Communism and Socialism are not equal. Any modern democracy has some sort of socialism because like it not the government is actually for the people. So what some US citizens might think it's a socialist and unthinkable compromise as in free heathcare works good in the vast majority of other countries. You can't have a "pure" democracy where none gives a fuck about the other as then the state will not function.
Of course you pay taxes, you except something in return, some will benefit sooner then other, some more then other. But that's just how the government functions, how the unsigned contract works.
Helping in proving free or reduced services for your citizens can be called socialism, but it's a normal and decent thing.
But restraining markets, limiting the options of your citizens or how they should behave, think, act and reign with one party, one dictator that's communism, and it's a very bad thing.
Last edited by mmoc0127ab56ff; 2013-01-03 at 05:04 PM.
I'm having a real hard time with judgmental statements. Especially when they come from people who either never been in such situation at all, and can only rely on media reports whatsoever. And don't be naive. The cold war was not one sided. BOTH sides spilled out enough anti propaganda.
Truth of the matter is, that we never had true communism at work. True communism would be a wonderful system. Unfortunately human nature gets in the way.
What we refer to today have hardly been communist countries. That's been totalitarian regimes, that were based rather loosely on communist principles.
There was a lot of stuff wrong with those regimes, hence why there was a lot of stuff wrong with their society and the provision of supplies and the like.
But since the grass just isn't always greener on the other side, it's the same way here too.
Just like people can argue that Saddam was good for keeping a peace amongst the Iraqi people, even if it was a peace he forced onto them, one can also say that there were people who in fact have been better off during the "communist regime" times.
Would I want to live in such regime, under such conditions, hell no... I wouldn't mind to try true communism tho.
But true communism doesn't imprison it's people. Yet I on the other hand, stood there at the fence in Bavaria. 10 meters tall, watch towers ever 100 meter. Auto-shooting systems that would fire at everything that moves any close to the fence, within 50 meters distance, on the other side of the fence. Death-Strip it's been called.
All whats missing was mines, and I suppose they didn't put them down, to avoid to have to repair the fence every now and then.
No, that wasn't communism what I saw. That was an oversized concentration camp. Also known as Eastern Germany, at that time.
---------- Post added 2013-01-03 at 11:34 AM ----------
I am afraid that a good portion of many US citizens approach of social topics or socialism are remains of the negative propaganda towards the Soviet regime. It is what it is. Those two were the main protagonists of the cold war.. It was Soviets vs America.
And both sides weren't tired to taint their messages, painting the other side as the incarnation of all evil.
But just like the Soviets lied about how evil capitalism is, as much was the message thrown out about how evil or bad socialism is.
None of the two is true. Neither capitalism nor socialism are evil.
In fact.. Plenty countries today funding their social benefits for their population through capitalistic means. Those people are usually very happy with their living quality.
It is Freedom that is the way. Guess what most people that starve or have not in most free nations end up in the situation because of a choice they made somewhere in life (I am not including the handicap or mental challenged in this cause they usually had no choice). Most of your rich in free nations got there cause they had the freedom to work hard and made something of there self and usually a product or service that society wanted (Supply and Demand). I came from a poor South Georgia family but a hard working family, and as I was soon enough to work I went with my dad and worked every break I had from school to pay for my own clothes and recreational things. Nothing was handed to me. I paid for my own college and by the age of 24 I owned my own business that I sold 3 yrs later for double profit and moved to Florida to work for years as a chef before coming back to my hometown to get a very high paying job as an IT manager at big paper mill. This would not have been possible for me under communist rule. Freedom allowed this not government.
You really think people are pooor because they chose to?
Most of the Rich people are rich because their family was rich, and most rich families got rich because they took advantage of others to their benefits, or because they got land taken from natives, or because they had friends in a monarchy/goverment/etc.
Not everyone have the same opportunities. The son of Rockefeller has much more alternatives than the son of a minimal wages temporary worked in a plantation which will probably have to work to help his father do his job.
Again, anecdotal evidense is useless, yes, a few people have luck and ascend in the social stair, But BILLONS of hard working people work even 16 hours straight without earning enough to have any social mobility, because that's what capitalism is.
In a comunism, in theory, you would have everything you need, and you wouldnt feel a need to consume everything you can like a lot of people in the frist world countries have (and that is only possible because of the cheap work in the third world countries sustaining their live style). I dont think this can be applied today under any modern society. We need to grow up as societies a lot more to even think about it.
If you really think a poor kid in Somalia, Sudan, or any other third world country has the same opportunities than a rich person, then you are too naive.
