| slab_of_bacon said: First thing I ask people is: Do you like your roads, schools, and hospitals?........................ Some words are used to fuel an agenda and there are so many other things at play. |
Not really, they are all of poor quality and terribly inefficient. Let the market handle them.
| Vincoletto said: The most important thing in this discussion is make people believe or accept that all prior failed attepmts such ad ussr, north korea, cuba, venezuela etc were not actually socialist. Therefore they cannot be used as examples of failure which opens the opportunity to convince people to try it again. This time as real socialism. This time I guarantee will work. If fail we find some excuse or blame america. |
If we only just give it a chance just one more time it might work! The 1000th time is the charm! /s
Yes exactly this, you could name off dozens of attempts at creating a socialist / communist society in all parts of the world, at different times, different cultures all trying their hardest and they will still say none of them were the "real" socialists.
Leadified said:
Sure,the anarchists in Catalonia were running their democratic experiment during the Spanish Civil War. The Soviet Union got it's name from the elected soviets that only lasted a short while before the Supreme Soviet continued to centralize power. Practically every socialist regime has attempted at least in the beginning some form of democracy. Did those systems fail? Yes but that is irrelevant. Capitalism started off in the absolute monarchies of Europe and it took hundreds of years before capitalism in a representative democracy became the norm and even longer until citizens had universal rights. |
"Capitalism started off in the absolute monarchies of Europe"
the definition of "capitalism" : an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
were the people in those monarchies allowed to own businesses? no? so why are you calling them capitalist?
sc94597 said:
Who mentioned that everybody would own everything under socialism? Socialism merely is the premise that the workers in associated labor should control the productive capital which they use to perform that labor. People could and would still take planned risks because there are still rewards achieved by reducing the costs of production. It just so happens that you can only profit under socialism by actually reducing costs rather than externalizing them on to others. There are also many ways people can be motivated to achieve something without financial profit. |
" People could and would still take planned risks because there are still rewards achieved by reducing the costs of production. It just so happens that you can only profit under socialism by actually reducing costs rather than externalizing them on to others. "
this is probably the most dangerous and delusional thing i've seen in this thread because it shows a complete lack of understanding for how innovation and development of new ideas works
the reason why things progress is that people come up with different ways to do things THAT HAVE NOT BEEN DISCOVERED YET
YOU CANNOT RESTRICT THIS THROUGH PLANNING
lets take an example, lets say for instance we went with your idea and before smart touchscreen phones were popularised by the iphone, we just decided that the old touchpad phones were the pinnacle of phone technology and we just iterated on that
we would have lost so much progress just in the last decade as a result
o_O.Q said:
"Capitalism started off in the absolute monarchies of Europe"
the definition of "capitalism" : an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
were the people in those monarchies allowed to own businesses? no? so why are you calling them capitalist? |
I did not call absolute monarchies "capitalist", I said that capitalism began in absolute monarchies. Here is an article about the birth of capitalism in Europe by FEE, a libertatian think tank.
https://fee.org/articles/how-medieval-towns-paved-the-way-for-capitalism/
Leadified said:
I did not call absolute monarchies "capitalist", I said that capitalism began in absolute monarchies. Here is an article about the birth of capitalism in Europe by FEE, a libertatian think tank. https://fee.org/articles/how-medieval-towns-paved-the-way-for-capitalism/ |
the way you have your argument framed gives the impression that there's some type of link between how the monarchies worked and how capitalism works
when really its the opposite and the monarchies were socialist in nature
this is the point where someone then says "no no no socialism is when the means of production are distributed across the people of a society"
to get this out of the way now... that's why we have government to distribute resources across a community
with regards to the monarchies the monarchs were the ones distributing the wealth
i just don't understand how people can have things that are so obvious completely confused
sc94597 said:
Because its capitalism, and does not systematically oppose absolutist institutions in the economy. Socialism isn't merely about being "social" it's about having full compensation for all workers for the work they've completed. It's about destroying fundamental inequalities built into the norms of the system which make people dependent on welfare and the capitalist state in the first place. It's about obtaining as much autonomy, power, and control over your work-life and conditions as is possible. It's always been about these things. Capitalism =|= competition nor does it equal stability. It is a system based on monopoly, hierarchy, and power. Some forms of capitalism are more stable than others, but at the end of the day there is still tons of instability. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/exploited to utilize, especially for profit; turn to practical account: One does not have to feel exploited to be exploited. The existence of exploitation is an objective observation, not a whim. Your employer reaps profits off your work which could've gone to you and your peers instead. The only thing your employer brings into the equation which can't be brought by you and your peers is capital, and the employer earns disproportionate profits because of it. Do you deny that capitalists make profits off their laborers? Exploitation isn't the same thing as being an asshole. Perfectly good people exploit others. Your trust in the finality of the state seems like a misplaced fixed idea. How spooky. States can change very rapidly as sociopolitical conditions change, and when they do, they likely won't have your "back at all times." The world isn't some static entity with fixed social dynamics, and there are strong pressures on the stability of states. For example, demographic problems are hitting Europe and Asia pretty hard, and we're only now seeing how flexible the social institutions found in these countries are to these pressures. All states eventually come to an end, and when they do who is going to foot the costs? Definitely not those at the top of the hierarchy.
