Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
Too much freedom leads to violence.
You need slight government intervention
History tells us this time and time again.
Freedom without prosperity results in violence.
Prosperity without freedom results in violence.
A lack of freedom AND prosperity - for instance, the French Revolution - absolutely results in violence.
I have yet to see anyone lay siege to a market of their own making, however.
Well of course, anarchy and military rule is not the answer. We just want as little government control as possible.
Indeed; minarchism is preferable, with a government around to serve only the most crucial functions.
Capitalists are, however, divided on this issue - we're not so much government theorists as we are economic experts, as capitalism is a system of economics rather than state politics.
Marxism is not one system that can simply be implemented and there you have it- communism. No, society evolves because of economic conditions worldwide. The stage in between capitalism and socialism is currently where all of the former eastern bloc nations are and they will only evolve when revolution spreads elsewhere, and in turn necessitate a newer form of a social construct which is socialism. The current ones that are still in the face have achieved striking amounts of prosperity, given the fact that the capitalist machine has been imposing economic barriers since the beginning.
We aren't going to play this game.
Like I say.
Minimal government intervention.
Agreed
What's so new about socialism? The name's pretty old, and the concept may be even older than communism - governments have always desired control of a market, and it is only within the past few hundred years that anyone thought NOT to let a government control the market.
It's not a game, it's the truth
Older than capitalism, I mean, although I'd imagine it would also be older than communism by extension.
Socialism came about in 1860 (Named)
The theory of Socialism began in 1789
So monarchy is a lot older.
We are being philosophically raided right now. Why can't these commies just leave. I mean, as if TTA wasn't enough?
When I said newer, I did not mean what historical point in which is was named. I meant newer in the sense of the next societal stage in development. I should have clarified.
Monarchy technically began in Sumerian and Egyptian times
To me, socialism looks like monarchy without kings or gods.
BUT I'M A RIGHTIST ...well now I am....
Well Centre-Right
That's awhile back.
BUT I'M A RIGHTIST ...well now I am....
Well Centre-Right
Socialism would be a step backwards into barbarism, if anything. I don't see how a theory that borrows so much from previous systems can compare to the innovative model of capitalism.
If they want to stay and realize the error of their ways, they can be my guest.
That's sums it up.
Enough. Can we just not talk about the gosh darn political spectrum, and all of it's confusing inconsistencies that are open to interpretation, for just ONE DAY?
Your a rightist today tta, tomarrow you will be a anarchist or a Socialist
Socialism is workers control of the means of production, past marxist-leninist nations never achieved socialism but have claim close, especially when Lenin had worker councils and such.
Hmm. That reminds me of someone else.
Tsar?
Workers do control the means of production; all they have to do is start their own business for it. Unless, of course, you don't believe entrepreneurs are workers.
Who knows, we haven't tried it yet.
You were there when I saw the error of my ways.
You saw me change.
Care to specify how workers control of the means of productions in some outdated thing, borrowed from Capitalism? Imperialism is barbaric.
Okay, make that multiple people...I was thinking of an old Libertatem flip-flopper. But, yeah, Tsar was like that.
Alright then. Show Communal Militia what you've learned.
Socialism is a system with way too much government control, government controls means of production.
Capitalism=/=Imperialism
Well, that's a start, TTA. Indeed, an economic model has little, if anything, to do with territorial nationalism.
And you just assume that everyone has the means of creating their own business from nothing? What an utter lie that anyone can create their own business and somehow make it magically succeed when you have big business knocking on your door and steal all of the customers.
Economic competition has many faults like bringing people into poverty to increase corporate competitiveness.
If anything an economic distribution would cause Socialist countries to lose resources causing them to expand militarily.
No, Socialism is when the workers own the means of production directly. It looks like you need to brush up on your definitions.
Let me put it this way - if you want all people to control the means of production without having to take any risks, good luck with whatever you get. Seriously.
That's just it; there is no magical success. Socialism won't magically work, nor will communism. Success is something you have to work for - no one is entitled to success in what they do.
Communal
Socialism and Capitalism do not work in society as we know it.
Human Nature is to be better, to improve. Power corrupts. It's not fundamentally possible for everyone to share and not compete without massive government intervention.
*Communism
Not capitalism.
Socialism cannot be implemented, it can only be adopted once economic conditions are met. That said, Marxism cannot "magically" work out of nothing either.
