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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Anoni Mus:

itchcrotch:

Anoni Mus:

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.

And now you see what happens when you attempt to stop the spread of opinions that aren't deep enough for you: you only end up giving me more to talk about (and I'm certainly not hurting for fuel with you around). If you envision a Utopian forum thread where nobody who doesn't have a college degree in the forum subject matter is allowed to have an opinion, then look for the theoretical thread called "What's so bad about socialism (and while we're on it communism) PS: ONLY HIGH ACADEMICS PLEASE"
Any less than that, and I'll feel free to drop my two cents wherever I like thankyou.

itchcrotch:

Anoni Mus:

itchcrotch:

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.

And now you see what happens when you attempt to stop the spread of opinions that aren't deep enough for you: you only end up giving me more to talk about (and I'm certainly not hurting for fuel with you around). If you envision a Utopian forum thread where nobody who doesn't have a college degree in the forum subject matter is allowed to have an opinion, then look for the theoretical thread called "What's so bad about socialism (and while we're on it communism) PS: ONLY HIGH ACADEMICS PLEASE"
Any less than that, and I'll feel free to drop my two cents wherever I like thankyou.

It's nothing like that really. I don't even have a degree and my grades at HS where bad, but I know how to only talk about subjects I know of, and using proves if needed while also trying to avoid using logical fallacies.

About logical fallacies, it's really what I envision, probably utopian but I'd really like to see a discussion thread without anyone using them.

Anoni Mus:

itchcrotch:

Anoni Mus:

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.

And now you see what happens when you attempt to stop the spread of opinions that aren't deep enough for you: you only end up giving me more to talk about (and I'm certainly not hurting for fuel with you around). If you envision a Utopian forum thread where nobody who doesn't have a college degree in the forum subject matter is allowed to have an opinion, then look for the theoretical thread called "What's so bad about socialism (and while we're on it communism) PS: ONLY HIGH ACADEMICS PLEASE"
Any less than that, and I'll feel free to drop my two cents wherever I like thankyou.

It's nothing like that really. I don't even have a degree and my grades at HS where bad, but I know how to only talk about subjects I know of, and using proves if needed while also trying to avoid using logical fallacies.

About logical fallacies, it's really what I envision, probably utopian but I'd really like to see a discussion thread without anyone using them.

And what's logically false about what I said? I was dispelling the common assumption that socialism and it's natural extreme, communism is not inherently flawed or evil as many often think it is, but that it's failure to deliver the ideal society it's workings promise is the fault of the people who stand in command of such political philosophies, not the doctrine itself. And to offer speculation that such people could make dodge social infrastructure of any political setup, was to offer reason for allowing the proposition that correlation between the politicians in charge and the failure of the political philosophies they work with, in this case, also implies causation.
What I was offering is that the suggestion that, say, communism, through inherent problems in its workings, leads to the common downfall of the politicians who support it, is what's called in the school of logic, a 'fallacy of correlation and causation'.
If you want to know more about that, look into "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc", Latin: "After This Therefore Because of This".
Maybe then you'll see this precious "logic" of yours in my initial post that you saw fit to pounce on. Until then, don't go whinging about ideas presented in public, just because you can't deduce from their casual presentation, what they're talking about. Especially when you're responses to them suffer the same issue, dispelling an angle on the grounds of "That's nonsense because I say it is."

I feel like the biggest problem with socialism/communism, in my mind, is that they are both excellent, highly appealing ideas that work far better in theory than they do in practice. At least in my understanding, communism, the government or economical system based around the communal sharing of wealth and assets, depends a great deal upon all of the people sharing all that they can, all of the time. And while that certainly sounds like a great idea, the sad truth is that that's just not how humans work. We, as a whole, are greedy and self-serving. I don't believe a government can stay fully functional for long when it's based off something as frail as integrity, and as cynical as that sounds, it's true. I like people. I think they're pretty cool. And every now and again, people are capable of breathtaking acts of beauty and kindness. But not frequently enough to trust them with, in essence, everyone else's property.

To say this in more relatable terms: Would you be willing to let a stranger live in your room for a year? It's entirely possible he'll be the perfect guest, cleaning up after himself and even getting you some shiny new games as thanks for housing him.

