Page 33 of 36 FirstFirst ...
23
31
32
33
34
35
... LastLast
  1. #641
    Quote Originally Posted by dark666105 View Post
    Which type of nationalism are you saying is not ok?
    Any form of reasoning based on nationality is fallacious, yhat's why nationalism even the most 'rational' forms of it has been mainly a tool to rally the uneducated masses against the establishment. And no, individuals don't need a national identity in order to lead a meaningful life, suggesting such an idea, in my opinion, is insulting humans intellectual capacity.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Darkener View Post
    If you've never worked with Orthodox Jews then you have no idea how dirty they are. Yes, they are very dirty and I don't mean just hygiene
    Quote Originally Posted by The Penguin View Post
    most of the rioters were racist black people with a personal hatred for white people, and it was those bigots who were in fact the primary force engaged in the anarchistic and lawless behavior in Charlottesville.

  2. #642
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    The part in bold is definitely not true. Some extreme forms of socialism have full State ownership, but most socialist systems do not.

    As for why I brought up "seizure"; I was responding to other people, claiming that socialism can only exist by "seizing" the means of production. I was pointing out that's a useless argument, and you seem to agree with me there, so I'm not sure what your issue is.
    The page you guys keep referencing disagrees with you. "Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production". You can't have "Socialism" without the State owning production. The State can only obtain the production by seizing it. What you are describing is socialized versions of other economic systems, not Socialism itself.



    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Socialism isn't inherently averse to hierarchies of income or wealth. You are, again, arguing against a straw man, rather than socialist theory.
    While I agree with you 100% on this, the people who are crying out for Socialism do not. Take China for example. Very Socialist. But they still have the second most millionaires of any country in the world. So obviously the wage gap is still a very real thing in even the most Socialist countries and the rich get richer even there. That said, the people trying to do the overthrowing are drawn in to the movement by the Robin Hood carrot, that the State will take over all the ownership and riches of the rich and distribute it to the less fortunate. That's why these movements always start with seizing and redistribution. You have to wait 50 years, give or take, for the corruption to kick in to see all the State promoted millionaires running around being more equal than everyone else.


    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    That's a nonsensical distinction, and if you want to stick with that, you can swap "management" with "regulatory" in the quoted passage and my meaning doesn't change.
    Nah, that's just you being obstinate to the definitions of the terms deciding they are interchangeable so as to fit your narrative. In the U.S. for example, Businesses have many governmental regulations, so to say they are being regulated by the government, however they are not managed by the government. If you are still trying to be obtuse to this point, I would go a step further and say you can have two separate privately owned companies that are under the exact same regulations that are managed very differently. ~ that's because the government isn't managing them. In a Socialist state, the government is managing them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    And? It's a "seizure" of control of the company. That was my entire point. That people are using inflammatory words like "seizure" to malign socialism, when the same kind of stuff happens in capitalist systems constantly, and they don't see it as "bad" there.
    You keep doing it. So far you have tried to redefine "socialism", "regulation" and "management", and now "seizure" - all within the same post.

    If I go to Walmart and buy a pair of socks, I am not "seizing" those socks. Neither is Walmart "seizing" my $10 bucks. We are exchanging monies and goods in a consensual transaction. That's Capitalism. Socialism is me going into Walmart, advising them that the community is controlling them now. Explaining that everyone from the greeter to the store manager are all now making $15 an hour...then taking the socks because I decided the community wants me to have them.


    Look, I'm more than happy to admit that I could be completely wrong about all these things I believe in. But you'll never convince me of that as long as you keep making your own arbitrary definitions for the key words we are discussing.

  3. #643
    Quote Originally Posted by Ragedaug View Post
    The page you guys keep referencing disagrees with you. "Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production". You can't have "Socialism" without the State owning production. The State can only obtain the production by seizing it. What you are describing is socialized versions of other economic systems, not Socialism itself.
    Your quote doesn't support your argument, I think you've misunderstood what social ownership really is.
    "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Paradox of tolerance

  4. #644
    Quote Originally Posted by Dezerte View Post
    Your quote doesn't support your argument, I think you've misunderstood what social ownership really is.
    Here's the key point to your link:

    "Historically social ownership implied that capital and factor markets would cease to exist under the assumption that market exchanges within the production process would be made redundant if capital goods were owned by a single entity or network of entities representing society"

    So that's the historical definition of Socialism and Social Ownership, which is the definition most of us who are against or leary of Socialism are using. But if you keep reading the rest of the article, you can see how over the years, "Social Ownership", was broadened to mean "ownership by pretty much anyone or anything", thus making the term meaningless in any real discussion. So that leaves the proponents of Socialism defining exactly what they mean by Socialism in order for us to be able to communicate without just talking past each other.

