1. Post #201
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,027 Posts
    Well, I think you've made a total balls up in characterising my view. Reformists try to change the state through the institution of the state. You're proposing we destroy the state by replacing it with a supposedly better state. I say we spread the message that the state isn't real and that it's just us being cultured against each other. How you can even pretend to say my view is anything like a liberal reformist is bizarre. The methods of both violent proletariat revolution and liberal reformation are both fundamentally flawed even in principle.

    The reason violent usurpation would fail as much as the current standard of statism is because they both fail to recognise the moral importance of consent. I don't really see how peaceful revolution is any less likely than a violent one. You say we require a global class consciousness in order to usurp the ruling elite (and thus become the ruling elite and actively repress the bourgeois.). I say we require a global class consciousness in order to recognise the prisoner's dilemma we're in and thus recognise that the alleged private property of the elite isn't legitimate (and therefore isn't their private property anymore). Yours is premature and hypocritical (hence a waste of time).

  2. Post #202
    RonPaul4ever's Avatar
    July 2011
    112 Posts
    point me to the economists that decry socialism for it's 'terrible consequences'.
    http://www.economist.com/

    For the rest of your simplified sight on the world, private enterprise and human nature, I have nothing to say, except that I advise you to read the content which you can find when clicking on the link above.

  3. Post #203
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,027 Posts
    http://www.economist.com/

    For the rest of your simplified sight on the world, private enterprise and human nature, I have nothing to say, except that I advise you to read the content which you can find when clicking on the link above.
    that is the least helpful link ever

    post an actual source that states it or you're wasting your/everyone else's time.

  4. Post #204
    Gold Member
    DwarfOverlord's Avatar
    December 2010
    943 Posts
    Capitalism's mediocrity makes me want to drown in a bucket of my own diarrhoea.
    People don't understand the cracks in it's foundations. The GFC is just the beginning- I reckon the end of the world as we know it will be when the banks collapse, money becomes worthless and pretty much the whole world starts from scratch.
    Then again, communism isn't great either- Leaders end up rich and fat whilst everyone else gets scrawny and poor.

  5. Post #205
    LSD
    LSD's Avatar
    March 2011
    20 Posts
    Fuck both of them, they don't work.

    Techocracy ftw!

  6. Post #206
    Gold Member
    Karlos's Avatar
    May 2005
    1,858 Posts
    http://www.economist.com/

    For the rest of your simplified sight on the world, private enterprise and human nature, I have nothing to say, except that I advise you to read the content which you can find when clicking on the link above.
    classic liberal copout, come back when you've thought of some other bogus argument to defend the propaganda that makes up your entire ideology

    Robbobin posted:
    Well, I think you've made a total balls up in characterising my view. Reformists try to change the state through the institution of the state. You're proposing we destroy the state by replacing it with a supposedly better state. I say we spread the message that the state isn't real and that it's just us being cultured against each other. How you can even pretend to say my view is anything like a liberal reformist is bizarre. The methods of both violent proletariat revolution and liberal reformation are both fundamentally flawed even in principle.
    i'm marginalising your view not because i think you want to reform capitalism through it's plutocratic democracy, but because your ideas amount to exactly the same thing. you want, like a liberal wants, to have your cake and eat it; revolution without unpleasantry, washing away oppressive social conditions without hard work and the total restructuring of society. what i'm saying is that this is as counterrevolutionary as liberal reformism. you're against violent revolution and against a socialist state.

    Robbobin posted:
    The reason violent usurpation would fail as much as the current standard of statism is because they both fail to recognise the moral importance of consent. I don't really see how peaceful revolution is any less likely than a violent one. You say we require a global class consciousness in order to usurp the ruling elite (and thus become the ruling elite and actively repress the bourgeois.). I say we require a global class consciousness in order to recognise the prisoner's dilemma we're in and thus recognise that the alleged private property of the elite isn't legitimate (and therefore isn't their private property anymore). Yours is premature and hypocritical (hence a waste of time).
    in what way would violent usurpation 'fail', or at least fail to replace the status quo? isn't this just another way of arguing for corruption of leadership? human nature? if global 'consent' were possible and everybody were accepting of the education you propose within the capitalist system, don't you think every kind of movement would have achieved much more progress by now? peaceful revolution is less likely because, like you're saying, the monopoly of physical violence exists. a global class consciousness isn't to say literally everybody; only a majority or enough in order to overthrow the state. besides that, how do the workers of the third world have a choice? isn't it literally out of their hands to make that kind of decision, let alone come to that understanding themselves? you can argue about 'recognizing the legitimacy' all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the capitalists will, no matter what, have some thugs with which to repress your hippie anarchism. your view is pure idealism, though i can't argue against the prematurity of mine; my understanding of marxism is shallow at best.