Now would you be willing to bet all the money you'll ever make that he will?

Obviously, this is a pretty sweeping generalization, but that's what I think about communism. It's a bet on the kindness and charity of other people, not a stable form of government.

I'll be pretty surprised if nobody's brought up Animal Farm yet.

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.

Hasn't it been covered already then? People don't work for nothing. A small minority of them might if their needs have already been met, but by and large, people don't work for nothing.

Also something which is reinforced by many observances in socialist states. People cared little about their work, and the concept of communal property mostly meant that if a light bulb burned out at home, you stole one from work. Who cares? Besides, who wants to queu up for half a day for a new light bulb if one can be taken from work too?

Blablahb:

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.

Hasn't it been covered already then? People don't work for nothing. A small minority of them might if their needs have already been met, but by and large, people don't work for nothing.

Also something which is reinforced by many observances in socialist states. People cared little about their work, and the concept of communal property mostly meant that if a light bulb burned out at home, you stole one from work. Who cares? Besides, who wants to queu up for half a day for a new light bulb if one can be taken from work too?

So yeah Anono Mus, your hunch that he basically has nothing was 100% correct.

The fallacy that people in Communist countries work for nothing as opposed to the benefit of themselves and society as a whole.

The assumption that people care little about work.

The logic that needing something and not being able to instantly have it means you obviously resort to stealing it (Just like the USA is full of car theives because peopel can't instantly afford cars, right?).

Nothing to back it up with of course, but hey ho.

SonicWaffle:

Pretty much this. I imagine the bias will go away in a generation or so as the last of the Boomers die off and the people raised in a world that was less propagandised take over.

That would be the case if it weren't for Schools indoctrinating our kids. It almost happened to me.
OT: Here is the issue primarily image
I also believe that most people aren't altruistic enough to give most of their money to someabstract belief. Giving their money to wellfare leeches, and developing things they don't care about. How is it greed to keep what you have earned, but not greed to take them away? Socialism and Communism will never work because most people realise just how much the idea will hurt them.

Look up the "great leap forward" and the "terror famine" then you might not think its such a perfect idea.

You want to know why communism is bad. Look at the guy who made Tetris.

Tetris became famous the world over and made a ton of cash. The guy who made it never saw most of it. Why? Because he was from the USSR. And because the USSR was communist they took all the cash that should've been his and supposedly distributed it or at least used it in the government. That's the inherent unfairness of communism.

Socialism meanwhile... To be honest the word socialism has become so overused I honestly have no idea what the heck people mean when they say it anymore (no matter if they love it or hate it).

GriffinStallion:
*snip*

Utter nonsense. I strongly disagree with Communism and Socialism. Hell, I am a (Mixed Economy) Capitalist. But that right there is nothing more than a pathetic strawman.
There are actual Socialist and Communist writers with various theses and arguments. Read up on them if you actually want to see where they are coming from.
Conversely, you just need to look at the American mainstream television to see the "shitting on people"-approach to arguing against Socialism, Communism as well as anything slightly to the left of the right-wing (or even the moderate right-wing itself). Or are you selectively blind to the cries of "Socialist! Communist! Marxist!" whenever somebody proposes something in line with Reagan's policies that's deemed "too Liberal" these days?
Honestly, it's like these words have lost all meaning because they are used to refer to anything at this point, to throw everything the far-right disagrees with into one same bucket of feces, nevermind the actual policies, differences, ideology etc..
That's pretty damn far from the "sophisticated" argumentation for Capitalism this scribbled picture tries to portray.

EDIT: Hold on, aren't you that Nazi-dude who said Hitler was the victim of a smear campaign and was just vilified? Eh, why do I even bother to respond?

Before I throw my hat in and join the fun in this madhouse, anyone feel like defining "socialism" contra "Communism"?

Well, "socialism" isn't really a dirty word in Europe; that seems to be a peculiarly American thing.

One thing I really don't understand, though: one of the most common claims is that communism is a nice idea, but "wouldn't work in practice". That's probably true. But since when has Capitalism worked in practice? We're in yet another of its cyclical, predictable, inevitable self-destructions right now.

CAPTCHA: "Eat Out". I'm afraid I don't have the money, Captcha.

