• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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.

School uniforms

What is your position on School uniforms in Public schools?

  • It should be up to the district - I see no issues with it.

    Votes: 22 36.1%
  • Totally disagree - economic, social, or government impediment issue. [please post]

    Votes: 22 36.1%
  • The parents should decide via election

    Votes: 14 23.0%
  • Not sure either way

    Votes: 3 4.9%

  • Total voters
    61

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
Oh yes, of course the US isn't socialist....



PS: I definitely wouldn't want to let slip the fact that the US currently follows (either completely or partially) EVERY SINGLE POINT in the Communist Manifesto.
Would you mind showing this, because none of us socialists support the US economy! Have you grown insane, Gabo, or are you joking? Please, though, illustrate your point.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
40% of the land in the US is owned by the government.
100% of the land in the US is taxed by the government.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Any dolt can tell you we have this....

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Without a will, government automatically takes 50%.
Even with a will, the government takes a portion of everyone's inheritence.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Any international travelers are FORCED to declare if they are carrying more than $10,000 in money, stocks, or bank notes.
People that have tried relocating to other countries in the past have been told they cannot take this money with them.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Yet another obvious one....

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
FCC controls communication.
Transportation is completely monopolized by government.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Government already owns many means of production.
With our new Social Security plan, government will have even more control over private businesses as they begin to do whatever government asks to get on the list of places people are allowed to invest in.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Government regulates nearly every business in the country.
It influences wage levels, benefits, etc.
Don't forget about the influence of OSHA as well.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
Once again, government owns 40% of the land.
They "lease" it out to various people over their discretion.
Also, think of zoning laws.
And, EVERY city has a Regional Planning Office.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc
Child labor is illegal.
Government jailschools are up and running in full effect.
Nothing more to say here...



So, in conclusion, yes all 10 out of 10 points in the Communist Manifesto.
Implemented, here in the "capitalist" USA.
Ignorance of the general population at it's finest.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
40% of the land in the US is owned by the government.
100% of the land in the US is taxed by the government.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Any dolt can tell you we have this....

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Without a will, government automatically takes 50%.
Even with a will, the government takes a portion of everyone's inheritence.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Any international travelers are FORCED to declare if they are carrying more than $10,000 in money, stocks, or bank notes.
People that have tried relocating to other countries in the past have been told they cannot take this money with them.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Yet another obvious one....

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
FCC controls communication.
Transportation is completely monopolized by government.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Government already owns many means of production.
With our new Social Security plan, government will have even more control over private businesses as they begin to do whatever government asks to get on the list of places people are allowed to invest in.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Government regulates nearly every business in the country.
It influences wage levels, benefits, etc.
Don't forget about the influence of OSHA as well.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
Once again, government owns 40% of the land.
They "lease" it out to various people over their discretion.
Also, think of zoning laws.
And, EVERY city has a Regional Planning Office.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc
Child labor is illegal.
Government jailschools are up and running in full effect.
Nothing more to say here...



So, in conclusion, yes all 10 out of 10 points in the Communist Manifesto.
Implemented, here in the "capitalist" USA.
Ignorance of the general population at it's finest.
Have you even read the Manifesto? It is more of a critique of capitalism than describing socialism's 'goals'. Go to any socialist website to see the goals of the movement. The worker today, with globalisation, is exploited more than ever in society. Workers still are stripped of power, and have no country, and control no goverment. What you speak of is basically government regulation, which ,if you knew anything, is disappearing, and so inequality rises. THe USA is destroying the New Deal, and with it governemnt regultion, as Bush has cut numerous social programs to fund his war. None of these claims appear in the Manifesto, rather it describes the plight of the worker, and his exploitation, and how the bourgeousie does anything to gain profit, and their need to put down the workers, and create an ever-expanding market. You appear completely ignorant, perhaps blinded by your odd libertarian ideology. Stop lying, atleast. The USA is opposed to anything socialist, we continue to destroy the welfare state, minimum wage has not been raised in some tiem, Amtrak has become private, Bush wishes to privatise SS, and regulations are disapearing everywhere. You have no serious argument, you only retain your utter ignorance of socialism. The USA is currently a mix-economy. It mixes privatisation with nationalisation, angering us both. But it is by no means 'socialist' you lying fool. In fact, since the 30s, the USA has deregulated and privatised far more than we have nationlised. You describe the old effects of liberalism that created more equality, they are disapearing. Perhaps you should actually read the Manifesto, or show to me where these claims are, since I flipped through my copy and found none of them. That was perhaps your worst lie and worst distortion yet as you continually become blinded by your pathetic 'libertariasnism' which is, if you would realize, simply an offshoot of the mighty Republican party.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
Workers still are stripped of power, and have no country, and control no goverment.
That's because all three branches of our government have decided simply to ignore the Constitution and establish whatever laws they desire.



anomaly said:
What you speak of is basically government regulation, which ,if you knew anything, is disappearing, and so inequality rises.
Please do tell me where this regulation is decreasing.
I have not seen anything but increases in government regulation for a long time.



anomaly said:
THe USA is destroying the New Deal,
Fine with me.

