NationStates Jolt Archive

I am fed up with all the damn Commie Socialists who talk about how they need to steal my rights or deny me a right to worship however I see fit, because they know better what I should do with my life. I'm sick of these hypocrites talking about how they're so tolerant and want people to be free, while at the same time insult, mock, and ridicule you, and say you don't have a right to fight back against their assaults because they have some magical immunity from citicism.

It's time to shut up the hypocritical lefties once and for all (or at the very least get a laugh trying to).

"Beat Commies With Sticks" proposal:
Description: Whereas the extreme left wing is taken far too seriously these days, and Whereas their ideals seek to erase individualty and take away the right of the individual, be it hereby Resolved that Communists and Socialists are enemies of humanity, seeking to murder freedom itself.

Be it further resolved, that henceforth, whenever a Communist/Socialist espouses views that seek to "steal individual liberty to protect people from themselves," "Erase Moral Traditions in the name of social justice," or "Deny someone the right to worship because god is 'stupid' or otherwise invalid," any United Nations citizen will have the right to beat said Commie Socialist with a stick until they have either shut up or are dead, whichever comes first. Civilians will be immune from prosecution in such cases, as they are merely defending themselves and society from an "Freedom-killer."

Your mother must be... very proud... :?

Why is it any one who disagrees with Fantasan is automatically a Communist? Would it not be a more correct statement to say that Fantasan is trying to be a dictator like his hero's Bush/Ashcroft and cronies?

Agree with me or you're liberal/commie scum!

Yes, I'm sure his mother is very proud! :roll:

Peace,
Stephanie.

I am fed up with all the damn Commie Socialists who talk about how they need to steal my rights or deny me a right to worship however I see fit, because they know better what I should do with my life. I'm sick of these hypocrites talking about how they're so tolerant and want people to be free, while at the same time insult, mock, and ridicule you, and say you don't have a right to fight back against their assaults because they have some magical immunity from citicism.

It's time to shut up the hypocritical lefties once and for all (or at the very least get a laugh trying to).

"Beat Commies With Sticks" proposal:
Description: Whereas the extreme left wing is taken far too seriously these days, and Whereas their ideals seek to erase individualty and take away the right of the individual, be it hereby Resolved that Communists and Socialists are enemies of humanity, seeking to murder freedom itself.

Be it further resolved, that henceforth, whenever a Communist/Socialist espouses views that seek to "steal individual liberty to protect people from themselves," "Erase Moral Traditions in the name of social justice," or "Deny someone the right to worship because god is 'stupid' or otherwise invalid," any United Nations citizen will have the right to beat said Commie Socialist with a stick until they have either shut up or are dead, whichever comes first. Civilians will be immune from prosecution in such cases, as they are merely defending themselves and society from an "Freedom-killer."

Liberals are tolerant, otherwise why haven't you been thrown out of the UN yet?

*has a feeling Fantasan is trying to "go out with a bang"* >_<

I am fed up with all the damn Commie Socialists who talk about how they need to steal my rights or deny me a right to worship however I see fit, because they know better what I should do with my life. I'm sick of these hypocrites talking about how they're so tolerant and want people to be free, while at the same time insult, mock, and ridicule you, and say you don't have a right to fight back against their assaults because they have some magical immunity from citicism.

It's time to shut up the hypocritical lefties once and for all (or at the very least get a laugh trying to).

"Beat Commies With Sticks" proposal:
Description: Whereas the extreme left wing is taken far too seriously these days, and Whereas their ideals seek to erase individualty and take away the right of the individual, be it hereby Resolved that Communists and Socialists are enemies of humanity, seeking to murder freedom itself.

Be it further resolved, that henceforth, whenever a Communist/Socialist espouses views that seek to "steal individual liberty to protect people from themselves," "Erase Moral Traditions in the name of social justice," or "Deny someone the right to worship because god is 'stupid' or otherwise invalid," any United Nations citizen will have the right to beat said Commie Socialist with a stick until they have either shut up or are dead, whichever comes first. Civilians will be immune from prosecution in such cases, as they are merely defending themselves and society from an "Freedom-killer."

Wow. I'm a libertarian and I don't even support legalizing murder.

I have made several valid points against your proposals. Name-calling is not a valid rebuttal. I am perfectly willing to have a debate on the merits of issues.

Therefore, I ask you to reply to the following objection to this proposal: People should not be killed due to their beliefs. By permitting this murder, the right of Socialists to express their beliefs is being grossly infringed upon.

Failure to reply within 48 hours will result in several I.G.N.O.R.E. missiles being dropped on your nation.

Fantasan, sometimes you really need to take a deep breath and calm down. Most of your posts are boiling over with bitterness and rage, and I hope for your sake that you aren't like this all the time in real life. Even your attempts at humor (as you have described this proposal) are usually unfunny and tasteless.

You really need to stop viewing everything in political terms. Treat your debate opponents with some dignity and respect when they are willing to do the same to you. Don't assume that a person is "evil" just because he or she is "liberal." Cut back on the "recruiting" efforts (which seem to reflect a belief that you are at "war" with the liberals on this site) and get involved in discussions instead. If somebody tells you that you are wrong, either admit it or explain why you are right.

Yeah, I can predict by now what you're going to say. You are going to tell me that the liberals always flame you, and that you're just reacting to that. Well, I've been on the forum for a long time, and I've seen many of your posts, and I can tell you that this is much less true than you think it is. Obviously, there are quite a few "liberal" players who flame you or mock your arguments instead of debating. But you are just as guilty as they are. Your posts on political issues almost invariably contain some jab at "liberals". If your initial post on a subject doesn't, the follow-up usually does. As long as you act like you're in a fight to the death with all those who disagree with you, people aren't going to take you seriously. Besides, if you actually want to convince people that you are correct in your opinions, a calm approach is much more effective. Flies, honey, vinegar. I'm not going to change my mind on something when somebody is screaming at me that I'm evil.

I can't imagine that this "us against them" stance that you adopt in the forums is much fun for you. You seem genuinely enraged that NationStates doesn't have more conservative players. We've argued about things in the past, but I'd like to give you a completely non-political suggestion: relax. It's just a forum. Nothing that happens on NationStates could possibly affect anyone. You gain nothing by getting this upset over something so trivial.

Why is it any one who disagrees with Fantasan is automatically a Communist?

*Texan accent*

"You're either with us, or against us."

Don't assume that a person is "evil" just because he or she is "liberal."

Why not? It's true, after all.

Why is it any one who disagrees with Fantasan is automatically a Communist?

*Texan accent*

"You're either with us, or against us."

http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/you.jpg

Peace,
Stephanie!

uuhh, just because you write "whereas" and "henceforth" a lot in your argument, doesnt make it and intelligent argument.
henceforth, your're wrong....lol jk =D

Don't assume that a person is "evil" just because he or she is "liberal."

Why not? It's true, after all.

How so? DOn't assume that a person is a socialist just because he or she is a liberal. Libertarians trace their ideological roots to liberal movements.

I've given up using the correct definition of "liberal" because it's really pointless to bother anymore. From now on, when I say "liberal" I mean what most people today understand it to mean--and those kind of liberals ARE evil.

