacture hope. They occur when they have to occur and do what they do and things go in their spirally way towards the future. Headless monster operating under the illusion of a comfortable masterplan. In the Marxism you're supposed to be studying now, in your red phase, that's part of what is called Historical Materialism.
To a large degree I agree with everything you've said, Helm. Thank you for your insight.
Helm for president-- err, Marshall? lol
Some of the thoughts have been funny to read, but it's time to be serious...
Communism, socialism... does it work? Who created the bases of communism? Under my point of view we should take the doctrine into consideration if the creator was a superior intelligence, a scientific who demostrated that it works, or even, by admiration (even if he was wrong), a saint who put in practice the doctrine on his own by sharing its money with the poors and proletarians.
Was Marx some of that things? No... Marx was a poor student and a failed poet. His life was full of dissorders (Too much drinking, too much parties and too much of spending money... money that he never earned) in such degree that he lost relation with his parents because they didn' t allow to give him more money for his parties. The last letter his father sent to him before dying was "Karl, please... relax, spent less money".
An example of how good manager he was is that two of their children suicided and two other died by famine or lack of medical care (Because daddy wasn't able to stop going to parties, dreinking alcohol and using laudanum)
He had an illegitimate son, and his friend Engels had to recognise it to avoid problems. Engels sustended Marx' s style of live, because he was so useless to keep it without help. Only once the friendship was close to be broken... When Engel's wife died, Marx wrote to him "I'm sorry... and ah! Send me more money!".
He claimed that the cancer of the society was the bourgeoisie, but his style of life was the one of a new rich (paid by Engels), educating his kids as bourgeoises, with piano and english lessons (Lessons that were not very useless when Engels stopped sending money and then they died of famine, but hell... knowing how to performance Mozart...) He also set the bases of antisemitical nazism (Funny, because he was born Jew), because his style of life forced him to treat with Jewish lenders...
Really... I find Einstein' s theories interesting because I consider him a superior intelligence. I find Mendel' s theories interesting because he has prooven to use a scientific method that make them appealing... And I Saint Therese' s example as worth to have in consideration because she preached with the example and went to India to fight poverty. I find nothing of that in Marx. He was not brilliant, or admirable. His theories are just a reflex of his own frustrations and fears... God, he was not even close to a factory, or never treated with "the proletarians".
Economy must not be left or right. Any specific problem might need a social or liberal approach. Extreme left is as worse as extreme right...
If you focus on covering all the vital necessities... what happens with the other? Akumayo... Do you like music? Do you think that in a socialist country there is a "Statal Rock band"? Do you preffer Reggae? Do you think the Kim Jon Il, or the Castro, or the Evo Morales of the Unites States is going to say... "Ok, our youth needs Reggae... I am going to give funds to the "Statal Reggae Band" Do you think it' s going to be a necessary a "Adventure graphic statal department" if we are ruled by socialism? Do you imagine a "statal department of porn", or a "Statal department of carbonated sweet drinks"?
Because if you are serious about socialism, then, you should get used to stop listening music, seeing the playboy in magazine stands, drinking coke and play Splinter Cell... that' s over. Might sound like a fascist apocaliptic propaganda, but it's true. If there is a central focus of decission, that entity will finally loss contact with the real necessities, it will fall into lack of productivity and will collapse. Also, one of the best things that socialism has, apparently, the end of social strata, is a complete lie. There hasn' t been in modern history more difference between social strata than between the members of "the party" and the rest of the people than in the USSR.
Also... how do you expect to progress in a socialistic society? Do you expect Bill Gates (or whoever) to expend 18 hours per day working in developing an OS, if he is going to be paid EXACTLY the same than the other functionary that works with him and work nothing? Do you think he' ll feel incentivated to improve something if the "Party" is going to take his invention as soon as its shown to be effective?
Do you know the pyramid of necessities of Maslow? Socialism is trying to cover the two first steps, no matter the cost, and nothing else... It works, and it covers the vital necessities and the security necessities for a time, but that' s just an illussion, it finally falls into lack of productivity and all the pyramid collapse.
I attack Farlander personally and contribute nothing but ad hominem arguments,
Western, capitalistic, Christian countries always manage to pin-point in what name a certain atrocity or failure is/was carried out, as long as it's not their own.
If there is a war with a religious pretext going on, they can specify that it's a matter of islamic fundamentalism. If a far-away nation is opressing their people, they can blame the socialist regime.
To me, much of what has led to the situation of the world today, with unbalanced distribution of natural resources (due to colonies in the past, globalisation, out-sorucing etc), global warming and pollution, and the majority of all wars, can without hesitation be blamed on Western, Christian Capitalism. Then why don't we say that capiltalism is fundamentally flawed? Why don't we say "capitalism is good in theory, but hasn't worked in reality"?
