112 replies to this topic

[Vintage]

First, I'll turn this around. You are an average american citizen. You are a thinking, breathing, conscious human being, who has strong opinions on the issues. The way our government works, your vote means absolutely nothing in the big scheme of things. Even the closest election in history was decided by 357, not 1. You might be a millionaire, but in the political landscape you are just as insignificant as the aforementioned New York Bum. What possible incentive would you have to vote, when you know it won't make a difference?

Yes you are right that each vote as an individual doesn't matter much. But all the billionares in this world do matter. Especially if all that money gets split among everyone.

If socialism makes everyone equal, the billionare would demand an equal job compared to everyone else. Why should he labor more than everyone else? You are seeing equality in relationship to income, not work quota. If everyone is to be equal, no one should have to work harder than anyone else.

You are right about my views on communism and socialism, though. I can't help but look at them through the models of China and Russia. Here's my idea, though.

Communism is ideal society. Utopia is the perfect place. However, man has sin. Greed, covetousness, the look-out-for-#1. It's impossible to restrict those thoughts from men, for they occur naturally. That's my opinion. If you think the world will evolve into a sinless society, good for you.

~Vintage

[Accord]

China does not follow stereotypical communist traits. One example is that the government has granted economic liberties, which has contributed to it's success and quickly rising GNP. Communists believe in a world revolution, in which every country must participate.

Also, i find you quickly confuse socialism and communism. Under socialism, the government does NOT treat everyone the same. However, the government does take many steps into funding services such as health care and education. also, in this type of system, the government has a more powerful role in the economic wellbeing of the country.

Edited by Accord, 08 June 2004 - 08:18 PM.

[Famine]

If socialism makes everyone equal, the billionare would demand an equal job compared to everyone else. Why should he labor more than everyone else?

Yes, I'm sure Bill Gates greatly envies Long Shore Fishermen and their easy, stress free careers. Or hows about those Randy Lerner? I mean, if my Dad gave me $1.8 billion and told me to manage the Cleveland Browns I'd probably tell him to fuck himself and go look for an easier job, like coal mining. Ass.

[merlinski]

Yes, there is "sin" in the world, but we have evolved to the point where people keep themselves from doing it (sometimes). We founded laws because we recognized the necessity of social order, laws that predate christianity. And I'm not saying that this communist society would have no crime, I'm just saying that it is the result of a society where people accept full societal responsibility, instead of half of it.

[Vintage]

Also, i find you quickly confuse socialism and communism. Under socialism, the government does NOT treat everyone the same.

Under pure socialism the government controls all businesses. The government regulates the prices of everything in an attempt to make everything "fair" for everyone. Social Security, minimum wage laws, and price ceilings are all forms of socialism. Socialism is a "fairness" government that uses many aspects of communism.

Yes, I'm sure Bill Gates greatly envies Long Shore Fishermen and their easy, stress free careers. Or hows about those Randy Lerner? I mean, if my Dad gave me $1.8 billion and told me to manage the Cleveland Browns I'd probably tell him to fuck himself and go look for an easier job, like coal mining. Ass.

You bring up a very interesting point there. I should have made that one earlier. Bill gates worked extremely hard to get where he is now. He made a massive profit for his groundbreaking success, and now he and his kids live off the benefits. Under communism, Bill gates would have to go back to work, AND get one massive pay slash. You forget, Famine, how Bill Gates started. He was not the inheriter of any wealth what-so-ever. He earned every penny he has.

~Vintage

[Famine]

Under communism, Bill gates would have to go back to work, AND get one massive pay slash. You forget, Famine, how Bill Gates started. He was not the inheriter of any wealth what-so-ever. He earned every penny he has.

Dude, you are a fucking ass. Two posts ago you said that financially successful people have more difficult and stressful jobs than those who do not make as much money. I'm directly challenging that statement. I am arguing that a capitalist system has inherent checks and balances that prevent people from rising in economic status. Furthermore, our society doesn't magically reward people who are "brilliant" or "gifted". I suggest you look up Philo Farnsworth, he invented something which was far more revolutionary than Windows yet he died more or less penniless and unreknowned. You want the essence of Communism in black and white? Ok:
Why should Bill Gates make billions of dollars when fisherman and farmers only makes thousands? Without computers our lives would be inconvienenced, without food YOU WOULD DIE. And yes, in Communism Bill Gates would have to go back to work because that is how a healthy society is suppossed to function; all those capable of work do work to support those who cannot.

[Vintage]

Most people who make large amounts of money in business DO have demanding managorial jobs. And you obviously know nothing about what it took for Bill Gates to rise to his position now. You look at his state right now and assume he's evil.

