NATION

PASSWORD

Capitalism vs. Communism

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

What are you?

Capitalist
636
46%
Communist
247
18%
Socialist
488
36%
 
Total votes : 1371

User avatar
Sanguinthium
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1034
Founded: Jan 31, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Sanguinthium » Thu Nov 03, 2011 6:28 pm

Keronians wrote:
Sanguinthium wrote:you cannot manufacture anything in an unlimited quantity; that is blatant lack of logic; humans cannot create something from nothing; the resources will eventually run out, and the slaves that capitalism causes will be extinct.


Yes, resources will run out. That's why we have scarcity: limited resources, unlimited wants. The same goes for EVERY economic system in existence. We encourage technological development, and employ capital goods in production because they allow us to produce more for the same cost in resources.

also, real slaves are produced by capitalism; by simply posting the :palm: emote, you show your being uneducated on this subject, and your posts approach flaming. you have not posted a single logical argument, you have just raged. i henceforth ask for logic.


Despite his excessive use of :palm: , his arguments make sense. Well, more than yours, anyway.

(from previous link)
Wage slavery as a concept can be a general criticism of capitalism, defined as a condition in which a capitalist class (a minority of the population) controls all of the necessary non-human components of production (capital, land, industry, etc.) that workers use to produce goods. This sort of criticism is generally associated with socialist and anarchist criticisms of capitalism, and could conceivably be traced back to pre-capitalist figures like Gerrard Winstanley from the radical Christian Diggers movement in England, who wrote in his 1649 pamphlet, The New Law of Righteousness, that there "shall be no buying or selling, no fairs nor markets, but the whole earth shall be a common treasury for every man," and "there shall be none Lord over others, but every one shall be a Lord of himself."

Aristotle made the statement "[a]ll paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind". Cicero wrote in 44 BC that "…vulgar are the means of livelihood of all hired workmen whom we pay for mere manual labour, not for artistic skill; for in their case the very wage they receive is a pledge of their slavery." Somewhat similar criticisms have also been expressed by some proponents of liberalism, like Henry George, Silvio Gesell and Thomas Paine, as well as the Distributist school of thought within the Roman Catholic Church. Criticism of capitalism on these grounds, however, might not always be connected to the belief that one should have freedom to work without a boss.


Several flaws in this argument.

To begin with, today, capital can be borrowed cheaply. All one needs is a good business plan. Land can be acquired via capital. Labour can also be acquired via capital.

Enterprise comes from you: your business idea.

If you don't want a job, you don't have to take it. There are also numerous laws protecting workers' rights, as well as allowing for their association via trade unions.

You also forget that the firms that abuse their workers are generally unproductive, because badly motivated workers are not very productive. One of the reasons Japan was so successful, was its great motivation theories, and inserting variety in the work of workers using cell production, job rotation, etc. Quality circles are also a Japanese invention.

To Marx and anarchist thinkers like Bakunin and Kropotkin their concept of wage slavery was as a class condition in place due to the existence of private property and the state. This class situation rested primarily on:

the existence of property not intended for active use,
the concentration of ownership in few hands,
the lack of direct access by workers to the means of production and consumption goods
the perpetuation of a reserve army of unemployed workers.

and secondarily on:

the waste of workers' efforts and resources on producing useless luxuries;
the waste of goods so that their price may remain high; and
the waste of all those who sit between the producer and consumer, taking their own shares at each stage without actually contributing to the production of goods.


perfect explanation of capitalist slavery.


:palm:

Sorry, but that is not even worthy of addressing.

Capitalism has become so deeply ingrained in the American psyche as the only viable economic system, that it's no longer just considered "un-American" to question it; it's considered impossible. Culture, politics, and educational institutions present capitalism not as one of many economic systems, but as the only economic system that won't eventually result in the dictatorial rule of a corrupt government or a brutal autocrat. And it's not just any form of capitalism that is the law of the land in the U.S. — it's unfettered capitalism. But as much as we live unquestioningly by capitalist principles, do we even know what capitalism is?


Alright, first of all, many people on here aren't American, so if someone were to tell them that they aren't, they'd just confirm it for you.

Yes, we know what capitalism is. It is when the means of production are primarily owned privately.

In fact, there is no single agreed-upon definition of capitalism. But capitalism generally involves the following: that the means of production are privately owned; that supply, demand, prices, and investments are set by the private sector and market forces rather than planning; and that profit goes to business owners and investors. It's a system which, by its nature, is going to drive profit to the owners and investors of business and production. And when they make profit, they get wealthier. Since there are usually only a few owners of business as opposed to many, this means that the result of capitalism is often a few wealthy people and a whole lot of less-wealthy people.


Aha! If you're going to quote Wikipedia, cite it. That first sentence is almost completely copypasta.

Wrong. And the reason is that the owners need to compensate the workforce. Do you think that people like Cristiano Ronaldo, or Messi, are investors? No. Their large influx of capital comes from their labour. Their specialist skill: football (or soccer).

On the one hand, the sort of wealth inequality which capitalism creates makes the step to slavery much smaller than it would be in a more economically-balanced society. Historically, slaves have been associated with the very wealthy; middle-class and lower income people don't have a slave-owning history like the rich do. For modern-day slavery, the slave-master relationship breaks down on economic lines more often than anything else — race, gender, religion, etc. It's an easy bit of logic to point out that since capitalism is a source of economic inequality and inequality encourages slavery, that capitalism does breed slavery.


It's an easy bit of logic to point out that capitalism =/= slavery.

On the other hand, modern-day slavery exists all around the world, in countries which are capitalist, communist, socialist, and hybrid economies. If capitalism is to blame, then how to you explain human trafficking in places like communist China and North Korea or hybrid socialist systems like Denmark? Slavery is a complex system that has existed over thousand of years in diverse cultures and economies. How can you blame it on something so modern as capitalism?

The answer may not be simple, but the question is worth asking. As we work to end modern-day slavery and learn how to live with the legacy of historic slavery, we can't afford to take anything for granted. Is capitalism the best system? Maybe not. Is it the worst? Probably not? Is it the only option out there? Definitely not.


Nice copypasta. That last paragraph is a textbook reflective conclusion of articles.

any system that causes social inequality to the absurd levels of capitalism has de-facto slavery.
did you read the link i attached it too? the one that is called capitalist?
Last edited by Sanguinthium on Thu Nov 03, 2011 6:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Tiocfaidh ár lá Proletarier aller Länder vereinigt Euch!
Forn Siðr is the true way.
a large portion of what i say will be IC, or Jokes; that, or you call it flaming/trolling, i call it pointing out an uncomfortable fact.

"Somalia has 1900 miles of coast line, a government that knows its place, and all the guns and wives you could afford to buy. Why have I not heard of this paradise before?"
~Chevvy Chase (technically pierce hawthorn, but whos counting?)