Silvanus:
One thing I really don't understand, though: one of the most common claims is that communism is a nice idea, but "wouldn't work in practice". That's probably true. But since when has Capitalism worked in practice? We're in yet another of its cyclical, predictable, inevitable self-destructions right now.

That's a point. I think it might be due to running with different meanings of the word "work". Or possibly it's a No True Scotsman thing, there's never been a communism state which has worked exactly as advertised, so any successes can be overlooked. With capitalism, most people seem to accept that it's going to fuck people who aren't them over and find various ways to blame them, it's usually not such an issue until they are on the pointy end.

thaluikhain:

Silvanus:
One thing I really don't understand, though: one of the most common claims is that communism is a nice idea, but "wouldn't work in practice". That's probably true. But since when has Capitalism worked in practice? We're in yet another of its cyclical, predictable, inevitable self-destructions right now.

That's a point. I think it might be due to running with different meanings of the word "work". Or possibly it's a No True Scotsman thing, there's never been a communism state which has worked exactly as advertised, so any successes can be overlooked. With capitalism, most people seem to accept that it's going to fuck people who aren't them over and find various ways to blame them, it's usually not such an issue until they are on the pointy end.

Maybe because most people think Communism has the premise 'Utopia' worked into it, while Capitalism has 'that thing that came after Feudalism'.
Hell, even Marx himself made Communism sound quite utopic, as he was sure it WOULD happen, and it WOULD work perfectly, when society is ready for it.
And honestly, we haven't been able to prove him wrong yet.

Realitycrash:
Before I throw my hat in and join the fun in this madhouse, anyone feel like defining "socialism" contra "Communism"?

Hell no. You would be poked to death by any other person with a slightly different definition. I say you should arbitrarily put a definition and then start the conversation from there on. Anything else is a bloody mess... with real blood.

Glasgow:

Realitycrash:
Before I throw my hat in and join the fun in this madhouse, anyone feel like defining "socialism" contra "Communism"?

Hell no. You would be poked to death by any other person with a slightly different definition. I say you should arbitrarily put a definition and then start the conversation from there on. Anything else is a bloody mess... with real blood.

..And then be attacked for using the wrong arbitrary definition, by someone else with an equally arbitrary definition, making it ultimately into a 'my made-up stuff vs your made-up stuff'?
Oh JOY!

Realitycrash:

Glasgow:

Realitycrash:
Before I throw my hat in and join the fun in this madhouse, anyone feel like defining "socialism" contra "Communism"?

Hell no. You would be poked to death by any other person with a slightly different definition. I say you should arbitrarily put a definition and then start the conversation from there on. Anything else is a bloody mess... with real blood.

..And then be attacked for using the wrong arbitrary definition, by someone else with an equally arbitrary definition, making it ultimately into a 'my made-up stuff vs your made-up stuff'?
Oh JOY!

That's even worse! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!

GriffinStallion:

SonicWaffle:

Pretty much this. I imagine the bias will go away in a generation or so as the last of the Boomers die off and the people raised in a world that was less propagandised take over.

That would be the case if it weren't for Schools indoctrinating our kids. It almost happened to me.
OT: Here is the issue primarily image
I also believe that most people aren't altruistic enough to give most of their money to someabstract belief. Giving their money to wellfare leeches, and developing things they don't care about. How is it greed to keep what you have earned, but not greed to take them away? Socialism and Communism will never work because most people realise just how much the idea will hurt them.

Wow. Not only haven't these "capitalists" got any sort of clue what Socialism is about, these "capitalists" are also Ayn Rand bullshit libertarians.

- "wellfare is bad 'cuz it keeps people poor! So we should stop giving welfare to people! (probably so they die of starvation?)"

- "We shouldn't tax the Job-creators!"

- "Everything the government does is worse than what the private sector does! No I'm not going to explain why or how, it just is, trust me!"

- "Regulations hurt the worker!"

- "Obama, the centre-right politican, is a SOCIALIST for not caving in to every demand of the extreme right wing nutjobs!"

If you actually believe any of this, you ARE Evil with a capitol E. Seriously, this is disgusting. This American worshipping of the super-rich that keep fucking you over and trying to take you back into the middle ages is the most insane disgusting bullshit there has ever been on this world. This ideology is up there with Fascism, Nazism and Stalinism.