    So unless you can define what you mean by "Socialism", then get everyone else who also believes we should move to a Socialist system to also agree on your definition of Social Ownership, we can't have a discussion, and every one not yearning to live in a Socialist state will continue to be very afraid of the Socialist rhetoric because it can and will mean whatever the people implementing it want it to mean.


    Otherwise, everything I'm reading on that page still goes to point out the unifying goal of Socialism to means the State decides who sells and who buys, and for how much.

    "The comprehensive notion of socialization and the public ownership form of social ownership implies an end to the operation of the laws of capitalism, capital accumulation and the use of money and financial valuation in the production process, along with a restructuring of workplace-level organization."

  5. #645
    Immortal FuxieDK's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    København
    Posts
    7,929
    Quote Originally Posted by Jehct View Post
    Is Nationalism in any form ok to you?

    I don't see anything wrong with being proud of where you are from or even loving your country. Shoving it in peoples faces and saying you are superior to them because of it seems shitty though. Thoughts?
    Nationalism is not just OK, it's an obligation..

    With the development of the world we see today, we can clearly see that globalism have failed miserably..
    People are comming as invading hordes, from poor countries to "our" part of the world..
    The only cure is to close the borders and take the nationalist stance..
    Fact (because I say so): TBC > Cata > Legion > ShaLa > MoP > DF > BfA > WoD = WotLK

    My pet collection --> http://www.warcraftpets.com/collection/FuxieDK/

  6. #646
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Jehct View Post
    Being proud of the country you live in and the people that live there is definitely Nationalism.
    No that's patriotism.

  7. #647
    Quote Originally Posted by Ragedaug View Post
    So that's the historical definition of Socialism and Social Ownership, which is the definition most of us who are against or leary of Socialism are using.
    This quote, again, ends with "... or network of entities representing society" which should make it clear that there are various way of organizing social ownership in a socialist perspective. Furthermore, "a single entity" can be owned and operated by all of society, so it's not in any way indicative that a state ownership is required. a political elite so to speak or i.e. state socialism, which is meant to be a temporary state within the transition to a fully socialist society.

    So that leaves the proponents of Socialism defining exactly what they mean by Socialism in order for us to be able to communicate without just talking past each other.

    So unless you can define what you mean by "Socialism", then get everyone else who also believes we should move to a Socialist system to also agree on your definition of Social Ownership, we can't have a discussion, and every one not yearning to live in a Socialist state will continue to be very afraid of the Socialist rhetoric because it can and will mean whatever the people implementing it want it to mean.
    I absolutely agree, this is the biggest problem when discussing politics. Complex and varied ideas are reduced to something easily explainable, ignoring nuances and other vital aspects of these ideas - things become black and white. There's state socialists, but there's also libertarian socialists. There's even right-wing socialists.

    We could all do better, to instead of assuming and letting our prejudice dictate what we say.. we instead question and probe for information.
    "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Paradox of tolerance

  8. #648
    There really isn't a meaningful difference between patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism is just an expression of nationalism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  9. #649
    Deleted
    You would have to split Patriotism vs Nationalism, or you'll never have a meaningful conversation.

  10. #650
    Nationalism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
    Quote Originally Posted by Surreality View Post
    I've stopped talking to random women for any kind of reason. If I see one walking into a store before me, I freeze. I won't move until she's fully inside and on her way. I damn sure won't be having sex with any of them anymore. Thank goodness for porn and masturbation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Spicymemer View Post
    Nothing wrong with racism.

