The Thread Formerly Known As Communism Will Save The World

[Grand Proudhonia]

No.

Ok, well that is still an awesome quote she coined.

No, it really isnt because what she is doing is equating socialism to government welfare programs rather than the actual redistribution of wealth and land... its a false equivalency

[Greater Miami Shores and La Habana Cuba]

Ok, well that is still an awesome quote she coined.

Its also not representative of socialism.

I don't understand I know that, I thought you were on my side, trying to back me up, if so thank you, you are an Iron Fist consumerist, or did I miss something?

[Grand Proudhonia]

Its also not representative of socialism.

I don't understand I know that, I thought you were on my side, trying to back me up, if so thank you, you are an Iron Fist consumerist, or did I miss something?

Implying ns stats applies to the real world ideology of the player

[Greater Miami Shores and La Habana Cuba]

I don't understand I know that, I thought you were on my side, trying to back me up, if so thank you, you are an Iron Fist consumerist, or did I miss something?

Implying ns stats applies to the real world ideology of the player

No with all this quick back and forth and his post to Batorys, I thought he was a fellow Conservative Republican or economic Libertarian trying to back me up, or did I miss something?

[Grand Proudhonia]

Implying ns stats applies to the real world ideology of the player

No with all this quick back and forth and his post to Batorys, I thought he was a fellow Conservative Republican or economic Libertarian trying to back me up, or did I miss something?

He was clarifying a point, I dont know what he is... but the end all be all is that Thatcher was a tyrannical piece of shit who couldn't figure out the difference between socialism and public welfare

[Greater Miami Shores and La Habana Cuba]

No with all this quick back and forth and his post to Batorys, I thought he was a fellow Conservative Republican or economic Libertarian trying to back me up, or did I miss something?

He was clarifying a point, I dont know what he is... but the end all be all is that Thatcher was a tyrannical piece of shit who couldn't figure out the difference between socialism and public welfare

Sorry to hear that from you, we strongly disagree.

[Diarcesia]

And they say private gun ownership is unnecesary...

Oh it is necessary, how are we supposed to bring about the revolution without arms?

Ask Abaddon the Despoiler

[Latvijas Otra Republika]

Maggie Thatcher the Iron Lady of Britain who made Britain Great Again:
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money. Margaret Thatcher.

My question is - is this what you kind of mean?

Redistribution of land and wealth doesn't work like that.... Soon after land and wealth is divided, the production of new wealth and products will begin but now in the hands of the many instead of the hands of the few....

Maybe in the world of lala-Philosophy-Arts degrees it works like that, but if you've had a few lines in the family that had to work in Kolhoz management then you'd realise you get more of a national black market rather than 'proletariat empowerment'. These things run at a literal loss.

[Nakena]

No with all this quick back and forth and his post to Batorys, I thought he was a fellow Conservative Republican or economic Libertarian trying to back me up, or did I miss something?

He was clarifying a point, I dont know what he is... but the end all be all is that Thatcher was a tyrannical piece of shit who couldn't figure out the difference between socialism and public welfare

Or didn want to or cared to do so.

[Diarcesia]

He was clarifying a point, I dont know what he is... but the end all be all is that Thatcher was a tyrannical piece of shit who couldn't figure out the difference between socialism and public welfare

Or didn want to or cared to do so.

Doing away with human greed will save the world from a lot of problems, regardless of ideology.

[Neko-koku]

Or didn want to or cared to do so.

Doing away with human greed will save the world from a lot of problems, regardless of ideology.

LOL nope.

[Grand Proudhonia]

Redistribution of land and wealth doesn't work like that.... Soon after land and wealth is divided, the production of new wealth and products will begin but now in the hands of the many instead of the hands of the few....

Maybe in the world of lala-Philosophy-Arts degrees it works like that, but if you've had a few lines in the family that had to work in Kolhoz management then you'd realise you get more of a national black market rather than 'proletariat empowerment'. These things run at a literal loss.

Don't get me wrong, the soviet and chinese systems of planned economies were extremely shit and definitely ran at a loss but the redistribution of land that im referring to results in cooperative farms that operate within a competitive free market systems (I know, it seems like the words "redistribution" and "markets" cant exist together but they can)... The existence of market structures pretty much answers all the downfalls of planned collectivist farms... A good example of these are Israeli Kibbutz and, non agricultural but still, the Mondragon Corporation in Spain... Also I am currently an economics major so your dig doesn't really apply to me, I know how this stuff works to a decent degree.

[Grand Proudhonia]

He was clarifying a point, I dont know what he is... but the end all be all is that Thatcher was a tyrannical piece of shit who couldn't figure out the difference between socialism and public welfare

Or didn want to or cared to do so.

Doesnt really put her in any better of a light so

[Nakena]

Or didn want to or cared to do so.

Doesnt really put her in any better of a light so

I believe her legacy is commonly loathed and disliked in UK as is that of Tony Blair who did pretty much continued her policies but from a different angle.

