Socialism in Action

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
Some interesting points, Irish and Florelius.

A quick question for both of you(+RMP): do you feel that a “workers revolution” could be implemented in a democracy to the point of TEXTBOOK socialism without bloodshed? IE workers/Gov’t(<–plz assume one or the other) control the means of production from harvesting through finishing of all value added products, eliminating the entity of profit altogether?[/quote]

as long as men are men - no

Socialism only works with perfect emotionless humans - I’ve not met any . . .

122

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
as long as men are men - no

Socialism only works with perfect emotionless humans - I’ve not met any . . .[/quote]

and Ryan says?

oh wait, he wont address this. He refuses to acknowledge the nature of man.

I think deep down he realizes it,though. … That his socialism will never work. But he has spent so much time researching and years defending it - that it’s like his baby. He cannot let it go. But what we don’t see - On the inside, his baby is dead. And he is just carrying on in rememberance of his dead baby… going through the motions. Deluding himself that he is able to bring his baby back to life.

123

maybe I don’t get it.
but I thought that Marx didn’t necessarly “want” socialism, but that he “foresaw” that it naturally would occur in the future? as we evolve?

so when a state, as the soviet, forces this ideology it will fail.

124

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

But government regulation is not socialism, not even close. This is why your argument is completely irrational.

Ha, the only one of those in which industry in collectively owned and run according to plan is Cuba. China, haha. Let me give you a hint: if you can buy stock in a company in that country, they’re probably not socialist.

In addition, none of these countries are in Europe, which is strange, seeing as how you were convinced that practically all European countries are socialist.

I am being specific, you moron. That’s why I specifically said “collectively owned” (not government owned), planned economy. This would eliminate market socialism.

If you want to seriously claim that any country in Europe is socialist, then apparently I also have enough leeway to discount any country you name as socialist. It goes both ways.

All I have to say is, have fun solving capitalism’s problems with more capitalism. It’s worked so well so far.
[/quote]

Government owned/planned/regulated = socialism, Government Owned = socialism, government planned = socialism, government regulated = socialism . . . nuf said

According to you a capitalistic nation practicing socialism is not socialist, thus a socialistic nation practicing some capitalism is not capitalistic - you fell on your own petard . . .

yes, because I do not artificially limit my definition of socialism as you do in your little semantics games.

You don’t think i noticed your little qualifiers? Why do you think I prefaced my remarks with a jibe at your semantic gymnastics and why i reminded you to define your terms - a collective can be anything from a group of farmers to a politburo - so, you do need to actually be very specific if you want to base your entire argument’s contstructs on such flimsy material.

And of course you can, you adorable little socialist, which is why socialists like yourself are always trying to pass off the failures of a socialism on some other tangential component of that particular version of socialism rather than on the fallacious foundations of the theory itself.

Capitalism’s foundation is based on individual freedom, socialism’s foundation is based on collective chains.

in capitalism I am an individual, socialism removes my individuality.

In Capitalism I have the freedom to fail or succeed based on my own energy, efforts and character - socialism only guarentees me certain privileges as long as the resources are available.

Capitalism is about free will and risk/reward, socialism is about subservance and conformity/punishment

You can have your socialism all day - may God grant you the mercy to avoid living in a socialist society and may the devil grant your wish to see such a day . . .[/quote]

how many times most have this “what is socialisme” debate.

to be specific: marxist socialisme = A society where the proletariat owns the means of production togheter.

what you talk about, can be called: statist socialisme or statist capitalisme.

have you read marx?

Ok what is capitalisme. orion and his comrades are libertarians, what they call capitalisme, I call libertarianisme. thats an ideal for a society, not our society today.

when marxists talk about capitalisme, they meen the burgeois society. a society where the burgeois class controls the means of production and the state. the state of today are the state of the burgeois.

remember that marxist look at history as a history of class antagonisme, and that socialisme is the interrest ideology of the proletariat class not the state.

so governments dont equal socialisme. workers power do.

