What's so bad about socialisme (and while we're on it communisme)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Socialism run by benevolent rulers would be fine I suppose, communism the same I guess. Any system would more or less 'work' if run by people that genuinely care about the people. Problems arise when you get people in power who shouldn't be in power, which happens almost all the time. It would be much easier to oppress the people in a socialist or communist setting (which is why many dictators seem to lean toward such governments) from the get go than a constitutional republic setting. The US is a perfect example of that. Its claims to be free and open, yet its becoming more and more corrupt despite its supposed freedoms.

Actually a lot of serious American politics doesn't really care about socialism/communism

it's really more just overused careless rhetoric.

Be mindful to separate the political thinkers and the rhetoricians.

beef_razor:
Socialism run by benevolent rulers would be fine I suppose, communism the same I guess. Any system would more or less 'work' if run by people that genuinely care about the people. Problems arise when you get people in power who shouldn't be in power, which happens almost all the time. It would be much easier to oppress the people in a socialist or communist setting (which is why many dictators seem to lean toward such governments) from the get go than a constitutional republic setting. The US is a perfect example of that. Its claims to be free and open, yet its becoming more and more corrupt despite its supposed freedoms.

The problem mainly arises from the fact that Communism as a form of government offers no protection from the consolidation of power.

In the US, we have intentionally a "separation" of powers, as well as term limits, in order to keep power flowing.

Unfortunately our system is not perfect either, and people seem to refuse to fix it.

Danny Ocean:
.]

I quit University because I hate to study and how classes are by definition (despite liking to learn), but seeing what you study actually made me jealous :(

Communisms issues usually involve conflicts with human nature (especially during the Dictatorship of the Proletariat phase) however Socialism is quite a broad term. Social Democracy has been proven to work quite well (with the Scandinavian countries being a testament to a properly run Social Democracy) and is, in many cases, superior to capitalism in quite a few ways.

The "fear" of socialism is rooted in McCarthyism and residual effects from the "red scare" as a whole. The problem with the U.S. adopting "socialist" policies is mostly that residual effect making it impossible to suggest anything with the word "social" in it's title to congress. Not only that, but almost all attempts at passing a Social Democratic bill, if successful, would be overturned the second Republicans get into power.

problems with Communism is we aren't ready for it. Christians of different time periods have tried it but because of human greed, it's gone down the drain real fast.

As far as Marx saw it, there are three things that have we have failed at in attempting this so far (need to read his manifesto, so just doing the two parts that gets taught all the time).

1. The whole world, or at least a large chunk of it, needs to overthrow their corporate masters in a very bloody revaluation. Only a handful have done it.

2. No Competition. This hardly happens. This is actually how the USSR really fell as it spent much of it's resources competing with the USA.

3. No class, no one better than everyone else. Holy crap, have much of the "communists" countries failed at this one (namely China, Russia, and Cuba, France during The Great Terror).

Anoni Mus:

Danny Ocean:
.]

I quit University because I hate to study and how classes are by definition (despite liking to learn), but seeing what you study actually made me jealous :(

Yeah the lectures and things get pretty dull, and first year stuff is pretty easy, but the range of stuff on offer for me to study (I can pick modules from Pol, Phil, Social Anthropology, Criminology, and Sociology; The Arabic is non-credited) is just brilliant. Plus access to Journals through the library.

Yeah, I'm really enjoying it.

Blablahb:

Pyramid Head:
You and i probably use different definitions of Socialism. So before i answer, why don't you define Socialism so i know where you're coming from?

Socialism, as in, socialism. Replacing a market economy with either centrally controlled production, or replacing the entire economy with a planned one (communism).

Everything short of that is capitalism.

Cuba for instance came to the brink of collapse, despite raking in money using exports from free and forced labour, and reformed to a capitalism. Nonetheless their attempt at socialism caused massive economic damage to the country. Due to size, position, resources and such, Cuba could've been one of the most succesfull countries in the Caribbean area, but it's not. It's impoverished with shortages of many things.

