Home | Community | Message Board

MushroomCube.com
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineAScannerDarkly
On StrangerTides
Male


Registered: 04/13/08
Posts: 445
Last seen: 13 years, 3 months
Re: Socialism [Re: Ferris]
    #8451230 - 05/27/08 06:34 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Ferris said:
I'm not really sure what to call the government under the articles of confederation. Since it was so weak, it'd be better to ask what forms of government the states developed. But I guess you could call it a republican confederation, since the states were represented by a single individual (by someone I assume they elected). I have a feeling you're going to contradict me though.



The Confederate States of America and the Confederation of the Rhine and all other historical conederacies all had a single leader. The articles of confederation described a confederation, as simple as that.


--------------------
[quote]Voido said:
[quote]drken said:
Dont get me wrong he is a funny guy, just not a great actor. Smoke some bud and watch the movie, weed helps me pick out shitty acting. [/quote]

no your just stoned. stop smoking pot [/quote]


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineBoots
Disenchanted
Male

Registered: 07/25/07
Posts: 1,137
Loc: Northwood, Ohio, U.S.A.
Last seen: 13 years, 15 days
Re: Socialism [Re: Irdamage]
    #8451522 - 05/27/08 07:41 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Aside from the problems of enforced cooperation, there's also the issue of everybody being equal. Where's the fun in that? Everybody needs someone to feel superior to.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineDimensionX
King of Birds
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 5,486
Loc: Australia Flag
Last seen: 10 months, 3 days
Re: Socialism [Re: Boots]
    #8451563 - 05/27/08 07:53 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

You can still be superior. Not everyone gets paid the same. For example doctors get paid more than trash collectors. The difference is that all doctors get paid the same rate. Rather than in capitalism where each doctor can get a different amount. Every profession gets a flat rate but some professions are paid more than others to encourage people to work harder to get a better job. It could work but i believe it would have to have democracy to make the government accountable. Capitalist countries would be equally tyrannical, if not worse, if we didn't have democracy to protect us.

But capitalism is slowly failing because consumerism has gotten out of control. Everyone is consuming at a rate which can not possibly be maintained. This consumerism is the basis for capitalism and it has become unsustainable.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleFerris
PsychedelicJourneyman
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/12/06
Posts: 11,529
Re: Socialism [Re: DimensionX]
    #8452709 - 05/27/08 11:36 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

DimensionX said:
But capitalism is slowly failing because consumerism has gotten out of control. Everyone is consuming at a rate which can not possibly be maintained. This consumerism is the basis for capitalism and it has become unsustainable.




That's one of my biggest gripes. Capitalism and the free market are touted for being "highly efficient," which they are, at maximizing use of resources. But what they DO NOT do well, is maximize the efficient use of those resources.

There are two main alternatives to this: regulation (either by legislation or adjusting the market force by capping, etc); or direct state control of those resources. I'd be fine with any of these solutions, but the market forces themselves (ie corporations) have so much power that legislation like this is near impossible to pass, so legislation first needs to be passed to limit their control over the legislature (a great example would be campaign finance reform).


--------------------

Discuss Politics


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineAScannerDarkly
On StrangerTides
Male


Registered: 04/13/08
Posts: 445
Last seen: 13 years, 3 months
Re: Socialism [Re: Ferris]
    #8453682 - 05/28/08 04:01 AM (13 years, 6 months ago)

As the petty differences between democrats and republicans settle, I believe that the elections of the future will be showdowns between libertarians and socialists.


--------------------
[quote]Voido said:
[quote]drken said:
Dont get me wrong he is a funny guy, just not a great actor. Smoke some bud and watch the movie, weed helps me pick out shitty acting. [/quote]

no your just stoned. stop smoking pot [/quote]


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleDieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Socialism [Re: AScannerDarkly]
    #8453687 - 05/28/08 04:03 AM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Each of those ideologies are already arms of the democrat and republican parties.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleGnuBobo
Frilly Cuffs Extraordinaire
 User Gallery


Registered: 06/17/04
Posts: 43,754
Loc: Charisma
Re: Socialism [Re: never.never.land]
    #8453995 - 05/28/08 07:10 AM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

never.never.land said:
Why do people always tell me it's impossible? I know if the leader is corrupt it all goes to hell but it seems to me like it could be possible, yet highly hard to get started.