When millions of people are starving to death in Africa, it's because they can't control their own products, their own market or their own resources (there are plenty of food and water, just not properly distributed).
Quote from: the vict0r on Sun 05/11/2006 02:04:35
The democratic/capitalistic system we have here in Norway works great. In fact, it has been claimed to be the best country to live in, three years in a row.
Anything could work in Norway. Or Sweden.
* No hostile neighbors
* Location at the edge of the world
* Terrible geometry
* Cold!
* People come with Scandinavian Brainsâ,,¢ and Cold Natureâ,,¢ as standard equipment
(No crazy religiousity as in Middle East, No crazy temperament as in Latin America, No built-in aggresive mode as in Russia or near-idiotic blind patriotism of Americans)
:D
@Las Naranjas: That lonely quote implies that Marx' philosophy respected the bourgeosie? No... I can also quote kind quotes to Hitler towards the Jews (specifically to the Jewish doctor which took care of his mother) and towards the British Empire... And I don' t think we might consider Hitler as friend of Jews and Brits... I think, I might be wrong in this too...
I' ve studied Marx... In an universitary degree... ok? And their beliefs are clear. The businessmen earn money by stealing the appreciation of valour of the goods the proletarians make. Therefore money will gather in the hands of few people, and the masses of poor proletarians will finally revolt to finish with the bourgeosie. If that is not considering the capitalism evil, then what is it? He was the man fighting agains phantoms, projecting his frustrations into a social strata HE WANTED TO BELONG TO, using the feelings of the candid and uncultivated proletarian, a group of people he never personally meet.
And please... When you reply to posts made by me, in spite of typing that "How much you respect me" (Thing that I appreciate)... Do show respect.
When I said that was illogical to call "American football" football, you told me that everyone trying to give the european football the monopolistic right to be called football "was an idiot". Now, first, you tell me I am venting frustrations... Your post has the overall feeling that I am too dare to post about something I have no idea, assuming, I pressume, that I haven't read Marx... But I did. Damn, I even I made exams about him. You say that "I prefer to argue about phantoms" than being enlighted by your clairvoyance.
And finally you accuse my post to be a logical fallacy. Amazing... In first place, it is you who incur into logical fallacy. You say that "Farlander attacks the Marxists by attacking Marx, but Marx was not really a Marxist, therefore, he is wrong" when what I really say is "Marx was a cunt... everyone who used anything even tangentially related with him to create a philosophy must have been nuts"
I think everyone must agree that any adult firmly believing the original concepts of socialism/communism/maoism/blah blah... must be nuts. I am not saying that everyone voting democrats, or a moderate left party is nuts. So, please, if you are going to attempt to change my worlds into something like "Farlander hates the left, he is a fascist" to sum all the left sided members against me, reconsider it, it' s not going to work.
I say extreme left people are nuts. The problem is that extreme left people are seen as "cool", have lots of website in the internet homaging him, and their faces printed in t-shirts.
I can' t imagine someone with a B&W image of Hitler printed in his t-shirt, with a quote "Till the last bullet!", but I see t-shirts about an assassin called "Ché Guevara" everyday with the lovely "Till the victory, allways!!!" Why? Extreme left has been as genocide, greedy and dangerous as Fascism, but no one seems to care. People in this thread has shown admiration to Guevara, and I' m sure many of them respect Castro, Morales and Chavez. I would feel very sorry if any of the members commits the mistake of showing admiration towards Hitler, Mussolini or Pinochet. Hitler, Mussolini and Pinochet were crap, make no mistake... But Stalin, Castro or Chávez are not better.
So... Akumayo. If you want to be a socialist, great. But if you move too far to extreme, you' ll have to assume that you are as nuts as the people seen in American history-X, just that in the other side.
And Petter... "Famine in Africa can be blamed to capitalism"... Why? West capitalist counties ore ok. America is Ok, Spain is ok, Sweden is Ok... Why Africa isn' t? The overall theory is that "the greedy West capitalist countries have exploited the resources of the poor countries to starve"... let' s analize this. When Africa started to go bad? Aproximatelly during the XXth century. What happened before? A system of colonies... Greedy and Fascist? Ok... I agree. But at least people had something to eat. There was famine in India before the brits left? I think now... Was it bad in Congo, when the Belgians were there? No... The example can follows... Iraq is another example. So... The theory of the "colonization is evil" collapses (Unless I am wrong and India was worst before than now...) If Africa is going bad is because most of the countries are ruled by communists warlords who preffer to pillage the international aid (95% given by CAPITALIST WEST countries) than giving food to their population.