I'm iffy on your definition but at the same time you just demonstrated quite beautifully you don't know what is actually going on in socialist nations. Funny how the massive trade embargo was never brought up and that i only see the accusations of forced labor from people clearly in favor of capitalism. Here's another problem with discussing socialism, American media and government has been (often baseless) slandering socialist nations for a long time now, so information on them among opponents is often lacking. Plus your "It's either entirely this or it's this" is, once more, iffy, the idea that there is no middle ground, that it's either capitalism or socialism is kind of ridiculous.

Danny Ocean:
Infographs

So just being a millionaire makes you part of the one percent?

Fuck Occupy Wall Street then. I'll keep my money, thank you very much.

Pyramid Head:
I'm iffy on your definition but at the same time you just demonstrated quite beautifully you don't know what is actually going on in socialist nations.

Not the no true scotsman again please.

The definition of socialism can't be anything different from replacing at least a large part of the economy. Anything less extreme than that is still a form of capitalism.

Pyramid Head:
Funny how the massive trade embargo was never brought up and that i only see the accusations of forced labor from people clearly in favor of capitalism.

Actually I read it in a book from someone who lives there. Being part of a youth organisation meant getting forced to roll cigars without being paid for it, which were then exported to create state revenue.

You'd expect such use of forced labour means they have a huge economy going on because they can produce for zero costs (other than fertiliser for the tobacco plants) but they don't. Cuba's economy never got going due to the inherent problems of the socialistic system.

Blablahb:

You'd expect such use of forced labour means they have a huge economy going on because they can produce for zero costs (other than fertiliser for the tobacco plants) but they don't. Cuba's economy never got going due to the inherent problems of the socialistic system.

Then how do you explain the fact that Cuba is above average the economies of countries of the same periphery? And that the population bellow poverty line is just 1,5 per cent? And that Cuba HDI is ranked 51 out of 182?

keep in mind that this is a country that got half the world against it.

Anoni Mus:

Blablahb:

You'd expect such use of forced labour means they have a huge economy going on because they can produce for zero costs (other than fertiliser for the tobacco plants) but they don't. Cuba's economy never got going due to the inherent problems of the socialistic system.

Then how do you explain the fact that Cuba is above average the economies of countries of the same periphery? And that the population bellow poverty line is just 1,5 per cent? And that Cuba HDI is ranked 51 out of 182?

keep in mind that this is a country that got half the world against it.

Half the world? Please elaborate. Cuba trades with Canada, China, EU countries, south American countries, etc. So who except the US is against Cuba?

And at the same time Cuba ranks 112th on GDP per capita. This suggest, combined with your other numbers, that Cuba destroyed its middle and rich class to ensure people are just above the poverty line. Not necessarily something to be proud of tbh.

generals3:

Anoni Mus:

Blablahb:

You'd expect such use of forced labour means they have a huge economy going on because they can produce for zero costs (other than fertiliser for the tobacco plants) but they don't. Cuba's economy never got going due to the inherent problems of the socialistic system.

Then how do you explain the fact that Cuba is above average the economies of countries of the same periphery? And that the population bellow poverty line is just 1,5 per cent? And that Cuba HDI is ranked 51 out of 182?

keep in mind that this is a country that got half the world against it.

Half the world? Please elaborate. Cuba trades with Canada, China, EU countries, south American countries, etc. So who except the US is against Cuba?

And at the same time Cuba ranks 112th on GDP per capita. This suggest, combined with your other numbers, that Cuba destroyed its middle and rich class to ensure people are just above the poverty line. Not necessarily something to be proud of tbh.

I said being against Cuba, I know almost every country trades with it, but US is still big and influential.

I also forgot to add, Cuba unemployment is bellow 2 per cent.

About GDP, where did you see 112th rank on GDP per capita? I see 95th, 89th and 59th according to three different sources.
Also GDP per capita is not a very good indicator for country development

And there are tests proving if having a choice, majority would prefer to live in a country where everyone's income was roughly the same and has enough to live by, than a country where you could be very poor but also very rich.