In Capitalism, those who have the Capital are very likely to keep having it, even without much hard work, and those that are poor are very likely to stay that way, no matter how hard they work.
Last edited by Crashdummy; 2013-01-03 at 06:57 PM.
I never said anyone choose to be poor way to take my words and twist the good job I said " Guess what most people that starve or have not in most free nations end up in the situation because of a choice they made somewhere in life (I am not including the handicap or mental challenged in this cause they usually had no choice)." Be the way Rockefeller himself started with nothing to become the richest man in the world, so did Vanderbilt, and Carnage. Only 5% of the rich in america inherited there wealth. The rest my friend was earned. And by the again 3rd world countries are usually not free countries, they have despots and dictators running the country. So try reading again before you miss-quote me for you own political gain.
The problem isn't the form but if the peoples that live in the country have the guts to keep those in the gov in check; the main problem nowdays is that peoples are passive, they still whine on forums but never act. You think that your gov is doing it wrong and no matter who you vote nothing gonna change? Well it's time to start to pick up the good ol' and act.
And 99% of statistic in internet are made up.
Rockefeller stated as a middle class man, yes (not poor), but all his inheritance will be rich probably for a long time. Most third world countries are in fact free countries, so i am afraid your disrespect to them is biased. Every country in Latin America (except Cuba and some people debate that too) today is a free country, most of the countries in Asia are free. I think all the countries in Oceania are free too. Africa stays as the one with less free countries, but many of them are free too.
And you are mistaken, most of the people that are poor are not by choices made by their own, they are poor because their family was poor and they couldnt change their fate.
Again, go tell the 8 year old kids helping their fathers on plantations that a choice they made sometime made them be poor, or the kids working on textiles factories in Asia.
Again, you are too naive, you need to get a shower of reality.
And what you need my friend is a dose of hard work and hope. I believe all no matter where you are from can strive to be better as long as there is a beacon of freedom some where in this world all can achieve what ever there heart desires. That is not possible under communism.. When ever one is the same, no one stands out.
'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
Or a yawing hole in a battered head
And the scuppers clogged with rotting red
And there they lay I damn me eyes
All lookouts clapped on Paradise
All souls bound just contrarywise, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!
We've never really had a strong communist movement here, it was always more social democracy, most of our socialists didn't believe in a forced revolution or anything like that, so what one would call communists have never been more then a fringe movement, stronger in some municiplities, but I don't think they've been in the parliament ever. At least not in my lifetime(28 years).
Our socialist movement was what later became the Social democratic party. Which still is the biggest party(the moderates-rightwing are the 2nd biggest), but they are far from communists. We've had a rightwing-liberal government(I vote FP, the liberal party) in power for the last 6 years though. The most left leaning party we got in parliament is the Vänster(Left) party, the social democrates are left, but more to the center. I don't really like the "Vänster"(left) party, but they are not communists. The Right sometimes try to score cheap points by calling them that though.
Our communist parties generally don't get more then 2% of the votes in the partliament elections. You need 4% to get seats in the parliament. They do get higher % in certain local elections though.
Business, entrepenourship and hard work has always been highly valued, and most people are of the opinion that hard work pays off, which it does. Interesting fact is that it's actually both cheaper and much easier to start your own business here compared to for example the US. I think people are sometimes a bit misinformed and think we live in a crazy draconian sociaty that regulates everything to shit, while in reality there are often less regulations but smarter ones in place then in more "capitalistic" nations.
Think tanks like the Heritage Foundation actually gives my country top marks when it comes to easy of doing business and business freedom. ;P
What you could say is that most people and pretty much all political parties in my country understand the value in taxes and that we have a responsibility to contribute to sociaty for the greater good. Which also goes along with the fact that we got quite a high trust in our government officials and politicians, government accountability and transparency is also something organizations like the Heritage Foundation gives us top marks in. I think we've had 5 ministers removed over the last 6 years because they did things that the public disliked, last one was our Minister of defense 2012, it was some shady deal in Saudi Arabia with an arms/weapons factory we helped them set up.
Trust, accountability and transparency is absolutely vital if you want to tax people as high as you do here.
The nerve is called the "nerve of awareness". You cant dissect it. Its a current that runs up the center of your spine. I dont know if any of you have sat down, crossed your legs, smoked DMT, and watch what happens... but what happens to me is this big thing goes RRRRRRRRRAAAAAWWW! up my spine and flashes in my brain... well apparently thats whats going to happen if I do this stuff...