You made me do a useless search on a guy who didn't market his tv well. Too bad RCA did a better job. It's called competition, dude. If the inventor has the sole authority to sell a breakthrough product, prices soar. That is why we have the patent and royalties system. Oh, and why are tv's more important than computers? You can get more news and information over the internet than you can over your cable tv provider.

Brilliance does not determine success. Hard work + Brilliance does. Alot of the time, hard work is all that's necessary. So dude, get a job and work hard, then either ask for a raise or apply for another job.

And yes, in Communism Bill Gates would have to go back to work because that is how a healthy society is suppossed to function; all those capable of work do work to support those who cannot.

Classic robin hood analogy. There are many reasons poor people exist. People tend to focus on lack of job's and market restrictions, but the main reasons are overlooked. Lack of intiative. In Robin Hood, the poor were poor because the rich restricted the rights of the poor (remember the story is in medieval society). The rights of the poor in the US are not restricted.

Back on the concept of communism:
What would be an interesting search would be to find out how much money exists in the US through trade and savings. Then divide that amount by the civilian population.

~Vintage

Edited by Vintage, 09 June 2004 - 12:13 PM.

[Crankymonky]

Yes, what a wondeful idea! See how well people would be off if the US socialist! Or you could look at the former USSR, that would be a country run for socialism. Vintage, hard work can mean stressful, physical labor, etc. Also, Why would someone that has a stressdul job under communism ask for a laborous job. Some people may prefer labor some stress. Also, people don't always seek for an easier job if it weren't for pay. Look at the president of the US. Do you think he did it for pay or helping the country? This is a main part of communism that I believe you are ignoring. Not everyone is a slacker.

Crankymonky

[Vintage]

Crankymonky,
We have already determined that socialism is not the right way until almost every single person in the nation looks out for the "good of all." Merlinski said that the people also need to accept full responsibility for their actions.

But we also know that socialism means government control of almost everything. If everyone is already looking out for the "good of all," why does the government need to do anything?

1. Either you have a perfect society with no need for government intervention (Utopia. If you ever read it, there is no official government, just ambassadors from each village who meet to explain any difficulties any village has).

2. Or you have an imperfect society where the government has to keep everyone in line using force (Russia, China).

If you can think of an alternative, please post it. I am open in this respect.

~Vintage

Edited by Vintage, 09 June 2004 - 03:15 PM.

[merlinski]

Crankymonky,
We have already determined that socialism is not the right way until almost every single person in the nation looks out for the "good of all." Merlinski said that the people also need to accept full responsibility for their actions.

But we also know that socialism means government control of almost everything. If everyone is already looking out for the "good of all," why does the government need to do anything?

1. Either you have a perfect society with no need for government intervention (Utopia. If you ever read it, there is no official government, just ambassadors from each village who meet to explain any difficulties any village has).

2. Or you have an imperfect society where the government has to keep everyone in line using force (Russia, China).

If you can think of an alternative, please post it. I am open in this respect.

~Vintage

Government's role in socialism is primarily organizational. Obviously, you need some way of enforcing laws, and the government has to do that as well, but it is primarily organizational. Just like the US government.

3. You have a society where the majority of the people recognize the need for cooperation and the minority disagree with but obey the laws of the government (like the Democrats when Republicans have control).

[Crankymonky]

Well Vintage,

Either you have a perfect society with no need for government intervention (Utopia. If you ever read it, there is no official government, just ambassadors from each village who meet to explain any difficulties any village has).

This is anarchy, anarchy is plain silly. I guess I have never seen a direct connection from anarchy to communism until now, which I am unsure if you intended to show.

2. Or you have an imperfect society where the government has to keep everyone in line using force (Russia, China).

Well, I guess you teh whole world is stuck with imperfect societies where the government keeps everyone in line using force. You say democracy is perfect, then you are blindly following the path. Listen to punk music from the 1970s and up. However, many issues touched upon by punk you feel are moral. An example is abortion. Listen to some sex pistols. Dead Kennedy's had great messages about nixon, I believe Cxwq posted them under the topic Got Punk? Many feel that the US restricts your human rights, just as you believe Russia does. Do you feel enlightened? Do you pledge alliegience to the United States of Hypocrisy? Also, another time (of many) that people's rights were infringed upon were in the McCarthy era. If you don't know what that is, look it up. Try, Cold War, second red scare

Crankymonky

[Vintage]

Crankymonky. Reading your posts is very hard for me. I find it better to have a longer post that is edited and has different thoughts separated with whitespace, than to throw it all together in one big pile.

Merlinski understood my post. I even agree with what he said. To put the first issue straight, I clearly said "socialism" in my post. Not communism.

Anarchy is fine if

every single person in the nation looks out for the "good of all."

Anarchy has nothing to do with socialism. In fact it is the opposite of socialism. I was just comparing the mindset of individuals needed for both systems to run efficiently.

All I gathered from the second half of your post was how I should listen to more punk music.

