|
4896744
Small Town Girl

Registered: 03/06/10
Posts: 5,128
Loc: United States
Last seen: 12 years, 6 days
|
Re: Socialism [Re: 4896744]
#13038026 - 08/11/10 06:30 PM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Sorry I also failed to answer the question looking back at it. And it doesn't support socialism really, I just typed the first argument that came to my head trying to disprove the piece of rhetoric someone posted earlier.
-------------------- Live your Life!
|
ScavengerType


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: 4896744]
#13038304 - 08/11/10 07:38 PM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I thought I may add, while nothing of relevance was being discussed here, that only yanky fucking doodles call social welfare state countries like the Nordic European and others socialist. Most other people call them Social democracies.
Also 6k years is not much in a human evolutionary timescale. Obviously time for evolution to occur, but from a point of evolutionary psychology or human nature it is largely an irrelevant segment of time. Very little evolution has likely happened, particularly considdering that only a limited set of impulses could be honed under the constantly shifting paradigms of human history. In comparison to an fruit flies this is likely (this is a guess) relatively equivalent to just over one and a half years (assuming a life cycle to reproduction of 25 days). I mean I know 6k years may sound like a while, but we're humans, not fungus or insects. There is no way for significant amounts of evolution to occur, particularly under such varying conditions.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
|
Shins
Fun guy



Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 16,337
|
Re: Socialism [Re: 4896744]
#13038824 - 08/11/10 09:23 PM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
|
ScavengerType


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Shins]
#13038992 - 08/11/10 09:49 PM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Naw man that's capitalism, it's the reason there is depressions every so often.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
Edited by ScavengerType (08/11/10 09:50 PM)
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Socialism [Re: 4896744] 1
#13040221 - 08/12/10 05:18 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
iThink said:
Quote:
Phred said: Okay, then....
Humans were undeniably hunter gatherers...
...but - evolution being an ongoing process - about five or six millennia ago humans began the transition to the more evolutionarily successful strategy of producing their food.
Phred
Oh true that is a good point. It can be argued that being hunter gatherers was better though. There was a recent study about how hunter gatherers use a lot more of their brain for the things they remember in order to survive, and also humans moving together with agriculture and such created lots of disease. I probably wouldn't agree with what i just said though.
I misspoke trying to disprove unsubstantiated rhetoric.
My b.
You are conflating evolutionary theory with behavior and social organization- two dispartate things which render your argument poor.
As to the nature of socialism, I prefer freedom and reject the notion that some random person has a right to control my life. If I am not harming another's rights, then no man has a claim to stop me from doing as I wish.
Socialism is just another argument for a totalitarian state- the lie is that somehow we, who are unable to handle our own affairs, are able to handle the collective affairs of every person individually and collectively. It doesn't make any sense and would be repugnant eve if it di for the very reason that people prefer freedom to incarceration- freedom is nice.
|
Yrat
Hello

Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 2,312
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said:
Quote:
The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Naw man that's capitalism, it's the reason there is depressions every so often.
lol. are you being facetious?
-------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
|
Shins
Fun guy



Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 16,337
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Yrat]
#13042037 - 08/12/10 03:02 PM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
|
4896744
Small Town Girl

Registered: 03/06/10
Posts: 5,128
Loc: United States
Last seen: 12 years, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
iThink said:
Quote:
Phred said: Okay, then....
Humans were undeniably hunter gatherers...
...but - evolution being an ongoing process - about five or six millennia ago humans began the transition to the more evolutionarily successful strategy of producing their food.
Phred
Oh true that is a good point. It can be argued that being hunter gatherers was better though. There was a recent study about how hunter gatherers use a lot more of their brain for the things they remember in order to survive, and also humans moving together with agriculture and such created lots of disease. I probably wouldn't agree with what i just said though.
I misspoke trying to disprove unsubstantiated rhetoric.
My b.
You are conflating evolutionary theory with behavior and social organization- two dispartate things which render your argument poor.
As to the nature of socialism, I prefer freedom and reject the notion that some random person has a right to control my life. If I am not harming another's rights, then no man has a claim to stop me from doing as I wish.
Socialism is just another argument for a totalitarian state- the lie is that somehow we, who are unable to handle our own affairs, are able to handle the collective affairs of every person individually and collectively. It doesn't make any sense and would be repugnant eve if it di for the very reason that people prefer freedom to incarceration- freedom is nice.
Wow where did you hear that argument? In high school history class from your redneck teacher? It is ignorant to call socialism totalitarian. It is democracy in the purest form. Read some of Marx's work and you will realize that you have no idea what true socialism/communism is.
"Democracy is the road to socialism." Karl Marx
Also you are hurting people if you make tons of money in the capitalist system. To be very rich there has to be people who are very poor in a capitalist system. And in socialist countries like norway there is still room to make large profit.
Also yes i realize it is not truly Socialist. However socialism has been defined multiple times by multiple people. Call it a social democracy if you want.
-------------------- Live your Life!
|
4896744
Small Town Girl

