- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 25,116
- Reaction score
- 7,658
- Location
- Theoretical Physics Lab
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
I can't name a single time anyone actually really tried socialism. The prominent examples you're thinking of were fascist dictatorships that falsely labeled themselves socialist. But you're entirely wrong if you think that the problem is "government screwing with the marketplace". Real liberty in this country disappeared the moment that government was put up for sale on the market. We certainly regulate our capitalism, but not for the benefit of anyone but the most powerful capitalists. They remain wholly unregulated, and they have the bought and paid for congress to prove it.
Envy and Power-Lust? No. Collectivism is about selflessness by definition. That's like saying, "We shouldn't teach kids to share, that'll lead to envy and power-lust." What is so uncivilized about sharing?Absolutely possible. It will not be called "Communism", it will be called something else. But the envy, the lust for power, the collectivism...they are simply elements of our human nature. The ones we have to suppress, if we want to stay civilized - and, in the long term - survive.
Yup, Marx and most early Communists had a very distinct dislike of religion. That really has absolutely nothing to do with Communism itself, though. Modern Communist/Socialists/Marxists/etc. tend to be fairly tolerant of religion; those who attack Collectivism as a threat towards religion are just rabble-rousers. It's the age-old game of making a devil out of the other guy.we all know that Marx said "religion is the opium of the people" but in reality, communism can sit quite comfortably alongside religion. the catholic church is alive and well in Cuba, in post Stalinist USSR, several orthodox churches were revived, and while most religion was suppressed in Vietnam, one branch of Buddhism was acceptable.
Which is a strange argument, given how many times it has been tried, in different parts of the world, with different people from different cultures being involved in the attempt. Do any Communist apologists claim that somewhere in the world, there is a group of people different from all those who have tried it so far, who would produce a different result than that which came of every other attempt to implement Communism?
One cannot easily avoid being reminded of the cliché about insanity being defined as doing what has been done before, and expecting a different result.
Interesting point. Marx always spoke of the "temporary dictatorship" during the regime change, but I certainly cannot think of a country that ever got past that point.
That's pretty much the standard apologetic for Communism—to claim that since every attempt failed so disastrously, that those who tried to implement it must have gone about it the wrong way, and that therefore, what they did doesn't count as a genuine attempt to put Communism into practice.
Not only is it possible, it is inevitable. We are slowly moving towards a more egalitarian system. Those who panic about the loss of what make this country great don't realize that a commitment to equality and curbing abuses of power (the hallmark of a real socialist system) are what make it great. The only think that could truly destroy this nation would be to sell control of it to a new aristocracy. Which is, of course, what the conservative factions are trying to do, even if they don't all realize it. That's certainly what the billionaires who fund those factions are trying to do.
Yes, this is the biggest issue in all systems. Communism addresses scarcity in passing, but it never really sets forth a path to removing it. It's a chicken and the egg situation; you can't get post-scarcity from capitalism, but you can't leave capitalism without post-scarcity. I am a proponent of technological utopianism, which hinges on a singularity event in society and technology; the idea being that we will build a new system (spontaneously?) that is post-scarcity. Some propose that this event will occur by 2040, but futurists have a talent for getting things wrong. (where's my flying car?)Neither communism nor socialism is possible, anywhere, as long as scarcity exists.
No, I support a meritocracy not an aristocracy. Aristocracy is inherited and remains stagnant regardless of the actions of the individual, a meritocracy will see rises and failings based upon the merits of the individual. The working class takes money from the owner class also. How much a particular worker earns is based upon the value the worker gives and his value in a competitive market. The owner pays a "fair" wage, which really means he pays either the minimum to get the work done or he pays more to receive greater value from the work.
If a worker is only qualified for a McJob and there are 100 of them for each job, "fair" wage isn't going to be much. If however you need a pipeline welder which requires great skill and there are 100 jobs for each welder, then that worker, the welder, is going to do pretty darned good.
