Teachers Flock to Northwestern University for 'Marxist Conference'

Originally posted by ANOK
Socialism is not about treating each other equally. It is a system that reduces the chance for people to exploit you. It's silly to base an argument against socialism on the idea that people can't be equal. And your answer to keep a system that is based on inequality is highly ironic.

But you're wrong, most people do want to treat each other equally and ethically, but we have a system that encourages corruption. If people have what they need to live and enjoy life, without having to exploit someone to get it, then people will change. You can't claim we are naturally that way because we are not, we are a product of our environment.

edit on 11/13/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

No, we don't have a "System that encourages corruption" - we have human beings that by their very nature will make every effort to exploit others for their gain. Socialism ALWAYS becomes Communism (In the modern sense). Ask the Chinese, the Cubans or any other citizen in a Communist country how great they have it.

I think you are completely naïve to believe otherwise!

Originally posted by kozmo
No, we don't have a "System that encourages corruption" - we have human beings that by their very nature will make every effort to exploit others for their gain. Socialism ALWAYS becomes Communism (In the modern sense). Ask the Chinese, the Cubans or any other citizen in a Communist country how great they have it.

I think you are completely naïve to believe otherwise!

Hmm first off socialism and communism are the same thing, just different movement for the same thing, worker ownership.

China, Cuba etc., were not communist. They had state-capitalism, private ownership of the means of production by the state, or members of the government. Nationalism is the ownership of the means of production by the state on behalf of the people. Socialism/communism is the workers ownership of the means of production, state or stateless. This has already been explained in this thread, let's not start going around in circles forcing me to keep repeating what I've already said, my time is previous thank you.

Capitalism does encourage corruption because we are forced to compete with each other for resources. It allows corruption because wealthy people can manipulate the system to their benefit. It's the wealth made by exploiting labour that gives them the financial power to manipulate the system to their benefit. Capitalism is corrupt by it's very nature.

If you can't see how corrupt capitalism is you are too naive to discus this. Go look at China and tell me capitalism is not a corrupt system that just uses people to make a minority rich.

Apple, Foxconn Scandal Highlights Exploitation Of Chinese Workers By Foreign Firms

What happened in Russia, China etc., is not what communist/socialists wanted, those governments simply appropriated socialist terms in order to gain support in order to take state power, not to actually implement a socialist economy. it doesn't matter what the government calls itself socialism is an economic system, and if the workers do not own the means of production it is not a socialist/communist economy.

Don't make assumptions, go read a few books on the subject because you are the one who is naive mate.

Originally posted by TheAngryFarm
I think anyone who supports socialism, marxism, or communism should be treated like the virus they are and eradicated.

They are a danger to the lives, liberties, and well being of others.

Well aren't you quite hateful....

But if I had your type of genocidal mindset, it is more than clear that capitalism is the system causing billions to starve, be sex slaves, be wage slaves working in sweat shops, have limited freedoms based on monetary status, die of disease, and become dependent on corporations and other private entities to stay alive.

Capitalists are the danger to the lives, liberties, and well being of others.

Originally posted by Trustfund

Originally posted by TheAngryFarm
I think anyone who supports socialism, marxism, or communism should be treated like the virus they are and eradicated.

They are a danger to the lives, liberties, and well being of others.

I missed this little gem, thanx for quoting it.

This just proves who has the authoritarian mindset and wants to control what people think. I don't think I even hate capitalists with that much venom. It shows who has the violent tendencies. Actually I don't even hate capitalists, they are as much victims of their own system as the rest of us are. People can change when shown the right direction. Maybe not The Angry Farmer lol. Angry lol? Anyway hate the system, love the people, even angry farmers...

Originally posted by mark1167
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

Oh a douche bag with the first post having a hard time understanding that socialism doesn't work. Never has and never will and all I see is a bunch of arrogant kool aid drinking dummies who think they can change the world by controlling everyone else. Pretty pathetic.

Socialism doesn't work? Well you had better call Sweden and Norway and tell them that their society has really been a flaming mess for the past few decades.