[Greater Miami Shores and La Habana Cuba]

True Democratic Communist Socialism or whatever you want to call it, on paper sounds like the nicest, greatest thing in the world that should be, but the problem is when the People so called owns all the land and all the means of production, it is actually the state that owns it, or anyways when the People so called owns all the land and all the means of production collectively, their cant be any opposition to anything, therefore the system creates an automatic dictatorship, which top greedy leaders take advantage of it.

I say so called because their are persons who would never agree to collective ownership of everything or most things, it is called independent human natures, we are all actually independents, ok to be fair some aren't, but most are.

[Strahcoin]

"Western Imperialism" has actually lifted people in other nations out of poverty, even though it may have some flaws. That's why Hong Kong became relatively wealthy compared to the rest of China when the British colonized it.

Western Imperialism sure has helped Africa amirite?

Well, there was the establishment of industrialization, education, and the reduction of slavery...

As I have said, Western Imperialism is far from perfect (I am well aware of the Philippine-American War), but to imply that it is outright immoral is to imply that the expansion of the American ideals of liberty and markets does no good for the people.

My mistake, but my point still stands.

If you thought Iran was communist, you quite frankly don't know enough to comment on this in any credible fashion.

Ad hominem.

Here is a bit of real history for you lot think that capitalism is the best option.

Brazil is world's top producer of coffee alright? back in 1930's Brazil had a exceptionally good harvest of coffee beans, at least 80% more goods than the anticipated, you'd think this is fine, more stuff to sell right? but no, in the eye of capitalism, having high quantities of a goods would drop its price, combined with post great depression, Coffee prices dropped so low that they weren't going to make a profit out of it.

So to combat this, they decided burn the coffee to raise the prices up, using it to fuel the locomotives (this continued on until 1960's) dump it into the ocean, that year, Brazil had got rid of 78 million bags of stockpiled coffee.

And, the prices did go up, the coffee got rarer, rare goods are pricier right? makes sense right? they didn't make the profit they would've liked, but at the very least they made the money they had predicted before the exceptional harvest of that year, but alas, millions of worth of coffee beans are just plain gone, wasted, why? because capitalism said so.

Yep. Under capitalism, surpluses of goods are bad because they lower demand and therefore the price of sale.

While it's true that a monopoly or big corporation may reduce the supply of its goods (or give the illusion of such) to raise demand and therefore prices, a free-market capitalist economy (which I support) will increase the chances of competing businesses (with lower prices) being opened when such causes the dissatisfaction of the consumers. When there are sufficient competitors, it would be in the interest of the businesses to increase supply and innovate new products.

A better solution is social democracy which is political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist mixed economy. Which is in fact so much better than communism.

While a social democracy would be better than a communist state (Norway and Sweden are still doing okay, especially when compared to the Soviet Union/Communist China/Cuba/Venezuela), it would be inferior to a free-market capitalist nation (the United States of America is doing better in innovation, military strength, healthcare, etc.).

Maggie Thatcher the Iron Lady of Britain who made Britain Great Again:
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money. Margaret Thatcher.

My question is - is this what you kind of mean?

Redistribution of land and wealth doesn't work like that.... Soon after land and wealth is divided, the production of new wealth and products will begin but now in the hands of the many instead of the hands of the few....

Actually, the incentive to produce will be destroyed, for everyone would be paid equally, anyways. This leads (and has led) to famines, and the state would need to either switch to a more market-based economy (if it wants to stop starving) or install a dictatorship (if it doesn't want to admit it was wrong about communism... again).

[Grand Proudhonia]

True Democratic Communist Socialism or whatever you want to call it, on paper sounds like the nicest, greatest thing in the world that should be, but the problem is when the People so called owns all the land and all the means of production, it is actually the state that owns it, or anyways when the People so called owns all the land and all the means of production collectively, their cant be any opposition to anything, therefore the system creates an automatic dictatorship, which top greedy leaders take advantage of it.

I say so called because their are persons who would never agree to collective ownership of everything or most things, it is called independent human natures, we are all actually independents, ok to be fair some aren't, but most are.

I am not arguing for a state, I literally want to abolish the state... lmao but yes, you are correct... State controlled planned economies do not work effectively but you can have redistribution and a market economy ala mutualism and market socialism... Also fuck out of here with that human nature bullshit... Mankind does not have an inherent nature and can be molded into anything we like thanks to our intellegence, we are extremely independent and collectivist at the same time... Human nature is not some black and white ordeal

[Grand Proudhonia]

actually, the incentive to produce will be destroyed, for everyone would be paid equally, anyways. This leads (and has led) to famines, and the state would need to either switch to a more market-based economy (if it wants to stop starving) or install a dictatorship (if it doesn't want to admit it was wrong about communism... again).