I've given up using the correct definition of "liberal" because it's really pointless to bother anymore. From now on, when I say "liberal" I mean what most people today understand it to mean--and those kind of liberals ARE evil.

I still disagree.... Stephanistan is a "liberal" by modern definitions, I don't regard her as evil. There's still a difference between the libertarian-left and the socialists/state-liberals.

Here's a good quote about socialism, from socialist President Nyerere from Tanzania, when stepping down in 1985: "I failed. Let's admit it."

Just so I can follow the discussion, what exactly do people mean by the following?

socialist
liberal
libertarian
commie (yes, I know it means communist)

thanks

Just so I can follow the discussion, what exactly do people mean by the following?

socialist
liberal
libertarian
commie (yes, I know it means communist)

thanks

Modern real-world definitions:

Socialist- Someone who supports extensive state redistribution of property
Liberal- Someone who supports high levels of personal freedom and low or medium levels of economic freedom
Libertarian- Someone who supports high levels of personal and economic freedom, and believes in minimizing the state's role
Communist- (a) someone who supports abolition of private property, (b) a Stalinist

See, I fall into this much more then any thing;

Libertarian- Someone who supports high levels of personal and economic freedom, and believes in minimizing the state's role

With some small exceptions.. I do think we should help our fellow man and I do believe in helping people. I don't believe that the rich should just keep getting richer while the poor just keep getting poorer.. but I do believe in tax cuts when we can afford them and I do believe in a balance of socialism/capitalism... so it puts me a little more liberal I suppose.. but I'm by no means a commie or some super fly lefty either.

Peace,
Stephanie.

See, I fall into this much more then any thing;

Libertarian- Someone who supports high levels of personal and economic freedom, and believes in minimizing the state's role

With some small exceptions.. I do think we should help our fellow man and I do believe in helping people. I don't believe that the rich should just keep getting richer while the poor just keep getting poorer.. but I do believe in tax cuts when we can afford them and I do believe in a balance of socialism/capitalism... so it puts me a little more liberal I suppose.. but I'm by no means a commie or some super fly lefty either.

Peace,
Stephanie.

That's why I called you "Libertarian-Left". I know lots of them.

Just so I can follow the discussion, what exactly do people mean by the following?

socialist
liberal
libertarian
commie (yes, I know it means communist)

thanks

Modern real-world definitions:

Socialist- Someone who supports extensive state redistribution of property
Liberal- Someone who supports high levels of personal freedom and low or medium levels of economic freedom
Libertarian- Someone who supports high levels of personal and economic freedom, and believes in minimizing the state's role
Communist- (a) someone who supports abolition of private property, (b) a Stalinist

Thank you. :) I guess I'm a liberal.... I think.

Just so I can follow the discussion, what exactly do people mean by the following?

socialist
liberal
libertarian
commie (yes, I know it means communist)

thanks

Modern real-world definitions:

Socialist- Someone who supports extensive state redistribution of property
Liberal- Someone who supports high levels of personal freedom and low or medium levels of economic freedom
Libertarian- Someone who supports high levels of personal and economic freedom, and believes in minimizing the state's role
Communist- (a) someone who supports abolition of private property, (b) a Stalinist

Stalin was a communist about as much as Keano Reeves is an actor. Those of us who know what communism means know what Stalin was/is, the enemy. Your definition of socialism is correct however and is a more accurate description of what happens when statists claim to be communists. :wink:

Just so I can follow the discussion, what exactly do people mean by the following?

socialist
liberal
libertarian
commie (yes, I know it means communist)

thanks

Modern real-world definitions:

Socialist- Someone who supports extensive state redistribution of property
Liberal- Someone who supports high levels of personal freedom and low or medium levels of economic freedom
Libertarian- Someone who supports high levels of personal and economic freedom, and believes in minimizing the state's role
Communist- (a) someone who supports abolition of private property, (b) a Stalinist

Stalin was a communist about as much as Keano Reeves is an actor. Those of us who know what communism means know what Stalin was/is, the enemy. Your definition of socialism is correct however and is a more accurate description of what happens when statists claim to be communists. :wink:

I said these are the real world definitions. Of course theoretically Stalin was an enemy of communism but TODAY he is associated with it.

Just so I can follow the discussion, what exactly do people mean by the following?

socialist
liberal
libertarian
commie (yes, I know it means communist)

thanks

Modern real-world definitions:

Socialist- Someone who supports extensive state redistribution of property

A socialist is one who seeks communism through whatever means, redistribution of wealth/property is more of a social democrat thing. If you are stupid and believe that stalinism was a genuine attempt to reach communism you can also call stalinists socialists.

Liberal- Someone who supports high levels of personal freedom and low or medium levels of economic freedom

Sillie. Liberal supports high levels of economic and personal freedom (yes even modern liberals) sadly the direct result of high economic freedom is low levels of personal freedom.

Libertarian- Someone who supports high levels of personal and economic freedom, and believes in minimizing the state's role

The term can also be used to describe anarchists though I will accept that it isn't really used in that way anymore.

Communist- (a) someone who supports abolition of private property, (b) a Stalinist

Meh. abolition of private property does not define communism. Communism is a system of collectivist anarchy, lack of private property may come as a result of this but it is not the most important thing. Again with Stalinists if you are stupid and believe that they actually wanted communism I suppose you can call them communists but the Stalinist system itself is certainly not communism.

Just so I can follow the discussion, what exactly do people mean by the following?

socialist
liberal
libertarian
commie (yes, I know it means communist)

thanks

Socialist - one who advocates redistribution of wealth as administered by a state or government.

Liberal - Real Definition: one dedicated to the cause of liberty. One who values high levels of personal and economic freedom. Modern Definition: see also Socialist.

Libertarian - see also Liberal (Real Definition)

Communist - one who advocates an economic theory concerned with the collective ownership, administration, and operation of the means of production, often for the good of society. Often mistaken for Socialism, although on closer examination it becomes apparent that putting everything under control of the state is NOT communism as having a single administrator and owner (the government) is NOT a collective set up, as the definition of communism requires.

Just so I can follow the discussion, what exactly do people mean by the following?

socialist
liberal
libertarian
commie (yes, I know it means communist)

thanks

Modern real-world definitions:

Socialist- Someone who supports extensive state redistribution of property
Liberal- Someone who supports high levels of personal freedom and low or medium levels of economic freedom
Libertarian- Someone who supports high levels of personal and economic freedom, and believes in minimizing the state's role
Communist- (a) someone who supports abolition of private property, (b) a Stalinist

Stalin was a communist about as much as Keano Reeves is an actor. Those of us who know what communism means know what Stalin was/is, the enemy. Your definition of socialism is correct however and is a more accurate description of what happens when statists claim to be communists. :wink:

I said these are the real world definitions. Of course theoretically Stalin was an enemy of communism but TODAY he is associated with it.

real-world perhaps, but still wrong...and continuing to use wrong definitions will only perpetuate ignorance and mis-understanding.

I hate ignorance and mis-understanding. :D

Wolomy, I'm using modern generally accepted definitions, not theoretical ones. And high economic freedom leads to high personal freedom.

The countries with the most personal freedom are also more or less the ones with the most economic freedom...

What is more free, Hong Kong or Mainland China? The USA or Cuba?