The New Deal wasn't constitutional in the first place.



anomaly said:
None of these claims appear in the Manifesto, rather it describes the plight of the worker, and his exploitation, and how the bourgeousie does anything to gain profit, and their need to put down the workers, and create an ever-expanding market.
The bourgeousie WILL do anything to maximize their profit.

It just so happens that profit maximization is only possible when your profit creators (i.e. WORKERS) are happy, well-paid, and thus productive.

Workers are more likely to do their best work when they've consented to do it and thus want to do it.
Workers are less likely to do their best work when they are being FORCED to do it.

Therefore, in order to maximize profit, smart bourgeousie will treat their workers with care and kindness. Their reward will be better profit for themselves. But the workers benefit more this way as well.



anomaly said:
minimum wage has not been raised in some tiem
The fact that we even have a minimum wage is PROPOSTEROUS!

Especially since numerous studies have proven it hurts those it's designed to help.
And coincidentally, the only people it helps are the politicians...



anomaly said:
Bush wishes to privatise SS
Actually, Bush's plan is extremely anti-capitalist.

He isn't privatizing it at all.

All he's doing is giving OUR money to other companies (designated by the gov) to keep until we retire.

We hardly get a say in it.

Worst of all, this new desire of businesses to get on the list of investment options will cause more giving in to government pressure.

The government will own a huge portion of the private business market!



anomaly said:
You have no serious argument, you only retain your utter ignorance of socialism.
Here is my arguement, plain and simple: Throughout history, the initiation of FORCE is the cause of all problems.
Therefore, no entity should be allowed to initiate the use of FORCE onto any other entity.

My problem with socialism lies purely in my single arguement.
Socialists advocate the use of FORCE onto others to achieve their means.
Therefore, socialists would add to the many problems in this world.



anomaly said:
It mixes privatisation with nationalisation, angering us both.
I don't see why it would ever anger a socialist.

Here is what I would do if I were a socialist:
GET OFF MY LAZY ASS AND DO SOMETHING!

Get together a community of socialists and establish your own societal government based on the premises of socialism. Since government is already partially nationalized, your work is halfway done. Just implement the other half of nationalization within your community and you have your desired government system.

Unlike you, I'm not allowed to have my ideal government under our current system. US government has no problem with us creating more nationalization, but we are by no means allowed to get rid of what is already nationalized.

You are allowed to create your ideal society, but I am prohibited from creating mine. I see this as unfair.

That's why I advocate a national government that has rules loose enough that anyone can establish a voluntary society. People would be able to live under the rules and guidelines they chose for themselves, rather than be FORCED into what the corrupt politicians choose for us.



anomaly said:
Perhaps you should actually read the Manifesto, or show to me where these claims are, since I flipped through my copy and found none of them. That was perhaps your worst lie and worst distortion yet as you continually become blinded by your pathetic 'libertariasnism' which is, if you would realize, simply an offshoot of the mighty Republican party.
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

You have to scroll down a bit.
It's under Section II.

I can't believe you have never seen or heard about these 10 points.
Especially since you advocate socialism.
They are widely known as the points of the Communist Manifesto.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
That's because all three branches of our government have decided simply to ignore the Constitution and establish whatever laws they desire.
First off, my apologies, as I did not see at first htese ten points. My point, however, is that Marx's 'points' are no longer applicable to modern society, they no longer exactly represent the socialist cause. But huge mistake on my part. Now in your discussion of his 'points' however, you claim that the USA is socialist through following '50%' of what it says. If that's how you look at it, than most countries in the world and most which have ever existed are socialist (that's of course not true). But again, I do not agree with some of what Marx has to say, it is, remember, 150 years old. Just as capitalism changes, so does socialist thought. Perhaps you wish to learn more of contemporary socialism?




Gabo said:
Please do tell me where this regulation is decreasing.
I have not seen anything but increases in government regulation for a long time.
Bush has cut 150 social programs with his new budget. There you go.