Silvanus:
Well, "socialism" isn't really a dirty word in Europe; that seems to be a peculiarly American thing.

One thing I really don't understand, though: one of the most common claims is that communism is a nice idea, but "wouldn't work in practice". That's probably true. But since when has Capitalism worked in practice? We're in yet another of its cyclical, predictable, inevitable self-destructions right now.

CAPTCHA: "Eat Out". I'm afraid I don't have the money, Captcha.

Every Capitalist crash can be traced to government action pushing just a little to far off it's natural course. Case in point, The American Great Depression was a direct result of the government's push to convince western settlers to plant corn in the northern plains region. This created a massive bubble in Corn market to the point that corn almost completely took over the Stock Market. But, the Northern plains is a very poor place to grow a resource hungry plant like Corn and in fact many professional farmer began petitioning a change of policy as early as 1910. Predictably that didn't happen because Corn had become too profitable thanks to the government propping it up.

Then the farms started to give out as the ground, sucked dry of nutrients, died. The large patches of now dead farmland dried to dust and that was picked up by the wind to create the Dust Bowl, which helped kill the still healthy farms. Corn collapsed and took the entire market with it in to the Great Depression.

All because the government was pushing Corn.

The same with the housing market crash originating in Bill Clinton's American Dream act which pushed housing for those that couldn't normally afford it, thus creating the now reviled sub-prime market. Which, directly CAUSED the crash when the bottom dropped out. Like Corn before it; Housing finance had taken over the market, and when it crashed it took the whole market with it; with the added problem that since it was a credit market that got hit it shattered the confidence in the credit markets complicating the recovery badly.

Government does have its place in the economy to make sure everyone's playing by the same rulebook. But, every attempt by the government to be proactive in "fixing" a problem will eventually make that problem far worse. Unfortunately, the idea that government possibly keep it's hand out of the cookie jar is foolish and as long the idea that the government HAS to be compassionate remains then these kind of crashes are going to happen.

rutger5000:
Seriously.

Seriously?

Well for one thing it is antiquated idea. With 7 billion people on this planet and a global monetary system, it simply does not work. You couldn't possibly hope to share or create equality when the average American consumes 47 times more resources per year than people in some of the poorest countries.

Do you know what that means? That means no matter how much you spread the wealth around, people will still be poor, live in horrible conditions, and die young. There isn't enough easily extractable energy in the planet to sustain the human population as a whole to conditions most people would deem "acceptable."

Maybe after billions die by war or disease, there will be enough to go around. But right now, it IS a rat race, whether you like or not.

The American economy didn't become the biggest in the world because of collectivist principles.

Of course one could cite China, but in 1978 it reduced the state involvement in the economy, starting on the path for what we see today. While they're big on state-owned enterprises, I don't find it all surprising that they had problems with corruption and economic crimes due to the management by the ruling party, thus they had to create competition. There's that ugly capitalist word.

If just on principles, it depends upon the definition, but no socialist or communist system matches the individual liberty or potential for private success that capitalism does. It's mantra is quite the opposite; "you didn't build that, someone else made that happen."

TheBelgianGuy:
snip

Wow. Not only haven't these "capitalists" got any sort of clue what Socialism is about, these "capitalists" are also Ayn Rand bullshit libertarians.

- "wellfare is bad 'cuz it keeps people poor! So we should stop giving welfare to people! (probably so they die of starvation?)"

- "We shouldn't tax the Job-creators!"

- "Everything the government does is worse than what the private sector does! No I'm not going to explain why or how, it just is, trust me!"

- "Regulations hurt the worker!"

- "Obama, the centre-right politican, is a SOCIALIST for not caving in to every demand of the extreme right wing nutjobs!"

If you actually believe any of this, you ARE Evil with a capitol E. Seriously, this is disgusting. This American worshipping of the super-rich that keep fucking you over and trying to take you back into the middle ages is the most insane disgusting bullshit there has ever been on this world. This ideology is up there with Fascism, Nazism and Stalinism.