Anoni Mus:

I said being against Cuba, I know almost every country trades with it, but US is still big and influential.

I also forgot to add, Cuba unemployment is bellow 2 per cent.

About GDP, where did you see 112th rank on GDP per capita? I see 95th, 89th and 59th according to three different sources.
Also GDP per capita is not a very good indicator for country development

And there are tests proving if having a choice, majority would prefer to live in a country where everyone's income was roughly the same and has enough to live by, than a country where you could be very poor but also very rich.

But who cares who's against them if they still trade with them? It's like the EU which sometimes points fingers at Israel but since the EU remains a huge trade partner it's not like the finger pointing matters.

And it was a 2010 estimate from the CIA factbook. I must also add it's GDP per Capita PPP
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cu.html

Blablahb:
Not the no true scotsman again please.

This is not an example of the no true scotsman soft fallacy. It is not post-hoc: he's going in saying that your definition is wrong.

And he's right. Your definition, as you state it in that very post:

replacing at least a large part of the economy

Is rubbish. Too vague.

Everyone knows Socialism is social (state) control of the means of production.

His claim that everything short of capitalistic anarchy is a form of Socialism is valid as long as you think that your claim that anything short of total authoritarian control is Capitalism.

You either need to accept the fact that Socialism isn't necessarily a bad thing or change your definition.

generals3:

Anoni Mus:

I said being against Cuba, I know almost every country trades with it, but US is still big and influential.

I also forgot to add, Cuba unemployment is bellow 2 per cent.

About GDP, where did you see 112th rank on GDP per capita? I see 95th, 89th and 59th according to three different sources.
Also GDP per capita is not a very good indicator for country development

And there are tests proving if having a choice, majority would prefer to live in a country where everyone's income was roughly the same and has enough to live by, than a country where you could be very poor but also very rich.

But who cares who's against them if they still trade with them? It's like the EU which sometimes points fingers at Israel but since the EU remains a huge trade partner it's not like the finger pointing matters.

And it was a 2010 estimate from the CIA factbook. I must also add it's GDP per Capita PPP
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cu.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita here appears lists from Cia factbook and university of Pensilvania (and other two but Cuba is not listed in those) and got different ranks, probably because CIA uses regions too, not only countries. But both from Wikipedia using Cia as source and the cia itself has the same estimate of 9,900 GDP per capita despite different ranks.
Interesting IMF and World Bank have no info, but US has. Illegal Spies?

Blablahb:

Spence Thompson:
The elite also accept the police state-scale protection that allows them to live in absolute luxury while jailing a number of people unseen in the developed world and allowing hungry people to starve to death at the doorsteps of penthouses.

The level and severity of crime in those countries justifies hiring that kind of protection, you know. I mean, we as westerners complain about crime, fear it sometimes, often irrationally, but compared the kind of thugs you run across in third world countries, our surroundings are safe as a vault and even our most hardcore criminals are wimps.

Yes, but if you were to hypothetically compare the United States to the developed world, and Europe in particular, the comparison would not be so friendly.

Pyramid Head:

Blablahb:

Pyramid Head:
You and i probably use different definitions of Socialism. So before i answer, why don't you define Socialism so i know where you're coming from?

Socialism, as in, socialism. Replacing a market economy with either centrally controlled production, or replacing the entire economy with a planned one (communism).

Everything short of that is capitalism.

Cuba for instance came to the brink of collapse, despite raking in money using exports from free and forced labour, and reformed to a capitalism. Nonetheless their attempt at socialism caused massive economic damage to the country. Due to size, position, resources and such, Cuba could've been one of the most succesfull countries in the Caribbean area, but it's not. It's impoverished with shortages of many things.

I'm iffy on your definition but at the same time you just demonstrated quite beautifully you don't know what is actually going on in socialist nations. Funny how the massive trade embargo was never brought up and that i only see the accusations of forced labor from people clearly in favor of capitalism. Here's another problem with discussing socialism, American media and government has been (often baseless) slandering socialist nations for a long time now, so information on them among opponents is often lacking. Plus your "It's either entirely this or it's this" is, once more, iffy, the idea that there is no middle ground, that it's either capitalism or socialism is kind of ridiculous.

