Socialism is the best ideology

Originally posted by fadedface

Originally posted by NavyDoc


I thought "true" socialism hasn't been tried? You contradict youself.

No I said 'full' communism has never existed.

The fact you can't seem to tell the difference between socialism and communism completely invalidates your arguments and shows your diatribe against communism as the typical right wing ignorance that it is.

Also I'm guessing your from an affluent background (smug middle American?) which would explain your preference for capitalism.

Also from what I've read I'm also assuming you've never actually experienced socialism only read about it in biased right wing treatises. Well I've actually been affected by both capitalist and socialist policies and I know that socialism as an ideology is fairer and more equal to ordinary working class people.

No, the fact that you cannot see the connections, connected roots, and evolutionary relationships between the two invalidates your attempt at distinctions. What is even funnier is that you, yourself lumped them together earlier in the thread and continue to quote Lenin.

Your wrong assumptions demonstrate that your knowledge comes from leftist propaganda. I was born into a family well below the poverty line. Had I been born in a communist country, like my mother, I would still be a dirt poor farmer. However, due to our free market capitalist society, I was able to rise myself up and better myself. I work to rise myself up, you work to bring others down. You fail in your false premise.

You haven't lived under socialism, not really. You live in a system that leaches off the productive capitalists to give you the illusion of socialism.

Your diatribes against capitalism shows typical leftist ignorance based on empty promises and lack of historical understanding. Are you on the dole perhaps?

reply to post by NavyDoc


Fact is, centralization is too controlled. On the other hand, anarchy is too uncontrolled. Whats needed is a middle way, a decentralized political system (which only a free market economy can insure), with a moderately sized state that collects taxes and provides ad hoc programs.

Simply compare communism and capitalism - the soviet union and the United States - and witness how farther ahead, socially, economically, scientifically and technologically, the United States was over the Soviets. You have to be blind not to see it.

Originally posted by Astrocyte
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Fact is, centralization is too controlled. On the other hand, anarchy is too uncontrolled. Whats needed is a middle way, a decentralized political system (which only a free market economy can insure), with a moderately sized state that collects taxes and provides ad hoc programs.

Simply compare communism and capitalism - the soviet union and the United States - and witness how farther ahead, socially, economically, scientifically and technologically, the United States was over the Soviets. You have to be blind not to see it.

Always been my point. Demonstrably, the free market provides more to the most. Every single time.

Originally posted by fadedface
reply to post by jiggerj

 

I don't care what you think of me and I'm not interested in discussing this with you or getting into any argument.

But how full communism would operate and the possibilities of social structures it offers can easily be read about I won't patronize you by giving any links to the necessary information.

edit on 17-5-2013 by fadedface because: (no reason given)

You dont seem to understand how debate works you put up points as to way socialism is the best and we discuss. as i said earlier take humans out the mix and socialism is perfect. Closest thing to it would be star trek where the entire planet work towards the betterment of man. Works on TV in real life though we have a problem.Since your from the UK will discuss a little history The failure of socialism around the world is a “tragedy of commons” on a global scale.For all you yanks out there sorry The “tragedy of the commons” refers to the British experience of the sixteenth century when certain grazing lands were communally owned by villages and were made available for public use. The land was quickly overgrazed and eventually became worthless as villagers exploited the communally owned resource. With socialism there is no property rights so a rancher has an incentive not to over graze the land when its his but when its shared it becomes useless because no one tries to preserve it. Socialism has a tendency to destroy property because there is no incentive its not yours. Look at china the air can kill you so bad they had to give oxygen to the atheletes at the olympics.

reply to post by fadedface


Britain r u talking about the same bankrupt country? Where crime rates are off the charts and people have no constitutional rights?

Can socialism or communism be implemented without the use of force?

History seems to indicate that both societal structures require a mass culling of the population to *accept* their utopia.

Socialism/Communism is the best ideology for the one(s) making the rules.

We are not ants nor are we bees.

Those who disagree with the *utopian* view are seen as dissidents that must be silenced.