  11. #651
    Elemental Lord sam86's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    WORST country on earth (aka egypt)
    Posts
    8,837
    in this age and how traveling is far easier than ever, without nationalism, u'd find tomorrow morning 102 million egyptian at ur country with their lovely reproduction ratio of 7.2 turning ur country to the WORST country very soon like how egypt is now (or 2nd worst, since yemen managed to be even worse)
    The beginning of wisdom is the statement 'I do not know.' The person who cannot make that statement is one who will never learn anything. And I have prided myself on my ability to learn
    Thrall
    http://youtu.be/x3ejO7Nssj8 7:20+ "Alliance remaining super power", clearly blizz favor horde too much, that they made alliance the super power

  12. #652
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by LeRoy View Post
    You would have to split Patriotism vs Nationalism, or you'll never have a meaningful conversation.
    In practice there is very little patriotism. It is just about hating foreigners. These people don't care about pageantry or Colombus day or civil war renactment or whatever.

    Whenever you hear an America going on about his love of country it is almost always in the context of justifying murdering or cruelty to foreigners.

    Oppose the war in Iraq? You HATE America. Don't like the use of drone strikes? You HATE America. Want global peace through multinational cooperation and diplomacy? You HATE America. You have to include that nationalism means murders, cruelty and suffer for people who are not part of the nation.

    With other countries nationalism is more subtle generally but it works on the same basic principle.

  13. #653
    Every country in the world has some degree of nationalism. In healthy and moderate amounts there's nothing wrong with it. Every sane country in the world would take action to protect its own interests, peoples and cultures when threatened from outside. It started in prehistoric times with protecting your own family, tribe, village etc.
    Only in the minds of some western, leftist idealists, who are completely out of touch with reality and oblivious to history, there are no nations, no borders, no differences between countries, its peoples and cultures. Yeah, everything and everybody is exactly the same and we can all live happily together. Not. The word for it is: utopia.

  14. #654
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Ragedaug View Post
    The page you guys keep referencing disagrees with you. "Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production".
    You can't have "Socialism" without the State owning production. The State can only obtain the production by seizing it. What you are describing is socialized versions of other economic systems, not Socialism itself.
    If people want to keep the discussion abstract, and use the wiki definition, seizing is not necessary for socialism, and it doesn't necessarily involve the state:
    -You can have socialism at different levels other than the state. Cooperatives are socialist enterprises: they're jointly-owned and democratically-controlled by the owners.
    -States can acquire the means of production by means other than seizing; for instance, buying them.

  15. #655
    bottom line:

    nationalism = evil

    patriotism = good

    if you cant understand that or the differences between them u have a education or intelligence problem

  16. #656
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    Which is patriotism, not nationalism.

    Nationalism specifically refers to an ideology of ethnic superiority and self-determination.
    This is what wikipedia says about nationalism:

    Nationalism is a political, social, and economic system characterized by promoting the interests of a particular nation, particularly with the aim of gaining and maintaining self-governance, or full sovereignty, over the group's homeland. The political ideology therefore holds that a nation should govern itself, free from unwanted outside interference, and is linked to the concept of self-determination. Nationalism is further oriented towards developing and maintaining a national identity based on shared characteristics such as culture, language, race, religion, political goals or a belief in a common ancestry.[1][2] Nationalism therefore seeks to preserve the nation's culture. It often also involves a sense of pride in the nation's achievements, and is closely linked to the concept of patriotism.

    It's basically the reason why trump was elected. because of "america first" which isnt a bad thing tbh. Why should it? people arent all altruists. It kinda is against self-preservation honestly. But I'm going down the path of darkness which gets me easily banned ...so ...wikipedia. talk about that definition which is by far the most neutrral thing I've read so far about this topic.

  17. #657
    Quote Originally Posted by Chisa View Post
    This is what wikipedia says about nationalism:

    Nationalism is a political, social, and economic system characterized by promoting the interests of a particular nation, particularly with the aim of gaining and maintaining self-governance, or full sovereignty, over the group's homeland. The political ideology therefore holds that a nation should govern itself, free from unwanted outside interference, and is linked to the concept of self-determination. Nationalism is further oriented towards developing and maintaining a national identity based on shared characteristics such as culture, language, race, religion, political goals or a belief in a common ancestry.[1][2] Nationalism therefore seeks to preserve the nation's culture. It often also involves a sense of pride in the nation's achievements, and is closely linked to the concept of patriotism.

