|
Post by jordan71421 on Apr 29, 2018 10:23:08 GMT -5
This is your regular reminder that socialism is worker's control of production and not wealth distribution or state ownership. Why does no one on this forum directly respond to someone when they disagree with them? Are you afraid I’ll miss this comment and look like I didn’t respond? Also, you’ve lied enough about socialism in the past on this forum, there’s no need to constantly repeat the dictionary definition of socialism and be completely dishonest of what it has done in history
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Apr 29, 2018 10:24:56 GMT -5
This is your regular reminder that socialism is worker's control of production and not wealth distribution or state ownership. Why does no one on this forum directly respond to someone when they disagree with them? Are you afraid I’ll miss this comment and look like I didn’t respond? Also, you’ve lied enough about socialism in the past on this forum, there’s no need to constantly repeat the dictionary definition of socialism and be completely dishonest of what it has done in history Because if you reply directly to you there's an increased chance that you'll post nonsense like this.
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on Apr 29, 2018 10:27:36 GMT -5
Why does no one on this forum directly respond to someone when they disagree with them? Are you afraid I’ll miss this comment and look like I didn’t respond? Also, you’ve lied enough about socialism in the past on this forum, there’s no need to constantly repeat the dictionary definition of socialism and be completely dishonest of what it has done in history Because if you reply directly to you there's an increased chance that you'll post nonsense like this. That’s just coward-like. And you have repeatedly denied the horrible effects socialism, communism, etc have had on the countries it’s infected throughout history, so if I’m saying nonsense, so are you.
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Apr 29, 2018 10:34:01 GMT -5
Because if you reply directly to you there's an increased chance that you'll post nonsense like this. That’s just coward-like. And you have repeatedly denied the horrible effects socialism, communism, etc have had on the countries it’s infected throughout history, so if I’m saying nonsense, so are you. And I've also explained to you in detail how all of those states were born out of a Leninist ideology which is at best an extremely authoratarian interpretation of Marx somewhat akin to the Westboro Baptist Church's interpretation of the New Testament, and how they had absolutely nothing at all to do with socialism as there was not only no worker's control of production, but extreme measures against it.
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on Apr 29, 2018 10:37:01 GMT -5
That’s just coward-like. And you have repeatedly denied the horrible effects socialism, communism, etc have had on the countries it’s infected throughout history, so if I’m saying nonsense, so are you. And I've also explained to you in detail how all of those states were born out of a Leninist ideology which is at best an extremely authoratarian interpretation of Marx somewhat akin to the Westboro Baptist Church's interpretation of the New Testament, and how they had absolutely nothing at all to do with socialism as there was not only no worker's control of production, but extreme measures against it. Wouldn’t that make you realize that maybe something is wrong with the core ideas if people continuously manipulate it to oppress people? It’s very similar to extremism in Islam, maybe there’s something in the text that is the catalyst?
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Apr 29, 2018 10:39:52 GMT -5
And I've also explained to you in detail how all of those states were born out of a Leninist ideology which is at best an extremely authoratarian interpretation of Marx somewhat akin to the Westboro Baptist Church's interpretation of the New Testament, and how they had absolutely nothing at all to do with socialism as there was not only no worker's control of production, but extreme measures against it. Wouldn’t that make you realize that maybe something is wrong with the core ideas if people continuously manipulate it to oppress people? It’s very similar to extremism in Islam, maybe there’s something in the text that is the catalyst? Actually, yes, I agree. And that's why I'm not a Marxist or a communist, because I believe that the idea of using the state to dismantle capitalism is open to corruption i.e. Lenin. But that doesn't stop me being a socialist, because I believe production should be owned and controlled socially by the workers, I just disagree with Marx that we should use a "dictatorship of the proleteriat" to transition between capitalism and socialism.
