Left-Wing Discussion Thread II: Behind 700,000 Bunkers

[Genivaria]

The last time there was almost absolute freedom in the market (in America) there was slavery galore.

Free markets aren't free.

Slavery goes against free market ideals. Using that as a historical backdrop does not discredit the idea that the free market can lift millions out of poverty like in South Korea and Singapore.

And yet the Atlantic Slave Trade arguably BEGAN capitalism with it's importation of large numbers of manual laborers.

[Torrocca]

The last time there was almost absolute freedom in the market (in America) there was slavery galore.

Free markets aren't free.

Slavery goes against free market ideals. Using that as a historical backdrop does not discredit the idea that the free market can lift millions out of poverty like in South Korea and Singapore.

Mate, are you ignorant of what the free market is in practice? Because it's sure as fuck not some angel lifting millions out of poverty.

Again, it basically creates feudalism.

Again, if he believed in doing that, he wouldn't have A) seized power for himself, B) murdered millions, C) not dismantled the state despite communism calling for the dismantling of the state and D) left the classes in the Soviet Union standing.

As for the shortcomings, there's a wide variety of reasons unique to each situation that'd be too long to go into vast detail for.

He was power-hungry, sure, as were Mao and others, but that doesn't negate the fact they genuinely believed in creating Communist societies. Stalin didn't just embark on a program of rapid industrialization because he liked working people to death.

As for your answer, that's rather unsatisfactory. Socialism has clearly shown that it cannot produce a stable system, and the few times it does, you don't believe it's truly Socialism. Hence, why is this ideology not inherently bankrupt and unachievable?

Like hell they genuinely believed in Communism.

It's not unachievable, it just needs the right conditions and popular support to be properly achieved. Hence, it has had neither throughout history for proper achievement.

[Australias (Ancient)]

Slavery goes against free market ideals. Using that as a historical backdrop does not discredit the idea that the free market can lift millions out of poverty like in South Korea and Singapore.

And yet the Atlantic Slave Trade arguably BEGAN capitalism with it's importation of large numbers of manual laborers.

The definition of the free market has changed since the 19th century.

[Genivaria]

And yet the Atlantic Slave Trade arguably BEGAN capitalism with it's importation of large numbers of manual laborers.

The definition of the free market has changed since the 19th century.

Taking Moving Goalposts to a new level.

[The Widening Gyre]

The last time there was almost absolute freedom in the market (in America) there was slavery galore.

Free markets aren't free.

Slavery goes against free market ideals. Using that as a historical backdrop does not discredit the idea that the free market can lift millions out of poverty like in South Korea and Singapore.

Somewhat ironic examples considering that both countries' largest trading partners in the last 50 years was communist China, and without whom they probably wouldn't be where they are today.

[Torrocca]

And yet the Atlantic Slave Trade arguably BEGAN capitalism with it's importation of large numbers of manual laborers.

The definition of the free market has changed since the 19th century.

And yet that does not change what the free market is in practice. A hierarchical structure that demands someone be on top is not a free system.

[Genivaria]

Slavery goes against free market ideals. Using that as a historical backdrop does not discredit the idea that the free market can lift millions out of poverty like in South Korea and Singapore.

Somewhat ironic examples considering that both countries' largest trading partners in the last 50 years was communist China, and without whom they probably wouldn't be where they are today.

I think it is far more fair to say that while capitalism CAN encourage democracy and vice-versa they are not inherently linked.
It is also true that slavery CAN be compatible with capitalism and yet a capitalist system can do without it.

[Australias (Ancient)]

Slavery goes against free market ideals. Using that as a historical backdrop does not discredit the idea that the free market can lift millions out of poverty like in South Korea and Singapore.

Mate, are you ignorant of what the free market is in practice? Because it's sure as fuck not some angel lifting millions out of poverty.

Again, it basically creates feudalism.

He was power-hungry, sure, as were Mao and others, but that doesn't negate the fact they genuinely believed in creating Communist societies. Stalin didn't just embark on a program of rapid industrialization because he liked working people to death.

As for your answer, that's rather unsatisfactory. Socialism has clearly shown that it cannot produce a stable system, and the few times it does, you don't believe it's truly Socialism. Hence, why is this ideology not inherently bankrupt and unachievable?

Like hell they genuinely believed in Communism.

It's not unachievable, it just needs the right conditions and popular support to be properly achieved. Hence, it has had neither throughout history for proper achievement.

All I see is national development and the building of the economy in my nation not poverty. If there was mass poverty we would see mass rebellion like in the USSR. What are those conditions for communism to arise? Do they even exist? It's not feudalism because you can rise and fall due to good and bad ideas. Tell that to Dick Smith's face.

[United Muscovite Nations]

http://i.imgur.com/L20UL6i.jpg

This is great.

[Torrocca]

Mate, are you ignorant of what the free market is in practice? Because it's sure as fuck not some angel lifting millions out of poverty.

Again, it basically creates feudalism.



Like hell they genuinely believed in Communism.

It's not unachievable, it just needs the right conditions and popular support to be properly achieved. Hence, it has had neither throughout history for proper achievement.

All I see is national development and the building of the economy in my nation not poverty. If there was mass poverty we would see mass rebellion like in the USSR. What are those conditions for communism to arise? Do they even exist?

That's simply because you refuse to open your eyes to the truth and instead look up toward the rich folk.

[Australias (Ancient)]

All I see is national development and the building of the economy in my nation not poverty. If there was mass poverty we would see mass rebellion like in the USSR. What are those conditions for communism to arise? Do they even exist?

That's simply because you refuse to open your eyes to the truth and instead look up toward the rich folk.