User avatar
Sanguinthium
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1034
Founded: Jan 31, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Sanguinthium » Thu Nov 03, 2011 6:38 pm

The Merchant Republics wrote:
Sanguinthium wrote: the waste of workers' efforts and resources on producing useless luxuries;


This is why I have to wonder if self-proclaimed communists and socialists are actively dishonest in their claims that their society will lead to "better quality of life", I realize of course, that no sane person would advocate a policy which he thinks would make people poorer and more uncomfortable in life.

However, when you say something like that. Something to the order of, "Luxuries are useless and we are wasting time on their production" that I must draw that conclusion. Why in the heck are luxuries a bad thing? They certainly don't hurt the poor, if it wasn't for the luxury value of Diamonds, Botswana, one of the richest (and might I mention freest) African nations, would be significantly worse off, the production of luxury goods gives poor people money for food. The relationship is positive.

But communists and socialists alike seem hell-bent on a world of grey, industrial bleakness in the name of equality. Because heaven help us if a person wants to be an artist, maybe you can paint after you've paid your share of time in the Coal Mines working for the good of your fellow man, not that paint is in your fellow man's interest either, you'll have to make it yourself, though Lenin help you if you sell your paint to anyone else you horrid capitalist you.


pssh. the better world will be one without the decadent beliefs of present day western civilization. a frugal, peaceful existence; there will be no government (umad sibirsky?) and all will live as one, with the community taking care of itself, instead of having the poor starving in the streets, while the rich buy that fifth vacation home.


Moral Libertarians wrote:
Laissez-Faire wrote:All one really can do at this point.


How about another face palm? :p

I'm thinking of doing - :palm:

Ah. Did it.

Edit: Love the flag ;)


black and yellow black and yellow...

North Calaveras wrote:
North Calaveras wrote:
1. You don't have to believe me. by the way i NEVER called poor people stupid. How about you quote me, I would LOVE for you to quote me on that one.

2. I don't give a crap, they are both unsuccessful systems


To: Sanguithium
sorry, not hated but you said I was calling poor people stupid. Regardless, please show me evidence of where I was calling poor people stupid.


when you said
1. Nobody starves in America if you die from dehydration or starvation your simply stupid.



Sibirsky wrote:Hungary, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan. Support of Vietnam and North Korea.

The Soviet Union is not blameless as you paint them to be.

correct. however, since they were ASKED to enter Afghanistan, were responding to a invasion in germany, and were also helping 'nam and korea by their nations requests, i declare capitalism the loser.


Labor laws are useless. Prosperity creates the ability and demand for better conditions. All that's necessary. Government legislation is not necessary and has not worked.


well then, you approve of slavery. without labor laws, slavery would be legal.
State socialism is anti-freedom. That makes it evil.

:palm:
state socialism (such as denmark, sweden, to an extent cuba) have shown to work; sweden and denmark are stable, with some of the happiest people in the world in sweden, and cuba would be much better if we didnt have massive trade sanctions, huge embargo, etc etc.

considering that sweden is among the freest nations on earth, your argument is moot.
Last edited by Sanguinthium on Thu Nov 03, 2011 6:46 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Tiocfaidh ár lá Proletarier aller Länder vereinigt Euch!
Forn Siðr is the true way.
a large portion of what i say will be IC, or Jokes; that, or you call it flaming/trolling, i call it pointing out an uncomfortable fact.

"Somalia has 1900 miles of coast line, a government that knows its place, and all the guns and wives you could afford to buy. Why have I not heard of this paradise before?"
~Chevvy Chase (technically pierce hawthorn, but whos counting?)

User avatar
Laissez-Faire
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1837
Founded: Oct 29, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Laissez-Faire » Thu Nov 03, 2011 6:42 pm

Sanguinthium wrote:pssh. the better world will be one without the decadent beliefs of present day western civilization. a frugal, peaceful existence; there will be no government (umad sibirsky?) and all will live as one, with the community taking care of itself, instead of having the poor starving in the streets, while the rich buy that fifth vacation home.

If we all live as one, there will be no incentive to compete and succeed as individuals. You sacrifice ambition in the name of this "utopia", while obviously not understanding why income inequality exists. You also seem to still subscribe to the belief that a vacation home, or wealth above others, is zero sum and a total negative to society.
Sanguinthium wrote:and then the government abolishes itself after its purpose has been served
Vestr-Norig wrote:I'm sorry, I am not familiar with your highbrow words.
Greater Evil Imperial Japanese Dystopia wrote:Ah, how heavenly & masturbatable must unregulated capitalism be!
Parpolitic Citizens wrote:You're one of the most disingenuous people I've seen here.
Parpolitic Citizens wrote:Do you see any value in human dignity or happiness? I'm not trolling. I'm seriously wondering if you're a sociopath.

User avatar
Sanguinthium
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1034
Founded: Jan 31, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Sanguinthium » Thu Nov 03, 2011 6:50 pm

Laissez-Faire wrote:
Sanguinthium wrote:pssh. the better world will be one without the decadent beliefs of present day western civilization. a frugal, peaceful existence; there will be no government (umad sibirsky?) and all will live as one, with the community taking care of itself, instead of having the poor starving in the streets, while the rich buy that fifth vacation home.

If we all live as one, there will be no incentive to compete and succeed as individuals. You sacrifice ambition in the name of this "utopia", while obviously not understanding why income inequality exists. You also seem to still subscribe to the belief that a vacation home, or wealth above others, is zero sum and a total negative to society.


in socialism, you are controlled by the government with the eventual goal of communism; think of it as in preschool when they taught you how to share. when communism is achieved, people work for the sake of the community (the 'commune') instead of for their own selfish gain. the 'incentive' is not required; but you could look at it this way; if you dont bring in x. amount of shoes, somebody in the town will go without. if you dont create x amount of medicine X, somebody will die, possibly a child, or possibly leaving a child.

i believe that decadence is evil; my point is why should the rich feast, and get that vacation home while other people have no home, are dying of disease, starving children (it does exist in america. not everybody is willing to take welfare; personally, if there was a kid as a factor, my pride goes out the window.)

social excess is the main thing i dislike; i dislike other things, but they are a. not the nature of this thread, and b. will probably get me warned, and c. are less than my hatred of social decadence and excess.

it encourages me that the (albeit incorrectly named) poll has more social-protection lovers such as i, than others.
Last edited by Sanguinthium on Thu Nov 03, 2011 6:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Tiocfaidh ár lá Proletarier aller Länder vereinigt Euch!
Forn Siðr is the true way.
a large portion of what i say will be IC, or Jokes; that, or you call it flaming/trolling, i call it pointing out an uncomfortable fact.

"Somalia has 1900 miles of coast line, a government that knows its place, and all the guns and wives you could afford to buy. Why have I not heard of this paradise before?"
~Chevvy Chase (technically pierce hawthorn, but whos counting?)

User avatar
Laissez-Faire
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1837
Founded: Oct 29, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Laissez-Faire » Thu Nov 03, 2011 6:54 pm

Sanguinthium wrote:in socialism, you are controlled by the government with the eventual goal of communism; think of it as in preschool when they taught you how to share. when communism is achieved, people work for the sake of the community (the 'commune') instead of for their own selfish gain.