1. I am not an Ayn Randtard and neither is the creator of the image.
2. Wellfare leeches shouldn't be able to live off us. It is ridiculous. They are unemployed, useless, wastes of taxpayer money. They should learn to get a job, or get the fuck off wellfare and starve. They make me angry beyond belief.
3. I never said this and it is never said in the image. Please I am not made of stray.
4. I never said this either.
5. See above. And also regulations work both ways. There are regulations that both help and hurt large business.
6. Where the fuck did I say that?
7. "MY OPINIONS ARE DIFFERENT THEN YOURS!" YOU ARE AN EVIL PERSON! NAZIS AND FASCISM AND STALINISM AND CAPITALISM ARE ALL EVIL DESPITE ME KNOWING NOTHING ABOUT THEM! THEY HAVE NEGATIVE CONNOTATIONS SO THEY MUST BE BAD!"
8. I support a mixed economy, do not confuse me with the lolbertarian idiots.
image http://transitionculture.org/wp-content/uploads/strawman1.jpgimage

GriffinStallion:

2. Wellfare leeches shouldn't be able to live off us. It is ridiculous. They are unemployed, useless, wastes of taxpayer money. They should learn to get a job, or get the fuck off wellfare and starve. They make me angry beyond belief.

Cool. So, do you possess a magical tool to efficiently and without sufficient error determine who are unemployed for proper reasons and deserves taxpayer money, and who are just 'leeches'?
Because if you don't, you have just very tactlessly proved yourself to know nothing about the problem at hand.

No one has ever claimed that anyone should be able to live on others (if we do not count the Royal Families of different countries..). It's claimed that those that suffer need welfare, and this is often taken as true. Some people, however, think that all these sufferers are just 'useless, wastes of taxpayer money', and that they should just 'fuck off welfare and starve'. And these people are quite entitled to their opinion, but won't be taken seriously by the majority.

Dhael:
Every Capitalist crash can be traced to government action pushing just a little to far off it's natural course.

Okay, so can you explain the dotcom bubble then? It was private companies doing private things in a nearly unregulated market.

You're wrong about the current Credit Crisis for one thing. That was caused because the American housing and lending market is deregulated, so you can get away with whatever you do. Extremely risky subprime lending was what rewarded the lenders personally the most, so they took huge risks. Why not? There's no government regulations stopping it.

Too little government intervention is what caused the US housing crisis.

TheBelgianGuy:
- "wellfare is bad 'cuz it keeps people poor! So we should stop giving welfare to people! (probably so they die of starvation?)"

I've not heard the rally cries to sever all welfare at any significant level. However, does welfare promote growth and success? No. They are emergency nets for people to fall back on, yet millions depend on it for long stretches if not their entire lives. This is a deplorable state of affairs and the scope of these programs, to hold so many peoples' lives in the balance, is a sign that the nation is failing to provide for people.

- "We shouldn't tax the Job-creators!"

Not during such weak economic growth and high unemployment. Do you believe businesses look at higher tax bills and say, "We better start using all of this less money we have this year to hire more people and invest in our business"?

- "Everything the government does is worse than what the private sector does! No I'm not going to explain why or how, it just is, trust me!"

The U.S. government is $16t in debt. State governments across the nation have money problems. USPS ran billions of dollars short on budgets because private industry and web kicked its butt. Federal investment in solar companies has produced many bankruptcies. Medicare is full of waste. Millions working today will never see a dime of Social Security money they are paying right now.

When something goes wrong in government, money is always the answer, which is not something the private sector can just wave a wand and make happen. I'm not saying anything privately-run will always be better, but where is this lean, efficient government you are implying exists? They are typically very bloated, bureaucratic and slow compared to the private sector because a) they do not have to earn profits or attract investors and b) it has no competitor that will put it out of business if it fails (though it recently proved it can declare when big companies are "too big to fail", and end up losing billions of tax payer dollars (General Motors).

- "Regulations hurt the worker!"

I've never been against the idea of rules and regs. Capitalism (and capitalists) is not necessarily strict Laissez faire (noninterference). Though there is something to be said for unjust regulations, such as the EPA blocking coal and boxing-out nuclear power; the core is about private ownership.

- "Obama, the centre-right politican, is a SOCIALIST for not caving in to every demand of the extreme right wing nutjobs!"

