Socialismphobia

[CTALNH]

Yeah Long Live Monopoly...

Says the advocator of centralised economy.

State Socialism is not imperialistic monopoly....
What?

[Zaras]

Yeah Long Live Monopoly...

Says the advocator of centralised economy.

It's CTALNH. He's too busy fanboying Stalin to actually think about economic systems.

[CTALNH]

Says the advocator of centralised economy.

It's CTALNH. He's too busy fanboying Stalin to actually think about economic systems.

Don't talk about comrade Stalin Like that.....

That reminded me I should burn some more incense on his Altair at my home.

[Rudie]

"People partially submit to the state's authority, and in return it looks after them when they can't look after themselves."

This is an ascension of a basic social contract.

recently the city of New York has banned large soft drinks because they were "looking after" the people's health.

Only if the soft drink is 16oz+ and served at "restaurants, mobile food carts, sports arenas and movie theaters."

Have you ever had an argument with you parents as to what you wanted to do as opposed to what THEY thought was best for you? It's the same situation, only worse, because one's parents (with some exceptions) DO care about you. An impersonal government hundreds/thousands of miles away from you do not have the same level of care. Do you REALLY want someone having that much potential personal power over you?

You describe government as impersonal but refer to it as 'someone' and describe the operation of its authority as parental. Assuming one wants parents [based solely on your positive description of parental authority, as in " because one's parents (with some exceptions) DO care about you."], then there is seemingly nothing immoral about "someone having that much potential personal power over you."

EDIT: I apologise for the pop-up ad in the link, but that's capitalism.
snigger snigger snigger snort snort chortle

[Zaras]

This is an ascension of a basic social contract.

Except some right-wingers think the best social contract is "I got mine, fuck you". This is not the case.

You describe government as impersonal but refer to it as 'someone' and describe the operation of its authority as parental. Assuming one wants parents [based solely on your positive description of parental authority, as in " because one's parents (with some exceptions) DO care about you."], then there is seemingly nothing immoral about "someone having that much potential personal power over you."

Plus, it's fucking stupid to compare the government to parenting. It's a metaphor that shows a lack of actual knowledge of how the government works and what it does.

[Rudie]

Except some right-wingers think the best social contract is "I got mine, fuck you". This is not the case.

It's subjective, of course, but I concur.

Plus, it's fucking stupid to compare the government to parenting. It's a metaphor that shows a lack of actual knowledge of how the government works and what it does.

I'm not sure if he is comparing bureaucracy to parenting - which is, as you say, essentially wrong - or if grammatical errors have obscured the intended communication.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Of course capitalism won the Cold War. It was, after all, a contest between two capitalists: the mostly-capitalist United States, and the ultra-capitalist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Capitalism won, and as a consequence humanity and individual liberty lost.

[Jassysworth 1]

Of course capitalism won the Cold War. It was, after all, a contest between two capitalists: the mostly-capitalist United States, and the ultra-capitalist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Capitalism won, and as a consequence humanity and individual liberty lost.

LOL at the USSR being ultra-capitalist...

You claim others don't know what communism is... clearly you don't know what capitalism is.

[Zaras]

LOL at the USSR being ultra-capitalist...

FDB got it slightly wrong: it was actually state capitalist.

You claim others don't know what communism is...

That's because you don't.

clearly you don't know what capitalism is.

We know what it is. We have to live with its crimes and fuckups everyday.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

The Soviet Union wasn't ultra-capitalist?

Please, describe for me the relations of production in the Soviet Union.

The fact of the matter is, Bolshevism is the highest stage of capitalism.

[CTALNH]

The Soviet Union wasn't ultra-capitalist?

Please, describe for me the relations of production in the Soviet Union.

The fact of the matter is, Bolshevism is the highest stage of capitalism.

[Rudie]

The Soviet Union wasn't ultra-capitalist?

Please, describe for me the relations of production in the Soviet Union.

The fact of the matter is, Bolshevism is the highest stage of capitalism.

No wonder the GOP likes red!

I note I half-agree with you: the Soviet relations of production embody the real ultimate end-product of capitalism, but not the theoretical end-product.

[Zaras]

Please, describe for me the relations of production in the Soviet Union.

The state owns the means of production and tells workers what to do.

Essentially, it's no different from the capitalists owning the means of production and telling workers what to do.

[Voerdeland]

The Soviet Union wasn't ultra-capitalist?

Please, describe for me the relations of production in the Soviet Union.

The fact of the matter is, Bolshevism is the highest stage of capitalism.

No wonder the GOP likes red!

Bolshevik Republicans? That would justify calling Obama a Revolutionary Socialist! Ba-dum-tss

[Foderosovia]

It's all economy.

socialism: No free market
No free market:Injuries capitalism
Anything against capitalism: Must be defeated by any means possible.

And there goes USA invading vietnam, and there goes the nuclear holocaust fear.

[Zaras]

socialism: No free market

I prefer a system that involves worker ownership of the means of production. There's no exploitation that way.

[Jassysworth 1]

The Soviet Union wasn't ultra-capitalist?

Please, describe for me the relations of production in the Soviet Union.

The fact of the matter is, Bolshevism is the highest stage of capitalism.

Outrageous.

yes there was a lot of corruption in the USSR and concentration of wealth... BUT

But you can't call a system that demonizes free enterprise and is against individual entrepreneurship to be ultra-capitalism... Capitalism is about freedom, free market, and individualism.

Hey don't put a double standard. If you are going to use an idealized version of the label communism then you should do the same for capitalism.

USSR wasn't communist because it didn't fit the idealized theoretical version for the label of communism? Then it's not capitalist in any way either because it doesn't fit the idealized theoretical version of capitalism.