I'll stop you right there. Aye, and personal success becomes secondary- liberty becomes only expressed through the masses. Competition grinds to a halt.

i believe that decadence is evil; my point is why should the rich feast, and get that vacation home while other people have no home, are dying of disease, starving children (it does exist in america. not everybody is willing to take welfare; personally, if there was a kid as a factor, my pride goes out the window.)

Hate to break it to you, but who do you think has the most capital to invest? Which serves the poor to give them opportunities best, and serves those dying of disease and otherwise needy? A gray egalitarian state, or a healthy and vibrant market of competition, a market that has made many of the products we now take for granted commercially available to the mainstream?

It's a fallacy to say that the way to help the poor or needy is to take capital from the rich- you destroy opportunity and in doing so tie up personal liberty and ambition and secure the fate of an equally poor world.

social excess is the main thing i dislike; i dislike other things, but they are a. not the nature of this thread, and b. will probably get me warned, and c. are less than my hatred of social decadence and excess.

Well, you seem convinced social excess relates to Marxist ideals and is something inherent in Capitalism.

It is generally not what you say, it's how you say it, that may add to a debate.
Sanguinthium wrote:and then the government abolishes itself after its purpose has been served
Vestr-Norig wrote:I'm sorry, I am not familiar with your highbrow words.
Greater Evil Imperial Japanese Dystopia wrote:Ah, how heavenly & masturbatable must unregulated capitalism be!
Parpolitic Citizens wrote:You're one of the most disingenuous people I've seen here.
Parpolitic Citizens wrote:Do you see any value in human dignity or happiness? I'm not trolling. I'm seriously wondering if you're a sociopath.

User avatar
Sanguinthium
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1034
Founded: Jan 31, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Sanguinthium » Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:02 pm

Laissez-Faire wrote:
Sanguinthium wrote:in socialism, you are controlled by the government with the eventual goal of communism; think of it as in preschool when they taught you how to share. when communism is achieved, people work for the sake of the community (the 'commune') instead of for their own selfish gain.

I'll stop you right there. Aye, and personal success becomes secondary- liberty becomes only expressed through the masses. Competition grinds to a halt.

i believe that decadence is evil; my point is why should the rich feast, and get that vacation home while other people have no home, are dying of disease, starving children (it does exist in america. not everybody is willing to take welfare; personally, if there was a kid as a factor, my pride goes out the window.)

Hate to break it to you, but who do you think has the most capital to invest? Which serves the poor to give them opportunities best, and serves those dying of disease and otherwise needy? A gray egalitarian state, or a healthy and vibrant market of competition, a market that has made many of the products we now take for granted commercially available to the mainstream?

It's a fallacy to say that the way to help the poor or needy is to take capital from the rich- you destroy opportunity and in doing so tie up personal liberty and ambition and secure the fate of an equally poor world.

social excess is the main thing i dislike; i dislike other things, but they are a. not the nature of this thread, and b. will probably get me warned, and c. are less than my hatred of social decadence and excess.

Well, you seem convinced social excess relates to Marxist ideals and is something inherent in Capitalism.

It is generally not what you say, it's how you say it, that may add to a debate.


(if i read that right) i like to keep things interesting :lol2:
this has had me entertained for a good three days now.

consider this; if you were trained from birth to do your best for the good of the community, (just as you have been trained from birth with the ideals of self interest over interest of the whole), with the knowledge that if you dont meet your quota, someone will have to go without shoes, medicine, whatever, would you not even try? how would you sleep at night if your action meant some kid had to go without shoes for a month, in Maine's' winter (Trondheim if your European)?

the whole purpose of communism isn't the success of the one; its a concept many westerners have difficulty understanding, no offense intended; the purpose is the success of the community as a whole; profligates and other dissolute have no place in this society; the concept has but one purpose: EVERYBODY is safe, socially, economically, physically, and mentally. this results in the whole concept of "get rich or die tryin" (yes, i went there, 50) goes out the window; you arent supposed to live any better than anyone else.

in short, the whole purpose is that everybody gets just about what they need, and nobody is left out; if you were raised in a upper or middle class family in a western country (or, in Sibs household, which taught horrific misconceptions) you really cannot understand the plight of the poor. the best you can do is imagine if you lived out of a truck from the 60s and then some rich dude threw away a bowl of Caviar in front of you, because he had run out of time to eat it; until you understand the world that 22.5% of americans grow up in, you cannot understand how this is so important.

Image

notice that Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark (all rather socialist leaning countries, as much as sib would deny it) have the lowest child poverty rate.

in Sweden (my home country, i live in america however), almost the entire country is middle to upper class.
Last edited by Sanguinthium on Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:12 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Tiocfaidh ár lá Proletarier aller Länder vereinigt Euch!
Forn Siðr is the true way.
a large portion of what i say will be IC, or Jokes; that, or you call it flaming/trolling, i call it pointing out an uncomfortable fact.

"Somalia has 1900 miles of coast line, a government that knows its place, and all the guns and wives you could afford to buy. Why have I not heard of this paradise before?"
~Chevvy Chase (technically pierce hawthorn, but whos counting?)

User avatar
LiangLai
Envoy
 
Posts: 346
Founded: Oct 17, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby LiangLai » Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:03 pm

Sanguinthium wrote:
Sibirsky wrote:Hungary, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan. Support of Vietnam and North Korea.

The Soviet Union is not blameless as you paint them to be.

correct. however, since they were ASKED to enter Afghanistan, were responding to a invasion in germany, and were also helping 'nam and korea by their nations requests, i declare capitalism the loser.


Labor laws are useless. Prosperity creates the ability and demand for better conditions. All that's necessary. Government legislation is not necessary and has not worked.


well then, you approve of slavery. without labor laws, slavery would be legal.
State socialism is anti-freedom. That makes it evil.

:palm:
state socialism (such as denmark, sweden, to an extent cuba) have shown to work; sweden and denmark are stable, with some of the happiest people in the world in sweden, and cuba would be much better if we didnt have massive trade sanctions, huge embargo, etc etc.

considering that sweden is among the freest nations on earth, your argument is moot.

1. Governments do not represent economic systems... The economy of the United States is Capitalist, not the government. Foreign policy of a government is a completely separate topic from a countries' economic system...
2. Slavery is not voluntary, therefore, we do not support slavery. Work is entirely voluntary, you do not have to work for a specific company. If you dislike your job's working conditions and pay, either start a business of your own, or find a different job.
3. The Scandinavian countries follow a Welfare Capitalist System... not Socialism...
Economic Left/Right: 5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened." - Winston Churchill
Win Quote
Bluth Corporation wrote:
Red Indus2 wrote:The Soviet Union was a particularly capitalist state because it had to capitalize by itself and induct those capable of doing so into its apparatus, rather then leave the capitalists to run the economy.


I agree, the Soviet Union epitomized capitalism.

I mean, USSR? What's more capitalist than that? Four capitals, all in a row!