Registered: 03/06/10
Posts: 5,128
Loc: United States
Last seen: 12 years, 6 days
|
Re: Socialism [Re: 4896744]
#13042395 - 08/12/10 04:25 PM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I don't want people to try to pass off the Soviet Union, North Korea, etc. as socialist/communist. They are just horrible countries that didn't follow the progression of government types laid out by the founder of communism. There leaders were corrupt and didn't care about the welfare of the people. And in North Korea's case still are corrupt and horrible.
-------------------- Live your Life!
|
4896744
Small Town Girl

Registered: 03/06/10
Posts: 5,128
Loc: United States
Last seen: 12 years, 6 days
|
|
Also humans of today in developed countries do not evolve. There is no more natural selection. Everyone is taken care of with the very basics for the most part.
-------------------- Live your Life!
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: Socialism [Re: 4896744]
#13042502 - 08/12/10 04:52 PM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
> It is ignorant to call socialism totalitarian. It is democracy in the purest form.
Democracy is often considered 'rule by majority' and can easily be considered a totalitarian regime from the minorities standpoint. Saddam's Iraq was a democracy, but few would call it anything other than totalitarian. Luckily, the US is not a (pure) democracy, but instead is a republic, thus the failings of majority rule are mostly constrained. Likewise, there are many forms of socialism. There is the fictional Star Trek style socialism that everybody pretends is possible and there is the reality of NK, Cuba, etc, socialism that the pro-socialist want to pretend don't exist. In between, quickly heading in the NK/Cuba direction, are the European socialist countries. Perhaps some of them will be able to go the Star Trek direction, but history tells a different tale.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
ScavengerType


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Yrat]
#13044000 - 08/12/10 10:16 PM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Yrat said:
Quote:
ScavengerType said:
Quote:
The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Naw man that's capitalism, it's the reason there is depressions every so often.
lol. are you being facetious?
In an actual socialism (communism or anarchism) governments or groups do not often if ever appropriate money from people, they take property.
It is only capitalist countries where siphoning other people's money/savings accounts and otherwise swindling them comes to abrupt interruptions because people are unwilling/unable to continue relinquishing their funds.
The saying is literally only true of capitalism and not socialism. There's nothing facetious about it.
Edited by ScavengerType (08/12/10 10:19 PM)
|
communeart


Registered: 12/04/06
Posts: 1,021
Loc:
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
Socialism is just another argument for a totalitarian state- the lie is that somehow we, who are unable to handle our own affairs, are able to handle the collective affairs of every person individually and collectively.
it is precisely the reason why you should be a socialist, no one has the right to tell the people how to act against it's will, representative democracies does just that.
i don't think communism will really exist without some type of credit either. some people i know are non-stateless socialist, so socialism without a stateless society , but they are rare.
Quote:
Democracy is often considered 'rule by majority' and can easily be considered a totalitarian regime from the minorities standpoint. Saddam's Iraq was a democracy, but few would call it anything other than totalitarian. Luckily, the US is not a (pure) democracy, but instead is a republic, thus the failings of majority rule are mostly constrained. Likewise, there are many forms of socialism. There is the fictional Star Trek style socialism that everybody pretends is possible and there is the reality of NK, Cuba, etc, socialism that the pro-socialist want to pretend don't exist. In between, quickly heading in the NK/Cuba direction, are the European socialist countries. Perhaps some of them will be able to go the Star Trek direction, but history tells a different tale.
they cannot develop in a world where wars exist and capitalist nation are constantly at their throat. socialism is a world sytem where war is made inexistent because wars are done by the people for an elite. you know what happened to revolutionary france? many nearby monarchical state tried to overthrow the republic and replace it with a monarchy. if you guys ignore the ussr and every other countries history of having to struggle with us and western imperialism then proclaim that communism doesn't work you are brutally dishonest, just just of how the living standards in cuba would be double what they currently are simply because of an illegal embargo.
that said, i say that all of this happened because of lenin,not because of stalin ,lenin had to do a revolution in a brutal tsarist country, and subsequent ussr officials forced the communist parties around the world to adopt a similar line of action unsuitable for representative democracies.
also i understand half of the argument against democracies, i understand that a minorty should be protected rfom discrimination, which ironically libertarians don't understand, a minority with enormous power( rich) has the right to discriminate against a minority with few power (black).but i don't understand why is it better than the interests of a minority are more important than the ones of a majority? if society is better run that way, there is no arguement. i don't quite get the freedom thing.
oh and calling norway socialist piss me off and is basicly the rule for crazy ass americans who never had social-traitor parties like in canada or france.
|
Yrat
Hello

Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 2,312
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said:
Quote:
Yrat said:
Quote:
ScavengerType said:
Quote:
The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Naw man that's capitalism, it's the reason there is depressions every so often.
lol. are you being facetious?
In an actual socialism (communism or anarchism) governments or groups do not often if ever appropriate money from people, they take property.
It is only capitalist countries where siphoning other people's money/savings accounts and otherwise swindling them comes to abrupt interruptions because people are unwilling/unable to continue relinquishing their funds.
The saying is literally only true of capitalism and not socialism. There's nothing facetious about it.
you are mistaking crony capitalism, the system we are currently experiencing, for capitalism.
enjoy all your modern day conveniences as you go about life today, products of a system of capitalism, not socialism. in fact, can anyone come up with a major life or world-changing invention that came about as a result of socialism?
-------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
|
Yrat
Hello

Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 2,312
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said:
Quote:
Yrat said:
Quote:
ScavengerType said:
Quote:
The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Naw man that's capitalism, it's the reason there is depressions every so often.
lol. are you being facetious?
The saying is literally only true of capitalism and not socialism. There's nothing facetious about it.
i asked if you were being facetious because that was literally one of the stupidest things i've ever read.
-------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Socialism [Re: 4896744]
#13045078 - 08/13/10 05:56 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
iThink said:
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
iThink said:
Quote:
Phred said: Okay, then....
Humans were undeniably hunter gatherers...
...but - evolution being an ongoing process - about five or six millennia ago humans began the transition to the more evolutionarily successful strategy of producing their food.
Phred
Oh true that is a good point. It can be argued that being hunter gatherers was better though. There was a recent study about how hunter gatherers use a lot more of their brain for the things they remember in order to survive, and also humans moving together with agriculture and such created lots of disease. I probably wouldn't agree with what i just said though.
I misspoke trying to disprove unsubstantiated rhetoric.
My b.
You are conflating evolutionary theory with behavior and social organization- two dispartate things which render your argument poor.
As to the nature of socialism, I prefer freedom and reject the notion that some random person has a right to control my life. If I am not harming another's rights, then no man has a claim to stop me from doing as I wish.
Socialism is just another argument for a totalitarian state- the lie is that somehow we, who are unable to handle our own affairs, are able to handle the collective affairs of every person individually and collectively. It doesn't make any sense and would be repugnant eve if it di for the very reason that people prefer freedom to incarceration- freedom is nice.
Wow where did you hear that argument? In high school history class from your redneck teacher? It is ignorant to call socialism totalitarian. It is democracy in the purest form. Read some of Marx's work and you will realize that you have no idea what true socialism/communism is.
"Democracy is the road to socialism." Karl Marx
Also you are hurting people if you make tons of money in the capitalist system. To be very rich there has to be people who are very poor in a capitalist system. And in socialist countries like norway there is still room to make large profit.
Also yes i realize it is not truly Socialist. However socialism has been defined multiple times by multiple people. Call it a social democracy if you want.
It is offensive to me that you would presume my argument is not in fact mine but rather something I received through indoctrination and then repeated here. Even if this was the case, however; what does this matter? My argument stands or falls on its merits, and untill my high school redneck history teacher appears to defend 'his' argument, why don't you instead direct your efforts to the logic of my points? (You may be pleased to know that I did not learn about socialism in high school nor did I have any history class which covered communist revolutions or countries in any way. Perhaps you are projecting your own experiences onto your view of others?)
As Seuss touches upon, I have no idea why you defend against a charge of totalitarianism by claiming socialism is democratic- what does that have to do with anything? I fail to see what being democratic has to do with whether socialism is totalitarian, but in any case, I would disagree that socialism is neccesarily democratic, though its kind of a side point.
I have read some of Marx's work, and yet I have not realized my ignorance- it has strengthened and helped form my views as to socialist teachings, actually.
Quote:
Also you are hurting people if you make tons of money in the capitalist system. To be very rich there has to be people who are very poor in a capitalist system.
At the outset I would clarify I said no man has a cause to restrain me lest I harm another's rights- it is not enough that I harm them, I must harm something that they have a right to hold inviolate, such as their property, person, associations.
In any case however, please explain how you must have very poor to have very rich in a capitalist system? This does not make sense to me, and I suspect it arises from the confusion (common on these boards) between currency and wealth, though you've not explained yourself so I don't know. As a counterexample, lets say I am working at my job stocking a bar. I convince the owner to pay me by my performance and the bartenders to tip me for the same. I keep my bars stocked better than my coworkers and therefore make more money, both in larger tips and because I do more useful work than my coworkers in a shift and therefore make more in wages from the owner. I take on extra shifts and now I have four times the money as my coworkers. How has this harmed my coworkers at all? How has this harmed the patrons at all? Where is the poor to my rich? Whether a product or a service, I see no reason why the existance of wealthy requires the existance of poor, presuming we're ignoring semantic arguments
|
Yrat
Hello

Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 2,312
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: 4896744]
#13045087 - 08/13/10 06:01 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
iThink said:
Also you are hurting people if you make tons of money in the capitalist system. To be very rich there has to be people who are very poor in a capitalist system.
WRONG WRONG WRONG.
if you make money in a capitalist system, it is purely based off of CONSENSUAL trading. no one is forced to give you their money. they decide to on their OWN merits. if they want to trade their money for your product, they do so VOLUNTARILY.
why do socialists always view business as some evil entity robbing people of their wealth?
if you don't want to trade your money to someone else, some business or corporation or what have you, DON'T FUCKING SPEND IT.
Quote:
johnm214 said:
In any case however, please explain how you must have very poor to have very rich in a capitalist system? This does not make sense to me, and I suspect it arises from the confusion (common on these boards) between currency and wealth, though you've not explained yourself so I don't know. As a counterexample, lets say I am working at my job stocking a bar. I convince the owner to pay me by my performance and the bartenders to tip me for the same. I keep my bars stocked better than my coworkers and therefore make more money, both in larger tips and because I do more useful work than my coworkers in a shift and therefore make more in wages from the owner. I take on extra shifts and now I have four times the money as my coworkers. How has this harmed my coworkers at all? How has this harmed the patrons at all? Where is the poor to my rich? Whether a product or a service, I see no reason why the existance of wealthy requires the existance of poor, presuming we're ignoring semantic arguments
TRUTH.
capitalism is the only system that promotes and rewards productivity. it does so through the concept of private property. socialism actively supresses productivity. why should johnm work extra hard while his coworkers slack off if they will all be paid the same in the end? in fact, he will have an incentive to do less work, to get paid for the least amount of labor, if they will always split the pot in the end.
capitalism promotes productivity. socialism promotes laziness.
as much as you might want to live in a utopia, people will not work for free. they need incentive, which would be higher pay for higher labor. anything else is just muted slavery.
-------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
Edited by Yrat (08/13/10 06:09 AM)
|
Shandy
Reverse


Registered: 11/16/09
Posts: 45
Loc: UK
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Yrat]
#13045101 - 08/13/10 06:09 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
in fact, can anyone come up with a major life or world-changing invention that came about as a result of socialism?
From a UK perspective:
- The National Health Service (NHS) - The BBC - The welfare state - The minimum wage
Life here would be much poorer without these institutions, and they are all (broadly speaking) socialist interventions.
I don't agree with full state ownership of the means of production, which is what pure socialism demands, but in the UK privatisation of certain (formerly nationally owned) industries has been catastrophic.
For example the railways - we have a company called National Express a private company which won the franchise to take over a high-speed rail line in the East of England. It has made a complete balls-up of a crucial public service, ran up huge losses and now the service has had to be re-nationalised at a cost of £700,000,000 to the tax-payer.
So less of this "spending other peoples money" crap when discussing socialism.
|
Yrat
Hello

Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 2,312
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Shandy]
#13045105 - 08/13/10 06:10 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Shandy said:
Quote:
in fact, can anyone come up with a major life or world-changing invention that came about as a result of socialism?
From a UK perspective:
- The National Health Service (NHS) - The BBC - The welfare state - The minimum wage
Life here would be much poorer without these institutions

oh this is grand
not only are these NOT inventions, but you have a nice list here of the failures of socialism. (minus the BBC, not even sure why you included that, wtf?)
Edited by Yrat (08/13/10 06:21 AM)
|
Shandy
Reverse


Registered: 11/16/09
Posts: 45
Loc: UK
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Shandy]
#13045122 - 08/13/10 06:23 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
In any case however, please explain how you must have very poor to have very rich in a capitalist system? This does not make sense to me, and I suspect it arises from the confusion (common on these boards) between currency and wealth, though you've not explained yourself so I don't know. As a counterexample, lets say I am working at my job stocking a bar. I convince the owner to pay me by my performance and the bartenders to tip me for the same. I keep my bars stocked better than my coworkers and therefore make more money, both in larger tips and because I do more useful work than my coworkers in a shift and therefore make more in wages from the owner. I take on extra shifts and now I have four times the money as my coworkers. How has this harmed my coworkers at all? How has this harmed the patrons at all? Where is the poor to my rich? Whether a product or a service, I see no reason why the existance of wealthy requires the existance of poor, presuming we're ignoring semantic arguments
Here's another example. I work for a multinational company which closes down all it's domestic based factories and outsources them to a special 'economic trading zone' in Asia, which has no labour legislation at all.
I am now unemployed, whilst a child in Nepal does my old job for about $0.80 a day, in dangerous conditions.
The CEO of that company doubles his salary and receives an $8m dollar bonus that year, because of the costs he has saved.
|
|