Socialism. your thoughts?

[Anonymouse]

I suggest the deluded yanks not to speak about economical theories , such as communism, which they don't understand and never will.

Oh, and you should speak about it since your so qualified, eh? I am to guess you favor the re-establishment of a communist government in order to better control and rob the people? Your nationalist and socialistic rhetoric is appalling.

[Red Brigade]

Oh, and you should speak about it since your so qualified, eh? I am to guess you favor the re-establishment of a communist government in order to better control and rob the people? Your nationalist and socialistic rhetoric is appalling.

A goverment which controls and rob the people can not be called communist , but capitalist.For example your beloved USA.The land of the ''free'' in which the richest 1% controls the 33% of the wealth of the country.USA, the country which created the ''american dream'' , an utopia created simply to exploit and play with the hopes and the dreams of the people that one day they can become millionaires.
Capitalism is based on two simple things :GREED & EXPLOITATION

[Anonymouse]

A goverment which controls and rob the people can not be called communist , but capitalist.For example your beloved USA.The land of the ''free'' in which the richest 1% controls the 33% of the wealth of the country.USA, the country which created the ''american dream'' , an utopia created simply to exploit and play with the hopes and the dreams of the people that one day they can become millionaires.
Capitalism is based on two simple things :GREED & EXPLOITATION

Oh no, not the "the richest 1% control 33% of wealth" dictum that leftists like to throw out. Woe is me.

Apparently you have no idea what capitalism nor communism mean. Theoretically speaking, neither of them exist. The United States, more accurately is communistic, or socialistic, in terms of politics. In fact, all governments to the degree that they forcibly confiscate wealth from people in the form of taxation, are socialistic/communistic. The differences are in degrees on a spectrum from liberty to tyranny.

Capitalism is based on two things, private property, and voluntary associations. It is not based on "exploitation" or "greed". You are simply highlighting your ignorance by parroting Marx' already discredited nonsense. Nothing about capitalism is exploitative or can be proven to be so and I dare say you cannot either. No one is forcing you to participate in a voluntary transaction in the marketplace. Force is the prerequiste for all political systems. If you want to live in a collective bliss, no one is preventing you to live that way. However, you espouse using force to make other people live according to your flawed ideas in your utopia. Communism/socialism cannot work and has not worked. It has failed everywhere it has tried. Even China, the biggest Communist country now is taking a road down greater liberty and free markets because it has realized that Communism is only good for one thing: hot air.

Only stupidity and stupid people do not learn from mistakes because only stupid people will believe Communism will work if they keep applying it, expecting to get different results.

[Red Brigade]

Of all the modern economic theories,only the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes--that is, the majority--as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons it is the only fair and system that has ever been created.I don't expect you or the likes of you understand, you are Americans after all and i don't blame you.
As for the failure of the Marxist regimes, first of all I do not consider the former USSR, or China, or even Vietnam, to have been true Marxist regimes, for they were far more concerned with their narrow national interests than with the Workers' International; this is why there were conflicts, for example, between China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those three regimes had truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have occurred.
The desire of mankind was , is and will always be a classles society and equality between all the people of whatever race and religion they are.Only a fool would be against such thing.Thus since Marxism represents those values , then Marxism is the future.It is inevitable.

[Anonymouse]

Of all the modern economic theories,only the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production.

Yes, we saw the "equal distribution of wealth" in the Soviet Union and the blood and tragedy that came with it. The fact of the matter is, the only one consonant with moral principles is the idea of free markets, and voluntary associations. It is not very moral to force people to your ideology because you believe it will lead to a utopia. "Equality" can not and does not exist within the natural world. I refer you to the thread on egalitarianism for a broader idea of why such a thing is non existent within nature, despite its growth into a religion. Who are you, or the government, or anyone else, to tell other people what they can or cannot have or buy as far as their property is concerned? And who are you to tell them with force, that they must give their money to those who do not deserve it? It seems to me, your "morality" is no different than any other person who claims they alone have all the answers.

It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes--that is, the majority--as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation.

There are two problems with this. First, the idea that there exists a "working class" with a set of shared common interests is an assumption. The fact that all workers don't have the same interests, shows they have free will, whereas Marx' original idea was deterministic and denied free will. In order to not make a contradiction he suggested that our class determines our thought, which is as fallacious as it gets. Second, neither you nor Marx have established how workers are "victims" or "exploited". It appears that they work voluntarily for a wage they agree to, otherwise they wouldn't work to begin with.

For those reasons it is the only fair and system that has ever been created.I don't expect you or the likes of you understand, you are Americans after all and i don't blame you.