Originally posted by fadedface
reply to post by oonkala

 

Capitalism condemns those who do not have the competitive edge to survive in the social darwinistic order it imposes on society. Capitalism inherently favours privilege and entrenches class divisions which creates poverty and inequality.

So you can keep your social darwinistic capitalist rhetoric.

And I do believe equality exists in the context of a communist system which propagates a classless society in which decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made in the best interests of the whole of society, a society 'of, by, and for the working class', rather than one in which a rich upper class controls the wealth and everyone else works for the rich on a wage basis.

And you should do some reading about Lenin before you go assuming anything about his character because he was reported to be a modest and unassuming man.

edit on 17-5-2013 by fadedface because: (no reason given)

And you should do some reading about Lenin before you go assuming anything about his character because he was reported to be a modest and unassuming man.

Lenin was responsible for one of the worst genocides in history. His name goes alongside Hitler and Stalin. He killed over two million people through what was consider The Red Terror.

wiki.answers.com...

1.6 million
Surprisingly not much as compare to Stalin and Mao Zedong

When you have the ability to put somewhere between 1.6 and 2 million people to death you can be very modest and unassuming for no one is going to mess with you.

Where are people going to school today and learning to hold in high esteem one of the 20th century's greatest butchers? That post should make everyone believe in home schooling!!

The free market has already proven to be the best model and most successful, that's until Woodrow Wilson and a few senators decided to give the reigns of America over to the federal reserve.

Now they promote socialism to consolidate their powers and eliminate any wealth from ever challenging them.

Originally posted by jiggerj
1. The people in POWER, where do they live as opposed to the common people?

They have to live in the region they govern, amongst those people. Their leadership has to effect their local area that they and their own family live.

2. Do they eat the finest steak while everyone else eats Spam?

No because they cannot be paid more than the average worker, incentive to do it for money must be removed.

3. Who controls the leaders?

The masses of people. Not only are they democratically elected but they can be recalled at a moments notice. So there is not fixed term for them, if the people want them out they just have another election. Furthermore breaking an election promise is grounds for removal, unless the masses of people democratically vote otherwise. For example if some completely unforeseeable event like a meteorite kept them from keeping their promise then the people may decide to keep them in.

Capitalism's representative democracy, and all the lobbying etc. that goes with it is not democracy at all. In the US presidential election, 95% of the time its the candidate with the highest campaign spending who gets into office. Poor working class people cannot get elected, unless of course they make promises to corporations who fund their campaign. Those promises are kept, but rarely are the promises to the people who voted them in. Furthermore there are barely any referendums, so there's no direct democracy, Ive been voting for over a decade in my country and I've never had one. Capitalism and democracy don't work together, If you gotta get rid of one I say make it capitalism, democracy is too good.

4. Why should scientists and doctors strive to find cures when they get the same of everything as everyone else?

At the moment scientists working on cures are paid below the average salary because they are on limited research budgets from their grants. Whereas lawyers working for Monsanto are paid a pretty penny to screw over poor farmers. Capitalism does not reward you for your contribution to society, if anything it rewards you for how much you take.

I think scientists who discover cures should get something named after them, and maybe even a parade! They should be the rock stars, not pop idols like Justin Beaber. What I'm saying is there is other ways to reward people.

But having said that, the main motivation should be the knowledge that you helped humanity, if you're only in it for the money then you're not driven by passion.

5. In manufacturing, where is the incentive to create quality products.

With the elimination of alienation.

There's better motivators than a whip from the boss.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Communism and socialism are not exclusively the same thing though and Lenin considered socialism to be a transitory stage to communism. A distinction can be made between socialism as primarily economic and communism as both political and economic. There are other distinctions as well.

Capitalists claim to work hard but the truth is they are given the opportunities to climb the social ladder through mutual self interest and association with the upper classes (its not what you know its who you know) for every capitalist who claims to have worked hard and done it all by themselves (the usual capitalist drivel) there is some poor person who tried and failed because they didn't know 'the right people' etc.. All these capitalists who have succeeded have had the opportunities and breaks at some-point (not to mention they've probably trampled over so called 'smaller people' on their way to the top) which have been denied to others but they will never admit it.

reply to post by fadedface


"....Human beings have failed socialism..."
spoken like a true Marxist and eugenicist....Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and yes H, could not have put it better. And every one of them had their own ideas to cure that failure. The New Man, the Super Man. Yes we've heard this before. Make no mistake. Socialist are far more subtle, but are every bit as dangerous in the long run

In one line you summarized the evil at the very heart of Marxism and the deep down hatred of people as real live individual beings. It is an exercise that places theory over reality and views humanity as the problem to be solved, not the purpose to be served. And in the end, there is no solution for man's weakness too gruesome for true believers to carry out, all for the greater good of course.