I will never tire of explaining this lol

see below

Don't get me wrong, the soviet and chinese systems of planned economies were extremely shit and definitely ran at a loss but the redistribution of land that im referring to results in cooperative farms that operate within a competitive free market systems (I know, it seems like the words "redistribution" and "markets" cant exist together but they can)... The existence of market structures pretty much answers all the downfalls of planned collectivist farms... A good example of these are Israeli Kibbutz and, non agricultural but still, the Mondragon Corporation in Spain... Also I am currently an economics major so your dig doesn't really apply to me, I know how this stuff works to a decent degree.

These cooperatives operating within market systems retain the competitive nature of capitalism which gives people a reason to produce as to create higher wages for all individuals of the cooperative... Also, im literally arguing against the state... I want to abolish it (for the 50th time)

[Rojava Free State]

Western Imperialism sure has helped Africa amirite?

Well, there was the establishment of industrialization, education, and the reduction of slavery...

As I have said, Western Imperialism is far from perfect (I am well aware of the Philippine-American War), but to imply that it is outright immoral is to imply that the expansion of the American ideals of liberty and markets does no good for the people.

Imperialism is inherently anti liberty. You're basically taking people over and ruling them without consent, which goes against our supposed beliefs. Also friendly reminder that next to no one asked to be colonized. They didn't ask to be made advanced and based on the amount of nomadic tribes in existence in the present, many people have seen what we have to offer and decided they don't want it. No reason to force it on them.

[Grand Proudhonia]

Well, there was the establishment of industrialization, education, and the reduction of slavery...

As I have said, Western Imperialism is far from perfect (I am well aware of the Philippine-American War), but to imply that it is outright immoral is to imply that the expansion of the American ideals of liberty and markets does no good for the people.

Imperialism is inherently anti liberty. You're basically taking people over and ruling them without consent, which goes against our supposed beliefs. Also friendly reminder that next to no one asked to be colonized. They didn't ask to be made advanced and based on the amount of nomadic tribes in existence in the present, many people have seen what we have to offer and decided they don't want it. No reason to force it on them.

Friendly reminder that Africa was pretty good at creating European like empires and nation states before colonialism happened (ala Mali)

[Greater Miami Shores and La Habana Cuba]

True Democratic Communist Socialism or whatever you want to call it, on paper sounds like the nicest, greatest thing in the world that should be, but the problem is when the People so called owns all the land and all the means of production, it is actually the state that owns it, or anyways when the People so called owns all the land and all the means of production collectively, their cant be any opposition to anything, therefore the system creates an automatic dictatorship, which top greedy leaders take advantage of it.

I say so called because their are persons who would never agree to collective ownership of everything or most things, it is called independent human natures, we are all actually independents, ok to be fair some aren't, but most are.

I am not arguing for a state, I literally want to abolish the state... lmao but yes, you are correct... State controlled planned economies do not work effectively but you can have redistribution and a market economy ala mutualism and market socialism... Also fuck out of here with that human nature bullshit... Mankind does not have an inherent nature and can be molded into anything we like thanks to our intellegence, we are extremely independent and collectivist at the same time... Human nature is not some black and white ordeal

Ok were cool, at least you give me some credits somewhere, I will study your economic, political and social views and of the others as well, when I have more time to learn your views, nothing bad, just to learn your views.

I am going back to my RP thread on the Factbook forum, where I RP with myself with my other nations 99 percent of the time or in content, lol, over and out for now or so, Peace.

GMS LHC Crazy Cuban Alberto, they don't call me Crazy Cuban Alberto for nothing, and I don't call me Crazy Cuban Alberto for nothing lol.

[Diarcesia]

As I have said, Western Imperialism is far from perfect (I am well aware of the Philippine-American War), but to imply that it is outright immoral is to imply that the expansion of the American ideals of liberty and markets does no good for the people.

If we play the "how it turned out in reality" game, even if the colonized wants to adopt the colonizer's ways, his birth circumstances ensure that he'll never truly belong. It's mostly, if not all, in the Westerner's benefit.

[Rojava Free State]

Imperialism is inherently anti liberty. You're basically taking people over and ruling them without consent, which goes against our supposed beliefs. Also friendly reminder that next to no one asked to be colonized. They didn't ask to be made advanced and based on the amount of nomadic tribes in existence in the present, many people have seen what we have to offer and decided they don't want it. No reason to force it on them.

Friendly reminder that Africa was pretty good at creating European like empires and nation states before colonialism happened (ala Mali)

I was thinking Ethiopia

[Grand Proudhonia]

Friendly reminder that Africa was pretty good at creating European like empires and nation states before colonialism happened (ala Mali)

I was thinking Ethiopia

I like using the Mali example seeing as it literally fostered the richest king to ever exist.... Europeans aint got shit on Musa The First

[Rojava Free State]

I was thinking Ethiopia

I like using the Mali example seeing as it literally fostered the richest king to ever exist

I remember him. He was so rich that he travelled to other countries in North Africa and the middle East to show off his wealth