  7. Post #207
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,027 Posts
    i'm marginalising your view not because i think you want to reform capitalism through it's plutocratic democracy, but because your ideas amount to exactly the same thing. you want, like a liberal wants, to have your cake and eat it; revolution without unpleasantry, washing away oppressive social conditions without hard work and the total restructuring of society. what i'm saying is that this is as counterrevolutionary as liberal reformism. you're against violent revolution and against a socialist state.
    Oh I think when we finally decide to break out of the prisoner's dilemma it would be a relatively quite foul transition. It would take a long time for markets (certainly a few particular markets) to develop enough for competitive prices. I think for half a generation it will be a pretty unpleasant time and they'd probably be better off living in the current system. It's the nature of violent revolution I abhor, because it betrays the intentions of anti-statism.


    in what way would violent usurpation 'fail', or at least fail to replace the status quo? isn't this just another way of arguing for corruption of leadership? human nature? if global 'consent' were possible and everybody were accepting of the education you propose within the capitalist system, don't you think every kind of movement would have achieved much more progress by now? peaceful revolution is less likely because, like you're saying, the monopoly of physical violence exists. a global class consciousness isn't to say literally everybody; only a majority or enough in order to overthrow the state. besides that, how do the workers of the third world have a choice? isn't it literally out of their hands to make that kind of decision, let alone come to that understanding themselves? you can argue about 'recognizing the legitimacy' all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the capitalists will, no matter what, have some thugs with which to repress your hippie anarchism. your view is pure idealism, though i can't argue against the prematurity of mine; my understanding of marxism is shallow at best.
    Oh I'm definitely not one to argue for communism corrupting, certainly not one to argue from the human nature standpoint. The reason I oppose it is because it's simply not resolving the problem of state coercion. It's just replacing one state for another one.

    As for global consciousness, I was only referring to a majority. I'm fully aware of the idealism of changing everyone's mind, but you can work out from game theory that at very most we only need 50%+ of people to recognise the illegitimacy of state coercion to break the prisoner's dilemma. I see the prisoner's dilemma that the state presents us in as a self-fulfilling prophecy. If people collectively believe in its existence, it exists. If collectively (NOTE: collectively =/= entirely) dismiss its existence it ceases to exist. I'd say my leading argument against violent usurpation is this: if there are enough people to successfully and confidently secure the property of the state violently, there are enough people to not need to secure its property violently.

  8. Post #208
    gamertag's Avatar
    June 2010
    46 Posts
    Communism could work if people took they're desires away. A community would have to work together as one, each person would have to contribute to help. But human insticts get involved greed and desire that you cant really take away, its human nature. I think that would get in the way to the point it could cause conflicting situations for that community.

  9. Post #209
    The Kakistocrat's Avatar
    November 2011
    1,353 Posts
    Capitalism's mediocrity makes me want to drown in a bucket of my own diarrhoea.
    People don't understand the cracks in it's foundations. The GFC is just the beginning- I reckon the end of the world as we know it will be when the banks collapse, money becomes worthless and pretty much the whole world starts from scratch.
    Then again, communism isn't great either- Leaders end up rich and fat whilst everyone else gets scrawny and poor.
    No, it's capitalism that makes leaders rich and everyone else poor. What happened in Russia was not communism; it was Fascism disguised as communism.

  10. Post #210
    Retardation's Avatar
    July 2009
    2,314 Posts
    No, it's capitalism that makes leaders rich and everyone else poor. What happened in Russia was not communism; it was Fascism disguised as communism.
    Im pretty sure it was Stalinism - not fascism.

  11. Post #211
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,027 Posts
    Im pretty sure it was Stalinism - not fascism.
    Stalinism is effectively a kind of fascism. It's like saying "that's not a cat, it's a mammal!"

  12. Post #212
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,605 Posts
    Stalinism is effectively a kind of fascism. It's like saying "that's not a cat, it's a mammal!"
    Well it was totalitarian, to say the least.

  13. Post #213
    DerMaus's Avatar
    January 2012
    246 Posts
    Trying to dodge through the tangents here, I'm seeing a lot more "Communism can/does work vs. it can't/doesn't" arguing. Nobody's mentioned what happens in a totally free market, where the private business aspirations of individuals and groups are in no way restricted, regulated, taxed, or hindered by any form of government.

    Personally, I have to come back to the basics in a debate like this: what's the goal for this society? Is it to polarize the population, making a small elite that amounts to an economic superpower? Or to have a lukewarm sort of standard where everyone's in the middle area and just be "there" in the world economy.

    I think Hobbes was right. Man needs government and direction, especially since we've technically overridden Natural Selection, which demanded some intelligent thought of the individual to survive. But I also feel that to totally restrict and think for people is not only impossible, but counter-productive.

    So I find myself supporting the necessities of life being placed in the able hands of a primarily regulatory, democratic government that's held accountable by its constituents. This way, you're free to get ahead in life by playing capitalism, but if you're happy eating standard-issue meals twice a day for free, you can do that too. Guess that makes me in support of a mixed economy, or a modern socialist. Hard to say anymore.

  14. Post #214
    PolarEventide's Avatar
    January 2012
    582 Posts
    Pardon me for not reading every single reply since the last time I posted a few weeks ago, but I still felt inclined to post regardless. In all honesty, you should not be able to say that a capitalist nation or a socialist nation exist with the italicized ideologies as a sole driving force. Because, all successful nations are a healthy mix of the two. However, that leaves you with the question: Which ideology should dominate the other in a society?

    In the United States, we follow a capitalistic ideology. However, we embrace socialism where it works, like in Social Security. However, if you look throughout the history of the past century, it is undeniable that capitalism, at least in the way we practice it, only leads to recession. Now, perhaps capitalism isn't to blame. Perhaps it's the majority-Republican concept that by forcing less tax on chief executive officers, you have a 'trickling' effect where: when the owners of corporations start to prosper, it starts to drop down to everyone else. Yeah, uhm......who ever thought that would actually work? And why after showing it doesn't work do certain Congress members still believe this? Ugh....