Gabo said:
Fine with me.

The New Deal wasn't constitutional in the first place.
Yes, what a terrible thing it was, giving more equality to people. How terrible!




Gabo said:
The bourgeousie WILL do anything to maximize their profit.

It just so happens that profit maximization is only possible when your profit creators (i.e. WORKERS) are happy, well-paid, and thus productive.

Workers are more likely to do their best work when they've consented to do it and thus want to do it.
Workers are less likely to do their best work when they are being FORCED to do it.

Therefore, in order to maximize profit, smart bourgeousie will treat their workers with care and kindness. Their reward will be better profit for themselves. But the workers benefit more this way as well.
Show the evidence for this. In the global capitalist society, we see workers exploited coninually. You have no evidence to back up your claim that the bourguosie are so kind as you make them seem.




Gabo said:
The fact that we even have a minimum wage is PROPOSTEROUS!

Especially since numerous studies have proven it hurts those it's designed to help.
And coincidentally, the only people it helps are the politicians...
Present one of these 'studies'. To me, if you pay a worker 50 cents an hour, causing him to not be able to afford to live, that hurts the worker. But hey, that's just me.




Gabo said:
Actually, Bush's plan is extremely anti-capitalist.

He isn't privatizing it at all.

All he's doing is giving OUR money to other companies (designated by the gov) to keep until we retire.

We hardly get a say in it.

Worst of all, this new desire of businesses to get on the list of investment options will cause more giving in to government pressure.

The government will own a huge portion of the private business market!
Whether it be capitalist or not, I agree with you. Bush 'investing' the government's money will not only do what you say, but also it will cause the market to stall, atleast, and thus usher in a recession.




Gabo said:
Here is my arguement, plain and simple: Throughout history, the initiation of FORCE is the cause of all problems.
Therefore, no entity should be allowed to initiate the use of FORCE onto any other entity.

My problem with socialism lies purely in my single arguement.
Socialists advocate the use of FORCE onto others to achieve their means.
Therefore, socialists would add to the many problems in this world.
Socialists wish to better the condidtion of the world's people, and help the workers who have for centuries been hurt by capitalism. Socialists advocate the use of force when the proletariat are the vast majority and are exploited by the bourgeosie, I advocate this only in poorer countries where workers will gain rights. But in the USA, force would never work, since the military is so strong. Socialism can happen through force, or through democratic action, which I prefer.




Gabo said:
I don't see why it would ever anger a socialist.

Here is what I would do if I were a socialist:
GET OFF MY LAZY ASS AND DO SOMETHING!

Get together a community of socialists and establish your own societal government based on the premises of socialism. Since government is already partially nationalized, your work is halfway done. Just implement the other half of nationalization within your community and you have your desired government system.

Unlike you, I'm not allowed to have my ideal government under our current system. US government has no problem with us creating more nationalization, but we are by no means allowed to get rid of what is already nationalized.

You are allowed to create your ideal society, but I am prohibited from creating mine. I see this as unfair.