People, ignorant people mind you, conflate Socialism and Communism as well as Communism with Stalinism and Maoism.

Socialism is not Communism and Communism is not Stalinism or Maoism.

Communism is a utopia.
Socialism is an economic system.
Stalinism is despotism.
Maoism is despotism.

With today's technology, Utopian Communism is not possible. However, Democratic Socialism is as close as we can get and is what every sane government and people should strive for.

The only successful socialists I have met,
were convicts,
because they were all prisoners,
locked in a prison and were
treated as equals.

Utopian socialism, properly so-called, is the name given to socialist aspiration in the era prior to the development of industrial capitalism. It refers to the yearning for an egalitarian society, but without the scientific analysis of social evolution that modern scientific socialism provides.

Utopian socialism

Robert Owen was one of the leading 'utopian' socialists, who is also known as the father of the cooperative movement. Remember socialism means worker ownership, 'utopian' or 'scientific'.

Lecture 22 The Utopian Socialists: Robert Owen and Saint-Simon (2)

Marx and other socialists started using the term 'communism' as the name of their socialist movement to differentiate it from the utopian socialists (also because liberals were appropriating the term). Marx in his later life dropped the term communism and started using 'socialism' again. Both terms mean the same thing. The confusion comes from Marxism, which is a political movement for communism/socialism, it is not communism itself. Communism/socialism exists outside of Marxism.

Marx and Engels used the terms Communism and Socialism to mean precisely the same thing. They used “Communism” in the early years up to about 1875, and after that date mainly used the term “Socialism.” There was a reason for this. In the early days, about 1847-1850, Marx and Engels chose the name “Communism” in order to distinguish their ideas from Utopian, reactionary or disreputable movements then in existence, which called themselves “Socialist.” Later on, when these movements disappeared or went into obscurity, and when, from 1870 onwards, parties were being formed in many countries under the name Social-Democratic Party or Socialist Party, Marx and Engels reverted to the words Socialist and Socialism...

Edgar Hardcastle Socialists Do Stand for Equality

Originally posted by Rudy2shoes
The only successful socialists I have met,
were convicts,
because they were all prisoners,
locked in a prison and were
treated as equals.

But that is nonsense because socialism is not about equality in that respect.

The reason it is more equal compared to capitalism, is because everyone who works earns directly from their labour. Unlike capitalism where you have to produce more than you earn for the owner to make profit. Under capitalism you do not get paid a fair pay for a fair days work. The surplus the worker produces, surplus value, is what the owner takes for his profit.

If the workers owned the means of production then no small minority class could use their property to exploit the majority making them unequally wealthy, compared to the workers. It is that wealth accumulation that gives that minority class the power to shape society to benefit themselves and their class, at the expense of the majority working class.

1) There are only two classes in contempory society; the working class, who are the great majority, and the capitalist class.

Basic Marx: The Working Class and the Capitalist Class

reply to post by ANOK


I don't even hate most capitalists. They're usually low IQ, ignorant, or brainwashed.

The educated greedy ones are the people I have the issue with.

Socialism is inherently flawed and is only considered by its seemingly noble ideas. We all would like for the world to be perfect and fair as well, yet anyone risking the livelihood of a whole nation over ideals is reckless to say the least. Change should be incremental and measured in its practice with ample room for recall if it does not pan out. Socialism has such an emotional charge to it that logic and caution are hardly ever heard.

It is labeled as a weapon against tyranny and an empowering model to employ by the common man. Any system that tries to empower the working man has and will just use him for the achievement of ambitions by people who have not the slightest interest of empowering anyone but themselves. Socialism is based on many promises that when are not met are quickly absolved of blame with as many excuses as the many promises made for it.

It is a system of inherent failure since it goes against human nature. You may have high ideals, but when in a real situation in life of survival or any extreme and taxing situation, instinct takes over and incentive plays a central role over ideals you defend with a full stomach and less so when it is empty.





