Socialism

[farmer093]

Give your feelings about socialism and i will support/debate your opinion.

What do you mean by ''the descent of Capitalism''? My thoughts of the ''rise and revitalization'' of the ''global Socialism campaign'' (which I seem to be unaware of) is that Socialism is simply ideologically unfeasible, as it contravenes human nature and will never be occur naturally. My impressions of Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism are much like my opinion of Socialism - that implementation demands coercive means, and that both ideologies are simply economically detrimental.

A quick look at countries which deploy any type of capitalism will support my statements. It is widely recognized that Socialism works in small countries, but many larger countries are also adopting it. Probably the most common example, the failure of the United States economy has in part lead to the crowning of a new leader who has incorporated keynesian economics and has turned the United States from a Laissez-faire into a mixed economy. Remember, the United States is bordering Fascism and even Left-wing is basically the middle of the spectrum. So I'll bring other examples. Greece. Ahh, once a shining example of democracy and capitalism, but now it is in the depths of hell. This "capitalist" country now has to rely on the EU, a mixing pot of socialist nations. Another example is the PRC. Although evolved from Maoism, it is still very much socialist. The government regulations are what has kept it growing so rapidly and the government has basically paved a path into the future, a path which can only lead to success. This has been done through the use of socialist principles.

Your Quote: "Socialism is simply ideologically unfeasible, as it contravenes human nature and will never be occur naturally."
By your logic, if humans followed what was natural, we would still be bartering. Furthermore, a true embrace of natural greed is feudalism. However, that has died off. Capitalism is not at all natural. People had to learn to accept gold as a valued item and use it as the basis of all global economies. That is not natural. Also, I do not see you as someone who can predict future trends of human behavior. What is natural, however, is that the labo(u)r is the most important part of any economy. You haven't addressed the fact that capitalists derive their profit from owning the capital--human beings actually laboring produce all the wealth. Owning something is not a productive activity and yet non-productive capitalists receive profit. It is undeniable that OWNING capital is not a productive activity, and it is undeniable that owning capital can get you profit. Therefore (it follows as a matter of simple logic) capitalism allows a person to receive profit for a non-procutive activity. We socialists would claim that a system where the workers controlled their own affairs instead of letting capitalists be the dictators of the firm would be better for workers. You can disagree, we can debate that.

And why did you lump Maxism-Leninism with Trotskyism? They are as different at Stalinism and Marxism.

"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate (the) grave evils (of capitalism), namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society."

Albert Einstein, Why Socialism?, 1949

Capitalist: "No their not,
this is because the country will never become socialist. Our ancestors came to the U.S. many years ago, so they would be able to live a life with limited government regulation. This is what the U.S. is about, limited government regulation, and it will not change because of the left-wing extremists that want to get rid of what has made the U.S. the strongest and most powerful country in the world, capitalism."

Response: "It's worth noting that far from coming to America in search of limited regulation (what a weird line that would make on the statue of liberty -- give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning for limited government regulation!) immigrants were at the forefront of organizing for a regulated form of capitalism (not to mention ... See Moreengaging in a lot of organizing for socialism). They did this by helping to build the labor movement which fought off the harsh exploitation of un- and under-regulated capitalists. It's a legacy that continues right up until today."

 

Give your feelings about socialism and i will support/debate your opinion.

Do you believe goods and services should be provided at the barrel of a gun?

 

[farmer093]

Modern day socialism is not centered around extortion. If anything, crime is a form of capitalism.

 

[Vergil_lived]

Do you believe goods and services should be provided at the barrel of a gun?

I was going to ask the same thing! I believe we might have the same philosophy

No one should be forced to pay for a service they do not wish to receive.

Modern day socialism is not centered around extortion. If anything, crime is a form of capitalism.

I'm going to have to disagree capitalism is the free exchange of goods and services, where people are not forced to do business with each other. Further more, in a capitalist system no man should have power over another.

 

[farmer093]

@vergil Then maybe, just maybe, we could all revert to bartering! Basically you're against the state and an anarchist? who would support the gvmt?

 

Do you believe goods and services should be provided at the barrel of a gun?

Modern day socialism is not centered around extortion. If anything, crime is a form of capitalism.

It's a yes/no question. A two or three letter answer is all thats required.

 

[Vergil_lived]

@vergil Then maybe, just maybe, we could all revert to bartering! Basically you're against the state and an anarchist? who would support the gvmt?

Farmer,

We barter everyday when making a purchase. Take sythe as an example if you where to look at the selling/buying forums you will see people trading accounts / game items for other forms of currency. Many take USD others prefer accounts, this is a system of bartering.

Why does anyone need to support the government? As Sythe stated anything service performed by the government is done by force *barrel of a gun* If people require the services that are currently provided by the government there are plenty of free market solutions.

 

[Angelmax]

Do you mean the Government regulations that are opening up the Chinese markets? The growth of the Chinese economy can be attributed to its increasingly free markets, not the Communist ideology which it claims to endorse. Communism is not evocative of wealth or growth.

I don't have the time nor the inclination to fully commit to this debate, but Finn is right.

The enormous power of the modern Chinese economy, partly due to quasi-slave labour, is hardly an example of socialism but of rampant capitalism in a previously artificially controlled economy.

 

[morttt]

I don't have the time nor the inclination to fully commit to this debate, but Finn is right.

The enormous power of the modern Chinese economy, partly due to quasi-slave labour, is hardly an example of socialism but of rampant capitalism in a previously artificially controlled economy.

Enormous power caused by the Chinese government keeping the Yuan low. Sure is rampant capitalism.