Wolomy, I'm using modern generally accepted definitions, not theoretical ones. And high economic freedom leads to high personal freedom.

The countries with the most personal freedom are also more or less the ones with the most economic freedom...


True, perhaps.


What is more free, Hong Kong or Mainland China? The USA or Cuba?

None of them are free.

In Mainland China and Cuba I'm expected to waste away my precious existance under a corrupt government that forces me to comply with their dictates to usher in the glorious world revolution or whatever.

In Hong Kong and USA I am expected to waste away my precious existance under a corporation, stuck in a cubical in the back of a building somewhere under the threat of being unable to eat (food does cost a paycheck after all :wink: ) in pursuit of glorious expensive toys which will simply be left behind when I'm lowered into a 6 foot deep hole at my last party.

Either way, I'm stuck in a cage for the sake of someone elses idea of how I should exist. :wink:

(EDIT: read _Brave_New_World_ and _Island_ by Aldous Huxley. Both books are part of the authors exploration of the interaction between emotion and scientific reasoning. I think in _Brave_New_World_ he successfully demonstrates the attitudes and ideas developed when human beings take "success" and "progress" to seriously. I personally not only fear oppressive governments, but I also fear the obsession with "success" and "progress" that capitalist socieities, in my opinion, create and strengthen. We become so obsessed with temporary things that we end up sacrificing ourselves to things other than governments as well. Frankly, this tendency scares the crap out of me because it is equated with "freedom." Being "free" to choose your owner is not freedom.)

Wolomy, I'm using modern generally accepted definitions, not theoretical ones. And high economic freedom leads to high personal freedom.

The countries with the most personal freedom are also more or less the ones with the most economic freedom...

What is more free, Hong Kong or Mainland China? The USA or Cuba?

Did I say low economic freedom led to high personal freedom? Neo-liberalism can certainly give those at the top vast levels of freedom but at the expense of everyone else. Someone who is stuck with a job stacking shelves in a US supermarket may theoretically be free to do what they like but in reality they are not. That is only in the US of course, the reason the US enjoys a relative level of prosperity is as you know that it relies on third world labour. The real reason places like Hong Kong can be more "free" tham mainland China is not that Chinas government is evil and oppressive (though this obviously contributes to the problem) it is that richer nations use places like Hong Kong to set up their regional headquarters and can make their money from the exploitation of labour in mainland China. Globalisation means that things like the level of individual freedom in a nation cannot be attributed simply to that nations government type or political system. The global capitalist system means that the people at the top can be free at the expense of the rest. Thus clearly we have high levels of eeconomic freedom globally and as a direct result low levels of personal freedom.

To address your other point, the generally accepted definitions are not always correct. If we use them they become meaningless, for example Liberalism equating to the Democrats, Conservatism to the Republicans when both parties are largely the same. Communism in particular has been incorrectly labeled and deliberatly associated with Stalinists in an attempt by western governments to give legitimate Communism a bad name and by the Stalinists themselves to give them some level of credibility. There are many other examples, Anarchism equating to biker gangs, Conservatism to neo-Liberalism and even to an extent Fascism equating to Naziism. Thus it is important to use the correct terms even if they are not the most commonly used.

Ok, like it or not, if somebody has a different political view than you, your definitions are going to be different. None is 100% correct, because all of those are subjective terms. But they are what you believe they are.

I've been called a Radical Liberal, a Reactionary Conservative, an Anarchist, a Facist, and an idiot (this all ties in with the above statement also). So I'm guessing that makes me a moderate. And as a moderate, I feel that I'm right... and you're all wrong... so here are my definitions.

Socaialist: Somebody that believes in a society somewhere between capitalism and communism. They believe that many markets in our society need to be nationalized, such as education, daycare, and or healthcare.

Liberal- Somebody that believes in high personal freedom, moderate to low economic freedom, and basically wants change. I might also say that liberals tend to be more "touchy feely". Liberal can also be used to define only one category, such as views on business, if you believe in regulation of business, that would be considered a liberal view. If it is used in the civil rights form, if you believe that the government should let people do what they want more (not including businesses) then that would be a liberal view.

Liberatarian: Somebody that believes in less government. Overall liberatarians don't want to government to tell them what to do (depending on how liberatarian they are)

Communist: Somebody that doesn't believe in owning property and believes the government should run all businesses.

Ok, like it or not, if somebody has a different political view than you, your definitions are going to be different. None is 100% correct, because all of those are subjective terms. But they are what you believe they are.

I've been called a Radical Liberal, a Reactionary Conservative, an Anarchist, a Facist, and an idiot (this all ties in with the above statement also). So I'm guessing that makes me a moderate. And as a moderate, I feel that I'm right... and you're all wrong... so here are my definitions.

Methinks you should read up on ideology, contrary to what you seem to think ideologies can be defined objectivly and are not so influenced by opinion. Whether you think they are right and will work or not is another matter of course but the basic definitions/beliefs/whatever remain the same.

Socaialist: Somebody that believes in a society somewhere between capitalism and communism. They believe that many markets in our society need to be nationalized, such as education, daycare, and or healthcare.

The original definition of socialism is the stage in between capitalism and communism, however, socialism is not the middle ground, it should always be progressing towards communism. The other possible definition of socialism is I suppose similar to yours but this definition is incorrect. It has been used largely by "socialist" parties particularly in Europe in order to justify reform rather than revolution (in order to become acceptable to the ruling elites) and in order to distance themselves from communism (which was and still is associated with stalinism).

Liberal- Somebody that believes in high personal freedom, moderate to low economic freedom, and basically wants change. I might also say that liberals tend to be more "touchy feely". Liberal can also be used to define only one category, such as views on business, if you believe in regulation of business, that would be considered a liberal view. If it is used in the civil rights form, if you believe that the government should let people do what they want more (not including businesses) then that would be a liberal view.

There are two main versions of liberalism, classical and modern liberalism. Classical liberalism is pretty identical to what would now be considered libertarian and is also adopted to an extent by "new right" conservatives in their economic policies.

Modern liberalism is what you describe but even this still has relativly high levels of economic freedom. For example liberals would not support protectionism and would only support limited levels of taxation and welfare in order to ensure that everyone has a chance to succeed and nothing more. The goal of modern liberalism is a meritocracy they should not be confused with social democrats or shallow greens who go further with the taxation/regulation of business etc.

Liberatarian: Somebody that believes in less government. Overall liberatarians don't want to government to tell them what to do (depending on how liberatarian they are)

Communist: Somebody that doesn't believe in owning property and believes the government should run all businesses.

This is wrong, it could describe socialism but not communism. Communism is a stateless society it is collectivist so there is no private enterprise. Property is owned collectivly and therefore not by any government, thus communism is a form of anarchism.

Ok, like it or not, if somebody has a different political view than you, your definitions are going to be different. None is 100% correct, because all of those are subjective terms. But they are what you believe they are.

I've been called a Radical Liberal, a Reactionary Conservative, an Anarchist, a Facist, and an idiot (this all ties in with the above statement also). So I'm guessing that makes me a moderate. And as a moderate, I feel that I'm right... and you're all wrong... so here are my definitions.