No idea where to even go with this. Anyone actually believing he is moderate or capitulates to the right does not follow American politics. Or is delusional.

If you actually believe any of this, you ARE Evil with a capitol E. Seriously, this is disgusting. This American worshipping of the super-rich that keep fucking you over and trying to take you back into the middle ages is the most insane disgusting bullshit there has ever been on this world. This ideology is up there with Fascism, Nazism and Stalinism.

And ending with Godwin. *finishes checklist* We thank you for participating.

AgedGrunt:

If just on principles, it depends upon the definition, but no socialist or communist system matches the individual liberty or potential for private success that capitalism does.

So why do we have a larger prison percentage than even...well, China?

And individual liberty? How long did it take our country to say "hey, we're not going to legally prosecute homosexuals for having sex in private, that's not constitutional", remind me?

GunsmithKitten:

AgedGrunt:

If just on principles, it depends upon the definition, but no socialist or communist system matches the individual liberty or potential for private success that capitalism does.

So why do we have a larger prison percentage than even...well, China?

And individual liberty? How long did it take our country to say "hey, we're not going to legally prosecute homosexuals for having sex in private, that's not constitutional", remind me?

Individual liberty's such as right to homosexual sex isn't actually supported by many communist factions.No system is perfect.

Friendly Lich:

GunsmithKitten:

AgedGrunt:

If just on principles, it depends upon the definition, but no socialist or communist system matches the individual liberty or potential for private success that capitalism does.

So why do we have a larger prison percentage than even...well, China?

And individual liberty? How long did it take our country to say "hey, we're not going to legally prosecute homosexuals for having sex in private, that's not constitutional", remind me?

Individual liberty's such as right to homosexual sex isn't actually supported by many communist factions.No system is perfect.

True as this is, it's a bit past my point; economic systems are not always congruent to individual liberties. For fuck's sake, Singapore is capitalist but chewing gum will get you jail time.

GunsmithKitten:

AgedGrunt:

If just on principles, it depends upon the definition, but no socialist or communist system matches the individual liberty or potential for private success that capitalism does.

So why do we have a larger prison percentage than even...well, China?

And individual liberty? How long did it take our country to say "hey, we're not going to legally prosecute homosexuals for having sex in private, that's not constitutional", remind me?

Principles, not execution of. If you're in the U.S. then I'm completely with you, the amount of glaring issues besets our creed and makes a mockery of what we stand for. It took a long time to free slaves, get citizenship rights and pass woman's suffrage. However, it's because we have a constitution that I say use it. The next generation will grow up respecting that document a little more; instead we are seeing creeping discussions for trashing it because it's seen as an inconvenience.

Regarding prisons, somewhat goes back to what I've said before: the people keep electing authoritarians. Though this has a long history of civilian effort, the earliest of which I can recall off the top of my head is the anti-saloon league. Unlike then, today we have government instead leading the moral and security doctrines on the people, and we're left to either cheer or bemoan.

To the point about economic systems and individual liberty agreeing, it depends on the scope of the State role in running the economy. There is a tangible amount of control the U.S. government has in its economy while not a socialist system.

To reiterate, I think capitalism is the ideal system to provide liberty and success, however it is utterly dependent on a sound government and intelligent people to maintain its integrity and decide their own destiny.

Sorry guys, Forgot that this thead existed otherwise I would have come in here and ranted some mor..

Aged Grunt, you're making wide reaching statements that have more to do with democracy than capitalism (two systems which are not mutually intertwined) and are completely USA centric. As the USA has had a century of active interventionism to crush democracy and liberty across the world, the view of the USA promoting democracy doesn't work when you zoom out.

GriffinStallion, under Capitalism the capitalists are the ones which control how people are employed. A working class person can't magic a job up. It's the people with money to invest who limit how many people are hired and there far more unemployed people than there are jobs. In fact having a reserve army of labour is an active benefit for the Capitalists.

Reality Crash, the easy peasy way to tell socialism and communism apart is that respectively they're "To each according to his contribution" and "To each according to his need". Under socialism people benefit according to the amount they contribute, which under pretty much every form of modern Marxist theory would be decided democratically. Under Communism people benefit according to their need regardless of what they contribute.

