• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Democracy Vs Socialism

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
If you paid attention, you would have seen that Bush said that the war in Iraq was necessary for a dozen different reasons. That was because he couldn't name the primary reason without all the surrender monkeys having a hissy fit. The primary reason was that it was time to get the pawns out of the center of board so the queen could have free room to move in all directions. We didn't enter Iraq for a lie. We entered Iraq for reasons not stated

They sure would have a hissy fit. Some of us disagree with imperialism. You may like it but it's not our job in a place that couldn't get more different our own country. Also don't you think we should find Osama? 'cuz I sure do. I knew some of those people in the towers and 5 years is too long to let him run loose in the jungle (or dessert) like the chimpanzee he is. We seem to have forgotton that he's still out there and decided that some oil rich nation called Iraq, with no Al Queda or Osama connections, is a more important use of our military power than finding the murderer of the greatest amount of Americans on our home soil.

The reason the schools systems don't work is even simpler than that. The nationalized school system violates that basic premise of federalism. The central authority of Washington prevents the several states from determining the best methods of teaching their students. Instead, methods that don't work are forced on everyone from the very highest levels.

The requirements don't need to be extremely complicated. They just have to say that the students need to learn at least this, this, and this, and the states can figure out which way they want to teach these standards.



[/QUOTE]Schools A, B, and C should be using their own money, and then the parents would be watching how it's spent. Since the parents in Arkansas are spending money from California, what do they care? And, nice, you didn't mention that most money is squandered on union goon salaries, and they NEVER fix bathrooms because broken bathrooms are an excellent way to make stupid parents support yet another bond issue.
[/QUOTE]

Teachers deserve to be paid alot. Kids are rowdy and especially in public schools. When you have to teach a class of 40 kids who really don't care, a small salary isn't going to cut it.

I'm talking about the government giving schools A, B, C money for text books and education. The point I was making is that schools will be completely different and some schools will be better than others.

I mention the unions in the next paragraph. They need to be controlled more atleast in this education.


Public education will be fixed when the public no longer has anything to do with education.

This is a very ignorant statement. Public in this nation may not be as good as private but it covers more people than private does. Only a select lucky few are able to afford private education. Once people's ability to learn and be educated is in if they have money or not we have come to a sad point in society.

When people are in general judged by their money rather than they're character and people have lost all sense of social equality and justice, we will have reached a sad point in time.



That ain't gonna happen. Not in the real world.

That's an easy way to get your self out of writing a long explanation. I guess since scarecrow says it's not going to happen its not.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That has nothing to do with it, Africa has far more natural resources than the U.S., Russia had far more land and natural resources than the U.S., China has far more resources and land than the U.S. et al.
Africa has experienced a long time of slavery, imperialism, and technologic and economic backwardness, many still live in a feudal or tribal system there, also the past and present imperialism takes many resources too. Russia, at the of the 1917 revolutions, was "the weakest link in the capitalist chain", still lived under the Tsarist monarchy, had not industrialised as much as US or Europe, many still lived under the feudalistic system, WWI and the Russo-Japanese wars were disastorious for Russia. China is not much larger, and probably has had less resources than the US, except labor-power, and still displays backwardness from lack of industrialisation and still live with many peasants.
Wait, you mean to tell me that you beleive in the stateless version of communism? People like you really do exist?
Yes-communism is stateless, most "communists" do support it. But there is really no "stateless version", the state must have withered away for communism.
Religious institutions? Oh wait it's Communism I forgot religion would be abolished.
Absolutely not, religion would turn into a purely private affair, though probably with the lack of exploitation, etc.,etc. not much many people would turn to religion for answers or help.
And who/what abolished it?
No one.
The ridiculous theory is that without classes, we would always get along just peachy and a state wouldn't be needed.
I think you are overstating it, communism was never meant to be perfect, a utopia or otherwise, petty disputes and other such things would not disappear, though they would probably be less in numbers.
It's not communism or extreme socialism. It's what extreme socialism degrades into.
What is "extreme socialism"?
Using the strictest form of socialism, they are.
And just what is the "strictest form of socialism"?
 
Last edited:

zymurgy

Banned
Joined
Feb 28, 2006
Messages
909
Reaction score
8
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Comrade Brian said:
I think you are overstating it, communism was never meant to be perfect, a utopia or otherwise, petty disputes and other such things would not disappear, though they would probably be less in numbers.

I know for a fact you are ignoring the flaw in your ideology.

You can't settle disputes without having people agree on a body that gets to resolve the dispute. You can call this body anything you want but it serves the role of the state.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck.

So much for your stateless non-utopia.
 

-Demosthenes-

Internet Revolutionist
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
7
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
SA said:
If you paid attention, you would have seen that Bush said that the war in Iraq was necessary for a dozen different reasons. That was because he couldn't name the primary reason without all the surrender monkeys having a hissy fit. The primary reason was that it was time to get the pawns out of the center of board so the queen could have free room to move in all directions. We didn't enter Iraq for a lie. We entered Iraq for reasons not stated.

What exactly does this mean?

CB said:
Yes-communism is stateless, most "communists" do support it. But there is really no "stateless version", the state must have withered away for communism.

But impossible.

CB said:
What is "extreme socialism"?

The traditional sense of communism (which is not communism) where the government controls the economy.

CB said:
And just what is the "strictest form of socialism"?

Government regulation of the economy.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You can't settle disputes without having people agree on a body that gets to resolve the dispute. You can call this body anything you want but it serves the role of the state.
I guess that would be a flaw with how we Marxists view the state, we view the state as a means of class-predomination. Since communism is classless---> no state. Any body with authority or organisation is not a state.
But impossible.
In my opinion people who think in such absolutes are a bit "idiotic", I don't claim communism to be "perfect" or even "inevitable".
The traditional sense of communism where the government controls the economy.
That is not even traditionally, "communism" where everything is state-owned, is more of a popular definition(or rather misconception).
Government regulation of the economy.
No, it is collective ownership, collective ownership does not translate into state-ownership.
 