Methinks you should read up on ideology, contrary to what you seem to think ideologies can be defined objectivly and are not so influenced by opinion. Whether you think they are right and will work or not is another matter of course but the basic definitions/beliefs/whatever remain the same.

No term is completely objective unless it can be defined with quantitive information. Such as the word meter, or water.

Socaialist: Somebody that believes in a society somewhere between capitalism and communism. They believe that many markets in our society need to be nationalized, such as education, daycare, and or healthcare.

The original definition of socialism is the stage in between capitalism and communism, however, socialism is not the middle ground, it should always be progressing towards communism. The other possible definition of socialism is I suppose similar to yours but this definition is incorrect. It has been used largely by "socialist" parties particularly in Europe in order to justify reform rather than revolution (in order to become acceptable to the ruling elites) and in order to distance themselves from communism (which was and still is associated with stalinism).

This is what I believe the modern definition is, and since Switzerland and Sweden are commonly referred to as "socialist" countries despite the fact that they are not progressing towards communism nor are they completely communist. And since there is no word meaning part capitalism part communism and socialism means going towards communism I think by modern terms socialism can be applied to this.

Liberal- Somebody that believes in high personal freedom, moderate to low economic freedom, and basically wants change. I might also say that liberals tend to be more "touchy feely". Liberal can also be used to define only one category, such as views on business, if you believe in regulation of business, that would be considered a liberal view. If it is used in the civil rights form, if you believe that the government should let people do what they want more (not including businesses) then that would be a liberal view.

There are two main versions of liberalism, classical and modern liberalism. Classical liberalism is pretty identical to what would now be considered libertarian and is also adopted to an extent by "new right" conservatives in their economic policies.

Modern liberalism is what you describe but even this still has relativly high levels of economic freedom. For example liberals would not support protectionism and would only support limited levels of taxation and welfare in order to ensure that everyone has a chance to succeed and nothing more. The goal of modern liberalism is a meritocracy they should not be confused with social democrats or shallow greens who go further with the taxation/regulation of business etc.[/quote]

I think you are going by American Democrats as an example of modern liberals. The Democratic party is very conservative. Most modern liberals are basically what I described.

Liberatarian: Somebody that believes in less government. Overall liberatarians don't want to government to tell them what to do (depending on how liberatarian they are)

Communist: Somebody that doesn't believe in owning property and believes the government should run all businesses.

This is wrong, it could describe socialism but not communism. Communism is a stateless society it is collectivist so there is no private enterprise. Property is owned collectivly and therefore not by any government, thus communism is a form of anarchism.

Then whoever controlling the distribution of property would be the government. Somebody/some people has/have to be controlling it all.

do i really have to propose a "Fantasan control act"?

do i really have to propose a "Fantasan control act"?

You can, but it won't fly, just like this beat commies with sticks act.

Just so I can follow the discussion, what exactly do people mean by the following?

socialist
liberal
libertarian
commie (yes, I know it means communist)

thanks

Modern real-world definitions:

Socialist- Someone who supports extensive state redistribution of property
Liberal- Someone who supports high levels of personal freedom and low or medium levels of economic freedom
Libertarian- Someone who supports high levels of personal and economic freedom, and believes in minimizing the state's role
Communist- (a) someone who supports abolition of private property, (b) a Stalinist

Correction. Socialist's do NOT believe in extensive state redistribution of property. That suggests that a Socialist Government would come and take away someone's big-screen TV and give it to a poor family... Which isn't really what Socialists stand for!

Following is a quote from the Scottish Socialist Parties homepage (the fastest growing political group in Scotland).

http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/

The SSP stands for the socialist transformation of society. To replace capitalism with an economic system based on democratic ownership and control of the key sectors of the economy. A system based on social need and environmental protection rather than private profit and ecological destruction.

As you can see by the quote Socialism believes in state ownership of various sectors in order to provide accountability to the electorate. In our present system companies are unaccountable as they are not ellected or otherwise influenced by the vast majority of the population. However, under state control those who govern these institutions will be accountable to the electorate. Therefore creating more democratic control.

COMMUNISM is the ones who believe in total distrubution. Most Socialists now believe in taming Capatalism by regulation to make sure the social fabric isn't harmed too much by corperations. Something I believe in as when companies start having larger GDP's then individual countries... Something is wrong.

and since Switzerland and Sweden are commonly referred to as "socialist" countries despite the fact that they are not progressing towards communism nor are they completely communist.

Wait... I don't know where you got Switzerland... Switzerland is likke #4 or so for most capitalist countries according to world glossary of economic freedom.

As for Sweden, before Sweden adopted socialism in the early 70s their economy was growing at about 5.7% a year. If they continued at that rate, they right now would have a per capita income of over $70,000. Instead today it isn't even $30,000.

and since Switzerland and Sweden are commonly referred to as "socialist" countries despite the fact that they are not progressing towards communism nor are they completely communist.

Wait... I don't know where you got Switzerland... Switzerland is likke #4 or so for most capitalist countries according to world glossary of economic freedom.

As for Sweden, before Sweden adopted socialism in the early 70s their economy was growing at about 5.7% a year. If they continued at that rate, they right now would have a per capita income of $70,000. Instead today it isn't even $30,000.

But their people are happy. Should sucess be measured in how much money one makes or how happy your citizens are?

and since Switzerland and Sweden are commonly referred to as "socialist" countries despite the fact that they are not progressing towards communism nor are they completely communist.

Wait... I don't know where you got Switzerland... Switzerland is likke #4 or so for most capitalist countries according to world glossary of economic freedom.

As for Sweden, before Sweden adopted socialism in the early 70s their economy was growing at about 5.7% a year. If they continued at that rate, they right now would have a per capita income of $70,000. Instead today it isn't even $30,000.

But their people are happy. Should sucess be measured in how much money one makes or how happy your citizens are?

I'm sure they would be happier if they made three times as much money. I'd probably be happier if I made three times as much money.

and since Switzerland and Sweden are commonly referred to as "socialist" countries despite the fact that they are not progressing towards communism nor are they completely communist.

Wait... I don't know where you got Switzerland... Switzerland is likke #4 or so for most capitalist countries according to world glossary of economic freedom.

As for Sweden, before Sweden adopted socialism in the early 70s their economy was growing at about 5.7% a year. If they continued at that rate, they right now would have a per capita income of $70,000. Instead today it isn't even $30,000.

But that would not be for everyone. If you have a more capatalist economy then inequality is built into that. Therefore CERTAIN people would be making more. But then a lot others would be a lot worse off. This would lead to increased crime and other social problems.

You can't buy hapiness. And even if you could - not everyone would be able to afford it.

But their people are happy. Should sucess be measured in how much money one makes or how happy your citizens are?

I'm sure they would be happier if they made three times as much money. I'd probably be happier if I made three times as much money.

Excuse me, but are you all trying to define yourselves politically (some quite humorously) so as not to be mistaken for communists and therefore beaten with sticks if fantassan's tantrum-cum-proposal becomes legislation?

Why don't you all start up a "getting to know my inner politics" forum?

Anyway, even though I would argue against F.'s proposals from a communist position it is been shown that others have argued just as persuasively from other perspectives. By the above standards I can see quite a number of those who have identified themselves from a range of 'faiths' (mostly capitalistic/social democratic moderates) that have made it quite clear in the past their opinions of your proposals. Sometimes a lot more eloquently than the Communist nations.