Father Time, well done, you're correctly identified a specific instance of exploitation that occured under the Soviet Union which is one of the worst examples of Marxism in action that has ever happened and which hasn't been endorsed by the majority of Marxists in decades. Now if you take that analysis and apply it to Capitalism, you'll see that the exploitation which under the very worst of Communism is exactly the same as the exploitation which occurs under Capitalism.

Overhead:
Aged Grunt, you're making wide reaching statements...

Overhead:
As the USA has had a century of active interventionism to crush democracy and liberty across the world, the view of the USA promoting democracy doesn't work when you zoom out.

I will leave the wide-reaching statements to you then, I guess?

Can't talk about socialism and communism without talking about the power exchange between government and the people, because that's reality with those systems.

AgedGrunt:

Overhead:
Aged Grunt, you're making wide reaching statements...

Overhead:
As the USA has had a century of active interventionism to crush democracy and liberty across the world, the view of the USA promoting democracy doesn't work when you zoom out.

I will leave the wide-reaching statements to you then, I guess?

I assumed it was self evident enough to not require evidence. If you want some specific examples, fine.

How about Italy, where in their first post-war election they staged a massive campaign to rig the election?

Or Indonesia, where they fed names of political opponents to a militirary dictatorship that was in the process of committing genocide and wiping out a million people?

or Chile, where they overthrew a democratically elected Marxist leader (after failing to rig the election) and replaced him with a Capitalist dicator?

How about when they followed that up by supporting and installing dictators all across the Southern Cone of South America, which then instituted oppressive murderous regimes in half a dozen countries?

Or the same story with Iran, only laughably they replaced the democratically elected leader with a Shah?

Or for military dictatorships closer to (my) home, how about Greece where the USA constantly backed dictators for years and, to quote Philip Deane:

'During one of the perennial disputes between Greece and Turkey over Cyprus, which was now spilling over onto NATO, President Johnson summoned the Greek ambassador to tell him of Washington's "solution". The ambassador protested that it would be unacceptable to the Greek parliament and contrary to the Greek constitution. "Then listen to me, Mr. Ambassador," said the President of the United States, "fuck your Parliament and your Constitution. America is an elephant. Cyprus is a flea. If these two fleas continue itching the elephant, they may just get whacked by the elephant's trunk, whacked good.... We pay a lot of good American dollars to the Greeks, Mr. Ambassador. If your Prime Minister gives me talk about Democracy, Parliament and Constitutions, he, his Parliament and his Constitution may not last very long."'#

By the way, do these words ring any bells; "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

They should because not only are they the start of the USA deceleration of independence, but they're the start of the Vietnamese deceleration where they tried to throw off the rule of european colonial oppressors just as the USA once had. They of course appealed to the USA for help in this struggle which mirrored there own, but I'm sure you know how the USA responded.

Or you could just look at current US policy and their buddy buddy approach to authoritarian regimes like Saudi Arabia.

Or how until the people rose up to throw of the yoke of their oppressors, the USA was friendly with many such regimes all across the Middle East and even when the Arab Spring was first blooming was very slow to act and only gave the most lukewarm criticism of these dictators as it could.

How about Guatemala where the USA trained, supported and led deathsquads killed about 20,000 people?

What a bastion of liberty and democracy is the USA!

But really, as I said, you can pretty much just look at the entire history of the USA for the last century.

Can't talk about socialism and communism without talking about the power exchange between government and the people, because that's reality with those systems.

If you want to talk about it, feel free to and I'll reply if I think it's necessary. It doesn't make your original post which I was quoting any less incorrect.

AgedGrunt:

I've not heard the rally cries to sever all welfare at any significant level. However, does welfare promote growth and success? No. They are emergency nets for people to fall back on, yet millions depend on it for long stretches if not their entire lives. This is a deplorable state of affairs and the scope of these programs, to hold so many peoples' lives in the balance, is a sign that the nation is failing to provide for people.

What's the alternative? There are only three options here:

A) Employment
B) Welfare
C) Destitution

C is a worst case scenario that is simply unacceptable in modern society. There are no jobs so A's out, that leave B. Welfare is a necessary part of society, you can't cut it down much further or you defeat the entire point as people will not have enough to support themselves. You often hear people say it should pay to work - welfare should not pay better than working - fair enough, that's something I can agree with, but that doesn't mean cut welfare to be below minimum wage - minimum wage is so bad it doesn't even pay for itself - you either need 2 jobs or benefits just to cover your costs. When benefits aren't needed to top up wages, then you can look at cutting back on some programs, until then all you do is punish people who are stuck in a horrible situation.