User avatar
Sanguinthium
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1034
Founded: Jan 31, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Sanguinthium » Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:11 pm

LiangLai wrote:
Sanguinthium wrote:
correct. however, since they were ASKED to enter Afghanistan, were responding to a invasion in germany, and were also helping 'nam and korea by their nations requests, i declare capitalism the loser.




well then, you approve of slavery. without labor laws, slavery would be legal.

:palm:
state socialism (such as denmark, sweden, to an extent cuba) have shown to work; sweden and denmark are stable, with some of the happiest people in the world in sweden, and cuba would be much better if we didnt have massive trade sanctions, huge embargo, etc etc.

considering that sweden is among the freest nations on earth, your argument is moot.

1. Governments do not represent economic systems... The economy of the United States is Capitalist, not the government. Foreign policy of a government is a completely separate topic from a countries' economic system...
2. Slavery is not voluntary, therefore, we do not support slavery. Work is entirely voluntary, you do not have to work for a specific company. If you dislike your job's working conditions and pay, either start a business of your own, or find a different job.
3. The Scandinavian countries follow a Welfare Capitalist System... not Socialism...


1. correct; however, with a socialist country, there isn't such a large distinction.
2. no labor laws makes slavery legal; because prohibiting slavery is a labor choice.

3. I have seen lots of debate on the left over whether or not Sweden is socialist. When I think of socialism, I think democracy, human rights, eradication of poverty, running the economy for people, and environmental protection.Sweden definately has the most most extensive welfare state in the world. Universal healthcare, non-profit hospitals, social security, free education, and all kinds of other perks like allowances for students. They also, have had a very left wing foreign policy. Their focus at the UN has been to stop arms deals and proliferation and highlight human rights abuses.They have supported national liberation movements like the liberation movement in Vietnam and the ANC in South Africa. The country was nuetral in the Cold War. Over 80% of workers are members of labor unions. They also have one of the most egalitarian income distributions in the world, almost everyone is middle class. This is due to very high and progressive taxation.

The only argument I ever see for Sweden not being socialist is that most business is in private hands (although some is publicly owned). I don't really buy this. Every business in Sweden has to allow 2 workers on their executive board to watch for worker's interests. They also have so many pro-labor laws and regulations that you have to wonder if many companies are private in name only. Sure, a person can start or buy out one of these businesses...but in most ways the state dictates how they are run. I would agree that Sweden isn't completely socialist, but I do think they definately have a socialist orientation and are moving in that direction. The Social Democrats and Left Party have governed the country almost without interuption since World War 2. Even the "right wing" parties are probably to the left of our democrats.
Tiocfaidh ár lá Proletarier aller Länder vereinigt Euch!
Forn Siðr is the true way.
a large portion of what i say will be IC, or Jokes; that, or you call it flaming/trolling, i call it pointing out an uncomfortable fact.

"Somalia has 1900 miles of coast line, a government that knows its place, and all the guns and wives you could afford to buy. Why have I not heard of this paradise before?"
~Chevvy Chase (technically pierce hawthorn, but whos counting?)

User avatar
Laissez-Faire
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1837
Founded: Oct 29, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Laissez-Faire » Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:14 pm

Sanguinthium wrote:consider this; if you were trained from birth to do your best for the good of the community, (just as you have been trained from birth with the ideals of self interest over interest of the whole), with the knowledge that if you dont meet your quota, someone will have to go without shoes, medicine, whatever, would you not even try? how would you sleep at night if your action meant some kid had to go without shoes for a month, in Maine's' winter (Trondheim if your European)?


the whole purpose of communism isn't the success of the one; its a concept many westerners have difficulty understanding, no offense intended; the purpose is the success of the community as a whole; profligates and other dissolute have no place in this society; the concept has but one purpose: EVERYBODY is safe, socially, economically, physically, and mentally. this results in the whole concept of "get rich or die tryin" (yes, i went there, 50) goes out the window; you arent supposed to live any better than anyone else.

I think i've described in detail why this is a fallacy.

in short, the whole purpose is that everybody gets just about what they need, and nobody is left out; if you were raised in a upper or middle class family in a western country (or, in Sibs household, which taught horrific misconceptions) you really cannot understand the plight of the poor. the best you can do is imagine if you lived out of a truck from the 60s and then some rich dude threw away a bowl of Caviar in front of you, because he had run out of time to eat it; until you understand the world that 22.5% of americans grow up in, you cannot understand how this is so important.

If you are trying to say anyone is incompetent to argue economics, you are quite wrong. Members here debating have seen the financial world, and they are more than rightful in presenting counters. Just as you do this to, in your mind, serve the needy, those countering you are doing something similar.

It's simply different in that the ultimate counter to communism, a protection of individual liberty, derives competition which has been proven to make products more readily available in businesses by competitive prices, derive a sense of efficiency which benefits the consumer, and moderates itself just as efficiently.


(Image)

notice that sweden, norway, finland and denmark (all rather socialist leaning countries, as much as sib would deny it) have the lowest child poverty rate.

That's hardly refuting anything of capitalism.
Sanguinthium wrote:and then the government abolishes itself after its purpose has been served
Vestr-Norig wrote:I'm sorry, I am not familiar with your highbrow words.
Greater Evil Imperial Japanese Dystopia wrote:Ah, how heavenly & masturbatable must unregulated capitalism be!
Parpolitic Citizens wrote:You're one of the most disingenuous people I've seen here.
Parpolitic Citizens wrote:Do you see any value in human dignity or happiness? I'm not trolling. I'm seriously wondering if you're a sociopath.

User avatar
Sanguinthium
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1034
Founded: Jan 31, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Sanguinthium » Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:28 pm

Laissez-Faire wrote:
Sanguinthium wrote:consider this; if you were trained from birth to do your best for the good of the community, (just as you have been trained from birth with the ideals of self interest over interest of the whole), with the knowledge that if you dont meet your quota, someone will have to go without shoes, medicine, whatever, would you not even try? how would you sleep at night if your action meant some kid had to go without shoes for a month, in Maine's' winter (Trondheim if your European)?


the whole purpose of communism isn't the success of the one; its a concept many westerners have difficulty understanding, no offense intended; the purpose is the success of the community as a whole; profligates and other dissolute have no place in this society; the concept has but one purpose: EVERYBODY is safe, socially, economically, physically, and mentally. this results in the whole concept of "get rich or die tryin" (yes, i went there, 50) goes out the window; you arent supposed to live any better than anyone else.

I think i've described in detail why this is a fallacy.

in short, the whole purpose is that everybody gets just about what they need, and nobody is left out; if you were raised in a upper or middle class family in a western country (or, in Sibs household, which taught horrific misconceptions) you really cannot understand the plight of the poor. the best you can do is imagine if you lived out of a truck from the 60s and then some rich dude threw away a bowl of Caviar in front of you, because he had run out of time to eat it; until you understand the world that 22.5% of americans grow up in, you cannot understand how this is so important.

If you are trying to say anyone is incompetent to argue economics, you are quite wrong. Members here debating have seen the financial world, and they are more than rightful in presenting counters. Just as you do this to, in your mind, serve the needy, those countering you are doing something similar.