That's why I advocate a national government that has rules loose enough that anyone can establish a voluntary society. People would be able to live under the rules and guidelines they chose for themselves, rather than be FORCED into what the corrupt politicians choose for us.
How am I allowed to create my ideal society, you fool? WE socialists see the national government run by two anti-socialist parties (they support global capitalism and are eating away at the old welfare state). And our nation is ruled by the market, anymore, not the workers, the people. It is capitalist in that we see production strictly for profit, which means companies throughout the world will do what is neccesary to raise profit, including submit workers to terrible condidtions. We see that all the time. There is no socialist party, but we see two pro-market parties. I believe that you and I view capitalism as two different things. I view capitalism as what it is in the real world, as a system that creates inequality in a mad drive for profit, you view it as simple freedom. And if complete freedom is what you wish for, capitalism is not the answer. Paradoxically, socialism is. Socialism, or the handing of the economy over to a government chosen by the people, gives people indirect control over the economy. The governemnt acts in the will of the people, neccesarily, to remain elected, and therefore will improve conditions abroad. Socialism will in turn light a fire that will lead to global socialism, and from here the people can democratically decide to go to anarcho-communism, which seems to be what you really want. We want the same thing inevitably, you call it capitalism, I call it anarcho-communism. You are an anti-capitalist, whether you realize it or not, and you could be an ally if only you'd look to see what socialism is today, rather than what Marx said it was 150 years ago. Capialism by nature gives to only the lucky few, while the majority suffer. A nationalised economy ruled by a democratic people would neccesarily act in favor of the majority of people. Perhaps socialism, which benefits the majority, would seem more appealing if it weren't achieved through force. If so, I can provide you with a few ideas of mine concerning how to achieve this.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Let's look at the goals of contemporary socialism, then see if the USA is 'socialist'. Socialism, or state socialism atleast, advocates the nationalisation of the economic. This of course, then begs the question, what will the government be, if it will control the economy. Democracy is the answer. This democratic governmnt will not be confined to just two parties, but rather an unlimited amount, with equal treatment for all. The people, then, indirectly control their economy, instead of some arbitrary market. The people control the market to fit their interests. Think of socialism as capitalism 'flipped' inessense, to fulfill the needs of workers, and to further the cause of equality. It does not make things totally equal, as many think. It makes them more equal. Marx speaks of a 'dictator of the proletariat' which is his most fatal flaw. Socialism, as history has shown, can not be ruled by the hand of tyranny, rather it must be a people's government and a people's economy. A dictator will inevitably be corrupt. Capitalism, by nature, lets the global market regulate itself, which is basically to say let the higher-ups dominate the economy rather than a democratic economy. CEOs, like any dictator, are corrupt, and do things mostly in self interest. This creates the trickle up system we see, where workers' wages barely keep pace with inflation, but CEO's wages are exponentially higher and raise yearly. This leads to more and more inequality amongst the world's people. Gabo, you wish for an end to force, when you at the same time advocate and celebrate CEOs forcing workers of poor countries to work for a meager wage. You say they have to 'consent' to this. Such is the cuel efficiency of capitalism, in that it always gives us a 'choice'. The poor worker's choice is to work in order to feed his family with rations or to die while searching for new work. That to me does not warrant the title 'choice'. The worker's children often have to work instead of attending school, thus creating a whole new generation of workers dependent upon this one company to get by in life. A cruel system it is. And yet you call this systme 'socialism' when he workers have no say in their lives, when their government, i the interest of the national economy, not the workers, sells peasants lands to rich corporations for more profit! That is not socialism, but rather the effects of privatisation, in that the rich company is able to control the fate of workers. That is the effect of globalisation: the weakening of the political. I suggest we give the people the economy before democracy ceases to have any power in this world, while you wish to give that corporation ever more power, and not only that, but make American workers equally effected by the corporation by eliminating minimum wage! And yet you call the USA 'socialist' even when the USA gov't puts down socialist revolution throughout the world, even when workers do not control their economy, and even when government does not act in workers' interests. The people of the USA are subjected to constant propaganda, getting the people on the side of the rich and powerful, as the people either do not vote, or vote for pathetic emotional reasons. This has lead to a country of ignorance. Gabo, you have an honorable goal, but you execute this goal in the wrong way. You wish to completely strip workers of rights, and give these rights to the CEOs of major corpoations. I wish to give the majority of people, the workers, more power. I wish to democratize the economy, while you wish to hand it over to a few dictaors and have them fight for it, and you assume this to be done in the interest of the people! Unlike others, Gabo, there is still hope for you, as you still have the ability to think. Opposing force yet favoring such a system as capitalism is laughable, if you seek democracy, you must push towards anti-capitalism. I have written some of my hope for a mas party, to effectively oppose modern capitalism. Socialism, by nature, benefits the majority of society while capitalism benefits the few. Giving one a choise to become peasant or king does not warrant a system democratic, such is the case with capitalism, as the people still have no say, and if one fails in the quest to be successful, and becomes a worker (or in poorer countries when one is forced into becoming a worker) one will suffer. Favor the few or favor the majority-the choice is yours.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
Now in your discussion of his 'points' however, you claim that the USA is socialist through following '50%' of what it says. If that's how you look at it, than most countries in the world and most which have ever existed are socialist (that's of course not true).
Yes, USA is only about 50% socialist.

But think about how capitalistic the US pretends to be and used to actually be! We were like the most capitalistic society out threre.

And now we're 50% socialist!
That's a HUGE change....



anomaly said:
Show the evidence for this. In the global capitalist society, we see workers exploited coninually. You have no evidence to back up your claim that the bourguosie are so kind as you make them seem.
How about the fact that almost every job these "horrible" bourguosie give in the US ALREADY pays more than minimum wage, even though they don't have to.

Now why would they EVER do that, since they want to be as evil as possible?

O wait, that's right! It's because happy workers are productive workers!
They make more money by paying their workers more!