What you don't seem to understand is that Cuba is not a socialist state, having a universal health care doesn't make you one.
Cuba, like many other "Socialists" countries in reality practices state capitalism, where virtually all the means of production which are owned by the state(and in most "socialist" countries that include most of them, and unlike in the classical meaning also the work force, and the financial capital) are used to make profit for the state.
The situation in other "Socialist" countries is not that different, in China for quite a while it was the same thing, the only difference is that in China much of the capital is co-owned.
If you want to make examples of socialist/planned economies that actually work there is pretty much a single case of that and it Singapore, it started as a heavily(but rather brilliantly) planned economy and a social state and transitioned into a free market economy whit emphasis on economic planning rather then regulation.
What i don't understand about virtually every post in this thread, even the more informed ones is why people don't differentiate between ideological systems, and economical systems.
There is nothing wrong with "socialism" but having social security, health care, and other perks has nothing to do with socialism, it's mind boggling that people think that it does. Having a high quality of life is a result of cultural, and technological advancements, many of them made possible trough various form of free market economies.
That said true Marxist or classical socialism is impossible, especially in our given technological state, and i don't understand how any one can claim that Europe or any other country practice socialism.
Europe, like the US, and virtually every other "free" country on the planet employ a free-market economy, with checks and balances which are set in place, these come in various forms depending on the country.
In "Anglo-Saxon" capitalist countries like the US, Canada, and the UK the main check and balances come in form of market regulations(to a point the US has more regulation than most of the EU countries when it comes to it's capital market). In other countries(such as the continental EU) they come in form of state provided services rather than direct market regulations.
Needless to say that all of these various systems are not mutually exclusive, and countries adopt and tweak the platitude of systems that actually compose a social-economic ecology that works for them depending on every thing from available natural resources to their culture.
What i can't wrap my head around is why the US sticks socialism to every service that any one living in a western country, or any other country with equal entitlement should have.

Blablahb:

Pyramid Head:
That said to answer the question of what is so bad about socialism and communism, in regards to socialism it's actually a sound economic plan that has been shown to work in some situations

Can you name us examples of working socialist economies then? Keep in mind that you can't use regulated capitalism like in northern and western Europe as an argument there.

Because to my knowledge, all socialist economies collapsed spectacularly. Even systems that aren't completely socialistic collapse. Like for instance Venezuela. Nationalising industries caused their economy to crash to the part where relative prosperity turned into food shortages.

I'll answer for Pyramid head here. When talking about socialism, it's senseless to exclude Northern and Western Europe. In the Netherlands an average citizen pays 60% tax of all the money that passes through him/her, if you earn more that precentage increases. Meaning that you work more for the goverment then for yourself. To me that fits the definition of socialisme pretty well. We're also doing rather well. Our infrastructure, education, health care system, crime, corruption, employment are all among the worlds best.

Anoni Mus:

generals3:

Anoni Mus:

I said being against Cuba, I know almost every country trades with it, but US is still big and influential.

I also forgot to add, Cuba unemployment is bellow 2 per cent.

About GDP, where did you see 112th rank on GDP per capita? I see 95th, 89th and 59th according to three different sources.
Also GDP per capita is not a very good indicator for country development

And there are tests proving if having a choice, majority would prefer to live in a country where everyone's income was roughly the same and has enough to live by, than a country where you could be very poor but also very rich.

But who cares who's against them if they still trade with them? It's like the EU which sometimes points fingers at Israel but since the EU remains a huge trade partner it's not like the finger pointing matters.

And it was a 2010 estimate from the CIA factbook. I must also add it's GDP per Capita PPP
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cu.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita here appears lists from Cia factbook and university of Pensilvania (and other two but Cuba is not listed in those) and got different ranks, probably because CIA uses regions too, not only countries. But both from Wikipedia using Cia as source and the cia itself has the same estimate of 9,900 GDP per capita despite different ranks.
Interesting IMF and World Bank have no info, but US has. Illegal Spies?