Imagine this, the first step would be to eliminate private restaurants and business. The government could then seize control of all farms and other industries.

Keeping people in jobs without getting wages would be simple. Every single service would be free, from health care, to schooling (post-secondary also if students qualify), to weekly rations of food grown on farms controlled by the government. The people would have everything they really needed, with the availability to apply for luxuries, and clothing.

These rules apply to all students and workers. If a student graduates High School and opts not to continue into a post secondary education they would be forced to either take a job, or be drafted into a work force/army.


If everyone was kept studying and working the nation would be able to produce the same amount of resources and either use them to A) Feed and supply their citizens B) Export any surplus

Realistically, depending on the area of the nation, there would be no need to import anything.

I realize some of this seems oppressive (especially the forced labor part) but to keep the nation supplied and fed everyone must be working, and while they're not working for currency, they're being supplied for every basic need, and could apply for. Media would remain free, and an opposition would be free to call an election as the law states prior to the socialist government.



I'm not a political guru, I'm not an expert on economy, but I do think this is logical.

*I also realize how unlikely/impossible this is. :frown:





Good.  It is not logical if you factor in human nature.  Even hippies get shitty with each other in line for the porta-potties at music festivals.  Extrapolate that to society at large. 




That's an ugly scene.


--------------------
Jerry Garcia. JERRY GARCIA! JERRY GARCIA!!!!


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Socialism [Re: GnuBobo]
    #8454005 - 05/28/08 07:19 AM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Funny, but true.  :grin:


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Socialism [Re: never.never.land]
    #8454022 - 05/28/08 07:34 AM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

never.never.land said:
Why do people always tell me it's impossible?
The government could then seize control of all farms




because the vast majority of farmers are as well armed as all
the police departments in the nation, consider that most of us
have not only hand guns and rifles but we also own heavy
equipment, I could crush 3 cars in just a few seconds with a
tractor, I could also use it to fortify my position in my home

it'll be a hard task to take a determined farmer

Quote:

I'm not a political guru, I'm not an expert on economy, but I do think this is logical.




people wouldnt stand for forced labor without pay, people would
not give up what they own to accept an allotment from the
government 'for the greater good' of the people when it's their
own greater good that they are interested in


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Socialism [Re: DimensionX]
    #8454026 - 05/28/08 07:38 AM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

DimensionX said:
But capitalism is slowly failing because consumerism has gotten out of control





capitalism is failing because the weak are not allowed to die off,
instead we are taxed at higher rates to make sure they stay alive
to burden society even longer

dont work=dont eat=die


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinezouden
Neuroscientist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
Re: Socialism [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #8454039 - 05/28/08 07:50 AM (13 years, 6 months ago)

I think any explanation why "capitalism is failing" should start by proving that it is. I see no evidence of this.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinekriminalelement
"jesus wept."
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 1,201
Loc: Ay! los popos estan aqui!
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
Re: Socialism [Re: zouden]
    #8454534 - 05/28/08 11:29 AM (13 years, 6 months ago)

You're talking about communism, not socialism.


--------------------
While there is a lower class, I am in it
While there is a criminal element, I am of it
While there is a soul in prison, I am not free.

Eugene V Debs


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinekriminalelement
"jesus wept."
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 1,201
Loc: Ay! los popos estan aqui!
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
Re: Socialism [Re: kriminalelement]
    #8454624 - 05/28/08 11:52 AM (13 years, 6 months ago)

For the benefit of the obviously uneducated OP, I've decided to do a brief overview of which societies choose communism and why. By the end of this conversation I hope it will become clear

a) that communism only makes sense in feudal societies resistant to change

b) that communism and socialism are different.