Originally posted by fadedface
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Communism and socialism are not exclusively the same thing though and Lenin considered socialism to be a transitory stage to communism. A distinction can be made between socialism as primarily economic and communism as both political and economic. There are other distinctions as well.

Capitalists claim to work hard but the truth is they are given the opportunities to climb the social ladder through mutual self interest and association with the upper classes (its not what you know its who you know) for every capitalist who claims to have worked hard and done it all by themselves (the usual capitalist drivel) there is some poor person who tried and failed because they didn't know 'the right people' etc.. All these capitalists who have succeeded have had the opportunities and breaks at some-point (not to mention they've probably trampled over so called 'smaller people' on their way to the top) which have been denied to others but they will never admit it.

So yet another bit of your Marxist propaganda pamphlet is false and you dodge, obfuscate, and then return to where you are familiar: mindlessly reciting more bits from your little red book. The above screed is completely untrue: history shows it just as history shows the brutality of your murderous idols. So, I ask you again, are you on the dole?

"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need"

Isn't that sweet?

Does my dear departed Momma get her say as to my abilities and needs, or does the Daddy of my worst enemy?

Meritocracy is the same--who decides what the absolute value of one's contribution to society actually is??

The only system that works decently is free-market capitalism, and in a system without private ownership of the Central banks.

Socialism might occasionally work in a homogeneous society of Western Christianity.

Do I even want to touch this one??? Part if me says do, another part says, oh no Not again, stay off the dialectic wheel...

It's been a few years since discussing the merits of socialism, as well as flaws, statism and of course, the Vanguardism, blah blah blah...yea, I once was a Die hard socialist, member of party (I won't say which and no wont go there, I quit over disgust over Betrayal of women's rights as well as the all wet in bed with Islamists, which is the Anti thesis of socialism but anyway, still some bitter feelings there) , was huge respector of Leninism AND of course understood in the Context of HIS TIME along with the history and development of Russia, which is TOTALLY different from the US and why arguing with Westerners over socialism and applied communism is about as lunatic as it gets, but so be it...

Ah, yes, some things I did conclude, and others, I still debate with myself, and before I go on, I detest capitalism with every thing in me, but I abhore Statism even more so. As for Darwinism, I hate them, EVIL, just deplorably evil...Nature is bio diverse but does NOT have the ARROGANCE and PRIDE and UNGRATEFULNESS that the typical mentality of elitism and all the filth that goes along with that, and in That regard, I'm still very much far left...

The problem with socialism, for one, is the Patriarchal issue, and don't get me started on post feminism or Marxist (male Dicktated/defined feminism, I concur more here with anarcho-feminism) and Why that is, IMO, and respect that Lenin himself agreed, Trotsky, eh, won't go there, but you can't have a perpetuated supremacy/ownership of half of human race and expect there to evolve some sort of equal distribution, yes Engels and Marx did have some progressive ideas but they were still male defined. Stalins DeGender policies were a nightmare...(see gender studies post Soviet I'm not going to get into it) but that's one problem that is even apparent in all the party apparatus,

From there, the Centralization begins, It doesn't begin after the fact, but the root is already festering as men stumble over each other for Which ideal is the correct one, and it's here where democratic action gets taken over by DICKtatorship...of the Worst kind BECAUSE there IS NO BALANCE OF POWER. THIS, is where the Politico of the west, had it right, not talking economics here, but the groundwork of power decisions, and ONCE you have an environment where there is Supremacy of Power, it's downhill from there. And Ironically, what I find to be interesting is that, HERE is the TWINS

Capitalist (Darwin Nazi garbage) which is Fuedalism, aka PYRAMID with a gold asshole on top...the other side, Corporatist Socialism which really is what it is which is another FUedalism with a gun, aka PYRAMID with a gold asshole on top.