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on Apr 29, 2018 10:42:19 GMT -5
Wouldn’t that make you realize that maybe something is wrong with the core ideas if people continuously manipulate it to oppress people? It’s very similar to extremism in Islam, maybe there’s something in the text that is the catalyst? Actually, yes, I agree. And that's why I'm not a Marxist or a communist, because I believe that the idea of using the state to dismantle capitalism is open to corruption i.e. Lenin. But that doesn't stop me being a socialist, because I believe production should be owned and controlled socially by the workers, I just disagree with Marx that we should use a "dictatorship of the proleteriat" to transition between capitalism and socialism. My point is that anytime these practices are applied in the real world, corruption, poverty, and death occurs. And modern day socialists will use the same old, tired of excuse “that’s not real communism/socialism.” I hear this excuse all the time and I just dont understand it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2018 10:43:28 GMT -5
This is your regular reminder that socialism is worker's control of production and not wealth distribution or state ownership. Why does no one on this forum directly respond to someone when they disagree with them? Are you afraid I’ll miss this comment and look like I didn’t respond? Also, you’ve lied enough about socialism in the past on this forum, there’s no need to constantly repeat the dictionary definition of socialism and be completely dishonest of what it has done in history Most people do directly respond from what I've seen, even though sometimes people don't, so it's not 'no one'. It's probably because people don't want to spend ages getting into political arguments over the internet, but still want to make a point. Most political arguments on the internet just seem to end up in people vehemently sticking by their original position being unwilling to cede any ground for fear of looking like they 'lost'. So, I think the vast majority of online political arguments are a waste of time, because it just ends up in a pile up of overinflated egos, frustration and misinformation. Can't recall anyone on this thread (or the other political threads) ever changing their opinion significantly*, and so I don't blame anyone for not wanting to (re-)initiate political conversation on here when there are likely many more productive things they could be doing with their time. * (in my case, drifting further and further towards complete apathy towards anything political with each passing page that I read doesn't really count as a significant change in opinion)
|
|
|
Post by thomaslivesforever on Apr 29, 2018 10:54:29 GMT -5
I don't really want to be pigeonholed to be honest. The fairer and more even distribution of wealth seems like quite a straight forward thing that would improve the lives of the many. Conservative policy doesn't do that here and doesn't seem to do it in America either. Distribution of wealth is a very dangerous practice that has ruined every country it’s infected, ie. socialism. You need to earn your money, not get it from your fellow citizens through government interference Ya, I'm not proposing that everyone is given an acre of land and two cows. You're being disingenous. If you think the widening gap between rich and poor is a good thing then I'd say you were socially irresponsible at best.
|
|
|
Post by glider on Apr 29, 2018 11:42:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Apr 29, 2018 11:47:50 GMT -5
Actually, yes, I agree. And that's why I'm not a Marxist or a communist, because I believe that the idea of using the state to dismantle capitalism is open to corruption i.e. Lenin. But that doesn't stop me being a socialist, because I believe production should be owned and controlled socially by the workers, I just disagree with Marx that we should use a "dictatorship of the proleteriat" to transition between capitalism and socialism. My point is that anytime these practices are applied in the real world, corruption, poverty, and death occurs. And modern day socialists will use the same old, tired of excuse “that’s not real communism/socialism.” I hear this excuse all the time and I just dont understand it It's honestly not that complex. Socialism is the idea that instead of production being owned privately by a capitalist, it should be owned socially by those who work in it. Communism is a form of this in which the state is used to transition between capitalism and socialism, usually through some concept of a "worker's state". For an example of this kind of state, see The Paris Commune in the late 1800's. There, the government was comprised of elected and constantly recallable workers who were payed the same as everyone else and forced to obey to the standards and mandates of those they represented. This is what Marx wrote about. Then Lenin comes along. It's important to note that he was considered by most of the Marxists and communists in Russia at the time to be an absolute lunatic. He thinks that instead of a worker's state to transition to capitalism, a vanguard of enlightened leaders should take complete and utter control of the workers and society, force everyone to do what they want, completely control culture, and mould society to their will - because the common rabble are far too stupid to control things themselves. If this sounds like it has very little to do with socialism and it's ideals, that's because it doesn't. You can either see Lenin as an EXTREMELY authoritarian interpretation of Marx or a fascist who simply used Marxist jargon to curry favour among the working class. I personally believe the latter. All the horrible regimes that you're referring to - China, the USSR, etc...are all forms of the Leninist interpretation (or distortion) of Marx. Therefore most socialists and communists don't consider them to be true representations of their ideology as they don't follow Lenin's ideas of Marx's transition state. As an Anarchist I also reject Marx's ideas, but I certainly don't conflate them with Lenin's - however I do agree with socialists that the workplace should be under the collective control and ownership of the workers.
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on Apr 29, 2018 11:51:10 GMT -5
Distribution of wealth is a very dangerous practice that has ruined every country it’s infected, ie. socialism. You need to earn your money, not get it from your fellow citizens through government interference Ya, I'm not proposing that everyone is given an acre of land and two cows. You're being disingenous. If you think the widening gap between rich and poor is a good thing then I'd say you were socially irresponsible at best. How would I be socially irresponsible? Why does the rich have to pay more than those lower in class than them?