~Vintage

[Jappo]

Anarchy is fine if

every single person in the nation looks out for the "good of all."

Anarchy has nothing to do with socialism. In fact it is the opposite of socialism. I was just comparing the mindset of individuals needed for both systems to run efficiently.

Actually since socialism and communism are right next to each other on a political spectrum, and if you have read any bit of the communist mannifesto you would know that communism eventually turns into anarchy because the government eventually disappears.

[Accord]

Actually since socialism and communism are right next to each other on a political spectrum

You could also say that democracy is right next to socialism on the political spectrum. Heres a very vague representation.


Communism, Socialism, Democracy, Monarchy, Fascism

Left --> Right

Edited by Accord, 10 June 2004 - 04:07 AM.

[merlinski]

Don't try to classify political systems on a 1-dimensional scale, least of all from left to right. So much depends on the people who are in charge. You could make the case that an enlightened despot would be more liberal than a conservative parliament.

Oh, and BTW, the difference in terms between Socialism and Communism is pretty ridiculous. It's not like they're two different systems, it's just that they've come to mean that due to Russia. Marx and several other individuals coined the name "Communist" purely because they wanted to be distinguished from the other Socialists of the time.

[Vintage]

There are two definitions for communism.
One is where the government controls the economy in an attempt to progress to equality in the sharing of goods.

The other definition is the Marxist-Leninist one which is the taking over the government by force by the working class.

Socialism can be either defined with Communism's first definition above, or as the stage of development between capitalism and communism.

I think communism is widely accepted by the second definition, and socialism is the step needed to reach the rule by the people.

I still don't agree with either system, and here is my main point. Communism is all about rule by the people. That is a pure democracy, and they never work out. The other alternative is rule by a few of "the people," but that can only be by election or sovereign rule. That's either a republic or a dictatorship.

That is why I don't think communism works. Socialism is a system that could work out, but communism either turns into a dictatorship or a pure democracy.

~Vintage

[Evil]

Marxism has nothing to do with conquering. Marxism is the basic concept of communism, that all are equal and that their is no class system.

[Crankymonky]

Vintage, You want to know what I said. I said, you classify communism as evil and corrupt leaders. I say often in democracy there is corruption and rights removed. I feel if someone were unable to get an abortion that would be infringement upon their rights. This did hapen in the court case Webster v. Reproductive Health Care Services. This gave states the power to limit abortions. Another example of when the US has infringed on people's rights is in the second red scare with McCarthyism and HUAC. Julius and Ether Rosenberg were both killed when there was not enough evidence to prove them guilty. This should be interesting to hear your responce with catholic morals. There are hundreds of examples, which are usually a large part of punk music.

I have always believed socialism was an economic system, like capitalism. Please explain why everyone here calls it a form of government.

Also, I would like to hear eveyone's opinions on Vietcong and Black Panthers.
Funny how in our politically correct world the Vietcong are called terrorists while the Black Panthers were a strong social political group. I think that is totally fucked. The Black Panthers were terrorists and the Vietcong were a political group.

Crankymonky

[merlinski]

Vintage, you are offering "definitions" that are only your own personal opinions, not to mention incorrect in the case of communism.

The overthrow of the ruling class by the proletariat is just the step necessary to reach communism, and has nothing to do with the actual form of government.

These are just words, and there is no universal definition for either one, and you can't define an entire economic system based on what your opinion of it is.

State the idea that you're talking about (ie. equal ownership or government control, etc.), don't just call it "communism" and assume everyone will adopt your definition.

[Crankymonky]

Here is a real definition of communism

1A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

2Communism

A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

Socialism
1Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

I am still confused about the forms of government/economic systems.

Crankymonky

[Vintage]

Vintage, you are offering "definitions" that are only your own personal opinions, not to mention incorrect in the case of communism.

If I have a wrong definition of communism, then so does dictionary.com, because that is where I got the definition. It was the exact same definition as crankymonky found.

Read my post. It followed that definition completely.

There are two definitions for communism.
One is where the government controls the economy in an attempt to progress to equality in the sharing of goods.

The other definition is the Marxist-Leninist one which is the taking over the government by force by the working class.

2Communism

A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

Exactly the same.

State the idea that you're talking about (ie. equal ownership or government control, etc.), don't just call it "communism" and assume everyone will adopt your definition.

So now official definitions are relative? I think you are brilliant (by the use of the word brilliant, I refer to my personal relative meaning: "stupid")
--
Crankymonky, my right to murder my irritating neighbor is infringed upon. Why shouldn't the right to murder my child be also?

I am not Catholic. I am RCUS (Reformed Church in the United States).

I will address McCarthy later, gotta run now.

Oh, one more thought for you guys. How can their be "equality" if an special group of people enforce the rules on everyone else. I want to enforce rules too.