“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

― Winston Churchill

At the beginning of the 1970s Sweden also had the fourth highest GDP per capita measured in purchasing power parity. Sweden was blooming. Then came Sweden's mad quarter of a century.

Growth fell off. Unemployment rose. The quality of welfare declined. What, then, were the factors that made the Swedish model stop working?

The economic downturn that followed the two oil crises in the 1970s of course had a negative impact on Sweden. Also, the financial crises and macroeconomic shocks of the early 1990s had substantial consequences for the Swedish economy. But these shocks also affected other industrial countries. And it is difficult to argue that Sweden was particularly vulnerable to the international business cycle.

This alone cannot explain why Sweden fell from fourth place in the OECD's ranking of member countries by GDP per capita around 1970, to eighteenth place in 1997.

Instead, I would argue that the explanation lies in other factors. The vital balance between the institutions in the model disappeared and socialism swept over Swedish society.

We saw budget deficits and high inflation undermine macroeconomic stability. In many respects this was the result of irresponsible and short-sighted political actions.
We saw a sharp rise in taxes, especially on labour, together with an expansion of benefit systems that undermined the work-first principle and made it less worthwhile to work.

The education system was distorted and Swedish schools focused less on knowledge.
Changes in international competition were met with subsidies rather than reforms. Free enterprise was not encouraged; instead it was questioned.

We saw a rise in unemployment and the percentage of working-age people supported by various social benefits and subsidies rose from 10 per cent in 1970 to about 20 per cent in the present decade.

What took a hundred years to build was nearly dismantled in twenty five years.

www.government.se...
dbarf.blogspot.com.es...

WHY SOCIALISM FAILED
by Mark J. Perry, Ph.D.
Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality and security, socialism delivered poverty, misery and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery. Socialism is now a bankrupt, discredited, and flawed nineteenth century theory that has failed miserably in countries around the world.

In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. However, as we have seen recently, any initial success of collectivism quickly fades as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.

A chain letter or Ponzi scheme is unsustainable in the long run because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Socialism cannot and will not work in the long run because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The collapse of socialism can be traced to one critical defect that guarantees that it will always fail - it is a system that ignores incentives.

In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Capitalism is based on the theory that INCENTIVES MATTER!

Under socialism, incentives play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that INCENTIVES DON'T MATTER!

In a radio debate several months ago with a Marxist professor from the University of Minnesota, I pointed out the obvious failures of socialism around the world in Cuba, Eastern Europe and China. At the time of our debate, Haitian refugees were risking their lives trying to get to Florida in homemade boats. Why was it, I asked him, that people were fleeing Haiti and travelling almost 500 miles by ocean to get to the "evil capitalist empire" when they were only 50 miles from the "workers paradise" of Cuba?

The Marxist admitted that many "socialist" countries around the world were failing. However, according to him, the reason for failure is not that socialism is deficient, but that the socialist economies are not practicing "pure" socialism. The perfect version of socialism would work; it is just the imperfect socialism that doesn't work. Marxists like to compare a theoretically perfect version of socialism with practical, imperfect capitalism which allows them to claim that socialism is superior to capitalism.

If perfection really were an available option, the choice of economic and political systems would be irrelevant. In a world with perfect beings and infinite abundance, ANY economic or political system would work perfectly - socialism, capitalism, fascism, communism or any other system would work perfectly. However, the choice of economic and polititcal institutions IS crucially relevant in an imperfect universe such as ours with imperfect beings and limited resources. Only in a world of scarcity is it essential for an economic system to be based on a clear incentive structure to promote economic efficiency. The real choice we face is between imperfect capitalism and imperfect socialism. Given that choice, the evidence of history overwhelmingly favors capitalism as the greatest wealth- producing economic system available.

The strength of capitalism can be attributed to a very clear incentive structure based upon the three Ps: 1) prices determined by market forces, 2) a profit-and-loss system of accounting and 3) private property rights. The failure of socialism can be traced to its neglect of these three incentive-enhancing components.

spruce.flint.umich.edu...

reply to post by Trustfund


Yes, because those who support socialism/marxism/communism are the enlightened bunch arent they?