    If a nation is going to be generally capitalistic, the boundaries need to be known on what can be socialist. For example, in the United States if we were to have socialized health care, it would probably result in a backup like that in the United Kingdom. I'd rather not wait two years to be treated if I were to become terminally ill. Historically, socialized health care only works in majority-Socialist nations.

    Socialism thrives in areas like Scandinavia, because it is well implemented, and where needed capitalism exists. Socialism in these countries means more help for small businesses, rather than focusing on the corporations. The corporations still exist. Read that again, it's important. The difference between a country like Sweden and the United States, however, is that in Sweden corporations do not get their hands held by the government while they skip down the road like a nice little couple where each member exploits the other.

    What it boils down to is how well the government is designed. In all honesty, if the American form of government were to undergo serious reform, we could very well change the world's perception of capitalism. Either system works when balanced with the other if the creation of the government for that nation has serious considerations. History is there so its wrongdoings are never repeated. Let's embrace that.

    I am a socialist. I support a healthy mix of the two ideologies, but generally do not support an equal mix of the two. Communism in its true form is optimistic. Let's leave it as wishful thinking for now. We're not ready for communism or the more reasonable anarcho-syndicalism.

    Some of you may think I'm just a nave thirteen-year-old, but I felt inclined to share my thoughts regardless.

  15. Post #215
    Gold Member
    Karlos's Avatar
    May 2005
    1,858 Posts
    Pardon me for not reading every single reply since the last time I posted a few weeks ago, but I still felt inclined to post regardless. In all honesty, you should not be able to say that a capitalist nation or a socialist nation exist with the italicized ideologies as a sole driving force. Because, all successful nations are a healthy mix of the two. However, that leaves you with the question: Which ideology should dominate the other in a society?
    there's no such thing as a "mixed society." socialization is entirely different in the capitalist mode of production as it is in the socialist mode of production, and in these modes of production the relations of production are totally different. these systems can't exist simultaneously; capitalism is a mode of production involving private property, the means of production in the hands of the bourgeois class, socialism is antithetical in that the workers control the means of production.

    how is it that you determine the "success" of a nation? by it's economic prosperity? social progress? in terms of economic prosperity, the capitalist mode of production is undeniably efficient. in terms of "human rights," even by the constituted bourgeois definition, poverty (treated not as something arising from the system but by individual fault) and atrocities committed by the bourgeois state violate it's own proposal of "inalienable rights." this isn't to mention that the social progress of women, among other political minorities, has been excruciatingly slow.

    in no way are the social conditions of capitalism currently (or previously) existing "healthy." how you can consider a mode of production involving the common exploitation of the many by the few, inevitable crises and cultural misogyny/oppression of the female class the marker of a nation as "healthy" is an obscenity.

    PolarEventide posted:
    In the United States, we follow a capitalistic ideology. However, we embrace socialism where it works, like in Social Security. However, if you look throughout the history of the past century, it is undeniable that capitalism, at least in the way we practice it, only leads to recession. Now, perhaps capitalism isn't to blame. Perhaps it's the majority-Republican concept that by forcing less tax on chief executive officers, you have a 'trickling' effect where: when the owners of corporations start to prosper, it starts to drop down to everyone else. Yeah, uhm......who ever thought that would actually work? And why after showing it doesn't work do certain Congress members still believe this? Ugh....
    in what way is capitalism in any way not to blame for it's mode of production's inherent issues? you accept that it leads to crises (depression), which you cheerfully call "recession." the idea that a government instated to serve the interests of the bourgeois class, knowing that capital power is political power, would legislate to take capital from the hands of the bourgeois class (regardless of the fact that corporations evade taxes anyway) is a fallacy.

    PolarEventide posted:
    Socialism thrives in areas like Scandinavia, because it is well implemented, and where needed capitalism exists. Socialism in these countries means more help for small businesses, rather than focusing on the corporations. The corporations still exist. Read that again, it's important. The difference between a country like Sweden and the United States, however, is that in Sweden corporations do not get their hands held by the government while they skip down the road like a nice little couple where each member exploits the other.
    scandinavian countries are in no way socialist, they simply feature higher general welfare benefits than most countries. considering, again, that the governments in power within capitalism act in the interests of the bourgeois class, the idea that swedish corporations don't get their hands held by the government is again fallacious. swedish banks were/are still bailed out by the state. there is, again, not the greatest of risks involved in so-called "risk societies." your concern about corporate exploitation is misguided; market competition is inherently exploitative in the sense that these corporations exploit labour. why does your concern lie with these corporations and with the idea that they "exploit eachother?" going by your personification of corporate entities, it's almost as if you divorce them from the entire process of production when it's the corporations that facilitate production.

    PolarEventide posted:
    What it boils down to is how well the government is designed. In all honesty, if the American form of government were to undergo serious reform, we could very well change the world's perception of capitalism. Either system works when balanced with the other if the creation of the government for that nation has serious considerations. History is there so its wrongdoings are never repeated. Let's embrace that.