    It's basically the reason why trump was elected. because of "america first" which isnt a bad thing tbh. Why should it? people arent all altruists. It kinda is against self-preservation honestly. But I'm going down the path of darkness which gets me easily banned ...so ...wikipedia. talk about that definition which is by far the most neutrral thing I've read so far about this topic.
    The problem I think arises because a lot of people now seem to see the term nationalism and immediately jump to ethnic nationalism as the two have been conflated in media to mean the same thing when one is only a subset of the other. Hence all the vehement reactions to the word.

  18. #658
    Quote Originally Posted by dark666105 View Post
    The problem I think arises because a lot of people now seem to see the term nationalism and immediately jump to ethnic nationalism as the two have been conflated in media to mean the same thing when one is only a subset of the other. Hence all the vehement reactions to the word.
    Pretty much this. Seeing as how fostering a national culture is how nations perpetuate themselves, I could make a rough argument that anti-nationalism leads to anarchy. But I’m not the hyperbolic type.

  19. #659
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,896
    Quote Originally Posted by Ragedaug View Post
    The page you guys keep referencing disagrees with you. "Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production". You can't have "Socialism" without the State owning production. The State can only obtain the production by seizing it. What you are describing is socialized versions of other economic systems, not Socialism itself.
    Dezerte's already explained above why this is flat-out wrong, but to paraphrase in short form, there's plenty of forms of social ownership that aren't state ownership. You keep trying to come back to that, and it's definitively wrong.

    If we were talking exclusively about "state socialism" or some such specific variant, you'd have a point, but we aren't, so you don't. It's like if we were talking about cakes, and you insisted all cakes had chocolate icing, because look at that devil's food cake. It isn't an argument, it just demonstrates you don't know about all the different kinds of cake there are.

    While I agree with you 100% on this, the people who are crying out for Socialism do not. Take China for example. Very Socialist. But they still have the second most millionaires of any country in the world. So obviously the wage gap is still a very real thing in even the most Socialist countries and the rich get richer even there. That said, the people trying to do the overthrowing are drawn in to the movement by the Robin Hood carrot, that the State will take over all the ownership and riches of the rich and distribute it to the less fortunate. That's why these movements always start with seizing and redistribution. You have to wait 50 years, give or take, for the corruption to kick in to see all the State promoted millionaires running around being more equal than everyone else.
    China has a lot of private ownership, to the point it's arguably a form of state capitalism, now, rather than truly socialist. Though it's admittedly a fine line. But they certainly don't have an issue with hierarchies of wealth/income, so I don't see how their example backs you up here.

    Nah, that's just you being obstinate to the definitions of the terms deciding they are interchangeable so as to fit your narrative.
    "Management" and "regulation" are not as strictly defined as you seem to think. You're just flat-out wrong there. I'm willing to use your interpretation for simplicity's sake, but the point remains that if you want to insist on it, you need to edit my post that sparked this to use "regulation" rather than "management", if you want to understand what I was saying.

    It works fine in basic English even if you don't, so there's no need for this, but if you're going to insist we come up with new distinct definitions here, that doesn't mean you get to misinterpret my meaning based on definitions you made up after my post.

    In the U.S. for example, Businesses have many governmental regulations, so to say they are being regulated by the government, however they are not managed by the government. If you are still trying to be obtuse to this point, I would go a step further and say you can have two separate privately owned companies that are under the exact same regulations that are managed very differently. ~ that's because the government isn't managing them. In a Socialist state, the government is managing them.
    Again, this is definitively false. Nothing about socialism requires that the State manage any enterprise. You keep coming back to this, but it's wrong, every time.

    You keep doing it. So far you have tried to redefine "socialism", "regulation" and "management", and now "seizure" - all within the same post.
    Linking to socialism's Wiki is not "redefining".

    As for the latter three, I'm not the one doing so; you insisted on redefining "regulation" and "management", and others were using "seizure" in a way that was inflammatory and definitively incorrect, with regards to socialist theory. I only pointed out the implications of their use, since if they wanted to insist their use was correct, they were broadening the definition to a useless point, as I described.