The bottom line, F, is that most nations don't argue against your proposals because they fail to satisfy a particular political purity, but because of they are generally bloody stupid.

Peoples Commissar
Superstructure & Praxis Secrétariat
CPOWSOS
(Central Politburo of Workers Soviets of Stakanovia)

Okay, apparently my brother went insane when proposing this, but as it is no longer a UN proposal and he's on vacation from the game I see no more point debating this. Besides, the conversation has lapsed outside the UN and if continued should be moved to the General Forum!

You guys might be interested in checking out http://www.politicalcompass.org/ , which uses a scale of http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/bothaxes.gif.

I'm
Economic Left/Right: -8.25
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.79

making me a far left/libertarian.

and since Switzerland and Sweden are commonly referred to as "socialist" countries despite the fact that they are not progressing towards communism nor are they completely communist.

Wait... I don't know where you got Switzerland... Switzerland is likke #4 or so for most capitalist countries according to world glossary of economic freedom.

As for Sweden, before Sweden adopted socialism in the early 70s their economy was growing at about 5.7% a year. If they continued at that rate, they right now would have a per capita income of over $70,000. Instead today it isn't even $30,000.

Just because the average is higher doesn't mean that the average citizen is making more. More than likely, the increase in the average would have been brought about by the skyrocketing incomes of the top 10% of the population, while the rest of the people were left to flounder. Averages are very misleading, and are often avoided by statisticians. (hehe, I actually learned something in my stats course :p)

You guys might be interested in checking out http://www.politicalcompass.org/ , which uses a scale of http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/bothaxes.gif.

I'm
Economic Left/Right: -8.25
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.79

making me a far left/libertarian.

I did that once.... it was a different graphic though.... I saved it to my computer, but then it wouldn't work so I deleted it... I forget what I was, but it's a very good site.

You guys might be interested in checking out http://www.politicalcompass.org/ , which uses a scale of http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/bothaxes.gif.

I'm
Economic Left/Right: -8.25
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.79

making me a far left/libertarian.

If you have any real principles, then that would be impossible.

This is indeed a fun test:

Economic left/right: 4.12
Authoritarian/Libertarian: 2.82

Interesting...

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.88
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

I'm way down in the corner... beyond Nelson Mandela, the Dalai Lama, and Jean Chretien.

Oh my, they updated it.

Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.44

My results:

Economic Left/Right: 1.50
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.87

guess I'm not as leftist as I like to think, although compared to my fellow american libertarians, I guess I'm uber-leftist :wink: :roll: 8)

Let me guess, you're american.

Why is it any one who disagrees with Fantasan is automatically a Communist? Would it not be a more correct statement to say that Fantasan is trying to be a dictator like his hero's Bush/Ashcroft and cronies?

Agree with me or you're liberal/commie scum!

Yes, I'm sure his mother is very proud! :roll:

Peace,
Stephanie. Your one of those freak liberal left arn't you?

Why is it any one who disagrees with Fantasan is automatically a Communist? Would it not be a more correct statement to say that Fantasan is trying to be a dictator like his hero's Bush/Ashcroft and cronies?

Agree with me or you're liberal/commie scum!

Yes, I'm sure his mother is very proud! :roll:

Peace,
Stephanie. Your one of those freak liberal left arn't you?

Actually I lean much more to left/libertarian. ;)

Peace,
Stephanie.

This "stick"... Is it the People's stick?

COMMIE! :D

This resolution has my full backing.

Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.95

About where I expected.

Economic Left/Right: -8.38
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.23

Bout right. The religion and sex questions killed my Authoritarian side heh.

And high economic freedom leads to high personal freedom.

The countries with the most personal freedom are also more or less the ones with the most economic freedom...

What is more free, Hong Kong or Mainland China? The USA or Cuba?

Nice try there. But, I can trot out nations that “prove” just the opposite:

For example, in Amsterdam, Holland they enjoy cannabis cafes and legalized prostitution. It would be a libertarian paradise if not for all the cradle-to-grave social services. Europe as a whole has more social programs than the States, yet enjoys more personal and political freedom: moralists can’t censor dirty books or force “dry” counties and you have more than two choices on Election Day.

By contrast, don’t they still cane people in Hong Kong for chewing gum or spitting on the sidewalk? No, wait, that’s Singapore (another paragon of “economic freedom”) and that’s only a $200 fine for spitting or selling gum. Chewing is okay provided you have only a small amount for personal use and dispose of it properly when you are done, but selling it is illegal. I can just imagine a gum deal going down: “Dude! I got this primo Bubble Yum ...” Singapore reserves caning for hardcore crimes – like vandalism. Of course Hong Kong also canes folks and that along with other human rights concerns have been the subject of Amnesty International reports. http://www.democracy.org.hk/archive/ai.htm

In short, your presumption of linkage between “economic” and personal freedom flawed. In fact, I find it odd that you can play this game and not know that.

Goobergunchia’s post of the Libertarian party’s quadrant based “political compass” is interesting, but the game’s mechanics are based on a more detailed chart that resembles the cross section of a Rubik’s Cube: (I suppose I’m supposed to warn you that this is a “spoiler”) http://alces.sel.uaf.edu/gregg/ns/nsmap.html . You’d think that playing this game would help some folks unlearn their either/or thinking.

Wait... I don't know where you got Switzerland... Switzerland is likke #4 or so for most capitalist countries according to world glossary of economic freedom.

As for Sweden, before Sweden adopted socialism in the early 70s their economy was growing at about 5.7% a year. If they continued at that rate, they right now would have a per capita income of over $70,000. Instead today it isn't even $30,000.

I don’t know where you got Sweden adopting socialism in the early 70s. The Scandinavian nations began providing generous social services during the Great Depression and it jump started their economies again. That’s what government spending does whether it is for guns or butter. Read John Maynard Keynes.

Regards,
The Commonwealth of CoOpera
(A Scandinavian Liberal Paradise)

fantasan...too much anger and inner rage inside of you...been drinking too much coffee again in the morning and reading the morning headline would do that to you...

we cannot do everything that we like...okay, fine, let's say one day, after you wake up, you have the ability to change the world...now what will you do? kill all commies? then what differs you from hitler? let them live? then what do you differ from stalin? the principle of communism is workable...as do capitalism...what the problem is that the people involve are imperperfect...they have faults, somewhere along the way, they rise then take a fall then another...it's a matter of different perspective and those who have the will and the means to pursue it can change or defend on what they believe...if you come to power someday, can you do it? can you keep the same objectivity that you have right now? it is a 50-50 chance that either you lead your country to a bunch of fanatics or you'll massively gassed those who opposed what you believe...if you do either of that, then you have already lost sight of what you have fought earlier... :lol:

your idea is already flawed at the beginning and furthermore, it is not workable... :wink:

Some of my best drinkin' buddies are commies.

But that don't stop me from beatin'em with a stick!

-Prez Billy Bob Hicklee

Whee, this is fun!

OK, in phrasing my definitions, I'm going to try to come up with "value-positive" ones, in the sense of definitions that wouldn't offend the people described. This isn't out of some general attempt to be politically correct; it's out of a conviction that you can best understand your opponents by trying to get inside their heads and understand *why* they'd find the described ideals attractive.