Communism emerged first in Russia, and Russia is the posterchild for communism having a clear positive economic impact for the peasants.

Feudalism existed in extremely stringent forms in Europe until the 20th century. The feudal system absolutely did not die off before the 18th century even in western europe.

So what is feudalism? Feudalism is an economic system that looked something like this:

The signeur (noble landlord) owns the land. The peasants work the land growing wheat. They work the land on a three-field system. One field grows wheat, the second field grows a different crop that is NOT wheat. Wheat is the most productive crop and is the staple of the diet/economy, but it exhausts the soil. The other field is left to fallow. The village animals are all set to graze on this land, shitting on it and fertilizing it. The next growing season the fallow field becomes the wheat field to maximize wheat productivity.

The peasants are given leases on the land. The leases they are given are tiny strips, maybe only a few crop lines long. For this reason the peasants never farm separate fields because the fields they farm are too small to produce anything. The peasants live in a central village surrounded by the fields (unlike in america, where the fields surround a singular house). The people of the village farm the fields communally.

When the crop is harvested the church takes 13% of the harvest. The signeur gets half of whatever you farm (though he does no work himself). The signeur does not pay taxes (noble privilege), the peasants pay the signeur's taxes for them.

In the end the peasants are left with about 25% of their harvest and they usually starve. Infanticide is common.

Even if the peasants were allowed to go to a town to seek better work, there is no work for them there. There is no cottage industry, no skill they can learn (all skills are controlled by guilds and one must be born to a guildsman to be admitted, like the masons). The peasants are forced to farm the land or die.

This system is highly resistant to change. In England, peasants were allowed to purchase land and the more industrious peasants began to buy their neighbors land and enclose their fields. This forced the other villagers off the land, because the common grazing land was no longer able to be used and the peasants did not have large enough fields to grow their crops communally or individually. Therefore the peasants in other areas worked to make sure no one amassed to much land to upset communal economics.

The signeurs obviously were the most resistant to changing this system because they benefited the most from it.

Therefore communism in feudal societies is an obvious choice. The communal economic system already exists. The signeur stands in the way, taking 75% of the crops. It made sound economic sense to Russian peasants to kill or drive away the signeur and keep 100% of the village crop and divide it equally. Everyone works, everyone eats. This is the system communism was designed to address.

Communism was not designed to address capitalistic systems based on consumer economies. Everyone you talk to is right, OP. Communism won't work in a post feudal society.

Socialism, however, is the consolidation of social welfare services in the hands of the state as opposed to private organizations or the family. Most socialist societies have dramatically lower birthrates (as opposed to this one), as there is little financial incentive to have children (like tax breaks) and the government requires sustained and long-term parental support.


--------------------
While there is a lower class, I am in it
While there is a criminal element, I am of it
While there is a soul in prison, I am not free.

Eugene V Debs


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlineg00ru
lit pants tit licker
Male User Gallery


Registered: 08/09/07
Posts: 21,088
Loc: georgia, us
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months
Re: Socialism [Re: kriminalelement]
    #8454714 - 05/28/08 12:14 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Didn't Karl Marx think that communism would work best in an industrialized society, like the UK of the time? I've always heard that Russia, while it is the poster child for the communist state, was a poor example of how an ideal communist revolution would occur.


--------------------
check out my music!
drowse in prison and your waking will be but loss


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleDieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Socialism [Re: g00ru]
    #8454767 - 05/28/08 12:24 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

guruu said:
I've always heard that Russia, while it is the poster child for the communist state, was a poor example of how an ideal communist revolution would occur.




I dont know why some people cling to that notion. Perhaps its a sort of cult of idealism. I do know that college age 'free thinkers' buy into it the most. Thankfully most grow out of it. Why would anyone want to live in a place where you dont keep what you make, and cant sell it for what you want?

