Finally we agree. But if there is no answer, why do you continue to insist on a top down solution from the State, who cannot possibly have the answers? The State is just a violent monopoly that belives is has *all* the answers.

The State helps to solve the problems which are highest on my list of priorities, and is more accountable to the general public than corporations.

Anyways this system you defend is dead economically, morally and logically.

And yet, it's still very much alive.

We're gonna need fresh thinking, and now, if we are to mitigate the destruction its collapse will rain upon us, and build a more positive future in the aftermath. Not more of the same.

I'm in favour of various reforms to the system. I don't, however, want it abolished in favour of an Anarcho-Capitalist utopia.

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry

The State helps to solve the problems which are highest on my list of priorities, and is more accountable to the general public than corporations.

Wuuuuzaa?

Did you just say accountable? With a strait face? What galaxy are you from my friend? The war criminal Tony Blair would get a good kick out of what you just said, haha~

Have you considered that maybe corperations are protected by the violent umbrella of the state as are their board members who have no liability? (again because of state sanction)

And yet, it's still very much alive.

Goddammit its dead, Jim!

All that remains is the twitching corpse that the carrion birds are currently feeding on. Like I said give it a year and then we talk.

I'm in favour of various reforms to the system. I don't, however, want it abolished in favour of an Anarcho-Capitalist utopia.

Utopian is believing in the State. You cant reform the system from stealing from you and raping your future anymore than you can send a vampire to AA (guess that would be BDA) to reform his blood drinking, night slalking ways. Its the nature of the beast, my friend. I will always steal, it will always kill, and yes, it will always collapse. Thats what happens when you continue to beat people into submission to solve problems. Collapse. But youll get a front row seat soon enough.

Anyways its funny how two people can have the very same outcome in mind (social harmony) and have such vastly different opinions on how this should be achived. I pose to you that neither you, nor I have the answers..but neither does the State. Any 'solutions' it imposes, while perhaps 'fixing' the problem in the short term (kinda like a junkie), will always create two or more in the long run. These errors accumulate until they cannot be pushed further into the future and cannot be hidden any longer...and then BAM. You get the mess were in right now.

Anyways good luck in the coming collapse, and i actually do mean that in all sincerity. Its gonna be rough for us all, including my self righteous ass over here across the pond.

/good day.

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
Wuuuuzaa?

Did you just say accountable? With a strait face? What galaxy are you from my friend? The war criminal Tony Blair would get a good kick out of what you just said, haha~

There was an inquiry into the Iraq War. If there's a legitimate reason for 'War Crimes' trials, he'll be sought.

Have you considered that maybe corperations are protected by the violent umbrella of the state as are their board members who have no liability? (again because of state sanction)

Yes, and I'd like to see that reduced. I'm not sure how you think that reducing the state's regulatory powers would help matters, though. Or do corporations suddenly become benevolent once they have nobody enforcing certain standards onto them?

Goddammit its dead, Jim!

All that remains is the twitching corpse that the carrion birds are currently feeding on. Like I said give it a year and then we talk.

With your powers of foresight, perhaps you could tell me my lottery numbers too.

Utopian is believing in the State.

When a viable large scale solution which wouldn't result in the rape of the poor makes itself known, let me know.

You cant reform the system from stealing from you and raping your future

Raping my future?

yes, it will always collapse.

Prove it. Then prove that there is another system which doesn't collapse.

I pose to you that neither you, nor I have the answers..but neither does the State.

Which is why I'm not in favour of giving it total control.

Anyways good luck in the coming collapse, and i actually do mean that in all sincerity. Its gonna be rough for us all, including my self righteous ass over here across the pond.

You too.

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry

Originally posted by Neo_Serf

There was an inquiry into the Iraq War. If there's a legitimate reason for 'War Crimes' trials, he'll be sought.

If? *cough* Downing Street Memos? No he wont be sought. Worse case for him is to be passed over for EU presidency. OooOOOoOo he might not be awarded more power. I murder a co-worker and I might not get a raise.

Yes, and I'd like to see that reduced. I'm not sure how you think that reducing the state's regulatory powers would help matters, though. Or do corporations suddenly become benevolent once they have nobody enforcing certain standards onto them?

Almost no one acts benevolently! And certainly not the state! In fact one could logically expect a band of murderous theives to act distinctly malevolently! Again you trust the state, instead of your fellow man, as the final arbitor. The state is not your friend.

With your powers of foresight, perhaps you could tell me my lottery numbers too.

Cant tell you winning lotto numbers, but i can inform you that the sky is indeed blue.

When a viable large scale solution which wouldn't result in the rape of the poor makes itself known, let me know.

Its called freedom. Your pretense of concern for the poor is rebuked by your admitted desire to keep them dependant on a system that enslaves them. 'the poor slaves, perhaps if we feed them better they wont die of malnutrition quite so often!'

