»Why socialism is BS«
|
|||
 The reason why Tony Blair isn't a proper socialist is because Socialism Doesn't Work! That's al there is to it. The Americans obviously realised this a long time ago, so they needn't bother with this debate. That's the reason why both their main parties are heavily right wing and with New Labour in place it looks like our country is quickly following the same pattern! You are best off having a conservative party which has options set up for the poorest within its system. The 'take from the rich and give to the poor' system will never work because (1) The biggest corporations will always find a way to wriggle out of it. And more importantly (2) no one will be prepared to take the risks necessary to start a company unless they can receive the proper benefits for it. The only hope against corporate facism is to beat them at their own game. Unless corporations can set themselves up as alternatives to the power-hungry monsters that are already there, we will be more slaves to the corporations than ever. What would smashing it all down acheive? We'd just have to rebuild it and the in the meanwhile the weakest would suffer. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsPolitics and Crime (Assorted topics)Why socialism is BS |
|
|||
 fatpie42: The only hope against corporate facism is to beat them at their own game. Abolish stockmarket and there won't be any huge corporations. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 What's wrong with China? Ok, it didn't work out in the USSR. But China seems cool. They're cutting down on the political censorship too. And if you're Dalai Lama you can always just vacation in India. posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Communism is the only thing that's keeping China from becoming a world superpower. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: Communism is the only thing that's keeping China from becoming a world superpower. What the heck are you talking about? Communism is the reason why China is a world superpower. When does a country become a world superpower, when it has pop stars? They've been nuclear for quite some time, they're on the security council, they'll send people to mars before you do.. And it all started after Kai Shek and all those imperial whores got whipped by the boxers. And they've developed rapidly from then on. India and China formed their present political systems and became 'independant' around the same time; and look at the massive difference between the two. Almost the same resources, perhaps India has a bit more. But China has got ahead so quickly because the state doesn't have to worry about the media or the intelligentsia or any of those things which impede the implementation of state policies. posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 ralph_angelus: Communism is the reason why China is a world superpower. No, the only reason is: Because China is so big. Everything so big could be said to be a superpower. Moreover the reasons why China turns into a superpower are BECAUSE it TURNS AWAY from communism. Under Mao Zedong and during the great leap forward more than 30 million Chinese starved to death. ralph_angelus: neo colonialism stops usa from becoming superpower Stops the US from being a super power? What? US _is_ a super power. ralph_angelus: But China has got ahead so quickly because the state doesn't have to worry about the media or the intelligentsia Quite the opposite: It is said, that one of the reason why China's growth is limited is the lack of independent media and "freedom of information acts". A lot of bribing going on and a lot of criminal activity. Moreover the reason why India is not as powerful as India is because India has massive amount of analphabets (and cast systems) posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's all this about communism? This thread is about socialism. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
I thought communism could be called revolutionary socialism? posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
And high-pitched noises are 'revolutionary colour'. Whatever. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hey, all the arguments against socialism, communism and stateism on this forum are like "Look at X government, it does Y pretty badly. Therefore Y should not be left to ANY government. Therefore socalism /communism /statism does not work". BAH! posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Perhaps we could say - this state has socialist principles. Here's why they don't why work. If changing the principles would involve getting rid of socialism altogether then socialism doesn't work. However, if we could change socialist principles to make them work in pratice then it might still be a good theory. The problem here seems to be that none of us are socialists... posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 fatpie42: if we could change socialist principles to make them work in pratice then it might still be a good theory. Isn't that the problem with Communism (as implimented). It's not socialist enough. They changed the principals to serve the power-elite. Quote: The problem here seems to be that none of us are socialists... I am 
At least in principal. i.e. being a practical socialist in a capitalist society leaves you wide open to exploitation - from capitalists. For socialism to work, everybody must believe in it rather than being forced to believe in it. And since most people are looking out for themselves it can never work. It's not all about free handouts for minorities, or the "hard working" rich people paying for the "lazy" poor - that's another misinterpretation The best example I've seen is remote bus routes. A town has two bus services, one serves the centre of town and the busy estates, the other outlying remote regions. The first one is extremely profitable, while the second makes a loss. The capitalist viewpoint is to cancel the second or reroute it to support the first (put the service where the money is) or to put up prices to make it pay. They would maintain that it is unfair for those in the centre to pay for services for those in the outer districts. Whereas the socialist view is to use the profits from the first to subsidise the second. They maintain that as a public service, everyone should be entitled to equal treatment. Where your views end up tends to be based, not on political ideals, but on personal interest - A capitalist in the big city would probably still argue for the right of his poor grandmother in the sticks to have her bus to Bingo 
Hell, even democratic elections are based on socialist ideals - everyone has equal say in an election. The capitalist take on this is the way big business "buys" political favour. Socialism suggests that everyone gets the same opportunities in life, Capitalism suggests that those with the money deserve a bigger piece of the pie. I know which I choose.
posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marl64: I am Yay! Finally! I'm not even close to assigning a political ideology for myself, but it's nice that not everyone here is an ultra-capitalist. Marl64: Socialism suggests that everyone gets the same opportunities in life, Capitalism suggests that those with the money deserve a bigger piece of the pie. I know which I choose. And the funniest thing is, these people will argue that letting Rich-Richer-Richest run its own free course is going to help the poor people more than institutionalised planning and aid! posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
The problem is that socialism involves the state taking control of things in order to make things fairer. State control can be very dangerous. See the dictionary definition: socialism 1. Any 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. 2.The 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. Communism (as seen in practice) is the next stage up from socialism because it involves complete control of everything by the state. Totalitarian control. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: The problem is that socialism involves the state taking control of things in order to make things fairer. State control can be very dangerous. Not in my brand fatpie42: 1. Any 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. This looks a lot like the one on "dictionary.com" and looks like Socialism through Capitalist Eyes. I'm not saying that this isn't the recognised image of socialism, but it's far from my view on it. Quote: Totalitarian control. And this is why. In my fuzzy cotton wool version, there would be no need of control since it's an ideal achieved through complete mutual concensus. I don't buy into this "some people are more equal than others" mentality. But a socialist state of one has trouble achieving independance
A lot of people believe that without control there is only anarchy - a view born in a controlled environment. Without control there is also harmony and balance - something which ecosystems the world over have enjoyed for millions of years. What's the point of havng ideals if they're not ideal 
posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
1, 2 Next
Goto page
1, 2 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 23 May 2012, 06:21 php B.B. |