Also, looking at global capitalism, jobs going overseas help those people.
What may seem like a fraction of a livable wage in the US is enough to have a decent living in other countries.
And, people in those other countries are only taking the jobs because they think those jobs are better than where their currently working.



anomaly said:
Present one of these 'studies'. To me, if you pay a worker 50 cents an hour, causing him to not be able to afford to live, that hurts the worker. But hey, that's just me.
Here is a sample study:
http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/against/against.htm

While minimum wage is nice in theory, problems arise when businesses realize they don't have an infinite money supply.

Now for me to explain in a simple example:
I own a cake factory, where I have 10 workers and pay them each $4/hr.
Every week each worker works 40 hours and produces 20 cakes.
I sell the cakes for a reasonable $10 each to the grocery stores.

My total expenses to the workers each week is $1600.
My total profit from selling the cakes is $2000.
It costs me $100 to pay the bills on the factory each week.
I take home $300 per week and my workers each take home $160 each week.

NOW: Our best buddy government creates a MINIMUM WAGE of $5/hr.
If I continue operating as I have, I will now be paying $2000 a week in wages.
All of the sudden, I am faced with a major dilemma.


I have 2 choices to fix things to how they should be, and BOTH are unfair to the workers in my factory.
a) Fire 2 workers (that's 1/5 my work force) to make up for the extra costs. Not only that, but now my 8 workers left must make 5 more cakes a week just for me to maintain the same level as before. Worker happiness is likely to decrease, some may even leave the job. The other two are now unemployed.
b) Raise the prices of my cakes. I would now have to make each cake I sell to the manufacturer cost $12. But that's if I'm lucky. If my consumers don't take kindly to paying $2 more for their cakes (which most probably won't), then they will buy less than I manufacture. Which means I must increase the price EVEN MORE or start laying off people. And what happens to my workers? The extra cost of the cakes is passed off to them, and they may be layed off from lack of production.

As you can see, even a simple example of a cake owner with ONLY 10 workers suffers from a slight increase in minimum wage. Think how many jobs are lost and how much prices increase for EVERY BUSINESS IN THE COUNTRY.



anomaly said:
Socialists wish to better the condidtion of the world's people, and help the workers who have for centuries been hurt by capitalism. Socialists advocate the use of force when the proletariat are the vast majority and are exploited by the bourgeosie, I advocate this only in poorer countries where workers will gain rights. But in the USA, force would never work, since the military is so strong. Socialism can happen through force, or through democratic action, which I prefer.
I don't mean force in revolution.
I mean FORCE actually incorporated in your form of government. People are FORCED to give up all private land. People are FORCED to give up practically everything they produce. This use of FORCE in government is what I do not think is right. Although I have no problem if your government if voluntary, because then people are deciding to give up their properties.



anomaly said:
How am I allowed to create my ideal society, you fool? WE socialists see the national government run by two anti-socialist parties (they support global capitalism and are eating away at the old welfare state). And our nation is ruled by the market, anymore, not the workers, the people. It is capitalist in that we see production strictly for profit, which means companies throughout the world will do what is neccesary to raise profit, including submit workers to terrible condidtions. We see that all the time. There is no socialist party, but we see two pro-market parties.
I did not say you would be able to convert the world into capitalism.

All you must do is create YOUR OWN community government where everyone agrees to abide by and live under socialist rules. All business and production in your society would be for the betterment of the people, etc.

The rest of the world can go ahead and remain 50/50, while your community can stay as socialist as you want.



anomaly said:
And if complete freedom is what you wish for, capitalism is not the answer. Paradoxically, socialism is. Socialism, or the handing of the economy over to a government chosen by the people, gives people indirect control over the economy. The governemnt acts in the will of the people, neccesarily, to remain elected, and therefore will improve conditions abroad.
Socialism is democracy. And democracy is majority rules.

Another name for majority rules: MINORITY LOSES
It's fine with me if your socialist community if entered into voluntarily, but when you FORCE people to adapt your government, you are screwing all MINORITIES in every case whatsoever.

Majority rules is not freedom.
Individual rules is freedom.



anomaly said:
Socialism will in turn light a fire that will lead to global socialism, and from here the people can democratically decide to go to anarcho-communism, which seems to be what you really want.
I wouldn't be caught dead in a socialist society.
And neither would the other 40,000 US libertarians.

Unless you decide to FORCE socialism on us (which is what I hate so much), then you obviously aren't going to have global socialism.


anomaly said:
Perhaps socialism, which benefits the majority, would seem more appealing if it weren't achieved through force. If so, I can provide you with a few ideas of mine concerning how to achieve this.
Exactly! Please do it without force!

If you will try and understand me, you'll realize the only government that doesn't use force is a libertarian one!

Only under libertarian government are all people free to live and abide by their own set standards and rules.

Only under a libertarian government can a socialist and capitalist community live side by side without breaking the law.


I'm fine with letting you have yours!
Now let me have mine!
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
Let's look at the goals of contemporary socialism, then see if the USA is 'socialist'. Socialism, or state socialism atleast, advocates the nationalisation of the economic. This of course, then begs the question, what will the government be, if it will control the economy. Democracy is the answer. This democratic governmnt will not be confined to just two parties, but rather an unlimited amount, with equal treatment for all. The people, then, indirectly control their economy, instead of some arbitrary market. The people control the market to fit their interests. Think of socialism as capitalism 'flipped' inessense, to fulfill the needs of workers, and to further the cause of equality. It does not make things totally equal, as many think. It makes them more equal. Marx speaks of a 'dictator of the proletariat' which is his most fatal flaw. Socialism, as history has shown, can not be ruled by the hand of tyranny, rather it must be a people's government and a people's economy. A dictator will inevitably be corrupt. Capitalism, by nature, lets the global market regulate itself, which is basically to say let the higher-ups dominate the economy rather than a democratic economy. CEOs, like any dictator, are corrupt, and do things mostly in self interest. This creates the trickle up system we see, where workers' wages barely keep pace with inflation, but CEO's wages are exponentially higher and raise yearly. This leads to more and more inequality amongst the world's people. Gabo, you wish for an end to force, when you at the same time advocate and celebrate CEOs forcing workers of poor countries to work for a meager wage. You say they have to 'consent' to this. Such is the cuel efficiency of capitalism, in that it always gives us a 'choice'. The poor worker's choice is to work in order to feed his family with rations or to die while searching for new work. That to me does not warrant the title 'choice'. The worker's children often have to work instead of attending school, thus creating a whole new generation of workers dependent upon this one company to get by in life. A cruel system it is. And yet you call this systme 'socialism' when he workers have no say in their lives, when their government, i the interest of the national economy, not the workers, sells peasants lands to rich corporations for more profit! That is not socialism, but rather the effects of privatisation, in that the rich company is able to control the fate of workers. That is the effect of globalisation: the weakening of the political. I suggest we give the people the economy before democracy ceases to have any power in this world, while you wish to give that corporation ever more power, and not only that, but make American workers equally effected by the corporation by eliminating minimum wage! And yet you call the USA 'socialist' even when the USA gov't puts down socialist revolution throughout the world, even when workers do not control their economy, and even when government does not act in workers' interests. The people of the USA are subjected to constant propaganda, getting the people on the side of the rich and powerful, as the people either do not vote, or vote for pathetic emotional reasons. This has lead to a country of ignorance. Gabo, you have an honorable goal, but you execute this goal in the wrong way. You wish to completely strip workers of rights, and give these rights to the CEOs of major corpoations. I wish to give the majority of people, the workers, more power. I wish to democratize the economy, while you wish to hand it over to a few dictaors and have them fight for it, and you assume this to be done in the interest of the people! Unlike others, Gabo, there is still hope for you, as you still have the ability to think. Opposing force yet favoring such a system as capitalism is laughable, if you seek democracy, you must push towards anti-capitalism. I have written some of my hope for a mas party, to effectively oppose modern capitalism. Socialism, by nature, benefits the majority of society while capitalism benefits the few. Giving one a choise to become peasant or king does not warrant a system democratic, such is the case with capitalism, as the people still have no say, and if one fails in the quest to be successful, and becomes a worker (or in poorer countries when one is forced into becoming a worker) one will suffer. Favor the few or favor the majority-the choice is yours.
I understand your viewpoint and desire completely.
It's fine with me that you want equality.

Just don't use FORCE to create your government and I'm fine with that.



Now, listen to me.

Back when there was monarchies, the King owned everything. He owned all the land and all the people within it.

The king had ALL the rights. He could grant people he liked privaleges, but he could revoke them at any time.

One could easily conclude: It's good to be King!


Now, imagine EVERYONE is King! We are all sovereign over our own property and everything within it. You do what you want with what's yours, and I do what I want with what's mine. So long as we respect each others' kingdoms, everyone only does what they want to.

I want to be King. I don't want other people telling me what to do with my kingdom, or forcing me to share it with others just because they want to.

Being King works for me!



But if it doesn't for you, that's fine. Unite your group of kingdoms into one large community. Work together to better yourselves.