It's simply different in that the ultimate counter to communism, a protection of individual liberty, derives competition which has been proven to make products more readily available in businesses by competitive prices, derive a sense of efficiency which benefits the consumer, and moderates itself just as efficiently.


(Image)

notice that sweden, norway, finland and denmark (all rather socialist leaning countries, as much as sib would deny it) have the lowest child poverty rate.

That's hardly refuting anything of capitalism.


1. its not a fallacy; the entire purpose is that there will be no rich. you arent supposed to be rich. you are supposed to live a frugal, meaningful life that benefits the community as a whole; incentive to produce is moot, as your trained from birth to help the community. think of the Ants; everybody has their job, and they do it just for the sake of their community, even the queen; (whose job is to lay thousands of eggs- pity that!) perfect communism.

2. the point is that there will be a minority that controls the majority in capitalism; a small group of profligates, some who may be philanthropic, but still are swimming in money while others starve, have no right to live decadently when others die from famine, disease, drought.

3. its refuting your point that a socialist economy cannot care for the more vulnerable in society because America (capitalist economy) has the highest listed, whereas Sweden is in the bottom 4, while having the closest government to actual socialism in the entire world.
Last edited by Sanguinthium on Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tiocfaidh ár lá Proletarier aller Länder vereinigt Euch!
Forn Siðr is the true way.
a large portion of what i say will be IC, or Jokes; that, or you call it flaming/trolling, i call it pointing out an uncomfortable fact.

"Somalia has 1900 miles of coast line, a government that knows its place, and all the guns and wives you could afford to buy. Why have I not heard of this paradise before?"
~Chevvy Chase (technically pierce hawthorn, but whos counting?)

User avatar
Laissez-Faire
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1837
Founded: Oct 29, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Laissez-Faire » Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:32 pm

Sanguinthium wrote:1. its not a fallacy; your trained from birth to help the community. think of the Ants; everybody has their job, and they do it just for the sake of their community.

"Trained from birth to help the community"? I don't get what you mean. Was that a personal anecdote? An assumption about our lives?

2. the point is that there will be a minority that controls the majority in capitalism; a small group of profligates, some who may be philanthropic, but still are swimming in money while others starve, have no right to live decadently when others die from famine, disease, drought.

No, there will be a powerful minority so long as individual rights are not protected and competition takes a second hand to undue intervention.

3. its refuting your point that a socialist economy cannot care for the more vulnerable in society because America (capitalist economy) has the highest listed, whereas Sweden is in the bottom 4, while having the closest government to actual socialism in the entire world.

You still haven't proven anything about socialism.
Last edited by Laissez-Faire on Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sanguinthium wrote:and then the government abolishes itself after its purpose has been served
Vestr-Norig wrote:I'm sorry, I am not familiar with your highbrow words.
Greater Evil Imperial Japanese Dystopia wrote:Ah, how heavenly & masturbatable must unregulated capitalism be!
Parpolitic Citizens wrote:You're one of the most disingenuous people I've seen here.
Parpolitic Citizens wrote:Do you see any value in human dignity or happiness? I'm not trolling. I'm seriously wondering if you're a sociopath.

User avatar
Sanguinthium
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1034
Founded: Jan 31, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Sanguinthium » Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:49 pm

Laissez-Faire wrote:
Sanguinthium wrote:1. its not a fallacy; your trained from birth to help the community. think of the Ants; everybody has their job, and they do it just for the sake of their community.

"Trained from birth to help the community"? I don't get what you mean. Was that a personal anecdote? An assumption about our lives?

2. the point is that there will be a minority that controls the majority in capitalism; a small group of profligates, some who may be philanthropic, but still are swimming in money while others starve, have no right to live decadently when others die from famine, disease, drought.

No, there will be a powerful minority so long as individual rights are not protected and competition takes a second hand to undue intervention.

3. its refuting your point that a socialist economy cannot care for the more vulnerable in society because America (capitalist economy) has the highest listed, whereas Sweden is in the bottom 4, while having the closest government to actual socialism in the entire world.

You still haven't proven anything about socialism.



1 as i have said, socialism is the process to communism. this process takes several generations to take hold. when the process is at the end, the government eventually becomes arbitrary, as it was forcing people to get along, now, after a few generations, they do it on their own. the government then withers away, and the people live happily, in harmony. it's like if a christian man was born in say, Saudi Arabia to a Muslim family. he would most likely be Muslim, as he was raised to be one. the principle holds true to the socialist process; the infant is trained to put the good of the community before the good of one.

2 the whole point of the socialist process is that the minority will loose all control; there will be no minority controlling the majority, because there will be no classes; this results in everybody being mid-middle class. this is what you seem to not be able to grasp; there is no rich, no poor, no government, just people, working for the good of the country as a whole.

3 i've pointed out using the graph that socialism is better at taking care of its poor than capitalist countries.
Tiocfaidh ár lá Proletarier aller Länder vereinigt Euch!
Forn Siðr is the true way.
a large portion of what i say will be IC, or Jokes; that, or you call it flaming/trolling, i call it pointing out an uncomfortable fact.

"Somalia has 1900 miles of coast line, a government that knows its place, and all the guns and wives you could afford to buy. Why have I not heard of this paradise before?"
~Chevvy Chase (technically pierce hawthorn, but whos counting?)

User avatar
LiangLai
Envoy
 
Posts: 346
Founded: Oct 17, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby LiangLai » Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:51 pm

Sanguinthium wrote:1. its not a fallacy; the entire purpose is that there will be no rich. you arent supposed to be rich. you are supposed to live a frugal, meaningful life that benefits the community as a whole; incentive to produce is moot, as your trained from birth to help the community. think of the Ants; everybody has their job, and they do it just for the sake of their community, even the queen; (whose job is to lay thousands of eggs- pity that!) perfect communism.

2. the point is that there will be a minority that controls the majority in capitalism; a small group of profligates, some who may be philanthropic, but still are swimming in money while others starve, have no right to live decadently when others die from famine, disease, drought.

Who says that you are not supposed to be rich? How can I not help my community even if I possess wealth? Why must those who have wealth lose all of their possessions in the name of the community? How will you distribute their wealth equally even if you seize all of their assets, and how can you ensure equality?

Humans are not ants. They are genetically and biologically born to serve their queen and community, humans are not. They are also born to work their respective jobs. They all work for a hive-mind, we do not. We do not have a collective conscious, we are all individuals, and think individually.

Also, what happens when people in your "utopian" community have more possessions than someone else? Will you just forcibly take what they own, and give it to someone else, perpetuating the fact that someone owns more than the other? What happens if some parts of a community do not wish to live in the community they are in? What happens if somebody does not work, and does not contribute to the community?
Economic Left/Right: 5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened." - Winston Churchill
Win Quote
Bluth Corporation wrote:
Red Indus2 wrote:The Soviet Union was a particularly capitalist state because it had to capitalize by itself and induct those capable of doing so into its apparatus, rather then leave the capitalists to run the economy.