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on Apr 29, 2018 11:52:38 GMT -5
My point is that anytime these practices are applied in the real world, corruption, poverty, and death occurs. And modern day socialists will use the same old, tired of excuse “that’s not real communism/socialism.” I hear this excuse all the time and I just dont understand it It's honestly not that complex. Socialism is the idea that instead of production being owned privately by a capitalist, it should be owned socially by those who work in it. Communism is a form of this in which the state is used to transition between capitalism and socialism, usually through some concept of a "worker's state". For an example of this kind of state, see The Paris Commune in the late 1800's. There, the government was comprised of elected and constantly recallable workers who were payed the same as everyone else and forced to obey to the standards and mandates of those they represented. This is what Marx wrote about. Then Lenin comes along. It's important to note that he was considered by most of the Marxists and communists in Russia at the time to be an absolute lunatic. He thinks that instead of a worker's state to transition to capitalism, a vanguard of enlightened leaders should take complete and utter control of the workers and society, force everyone to do what they want, completely control culture, and mould society to their will - because the common rabble are far too stupid to control things themselves. If this sounds like it has very little to do with socialism and it's ideals, that's because it doesn't. You can either see Lenin as an EXTREMELY authoritarian interpretation of Marx or a fascist who simply used Marxist jargon to curry favour among the working class. I personally believe the latter. All the horrible regimes that you're referring to - China, the USSR, etc...are all forms of the Leninist interpretation (or distortion) of Marx. Therefore most socialists and communists don't consider them to be true representations of their ideology as they don't follow Lenin's ideas of Marx's transition state. As an Anarchist I also reject Marx's ideas, but I certainly don't conflate them with Lenin's - however I do agree with socialists that the workplace should be under the collective control and ownership of the workers. I understand the history, and it seems as though history as shown that these types of ideologies are a lost cause at this point, right? Why is something like capitalism, with all of its flaws, still more successful?
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Apr 29, 2018 12:12:54 GMT -5
It's honestly not that complex. Socialism is the idea that instead of production being owned privately by a capitalist, it should be owned socially by those who work in it. Communism is a form of this in which the state is used to transition between capitalism and socialism, usually through some concept of a "worker's state". For an example of this kind of state, see The Paris Commune in the late 1800's. There, the government was comprised of elected and constantly recallable workers who were payed the same as everyone else and forced to obey to the standards and mandates of those they represented. This is what Marx wrote about. Then Lenin comes along. It's important to note that he was considered by most of the Marxists and communists in Russia at the time to be an absolute lunatic. He thinks that instead of a worker's state to transition to capitalism, a vanguard of enlightened leaders should take complete and utter control of the workers and society, force everyone to do what they want, completely control culture, and mould society to their will - because the common rabble are far too stupid to control things themselves. If this sounds like it has very little to do with socialism and it's ideals, that's because it doesn't. You can either see Lenin as an EXTREMELY authoritarian interpretation of Marx or a fascist who simply used Marxist jargon to curry favour among the working class. I personally believe the latter. All the horrible regimes that you're referring to - China, the USSR, etc...are all forms of the Leninist interpretation (or distortion) of Marx. Therefore most socialists and communists don't consider them to be true representations of their ideology as they don't follow Lenin's ideas of Marx's transition state. As an Anarchist I also reject Marx's ideas, but I certainly don't conflate them with Lenin's - however I do agree with socialists that the workplace should be under the collective control and ownership of the workers. I understand the history, and it seems as though history as shown that these types of ideologies are a lost cause at this point, right? Why is something like capitalism, with all of its flaws, still more successful? Well I'll take capitalism over Leninism any day, so there's no real argument there - capitalism is better. Why has capitalism been applied more than socialism? Well, I suppose the first point I'd make is that application doesn't mean success. Feudalism has also been applied more socialism, as has fascism, but I wouldn't say they'd been more successful. Also, once hierarchies have been established, they're hard to end. Monarchism is a rather backwards and undesirable system of society, and yet it has seen vastly more application than either capitalism or socialism, lasting for centuries on end. This is because hierarchical systems naturally entail that those with the power in society are those who want to maintain the system - they can control how people recieve information, whether through the media or education. They can develop nationalism, racism, classism, anything to help maintain power. They control the workplace, people's means of living, their healthcare. They have the power to discredit alternative ideologies. I would actually argue that Leninism is one of the major reason capitalism has had the widespread application that it has. Lenin and his cronies painted themselves as communists/socialists, as so those ideologies are now easily associated with the mass murder, starvation, and state power of Leninism despite the major, major differences between them. This is what is taught in schools and talked about on the news. We get the idea that although capitalism isn't perfect, it's better than the other choices, because look at the USSR or China. While this shows that capitalism is indeed preferable to Leninism, anyone who has read Marx or Kropotkin or Bakunin and Lenin can see that it says little of the non-state-based versions of communism and absolutely nothing about socialism at all as there as no worker's control of production. Personally I believe that should socialism take root in society, we will one day look back on capitalism as we now do monarchism.
