EPTOn November 03 2010 05:58 domovoi wrote:
Socialism is governmental production of the means.
Socialism is governmental production of the means.
No. Quit peddling nonsense.
U.S. Midterm Elections 2010 - Page 11
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
No. Quit peddling nonsense. | ||
|
HadronCollid
Canada71 Posts
You're defending Marxism and Socialism now? Awesome. I'd love you to cite the successes, and what you find endearing in those political philosophies. Cuba. Have you ever been? I have and it's incredible. I would say they have done fairly well as a communist/socialist society considering they were blockaded by the US for a *few* years. Edit: Thank goodness Obama still has his veto power. I hope he uses it as frequently as Bush did to pass whatever needs to get past the horde of fat republican elephants. | ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
On November 03 2010 06:04 Romantic wrote: Rational people would have realized totalitarian governments =\= a classeless and stateless society (communism) or collective ownership and management (socialism). I understand the comparison to totalitarian governments and socialism has been pushed by the major propaganda agencies since the October Revolution, but now is the time to ~*Open your eyes*~ Unfortunately, Marx and Engels never explained to us how we're supposed to go from socialism to a communist paradise. Unfortunately, collective ownership and management cannot work without centralization and totalitarianism due to the human tendency to free-ride on collectivist efforts. It doesn't take propaganda to realize every attempt at socialism has led to dramatic poverty and loss of life. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On November 03 2010 06:07 domovoi wrote: Unfortunately, collective ownership and management cannot work without centralization and totalitarianism Would you care to explain how you came to this conclusion? | ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
Collective ownership is synonymous, which is how you described it. Explain how one is supposed to collectively own the businesses of a large country without some bureaucracy involved. Would you care to explain how you came to this conclusion? Collective ownership means centralized allocation of resources and labor, otherwise you end up with markets and private ownership. You cannot enforce centralized allocation of resources and labor without a large bureaucracy and a strong enforcement mechanism. Specifically, how do you ensure that worker Joe does the job you require him to, rather than the job he wants to do? How will workers be compensated? If you introduce some form of commodity for common exchange (i.e. money), there will be those who prefer to hoard it, creating private wealth. Finally, centralized allocation requires more information than humans are capable of measuring and is bound to be quite inefficient and could lead to disastrous results. What do you do with the people who want to leave? | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On November 03 2010 06:07 HadronCollid wrote: Cuba. Have you ever been? I have and it's incredible. I would say they have done fairly well as a communist/socialist society considering they were blockaded by the US for a *few* years. Edit: Thank goodness Obama still has his veto power. I hope he uses it as frequently as Bush did to pass whatever needs to get past the horde of fat republican elephants. Bush used veto power very rarely as president | ||
|
HadronCollid
Canada71 Posts
Bush used veto power very rarely as president And I bet the second Obama uses his veto on one thing, Fox news cries HITLER!!!111!!!11! | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On November 03 2010 06:07 HadronCollid wrote: Edit: Thank goodness Obama still has his veto power. I hope he uses it as frequently as Bush did to pass whatever needs to get past the horde of fat republican elephants. You can't pass anything with a veto. That's not how the veto works. I think you may be conflating the power of veto with the practice of issuing executive orders and signing statements | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On November 03 2010 06:10 domovoi wrote: Collective ownership is synonymous, which is how you described it. Explain how one is supposed to collectively own the businesses of a large country without some bureaucracy involved. I manage to do it whenever I go to work  .We're creative people. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On November 03 2010 06:04 Romantic wrote: Rational people would have realized totalitarian governments =\= a classeless and stateless society (communism) or collective ownership and management (socialism). I understand the comparison to totalitarian governments and socialism has been pushed by the major propaganda agencies since the October Revolution, but now is the time to ~*Open your eyes*~ Didn't I say "mentioning the names of the countries that have attempted is enough to get the point across to any rational person." That communism's ideal is a "classeless and stateless society" is irrelevant if the effect of attempting communism is a totalitarian government state. I'm talking reality, not some dreamy ideal that has never shown its face and never will. The real danger is that it was people similar to you spouting its "ideals" that led to the tragedy of attempted communism in these countries. | ||
|
HadronCollid
Canada71 Posts
On November 03 2010 06:15 Mindcrime wrote: You can't pass anything with a veto. That's not how the veto works. I think you may be conflating the power of veto with the practice of issuing executive orders. My understanding was that say: Obama wanted to pass something and could not get it through the house due to it being controlled by the Republicans, could he then not Veto their decision to deny his idea? Or is that incorrect? | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
:| | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On November 03 2010 06:16 Savio wrote: Didn't I say "mentioning the names of the countries that have attempted is enough to get the point across to any rational person." That communism's ideal is a "classeless and stateless society" is irrelevant if the effect of attempting communism is always a totalitarian government state. I'm talking reality, not some dreamy ideal that has never shown its face and never will. The real danger is that it was people similar to you spouting its "ideals" that led to the tragedy of attempted communism in these countries. If by "attempting communism" you mean, "a totalitarian government Imposed upon people with no input from them" I would agree with you. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On November 03 2010 06:17 HadronCollid wrote: My understanding was that say: Obama wanted to pass something and could not get it through the house due to it being controlled by the Republicans, could he then not Veto their decision to deny his idea? Or is that incorrect? Yes, your thinking is incorrect. Obama merely says "yes" or "no" to ideas and bills that start in congress. he cannot propose legislation. | ||
|
Losticus
United States62 Posts
Cuba. Have you ever been? I have and it's incredible. I would say they have done fairly well as a communist/socialist society considering they were blockaded by the US for a *few* years. I don't think I have anything to add to this -- thanks. And Romantic, I'm not sure if you're actually defending the merits of communism and socialism, or just playing a semantic game based on the definitions you learned from your Marxist poli sci prof. Please elaborate. Btw -- I love it when leftists drop the euphemisms and call themselves what they are. Most aren't brave enough to defend unabashedly, um, communism, but good on you. It's the way it should be. It doesn't take propaganda to realize every attempt at socialism has led to dramatic poverty and loss of life. This is historic fact. What sounds grand in a college book is horrifying in reality, as proven everytime it's tried. Now, since you disagree that Cuba, Venezuela, China, and USSR are not socialist or communist states, then I'm not sure what else we can say. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On November 03 2010 06:17 HadronCollid wrote: My understanding was that say: Obama wanted to pass something and could not get it through the house due to it being controlled by the Republicans, could he then not Veto their decision to deny his idea? Or is that incorrect? Presidents can only veto bills that the legislature passes. If he does, they need to override it with two-thirds vote (I think, it would be sad if I got this wrong). | ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
On November 03 2010 06:16 Romantic wrote: I manage to do it whenever I go to work .We're creative people. If we're simply talking about ownership by a collection of people, you do realize every American corporation is "collectively-owned"? The difference is that it's completely voluntary. It becomes an issue when you claim to "collectively-own" every single business in the name of all workers. | ||
|
Krigwin
1130 Posts
On November 03 2010 06:03 Losticus wrote: You're defending Marxism and Socialism now? Awesome. I'd love you to cite the successes, and what you find endearing in those political philosophies. And just, for the record, the USSR was not a Marxist or Communist state? That Marxism or Communism is separate from Statism, Collectivism, and Totalitarianism? If not, please defend those as well. Where was I defending Marxism or Socialism...? I was merely implying that your statement was illogical. That being illogical because you state that one ideology that's just an interpretation of one man's analysis that has never been faithfully implemented, ever, has a rate of success, and the other because you state a complex theory and economic system that many countries, including the US, have implemented parts of, has a zero success percentage. I guess what you meant by that one was that a fully socialist state a la the USSR has never worked - but wait no, you're clearly talking about the umbrella philosophies as a whole, and if that's what you meant you would've specified that, not doing so would be kind of careless, and stupid, and someone as intelligent as you would never do that. As well as what's endearing about Marxism or Socialism or Communism or whatever, I'm sure any of the plenty of European Socialists here can explain that to you, but I doubt they'd take the time to. And as for this: On November 03 2010 05:43 Losticus wrote: And as far as what I and others believe? The Tea Party movement is about fiscal sanity; of restoring a Constitutional republic, with limited federal powers. It's in opposition to the ridiculous spending, the deficit, incoming tax hikes, the assault on the free market and small business, TARP, the bailouts, government takeover of entire private sectors, and (as cited there) a whole slew of other examples of an ever-expanding role of the State in our lives. It's that simple. That's cool bro. Really kind of a roundabout answer to my question, but whatever, I acknowledge your points and respect your opinions. I don't really see why you couldn't have just come out and said that from the beginning without first spewing forth random Tea Party one-liners and insulting people's intelligence. I guess maybe you can't make a salient point without also putting someone else down in the same post? But whatever man, I got the answer I wanted. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On November 03 2010 06:21 domovoi wrote: It becomes an issue when you claim to "collectively-own" every single business in the name of all workers. This is a large problem and it should be eliminated at every turn!  We have found agreement | ||
| ||