Now, if you want to refute this with the next point of the international socialist youth manifesto "Poor counties are dying because we steal their resources", then you should look to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or Qatar... I don' t think those are poor countries, do you? And no one of the enterprises exploiting the gas resources are national. No... enterprises of the west are under a legal enviroment which makes impossible to "steal" resources. Resources are wasted when the (Chávez/Morales/Hussein/Jon Il... use the example you prefer) start to make their personal fortunes bigger by stealing national resources. Do you know that the biggest fortunes or the world are, or have been, Castro's, Hussein's, Arafat's or Mobutu' s? Do you know that people is dying in North Korea while Kim Jon Il wastes 75% of the national income in military spents?
As you say that capitalism does not work, but are a smart person, and you might know all that flaws that the left has, I would like to read the solution you propose to sollute all this...
Why do you put Castro and Chavez in the same category as Hitler, Stalin and Pinochet? I mean, let's call spade a spade here. Ideologies put aside, these people don't play in the same ballpark when it comes to what they've done and represented. Quite appalling comparison, frankly.
Wow, lots of new points brought up. I feel cut down.
Nacho: (http://americangirlscouts.org/bbc.com/yabb/index.php?topic=28941.msg368614#msg368614)
I hadn't really looked at it in that light. Perhaps, no, for sure, I should've looked it over more before commiting myself to it [Socialism]. I suppose I'm too easily infatuated. Looking it back over, you're right, it could not work for long, and while it was in power, it would not do very well. Socialism seems ideal for a very small community, not a nation. You've cut me down from my "empowered" state, thanks for being a voice of reason.
Nacho: (http://americangirlscouts.org/bbc.com/yabb/index.php?topic=28941.msg368636#msg368636)
I think I'm starting to really appreciate Helm's earlier statement. Political stances are largely like "party tricks". The far left, and far right too, for that matter, are publicity stunts, it would seem. Something to balance out a problem within the individual. Politics looks like a game more than anything else. Who can get a monopoly first? How long can they keep it?
I'm very glad I posted this here. I know most of the people here are intelligent, and have insight into many issues, and you've proven yourselves many times over. Thank you.
Again, maybe I'm too easily infatuated with new opinions, but this really seems to make sense to me, what's forming in my mind. Similar to what Helm said, really. Influence does not come through politics, not really. It won't change all that much, because it's fueled by other things, circumstances, coincidental occurances, that's what opens the door for change. Revolution is a game, people are the pawns, even the one's in power. Thanks again guys, particularly Helm and Nacho; you've helped me sort my thoughts on the issue.
I am glad of this latest post by Akumayo :). Voting is not like choosing a football favourite team. You must get away of someone who declares himself "conservative, socialist, marxist" or whatever... That' s why there are campaings... Campaings assume (ideally, of course...) that people hasn' t decided the vote and has no ideology. Use them to study the options, to read the programs, and decide. I think I' ve voted three different parties in my live, plus some abstentions... Whereas I' ve deffensed that socialism does not work, I will never tell you that left is a bad option, actually, in certain moments or situation it can be the optimal choose. So... do that Helm says... If you don' tget involved you0 ll probably be happier... ^_^
That you say fascists or extreme leftists are nuts is not something I endorse, sorry. I think Marx could have been the biggest asshole ever and that has no bearing on his political writing and ideology and I don't see under what sort of mindset you can say otherwise. He wasn't insane, he could be the most party-loving person ever. I don't really care about his life on that level. Then again, I haven't read any of the core red books in their entirety, so I can't say anything about Marxism either.
The underlying basis on socialism is by the people, for the people. Democracy works in a similar way, as in our leaders are voted by the people, for the people. But there becomes a problem with this. Those voted by the people, may make decisions far beyond what decision making men should really decide on and make stupid decisions, based on decisions by people who are persuaded to falsify information, for the benifit of the persuaders and their affiliates. Socialism, on the other hand, can not function, as even though some people may not be corruptable, and believe in their government and it's beliefs and socialism, there are others (and many others) who may accept goods or services, in exchange for corruption on the part of the reciever of the goods and services.
Humans, like apes, like to be bigger and better than their competators, like the apes with the red bottom. The ape with the biggest and reddest bottom is always the bigger being. The man with the bigger and better car, house, possesions is always the bigger being.
It's not down to though as to wether socialism can survive in the current political spectrum, it is down to humans, who are individual. The more savvy you are, the greater goals you achieve, and the more successful you become. Many millionaires, came from poor, working class backgrounds, and worked their ass off, achieved their goals, improved their stature, because it was their goal. WHere the hell would people be without goals? Fucking nowhere. BEcause people without goals arent people. They are autobots. Doing their masters bidding. Fuck socialism. Its a fools dream. The reason? Because people need to be challenged. People need to grow. People need to succeed. If they do not have that, what the hell do they have?