 

[farmer093]

@Vergil A true free market would be anti-capitalist, anti-nationalist, and anti-feudalist. So you oppose all non-labor forms of income, which is why you oppose all forms of taxation since it is theft? And your opinion is that the central and local governments are just unjustified land owners? Sorry, just clarifying it and I will respond to this if I have understood it right.

@Finn Perhaps the greatest threat to freedom and democracy in the world today comes from the formation of the unholy alliances between government and business. This is not a new phenomenon. It used to be called FASCISM. The outward appearances of the democratic process are observed, but the powers of the state are diverted to the benefit of private interests. I never said America is a socialist country, but it sure is progressing to it, is it not?

@Finn You're location says that you hail from Copenhagen, Denmark. My knowledge is that your fatherland is socialist, but I have not really studied that. Also, I've seen that your previous location was Sweden, which I also believe is socialist? AND ALL OF EASTERN EUROPE.

@Finn, Angel, and Mortt
The Chinese government is formally known as Market Socialist or something like that. It does have a private sector, but the thing is that only about 1/3 of the GDP of that country comes from it. The state owns the majority of the economy and can influence market prices but they allow seperate entities to join in. Just becuase they are not communist does not mean they are not socialist.

@Sythe I'm sorry but I don't understand this question. Are you asking if I believe crime should be prevalent in a Socialist economy? What does this have to do with anything? Socialism is not a form of government...If thats what you're asking? But in some variants of communism money is used to fund stronger armies and that would eliminate rebellions. (Not that I support that.)

 

@Sythe I'm sorry but I don't understand this question.

So, you do not understand the question:
"Should goods or services be provided at the barrel of a gun?"

I think it is pretty clear. That you don't want to answer it is clear also.

But if you insist on playing the obtuse child of privilege:
With regard to your magical wonderful amazing rainbow-out-your-arse socialism, may I or may I not *opt out*?
Is it voluntary?
Will you point guns at me if I don't want to drink your kool-aid.
Will you seize my property arbitrarily to meet the ends you seek.
Will your random and stupid central planning cause damage to my property or person?

It's a very simple concept.

 

[farmer093]

@Sythe No. They should not.

 

@Sythe No. They should not.

Well then you *cannot* also call for socialism.

 

[farmer093]

@Sythe What does capital punishment and extortion have to do with socialism? Taxes are paid in virtually every country around the world and I believe they are necessary.

 

@Sythe What does capital punishment and extortion have to do with socialism?

Oh well I don't know. Maybe the abolition of my private property and the subsequent enslavement of my entire life to the politburo under threat of death.

Or are you going to try tell me this isn't the socialism you propose?

 

[farmer093]

@Sythe Socialism does not have to be like Mao or Stalin's version of communism.

 

@Sythe Socialism does not have to be like Mao or Stalin's version of communism.

No, but it does have to be public ownership of the means of production. And in so far as this is involuntary, it is slavery.

Do not attempt to sell me slavery as salvation. Do not attempt to justify slavery as virtue. You will find that those here who are altruists are not socialists, and the rest of us are not altruists.

 

[farmer093]

@Sythe I've been busy for the past few days. No, slavery is alot more similar to capitalism then socialism. The altruists that you mention are most likely to be religious but not socialist. And I would also like to respond to your sticky which I have just read over. Have you ever read "The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx? You claim that libertarianism is built on non-aggression when the very ownership of private property primarily that of production and natural resources is maintained with the use and/or threat of violence. And on your post I really think that you get lost on the true definition of Marxism, Communism, and Socialism.

 

@Sythe I've been busy for the past few days. No, slavery is alot more similar to capitalism then socialism.

You know not what capitalism is. You've been through socialist education, come out the other side, hit unviersity, opened a copy of the communist manifesto and formed a prejudiece based on nothing more than unintellectual unenlightened self-interest and flat-out jealousy for the property of others. It is not a philosophical position you present, but the unthinking, knee-jerk, reaction of someone conditioned to a popular prejudice by exactly that system which their prejudice proposes.

If you want to debate me you will have to stick only to the points I discuss, or I will not bother. This is because socialists play endless word games, being as they have no sound principles on which to base their arguments, just like any other proponent of any other religion.

1. Slavery is the state in which a man is unable to make his own decisions about his life or own his own property, under threat of force.

2. Socialism is defined as "public ownership of the means of production", which translates exactly to the abolition of private property.

3. Further, when private property is abolished, people and the belongings under siege leave the area (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_flight.) It essentially means government takeover of every single aspect of your life.

4. If everyone leaves then you cannot have a socialist state, thus in order to have socialism you must also prevent people from leaving. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_germany ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_korea ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_emigration#Cuba ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_emigration#China ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_emigration#Eastern_Bloc ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Venezuela#Net_emigration_rate ; et al.)

5. Thus, any still existing socialist state is a slave state. If you look around you will see that this is exactly the case.

No, but it does have to be public ownership of the means of production. And in so far as this is involuntary, it is slavery.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

 

[FireZ]

Not to interrupt this conversation but I think Socialism would be atrocious.


When I work for something and earn it, it is mine. It is not yours unless I freely wish to give it to you.


The way I see it is the government was put there to protect the people and to serve the people, not slap the people every chance it gets. What is mine is the governments and what is the governments is the governments is garbage.

If I work I reap the reward, not whoever the hell thinks they should get some.

The U.S. is turning into the nanny state (socialism), do nothing and by all means the government will save your ass. Which is complete garbage.

Redistribution of wealth is the worst idea ever. People who support this are trying to live out in a fantasy land of sunshine and loli-pops that doesn't exist. Life has winners and losers no matter what. Also competition only drives us to be better.

I realize some government assistance is needed upon this earth, but there has to come a point when it is time to draw the line.


I personally wouldn't last very long in a socialist environment because I wouldn't give up what was mine.