I also recommend you knock of the attitude.
You should brush up on yours socialism is a way of organizing society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than individual people and companies.
It isn't possible to automatically share everything randomly. That is why the state of the proletariat is the middle man in all of this.
But can the workers run the state efficiently without corruption?
Do not treat me like a child
The state takes. The proletariat is self-interested and would act like the bourgeoisie if given the chance.
It would be difficult to introduce a system of public ownership, especially considering that private ownership has its advantages and would not result in the Tragedy of the Commons.
Very unlikely. Corruption only came to the U.S.S.R when Capitalist Liberalism infiltrated the party in the 70's.
Just a nice example of the beauty of social Darwinism. If you can't successfully adapt, innovate, and surpass your competitors then maybe you don't deserve the status of those who have. Ever think of that?
It came well before that. Corruption could be found within the very state, as evidenced by their five-year plans and responsibility for a hundred thousand deaths.
...Wait, CE, you're a Stalin apologist, aren't you? I remember reading something about that.
Lol why do you blame everything on the a Capitalists. Maybe the party was just realizing that their system did not work.
Except there are no chances in a soviet-style system. The dictatorship of the proletariat is constantly kept in check by the proletarians only.
Right, because the people in the USSR wanted communism, being oppressed had nothing to do with the fall of the USSR.
Yeah, especially the whole poverty thing. Have you seen the poverty in Soviet Union-era Russia?
It came with Lenin.
Lenin might not have been corrupted but he began the dictatorship of the USSR. Stalin corrupted it.
Self-interest will always trump that check.
People want to compete AND cooperate; a system that permits and encourages both is truly innovative.
Nope, it was capitalism that came to the USSR in the 70s(extremely sarcastic tone.)
Nope, equality for all(extremely sarcastic tone.)
It was a super minority that believed the system needed to be revised. The USSR achieved many great things for the people.
It wasn't a dictatorship by today's standards. You would much rather want to live in the USSR than Tsarist russia.
I would indeed. Until Stalin came.
The Tsar was better then Stalin
I would indeed. Until Stalin came.
The Tsar was better then Stalin
I wouldn't want to live in either; both were evil, both resulted in poverty across the board, and both had an apathetic (if not downright hostile) system of government.
The main difference is that the Soviet era meant that more people suffered, and had less money all around.
A system like you propose has never been conceived unfortunately and I would doubt the success in such a creation.
Yes because The Russian Empire was still in feudalism.
That system is capitalism.
Right Wing is so right on tonight lol
The USSR made education and literacy wide-spread. Books and magazines were made affordable. Housing and food made affordable, and wages and benefits made fair. Only the higher classes had the means of education and a better life.
Agreed
Do you even hear yourself right now? The USSR achieved great things for people. I have been to Czech Republic, listened the to personal accounts of people who were apart of the USSR, they would want to severely inflict pain on you for such a statement.
Thanks Reagan and Grimes and TTA
Starvation and famine sounds like it accomplished that job quite well, Communal.
(Yeah, I can be sarcastic too.)
Starving and famine is wonderful for a society didn't you know(this is becoming laughable at this point.)
Didn't we cut of our grain supply from shipping to the ussr?
Hahahaha
Cut off*
It's okay, still funny
It takes a nation to feed a...well, a nation.
Duh
Which leads to the economic downfall of the USSR
I get the feeling he's done debating.
How about some more Star Wars quotes?
O ya we did. We cut the shipments over the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 80s
I think we may have talked some since into him, he has stopped responding.
Him? I doubt it, but you never know.
These are not the droids you're looking for(using force.)
I know communal. He is not done. He is too stubborn to admit he is wrong.
Sense
Well, I guess we will have to convert him
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
Capitalism shall free me.
He told me I didn't know what socialism was, his definition was laughable.
...Damn. Now I have to play Sith Warrior in SW:TOR.
Later, guys.
Standing ovation.
Y'all converted me...Actually I kind of converted myself.
Yay!
So today's two guests were interesting.
Skippity-dee-doppity-doop.
Basically the last six hours of RMB nonsense
Yes brainwashed commies vs the army of informed Capitalists.
Well you know what they say
"That reason is one hell of a drug"
Talk about being brainwashed when the capitalist heads all societal conformity measures through means of education and media. The only thing you are informed about is capitalist propaganda!
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.