    If they want to drop that "socialism requires seizing the means of production" garbage, and go back to what "seizure" really means, then that would be great.

    If I go to Walmart and buy a pair of socks, I am not "seizing" those socks. Neither is Walmart "seizing" my $10 bucks. We are exchanging monies and goods in a consensual transaction. That's Capitalism. Socialism is me going into Walmart, advising them that the community is controlling them now. Explaining that everyone from the greeter to the store manager are all now making $15 an hour...then taking the socks because I decided the community wants me to have them.
    Again, this is all just flat-out wrong. No, that's not "socialism". Socialism doesn't require stealing ownership of the company. Socialism doesn't require setting wages to artificially identical levels. Socialism doesn't involve stealing product.

    None of that makes any sense, and is not about "socialism". It's just you describing the fantastical boogeyman in your own head that you insist is named "socialism".

    Quote Originally Posted by Ragedaug View Post
    Here's the key point to your link:

    "Historically social ownership implied that capital and factor markets would cease to exist under the assumption that market exchanges within the production process would be made redundant if capital goods were owned by a single entity or network of entities representing society"

    So that's the historical definition of Socialism and Social Ownership, which is the definition most of us who are against or leary of Socialism are using. But if you keep reading the rest of the article, you can see how over the years, "Social Ownership", was broadened to mean "ownership by pretty much anyone or anything", thus making the term meaningless in any real discussion.
    Not really. It just means what it means, not what you wish it meant. It doesn't support your boogeyman theory, so it's "meaningless" to you, and that's as deep as you're going.

    So that leaves the proponents of Socialism defining exactly what they mean by Socialism in order for us to be able to communicate without just talking past each other.
    No, it just means we know that socialism is a broad and complex body of theory, so we don't simply say "I'm a socialist" full stop, we can specify "I'm a liberal democratic market socialist", which is how I'd self-describe. A body of theory where none of the nonsense you're been saying this whole thread has any truth to it whatsoever.

    So unless you can define what you mean by "Socialism", then get everyone else who also believes we should move to a Socialist system to also agree on your definition of Social Ownership, we can't have a discussion, and every one not yearning to live in a Socialist state will continue to be very afraid of the Socialist rhetoric because it can and will mean whatever the people implementing it want it to mean.
    We literally did. We pointed you at the Wiki, you proceeded to misinterpret what the Wiki said and complain that it was wrong, because it wasn't the narrow and negative description you wanted it to be, and weren't willing to accept that your understanding was far too limited.

    This isn't about the definition being impossible, it's about you not wanting to understand it.

    Otherwise, everything I'm reading on that page still goes to point out the unifying goal of Socialism to means the State decides who sells and who buys, and for how much.

    "The comprehensive notion of socialization and the public ownership form of social ownership implies an end to the operation of the laws of capitalism, capital accumulation and the use of money and financial valuation in the production process, along with a restructuring of workplace-level organization."
    Errr,, no. That isn't what the section you've cited means at all.

    You might be confusing "capitalism" with concepts like "market action" or "trade" or the like. That isn't what capitalism is. It has no ownership of the concept of market behaviour; that exists across a lot of different economic systems.

    What you've cited means basically that socialism intends to;
    1> end capitalist actions, particularly to limit the harms they cause,
    2> prevent harmful levels of wealth inequality (produced by the above), and
    3> moving to a system not based on the "financial valuation of the production process" means that we're not horse trading the means of production among the wealthy, any more, and that's about it. Its value wouldn't be the financial value, but the productive value.


  20. #660
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    Man, it's almost as if the bad things our ancestors did continues to have a systemic negative impact on people that is impossible to resolve as long as idiots keep running around claiming that history has no bearing on the present.
    Maybe the blacks in America could get over shit that happened 400 years ago?
    Playing the victim is really getting old when you're a generation Z hipter fuckwad, but still whine about the white man empire, WHICH YOU LIVE IN, if you don't like your fucking cars, cell phones, electricity, fine dining, luxury, go back to mud huts in Africa.

    Racism is still such a huge problem because the blacks aren't letting go. Get over it, and live together in peace. Our generation, of any color, should be free of these chains already.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •