The Ecstatic said:

I'm not trying to shut anybody out, but you nor I are close to as eloquent as the aforementioned thinkers are, I simply dont know how to make any headway whatsoever. And its not like I'm trying to turn everyone here into an anarcho communist, I'd settle for a simple acknowledgement of the terms and the ideals. If I saw a thread about Macedonian Imperialism and its far reaching effects, I wouldnt be all up in it pretending I know best because I saw some reviews of the movie Alexander. And thats where the fundamental disagreements come from: you can get almost everyone to agree capitalism has its downsides, but almost no one will agree that socialism is a better alternative because they have a fundamental misunderstanding about it. And they refuse to understand it. And like I said, I'm not saying everyonr has to be a socialist, but I have never once seen someone on this subforum attack the merits of socialism without misrepresenting them.

And Capital was a chore for me, but I suppose thats because the Manifesto is such a breeze.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Bubbles85 said:

I'm lost here. What is your definition of "full socialism?" China's government controlled 80% of the economy before the 1980s. Is that not full socialism?

---

No, I'd call that 80% socialism. 

---

qman said:

The Ecstatic said:

albeit the absolute least amount of money necessary to operate their factories.

And like Fal said: nearly all of SE Asia is capitalist and nearly all of those nations are poor. Same goes for Subsarahan African, same goes for Eastern Europe, same goes for Central and South America.

---

That's right, there's winners and losers in the game of global economics.

If your version of "socialism" is the best system for humans moving forward, then it will emerge as the dominate economic system.  Thus far, it hasn't work out so well, therefore we have the current system.

The fact you keep ignoring is the corruption that exists in ALL of human political and economic systems, I don't know why you think it changes under state "socialism".

---

The Ecstatic said:

The simplest way of looking at it is democratizing the economy.

The majority of employees decide how the business is ran, and everyone reaps the benefits. Its no different than democracy in government.

People were making the "but people can be corrupt and greedy!" argument in defense of preserving monarchy, preserving feudalism, etc. Its just carrying water for the status quo.

---

The Ecstatic said:

qman said:

The Ecstatic said:

albeit the absolute least amount of money necessary to operate their factories.

And like Fal said: nearly all of SE Asia is capitalist and nearly all of those nations are poor. Same goes for Subsarahan African, same goes for Eastern Europe, same goes for Central and South America.

---

That's right, there's winners and losers in the game of global economics.

If your version of "socialism" is the best system for humans moving forward, then it will emerge as the dominate economic system.  Thus far, it hasn't work out so well, therefore we have the current system.

The fact you keep ignoring is the corruption that exists in ALL of human political and economic systems, I don't know why you think it changes under state "socialism".

---

Its very easy to understand why it changes, all you have to do is read about it.



Also, you selective naivety is extremely frustrating. On one hand you say the 1% will never allow certain progress to be made, and on the other you claim a free market of ideas and that if socialism is so great it would be winning.

If you dont think the 1% will concede a $15 min wage, what makes you think theyll shrug at the prospect of losing all of their private property? Marx said socialism, and then communism, is inevitable, sure, but dont expect the capitalists to concede. Just look at the cold war. We killed millions of people to keep communism from spreading. We've overthrown entire governments for the United Fruit Company. This isnt as simple as "whatever the majority thinks is how it is."

---

It's not so much "whatever the majority is how it is", it's more like a competitive battle of natural selection taking place, if you can't defend the land you're living on, then you don't deserve the ownership of it.

The same applies to political and economic systems, today capitalism with a mix of social services is the prevailing winner.  State "socialism" is losing on the battle field today, maybe that will change at some point, but for now it's been a pretty big loser.

ApostleofAzathoth said:

Well at least your a self aware social Darwinist...
...and if winning is all that it takes to convince you, then great. I for one still plan on winning.

---

I have no problem with that outcome, but the world has limited resources and humans have unlimited greed, that's always a toxic mix.

ApostleofAzathoth said:

xzylocybin said:

Singapore vs all of its neighbors, great example of how much better capitalism is.

---

I'm sure that has nothing to do with foreign investors pumping money into their economy

---

Malouz said:

Malouz said:

He's working on an idea of his country closer to the "Great Russia" before the october revolution.

Have you literally never watched any of his speeches ?

---

I never said Putin said that

---

Malouz said:

Malouz said:

Putin is in favor of nationalism rather than internationalism
.
.
.
...he wants european countries to join in on his Greater Eurasia project.

---

Also I don't see how his project of Greater Eurasia is an example of internationalism if that's what you imply. (which I'm afraid you do)

---

Malouz said:

You give me three lines about the Moscow Exchange that are totally out of context , absolutely no point with my original question

---

You said "now tell me how is he so popular if so many people would prefer a "soviet" type planned economy ?"  My answer was that it's because Russians know they can't go back to communism without a war, and I explained to you why.

Malouz said:

then the only reason you can come up with regarding why russian people like Putin is because he doesn't bow to american pressure. Although that's true there are a number of other reasons including economic ones that just couldn't go with the idea of a soviet economy.

---

I didn't say there is "just one" reason, I said "one reason...".  I agree there are lots more, and you can certainly Google it if you're interested in them, but my point is that he enjoys an 80+% popularity rating.

qman said:

If your version of "socialism" is the best system for humans moving forward, then it will emerge as the dominate economic system.

---

qman said:

ApostleofAzathoth said:

Well at least your a self aware social Darwinist...
...and if winning is all that it takes to convince you, then great. I for one still plan on winning.

---

I have no problem with that outcome, but the world has limited resources and humans have unlimited greed, that's always a toxic mix.

---

Bubbles85 said:

what's the logic behind having to take these measures (adapting capitalist techniques and privatizing the majority of the economy) to achieve the end goal? Surely if 80% of the economy controlled by the government is 80% socialism, reducing that control to 30% means they now only have 30% socialism, effectively going backwards? Forgive the ignorance, but that logic seems retarded.

---

qman said:

if you can't defend the land you're living on, then you don't deserve the ownership of it.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

qman said:

If your version of "socialism" is the best system for humans moving forward, then it will emerge as the dominate economic system.

---

How can it if we go to war or put a trade embargos on every such country, to help ensure they don't succeed?

---

The Ecstatic said:

qman said:

ApostleofAzathoth said:

Well at least your a self aware social Darwinist...
...and if winning is all that it takes to convince you, then great. I for one still plan on winning.

---

I have no problem with that outcome, but the world has limited resources and humans have unlimited greed, that's always a toxic mix.

---

For seemingly the 9000th time: and yet, you champion capitalism.

---

The Ecstatic said:

"I was born as a white male in 20th century America so social darwinism is fine w me."

---