    I am a socialist. I support a healthy mix of the two ideologies, but generally do not support an equal mix of the two. Communism in its true form is optimistic. Let's leave it as wishful thinking for now. We're not ready for communism or the more reasonable anarcho-syndicalism.
    here, we come to the crux of the problem, and the heart of the liberal ideology. your problem is with this "government," the "big Other," this autonomous and supposedly benevolent state, this apparently democratically elected party that allegedly acts in the interests of the people. the world's perception of capitalism hardly needs to be changed in the ways you're discussing. you can spout whatever counterrevolutionary propaganda you want to the effect that communists talk of impossible utopias; here, you describe the liberal utopia. already, within liberalism, there exists the idea that you can reform capitalism to conform to your idea of a good, "healthy," "mixed" society. history is the history of class struggles; that is, the struggle of the working people against the ruling elite, the middle/upper classes, the oppressors against the oppressed. from slavery to feudal serfdom to capitalist wage labour, this class struggle, at once obvious and at once concealed by the liberal propaganda your post exacerbates, has existed. i agree entirely; do away with the capitalist mode of production, abolish the class system and embrace the democratic rule of the people by the people. you are not a socialist, you are a liberal reformer. communism is an inevitable eventuality in the materialist conception of history - regardless of whatever "optimism," "wishful thinking" or "readiness" you arbitrarily apply to communism, this doesn't remove it from reality in either it's present or it's later form. conclusively, anarcho-syndicalism is, at best, a desire to affiliate yourself with proto-communist ideals without committing yourself to the cause.

  16. Post #216
    RonPaul4ever's Avatar
    July 2011
    112 Posts
    A long text filled with ideas about conspiracy and "the exploitation of the working class blah blah"
    Basically, it's nearly impossible to argue with you due to the fact that you refuse all serious and professional sources as "bourgeois." The only sources you are so certain about are correct in all ways are written by Karl Marx and Lenin who were active in the early 20th century or possibly some unemployed teen on the Internet called "HaxxxorCommunismFTW."

    It's ridiculous how you are throwing away heavy and well reviewed sources who are using science and facts to motivate their opinions.

    Seriously man, wake up. It's 2012 and socialism is dead, except on places like North Korea and Cuba (two places who are suffering from a dreadful living standard, poverty and despotism.)

  17. Post #217
    Gold Member
    Karlos's Avatar
    May 2005
    1,858 Posts
    Basically, it's nearly impossible to argue with you due to the fact that you refuse all serious and professional sources as "bourgeois." The only sources you are so certain about are correct in all ways are written by Karl Marx and Lenin who were active in the early 20th century or possibly some unemployed teen on the Internet called "HaxxxorCommunismFTW."

    It's ridiculous how you are throwing away heavy and well reviewed sources who are using science and facts to motivate their opinions.

    Seriously man, wake up. It's 2012 and socialism is dead, except on places like North Korea and Cuba (two places who are suffering from a dreadful living standard, poverty and despotism.)
    this entire post is ad hominem, but i'll humour you. what sources did i dismiss as bourgeois? if you're talking about your link to the main page of some website, i didn't comment on it because there was no argument to counter.

    the sources for my knowledge are marx and lenin, you're quite correct; in what way are marx and lenin divorced from science and facts? you're dismissing massively respected, followed and developed critiques, practically entire schools of thought, with your baseless rambling.

    North Korea is state capitalism. Cuba was reliant on the USSR for most of it's trade, and has had to deal with a long campaign of sabotage and trade embargo from the US and the other imperialist nations. regardless, it can't be considered communist; with it's growing private industry, it can hardly be considered socialist.

    please, rather than dismissing my arguments and explanations which, yes, are contrived from marxism, actually create some arguments of your own. baseless ad hominem and genuine nonsense ("socialism is dead") only serve to embarass you.

  18. Post #218
    RonPaul4ever's Avatar
    July 2011
    112 Posts
    this entire post is ad hominem, but i'll humour you. what sources did i dismiss as bourgeois? if you're talking about your link to the main page of some website, i didn't comment on it because there was no argument to counter.

    the sources for my knowledge are marx and lenin, you're quite correct; in what way are marx and lenin divorced from science and facts? you're dismissing massively respected, followed and developed critiques, practically entire schools of thought, with your baseless rambling.

    North Korea is state capitalism. Cuba was reliant on the USSR for most of it's trade, and has had to deal with a long campaign of sabotage and trade embargo from the US and the other imperialist nations. regardless, it can't be considered communist; with it's growing private industry, it can hardly be considered socialist.

    please, rather than dismissing my arguments and explanations which, yes, are contrived from marxism, actually create some arguments of your own. baseless ad hominem and genuine nonsense ("socialism is dead") only serve to embarass you.
    I was sincerely serious when I said that it's time to wake up. To blame Cubia's fiscal issues on the trade embargoes from the US is just the kind of simplification of economics that makes socialists so blind. Socialists today are forming their world view by explaining complex situations by conspiracies etc. Note that many countries except Cuba with trade embargoes of different kinds are doing a lot better than Cuba. Cuba's economic miseries are just partly (and when I say partly I really mean partly) explained by the trade embargoes.

    Another example of when communism has failed completely and capitalism has proved to be efficient and prosperous is China. Just look at how miserable the situation in China was before the economic liberalization in the country. Oh wait? Wasn't China a "real" form of communism? Is BBC just a biased news media formed by the elite in the society?

    Whether you have you own economic theories or not, you're disagreeing with 99.5% of the economic establishment if you believe socialism is a system which can lead to good living standards and prosperity.

  19. Post #219
    Gold Member
    Karlos's Avatar
    May 2005
    1,858 Posts
    I was sincerely serious when I said that it's time to wake up. To blame Cubia's fiscal issues on the trade embargoes from the US is just the kind of simplification of economics that makes socialists so blind. Socialists today are forming their world view by explaining complex situations by conspiracies etc. Note that many countries except Cuba with trade embargoes of different kinds are doing a lot better than Cuba. Cuba's economic miseries are just partly (and when I say partly I really mean partly explained by the trade embargoes.