BOTH ENDS ARE THE SAME...the MEANS are all that's different.

The Problem, is not the economics, it's IN the Foundation, the Masonry.

Now, to be fair, and pragmatic, it's one thing to KNOW the flaws and that Neither works, it's a whole other ballgame to look for ALTERNATIVES that may Offer solutions and changes, and in smaller Tribal societies, such as Indigeneous people's, they Have yes, in Some cases, survived with a communal Eco means and ends, HOWEVER, that being said, they are also NOT Patriarchal, they are NOT anti nature/materialistic And they are very spiritual in that they believe in a strong spirit existence that cannot be violated, disconnect, etc. They DO have a spiritual leadership, they are not these primitive orgies wild beasts that White man has made them out to be, aka Religions that thrive on Slavery, the PYRAMID. many of these tribes are near extinct, from genocide, sadly OR they've been assimilated by force, but we Know there are still some in existence today that are still living according to their ancient rites. Now, not ALL tribes are the same, but the ones that are Communal, Peace/non violent, are matriLinear, one in China that is matriarchal, and others who have a father chief and a mother priest type of leadership...and I agree with many Eco feminists that there is a lot to be learned by these groups,

However, it would mean a drastic spiritual change, which most just to selfish and phallic death loving to even consider. That said,

Ideal as this is, even IF, there was spiritual change, there is the problem of resources, lack of, degradation and Population...so ideals are one thing, practices another. And why this too, presents a problem, not just for anarchists, but even a total libertarian society...there is Going to be conflict, its just to the point today that the greed MONGERS and supremacists have destroyed too much that it can't be reversed in time,

So, option...socialism.

Ok yea I'm a cynic, granted, as to why the ideal want work, but frankly just too many assholes, so

It would like the far left say, probably require a vanguard. But, funny thing is, we already HAVE a vanguard, called an Obligarchy. Cont

The best ideology in freshman poli-sci you betcha.
Ideology, in general, is for idiots. So it is an aptly named concept.
As for socialism, well, I'd
a)look across the Atlantic
b)Read some history
c)Try to experience actual life instead of reading books and listening to professors who have no idea what real life is or how actual, productive people live or operate
d)understand human nature
e)think critically

Socialism is a small minded, backward concept that has never and will never bring anything but misery upon most it touches while empowering a small few at the top. Simply a way to turn otherwise independent individuals into powerless subjects. "The people" is the worst tyrant in the history of humankind.

From what I Know, of being "inside" the party apparatus to SEE myself the demise of this horror called the "new left",

Is that there has been a Merger, between the far right and far left socialists, through the years, since end of Cold War. I would go as far, well stretch it to prior TO Cold War, but I did see this years back, and I Kniw it has to do with the nationalist elements and the Islamist parties. The Communist Workers parties have all been somewhat stamped out or are so oppressed by other extremists, that any, ANY notion of WORKERS owning anything,

Forget it. Not going to happen,

The global elites (and NO I don't think they are just Jews, I think that's part of the huge problem right there that's duping a lot of people to Support the Other side of the TWIN pole) got smart long, long time ago, and there is no way, they will allow the peon masses, us, to kick them off their precious god thrones. So, here comes Corporatist Socialism,

With a Theocratic face, called DOMINION.

Dominionism, Caliph, call it what you want, but it's Fuedalism with a global police state with one leader...so all these socialist Utopian ideals, forget it, ain't gonna happen. The parties sold out, long time ago...now,

As to Whether or not there will be a Caliph, hard to say, I do Know, that the love of terror, is key to ruling a global mass of people into a hive mind, which is what they are after...and Believe me

It's NOT because they CARE ABOUT YOU AND ME. LOL LOL and more LOL. I cannot stress THAT one enough,

Nor NOR do they care about the POOR. I can gauranTEE you that one...we are no more than FERTILIZER to them, and This,

Is where the Elitists and Darwinists, Eugenicists, Progressives of that mind set and Political Islamists are all in cohorts together,

And so, IF you support Any of these Idealogies, you're really feeding the BEAST that is going to devour you.