I agree, the Soviet Union epitomized capitalism.

I mean, USSR? What's more capitalist than that? Four capitals, all in a row!

User avatar
Polyponia
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 13
Founded: Sep 02, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Polyponia » Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:53 pm

1. its not a fallacy; the entire purpose is that there will be no rich. you arent supposed to be rich. you are supposed to live a frugal, meaningful life that benefits the community as a whole; incentive to produce is moot, as your trained from birth to help the community. think of the Ants; everybody has their job, and they do it just for the sake of their community, even the queen; (whose job is to lay thousands of eggs- pity that!) perfect communism.


Being an ant in an ant colony really doesn't sound too appealing. While I do think that altrism certainly works to a point I don't think it alone will be enough to motivate people even if you try and train them from an early age. Most people are not saints and many will slack off especially if they feel others are doing so as well which is why you will need self interest to be invloved.

2. the point is that there will be a minority that controls the majority in capitalism; a small group of profligates, some who may be philanthropic, but still are swimming in money while others starve, have no right to live decadently when others die from famine, disease, drought.

3. its refuting your point that a socialist economy cannot care for the more vulnerable in society because America (capitalist economy) has the highest listed, whereas Sweden is in the bottom 4, while having the closest government to actual socialism in the entire world.


Sweden does work but it really is capitalist just with a lot more social programs. It is not an example of a socialist society..
Last edited by Polyponia on Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
All Hail Emperor Caligula Nero IV

User avatar
Laissez-Faire
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1837
Founded: Oct 29, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Laissez-Faire » Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:56 pm

Sanguinthium wrote:1 as i have said, socialism is the process to communism. this process takes several generations to take hold. when the process is at the end, the government eventually becomes arbitrary, as it was forcing people to get along, now, after a few generations, they do it on their own. the government then withers away, and the people live happily, in harmony. it's like if a christian man was born in say, Saudi Arabia to a Muslim family. he would most likely be Muslim, as he was raised to be one. the principle holds true to the socialist process; the infant is trained to put the good of the community before the good of one.

So you are stating authoritarian control over people's personal ambitions inevitably serves their best good, and the honest government will always, when given the full reigns over society, output a utopia?

2 the whole point of the socialist process is that the minority will loose all control; there will be no minority controlling the majority, because there will be no classes; this results in everybody being mid-middle class. this is what you seem to not be able to grasp; there is no rich, no poor, no government, just people, working for the good of the country as a whole.

The point of individualism is to have competition amongst individuals.

When you have a government instituting and melding this sense, you certainly create an elite.

Personally, leaving a group of people's will to a totalitarian government's fate is the sure-fire way to ensure the death of personal liberty. Personal liberty is what drives competition, and what is the best remedy against an elite that is vested in with power to manipulate others without competition. Failure, success, all add up to a sense of competition which creates capital and investment , ensures the benefits of a market are maintained within a self-correcting market and are not prone to the authoritarian manipulations of a government that attempts to meld a philosophical sense among it's population.

3 i've pointed out using the graph that socialism is better at taking care of its poor than capitalist countries.

You've pointed out nothing about the ideology by naming countries, the ones that form the basis of your argument being largely capitalist.
Sanguinthium wrote:and then the government abolishes itself after its purpose has been served
Vestr-Norig wrote:I'm sorry, I am not familiar with your highbrow words.
Greater Evil Imperial Japanese Dystopia wrote:Ah, how heavenly & masturbatable must unregulated capitalism be!
Parpolitic Citizens wrote:You're one of the most disingenuous people I've seen here.
Parpolitic Citizens wrote:Do you see any value in human dignity or happiness? I'm not trolling. I'm seriously wondering if you're a sociopath.

User avatar
Sanguinthium
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1034
Founded: Jan 31, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Sanguinthium » Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:57 pm

Polyponia wrote:
1. its not a fallacy; the entire purpose is that there will be no rich. you arent supposed to be rich. you are supposed to live a frugal, meaningful life that benefits the community as a whole; incentive to produce is moot, as your trained from birth to help the community. think of the Ants; everybody has their job, and they do it just for the sake of their community, even the queen; (whose job is to lay thousands of eggs- pity that!) perfect communism.


Being an ant in an ant colony really doesn't sound too appealing. While I do think that altrism certainly works to a point I don't think it alone will be enough to motivate people even if you try and train them from an early age. Most people are not saints and many will slack off especially if they feel others are doing so as well which is why you will need self interest to be invloved.

2. the point is that there will be a minority that controls the majority in capitalism; a small group of profligates, some who may be philanthropic, but still are swimming in money while others starve, have no right to live decadently when others die from famine, disease, drought.

3. its refuting your point that a socialist economy cannot care for the more vulnerable in society because America (capitalist economy) has the highest listed, whereas Sweden is in the bottom 4, while having the closest government to actual socialism in the entire world.


Sweden does work but it really is capitalist just with a lot more social programs. It is not an example of a socialist society..


I have seen lots of debate on the left over whether or not Sweden is socialist. When I think of socialism, I think democracy, human rights, eradication of poverty, running the economy for people, and environmental protection.Sweden definately has the most most extensive welfare state in the world. Universal healthcare, non-profit hospitals, social security, free education, and all kinds of other perks like allowances for students. They also, have had a very left wing foreign policy. Their focus at the UN has been to stop arms deals and proliferation and highlight human rights abuses.They have supported national liberation movements like the liberation movement in Vietnam and the ANC in South Africa. The country was nuetral in the Cold War. Over 80% of workers are members of labor unions. They also have one of the most egalitarian income distributions in the world, almost everyone is middle class. This is due to very high and progressive taxation.

The only argument I ever see for Sweden not being socialist is that most business is in private hands (although some is publicly owned). I don't really buy this. Every business in Sweden has to allow 2 workers on their executive board to watch for worker's interests. They also have so many pro-labor laws and regulations that you have to wonder if many companies are private in name only. Sure, a person can start or buy out one of these businesses...but in most ways the state dictates how they are run. I would agree that Sweden isn't completely socialist, but I do think they definately have a socialist orientation and are moving in that direction. The Social Democrats and Left Party have governed the country almost without interuption since World War 2. Even the "right wing" parties are probably to the left of our democrats.
Proletarier aller Länder vereinigt Euch!
Last edited by Sanguinthium on Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tiocfaidh ár lá Proletarier aller Länder vereinigt Euch!
Forn Siðr is the true way.
a large portion of what i say will be IC, or Jokes; that, or you call it flaming/trolling, i call it pointing out an uncomfortable fact.

"Somalia has 1900 miles of coast line, a government that knows its place, and all the guns and wives you could afford to buy. Why have I not heard of this paradise before?"
~Chevvy Chase (technically pierce hawthorn, but whos counting?)

User avatar
Sanguinthium
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1034
Founded: Jan 31, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Sanguinthium » Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:01 pm

Laissez-Faire wrote:
Sanguinthium wrote:1 as i have said, socialism is the process to communism. this process takes several generations to take hold. when the process is at the end, the government eventually becomes arbitrary, as it was forcing people to get along, now, after a few generations, they do it on their own. the government then withers away, and the people live happily, in harmony. it's like if a christian man was born in say, Saudi Arabia to a Muslim family. he would most likely be Muslim, as he was raised to be one. the principle holds true to the socialist process; the infant is trained to put the good of the community before the good of one.