You're right, the CIA factbook does include regions (which is quite misleading tbh). And about those tests, they are quite misleading (kinda forgot to address that before). Because there is a difference between saying something in a test and actually saying yes to it in reality. Also an other problem is that those tests usually don't say how much you'd get in both scenarios (the one with equality and the one with inequality).

rutger5000:

Blablahb:

Pyramid Head:
That said to answer the question of what is so bad about socialism and communism, in regards to socialism it's actually a sound economic plan that has been shown to work in some situations

Can you name us examples of working socialist economies then? Keep in mind that you can't use regulated capitalism like in northern and western Europe as an argument there.

Because to my knowledge, all socialist economies collapsed spectacularly. Even systems that aren't completely socialistic collapse. Like for instance Venezuela. Nationalising industries caused their economy to crash to the part where relative prosperity turned into food shortages.

I'll answer for Pyramid head here. When talking about socialism, it's senseless to exclude Northern and Western Europe. In the Netherlands an average citizen pays 60% tax of all the money that passes through him/her, if you earn more that precentage increases. Meaning that you work more for the goverment then for yourself. To me that fits the definition of socialisme pretty well. We're also doing rather well. Our infrastructure, education, health care system, crime, corruption, employment are all among the worlds best.

In the Netherlands the highest individual tax rate is 52% it's the country with the one of the lenient deductibles in the world, and has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the EU so what are you talking about?
Europe is in no way shape or form socialist, taxes and services have nothing to do with socialism, in fact under any true communism/socialism there is little need for actual taxation since the state owns the means of productions, and controls the capital market.
There reason that there are high tax rates in continental Europe(ex the UK) is that the preferred method for checks and balances(over the free market) is via socioeconomic policies and services rather then direct regulation and intervention.

Verbatim:

rutger5000:

Blablahb:
Can you name us examples of working socialist economies then? Keep in mind that you can't use regulated capitalism like in northern and western Europe as an argument there.

Because to my knowledge, all socialist economies collapsed spectacularly. Even systems that aren't completely socialistic collapse. Like for instance Venezuela. Nationalising industries caused their economy to crash to the part where relative prosperity turned into food shortages.

I'll answer for Pyramid head here. When talking about socialism, it's senseless to exclude Northern and Western Europe. In the Netherlands an average citizen pays 60% tax of all the money that passes through him/her, if you earn more that precentage increases. Meaning that you work more for the goverment then for yourself. To me that fits the definition of socialisme pretty well. We're also doing rather well. Our infrastructure, education, health care system, crime, corruption, employment are all among the worlds best.

In the Netherlands the highest individual tax rate is 52% it's the country with the one of the lenient deductibles in the world, and has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the EU so what are you talking about?
Europe is in no way shape or form socialist, taxes and services have nothing to do with socialism, in fact under any true communism/socialism there is little need for actual taxation since the state owns the means of productions, and controls the capital market.
There reason that there are high tax rates in continental Europe(ex the UK) is that the preferred method for checks and balances(over the free market) is via socioeconomic policies and services rather then direct regulation and intervention.

My bad

Blablahb:

Pyramid Head:
I'm iffy on your definition but at the same time you just demonstrated quite beautifully you don't know what is actually going on in socialist nations.

Not the no true scotsman again please.

The definition of socialism can't be anything different from replacing at least a large part of the economy. Anything less extreme than that is still a form of capitalism.

Pyramid Head:
Funny how the massive trade embargo was never brought up and that i only see the accusations of forced labor from people clearly in favor of capitalism.

Actually I read it in a book from someone who lives there. Being part of a youth organisation meant getting forced to roll cigars without being paid for it, which were then exported to create state revenue.

You'd expect such use of forced labour means they have a huge economy going on because they can produce for zero costs (other than fertiliser for the tobacco plants) but they don't. Cuba's economy never got going due to the inherent problems of the socialistic system.