    Another example of when communism has failed completely and capitalism has proved to be efficient and prosperous is China. Just look at how miserable the situation in China was before the economic liberalization in the country. Oh wait? Wasn't China a "real" form of communism? Is BBC just a biased news media formed by the elite in the society?

    Whether you have you own economic theories or not, you'll have to face the 99.9% of the economic establishment if you believe socialism is a system which can lead to good living standards and prosperity.
    didn't i explicitly state that Cuba's trade embargo was one reason of several? you dismiss marxism - an entire sociopolitical ideology, a critique of materialism and the mode of production, the law of value, etc. - as a conspiracy? you are violently stupid. not just violently stupid, you're reckless in your stupidity. this is the kind of arrogant, reckless stupidity that comes from the fascist skinhead right; i generally expect arguments more grounded in a facade of rational thought from liberals as deluded by bourgeois "values" as they are, but apparently, you're the kind of boorish liberal that is entirely forward in their mindlessness. i'm sorry to drop the civility with which i contended your earlier points, but your aggression begets aggression.

    are you honestly trying to tell me that the social conditions existing in China now can be considered decent? "prosperous?" in any way not miserable, in one of the frontier nations for the employment of cheap labour? i don't have my 'own economic theories', i use one of the most long-standing and entirely objective economic inquiries as the basis for my arguments against the capitalist apologist, liberal centre-right teenage population. by defending capitalism, no matter how liberal, you necessarily defend the continuation of a system of oppression, destruction and exploitation that has existed for centuries; you are not even a member of the bourgeois class, you are your own enemy, and the enemy of your children. it's people like you, the labour aristocracy, that will be first against the wall.

  20. Post #220
    RonPaul4ever's Avatar
    July 2011
    112 Posts
    didn't i explicitly state that Cuba's trade embargo was one reason of several? you dismiss marxism - an entire sociopolitical ideology, a critique of materialism and the mode of production, the law of value, etc. - as a conspiracy? you are violently stupid. not just violently stupid, you're reckless in your stupidity. this is the kind of arrogant, reckless stupidity that comes from the fascist skinhead right; i generally expect arguments more grounded in a facade of rational thought from liberals as deluded by bourgeois "values" as they are, but apparently, you're the kind of boorish liberal that is entirely forward in their mindlessness. i'm sorry to drop the civility with which i contended your earlier points, but your aggression begets aggression.

    are you honestly trying to tell me that the social conditions existing in China now can be considered decent? "prosperous?" in any way not miserable, in one of the frontier nations for the employment of cheap labour? i don't have my 'own economic theories', i use one of the most long-standing and entirely objective economic inquiries as the basis for my arguments against the capitalist apologist, liberal centre-right teenage population. by defending capitalism, no matter how liberal, you necessarily defend the continuation of a system of oppression, destruction and exploitation that has existed for centuries; you are not even a member of the bourgeois class, you are your own enemy, and the enemy of your children. it's people like you, the labour aristocracy, that will be first against the wall.
    Well, I think you destroyed your own professionalism and seriousness in this post. Suddenly you compare a conservative to facist? A person who has probably got the most accepted ideas regarding communism in our modern society as a facist?

    it's people like you, the labour aristocracy, that will be first against the wall.
    It's quite difficult to argue (I prefer to debate, but even before your little "anti-capitalist attack", this wasn't a debate.) with a person who is indirectly threatening you. To differ with you, I don't prefer to threaten my opponents. So therefore I hope you have a good life (and maybe even get a job? ), now when I leave this debate.

    I would just like to say before I leave that I don't see China as a prosperous nation, but a relatively prosperous one to be a dictatorship and to have had such a long history of socialism. Remember that China's economy and the populations' living standard are constantly growing. The poverty on the other hand is decreasing; a pretty healthy sign in my opinion.

  21. Post #221
    Retardation's Avatar
    July 2009
    2,314 Posts
    Communism relies upon cooperation, trust and unity - the collective.
    Capitalism relies upon greed, materialism and selfishness - the individual.

    How the two are implemented is an entirely different matter, but fact is, humanity has always survived through the collective. We have always worked together inside communities because human beings are naturally social creatures. The 'loners' dont last long.

    So, communism is technically 'best'.

  22. Post #222
    RonPaul4ever's Avatar
    July 2011
    112 Posts
    Communism relies upon cooperation, trust and unity - the collective.
    Capitalism relies upon greed, materialism and selfishness - the individual.

    How the two are implemented is an entirely different matter, but fact is, humanity has always survived through the collective. We have always worked together inside communities because human beings are naturally social creatures. The 'loners' dont last long.

    So, communism is technically 'best'.
    And you haven't ever thought about the fact that, to rely on an ideology that expects human beings to "cooperate" efficiently without any personal profit or any individual economic driving forces is extremely naive and Utopian?

  23. Post #223
    Retardation's Avatar
    July 2009
    2,314 Posts
    And you haven't ever thought about the fact that, to rely on an ideology that expects human beings to "cooperate" efficiently without any personal profit or any individual economic driving forces is extremely naive and Utopian?
    Yes

    Then I thought some more, and came to the conclusion that the only reason people are driven by personal profit and individual economic growth is because that is the way we have been raised.
    Which means we can change how humans perceive money through education.