So you are stating authoritarian control over people's personal ambitions inevitably serves their best good, and the honest government will always, when given the full reigns over society, output a utopia?

2 the whole point of the socialist process is that the minority will loose all control; there will be no minority controlling the majority, because there will be no classes; this results in everybody being mid-middle class. this is what you seem to not be able to grasp; there is no rich, no poor, no government, just people, working for the good of the country as a whole.

The point of individualism is to have competition amongst individuals.

When you have a government instituting and melding this sense, you certainly create an elite.

Personally, leaving a group of people's will to a totalitarian government's fate is the sure-fire way to ensure the death of personal liberty. Personal liberty is what drives competition, and what is the best remedy against an elite that is vested in with power to manipulate others without competition. Failure, success, all add up to a sense of competition which creates capital and investment , ensures the benefits of a market are maintained within a self-correcting market and are not prone to the authoritarian manipulations of a government that attempts to meld a philosophical sense among it's population.

3 i've pointed out using the graph that socialism is better at taking care of its poor than capitalist countries.

You've pointed out nothing about the ideology by naming countries, the ones that form the basis of your argument being largely capitalist.


1. the socialist process trains the people for a few generations until they are ready to take communism; they arent going to massacre people, they are going to make the school curriculum put heavy weight of community over person, make being a party member appealing (to satisfy your 'incentive' for the profligates) and so forth. while they do have just about entire control, the process is generally nonviolent.

and then the government abolishes itself after its purpose has been served

2.the point is that there is no government when the utopia comes; when you achieve communism, you have no government; its called 'pure communism' and its what marx wrote of. since you claim that the government will be the elite, that is only in the socialist transition to communism. when the utopia (which i think we have been arguing about) comes, there is no government, there is no elite.

3. sorry, sweden isnt capitalist; i've made this very clear several times.
Tiocfaidh ár lá Proletarier aller Länder vereinigt Euch!
Forn Siðr is the true way.
a large portion of what i say will be IC, or Jokes; that, or you call it flaming/trolling, i call it pointing out an uncomfortable fact.

"Somalia has 1900 miles of coast line, a government that knows its place, and all the guns and wives you could afford to buy. Why have I not heard of this paradise before?"
~Chevvy Chase (technically pierce hawthorn, but whos counting?)

User avatar
Laissez-Faire
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1837
Founded: Oct 29, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Laissez-Faire » Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:04 pm

Sanguinthium wrote:
1. the socialist process trains the people for a few generations until they are ready to take communism; they arent going to massacre people, they are going to make the school curriculum put heavy weight of community over person, make being a party member appealing (to satisfy your 'incentive' for the profligates) and so forth. while they do have just about entire control, the process is generally nonviolent.

and then the government abolishes itself after its purpose has been served


Sure, the government will simply, for the betterment of humanity, cut itself loose from it's cozy little niche. :palm:

(Dammit, now I am starting to use the palm.)

2.the point is that there is no government when the utopia comes; when you achieve communism, you have no government; its called 'pure communism' and its what marx wrote of. since you claim that the government will be the elite, that is only in the socialist transition to communism. when the utopia (which i think we have been arguing about) comes, there is no government, there is no elite.

Every attempt at "pure communism" has had results which I am sure you are more than aware of.

3. sorry, sweden isnt capitalist; i've made this very clear several times.

As it has been countered many times.
Sanguinthium wrote:and then the government abolishes itself after its purpose has been served
Vestr-Norig wrote:I'm sorry, I am not familiar with your highbrow words.
Greater Evil Imperial Japanese Dystopia wrote:Ah, how heavenly & masturbatable must unregulated capitalism be!
Parpolitic Citizens wrote:You're one of the most disingenuous people I've seen here.
Parpolitic Citizens wrote:Do you see any value in human dignity or happiness? I'm not trolling. I'm seriously wondering if you're a sociopath.

User avatar
Occupied Deutschland
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18796
Founded: Oct 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Occupied Deutschland » Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:07 pm

Sanguinthium wrote:.........
3. sorry, sweden isnt capitalist; i've made this very clear several times.

*Sigh*
Sweden allows the ownership of the means of production through private hands. Hence, Capitalist in its most common definition (and the one you used if I remember right...)
They may have a much more ingrained system of redistribution/government service/what-have-you, but they are by no means approaching a collectivized or nationalized system of production.
I'm General Patton.
Even those who are gone are with us as we go on.

Been busy lately--not around much.

User avatar
Polyponia
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 13
Founded: Sep 02, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Polyponia » Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:10 pm

The only argument I ever see for Sweden not being socialist is that most business is in private hands (although some is publicly owned). I don't really buy this. Every business in Sweden has to allow 2 workers on their executive board to watch for worker's interests. They also have so many pro-labor laws and regulations that you have to wonder if many companies are private in name only. Sure, a person can start or buy out one of these businesses...but in most ways the state dictates how they are run. I would agree that Sweden isn't completely socialist, but I do think they definately have a socialist orientation and are moving in that direction. The Social Democrats and Left Party have governed the country almost without interuption since World War 2. Even the "right wing" parties are probably to the left of our democrats.
Proletarier aller Länder vereinigt Euch!


I am guessing in these private industries still the owners will get a larger share then the workers do and while the wealth is more evenly distributed the businesses are still in private hands which is why I consider it capitalism. I really don't have a problem with the Swedish system and think moving more in that direction is a good idea (my nation does not represent my RL political views it is just for fun) but I do not think a pure socialism is really possible unless we get to a very advanced technology where we could produce everything without requiring workers. Their will still have to be a need for motivation plus a way to determine which goods to produce and how to distribute them.
All Hail Emperor Caligula Nero IV

User avatar
Sanguinthium
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1034
Founded: Jan 31, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Sanguinthium » Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:35 pm

Laissez-Faire wrote:
Sanguinthium wrote:
1. the socialist process trains the people for a few generations until they are ready to take communism; they arent going to massacre people, they are going to make the school curriculum put heavy weight of community over person, make being a party member appealing (to satisfy your 'incentive' for the profligates) and so forth. while they do have just about entire control, the process is generally nonviolent.

and then the government abolishes itself after its purpose has been served


Sure, the government will simply, for the betterment of humanity, cut itself loose from it's cozy little niche. :palm:

(Dammit, now I am starting to use the palm.)

2.the point is that there is no government when the utopia comes; when you achieve communism, you have no government; its called 'pure communism' and its what marx wrote of. since you claim that the government will be the elite, that is only in the socialist transition to communism. when the utopia (which i think we have been arguing about) comes, there is no government, there is no elite.

Every attempt at "pure communism" has had results which I am sure you are more than aware of.

3. sorry, sweden isnt capitalist; i've made this very clear several times.