[/quote]

I am sorry, but that is not capitalism.[/quote]

what is not capitalisme? libertarianisme or the burgeois society?[/quote]

Burgeois society.[/quote]

well its the society we live in, and its what me and many others call capitalisme. I will use my energy to abolish the reallife burgeois capitalist society, but I will not use my energy to fight against your normativ capitalist ideology. [/quote]

The Burgeois society is what would otherwise be seen when implementing mercantilism, they are favored group of people over the consumer. Without the state, these people have no power to become favored which would then turn into a capitalist society.

125

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]StevenF wrote:
Why is it that people that seem to be in favor of socialism choose not to live in a socialist country? [/quote]

Because Mommy and Daddy are paying for their school and well being, so it is like Socialism in their mind.[/quote]

Warren Buffet believes the same thing, he won’t leave his kids with shit because he sees it has a bag full of food stamps.[/quote]

Idiot…

Buffett once commented, “I want to give my kids just enough so that they would feel that they could do anything, but not so much that they would feel like doing nothing”.[/quote]

Yes, I have read the Snowball, thank you. He also plans on giving them 1.5 million each when he dies. That is “shit” for the riches man in the world.[/quote]

That’s a whole lot of food stamps. You were lying to prop up your point of view. Minus 1.5 million internetz.

126

I am advocating socialism. Not the “socialism” of European capitalist welfare states, or the “socialism” of Obama, but actual socialism. The “commanding heights” of the economy would be run according to a democratically determined plan for use, not for profit. Probably most less important consumer goods industries would still have at least some market component.

There will be no welfare because employment will be available to anyone who seeks it through employment agencies.

Your other questions would be determined democratically.

127

[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
as long as men are men - no

Socialism only works with perfect emotionless humans - I’ve not met any . . .[/quote]

and Ryan says?

oh wait, he wont address this. He refuses to acknowledge the nature of man.

I think deep down he realizes it,though. … That his socialism will never work. But he has spent so much time researching and years defending it - that it’s like his baby. He cannot let it go. But what we don’t see - On the inside, his baby is dead.

And he is just carrying on in rememberance of his dead baby… going through the motions. Deluding himself that he is able to bring his baby back to life.[/quote]

Please. Your attempt to turn your utter ignorance of both socialism and human nature into a critique of socialism, and the results are laughable. Socialism, so far from being against human nature, is actually more in line with it than capitalism, which is the system truly in conflict with human nature.

128

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]StevenF wrote:
Why is it that people that seem to be in favor of socialism choose not to live in a socialist country? [/quote]

Because Mommy and Daddy are paying for their school and well being, so it is like Socialism in their mind.[/quote]

Warren Buffet believes the same thing, he won’t leave his kids with shit because he sees it has a bag full of food stamps.[/quote]

Idiot…

Buffett once commented, “I want to give my kids just enough so that they would feel that they could do anything, but not so much that they would feel like doing nothing”.[/quote]

Yes, I have read the Snowball, thank you. He also plans on giving them 1.5 million each when he dies. That is “shit” for the riches man in the world.[/quote]

That’s a whole lot of food stamps. You were lying to prop up your point of view. Minus 1.5 million internetz. [/quote]

As much as he has, he is not leaving them ‘shit.’ Yes, it is a lot of food stamps, if you have read The Snowball, you would understand what I am talking about that he views leaving inheritance is non-contributing to society.

129

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
This is what I have been screaming at Ryan P and the Federalist. With Socialism, all productivity comes to a halt, because at the end of the day, no one gives a shit, everyone makes the same money. It is not worth working hard for a raise, because after taxation, you take home 35% of whatever raise you got. [/quote]

But I have told you many times before, that is not socialism. What does any of this have to do with collective ownership of the means of production? Ironically, the situation described here is much closer to capitalism than socialism.[/quote]

I am in Ryans court this email was not socialism it was idiotsy , it would be like the teacher selling grades claiming it to be capitalism[/quote]

Differing abilities = different ability to get grades. Common control of means of production = equal reward = equal grades.