First, four pre-definitions:

Redistributivism: People who believe this think that capitalism, left completely unchecked, is a recipe for all kinds of social disaster. They think that taking care of the poor, the sick, the powerless, and "public goods" (such as clean air, roads, and education) is part of the business of the government. Since these things cost money, it's acceptable for the government to tax its citizens to help pay for them.

Free-marketism (aka fiscal conservatism): People who believe this think that private property is an inviolable right and that the government, in general, should not be taking people's money. They think that government interference makes the market work less efficiently, and that the closer a system is to pure, unregulated capitalism, the better. This is more or less the opposite of redistributivism.

Social conservatism: People who believe this think that the government has an important duty to uphold the traditional morality of its people. Often, though not always, there is a religious bent to social conservatism--religious social conservatives (from monotheistic religions) think that it is the government's duty to prevent acts that are abhorrent or blasphemous to God. An obvious case is sexual conduct: Most social conservatives think that, even between consenting parties, some practices should be outlawed because they are obscene or unnatural.

Civil libertarianism: People who believe this think that the government should support a wide diversity of lifestyle choices. As long as an act only affects the parties that explicitly consent to it, civil libertarians believe the government has no business preventing it. Again, an obvious case is sexual conduct: Most civil libertarians think that the government should "stay out of the bedroom."

OK, now that those are out of the way, the other definitions are relatively easy. Note that these definitions, as stated elsewhere in the thread, are definitions as they are *used today* by the majority of reasonably well-educated people, not as the words may have originally been intended.

Libertarianism: Fiscal conservatism combined with civil libertarianism. People usually only identify as libertarians if both of these are very important to them...otherwise they may call themselves "fiscal conservatives" or "neo-liberals/New Democrats" (see below).

Conservatism: Fiscal conservatism combined with at least some degree of social conservatism. Self-identified conservatives vary pretty widely about just how socially conservative they are. (In the U.S. Republican Party, there's a branch of "fiscal conservatives" who tone down the social conservatism pretty heavily.)

Liberalism: Civil libertarianism combined with at least some degree of redistributivism. Self-identified liberals vary pretty widely about just how redistributivist they are. (In the U.S. Democratic Party, there's a branch of "New Democrats" who tone down the redistributivism pretty heavily.)

Populism: Strictly speaking, social conservatism combined with redistributivism, but it's often used to refer to just one or the other. A "populist liberal" is an especially redistributivist one; a "populist conservative" is an especially socially conservative one.

Socialism: Strong redistributivism. Socialists can be social conservatives or civil libertarians; identifying as "socialist" says nothing about a person's stand on civil issues.

Communism: "Complete" redistributivism, to the point of saying that private property should not exist. This is distinct from socialism because today's self-identified socialists usually believe in some property rights. Like socialism, identifying as "communist" says nothing about a person's stand on civil issues.

[edited to fix typo: populism involves *social* conservatism, not *fiscal* conservatism]

and since Switzerland and Sweden are commonly referred to as "socialist" countries despite the fact that they are not progressing towards communism nor are they completely communist.

Wait... I don't know where you got Switzerland... Switzerland is likke #4 or so for most capitalist countries according to world glossary of economic freedom.

I may be confusing socialism with confederacy on this one (I always get government and economy mixed up) but a socialist country can technically have very high economic freedom, they could have no business regulations but have many aspects of society nationalized (healthcare, education, daycare, ect.) which, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe Switzerland does do. Would you not call a country that had every business except the cellphone business nationalized but had no regulations on the cellphone business at all a socialist country?

As for Sweden, before Sweden adopted socialism in the early 70s their economy was growing at about 5.7% a year. If they continued at that rate, they right now would have a per capita income of over $70,000. Instead today it isn't even $30,000.

Umm.. ok... whatever.... I don't know what that had to do with any of this...

But, I will add there is no way in hell Swedens GNP would be $70,000, if it was, everyone would move there and quickly make it about $50.

Whee, this is fun!

OK, in phrasing my definitions, I'm going to try to come up with "value-positive" ones, in the sense of definitions that wouldn't offend the people described. This isn't out of some general attempt to be politically correct; it's out of a conviction that you can best understand your opponents by trying to get inside their heads and understand *why* they'd find the described ideals attractive.

First, four pre-definitions:

Redistributivism: People who believe this think that capitalism, left completely unchecked, is a recipe for all kinds of social disaster. They think that taking care of the poor, the sick, the powerless, and "public goods" (such as clean air, roads, and education) is part of the business of the government. Since these things cost money, it's acceptable for the government to tax its citizens to help pay for them.

Free-marketism (aka fiscal conservatism): People who believe this think that private property is an inviolable right and that the government, in general, should not be taking people's money. They think that government interference makes the market work less efficiently, and that the closer a system is to pure, unregulated capitalism, the better. This is more or less the opposite of redistributivism.

Social conservatism: People who believe this think that the government has an important duty to uphold the traditional morality of its people. Often, though not always, there is a religious bent to social conservatism--religious social conservatives (from monotheistic religions) think that it is the government's duty to prevent acts that are abhorrent or blasphemous to God. An obvious case is sexual conduct: Most social conservatives think that, even between consenting parties, some practices should be outlawed because they are obscene or unnatural.

Civil libertarianism: People who believe this think that the government should support a wide diversity of lifestyle choices. As long as an act only affects the parties that explicitly consent to it, civil libertarians believe the government has no business preventing it. Again, an obvious case is sexual conduct: Most civil libertarians think that the government should "stay out of the bedroom."

OK, now that those are out of the way, the other definitions are relatively easy. Note that these definitions, as stated elsewhere in the thread, are definitions as they are *used today* by the majority of reasonably well-educated people, not as the words may have originally been intended.

Libertarianism: Fiscal conservatism combined with civil libertarianism. People usually only identify as libertarians if both of these are very important to them...otherwise they may call themselves "fiscal conservatives" or "neo-liberals/New Democrats" (see below).

Conservatism: Fiscal conservatism combined with at least some degree of social conservatism. Self-identified conservatives vary pretty widely about just how socially conservative they are. (In the U.S. Republican Party, there's a branch of "fiscal conservatives" who tone down the social conservatism pretty heavily.)

Liberalism: Civil libertarianism combined with at least some degree of redistributivism. Self-identified liberals vary pretty widely about just how redistributivist they are. (In the U.S. Democratic Party, there's a branch of "New Democrats" who tone down the redistributivism pretty heavily.)

Populism: Strictly speaking, fiscal conservatism combined with redistributivism, but it's often used to refer to just one or the other. A "populist liberal" is an especially redistributivist one; a "populist conservative" is an especially socially conservative one.

Ok up to here I suppose. I cannot be bothered going into detail again on liberalism/conservatism as they are both a bunch of ape and you can just read my older posts.

Socialism: Strong redistributivism. Socialists can be social conservatives or civil libertarians; identifying as "socialist" says nothing about a person's stand on civil issues.

The main requirement of socialism is that socialists seek communism. Apart from this you are correct, how libertarian or authoritarian someone is does not matter, though you are unlikely to find socialists supporting traditional "conservative" positions, authoritarian socialists tend to be more like stalinists, they also tend to be rather silly.