...i have no real way to reply to that beyond "I fucking called it." You're extremely ignorant of Cuba's struggle, more so than even i who have never been to the nation and watch the same filtered news am, and you tried to pin it's economic woes on an extremely narrow minded view of things.

Anoni Mus:

Danny Ocean:
.]

I quit University because I hate to study and how classes are by definition (despite liking to learn), but seeing what you study actually made me jealous :(

That's pretty much what I was say

zehydra:

beef_razor:
Socialism run by benevolent rulers would be fine I suppose, communism the same I guess. Any system would more or less 'work' if run by people that genuinely care about the people. Problems arise when you get people in power who shouldn't be in power, which happens almost all the time. It would be much easier to oppress the people in a socialist or communist setting (which is why many dictators seem to lean toward such governments) from the get go than a constitutional republic setting. The US is a perfect example of that. Its claims to be free and open, yet its becoming more and more corrupt despite its supposed freedoms.

The problem mainly arises from the fact that Communism as a form of government offers no protection from the consolidation of power.

In the US, we have intentionally a "separation" of powers, as well as term limits, in order to keep power flowing.

Unfortunately our system is not perfect either, and people seem to refuse to fix it.

That's more or less what I was trying to get at. The US these days is in pretty bad shape, but its taken a while to chip away at the protections and measures we had in place to prevent such a thing. Unfortunately an apathetic public will always make things easier for corrupt people to slip into power and fuck everything up.

well the usa spent 45 years condemming the soviet union for abducting people off the streets, indefinite detention without trial, torture, etc now days you are a communist if you dont support abducting people off the streets, indefinite detention without trial and torture

Because Communism doesn't work. Its an idealistic idea that doesn't take into account that humans like competing with each other, have feelings of schadenfreude, and that it isn't very motivating for a CEO to work the hours that he does if he is going to get payed the same as some part time cashier at Walgreens.

Helmholtz Watson:
Because Communism doesn't work. Its an idealistic idea that doesn't take into account that humans like competing with each other, have feelings of schadenfreude, and that it isn't very motivating for a CEO to work the hours that he does if he is going to get payed the same as some part time cashier at Walgreens.

Because beeing a cashier is easier... Most people say it's a really bad job.

Also your post has been proven wrong a lot, you're just taking into account monetary value, while completly ignoring personal objectives and ambition. Do you you think most painters paint due to money? Painters love to paint, obviously they'd like to get money from it, but it's not the main reason they do it. This is true to most arts and intellectual work (where inovation matters).

It was the opposing side to American world domination. American reactionaries for the longest time didn't consider what any of it meant, just that it was the bad guys. It's the same thing with muslims to them. They're apparently just evil on account of their difference and there can be no discussion beyond that.

As for my own feelings, communist ideals are not possible to fully implement until we reach post-scarcity. The goal of communist nations should be to bring this about while conceding non-strategic industries to individuals.

There is not socialism but socialisms.

Democratic reformist socialism has worked very well. It's been a huge success in many nations.

Revolutionary marxist socialism or marxist-leninism or Trotskyism or maoism or Juche or whatever they care to call it in its various guises has not worked in the modern world. I wish it had worked.

The main problem I have with revolutionary socialism is with their lame excuses for when it shits the bed which run as thus:

1. They had the wrong leadership. "We" are smarter, more democratic and will do things differently if we have power. But many of the communist leaders of previous regimes were also educated, experienced and incredibly smart, but the system still screwed up. Seems incredibly elitist and naive to me to accept that leadership or smartness is a guarantee of success in this issue.

2. The revolution needed to be international among all countries within the first few years or decades (permanent revolution) as socialism in one country leads to reaction and dictatorship. Well this seems impossibly high expecations as a defense against failure, especially since marxist regimes once controlled almost half of he world. It is like the Borg: because all were not assimilated simultaneously we couldn't realise the ideal.

3. All those other previous and existing regimes aren't "really" communist. Presumably because of 1 and 2 above. But "we" will be the real deal because we are smarter and nicer than what came before: our revolution will be different. Yeah, sure.