Raping my future?

Its called inflation. Debt. Mandatory fiat currency. Institutionalized generational poverty. You know, all the horrors your state sanctions.

Prove it. Then prove that there is another system which doesn't collapse.

Prove yours wont. Prove it isnt? Prove there is a reason to stick with the Titanic instead of searching for a life raft. Im suggesting that we dont sail through icey waters in the future. Youre insisting the band play on.

Which is why I'm not in favour of giving it total control.

It already has complete control. Your subservient attitude ensures this. Either way you have no say. What are you gonna do, vote? lol~

Re read 1984.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by Neo_Serf]

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
If? *cough* Downing Street Memos? No he wont be sought. Worse case for him is to be passed over for EU presidency. OooOOOoOo he might not be awarded more power. I murder a co-worker and I might not get a raise.

Yes, if.

Almost no one acts benevolently! And certainly not the state! In fact one could logically expect a band of murderous theives to act distinctly malevolently!

So what makes you think that there is a better system out there?

Again you trust the state, instead of your fellow man, as the final arbitor. The state is not your friend.

'The State' is my fellow man.

Its called freedom. Your pretense of concern for the poor is rebuked by your admitted desire to keep them dependant on a system that enslaves them. 'the poor slaves, perhaps if we feed them better they wont die of malnutrition quite so often!'

'Freedom' is a buzzword that gets throw around a lot by various groups, but that often means little. Describe your perfect world for me, so I can see this 'freedom'.

Prove yours wont. Prove it isnt? Prove there is a reason to stick with the Titanic instead of searching for a life raft. Im suggesting that we dont sail through icey waters in the future. Youre insisting the band play on.

I didn't say it won't. All nations and all empires will rise and fall, after all.

It already has complete control. Your subservient attitude ensures this. Either way you have no say. What are you gonna do, vote? lol~

No it doesn't.

Re read 1984.

Fun fact: Nineteen Eighty-Four was written by an ardent democratic socialist.

Also, if you honestly think we live in the world that the book describes I would have to say you probably didn't read it very well.

If I may:

On the topic of Communism, in my opinion, there is one fundamental thing that must be established:

Foremost, "In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality" (Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto).

Communism is truly equal, far more than a Capitalist society. How does a society, such as the United States, have true equality when the few control the many?

What I, personally, envision, is a society where there are not people starving; a society where there are not people on the street, left homeless; a society where there are not the wealthy few. Should that not be the ultimate goal for humanity, instead of this, presumptuous half-heartedness that is displayed nowadays?

In America today, there are two major classes. We have the capitalists, and the proletariat -- to put it in the simplest terms. The few capitalists are vastly outnumbered by the many proletariat, and yet, the capitalists wholly exploit the proletariat.

As for those who claim Communism is irrational, or is destined to fail: it is my opinion, that Communism would work, similarly to how Capitalism works. In the sense that, people do what they have to in a Capitalist society, so they would in a Communist society.

I personally do not advocate a radical change from Capitalism to Communism for the sole reason that there would be people who would rebel against the change, and thereby destine the new society for failure. I believe there has to be a gradual change, from Capitalism, to Socialism, and then onto Communism.

Communism is the goal.

I repeatedly read, and hear, people saying how Communism would not work because there would be people who would work hard, and people who would slack off, both of whom would get equal shares at the end of the day. However, this is wrong.

In a society that has made a GRADUAL change to Communism, the people's mindset has been changed completely. Today, in a Capitalist society, people work because they have to. They have to have money so that they can survive; so that they can provide for their families. That's their mindset: survive.

However, as the society progresses towards Communism, that mindset would change from having to work to survive, into a mindset where the people work because they can; where people work because they want to better society.

Communism is not about giving the poor what they don't deserve. Communism is about giving everyone what they've earned -- Communism is about bettering society as a whole. Not damning the many proletariat, as we see today in a Capitalist society.

In the words of Karl Marx, "The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains" (The Communist Manifesto, 34).

OP, you would be much better off trying to define socialism and communism without them being Marxist of necessity. not all socialists and communists are Marxists. in fact that are many ideologies within each that are quite vastly different. hell, even within the Marxist fold there are a lot of different types of Marxists (council communists, Luxembourgists, Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, Castroists, etc.). a lot of different forms of socialism and communism are actually not even considered true socialism/communism by various other types of socialists/communists (i personally think most forms of Marxism more closely resemble fascist dictatorships than actual socialist ideologies). there is only one general attribute that can describe all forms of socialism, of which communism is a type that can also be described accurately in a very brief description:

socialism - workers' control over the means of production.
communism - a form of socialism that is based on the principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

it is as simple as that. so basically, there are two stipulations for an ideology to be communist. it must first fit the definition of socialism, and then fit the definition of communism. if it meets both criteria, everything else is extraneous and based on that person's personal ideology.