  24. Post #224
    RonPaul4ever's Avatar
    July 2011
    112 Posts
    Yes

    Then I thought some more, and came to the conclusion that the only reason people are driven by personal profit and individual economic growth is because that is the way we have been raised.
    Which means we can change how humans perceive money through education.
    Oh lord.. So you will educate people to want less personal compensation and profit for their work? I think it's more of human nature than knowledge you know..

  25. Post #225
    Retardation's Avatar
    July 2009
    2,314 Posts
    Oh lord.. So you will educate people to want less personal compensation and profit for their work? I think it's more of human nature than knowledge you know..
    No, it isn't.

    Dont oversimplify my point. I dont know how exactly we are to implement this solution, because gasp I havent got a clue on how to properly reform the education system worldwide - aka a thing that is to be worked on day and night by countless of professors and teachers. But to believe that greed is human nature is to believe in a myth.

    If we have managed to teach people and convince them that things such as Gods are real, or that dying for your country is an 'honorable death', then we can sure as hell teach them that money doesn't run the world. We can open their minds and tell them that just because they dont drive a Porsche and don't own a mansion it is not a reason to be upset or depressed. It's nothing short of a problem rooted in our very own schooling system for centuries now.
    Haven't you noticed? Schools dont actually teach you much at all, but instead teach you how to get good grades - which then in turn allows you to get a high-paying job - which in turn equates to money. I can guarantee you wont remember 80% of what you've been 'taught' by the time you've graduated.

    Instead of raising a skillful, knowledgeable generation, we're raising a generation of people that are motivated by nothing short of six figure salaries.

  26. Post #226
    RonPaul4ever's Avatar
    July 2011
    112 Posts
    No, it isn't.

    Dont oversimplify my point. I dont know how exactly we are to implement this solution, because gasp I havent got a clue on how to properly reform the education system worldwide - aka a thing that is to be worked on day and night by countless of professors and teachers. But to believe that greed is human nature is to believe in a myth.

    If we have managed to teach people and convince them that things such as Gods are real, or that dying for your country is an 'honorable death', then we can sure as hell teach them that money doesn't run the world. We can open their minds and tell them that just because they dont drive a Porsche and don't own a mansion it is not a reason to be upset or depressed. It's nothing short of a problem rooted in our very own schooling system for centuries now.
    Haven't you noticed? Schools dont actually teach you much at all, but instead teach you how to get good grades - which then in turn allows you to get a high-paying job - which in turn equates to money. I can guarantee you wont remember 80% of what you've been 'taught' by the time you've graduated.

    Instead of raising a skillful, knowledgeable generation, we're raising a generation of people that are motivated by nothing short of six figure salaries.
    Well, basically all communist societies have tried to oppressively educate people that communism is the solution to everything, and still communism hasn't worked. Sorry man, but I'm not simplifying your idea when I'm saying that it's not a chance it would work. If you were to decide it seems like we would have the same oppressive schools as the Soviet Union had.

  27. Post #227

    August 2011
    285 Posts
    Well, basically all communist societies have tried to oppressively educate people that communism is the solution to everything, and still communism hasn't worked. Sorry man, but I'm not simplifying your idea when I'm saying that it's not a chance it would work.
    Well, basically all capitalist societies have tried to oppressively educate people that the free market is the solution to everything. Sorry man, I can straw man arguments like you can.

    Capitalism teaches people to be greedy - humans are not inherently greedy.

    We are constantly told that we HAVE to aspire to earn as much money as possible and we HAVE to work as hard as we can.

    You can't really call that free choice.

  28. Post #228
    Retardation's Avatar
    July 2009
    2,314 Posts
    Well, basically all communist societies have tried to oppressively educate people that communism is the solution to everything, and still communism hasn't worked. Sorry man, but I'm not simplifying your idea when I'm saying that it's not a chance it would work. If you were to decide it seems like we would have the same oppressive schools as the Soviet Union had.
    what

    the Soviet Union was not communist by a longshot, and what they taught in schools was not communism either.
    and what 'communist societies' have oppressively educated people communism is the solution to life, the universe and everything?

  29. Post #229

    August 2011
    285 Posts
    the Soviet Union was not communist by a longshot, and what they taught in schools was not communism either
    I agree: I cannot believe that people still don't grasp this fact.

    Anyone who has remotely studied political ideologies will realise that the USSR were not Communist in any sense of the word.

    The US put out a lot of propaganda in the Cold War and this has intentionally misinformed entire generations of people.

  30. Post #230
    RonPaul4ever's Avatar
    July 2011
    112 Posts
    Well, basically all capitalist societies have tried to oppressively educate people that the free market is the solution to everything. Sorry man, I can straw man arguments like you can.

    Capitalism teaches people to be greedy - humans are not inherently greedy.

    We are constantly told that we HAVE to aspire to earn as much money as possible and we HAVE to work as hard as we can.

    You can't really call that free choice.
    Whether you like it or not, history (and history should be fairly unbiased) has proven all attempts to create a communist to be complete failures; all of them have led to miserable living standard, poverty and a oppressiveness.

    Basically, it's simply Utopian, naive and slightly stupid to believe that any attempt to create a successful society based on socialism would be possible.