There is obviously a small socialist check in capitalist democracies, and its magnitude can be debated. Marxism however is epic fail.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblenever.never.land
Pirate
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/11/08
Posts: 605
Loc: Anywhere the wind blows
Re: Socialism [Re: kriminalelement]
    #8454774 - 05/28/08 12:25 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

That does clear up alot of things. As I stated in my first post, I AM largely unneducated in politics. Oh well, I guess I'm a minority that would rather work for the benefit of others than my own.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinekriminalelement
"jesus wept."
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 1,201
Loc: Ay! los popos estan aqui!
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
Re: Socialism [Re: DieCommie]
    #8454819 - 05/28/08 12:32 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Didn't Karl Marx think that communism would work best in an industrialized society, like the UK of the time? I've always heard that Russia, while it is the poster child for the communist state, was a poor example of how an ideal communist revolution would occur.




Karl Marx believed history was cyclical, that all power would eventually return from the hands of the powerful to the hands of the people. According to Marx capitalism will give way to communism. I believe this is the case (but I don't think it is a good thing!). If you've ever studied Alexis DeTocqueville's Democracy in America, the writing on the wall is looking ever more ominous. The federal government, as it amasses power in the name of equality and goodwill will gradually (as Marx supposed) become communistic. The problem is the issue of control, an issue Marx debated.

Quote:

Marxism however is epic fail.




In my opinion and the opinion of most intellectuals Marx was primarily an observer and his social theory is very important. Most historians embrace marxism.

What is marxism? Marxism is many things and it is incredibly important to an even basic understanding of the mechanics of history.

Before Marx the assumption was made that history was a progression of military and political leaders, but that supposition is in fact untrue. History is driven by individual decisions, and everyone's decisions have a huge impact. How these decisions work together in patterns make up political, economic, religious, social, intellectual, and artistic systems.

Marxism is the basis of the mechanical understanding of history. IT IS NOT just "workers of the world unite" and the stuff of the Communist Manifesto. Das Kapital is a serious study of social, political, and economic history.

Every history teacher you've ever had has been a marxist in this way. You can be a marxist and think communism is untenable in the current political climate.

Edit: Additionally, I believe Marx may have made the mistake of analyzing industrialized society from the standpoint of the feudal economic system, which was still prevalent in Central and Eastern Europe during the 19th century. Essentially the economics of industrialized economies are the same: All control is centralized and the workers do not own what they produce. But the mechanics are more complex and varied. Built into the Marxist approach is an emphasis on gradualism that in the end proves him essentially correct (re: Tocqueville)


--------------------
While there is a lower class, I am in it
While there is a criminal element, I am of it
While there is a soul in prison, I am not free.

Eugene V Debs


Edited by kriminalelement (05/28/08 12:43 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleDieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Socialism [Re: never.never.land]
    #8454832 - 05/28/08 12:34 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Oh well, I guess I'm a minority that would rather work for the benefit of others than my own.



Your allowed to do that in our society dude. TONS of people in america volunteer time and money for things.

My wife works at a domestic violence shelter, sometimes whole churches will come in and paint and repair shit for them, all free of charge as volunteers.

I was court ordered to community service a few times, and at every different place there were always volunteers that did the service for free without a court order on a regular schedule.

The point is just because society is capitalist doest mean you have to live your life solely in the pursuit of money. You can live off of quite little and do other things with your time, "work for the benifit of others" if thats what you want to do.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleGnuBobo
Frilly Cuffs Extraordinaire
 User Gallery


Registered: 06/17/04
Posts: 43,754
Loc: Charisma
Re: Socialism [Re: kriminalelement]
    #8455035 - 05/28/08 01:28 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

kriminalelement said:
For the benefit of the obviously uneducated OP, I've decided to do a brief overview of which societies choose communism and why. By the end of this conversation I hope it will become clear

a) that communism only makes sense in feudal societies resistant to change

b) that communism and socialism are different.

Communism emerged first in Russia, and Russia is the posterchild for communism having a clear positive economic impact for the peasants.