But for gosh sakes, LEAVE MY KINGDOM ALONE!
 

IndependentTexan

New member
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
45
Reaction score
1
Location
Dallas, Texas
Fantasea said:
So, I guess that that mysterious "peer pressure" thing is just a myth.
I can tell you that peer pressure is overstated. Now don't try to argue with that because I am a student and I go thorugh school everyday. There is some peer pressure, but a lot less than people say there is.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
As this thread strays farther from the point, school uniforms, I'm wondering why post #97, a copy of which appears below has not elicited any comment?

Perhaps uniforms will instill the kind of esprit de corps in the student body what will permit the elimination of metal detectors and armed guards in public schools.

By the way, does anyone know of a private or parochial school, even in an inner city ghetto, which utilizes metal detectors or armed guards?
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
I understand your viewpoint and desire completely.
It's fine with me that you want equality.

Just don't use FORCE to create your government and I'm fine with that.



Now, listen to me.

Back when there was monarchies, the King owned everything. He owned all the land and all the people within it.

The king had ALL the rights. He could grant people he liked privaleges, but he could revoke them at any time.

One could easily conclude: It's good to be King!


Now, imagine EVERYONE is King! We are all sovereign over our own property and everything within it. You do what you want with what's yours, and I do what I want with what's mine. So long as we respect each others' kingdoms, everyone only does what they want to.

I want to be King. I don't want other people telling me what to do with my kingdom, or forcing me to share it with others just because they want to.

Being King works for me!



But if it doesn't for you, that's fine. Unite your group of kingdoms into one large community. Work together to better yourselves.


But for gosh sakes, LEAVE MY KINGDOM ALONE!
Perhaps, Gabo, we should take this discussion to another forum (economics one sounds good). But, I do not disagree with you. Freedom is great, I support the type of world you wish to build, especially since we on the radical left will have a great amount of freedom. I will start a thread in the economics section conserning this, and we will discuss the means of getting to your ideal society, because that's what I have a problem with: your means, not your ends.
 

gypsy0032

Member
Joined
May 30, 2004
Messages
80
Reaction score
1
Location
Texas
IndependentTexan said:
Look, my school voted on rather or not to get uniforms. They sent a voting flyer to every home in my city. Kids, however, didn't get a say in this. They were just tossed aside. Some people that voted didn't even have kids that were in school. The voting was 80% to 20 percent in favor, without the vote of 8,000 kids. If we have uniforms, what will we be teaching our kids? It will be giving a message about how individuality isn't important. It will show to just go along with the flow. As a student, I want to be able to wear what I want and feel good about myself. Dress code is the main reason why we are getting uniforms. But the teachers don't even enforce the dress code. about 20% of students are breaking dress code. Why don't they just enforce it instead of punishing the 80% who do comply to the dress code? Uniforms will do nothing but anger the students. It will just inflame the situation further.
You think the way you dress defines your personality?
 
S

sebastiansdreams

gypsy0032 said:
You think the way you dress defines your personality?
Good grief, don't let the folks on What Not To Wear hear you say that, they might break something on their way to the floor...
 

mmatejka

New member
Joined
May 4, 2005
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Location
Economic Refugee in Mexico
Fantasea said:
The questions to be decided first are:

What is the purpose of having schools in the first place?

"What is the amount of tax money I pay for education? Home owners pay school taxes directly; renters pay it indirectly through their landlords. It is also paid as part of income taxes. No one escapes paying for education.

Are we getting our money's worth? Are we satisfied with the drop out rates, the failure of graduates to be able to read their diplomas, the need for students wanting to go to college to take high school remedial courses first, etc., etc.?

What are some of the reasons that students don't learn? Distractions, for one. Teen aged boys ogling girls who expose every possible inch of skin and lingerie aren't developing an understanding of math or science. Girls who spend every waking minute struggling to squeeze out every last bit of glamor in order to attract attention are not concentrating on the lesson of the day.

'Gang' or 'clique' related garb only exacerbates the problem by further stealing attention away from studies.

Those who lean toward the outlandish and 'freaky' styles in clothing, makeup, and grooming all but guarantee that their distraction to others will effect themselves adversely as well.

All of this has a negative effect on the classroom teacher who has to struggle to teach kids who are pre-occupied with other things. In many respects, the teacher's effectiveness may be compared to a car that gets half the gas mileage that it should.

The applicability of several old adages come to mind. "Clothes make the man." "Birds of a feather flock together."

Even businesses that permit employees to observe 'casual dress Friday' have discovered that productivity drops noticably on that day.