Little clue, ancient Fertility cults...Fert as in Fertile as in FERTILIZER as in Harvest. The resources, renewable are running skim, WATER especially...and when the water runs dry and the heat soars

Do you THINK these Vanguards, are going to Sacrifice for YOU? DO you THINK Darwinists that YOU will USURP the throne of the beast? LOL, they'll off your PROUD HEAD FIRST. They MADE YOU, the ideas of supremacy, Nationalism, to get THEM on TOO of those pyramids, they MADE YOU, with those ideas,

And they made you, they can destroy you just as easily. This is why it's self defeating to Worship Pride, IMAGE, made in OUR IMAGE

They thrive on slavery, misery, poverty. That's what MADE ... THEM.

There was WAS a way, they Could have been Defeated, that was to Love one another,

But Nope, couldn't have that, because Prestige and Greed and POWER were more important than Serving, and therefore, communal was tossed out, for egos and elevation of men. Funny thing is, the Native Indians WARNED, as did, the Awake ones during Industrialization, they WARNED, all prior to WWI,

Even in WWII the seers and poets warned, all over Europe, Russia, no one wanted to listen. PRIDE and INDIFFERENCE and APATHY and CRUELTY

So, socialism, it won't work for the ideal, it's too far gone for that. The Corruption and DEFILEMENT is too embedded and even ADORED, even by many here, that LOVE

DEATH.

Of others, and what's the worst part, they love death of others with NO POWER, NO intent to harm, nothing,

Just the sheer glee they have to see those not like them, suffer, while they stand like gods...

So really, it doesn't matter What system because it's all the same now,the Iniquity is full and few Repent, turn, and look at the Cause of all INSIDE Of THEMSELVES. Easier to see it in Those folks,

Never in the mirror. See it IS Spiritual, but it's NOT Nature, that was the LIE. nature, SHE gave us EVERYTHING,

Fruit, fields, animals, herbs, WATER

And WHAT did man and woman do to it? DOMINION

And with That knowing, socialism could never work, nor will capitalism, because if I learned Anything (oh and RELIGION SURELY won't work, it's the Biggest LIE of them all) in the socialist party and the other isms and Grouos looking for answers

That I learned, until the Economy is changed within the Hearts, it don't matter. ECO

ECO LOGY. ECO LOGIC. Connection

The Animals all have different functions but not ONE is Supreme over the other, Mao killed off swallows, (look it up), due to agriculture, etc. then they had a Fly problem, caused a lot of starvation,

Flies and swallows, Both are needed, Both have VALUE. Mess with one, destroy ALL

And that's the ONE THING...MAN refuses to GET.

Ok, why I don't touch these topics anymore...from yes a crazy old crone!

Originally posted by bozzchem
Can socialism or communism be implemented without the use of force?

History seems to indicate that both societal structures require a mass culling of the population to *accept* their utopia.

Socialism/Communism is the best ideology for the one(s) making the rules.

We are not ants nor are we bees.

Those who disagree with the *utopian* view are seen as dissidents that must be silenced.

edit on 17-5-2013 by bozzchem because: (no reason given)

You know whats even funnier do you know which country came the closest to having true socialism? And the answer is Nazi Germany the german people were organized set out on a goal and produced for his goal the betterment of Germans.Just had some very scary outcomes in the end.

witness how farther ahead, socially, economically, scientifically and technologically, the United States was over the Soviets

And now our society is headed into the toilet due to the destruction of capitalism.

Got to be kidding me when Europe who does more socialism kind of government is collapsing.Venenzaula corrupted government because of Hugo Chavez was a socialist dictator. People never learn how governments that control everything turn into evil every single time.

Capitalism is all about profit.. if there is profit treating people like crap it will treat people like crap .. if there isn't profit in treating people like crap then it will treat people well.

if capitalism is in an environment that enables either one it will take the path of least resistance and it will only benefit society if there is something in it for the capitalist and if something is detrimental for society but benefits the capitablist ic an give a flying puck about society