|
"Socialism isn't merely about being "social" it's about having full compensation for all workers for the work they've completed."
and how do you achieve this without government involvement since you claim that government is violence and oppression?
"It's about destroying fundamental inequalities built into the norms of the system"
well.. people are fundamentally inequal... that's just a fact of life
how do you plan to address the inequality that comes about as a result of the natural differences between people?
will there be great sports stars like lebron james in your world for example?
"It's about obtaining as much autonomy, power, and control over your work-life and conditions as is possible. "
you do that by being a capitalist and creating a business, not by tearing down the protections that we have in place for people to create businesses
". The only thing your employer brings into the equation which can't be brought by you and your peers is capital"
no not true at all, business owners have to come up with a competitive idea, a way to market that idea, ways to supply their customers, ways to compete against rival etc etc etc
you really believe for example that i can a server from mcdonalds, throw the CEO of a bridge and have that server run the whole company?
"Your employer reaps profits off your work which could've gone to you and your peers instead."
no... if your employer didn't have their business.. you wouldn't have a job
"Do you deny that capitalists make profits off their laborers?"
of course they do... that's their primary motivation generally for creating the business... otherwise they just wouldn't do it and you wouldn't be able to sit there on your computer and use the internet
" All states eventually come to an end, and when they do who is going to foot the costs? Definitely not those at the top of the hierarchy. "
what is this suppose to mean exactly?
o_O.Q said:
the way you have your argument framed gives the impression that there's some type of link between how the monarchies worked and how capitalism works when really its the opposite and the monarchies were socialist in nature this is the point where someone then says "no no no socialism is when the means of production are distributed across the people of a society" to get this out of the way now... that's why we have government to distribute resources across a community with regards to the monarchies the monarchs were the ones distributing the wealth i just don't understand how people can have things that are so obvious completely confused |
Redistribution =/= socialism.
Sorry but I'm not going to have a discussion with someone who believes that feudal monarchies were socialist. This is an educational thread so I recommend you check out the links in the OP and I recommend also reading sc94597's posts to get a better idea about what socialism is.
Vincoletto said:
Dont even need to read the article to know it is a joke and left media propaganda. But I will just say is misinformation. MST are closer to terrorists than any worker movement. Paid and financed by the former socialist government (ruled by a terrorist president) with money from the tax I pay. |
Did you read my OP?
Leadified said:
Redistribution =/= socialism. Sorry but I'm not going to have a discussion with someone who believes that feudal monarchies were socialist. This is an educational thread so I recommend you check out the links in the OP and I recommend also reading sc94597's posts to get a better idea about what socialism is. |
"Redistribution =/= socialism."
" I recommend also reading sc94597's posts to get a better idea about what socialism "
this is a direct quote
""Your employer reaps profits off your work which could've gone to you and your peers instead."... that's not redistribution?
"Sorry but I'm not going to have a discussion with someone who believes that feudal monarchies were socialist"
how do you plan to achieve the aims of socialism without a government or some centralised power? that's what i want to know, whenever i ask people run like if i'm waving a gun around
i also find it interesting how some of the people talking about socialism have also declared their support for communism while claiming that communism and socialism lie at opposite ends of the political spectrum
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