You see? ''The USSR was not communist'' is a double-edged sword...

[Souseiseki]

Capitalism is about freedom, free market, and individualism

not really tbh

[Zaras]

But you can't call a system that demonizes free enterprise and is against individual entrepreneurship to be ultra-capitalism... Capitalism is about freedom, free market, and individualism.

Wrong. Capitalism hates freedom, the free market and individualism. Capitalism only cares about profits and exploitation.

USSR wasn't communist because it didn't fit the idealized theoretical version for the label of communism?

Yes. The USSR has nothing to do with communism. It was a state with classes and no worker ownership of the means of production.

Then it's not capitalist in any way either because it doesn't fit the idealized theoretical version of capitalism.

It fits the actual reality of capitalism: workers being told what to do, blatant power imbalances between the ruling class and workers, inequality, etc.

So nyeah.

[LochNessMontropolis]

That is my primary problem with socialism. It is an insult and just wrong when the government - or anyone - can be allowed to decide what is "best for us."

You're more insulted by the fact that the government helps people than the existence of crushing poverty, inequality, people who have been financially ruined or lost their lives because of the lack of universal healthcare, unequal opportunities in education, malnutrition, and so forth.

Some fucking sociopathic priorities you have there.

First, neither profanity nor personal insults can convince anyone to accept your reasoning.

Second, some of your topics are incorrect. In America, all people are considered - under the law - to be equal, and they all are given equal access to education. As for the other topics. The Constitution of the United States, grants you the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It does not grant you the right to universal health care or financial independence.
I believe that families, friends, and your spiritual community should help support and sustain you during hard times.

[Souseiseki]

You're more insulted by the fact that the government helps people than the existence of crushing poverty, inequality, people who have been financially ruined or lost their lives because of the lack of universal healthcare, unequal opportunities in education, malnutrition, and so forth.

Some fucking sociopathic priorities you have there.

First, neither profanity nor personal insults can convince anyone to accept your reasoning.

Second, some of your topics are incorrect. In America, all people are considered - under the law - to be equal, and they all are given equal access to education. As for the other topics. The Constitution of the United States, grants you the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It does not grant you the right to universal health care or financial independence.
I believe that families, friends, and your spiritual community should help support and sustain you during hard times.

in other words charity charity charity. send cancer patients to the churches.

[LochNessMontropolis]

"People partially submit to the state's authority, and in return it looks after them when they can't look after themselves."

This is an ascension of a basic social contract.

recently the city of New York has banned large soft drinks because they were "looking after" the people's health.

Only if the soft drink is 16oz+ and served at "restaurants, mobile food carts, sports arenas and movie theaters."

Have you ever had an argument with you parents as to what you wanted to do as opposed to what THEY thought was best for you? It's the same situation, only worse, because one's parents (with some exceptions) DO care about you. An impersonal government hundreds/thousands of miles away from you do not have the same level of care. Do you REALLY want someone having that much potential personal power over you?

You describe government as impersonal but refer to it as 'someone' and describe the operation of its authority as parental. Assuming one wants parents [based solely on your positive description of parental authority, as in " because one's parents (with some exceptions) DO care about you."], then there is seemingly nothing immoral about "someone having that much potential personal power over you."

EDIT: I apologise for the pop-up ad in the link, but that's capitalism.
snigger snigger snigger snort snort chortle

You'll have to forgive my use of pronouns. The indefinite pronoun "someone" would apply to parents. The personal pronoun "it" would apply to government.
So, you would have no problem with the government telling you what you can and cannot do based solely on its belief of what is good for you?

[Souseiseki]

You're more insulted by the fact that the government helps people than the existence of crushing poverty, inequality, people who have been financially ruined or lost their lives because of the lack of universal healthcare, unequal opportunities in education, malnutrition, and so forth.

Some fucking sociopathic priorities you have there.

First, neither profanity nor personal insults can convince anyone to accept your reasoning.

Second, some of your topics are incorrect. In America, all people are considered - under the law - to be equal, and they all are given equal access to education. As for the other topics. The Constitution of the United States, grants you the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It does not grant you the right to universal health care or financial independence.
I believe that families, friends, and your spiritual community should help support and sustain you during hard times.

i like to this experiment where i tell people to go to google.com and type in "i have cancer and" and see what comes up

please do this now and report your findings

[LochNessMontropolis]

This is an ascension of a basic social contract.

Except some right-wingers think the best social contract is "I got mine, fuck you". This is not the case.

You describe government as impersonal but refer to it as 'someone' and describe the operation of its authority as parental. Assuming one wants parents [based solely on your positive description of parental authority, as in " because one's parents (with some exceptions) DO care about you."], then there is seemingly nothing immoral about "someone having that much potential personal power over you."

Plus, it's fucking stupid to compare the government to parenting. It's a metaphor that shows a lack of actual knowledge of how the government works and what it does.

Earlier, I asked for someone to explain to me what socialism has to offer, to convince me. Rudie responded, and I think you might have missed the post by Rudie, in which (s)he stated that socialism allows the government to take take of the individual when he is unable to care for himself. Are you disagreeing with Rudie's definition? If so, I'd like to hear your explanation of why socialism is good, sans the profanity.

[LochNessMontropolis]

First, neither profanity nor personal insults can convince anyone to accept your reasoning.

Second, some of your topics are incorrect. In America, all people are considered - under the law - to be equal, and they all are given equal access to education. As for the other topics. The Constitution of the United States, grants you the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It does not grant you the right to universal health care or financial independence.
I believe that families, friends, and your spiritual community should help support and sustain you during hard times.

in other words charity charity charity. send cancer patients to the churches.

Charity, welfare, government issued health care - it's all something given to you because -for whatever reasson - you couldn't provide for yourself.