  31. Post #231

    August 2011
    285 Posts
    Whether you like it or not, history (and history should be fairly unbiased) has proven all attempts to create a communist to be complete failures; all of them have led to miserable living standard, poverty and a oppressiveness.
    As a historian I can firmly say that 'Communism' has never been implemented on a country wide scale. Cuba, North Korea and USSR were not Communist.

    Also the small scale Communist societies such as the Kibbutz system in Isreal was very successful and was not 'oppressive and evil' like you claim.

  32. Post #232
    Retardation's Avatar
    July 2009
    2,314 Posts
    Whether you like it or not, history (and history should be fairly unbiased) has proven all attempts to create a communist to be complete failures; all of them have led to miserable living standard, poverty and a oppressiveness.
    okay, lets run with your logic for a while.

    the soviet union 'tried to implement communism' and they ended up being a superpower in less than half a century with standards of living rivaling that of even the americans. poverty was also significantly lower than most western countries, and MUCH lower before Russia underwent a capitalist transition in 1991.

    keep in mind that all of this is entirely pointless to state, and the failures of the attempts can be undoubtedly credited to the western powers that did everything they could to fuck things up for them pinko commies.

  33. Post #233
    RonPaul4ever's Avatar
    July 2011
    112 Posts
    As a historian I can firmly say that 'Communism' has never been implemented on a country wide scale. Cuba, North Korea and USSR were not Communist.

    Also the small scale Communist societies such as the Kibbutz system in Isreal was very successful and was not 'oppressive and evil' like you claim.
    You misunderstood me gravely. The fact still remains; even though Cuba, North Korea, and USSR were not "real" communist nations, they were attempted to be it. It's impossible to create a successful communist nation. It's impossible since communism contradicts with human nature, economic driving forces necessary for the living standard of the modern world, and the whole reality. Seriously, communism today is forced to use a lot of weak conspiracy theories to survive.

    EDIT:

    okay, lets run with your logic for a while.

    the soviet union 'tried to implement communism' and they ended up being a superpower in less than half a century with standards of living rivaling that of even the americans. poverty was also significantly lower than most western countries, and MUCH lower before Russia underwent a capitalist transition in 1991.

    keep in mind that all of this is entirely pointless to state, and the failures of the attempts can be undoubtedly credited to the western powers that did everything they could to fuck things up for them pinko commies.
    Do you really want to go this path? Have you looked at the poverty rates in the USSR? The dreadful living standard? The low life-expectancy? Just look at all the post-USSR states today; they are still having issues catching up with the rest of us when it comes to living standard. www.bit.ly/wwT7ON

  34. Post #234
    Retardation's Avatar
    July 2009
    2,314 Posts
    the entire communistic ideal is based on the fact that the world at large will believe such a society is needed and possible. you can't have a successful, peaceful communist society when there are foreign powers actively trying to extort and bully you around.

    Edited:

    You misunderstood me gravely. The fact still remains; even though Cuba, North Korea, and USSR were not "real" communist nations, they were attempted to be it. It's impossible to create a successful communist nation. It's impossible since communism contradicts with human nature, economic driving forces necessary for the living standard of the modern world, and the whole reality. Seriously, communism today is forced to use a lot of weak conspiracy theories to survive.
    you're going in circles. i've already addressed the claim that it is not human nature, and that it's foolish to assume so. you keep saying it's "impossible" "will never happen" "utopian" but you don't realize that the entire reason why it would be impossible is because of people with the same mentality as you. it's circular logic.
    wars are over if you want it. greed is over if you want it. problem is, everyone is deluded to believe that it's 'impossible'.

  35. Post #235
    RonPaul4ever's Avatar
    July 2011
    112 Posts
    the entire communistic ideal is based on the fact that the world at large will believe such a society is needed and possible. you can't have a successful, peaceful communist society when there are foreign powers actively trying to extort and bully you around.

    Edited:



    you're going in circles. i've already addressed the claim that it is not human nature, and that it's foolish to assume so. you keep saying it's "impossible" "will never happen" "utopian" but you don't realize that the entire reason why it would be impossible is because of people with the same mentality as you. it's circular logic.
    wars are over if you want it. greed is over if you want it. problem is, everyone is deluded to believe that it's 'impossible'.
    You are mixing in so much stuff in to this debate. Seriously, "wars over if we want it." Well, sure, but it would be foolish to assume that all countries on earth would never go to war again. With wars being in our our whole human history, it's so extremely naive of you to base your whole ideology on such an extreme optimism about human beings and their nature. Sorry man, but humans are both good and bad, and flying pigs on rainbows don't exist; believe it or not.

  36. Post #236
    Retardation's Avatar
    July 2009
    2,314 Posts
    You are mixing in so much stuff in to this debate. Seriously, "wars over if we want it." Well, sure, but it would be foolish to assume that all countries on earth would never go to war again. With wars being in our our whole human history, it's so extremely naive of you to base your whole ideology on such an extreme optimism about human beings and their nature. Sorry man, but humans are both good and bad, and flying pigs on rainbows don't exist; believe it or not.
    I brought the 'wars' thing into this because I was quoting Lennon and then made an example as to how the same quote could also apply to greed.

    wars being in our whole human history is not valid evidence against anything. we have had gradually less and less wars being fought than we had throughout history. it's extremely unlikely that large nations will ever engage in another war with eachother again. space flight, just like world peace was thought to be impossible by humans to ever achieve. and guess what, we did it.