Communism: "Complete" redistributivism, to the point of saying that private property should not exist. This is distinct from socialism because today's self-identified socialists usually believe in some property rights. Like socialism, identifying as "communist" says nothing about a person's stand on civil issues.

Not really. Communism cannot be redistributive as you define it because under communism there is no government, no taxation and no real redistribution (or at least no state organised redistribution) The two main requirements of communism are that it must be stateless and it must be collectivist therefore it is a form of anarchism.

Socialism: Strong redistributivism. Socialists can be social conservatives or civil libertarians; identifying as "socialist" says nothing about a person's stand on civil issues.

The main requirement of socialism is that socialists seek communism. Apart from this you are correct, how libertarian or authoritarian someone is does not matter, though you are unlikely to find socialists supporting traditional "conservative" positions, authoritarian socialists tend to be more like stalinists, they also tend to be rather silly.

As I said, I'm focussing primarily on the way these terms are used *today*. Indeed, Marx used the term "socialist" to describe a stepping-stone on the way to communism. But the vast majority of self-described "socialists" (for example, most of the fairly large socialist parties in western Europe today) do *not* seek communism. They simply want very strong brakes put upon capitalism.

Communism: "Complete" redistributivism, to the point of saying that private property should not exist. This is distinct from socialism because today's self-identified socialists usually believe in some property rights. Like socialism, identifying as "communist" says nothing about a person's stand on civil issues.

Not really. Communism cannot be redistributive as you define it because under communism there is no government, no taxation and no real redistribution (or at least no state organised redistribution) The two main requirements of communism are that it must be stateless and it must be collectivist therefore it is a form of anarchism.

Again, this is confusing the original meaning of a term with the way it is generally used today. Since, with the exception of a few short-lived communities in the 19th century, there has never been a "communist" system in the sense you describe, the word has gradually shifted to mean what "socialist" *used* to mean (while "socialist" has shifted to mean something somewhat more moderate).

Socialism: Strong redistributivism. Socialists can be social conservatives or civil libertarians; identifying as "socialist" says nothing about a person's stand on civil issues.

The main requirement of socialism is that socialists seek communism. Apart from this you are correct, how libertarian or authoritarian someone is does not matter, though you are unlikely to find socialists supporting traditional "conservative" positions, authoritarian socialists tend to be more like stalinists, they also tend to be rather silly.

As I said, I'm focussing primarily on the way these terms are used *today*. Indeed, Marx used the term "socialist" to describe a stepping-stone on the way to communism. But the vast majority of self-described "socialists" (for example, most of the fairly large socialist parties in western Europe today) do *not* seek communism. They simply want very strong brakes put upon capitalism.

Indeed and I would argue that these "socialist" parties are not socialist but social democrats. The NSDAP called itself socialist, the USSR called itself communist but they never were. Many European "socialist" parties once were socialist and have since become more moderate in an attempt to become acceptable to elites. The British Labour party for example still calls itself a democratic socialist party, yet its politics today are closer to "new-right" conservatism. Certainly things can change, liberalism for example has dropped much of its commitment to near total negative freedom (though not to the extent that some people seem to think) however, the core ideal of liberalism (to make people as free as possible) has not changed, it is simply the means of achieving it that has changed. (the means in both cases are horribly flawed but that is not really relevant).

Socialism is similar, the main goal of socialism has always been to achieve communism, but the means of reaching this goal are very different. You will find fewer socialists today advocating stalinist style state socialism or a marxist dictatorship of the proletariat and more advocating things like democratic socialism or anarchism. There remains however a clear difference between socialists (those who want communism) and social democrats (those who are content to reform capitalism but leave it in place) That has not changed regardless of misleading political party names.

Communism: "Complete" redistributivism, to the point of saying that private property should not exist. This is distinct from socialism because today's self-identified socialists usually believe in some property rights. Like socialism, identifying as "communist" says nothing about a person's stand on civil issues.

Not really. Communism cannot be redistributive as you define it because under communism there is no government, no taxation and no real redistribution (or at least no state organised redistribution) The two main requirements of communism are that it must be stateless and it must be collectivist therefore it is a form of anarchism.

Again, this is confusing the original meaning of a term with the way it is generally used today. Since, with the exception of a few short-lived communities in the 19th century, there has never been a "communist" system in the sense you describe, the word has gradually shifted to mean what "socialist" *used* to mean (while "socialist" has shifted to mean something somewhat more moderate).

Communism today is most commonly used to describe stalinism. If you want to argue against a communist and you go on about how mean Stalin or Mao was you are unlikely to get very far. This use of the term has come about as a result of its opponents attempting to mislead people and turn them away from communism. This is why you will find that in the US, possibly the most anti-communist nation on earth, hardly anyone knows what communism actually is. Now of course you may still think that communism is horribly flawed or whatever and that the statless society advocated by communists is totally impossible but this is not the point. Stalinists use the term as propaganda, they do not truly believe in it and merely want an excuse to stay in power, mush like the nazis calling themselves socialist to attract working class support. Communists want communism not stalinism, if you want to argue against them effectivly you must understand what they believe. The same is true of any ideology.

In the interests of fostering tolerance and humility in the most obnoxious manner possible, I offer John Scalzi's priceless rant "I Hate Your Politics" which predictably takes aim at everyone's politics.

http://www.scalzi.com/w020322.htm

Hmmm ... It seems that the Global Market is posting to the same threads as I am and bringing his pet issue with him. I have already raised a number of arguments against the validity and effectiveness of his "Free Market" faith but I have no desire to rehash or crosspost. Instead, let me say that more critiques can be found on this thread if you wish to investigate them:

“Free Trade”
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1545444&highlight=#1545444

Indeed and I would argue that these "socialist" parties are not socialist but social democrats. The NSDAP called itself socialist, the USSR called itself communist but they never were. Many European "socialist" parties once were socialist and have since become more moderate in an attempt to become acceptable to elites. The British Labour party for example still calls itself a democratic socialist party, yet its politics today are closer to "new-right" conservatism.

Again, since these "social democrats" vastly outnumber the other sort of "socialists" today, I'm inclined to give them the term.

About Britain--it all depends on what your comparison class is, of course. It's tempting to see Britain as having made a huge swing to the right because of its close allegiance with the U.S. (which has indeed recently made a huge swing to the right) on foreign-policy matters. But Britain still has fairly strong redistributivist policies, particularly regarding basic needs (housing, medicine, food, and transportation). Certainly *far* to the left of even the most redistributivist American administrations. (*One* American administration has tried to put a real national healthcare system into place, and they were slapped down rather humiliatingly.)



Communism today is most commonly used to describe stalinism. If you want to argue against a communist and you go on about how mean Stalin or Mao was you are unlikely to get very far. This use of the term has come about as a result of its opponents attempting to mislead people and turn them away from communism. This is why you will find that in the US, possibly the most anti-communist nation on earth, hardly anyone knows what communism actually is. Now of course you may still think that communism is horribly flawed or whatever and that the statless society advocated by communists is totally impossible but this is not the point. Stalinists use the term as propaganda, they do not truly believe in it and merely want an excuse to stay in power, mush like the nazis calling themselves socialist to attract working class support. Communists want communism not stalinism, if you want to argue against them effectivly you must understand what they believe. The same is true of any ideology.