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on Apr 29, 2018 12:31:57 GMT -5
I understand the history, and it seems as though history as shown that these types of ideologies are a lost cause at this point, right? Why is something like capitalism, with all of its flaws, still more successful? Well I'll take capitalism over Leninism any day, so there's no real argument there - capitalism is better. Why has capitalism been applied more than socialism? Well, I suppose the first point I'd make is that application doesn't mean success. Feudalism has also been applied more socialism, as has fascism, but I wouldn't say they'd been more successful. Also, once hierarchies have been established, they're hard to end. Monarchism is a rather backwards and undesirable system of society, and yet it has seen vastly more application than either capitalism or socialism, lasting for centuries on end. This is because hierarchical systems naturally entail that those with the power in society are those who want to maintain the system - they can control how people recieve information, whether through the media or education. They can develop nationalism, racism, classism, anything to help maintain power. They control the workplace, people's means of living, their healthcare. They have the power to discredit alternative ideologies. I would actually argue that Leninism is one of the major reason capitalism has had the widespread application that it has. Lenin and his cronies painted themselves as communists/socialists, as so those ideologies are now easily associated with the mass murder, starvation, and state power of Leninism despite the major, major differences between them. This is what is taught in schools and talked about on the news. We get the idea that although capitalism isn't perfect, it's better than the other choices, because look at the USSR or China. While this shows that capitalism is indeed preferable to Leninism, anyone who has read Marx or Kropotkin or Bakunin and Lenin can see that it says little of the non-state-based versions of communism and absolutely nothing about socialism at all as there as no worker's control of production. Personally I believe that should socialism take root in society, we will one day look back on capitalism as we now do monarchism. I respectfully hope that that day never comes. For me, I just think capitalism needs to be improved upon. If you work hard, you’ll earn a good living (in theory.) government (or citizen) assistance just does not seem right to me. I’ve seen too many people manipulate it
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Apr 29, 2018 14:13:27 GMT -5
Well I'll take capitalism over Leninism any day, so there's no real argument there - capitalism is better. Why has capitalism been applied more than socialism? Well, I suppose the first point I'd make is that application doesn't mean success. Feudalism has also been applied more socialism, as has fascism, but I wouldn't say they'd been more successful. Also, once hierarchies have been established, they're hard to end. Monarchism is a rather backwards and undesirable system of society, and yet it has seen vastly more application than either capitalism or socialism, lasting for centuries on end. This is because hierarchical systems naturally entail that those with the power in society are those who want to maintain the system - they can control how people recieve information, whether through the media or education. They can develop nationalism, racism, classism, anything to help maintain power. They control the workplace, people's means of living, their healthcare. They have the power to discredit alternative ideologies. I would actually argue that Leninism is one of the major reason capitalism has had the widespread application that it has. Lenin and his cronies painted themselves as communists/socialists, as so those ideologies are now easily associated with the mass murder, starvation, and state power of Leninism despite the major, major differences between them. This is what is taught in schools and talked about on the news. We get the idea that although capitalism isn't perfect, it's better than the other choices, because look at the USSR or China. While this shows that capitalism is indeed preferable to Leninism, anyone who has read Marx or Kropotkin or Bakunin and Lenin can see that it says little of the non-state-based versions of communism and absolutely nothing about socialism at all as there as no worker's control of production. Personally I believe that should socialism take root in society, we will one day look back on capitalism as we now do monarchism. I respectfully hope that that day never comes. For me, I just think capitalism needs to be improved upon. If you work hard, you’ll earn a good living (in theory.) government (or citizen) assistance just does not seem right to me. I’ve seen too many people manipulate it Fair enough. I love you. #kanye
|
|
|
Post by thomaslivesforever on Apr 29, 2018 14:30:28 GMT -5
Ya, I'm not proposing that everyone is given an acre of land and two cows. You're being disingenous. If you think the widening gap between rich and poor is a good thing then I'd say you were socially irresponsible at best. How would I be socially irresponsible? Why does the rich have to pay more than those lower in class than them? Because thinking a widening gap between rich and poor is ok means you support an increase in poverty a powerful driver in the causes of crime, diminishing education levels and health standards leading poorer society as a whole. You seem to always have a question but few answers or ideas, greed unchecked is no doubt fine by your reasoning. I have a question for you, how has conservative policy improved society in Britain or America?
