Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Quite so. Other systems restrict freedom, prosperity, or both.

Too much freedom leads to violence.

You need slight government intervention

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Which leads to violence.

History tells us this time and time again.

Albenia wrote:Too much freedom leads to violence.

You need slight government intervention

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.

Albenia wrote:Too much freedom leads to violence.

You need slight government intervention

Well of course, anarchy and military rule is not the answer. We just want as little government control as possible.

Right-Winged Nation wrote: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.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Quite so. Other systems restrict freedom, prosperity, or both.

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.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Which leads to violence.

We aren't going to play this game.

Like I say.

Minimal government intervention.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote: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.

Agreed

Communal Militia wrote: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.

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.

Communal Militia wrote: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.

It's not a game, it's the truth

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote: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.

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

Albenia wrote:Socialism came about in 1860 (Named)

The theory of Socialism began in 1789

Albenia wrote: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.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:So monarchy is a lot older.

Monarchy technically began in Sumerian and Egyptian times

To me, socialism looks like monarchy without kings or gods.

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:We are being philosophically raided right now. Why can't these commies just leave. I mean, as if TTA wasn't enough?

BUT I'M A RIGHTIST ...well now I am....

Well Centre-Right

Albenia wrote:Monarchy technically began in Sumerian and Egyptian times

That's awhile back.

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:We are being philosophically raided right now. Why can't these commies just leave. I mean, as if TTA wasn't enough?

BUT I'M A RIGHTIST ...well now I am....

Well Centre-Right

Communal Militia wrote: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.

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.

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:We are being philosophically raided right now. Why can't these commies just leave. I mean, as if TTA wasn't enough?

If they want to stay and realize the error of their ways, they can be my guest.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:To me, socialism looks like monarchy without kings or gods.

That's sums it up.

Albenia wrote:BUT I'M A RIGHTIST ...well now I am....

Well Centre-Right

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.

The Amarican Empire wrote:Your a rightist today tta, tomarrow you will be a anarchist or a Socialist

Hmm. That reminds me of someone else.

Communal Militia wrote: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.

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.

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote: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?

Who knows, we haven't tried it yet.

The Amarican Empire wrote:Your a rightist today tta, tomarrow you will be a anarchist or a Socialist

You were there when I saw the error of my ways.

You saw me change.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote: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.

Care to specify how workers control of the means of productions in some outdated thing, borrowed from Capitalism? Imperialism is barbaric.

The Amarican Empire wrote:Tsar?

Okay, make that multiple people...I was thinking of an old Libertatem flip-flopper. But, yeah, Tsar was like that.

Albenia wrote:You were there when I saw the error of my ways.

You saw me change.

Alright then. Show Communal Militia what you've learned.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote: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.

Socialism is a system with way too much government control, government controls means of production.

Communal Militia wrote:Care to specify how workers control of the means of productions in some outdated thing, borrowed from Capitalism? Imperialism is barbaric.

Capitalism=/=Imperialism

Albenia wrote:Capitalism=/=Imperialism

Well, that's a start, TTA. Indeed, an economic model has little, if anything, to do with territorial nationalism.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote: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.

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.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Well, that's a start, TTA. Indeed, an economic model has little, if anything, to do with territorial nationalism.

If anything an economic distribution would cause Socialist countries to lose resources causing them to expand militarily.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Socialism is a system with way too much government control, government controls means of production.

No, Socialism is when the workers own the means of production directly. It looks like you need to brush up on your definitions.

Communal Militia wrote: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.

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.

Albenia wrote: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.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote: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.

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.

Communal Militia wrote:No, Socialism is when the workers own the means of production directly. It looks like you need to brush up on your definitions.

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.

Albenia wrote: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.

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.

Communal Militia wrote: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?

Right-Winged Nation wrote: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.

Do not treat me like a child

Communal Militia wrote: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.

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.

Albenia wrote:But can the workers run the state efficiently without corruption?

Very unlikely. Corruption only came to the U.S.S.R when Capitalist Liberalism infiltrated the party in the 70's.

Communal Militia wrote: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.

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?

Communal Militia wrote:Very unlikely. Corruption only came to the U.S.S.R when Capitalist Liberalism infiltrated the party in the 70's.

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.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote: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.

Except there are no chances in a soviet-style system. The dictatorship of the proletariat is constantly kept in check by the proletarians only.

Communal Militia wrote:Very unlikely. Corruption only came to the U.S.S.R when Capitalist Liberalism infiltrated the party in the 70's.

Communal Militia wrote:Very unlikely. Corruption only came to the U.S.S.R when Capitalist Liberalism infiltrated the party in the 70's.

Communal Militia wrote:Very unlikely. Corruption only came to the U.S.S.R when Capitalist Liberalism infiltrated the party in the 70's.