-Demosthenes-

Internet Revolutionist
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
7
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
CB said:
In my opinion people who think in such absolutes are a bit "idiotic", I don't claim communism to be "perfect" or even "inevitable".

Fine, nearly impossible, and extremely dangerous to try.

CB said:
That is not even traditionally, "communism" where everything is state-owned, is more of a popular definition(or rather misconception).

Whatever it is, Marx wouldn't like it.

Cb said:
No, it is collective ownership, collective ownership does not translate into state-ownership.

Under a more specific definition. Meanings branch out from the main strict definition, and this is one of those branches.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Che said:
They sure would have a hissy fit. Some of us disagree with imperialism.

Yeah, like me. Fortunately, I know what imperialism is, and the invasion of Iraq ain't it. The invasion of Iraq was a stragetic gambit, so far a largely successful one.

Che said:
You may like it but it's not our job in a place that couldn't get more different our own country.

Our constitution states that the president sets the foreign policy. You may not like it, but since we had to suffer terrorist attacks while Clinton had his thumb up Monica's ***, we can enjoy actually taking an active approach to terrorism under Bush. I would have done things a little differently, they missed some obvious opportunities, but no one ever said politicians were the smartest people in the world. Needless to say, a totalitarian dictatorship has no basis for objecting and no natural right not to be removed from power by force. That's how they took power in the first place.

Che said:
Also don't you think we should find Osama?

No. We should be like Christopher Reeve's horse. Disconnect the body from the head and let the mouth flap for years afterwards.

Che said:
We seem to have forgotton that he's still out there and decided that some oil rich nation called Iraq, with no Al Queda or Osama connections, is a more important use of our military power than finding the murderer of the greatest amount of Americans on our home soil.

No, we haven't forgotten that, and you're just trying to prove to everyone that your total ignorance of game theory is fact, aren't you?

Che said:
The requirements don't need to be extremely complicated. They just have to say that the students need to learn at least this, this, and this, and the states can figure out which way they want to teach these standards.

There's no constitutional basis for a federally mandated scholastic standard. Read the Tenth Amendment sometime.

Che said:
Teachers deserve to be paid alot. Kids are rowdy and especially in public schools. When you have to teach a class of 40 kids who really don't care, a small salary isn't going to cut it.

Why? Teacher's salaries should be just like everyone else's. They should float on the marketplace of demand and supply. If they have skills that can earn them more money elsewhere, they should either shut up because they've made a choice for lower wages, or they should quit.

See? Problem solved!

Che said:
I'm talking about the government giving schools A, B, C money for text books and education. The point I was making is that schools will be completely different and some schools will be better than others.

And parents should be free to choose between those schools. With today's socialistic school system, the students are trapped by geography. They have to go to school in their district, whether it's suitable for them or not. And because the schools have a captive customer base and a guaranteed revenue stream regardless of the quality of finished product, there's no incentive to change anything.

Che said:
This is a very ignorant statement. Public in this nation may not be as good as private but it covers more people than private does.

Well, duh! Let's see, the government comes along and establishes a free of charge operation, in direct "competition" with a fee for service private school. Overnight the private school industry is destroyed, leaving only those private schools that teach a special curriculum (usually religious based), or it's reaching the high-end customer that realizes that you get what you pay for and is willing to pay for a quality education for their kids.

No wonder public schools have the majority of students, given an elementary understanding of basic economics.

Che said:
Only a select lucky few are able to afford private education.

Re-read what I just said.

Che said:
Once people's ability to learn and be educated is in if they have money or not we have come to a sad point in society.

Yeah, we'll have returned to the concept of freedom and justice for all.

Che said:
When people are in general judged by their money rather than they're character and people have lost all sense of social equality and justice, we will have reached a sad point in time.

What social equality? There's not only no such thing, there not only was never any such thing, there's never ever going to be any such thing. That's the reality of human nature.

Che said:
That's an easy way to get your self out of writing a long explanation. I guess since scarecrow says it's not going to happen its not.

Yeah, I'm omniscient. It's part of my deification process. It's such a bore.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
-Demosthenes- said:
What exactly does this mean?

It means that there were perfectly valid reasons for displacing Hussein that would have been impolitic to mention publicly.
 

-Demosthenes-

Internet Revolutionist
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
7
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
SA said:
It means that there were perfectly valid reasons for displacing Hussein that would have been impolitic to mention publicly.

Like what?
 

Ether

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Comrade Brian said:
In my opinion people who think in such absolutes are a bit "idiotic", I don't claim communism to be "perfect" or even "inevitable".

Well, have you ever thought about how it is impossible to conduct rational economic activity when all the means of production are owned "collectively"?

I guess the possibility of communism depends on whether or not you want to exclude foreign markets and rely solely on domestic industry.
 

-Demosthenes-

Internet Revolutionist
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
7
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Like the one I already mentioned.

No, you said something about pawns and queens. I don't like analogies.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, have you ever thought about how it is impossible to conduct rational economic activity when all the means of production are owned "collectively"?
How is it impossible?
I guess the possibility of communism depends on whether or not you want to exclude foreign markets and rely solely on domestic industry.
What "foreign markets"?
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
186
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Their will always be rich and poor, even in a socialist economy.
 

WilliamH

New member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ManOfTrueTruth said:
Their will always be rich and poor, even in a socialist economy.

In a pure Communist society there would be no class divisions, that's the goal of Communism.
 
Top Bottom