ballsalsa said:

qman said:

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

---

you don't really believe that do you?
What about a little old lady that lives in a paid off house by herself?  Should I be allowed to just beat her up and take it from her?  That's some wild west shit right there.
Are we just talking about land here, or any property?  Like, if some dickhead ran up and hit you over the head with a brick while you were out for a stroll, should he be entitled to your wallet and your shoes because you weren't able to defend them?

---

The Ecstatic said:

Everyone is libertarian until they realize the state is the only thing protecting them from being killed and their property stolen.

---

Because "the state" would never steal from or kill people.

qman said:

ballsalsa said:

qman said:

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

---

you don't really believe that do you?
What about a little old lady that lives in a paid off house by herself?  Should I be allowed to just beat her up and take it from her?  That's some wild west shit right there.
Are we just talking about land here, or any property?  Like, if some dickhead ran up and hit you over the head with a brick while you were out for a stroll, should he be entitled to your wallet and your shoes because you weren't able to defend them?

---

Does she pay taxes into a system that enforces property rights? Yes she does.

---

ballsalsa said:

qman said:

ballsalsa said:

qman said:

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

---

you don't really believe that do you?
What about a little old lady that lives in a paid off house by herself?  Should I be allowed to just beat her up and take it from her?  That's some wild west shit right there.
Are we just talking about land here, or any property?  Like, if some dickhead ran up and hit you over the head with a brick while you were out for a stroll, should he be entitled to your wallet and your shoes because you weren't able to defend them?

---

Does she pay taxes into a system that enforces property rights? Yes she does.

---

that's a stretch.

---

Does a socialist state that can't defend itself from outside competitors deserve to exist?  No.

qman said:

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 trade embargos on every such country, to help ensure they don't succeed?

---

You don't think a better social-economic system for all of mankind is worth fighting for?

---

Of course it is, and people have fought for it, but the US has taken them down.

qman said:

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of humans have voluntarily make the decision to abandon the socialist state, what does the tell you?

---

Tell me more about what you know. 

The Soviet Union certainly didn't go down because a "vast majority" wanted to abandon it.  It went down because their leadership privatized the country and gave industry to themselves, making all of them instant billionaires.  The "vast majority" is pissed about that.

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

qman said:

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 trade embargos on every such country, to help ensure they don't succeed?

---

You don't think a better social-economic system for all of mankind is worth fighting for?

---

Of course it is, and people have fought for it, but the US has taken them down.

qman said:

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of humans have voluntarily make the decision to abandon the socialist state, what does the tell you?

---

Tell me more about what you know. 

The Soviet Union certainly didn't go down because a "vast majority" wanted to abandon it.  It went down because their leadership privatized the country and gave industry to themselves, making all of them instant billionaires.  The "vast majority" is pissed about that.

---

So the people in power who once supported the socialist state decided to abandon it to enrich themselves, what a surprise! 

qman said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

The Soviet Union certainly didn't go down because a "vast majority" wanted to abandon it.  It went down because their leadership privatized the country and gave industry to themselves, making all of them instant billionaires.  The "vast majority" is pissed about that.

---

So the people in power who once supported the socialist state decided to abandon it to enrich themselves, what a surprise! 

---

That's the beauty of capitalism! 

qman said:

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of humans have voluntarily make the decision to abandon the socialist state, what does the tell you?

---

   
This is a perfect example of how people in capitalist countries blindly assume that the propaganda they where fed in grade school is correct. This doesn't speak to all socialist nations, but the largest socialist country to ever abandon socialism was the USSR. The dissolution of the Soviet Union was against the wishes of the Soviet people. They where given the opportunity to vote on the issue, and they overwhelmingly voted to maintain the union. The crooks in government went ahead and dissolved it anyway. You don't have to look at communist literature or propaganda for proof of this, just check fucking Wikipedia before you carry on with your senseless babbling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_referendum,_1991
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union

ApostleofAzathoth said:

qman said:

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of humans have voluntarily make the decision to abandon the socialist state, what does the tell you?

---

   
This is a perfect example of how people in capitalist countries blindly assume that the propaganda they where fed in grade school is correct. This doesn't speak to all socialist nations, but the largest socialist country to ever abandon socialism was the USSR. The dissolution of the Soviet Union was against the wishes of the Soviet people. They where given the opportunity to vote on the issue, and they overwhelmingly voted to maintain the union. The crooks in government went ahead and dissolved it anyway. You don't have to look at communist literature or propaganda for proof of this, just check fucking Wikipedia before you carry on with your senseless babbling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_referendum,_1991
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union

---

The Ecstatic said:

And thats not even considering the West's influence in its dissolution.

The United States can turn a blind eye to fascism, to theocracy, to dictatorships, but socialism must be crushed by any and all means. Hmmm....why is that?

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

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.

---

The Chinese Government still retains majority control in its largest corporations, while taking advantage of foreign investments and technology.

I work in high tech, and about 10 years ago my company decided to make a major investment in China to build the parts for our products cheaper than what we paid for parts made in the S.F. Bay Area.  We taught the Chinese corporations how to consistently produce high quality high tech parts, and now they can use that knowledge to make their own products, while taking advantage of all the money we paid them.

---

qman said:

The Ecstatic said:

And thats not even considering the West's influence in its dissolution.

The United States can turn a blind eye to fascism, to theocracy, to dictatorships, but socialism must be crushed by any and all means. Hmmm....why is that?

---

Shouldn't the better state prevail at the end of the day? 

Socialist states do a pretty good job of crushing themselves, that don't need any outside influence to obtain that outcome.

---

Bubbles85 said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

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.

---

The Chinese Government still retains majority control in its largest corporations, while taking advantage of foreign investments and technology.

I work in high tech, and about 10 years ago my company decided to make a major investment in China to build the parts for our products cheaper than what we paid for parts made in the S.F. Bay Area.  We taught the Chinese corporations how to consistently produce high quality high tech parts, and now they can use that knowledge to make their own products, while taking advantage of all the money we paid them.

---

Maybe so, but that still doesn't answer the question I'm trying to ask, which is, how does the technique of privatization ultimately lead to the state owning 100% of the economy and implementing full socialism?

---

qman said:

So why did it fail?

---

ApostleofAzathoth said:

qman said:

So why did it fail?

---

It didn't fail. The Soviet people were betrayed.

---

qman said:

The Ecstatic said:

And thats not even considering the West's influence in its dissolution.

The United States can turn a blind eye to fascism, to theocracy, to dictatorships, but socialism must be crushed by any and all means. Hmmm....why is that?

---

Shouldn't the better state prevail at the end of the day? 

Socialist states do a pretty good job of crushing themselves, that don't need any outside influence to obtain that outcome.

---

Bubbles85 said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

The Chinese Government still retains majority control in its largest corporations, while taking advantage of foreign investments and technology.

I work in high tech, and about 10 years ago my company decided to make a major investment in China to build the parts for our products cheaper than what we paid for parts made in the S.F. Bay Area.  We taught the Chinese corporations how to consistently produce high quality high tech parts, and now they can use that knowledge to make their own products, while taking advantage of all the money we paid them.

---

Maybe so, but that still doesn't answer the question I'm trying to ask, which is, how does the technique of privatization ultimately lead to the state owning 100% of the economy and implementing full socialism?

---