  37. Post #237
    Gold Member
    Karlos's Avatar
    May 2005
    1,858 Posts
    Well, I think you destroyed your own professionalism and seriousness in this post. Suddenly you compare a conservative to facist? A person who has probably got the most accepted ideas regarding communism in our modern society as a facist?
    absolutely; your stubborn, pigheaded refusal to accept any kind of reasoned argument that runs counter to yours is very reminiscent of every nationalist knuckledragger i've had the misfortune of encountering. that's not to say that liberals don't tend to exhibit this same kind of thing, but yours is an exceptionally more aggressive version.

    you could say the same about the radical left, naturally, but the difference is that you are providing no argument to the effect that the free market is necessary, or even at all a "good thing" - all you do is throw around bullshit to the effect of "human nature lol," rash generalisations and pure bollocks.


    RonPaul4ever posted:
    It's quite difficult to argue (I prefer to debate, but even before your little "anti-capitalist attack", this wasn't a debate.) with a person who is indirectly threatening you. To differ with you, I don't prefer to threaten my opponents. So therefore I hope you have a good life (and maybe even get a job? ), now when I leave this debate.
    it's hilarious that you're attempting to establish a moral high ground, given the context. revolution over oppressive social conditions is a self-defensive act as much as any. it was a debate until you stormed in, throwing ad hominems left and right in all of your pretentious bigotry. i'd wish the same good life for you, if only it wasn't at the common expense of everybody else - and it's to this end that i advocate you being put in the good earth, with a good shovel.

    RonPaul4ever posted:
    I would just like to say before I leave that I don't see China as a prosperous nation, but a relatively prosperous one to be a dictatorship and to have had such a long history of socialism. Remember that China's economy and the populations' living standard are constantly growing. The poverty on the other hand is decreasing; a pretty healthy sign in my opinion.
    don't hold your breath.

    Edited:

    You misunderstood me gravely. The fact still remains; even though Cuba, North Korea, and USSR were not "real" communist nations, they were attempted to be it. It's impossible to create a successful communist nation. It's impossible since communism contradicts with human nature, economic driving forces necessary for the living standard of the modern world, and the whole reality. Seriously, communism today is forced to use a lot of weak conspiracy theories to survive.
    the entire liberal ideology is the only "conspiracy theory" you need ever refer to with that disgusting, deriding phrase; the conspiracy theory that socialism or communism are in any way detrimental to society in any feasible fashion. i'm not interested in your bourgeois conception of history to argue this - all of your examples are bogus.

    you still haven't told me why you think private property and the capitalist mode of production constitute the only possible social conditions for a society to be "successful." just keep in mind, while you're doing it, that you are actively discussing and attempting to describe marxism, and not any contemporary economics that marxism serves, largely, as a debunking mechanism for in every existing case.

  38. Post #238
    Gold Member
    Fables's Avatar
    August 2007
    4,239 Posts
    I find it hard to support the capitalist side when the people advocating it, are a Fascist, and an extremely condescending Libertarian who both use a great deal of strawman arguments.

  39. Post #239
    RonPaul4ever's Avatar
    July 2011
    112 Posts
    I find it hard to support the capitalist side when the people advocating it, are a Fascist, and an extremely condescending Libertarian who both use a great deal of strawman arguments.
    I'm not a facist to any extent. Neither am I a libertarian. Please don't judge me for my username (RonPaul4ever.) I think Ron Paul is a cool guy, but purely politically I rather prefer someone like Mitt Romney. I'm a conservative, and not a libertarian.

    Though, I have never said that I'm the best one suited to debate socialism and communism as an ideology. I'm probably better at debating common domestic politics; tax rates etc. than huge ideological topics.

    Anyhow, I can't just look at how so many people on facepunch accepts something as destructive as socialism without looking at it critically. I would be glad to see someone more dedicated in ideologies to enter this debate on the capitalist side. Somehow, it seems like conservatives and libertarians have better things to do than debating socialism on a web forum like Facepunch.

  40. Post #240
    Retardation's Avatar
    July 2009
    2,314 Posts


    Do you really want to go this path? Have you looked at the poverty rates in the USSR? The dreadful living standard? The low life-expectancy? Just look at all the post-USSR states today; they are still having issues catching up with the rest of us when it comes to living standard. www.bit.ly/wwT7ON
    Hahaha, what?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia#Russian_Federation
    The privatization largely shifted control of enterprises from state agencies to individuals with inside connections in the government system. Many of the newly rich businesspeople took billions in cash and assets outside of the country in an enormous capital flight. The depression of state and economy led to the collapse of social services; the birth rate plummeted while the death rate skyrocketed. Millions plunged into poverty, from 1.5% level of poverty in the late Soviet era, to 3949% by mid-1993. The 1990s saw extreme corruption and lawlessness, rise of criminal gangs and violent crime.
    During the 70's and 80's, the standard of living was equal to that of the average US citizen. Granted for the most part, the West had the upper hand in terms of standard of living.

    Life expectancy?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...fant_mortality

    The trend continued into the 1960s, when the life expectancy in the Soviet Union went beyond the life expectancy in the United States. The life expectancy in Soviet Union were fairly stable during most years, although in the 1970s went slightly down probably because of alcohol abuse. Most western sources put the blame on the growing alcohol abuse and poor health care, and this theory was also implicitly accepted by the Soviet authorities.
    And finally, post-Soviet states are having a tough time because they decided to adopt your capitalistic approach. Economically and socially, the USSR was better off by miles than it is now - with the exception of the Baltic states.