Not during such weak economic growth and high unemployment. Do you believe businesses look at higher tax bills and say, "We better start using all of this less money we have this year to hire more people and invest in our business"?

Do you think they'd say "let's invest this tax cut in our business"? Your small businesses might but it wouldn't make that big of a difference and your big corporations would just add it to the money pile - it would do nothing but improve a board members bank balance. They barely pay tax as it is, just look at how little corporation tax Starbucks paid in the UK (hint: it's next to nothing).

Besides you can't afford to not tax businesses, if you give them a tax cut you lose millions in tax revenue that you need to stop the deficit getting even more out of hand.

Income = Personal taxes + Business taxes + other things I can't think of

Assuming income has to either a)stay constant or b)increase to decrease the deficit then you cannot lower the business contribution without having to increase income from the other sources; easiest one to raise is personal tax. If you have to put up taxes on a population that's already on the last notch of their belt then it wont matter how much extra cash you free up for businesses, if people don't have the cash to spend then it'll be pointless.

Karma168:
A) Employment B) Welfare C) Destitution

C is a worst case scenario that is simply unacceptable in modern society. There are no jobs so A's out, that leave B. Welfare is a necessary part of society, you can't cut it down much further or you defeat the entire point...

Besides you can't afford to not tax businesses, if you give them a tax cut you lose millions in tax revenue that you need to stop the deficit getting even more out of hand.

Not framing the argument as one of necessity, but illustrating that sweltering social spending like the U.S. is seeing ends up hurting it. Prolonged high unemployment, for example, is a symptom of a sick economy. The implications of having a one's lifelines in welfare is, in mine and many others' opinions, damaging to health and integrity of self and system, and is the furthest thing from ideal. Society should have these in place to prevent catastrophe, but these are being treated less like emergency fallback and more like career options. All I'm saying is that this is getting out of hand and the culture is moving toward sheltering these programs as the "only option" for people. I don't believe that's good enough; we can do better.

We do tax businesses. The ones with powerful teams of lawyers and accountants that find loopholes are not affected by tax rates (they shuffled around and avoided payment). So increasing rates is hurting people that were already paying "their fair share". Furthermore, other taxes, such as capital gains, greatly affects the behavior of investment. That low rate is there to attract it and when it's called an unfair advantage (neglecting the fact that there is risk involved) and raising that to try to be in line more with income tax lacks comprehension.

But that assumes deficits are created by a lack of revenue.

Overhead:
(Snipped Anti-Americanism, nothing to do with capitalism)

Can't talk about socialism and communism without talking about the power exchange between government and the people, because that's reality with those systems.

If you want to talk about it, feel free to and I'll reply if I think it's necessary. It doesn't make your original post which I was quoting any less incorrect.

I don't think it's necessary for you to reply if you'll be daft and snobbish. Grow up.

AgedGrunt:

Overhead:
(Snipped Anti-Americanism, nothing to do with capitalism)

We weren't talking about Capitalism, so why would it be about Capitalism?

To remind you, I said "As the USA has had a century of active interventionism to crush democracy and liberty across the world, the view of the USA promoting democracy doesn't work when you zoom out" which you disputed because I was making a wide reaching point without providing specific examples.

I have then provided a list of examples of the USA involving itself to crushing democracy in other countries and and proved my point.

I don't think it's necessary for you to reply if you'll be daft and snobbish. Grow up.

I don't think it's necessary for you to reply if you don't actually have any content in your post.

"Can't talk about socialism and communism without talking about the power exchange between government and the people, because that's reality with those systems."

That's what you said. You didn't elaborate on it, try and make any point or raise any topic of discussion. You just stated that you personally thought you can't talk about socialism and communism without talking about the power exchange between government and the people.

Do so and I'll respond to you in as much depth as is warranted. Carry on making contentless posts and I'll keep on pointing that out because it's relevant, showing you're not backing up your views.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

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