You committ another logical fallacy when you imply that somehow because one is American therefore they cannot understand. Whether or not one is an American, has nothing to do with understanding economics and philosophy or for that matter, the fallacies of Marxism. The fact that you just committed this philosophy shows you are thinking along Marxian lines, in that, ones class, or in this case, citizenship, determines ones thought. The fact that you ignore that there are many Americans who consider themselves "Marxists" is again interesting, because that disproves your own assertion.

As for the failure of the Marxist regimes, first of all I do not consider the former USSR, or China, or even Vietnam, to have been true Marxist regimes,for they were far more concerned with their narrow national interests than with the Workers' International; this is why there were conflicts, for example, between China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those three regimes had truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have occurred.

This is the classical line of Marxists who like to make excuses for failed systems. Trying to find any and every excuse to blame, except for the idea of Marxism itself, they blame it on "Leninism", "Stalinism", or "Maoism", forgetting that by doing that, they are not avoiding the failure of the original idea. Lenin, Stalin, or Mao merely took these ideas and applied it to their given peoples, by their own methods of using force because otherwise, these ideas wouldnt occur themselves. Without forceful accomodation Marxism was failed from the get go.

The desire of mankind was , is and will always be a classles society and equality between all the people of whatever race and religion they are.Only a fool would be against such thing.

It seems that you have met every human being that has ever existed to make such a bold statement as "the desire of mankind was, is and will always be a classless society and equality between all the peopl eof whatever race and religion they are". Only a fool would necessarily believe such a thing. The very fact that I disagree, disproves your notion that everyone in mankind wants your silly utopia. And to compensate for that you call them fools for simply disagreeing.

Thus since Marxism represents those values , then Marxism is the future.It is inevitable.

Yes, Marx thought that too, and said that capitalism would go into the "dustbin of history". It looks like Marxism went to the dustbin. And good riddens.

[Red Brigade]

Wise men talk because they have something to say.

Yes, we saw the "equal distribution of wealth" in the Soviet Union and the blood and tragedy that came with it. The fact of the matter is, the only one consonant with moral principles is the idea of free markets, and voluntary associations. It is not very moral to force people to your ideology because you believe it will lead to a utopia. "Equality" can not and does not exist within the natural world. I refer you to the thread on egalitarianism for a broader idea of why such a thing is non existent within nature, despite its growth into a religion. Who are you, or the government, or anyone else, to tell other people what they can or cannot have or buy as far as their property is concerned? And who are you to tell them with force, that they must give their money to those who do not deserve it? It seems to me, your "morality" is no different than any other person who claims they alone have all the answers.




There are two problems with this. First, the idea that there exists a "working class" with a set of shared common interests is an assumption. The fact that all workers don't have the same interests, shows they have free will, whereas Marx' original idea was deterministic and denied free will. In order to not make a contradiction he suggested that our class determines our thought, which is as fallacious as it gets. Second, neither you nor Marx have established how workers are "victims" or "exploited". It appears that they work voluntarily for a wage they agree to, otherwise they wouldn't work to begin with.



You committ another logical fallacy when you imply that somehow because one is American therefore they cannot understand. Whether or not one is an American, has nothing to do with understanding economics and philosophy or for that matter, the fallacies of Marxism. The fact that you just committed this philosophy shows you are thinking along Marxian lines, in that, ones class, or in this case, citizenship, determines ones thought. The fact that you ignore that there are many Americans who consider themselves "Marxists" is again interesting, because that disproves your own assertion.



This is the classical line of Marxists who like to make excuses for failed systems. Trying to find any and every excuse to blame, except for the idea of Marxism itself, they blame it on "Leninism", "Stalinism", or "Maoism", forgetting that by doing that, they are not avoiding the failure of the original idea. Lenin, Stalin, or Mao merely took these ideas and applied it to their given peoples, by their own methods of using force because otherwise, these ideas wouldnt occur themselves. Without forceful accomodation Marxism was failed from the get go.



It seems that you have met every human being that has ever existed to make such a bold statement as "the desire of mankind was, is and will always be a classless society and equality between all the peopl eof whatever race and religion they are". Only a fool would necessarily believe such a thing. The very fact that I disagree, disproves your notion that everyone in mankind wants your silly utopia. And to compensate for that you call them fools for simply disagreeing.



Yes, Marx thought that too, and said that capitalism would go into the "dustbin of history". It looks like Marxism went to the dustbin. And good riddens.

Fools because they have to say something.

[Anonymouse]

Wise men talk because they have something to say.




















Fools because they have to say something.

How intellectually challenging. Sit down and give that brain a rest champ.

[Red Brigade]

How intellectually challenging. Sit down and give that brain a rest champ.

A short saying often contains much wisdom.

[Anonymouse]

A short saying often contains much wisdom.

Like, that was so deep.

[nunechka]

i guess this belongs here