The experience of schools that observe a strict dress code or require uniforms shows several benefits. Class discipline and grades improve. Parents report that there is a cash savings because they don't have to keep up with every fad that comes along.

When kids rule the roost, what can be expected? They nag the parents and the parents cave in.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons that the US, in spite of spending many times more than most countries to educate each child, places far down the list in terms of achievement.

Don't we deserve a bigger bang for our buck?

Who knows. Uniforms might even cut down on teen pregnancy.

Ask a few teachers for their input on the question.

On the flip side...there is something kind of HOT about a schoolgirl uniform :)
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
mmatejka said:
On the flip side...there is something kind of HOT about a schoolgirl uniform :)
Especially if the ogler happens to be a dirty old man whose education was completed with "Hooked on Pornics".

.
.
:shocked2:
 

mmatejka

New member
Joined
May 4, 2005
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Location
Economic Refugee in Mexico
Fantasea said:
Especially if the ogler happens to be a dirty old man whose education was completed with "Hooked on Pornics".

.
.
:shocked2:
Don't be so easily shocked...I'm not old, by any means...and my point is surely valid among teenage boys, guaranteed.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
mmatejka said:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Especially if the ogler happens to be a dirty old man whose education was completed with "Hooked on Pornics".
Don't be so easily shocked...I'm not old, by any means...and my point is surely valid among teenage boys, guaranteed.
Ah yes, one must not forget to include pubescent youth ejaculating all over their centerfolds.
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I believe school uniforms should be left up to the parents.

Because even though it does revoke the child's freedom of expression, they are living under their roof.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
stsburns said:
I believe school uniforms should be left up to the parents.

Because even though it does revoke the child's freedom of expression, they are living under their roof.
Duh?

The sole reason for the need for uniforms is because the way children dress for school is left up to the parents who seemingly have no control over the way their kids dress for anything.

What the hell does a blossoming adolescent girl have to express, except the scoop neck views of cleavage she can manage to squeeze together, along with whatever glimpses of her thong occur as she flounces along in her 'flirty skirt' or forgets to keep her knees together when sitting.

Frequent 'bikini waxings' brighten the picture for whatever guys she's trying to attract while she should be concentrating on Algebra or English.

Yes, uniforms would have a chilling effect on a child's freedom of expression. Sounds like a good idea, don't you think?
 

Fu_chick

Member
Joined
May 13, 2005
Messages
182
Reaction score
0
While I personally do not agree with uniforms, I do think that it should be up to the parents of the kids that that particular school.

My main issue with uniforms is that adolescence is the only time that you really get to experiment with your appearance. Part of finding out who you are is through your dress and appearance.

As an adolescent girl I had lots of things to express other than my body. In fact, none of my clothes would have been considered indecent. While I did draw attention to myself through my clothes (I was a big Marilyn Manson fan, though I would not call myself goth), I dressed how I felt.

Unless you are planing on home schooling every child in America then there are always going to be cliches, haves and have nots, and teenage drama, thus you are always going to have distractions.

Also, if the current dress codes would be properly enforced, it wouldn't be such an issue. At the HS I want to the principle's daughter regularly came to class with her boobs falling out of her top and no one said a word about it.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Fu_chick said:
While I personally do not agree with uniforms, I do think that it should be up to the parents of the kids that that particular school.

My main issue with uniforms is that adolescence is the only time that you really get to experiment with your appearance. Part of finding out who you are is through your dress and appearance.

As an adolescent girl I had lots of things to express other than my body. In fact, none of my clothes would have been considered indecent. While I did draw attention to myself through my clothes (I was a big Marilyn Manson fan, though I would not call myself goth), I dressed how I felt.

Unless you are planing on home schooling every child in America then there are always going to be cliches, haves and have nots, and teenage drama, thus you are always going to have distractions.

Also, if the current dress codes would be properly enforced, it wouldn't be such an issue. At the HS I want to the principle's daughter regularly came to class with her boobs falling out of her top and no one said a word about it.
A lot of "ifs".

Consider this. Uniforms would go a long way toward eliminating the distractions you mention, wouldn't they?
 

Fu_chick

Member
Joined
May 13, 2005
Messages
182
Reaction score
0
LMAO. You you have kids? Have you ever been around teenagers? There are ALWAYS going to be cliches, people are ALWAYS going to know who the poor kids are (it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure it out), and there is ALWAYS going to be the "I like him but his gf found out and now she's spreading rumors about me" crap. If you think otherwise then you are sadly out of touch with reality.
 
Top Bottom