Right, because the people in the USSR wanted communism, being oppressed had nothing to do with the fall of the USSR.

The Amarican Empire wrote:Lol why do you blame everything on the a Capitalists. Maybe the party was just realizing that their system did not work.

Yeah, especially the whole poverty thing. Have you seen the poverty in Soviet Union-era Russia?

Communal Militia wrote:Very unlikely. Corruption only came to the U.S.S.R when Capitalist Liberalism infiltrated the party in the 70's.

It came with Lenin.

Lenin might not have been corrupted but he began the dictatorship of the USSR. Stalin corrupted it.

Communal Militia wrote:Except there are no chances in a soviet-style system. The dictatorship of the proletariat is constantly kept in check by the proletarians only.

Self-interest will always trump that check.

People want to compete AND cooperate; a system that permits and encourages both is truly innovative.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Yeah, especially the whole poverty thing. Have you seen the poverty in Soviet Union-era Russia?

Nope, it was capitalism that came to the USSR in the 70s(extremely sarcastic tone.)

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote: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?

Nope, equality for all(extremely sarcastic tone.)

The Amarican Empire wrote:Lol why do you blame everything on the a Capitalists. Maybe the party was just realizing that their system did not work.

It was a super minority that believed the system needed to be revised. The USSR achieved many great things for the people.

Albenia wrote:It came with Lenin.

Lenin might not have been corrupted but he began the dictatorship of the USSR. Stalin corrupted it.

It wasn't a dictatorship by today's standards. You would much rather want to live in the USSR than Tsarist russia.

Communal Militia wrote: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

Communal Militia wrote: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

Communal Militia wrote:It wasn't a dictatorship by today's standards. You would much rather want to live in the USSR than Tsarist russia.

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.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Self-interest will always trump that check.

People want to compete AND cooperate; a system that permits and encourages both is truly innovative.

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.

Communal Militia wrote:A system like you propose has never been conceived unfortunately and I would doubt the success in such a creation.

That system is capitalism.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Nope, it was capitalism that came to the USSR in the 70s(extremely sarcastic tone.)

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Nope, equality for all(extremely sarcastic tone.)

Right Wing is so right on tonight lol

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote: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.

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.

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:Right Wing is so right on tonight lol

Agreed

Communal Militia wrote: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.

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.

Albenia wrote:Agreed

Thanks Reagan and Grimes and TTA

Starvation and famine sounds like it accomplished that job quite well, Communal.

(Yeah, I can be sarcastic too.)

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote: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?

The Amarican Empire wrote:Didn't we cut of our grain supply from shipping to the ussr?

The Amarican Empire wrote:Didn't we cut of our grain supply from shipping to the ussr?

The Amarican Empire wrote:Didn't we cut of our grain supply from shipping to the ussr?

The Amarican Empire wrote:Didn't we cut of our grain supply from shipping to the ussr?

The Amarican Empire wrote:Didn't we cut of our grain supply from shipping to the ussr?

The Amarican Empire wrote:Didn't we cut of our grain supply from shipping to the ussr?

The Amarican Empire wrote:Didn't we cut of our grain supply from shipping to the ussr?

Hahahaha

The Amarican Empire wrote:Cut off*

It's okay, still funny

It takes a nation to feed a...well, a nation.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:It takes a nation to feed a...well, a nation.

Duh

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:It takes a nation to feed a...well, a nation.

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.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:I get the feeling he's done debating.

How about some more Star Wars quotes?

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.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:I think we may have talked some since into him, he has stopped responding.

Sense

The Amarican Empire wrote:I know communal. He is not done. He is too stubborn to admit he is wrong.

Well, I guess we will have to convert him

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:I get the feeling he's done debating.

How about some more Star Wars quotes?

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.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Well, I guess we will have to convert him

He told me I didn't know what socialism was, his definition was laughable.

Republic Of Minerva wrote: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.

...Damn. Now I have to play Sith Warrior in SW:TOR.

Later, guys.

Republic Of Minerva wrote: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.

Standing ovation.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Well, I guess we will have to convert him

Y'all converted me...Actually I kind of converted myself.

Albenia wrote:Y'all converted me...Actually I kind of converted myself.

Yay!

So today's two guests were interesting.

Skippity-dee-doppity-doop.

Muh Roads wrote:Skippity-dee-doppity-doop.

Basically the last six hours of RMB nonsense

Yes brainwashed commies vs the army of informed Capitalists.

Albenia wrote:Y'all converted me...Actually I kind of converted myself.

Well you know what they say

"That reason is one hell of a drug"

The Amarican Empire wrote:Yes brainwashed commies vs the army of informed Capitalists.

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.