I'll tell you what. Slavery. Socialism is and classy name for slavery. full stop x100000
Rebutt that....
Quote from: Nacho on Sun 05/11/2006 13:16:58
I' ve studied Marx... In an universitary degree... ok?
At an... American school? How did I guess.
I would guess it was more likely a Spanish school, since that where Nacho lives...
A problem with state control of things is that the state screws things up. Look at any UK government IT project and you'll see what a hash is made of it. And building projects, and many other things. Competition and private enterprise are good for general efficiency.
The problem with pure unregulated capitalism is that the rich can exploit the poor, so there needs to be some redistribution of wealth.
The centre of politics is the place where things realyy work in the long term, and thank goodness that British politics now has 3 parties with nearly indistinguishable policies.
Quotet's not down to though as to wether socialism can survive in the current political spectrum, it is down to humans, who are individual. The more savvy you are, the greater goals you achieve, and the more successful you become
SO wrong.
Individualism leads nowhere and thinking in global scale (thus realising global effects of every individual action) is a standard for educated human being.
If we'd all live only for ourselves, we wouldn't have schools, public transportation, army, research, hospitals... everbody would handle his own problems by himself (cure cancer, bake bread, invent bicycle--).
But then human beings never survived so far. We'd be eaten by prehistoric animals. Only cooperation and collaboration led people ever anywhere.
Some points worthwhile, others are not. Individualism allow the creative mind to flow. Some goals would never be achieved if individualism didn't exist. If their were no personal gain for the inventive chap who is full of bright ideas, what motivation would one have? To help humanity? Sure, there are people who dedicate their lives to helping humanity, learning everything they can about something, involve themselves in research, but still, there is always and alteria motive, being a big fat wad of cash. Think of all those researchers, trying to find a cure for cancer. True, it is a horrible condition. It kills. Almost everyone knows of someone who has been effected by this illness. But for the intelligent scientists who actually learn how to cure this, there is the biggest reward of all. Immortality, in the sense that they will be known through all of history, for their achievement, and a big fat wad of cash.
Everything is worth something.
And I didn't say we should only live for ourselves. Nothing would work if we only lived for ourselves. Why make something or do something, if people won't have a need for it. No, need is the wrong word. Want would be better. People want things. If you make something that people want, and earn a big wad of cash in the process, you are not only helping yeurself, but others as well. Even if they didn't know they wanted it before it was invented, they will when it comes out.
Like I said, we are a competative species. If we weren't, war wouldn't exist. Research wouldn't exist. We would be living in caves barely surviving, if that. We need goals, personal, team, and country. But we still want to keep up with the Jones' or even be the Jones'. Society is based on a structure, with the toffs at the top, the plebs at the bottom, and the guys in the middle trying to make as much cash as possible.
I agree with SSH, as he is older, and makes some good points. And re-read my post InCreator, as I mentioned nothing about being focused only one ourselves.
Quote from: Layabout on Tue 07/11/2006 01:24:19
Some points worthwhile, others are not. Individualism allow the creative mind to flow. Some goals would never be achieved if individualism didn't exist. If their were no personal gain for the inventive chap who is full of bright ideas, what motivation would one have? To help humanity? Sure, there are people who dedicate their lives to helping humanity, learning everything they can about something, involve themselves in research, but still, there is always and alteria motive, being a big fat wad of cash. Think of all those researchers, trying to find a cure for cancer. True, it is a horrible condition. It kills. Almost everyone knows of someone who has been effected by this illness. But for the intelligent scientists who actually learn how to cure this, there is the biggest reward of all. Immortality, in the sense that they will be known through all of history, for their achievement, and a big fat wad of cash.
Everything is worth something.
And I didn't say we should only live for ourselves. Nothing would work if we only lived for ourselves. Why make something or do something, if people won't have a need for it. No, need is the wrong word. Want would be better. People want things. If you make something that people want, and earn a big wad of cash in the process, you are not only helping yeurself, but others as well. Even if they didn't know they wanted it before it was invented, they will when it comes out.
Like I said, we are a competative species. If we weren't, war wouldn't exist. Research wouldn't exist. We would be living in caves barely surviving, if that. We need goals, personal, team, and country. But we still want to keep up with the Jones' or even be the Jones'. Society is based on a structure, with the toffs at the top, the plebs at the bottom, and the guys in the middle trying to make as much cash as possible.
I agree with SSH, as he is older, and makes some good points. And re-read my post InCreator, as I mentioned nothing about being focused only one ourselves.
/philosophical
Worth dosent exist. Humans created "worth" concept.