Again, you belive that, but that is not real. You need a shower of reality. There are a lot of people in free countries without any real posibility of social mobility.
I even gave examples to you. And i dont know why you mention communism to me, when i said real communism cant be implemented in current society and the practical communisms implemented were bad.
Also, i dont think people standing out is a neccesity. I belive some people feel the necesity to stand out, but that is because we havent grown up as a society enough, we are still young.
Some day, people's neccesity of knowing no one dies of hunger will be bigger than people's neccesity of standing out.
'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
Or a yawing hole in a battered head
And the scuppers clogged with rotting red
And there they lay I damn me eyes
All lookouts clapped on Paradise
All souls bound just contrarywise, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!
This article really depressed me with the mindset many people have today. The sad thing is, at least in America, we are moving towards a more socialist/communist society. The government and our dependency on the government has never been higher than it is today. Historians always proclaim that "history is bound to repeat itself." I will never complain about paying my taxes because I love my country, but listening to people like this talk really bothers me. I was raised on the principals of you work for what you get.
Americans hate Communism because they have so much capitalism in their systems.
Hell 90% of them don't even understand proper communism.
You get what you work for in a socialist society as well. It's only your tax money that goes to the public sector, which it does already even though it's at a lower scale. You still get to keep your old salary which is still better than those who don't work, you still get to keep the stuff you buy, there's still free trade etc. You also get free education and free healthcare.
I can understand to a certain degree that Americans don't want the government to have more power, but seriously, with more and more socialism inevitably getting into the American society, the Republicans, or at least it's modern form, will be pretty much snuffed out, which will eliminate a lot of the fucking wackoos your country has, and while the Democrats aren't the best, they're still a lot better than any crazy ass religious fanfare.
And for the last time, socialism isn't fucking communism. Anytime you say communism is the same as socialism a kitten dies.
Well semaphore, you’ve made me curious with, at least to me, that very aggressive post So if I may be impudent to ask of you: What is Human Nature? Because the reason why Knight Gil said there was no human nature, was that you claimed there were one in the first place. So you’ve made so very curious to what you view as human nature, and I think it is also in your interest to define human nature as you see it if you want a proper (in your view) answer from Knight Gil to why he thinks there is no human nature. So please, if I may ask that of you, give us your definition/view of human nature so the debate can be more specific. If you have already made a definition of human nature, then I’m sorry, must have missed it.
Because for now I think I remember you saying that human nature include being a social animal which dislike the smell of our own excretions.
And if that’s the definition, the it would seem that capitalism, and with that the endless and dominant praise of economy, would not be the best way to make something where social animals would thrive.
Now, since you’re from Chile you can probably help me out here.
I thought the issue with Allende was that as soon as he came to power US started to influence different factors in the country since they had major interest in some things in Chile. Furthermore US started a campaign against Allende to take him out of power. It was also, or maybe mainly, a part of an economic experiment to see, what later would be described as neoliberalism, Miltons ideas in action. Am I’m completely brainwashed?
And the “communism” you describe, sounds more to me as something not quite the same as the thought of Marx. But maybe I’m wrong. What do you think?
It's a set of psychological and behavioural traits that is regarded to be common to all of humanity, independent of culture. You know it's an actual term that you can find in the dictionary, right? It's not like I just made up a new phrase.
That's a non sequitur. Capitalism at its core is simply the production of goods and services for profit and private ownership. There is no reason why capitalism is incompatible with the fact that humans are social animals.it would seem that capitalism, and with that the endless and dominant praise of economy, would not be the best way to make something where social animals would thrive.
Yes of course I know it an actual term, don’t think so low about your fellow posters. But is there cohesion between all interpretations of human nature? Probably not. So how am I going to know when I’ve founds the one which you think is correct? And that is why I again must be quite rude and ask you to elaborate on “a set of psychological and behavioural traits that is regarded to be common to all of humanity, independent of culture.”, since it would make it clear what your interpretation of human nature is, or what definition you use when talking about it.
Well, couldn’t capitalism also be said to include, maybe enforce, or perhaps create, increasing individuality? You said that “Capitalism at its core is simply the production of goods and services for profit and private ownership.”, if I have a private ownership of something, then that ownership must belong to my person. As that I cannot see how that relates well to being social animals. Same with profit. Profit for who? Me, of course. Or at least, profit for the individual, and perhaps the corporation the individual own.
Unless of course you view different groups in the social environment as different social groups which compete against each other?
Am I’m completely wrong on this line of thought? (if yes, then please explain why, I love to learn what people thinks about all kinds of things so )