Thats why they spend their entire lives on campuses of "higher education" because they know their retarded opinions simply do not work in the real world.

There are too many people in this country that think they are better than others to have a socialist society. I know lots of people and through the years have been present with them during conversations with others. They will cut someone who is not there down for something and they do this to everyone. The people who they are cutting down are doing the same to them when you listen to their conversations. I suppose they cut me down when I am not around also, if they didn't I would feel left out I see this all over, it is not a random case. Because I know so many people of different groups I get a good outlook of things like this. I see people telling others they have better cable and more channels than others. This bragging or cutting down others will make equality even within the classes impossible here in America. "Thou shall not judge others" doesn't include cutting others down I guess.

I'm not complaining, that is how it is to live in America. It is generally accepted behavior to belittle others here, hell it has been pushed by society for as long as I have been a kid. It is hard to escape, they will call you a hermit....sorry, that is now called a severe introvert. Keep forgetting about name changes.

Originally posted by chinaski77
Why is socialism a dirty word in America? The basic meaning of socialism is this: equality.
People keep repeating 'it doesn't work, it doesn't work' but people with socialist ideals are not necessarily calling for strict Stalinist communism, just a more equal, fairer society. That's all.

Socialism is not a more fairer equal society. Human beings are different. SOme have more skills, better abilities, different interests, different intelligence. In order to achieve the socialist ideal, you ahve to bring down, to stunt imagination and innovation, and to destroy individuality. This is the socialist ideal.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Rudy2shoes
The only successful socialists I have met,
were convicts,
because they were all prisoners,
locked in a prison and were
treated as equals.

But that is nonsense because socialism is not about equality in that respect.

The reason it is more equal compared to capitalism, is because everyone who works earns directly from their labour. Unlike capitalism where you have to produce more than you earn for the owner to make profit. Under capitalism you do not get paid a fair pay for a fair days work. The surplus the worker produces, surplus value, is what the owner takes for his profit.

If the workers owned the means of production then no small minority class could use their property to exploit the majority making them unequally wealthy, compared to the workers. It is that wealth accumulation that gives that minority class the power to shape society to benefit themselves and their class, at the expense of the majority working class.

1) There are only two classes in contempory society; the working class, who are the great majority, and the capitalist class.

Basic Marx: The Working Class and the Capitalist Class

You keep saying the same funny things over and over, but right here, right now, the workers can get together and make any sort of factory or business they wish.

Steve Jobs started as a worker, making computers in his garage.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by chinaski77
Why is socialism a dirty word in America? The basic meaning of socialism is this: equality.
People keep repeating 'it doesn't work, it doesn't work' but people with socialist ideals are not necessarily calling for strict Stalinist communism, just a more equal, fairer society. That's all.

Socialism is not a more fairer equal society. Human beings are different. SOme have more skills, better abilities, different interests, different intelligence. In order to achieve the socialist ideal, you ahve to bring down, to stunt imagination and innovation, and to destroy individuality. This is the socialist ideal.

In order to enforce corporatism (the new form of capitalism) you have to enforce starvation, corruption and wage
slavery.

Corporatism destroy individuality all the same, there are billions of people who are slaves to a system they
did not agree to or design.

Socialists and Capitalists are old news dinosaurs.

Your time will come, both of you

reply to post by Thepump


just to tweak your post....

In order to enforce corporatism (the preferred form of Governance by the corrupt) you have to enforce starvation, corruption and wage slavery.


the rest is I can agree with (in that context).



EDIT:
There can be only one highlander. Your time will come.......

Originally posted by Thepump

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by chinaski77
Why is socialism a dirty word in America? The basic meaning of socialism is this: equality.
People keep repeating 'it doesn't work, it doesn't work' but people with socialist ideals are not necessarily calling for strict Stalinist communism, just a more equal, fairer society. That's all.