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on Apr 29, 2018 15:01:31 GMT -5
How would I be socially irresponsible? Why does the rich have to pay more than those lower in class than them? Because thinking a widening gap between rich and poor is ok means you support an increase in poverty a powerful driver in the causes of crime, diminishing education levels and health standards leading poorer society as a whole. You seem to always have a question but few answers or ideas, greed unchecked is no doubt fine by your reasoning. I have a question for you, how has conservative policy improved society in Britain or America? I don’t have answers to all the questions I raise, but that does not mean I should ask them? I like hearing different opinions on topics and forming my own opinion. Why would you discourage to question things? Do you have the answers to everything? From what I’ve learned about conservatism in America, it seems to me that there is stability that comes with conservatism that is not there with liberalism. The way liberals want to achieve social and economic justice, especially more recently, is incredibly offputing, abrasive, and violent. I am no conservative or liberal, but the popular conservative bashing by arrogant liberals is incredibly hypocritical. It’s jusr what I’ve been noticing. You people can call me a stupid American and tell me to “get informed”, but all I’m doing is observing what I see and making my observations. And that really seems to rub people the wrong way on here
|
|
|
Post by shannee on Apr 29, 2018 17:01:58 GMT -5
If by conservative stability you mean the rich get richer and the poor stay poor and powerless..
You say you like to hear different opinions but you don't appear to actually listen to what anyone says. There is a lot of interesting thoughtful posts in this thread but the only opinions I hear from you here and in other threads are pretty much word for word what I would see posted by a Facebook troll employed by the right-wing to spread propaganda and fear.
There is some nasty shit going on in the word today that relies on the basest human emotions to stay in power. I do not understand how someone cannot or will not see the manipulation using fear, bigotry, and selfishness going on
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on Apr 29, 2018 17:17:43 GMT -5
If by conservative stability you mean the rich get richer and the poor stay poor and powerless.. You say you like to hear different opinions but you don't appear to actually listen to what anyone says. There is a lot of interesting thoughtful posts in this thread but the only opinions I hear from you here and in other threads are pretty much word for word what I would see posted by a Facebook troll employed by the right-wing to spread propaganda and fear. There is some nasty shit going on in the word today that relies on the basest human emotions to stay in power. I do not understand how someone cannot or will not see the manipulation using fear, bigotry, and selfishness going on I’ve responded to every single post, responding to what someone has said. And seriously, I sound like a right wing Facebook troll? Talk about not listening to what someone is saying. I’ve never called anyone a troll or said they were full of shit, I just disagree with them and continue to go back and forth with them. I don’t agree with The Escapist on much, but it’s cool to have discussions like this. And your vague notion of the “rich get richer and the poor get poorer” has no basis. It’s just an outdated talking point that people who want to promote socialist-like services to further burden the “poor” you speak of. All I’m saying is that there is more to conservatism than what you’re giving, but sure, just keep likening me to a troll because you disagree with me. How pathetic
|
|
|
Post by shannee on Apr 29, 2018 17:41:36 GMT -5
Basis:
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on Apr 29, 2018 17:44:16 GMT -5
Basis: And I suppose you want the 1% to give large amounts of their wealth back to the middle-lower class? Why? I'm not arguing that it is morally right, but why should these people give their money away?
|
|
|
Post by shannee on Apr 29, 2018 17:45:46 GMT -5
Because they earned that money off the backs of all of us, today and historically
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on Apr 29, 2018 17:52:02 GMT -5
Because they earned that money off the backs of all of us, today and historically How incredibly simplistic. I agree that excessive wealth seems largely unnecessary, but to make the topic so black and white is so dishonest. Putting a ceiling on how much a person can earn would only seem to disenfranchise people from achieving more and destroy competition. A free market, to me, seems like the best version of market we have right now. Do I still sound like a right wing troll to you?
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on Apr 29, 2018 17:59:19 GMT -5
You need to earn your money, not get it from your fellow citizens through government interference You're a straight white male. Much of the world is designed expressly to benefit you. You have no idea about nor do you care about the struggles of the rest of humanity. Don't even try and use the "white privilege" excuse with me. Stop perpetuating that lie. You also don't know any of the struggles I've been through, you don't even know me. I would never judge who you are without knowing how you think, unlike you, who will judge someone based on their race. Ironically, you're the one being racist here.
|
|