4. Marxist-Leninism and the idea of a revolutionary vanguard and central committee corrupted the revolution. I am sympathetic to this more anarchistic line of reasoning, but still pessimistic. What is the alternative? I have seen no credible ones.

The ideal of communism is great and spectacular. In the real world it has been a nightmare.

Regards

Nightspore

People. People are the problem. People are the problem with any political setup. Socialism and Communism work wonders on paper, but when put the practice, it all goes rotten because the plans are still reliant on the people upstairs. Any political agenda, ANY at all no matter how Utopian it might seem, becomes a problem when taken to the extreme.

itchcrotch:
People. People are the problem. People are the problem with any political setup. Socialism and Communism work wonders on paper, but when put the practice, it all goes rotten because the plans are still reliant on the people upstairs. Any political agenda, ANY at all no matter how Utopian it might seem, becomes a problem when taken to the extreme.

Got proof? Or that's just common sense?
Common sense can be good, but in this case it doesn't help at all and I think it's a load of bullshit repeated to death.

Anoni Mus:

itchcrotch:
People. People are the problem. People are the problem with any political setup. Socialism and Communism work wonders on paper, but when put the practice, it all goes rotten because the plans are still reliant on the people upstairs. Any political agenda, ANY at all no matter how Utopian it might seem, becomes a problem when taken to the extreme.

Got proof? Or that's just common sense?
Common sense can be good, but in this case it doesn't help at all and I think it's a load of bullshit repeated to death.

Sorry dude, didn't mean to hurt your feelings.
But this isn't a court house, it's a harmless general thread, I don't need "proof" to give my opinion and leave. And you have better things to be doing than going around looking for people to disagree with.

itchcrotch:

Anoni Mus:

itchcrotch:
People. People are the problem. People are the problem with any political setup. Socialism and Communism work wonders on paper, but when put the practice, it all goes rotten because the plans are still reliant on the people upstairs. Any political agenda, ANY at all no matter how Utopian it might seem, becomes a problem when taken to the extreme.

Got proof? Or that's just common sense?
Common sense can be good, but in this case it doesn't help at all and I think it's a load of bullshit repeated to death.

Sorry dude, didn't mean to hurt your feelings.
But this isn't a court house, it's a harmless general thread, I don't need "proof" to give my opinion and leave. And you have better things to be doing than going around looking for people to disagree with.

I like to learn, but it's something hard to do with anti-communists on this forum, because they're often ignorant.

I want someone who read and understand Marx to refute his critics of capitalism. Someone you clearly aren't.

Anoni Mus:

itchcrotch:

Anoni Mus:

Got proof? Or that's just common sense?
Common sense can be good, but in this case it doesn't help at all and I think it's a load of bullshit repeated to death.

Sorry dude, didn't mean to hurt your feelings.
But this isn't a court house, it's a harmless general thread, I don't need "proof" to give my opinion and leave. And you have better things to be doing than going around looking for people to disagree with.

I like to learn, but it's something hard to do with anti-communists on this forum, because they're often ignorant.

I want someone who read and understand Marx to refute his critics of capitalism. Someone you clearly aren't.

My point exactly. If you know who it is you are looking for on this thread, you'd probably find them much quicker without wasting your time coming over to me and saying "You sir, are not the man I am looking for! I just thought I'd like to tell you that!"

itchcrotch:

Anoni Mus:

itchcrotch:

Sorry dude, didn't mean to hurt your feelings.
But this isn't a court house, it's a harmless general thread, I don't need "proof" to give my opinion and leave. And you have better things to be doing than going around looking for people to disagree with.

I like to learn, but it's something hard to do with anti-communists on this forum, because they're often ignorant.

I want someone who read and understand Marx to refute his critics of capitalism. Someone you clearly aren't.

My point exactly. If you know who it is you are looking for on this thread, you'd probably find them much quicker without wasting your time coming over to me and saying "You sir, are not the man I am looking for! I just thought I'd like to tell you that!"

the way you said was indeed funny.
But by allowing your type of posts to go on without someone calling them out, this chain of posts won't stop, and that's something I don't want.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here