Feudalism existed in extremely stringent forms in Europe until the 20th century. The feudal system absolutely did not die off before the 18th century even in western europe.

So what is feudalism? Feudalism is an economic system that looked something like this:

The signeur (noble landlord) owns the land. The peasants work the land growing wheat. They work the land on a three-field system. One field grows wheat, the second field grows a different crop that is NOT wheat. Wheat is the most productive crop and is the staple of the diet/economy, but it exhausts the soil. The other field is left to fallow. The village animals are all set to graze on this land, shitting on it and fertilizing it. The next growing season the fallow field becomes the wheat field to maximize wheat productivity.

The peasants are given leases on the land. The leases they are given are tiny strips, maybe only a few crop lines long. For this reason the peasants never farm separate fields because the fields they farm are too small to produce anything. The peasants live in a central village surrounded by the fields (unlike in america, where the fields surround a singular house). The people of the village farm the fields communally.

When the crop is harvested the church takes 13% of the harvest. The signeur gets half of whatever you farm (though he does no work himself). The signeur does not pay taxes (noble privilege), the peasants pay the signeur's taxes for them.

In the end the peasants are left with about 25% of their harvest and they usually starve. Infanticide is common.

Even if the peasants were allowed to go to a town to seek better work, there is no work for them there. There is no cottage industry, no skill they can learn (all skills are controlled by guilds and one must be born to a guildsman to be admitted, like the masons). The peasants are forced to farm the land or die.

This system is highly resistant to change. In England, peasants were allowed to purchase land and the more industrious peasants began to buy their neighbors land and enclose their fields. This forced the other villagers off the land, because the common grazing land was no longer able to be used and the peasants did not have large enough fields to grow their crops communally or individually. Therefore the peasants in other areas worked to make sure no one amassed to much land to upset communal economics.

The signeurs obviously were the most resistant to changing this system because they benefited the most from it.

Therefore communism in feudal societies is an obvious choice. The communal economic system already exists. The signeur stands in the way, taking 75% of the crops. It made sound economic sense to Russian peasants to kill or drive away the signeur and keep 100% of the village crop and divide it equally. Everyone works, everyone eats. This is the system communism was designed to address.

Communism was not designed to address capitalistic systems based on consumer economies. Everyone you talk to is right, OP. Communism won't work in a post feudal society.

Socialism, however, is the consolidation of social welfare services in the hands of the state as opposed to private organizations or the family. Most socialist societies have dramatically lower birthrates (as opposed to this one), as there is little financial incentive to have children (like tax breaks) and the government requires sustained and long-term parental support.




19, much?


--------------------
Jerry Garcia. JERRY GARCIA! JERRY GARCIA!!!!


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Socialism [Re: zouden]
    #8455109 - 05/28/08 01:50 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

zouden said:
I think any explanation why "capitalism is failing" should start by proving that it is. I see no evidence of this.




neither do I, I was just saying that for the sake of argument




Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* SSI, SSD, Social services
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
DeadPhan 8,912 148 05/21/05 03:33 PM
by Adamist
* Social distotortion Corporal Kielbasa 504 3 11/13/04 03:41 PM
by Psilygirl
* Consumer fraud case against a major corporation Silversoul 676 3 10/21/05 11:18 PM
by DNKYD
* One of the best monopolies, ever.. SkorpivoMusterion 954 10 09/23/05 04:54 PM
by Cowgold
* Do you believe in corporal punishment for children?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
RandalFlagg
4,377 68 05/08/06 02:30 PM
by Cowgold
* Intimidating Police Officers / Knowing You Rights in oz - interesting read!
( 1 2 all )
shrooma 3,970 20 05/02/06 12:11 PM
by shrooma
* my mad ramblings about democracy clam_dude 728 3 10/15/03 04:37 PM
by clam_dude
* The Mcdonalds Monopoly Thread
( 1 2 all )
sublimistri 3,392 21 10/23/06 05:53 PM
by coda

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Entire Staff
5,196 topic views. 7 members, 9 guests and 68 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 15 queries.