As it has been countered many times.


the government abolishes itself after it becomes unnecessary. in truth, the actual process is closer to it withering away, like a plant left out in the sun.

there has never been an attempt at pure communism; for a nation to attempt that, they would have to go through the socialist process; if you are implying the soviet union, they 1. changed marx, 2. never intended pure communism, and 3. were socialist in name only after stalin rose.

man, they have so many labor laws, the government is the defacto owner of all companies; the companies are even required to place two workers on the board to ensure worker interests are protected.
Tiocfaidh ár lá Proletarier aller Länder vereinigt Euch!
Forn Siðr is the true way.
a large portion of what i say will be IC, or Jokes; that, or you call it flaming/trolling, i call it pointing out an uncomfortable fact.

"Somalia has 1900 miles of coast line, a government that knows its place, and all the guns and wives you could afford to buy. Why have I not heard of this paradise before?"
~Chevvy Chase (technically pierce hawthorn, but whos counting?)

User avatar
Sanguinthium
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1034
Founded: Jan 31, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Sanguinthium » Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:40 pm

Polyponia wrote:
The only argument I ever see for Sweden not being socialist is that most business is in private hands (although some is publicly owned). I don't really buy this. Every business in Sweden has to allow 2 workers on their executive board to watch for worker's interests. They also have so many pro-labor laws and regulations that you have to wonder if many companies are private in name only. Sure, a person can start or buy out one of these businesses...but in most ways the state dictates how they are run. I would agree that Sweden isn't completely socialist, but I do think they definately have a socialist orientation and are moving in that direction. The Social Democrats and Left Party have governed the country almost without interuption since World War 2. Even the "right wing" parties are probably to the left of our democrats.
Proletarier aller Länder vereinigt Euch!


I am guessing in these private industries still the owners will get a larger share then the workers do and while the wealth is more evenly distributed the businesses are still in private hands which is why I consider it capitalism. I really don't have a problem with the Swedish system and think moving more in that direction is a good idea (my nation does not represent my RL political views it is just for fun) but I do not think a pure socialism is really possible unless we get to a very advanced technology where we could produce everything without requiring workers. Their will still have to be a need for motivation plus a way to determine which goods to produce and how to distribute them.



pshh, my nation is a capitalist paradise; its becoming a question of how far can i take this joke.

as i said earlier, they aren't entirely socialist, but they are close, closer than any other nation on the planet; especially since the government controls the private sector in all but name. socialism cannot be summed up 100% of the public ownership of the means of production, just as capitalism cannot be summed up as the private. for either system, there has to be some leeway, but the difference between a socialist country and a capitalist country is that in the socialist country, the government says what you can and cannot do economically, and takes steps to prevent this (which can be greatly damaged by either a weak leader or a bad leader with great political skills) whereas in a truly capitalist country, they stick to the business of defending you from Canada (they have tried to invade america before, i am told) or something, and ignoring the fact that a minority can control the majority.


From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds (socialism). From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (communism).
Last edited by Sanguinthium on Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tiocfaidh ár lá Proletarier aller Länder vereinigt Euch!
Forn Siðr is the true way.
a large portion of what i say will be IC, or Jokes; that, or you call it flaming/trolling, i call it pointing out an uncomfortable fact.

"Somalia has 1900 miles of coast line, a government that knows its place, and all the guns and wives you could afford to buy. Why have I not heard of this paradise before?"
~Chevvy Chase (technically pierce hawthorn, but whos counting?)

User avatar
Sibirsky
Post Czar
 
Posts: 44940
Founded: Mar 22, 2009
Anarchy

Postby Sibirsky » Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:33 pm

Sanguinthium wrote:and then the government abolishes itself after its purpose has been served

:palm:

So the state owns everything.

The state dictates everything.

The state owns all the media, and tells you what to think. Opposing views are not allowed.

The state sets wages and prices.

The state chooses everything, that gets manufactured. You do not have a competitor to work for, buy from, or listen to.

And then out of the blue, for no reason whatsoever, it disappears!

Or so the retarded fanboys say.

Reality of course shows, that with that much control over the useful idiots, and the rest of society, Joseph Stalin is far more likely.

And death, poverty, oppression, gulags.
Free market capitalism, path to prosperity
Свободный рынок капитализма, путь к процветанию
IBC 7 Finalists
8 Gold, 9 Silver, 2 Bronze medals IV Summer Olympics
2 Silver, 4 Bronze medals V Winter Olympics
Golfinator Classic Champion
Scott Cup I Champions
World Bowl 11 4th Place

User avatar
Moral Libertarians
Minister
 
Posts: 3207
Founded: Apr 22, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Moral Libertarians » Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:21 am

Sanguinthium wrote:
Polyponia wrote:pshh, my nation is a capitalist paradise; its becoming a question of how far can i take this joke.


Explain this line please.
Free market is best market.
Political Compass
I support Anarcho-Capitalism
Terra Agora wrote:A state, no matter how small, is not liberty. Taxes are not liberty, government courts are not liberty, government police are not liberty. Anarchy is liberty and anarchy is order.
Occupied Deutschland: [Government] is arbitrary. It draws a line in the sand wherever it wants, and if one crosses it, one gets punished. The only difference is where the line is.
Staenwald: meh tax evasion is understandable in some cases. I don't want some filthy politician grabbing my money for something I don't use.
Volnotova: Corporations... cannot exist without a state.
The moment statism is wiped off the face of this planet it is impossible for any corporation to continue its existance.

User avatar
Sovietiya
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 486
Founded: Aug 30, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Sovietiya » Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:44 am

Sibirsky wrote:
Sanguinthium wrote:and then the government abolishes itself after its purpose has been served

:palm:

So the state owns everything.

The state dictates everything.

The state owns all the media, and tells you what to think. Opposing views are not allowed.

The state sets wages and prices.

The state chooses everything, that gets manufactured. You do not have a competitor to work for, buy from, or listen to.

And then out of the blue, for no reason whatsoever, it disappears!

Or so the retarded fanboys say.

Reality of course shows, that with that much control over the useful idiots, and the rest of society, Joseph Stalin is far more likely.

And death, poverty, oppression, gulags.


This proves you don't know much about socialism -> communism.
It will never happen (communism), so I believe. (But I think some form of socialism is more feasable).

It is a very long fairy story to explain 'the transition', and it is very unrealistic, and the state plays a big role, but it is along the lines of through democratic control (of both politics and economics), the state (keep in mind it is democratic, so the state is 'controlled' by the people) guides the country, to achieve many socialistic-style goals, and when they are all achieved, and 'utopia' is reached, the state becomes obsolete and slowly degrades since people don't need it any more.

Not a very good explanation, and yes it is utter BS and will never happen.
But it a rough explanation. Do some research. 'True' socialism is state control via democracy, so it is not monopolised by politicians (like what happened in the Soviet Union).

Heres some good links to look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_politics

Hope that helps :)
"I like freedom, but I don't like your freedom."

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Militant Costco, The Black Forrest, The Lone Alliance, Vanuzgard

Advertisement

Remove ads