Maybe because it's the truth. Look at google or Dick Smith or the designers of league of legends or Minecraft. They are rich because of capitalism. If you spent all the time you are whinging on a forum about capitalism into developing a good product and business you could be rich too.

[Genivaria]

All I see is national development and the building of the economy in my nation not poverty. If there was mass poverty we would see mass rebellion like in the USSR. What are those conditions for communism to arise? Do they even exist?

That's simply because you refuse to open your eyes to the truth and instead look up toward the rich folk.

*rubs eyes* This is hardly a constructive statement, in fact it stinks of strawmanning.

[Valgora]

That's simply because you refuse to open your eyes to the truth and instead look up toward the rich folk.

Maybe because it's the truth. Look at google or Dick Smith or the designers of league of legends or Minecraft. They are rich because of capitalism.

Look at all the workers who built everything.
Did they get rich because of capitalism? Clearly no.

[The Widening Gyre]

Somewhat ironic examples considering that both countries' largest trading partners in the last 50 years was communist China, and without whom they probably wouldn't be where they are today.

I think it is far more fair to say that while capitalism CAN encourage democracy and vice-versa they are not inherently linked.
It is also true that slavery CAN be compatible with capitalism and yet a capitalist system can do without it.

Certainly. Britain, for example, was an industrial/capitalist powerhouse and it only granted universal suffrage to all men in 1918.

[Australias (Ancient)]

Slavery goes against free market ideals. Using that as a historical backdrop does not discredit the idea that the free market can lift millions out of poverty like in South Korea and Singapore.

Somewhat ironic examples considering that both countries' largest trading partners in the last 50 years was communist China, and without whom they probably wouldn't be where they are today.

China is now capitalist.

[Genivaria]

That's simply because you refuse to open your eyes to the truth and instead look up toward the rich folk.

Maybe because it's the truth. Look at google or Dick Smith or the designers of league of legends or Minecraft. They are rich because of capitalism. If you spent all the time you are whinging on a forum about capitalism into developing a good product and business you could be rich too.

It's rather inspiring when you think about how being a big-time entrepreneur is no longer restricted to big factory owners.

[Genivaria]

Somewhat ironic examples considering that both countries' largest trading partners in the last 50 years was communist China, and without whom they probably wouldn't be where they are today.

China is now capitalist.

That is an utterly ridiculous statement.
While they don't run a planned economy like the Soviet Union did they certainly don't follow free market principles.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

That's simply because you refuse to open your eyes to the truth and instead look up toward the rich folk.

>state that someone is blind and refuses to open their eyes

Holy shit, the amount of bullshit in this statement actually causes some to go blind.

[Genivaria]

Maybe because it's the truth. Look at google or Dick Smith or the designers of league of legends or Minecraft. They are rich because of capitalism.

Look at all the workers who built everything.
Did they get rich because of capitalism? Clearly no.

Capitalism creates wealth, but the creation of that wealth is rarely even.

[Kubra]

Mate, are you ignorant of what the free market is in practice? Because it's sure as fuck not some angel lifting millions out of poverty.

Again, it basically creates feudalism.



Like hell they genuinely believed in Communism.

It's not unachievable, it just needs the right conditions and popular support to be properly achieved. Hence, it has had neither throughout history for proper achievement.

All I see is national development and the building of the economy in my nation not poverty. If there was mass poverty we would see mass rebellion like in the USSR. What are those conditions for communism to arise? Do they even exist? It's not feudalism because you can rise and fall due to good and bad ideas. Tell that to Dick Smith's face.

What were the conditions in which the Soviet Union came to be
What were the conditions in which it ceased to exist
you sorta have your answer there, don't you?

[Torrocca]

That's simply because you refuse to open your eyes to the truth and instead look up toward the rich folk.

Maybe because it's the truth. Look at google or Dick Smith or the designers of league of legends or Minecraft. They are rich because of capitalism. If you spent all the time you are whinging on a forum about capitalism into developing a good product and business you could be rich too.

And what about the millions of factory workers, or farmers, or other laborers? Surely, going off your nuanced examples, they'd be getting rich too from the product they create, no?

Except they don't, because again, capitalism demands a hierarchy and, as such, an oppressed class - the workers.

[Australias (Ancient)]

Maybe because it's the truth. Look at google or Dick Smith or the designers of league of legends or Minecraft. They are rich because of capitalism.

Look at all the workers who built everything.
Did they get rich because of capitalism? Clearly no.

Should toilet cleaners earn as much as managers? No. Rich people are usually people who work harder and are usually more intelligent, the jobs rich people have usually require a lot of intelligence.

[Valgora]

Look at all the workers who built everything.
Did they get rich because of capitalism? Clearly no.

Capitalism creates wealth, but the creation of that wealth is rarely even.

The ones who do little work get rich from forcing people to make things, while the workers get fuck all.

[Genivaria]

All I see is national development and the building of the economy in my nation not poverty. If there was mass poverty we would see mass rebellion like in the USSR. What are those conditions for communism to arise? Do they even exist? It's not feudalism because you can rise and fall due to good and bad ideas. Tell that to Dick Smith's face.

What were the conditions in which the Soviet Union came to be
What were the conditions in which it ceased to exist
you sorta have your answer there, don't you?

War, hunger, famine, rioting, and an oppressive government.
Slow liberalization culminating in the Soviet Republics voting themselves out of the Union.

[The Widening Gyre]

Somewhat ironic examples considering that both countries' largest trading partners in the last 50 years was communist China, and without whom they probably wouldn't be where they are today.

China is now capitalist.

In the last 50 years. Taking at face value the idea that China is not communist now (which is not the same thing as being capitalist), are you seriously going to argue that Chairman Mao himself was a capitalist?