~Vintage

Edited by Vintage, 10 June 2004 - 02:22 PM.

[Crankymonky]

I was backing you up on your definitions...However, yours did have an opinionated tone in them, however they were the same definition.


I see what you are saying, however I disagree with your abortion morals.

Crankymonky, my right to murder my irritating neighbor is infringed upon. Why shouldn't the right to murder my child be also?

I think you misunderstand me. You have no right to kill your neighbor, it is your neighbor's rights being infringed upon when the government sentences them to death, while there is no crime performed.
Do you feel it is ok for the government to kill you for being a suspected spy?
It did not have anything to do with communism, it just shows how "democracy" is far from perfect

Abortion
I feel it is fine, whilst you don't. Also, the right to abortion was removed in the court case I mentioned, indirectly. Often, people can save their own lives by having an abortion. Our foster care system is far from perfect, would you rather have a child grow up in a terrible environment, with high chance for disease. Most of the time the child doesn't even make it to foster care when it is needed. I would probably not support abortion if we had a perfect foster care system and could eliminate disease and chance of birth deaths. However, that hasn't happened.

[Evil]

I am still confused about the forms of government/economic systems.

Crankymonky

Obviously...

Because Marxism has nothing to do with the use of the military to overthrow and spread the idea of communism. I'm fairly sure that I'm right when I say that the idea of "aggressive communism" was perpetuated by Stalin's late 1940s post WW2 acquisition of the eastern half of Europe and those who followed him after '54 (which I believe was the year of his death). Marx was never a Soviet leader. And if my history's right, he was dead before he could see the USSR.

Who knows what he [Marx] would have thought about how much his ideals were bastardized.

June 1995 THE NATIONAL (not sure if it's a magazine or newspaper but I've seen the same article in a few places)

"[Feklisov] a former KGB officer, said that "he recruited Julius Rosenberg to spy for the Soviet Union in 1943, that he had fifty meetings with Rosenberg, that Rosenberg gave him valuable military information, and that Ethel Rosenberg was aware of her husband's spying but did not participate in intelligence work." (Radosh, “Final Verdict”) Feklisov also said that Rosenberg stole the plans for a "friend and foe" device from Emerson Corporation. This device distinguished allied aircraft from enemy aircraft. Julius also stole the proximity fuse. Feklisov testified that a proximity fuse "increases the possibility to shoot down enemy planes may be ten....twenty times and that it was used to shoot down the U-2, which put the end to the 1960 summit conference between Eisenhower and Khrushchev."

Rosenberg, unless Feklisov is a convincing liar, definitely had his past to answer for.

EDIT USLESS ABORTION ARGUMENT BECAUSE THEIR IS NO CHANGING A PRO-LIFE/CHOICEer:

Abortion I feel it is fine, whilst you don't.

If you were aborted, I doubt you'd feel the same you do. The word "fine" probably is not the best choice of words either.

Often, people can save their own lives by having an abortion.

You better cite something because that statement I'm pretty sure is false.

"Often" does not mean 8.3 [maternal deaths] per 100,000 live births (Cited Piece). The idea that many women are at risk of losing their lives during the process of childbirth is certainly a brash and unfounded assumption.

Our foster care system is far from perfect, would you rather have a child grow up in a terrible environment, with high chance for disease.

You're definitely going to have to back that up. I don't know how many foster care homes are ravaged with disease and sickness, but I doubt it's a fraction of a fraction of a percent. And you insue that the introduction of a child into any foster care program or adoption is automatically a sharp personal/social handicap by stating that because the system is not perfect, that they will grow up undoubtedly in a poor environment. This is untrue. I know many adopted individuals, female, male, both young and old, are they the exceptions that they contributed to society and my life in particular?

Most of the time the child doesn't even make it to foster care when it is needed.

I'd believe it if I read it.

I would probably not support abortion if we had a perfect foster care system and could eliminate disease and chance of birth deaths. However, that hasn't happened.

Dead babies as a result of an imperfect system? Sounds like a distorted look at life to me.

Edited by Evil, 10 June 2004 - 03:41 PM.

[Crankymonky]

This info was not known until long after the Rosenberg's had been killed.

Wait, so socialism is not an economic system?
Stupid history teacher told our class that it was, also there were like 10 questions on the government/economic system of US and USSR. According to her, socialism is an economic system that was used in the USSR. Now I am totally confused.

Crankymonky

[Vintage]

So, Evil, how did Marx plan to give everyone equality. I have not read "The Communist Manifesto" and don't really know what Karl was trying to start. All I know is the basic principle behind communism (equality) and the present day forms of it.

Edit: Socialism is an economic system. The government regulates the prices and influences the market.

~Vintage

Edited by Vintage, 10 June 2004 - 03:22 PM.