It’s all very simple

130

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]StevenF wrote:
Why is it that people that seem to be in favor of socialism choose not to live in a socialist country? [/quote]

Because Mommy and Daddy are paying for their school and well being, so it is like Socialism in their mind.[/quote]

Warren Buffet believes the same thing, he won’t leave his kids with shit because he sees it has a bag full of food stamps.[/quote]

Idiot…

Buffett once commented, “I want to give my kids just enough so that they would feel that they could do anything, but not so much that they would feel like doing nothing”.[/quote]

Yes, I have read the Snowball, thank you. He also plans on giving them 1.5 million each when he dies. That is “shit” for the riches man in the world.[/quote]

That’s a whole lot of food stamps. You were lying to prop up your point of view. Minus 1.5 million internetz. [/quote]

As much as he has, he is not leaving them ‘shit.’ Yes, it is a lot of food stamps, if you have read The Snowball, you would understand what I am talking about that he views leaving inheritance is non-contributing to society.[/quote]

I’m well aware of Buffet’s stance on large inheritances, but that doesn’t change the fact that your original statement was completely inaccurate.

131

[quote]valiant knight wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
This is what I have been screaming at Ryan P and the Federalist. With Socialism, all productivity comes to a halt, because at the end of the day, no one gives a shit, everyone makes the same money. It is not worth working hard for a raise, because after taxation, you take home 35% of whatever raise you got. [/quote]

But I have told you many times before, that is not socialism. What does any of this have to do with collective ownership of the means of production? Ironically, the situation described here is much closer to capitalism than socialism.[/quote]

I am in Ryans court this email was not socialism it was idiotsy , it would be like the teacher selling grades claiming it to be capitalism[/quote]

Differing abilities = different ability to get grades. Common control of means of production = equal reward = equal grades.

It’s all very simple
[/quote]

It’s not at all that simple, because you’re completely wrong. Common control does not mean equal wages. Far from it. You’re so indoctrinated that you don’t even stop to think if what you’re saying makes sense. Why would a movement that began when people became disgusted with leeches (investors, company owners) institutionalize leeching?

132

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]StevenF wrote:
Why is it that people that seem to be in favor of socialism choose not to live in a socialist country? [/quote]

Because Mommy and Daddy are paying for their school and well being, so it is like Socialism in their mind.[/quote]

Warren Buffet believes the same thing, he won’t leave his kids with shit because he sees it has a bag full of food stamps.[/quote]

Idiot…

Buffett once commented, “I want to give my kids just enough so that they would feel that they could do anything, but not so much that they would feel like doing nothing”.[/quote]

Yes, I have read the Snowball, thank you. He also plans on giving them 1.5 million each when he dies. That is “shit” for the riches man in the world.[/quote]

That’s a whole lot of food stamps. You were lying to prop up your point of view. Minus 1.5 million internetz. [/quote]

As much as he has, he is not leaving them ‘shit.’ Yes, it is a lot of food stamps, if you have read The Snowball, you would understand what I am talking about that he views leaving inheritance is non-contributing to society.[/quote]

I’m well aware of Buffet’s stance on large inheritances, but that doesn’t change the fact that your original statement was completely inaccurate. [/quote]

I am glad, I am not looking at this from my perspective, I am looking at Buffet’s point of view. He’s not really leaving them much.

133

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
as long as men are men - no

Socialism only works with perfect emotionless humans - I’ve not met any . . .[/quote]

and Ryan says?

oh wait, he wont address this. He refuses to acknowledge the nature of man.

I think deep down he realizes it,though. … That his socialism will never work. But he has spent so much time researching and years defending it - that it’s like his baby. He cannot let it go. But what we don’t see - On the inside, his baby is dead.

And he is just carrying on in rememberance of his dead baby… going through the motions. Deluding himself that he is able to bring his baby back to life.[/quote]

Please. Your attempt to turn your utter ignorance of both socialism and human nature into a critique of socialism, and the results are laughable. Socialism, so far from being against human nature, is actually more in line with it than capitalism, which is the system truly in conflict with human nature.
[/quote]

“Deluding himself that he is able to bring his baby back to life.”