Merit, the skills and attitude to do a job controls the workers wage, not owners. The owners who need the work done will pay what is necessary to get the work done. When the cost of labor for the owner exceeds what the consumer is willing to pay, then the business fails, period. How much profit a business gets is controlled by how much competition there is in the market for the product sold/produced. Reduce competition and profit/wealth concentrate with the few instead of spread out over the many. The reduction also reduces the number of jobs available and thus lowers the pay for workers because there are more workers available than jobs.
No form of socialism can change those dynamics without totally breaking the whole system. Over Regulated capitalism interferes with the proper working of that dynamic. Under regulated capitalism/corporatism can to monopolies and greatly concentrate wealth.
But since socialism is not only economic but social, it tries to "balance" what each person gets instead of letting each person receive what they have earned. In doing so, it subjugates the productive/earners to the none-productive/earners.
How in the world can capitalism wipe out the species?
Apparently you have confused the current/past US economy with some form of unregulated capitalism. The government has been screwing with it for a very long time. Industrialist/corporatist started trying to control the market and limit competition at least as early as the late 1800s, probably if you dig deep enough, from the very beginning.
Lets see, in history, there has never been a particularly successful attempt at socialism and the top economy has always been a market/capitalist based system. Name a single attempt at socialism in a whole society that was ever been "successful" and did anything but impoverish everyone in that society, except those leading the socialism.
rabbitcaebannog when you consider their size(s)
I wouldn't 'call' them at all
I've named a ton before, ranging from Allende's Chile to the Eastern European bloc of the 80s, amongst numerous others.
Socialism's been tried. Socialism's failed.
Capitalism failed. It promised a real change from the aristocracies of the past. The only difference was which ruling class was in charge, and the illusion that they weren't.
What are you even saying
What exactly stops those "rich" people from moving themselves and their money, as some have already done, to another location?
So you're good with a 100% estate tax? That's good to know!No, I support a meritocracy not an aristocracy. Aristocracy is inherited and remains stagnant regardless of the actions of the individual, a meritocracy will see rises and failings based upon the merits of the individual.
I'd like to see that in actual terms instead of what's on the books. I'm willing to bet corporate tax/corporate gross income is much lower than most other countries. The rate itself may be higher but the deductions are also higher.USA has the 2nd highest corporate tax in the world, only behind Japan.
'size matters'
ha ha ha and this is coming from a woman?
ok I'll play what would you like to say in regards to the unbelievably smashing success of socialism in those two countries?
And in this country, it really doesn't. Or rather, it doesn't have to, and we artificially create it. Scarcity is only ever going to decrease as technology improves. Socialism is basically inevitable, both for this country and for the world.
People advocating for socialism have their own definitions of what scarcity "really means." The Zeitgeist video, for example, posits that post-scarcity, modern, socialist cities of the future will only need 3% of the population to maintain. And where, exactly, does this 3% come from? Needing ANYTHING is the textbook antonym of post-scarcity. Unless you're comfortable with slavery, as long as it's just "3%".
We will continue to live with scarcity until the very moment we can synthesize anything we need from a raw stock of atoms, up to and including being able to synthesize more synthesizers. And even then, post-scarcity for the human race will only last as long as there is an abundant amount of atoms in relation to the population. True and eternal scarcity is a myth, born in the land of milk and honey.
So you're good with a 100% estate tax? That's good to know!
I made no personal opinion of a 100% inheritance tax - YOU did that when you posted this:Sure, same day that every single person earns everything that they now inherit. Oh, things like freedoms, rights, etc. If people are not allowed to inherit physical things, like property and money, then why should they be allowed to inherit the truly important things.
Did you earn the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, or did you inherit that? Seems only fair, since some don't inherit money and you think everyone should start even, then since every person doesn't inherit these, then you would be willing to give them up also so that every person starts even and only gets what they earn for themselves.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?