Socialism is not a more fairer equal society. Human beings are different. SOme have more skills, better abilities, different interests, different intelligence. In order to achieve the socialist ideal, you ahve to bring down, to stunt imagination and innovation, and to destroy individuality. This is the socialist ideal.

In order to enforce corporatism (the new form of capitalism) you have to enforce starvation, corruption and wage
slavery.

Corporatism destroy individuality all the same, there are billions of people who are slaves to a system they
did not agree to or design.

Socialists and Capitalists are old news dinosaurs.

Your time will come, both of you

Ooooh, I'm shaking in my boots. What is your economic principle? Momgivesmeallowanceism?

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Malcher

What you are saying makes no sense though. I think you are more obsessed with the names, kind of like someone saying it's not green it's chartreuse. Just look at that paragraph starting with the word communism and ending with Marxism, you're tripping over all these titles that are really meaningless. Throw them around if they make you happy but in the end its just empty rhetoric. Like telling your girlftriend or wife you are cooking her a special dinner and then bring out a plate with a boiled pea on it and expecting her to not notice the difference.

What are you talking about?

All I am doing is trying to explain the common myths of what socialism is are not true.

I am not tripping up over anything.

Socialism and communism are the same thing, I use them both depending on the discussion. Anarchists are socialists, so I mention them to try get people to see the reality of what socialism is.

The fact that anarchists are socialists completely blows away the argument of socialism being either social programs, or some kind of state ran authoritarian system.

If you can't follow along and get confused by the terms I am using, that is your lack of understanding not mine.

I think the reason socialism is so hard to define is because it does not exist, not even anywhere in nature. I am looking at this from a sociological standpoint at the micro-level. If you know of any then post them.

Originally posted by Malcher

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Malcher

What you are saying makes no sense though. I think you are more obsessed with the names, kind of like someone saying it's not green it's chartreuse. Just look at that paragraph starting with the word communism and ending with Marxism, you're tripping over all these titles that are really meaningless. Throw them around if they make you happy but in the end its just empty rhetoric. Like telling your girlftriend or wife you are cooking her a special dinner and then bring out a plate with a boiled pea on it and expecting her to not notice the difference.

What are you talking about?

All I am doing is trying to explain the common myths of what socialism is are not true.

I am not tripping up over anything.

Socialism and communism are the same thing, I use them both depending on the discussion. Anarchists are socialists, so I mention them to try get people to see the reality of what socialism is.

The fact that anarchists are socialists completely blows away the argument of socialism being either social programs, or some kind of state ran authoritarian system.

If you can't follow along and get confused by the terms I am using, that is your lack of understanding not mine.

I think the reason socialism is so hard to define is because it does not exist, not even anywhere in nature. I am looking at this from a sociological standpoint at the micro-level. If you know of any then post them.

Excellent point: The closest nature comes to socialism is the hive, and even all bees are not equal. Socialism, in the pure form, will never exist because men are not insects or mindless automatons.

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

― Winston Churchill

What do you expect Churchill to say? He was a liberal from the upper classes. Of course he's not going to support socialism, like all right-wing conservatives he wanted liberalism to replace socialism because liberalism was no threat to his class.

"Liberalism is not socialism, and never will be" Churchill when he was Liberal Party candidate for Dundee, 1908.

Why do ordinary working people base their thinking on what the establishment tells them? Makes no sense to me. The establishment capitalist class has manipulated your thinking in order to support their system against your best interest. USSR did the same thing, Nazi Germany did the same thing, China did the same thing. You are no less manipulated than the people of those nations were. They were just more brutal because the people were not passive sheep like we became post WWII. Prior to WWII the working class would not have accepted a system like we have now without a fight, they would have revolted like they did in Spain 1936.

I see you have not really read anything or researched anything I offered you. I offer only facts, and if you followed the evidence you would see I am right. What you are using to demonise socialism is BS, go learn what is actually is and stop blaming it for liberalism and state-capitalism. Just because some power hungry people used socialist terms it doesn't mean they were actually socialist. How hard is that to understand? Maybe you don't want to understand because you are so emotionally involved in your beliefs?