If it was truly in conflict with man’s nature, it would not exist.

134

[quote]John S. wrote:
That pretty much sums up socialism.[/quote]

No it doesn’t. It sums up a poorly designed experiment.

135

Why is the choice between atomistic individualism and collectivism? As if one or the other is solely compatible with human nature. Perhaps they’re in constant struggle. Maybe they inevitably lead to each other. A back and forth. Revolution to revolution. Hyper individualism to collectivism. Collectivism to hyper individualism. I’ll dwell on this and report my findings at a later date!

136

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

I am advocating socialism. Not the “socialism” of European capitalist welfare states, or the “socialism” of Obama, but actual socialism. The “commanding heights” of the economy would be run according to a democratically determined plan for use, not for profit. Probably most less important consumer goods industries would still have at least some market component.

There will be no welfare because employment will be available to anyone who seeks it through employment agencies.

Your other questions would be determined democratically.[/quote]

This is a non-answer…And what if the democratically determined plan for use determines that things should be used for profit? And it is an utter fantasy that employment can be available for anyone who seeks it. Ever. Irrespective of what the system of government is.

137

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
as long as men are men - no

Socialism only works with perfect emotionless humans - I’ve not met any . . .[/quote]

and Ryan says?

oh wait, he wont address this. He refuses to acknowledge the nature of man.

I think deep down he realizes it,though. … That his socialism will never work. But he has spent so much time researching and years defending it - that it’s like his baby. He cannot let it go. But what we don’t see - On the inside, his baby is dead.

And he is just carrying on in rememberance of his dead baby… going through the motions. Deluding himself that he is able to bring his baby back to life.[/quote]

Please. Your attempt to turn your utter ignorance of both socialism and human nature into a critique of socialism, and the results are laughable. Socialism, so far from being against human nature, is actually more in line with it than capitalism, which is the system truly in conflict with human nature.
[/quote]

So what exactly is it that you do for a living? I’d like to see what sort of education level and professional experience brought you to this thought process.

138

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

I am advocating socialism. Not the “socialism” of European capitalist welfare states, or the “socialism” of Obama, but actual socialism. The “commanding heights” of the economy would be run according to a democratically determined plan for use, not for profit. Probably most less important consumer goods industries would still have at least some market component.

There will be no welfare because employment will be available to anyone who seeks it through employment agencies.

Your other questions would be determined democratically.[/quote]

This is a non-answer…And what if the democratically determined plan for use determines that things should be used for profit? And it is an utter fantasy that employment can be available for anyone who seeks it. Ever. Irrespective of what the system of government is. [/quote]

Even Soviet Russia had unemployment.

139

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Why is the choice between atomistic individualism and collectivism? As if one or the other is solely compatible with human nature. Perhaps they’re in constant struggle. Maybe they inevitably lead to each other. A back and forth. Revolution to revolution. Hyper individualism to collectivism. Collectivism to hyper individualism. I’ll dwell on this and report my findings at a later date![/quote]

Well, I think the first thing is that you have to remember is just because it is individualism doesn’t mean that there is no altruism, or isolation.

140

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

I am advocating socialism. Not the “socialism” of European capitalist welfare states, or the “socialism” of Obama, but actual socialism. The “commanding heights” of the economy would be run according to a democratically determined plan for use, not for profit. Probably most less important consumer goods industries would still have at least some market component.

There will be no welfare because employment will be available to anyone who seeks it through employment agencies.

Your other questions would be determined democratically.[/quote]

This is a non-answer…And what if the democratically determined plan for use determines that things should be used for profit? And it is an utter fantasy that employment can be available for anyone who seeks it. Ever. Irrespective of what the system of government is. [/quote]

Even Soviet Russia had unemployment.
[/quote]

Full-employment is part of mercantilism.