Certainly next-to-no self-identified communists identify with Stalin. But most of those I've known (and I've known a good handful) identify with either Lenin or Trotsky, who were still complete redistributivists.

Recall that I said that neither communism nor socialism says *anything* about a person's position on civil liberties. It says nothing about a person's position on *political* liberties either (this is a third axis that NationStates has noticed but that gets ignored in most "political spectrum" analyses). The biggest difference between Stalinism and the other forms of communism (as I've defined it) is attitudes towards these other axes. Stalinists were political authoritarians and, in many ways, social conservatives. Other communists can support democratic freedoms (even to the point of thinking that representative democracies aren't free *enough*, which leads to anarchism, support of completely participatory democracy, or support of consensus-based government) and civil liberties.

Erm, that thing about the Swedish economy growing at 5.7% a year and that if it hadn't changed then they would all be earning vast sums... doesn't mean a thing. Rates always change. If the current rate of growth of Elvis impersonators carried on then we'd all be singing "Hound Dog" by 2020. Ain't gonna happen though.

Erm, that thing about the Swedish economy growing at 5.7% a year and that if it hadn't changed then they would all be earning vast sums... doesn't mean a thing. Rates always change. If the current rate of growth of Elvis impersonators carried on then we'd all be singing "Hound Dog" by 2020. Ain't gonna happen though.

Ever sinec adopting a more market-friendly system, China has had a steady 8-10% annual growth rate for more than decade...

Interesting how someone who wants individual freedoms for citizens are ready and willing to beat down others who are exercising said individual freedoms.
What if someone proposed to beat capitalists with a stick? I think that's more in order than beating communists...In real life...who's taking over the world? Capitalists.

Interesting how someone who wants individual freedoms for citizens are ready and willing to beat down others who are exercising said individual freedoms.
What if someone proposed to beat capitalists with a stick? I think that's more in order than beating communists...In real life...who's taking over the world? Capitalists.

Explain how we're "taking over the world"...

Interesting how someone who wants individual freedoms for citizens are ready and willing to beat down others who are exercising said individual freedoms.
What if someone proposed to beat capitalists with a stick? I think that's more in order than beating communists...In real life...who's taking over the world? Capitalists.

Explain how we're "taking over the world"...

I think by the very nature of communism, they are poor.

Explain how you're taking over the world? Well, mainly through the world bank (Phillipines), but also by violent coups (Chile) and ignoring the results of elections (Vietnam).

Interesting how someone who wants individual freedoms for citizens are ready and willing to beat down others who are exercising said individual freedoms.
What if someone proposed to beat capitalists with a stick? I think that's more in order than beating communists...In real life...who's taking over the world? Capitalists.

Explain how we're "taking over the world"...

I think by the very nature of communism, they are poor.

I would rather be "imperialized" under capitalism than impoverished and starving under communism.

Soveregnity may be nice, but who bring us MTV and Nikes? Not the Politburo that's for sure.

Explain how you're taking over the world? Well, mainly through the world bank (Phillipines), but also by violent coups (Chile) and ignoring the results of elections (Vietnam).

Okay, I'd like to see the Phillippines develop without our capital.

As for the whole Pinochet incident, most of Chile was already fed up with Allende's horrid economic policies. I would say that 50-66% of the people were against Allende, which let Pinochet come to power so easily. And I have no clue what you are talking about in Vietnam, they haven't had any elections in the last 25 years. But Vietnam is doing really well right now, thanks to investment. It's one of the few places in the third world that are tolerable to live in, because communism died within 15 years of the end of the Vietnam War there.

It says nothing about a person's position on *political* liberties either (this is a third axis that NationStates has noticed but that gets ignored in most "political spectrum" analyses).

It would be interesting if [violet] or a Game Mod made up a "political compass" of their own that rated you based on how you would respond to various questions similar to the Issues.

so how many more posts do I need before I reach Power Broker

so how many more posts do I need before I reach Power Broker

235. And resist the urge to spam.

this was delted

I'm serious. Otherwise the mods will DEAT your posts and they won't count.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

About Britain--it all depends on what your comparison class is, of course. It's tempting to see Britain as having made a huge swing to the right because of its close allegiance with the U.S. (which has indeed recently made a huge swing to the right) on foreign-policy matters. But Britain still has fairly strong redistributivist policies, particularly regarding basic needs (housing, medicine, food, and transportation). Certainly *far* to the left of even the most redistributivist American administrations. (*One* American administration has tried to put a real national healthcare system into place, and they were slapped down rather humiliatingly.)

Britain is indeed left wing when compared with America (as is most of Europe) but by British standards our current administration is right wing. It is attempting to remove many "redistributivist" policies and privatise those public services which survived Thatcher. This is from a party that still calls itself democratic socialist.

Perhaps it can be put another way, all over the world and throughout the last century there have been dictatorships calling themselves democratic. In general this seems based on the idea that whoever is in charge knows what is best for the people. So if enough dictatorships call themselves democracies does the meaning of the word suddenly change?

Socialism is the pursuit of communism, every socialist party must by definition eventually want to achieve this even if it is an incredibly long term goal.


Communism today is most commonly used to describe stalinism. If you want to argue against a communist and you go on about how mean Stalin or Mao was you are unlikely to get very far. This use of the term has come about as a result of its opponents attempting to mislead people and turn them away from communism. This is why you will find that in the US, possibly the most anti-communist nation on earth, hardly anyone knows what communism actually is. Now of course you may still think that communism is horribly flawed or whatever and that the statless society advocated by communists is totally impossible but this is not the point. Stalinists use the term as propaganda, they do not truly believe in it and merely want an excuse to stay in power, mush like the nazis calling themselves socialist to attract working class support. Communists want communism not stalinism, if you want to argue against them effectivly you must understand what they believe. The same is true of any ideology.

Certainly next-to-no self-identified communists identify with Stalin. But most of those I've known (and I've known a good handful) identify with either Lenin or Trotsky, who were still complete redistributivists.

Recall that I said that neither communism nor socialism says *anything* about a person's position on civil liberties. It says nothing about a person's position on *political* liberties either (this is a third axis that NationStates has noticed but that gets ignored in most "political spectrum" analyses). The biggest difference between Stalinism and the other forms of communism (as I've defined it) is attitudes towards these other axes. Stalinists were political authoritarians and, in many ways, social conservatives. Other communists can support democratic freedoms (even to the point of thinking that representative democracies aren't free *enough*, which leads to anarchism, support of completely participatory democracy, or support of consensus-based government) and civil liberties.

You are confusing communism and socialism. What does USSR stand for? It was supposed to be a socialist state that would lead the people to communism. Leninism or Trotskyism are different forms of socialism. It is debatable when the USSR stopped being socialist or if it ever was, but you cannot argue that it was ever communist.

Socialism can be authoritarian, libertarian or whatever as long as it is working towards communism you can call it socialism. Communism is a form of collectivist anarchy, it is the final stage when the state no longer exists. You cannot have a communist state and you cannot have authoritarian communism.

Why is it any one who disagrees with Fantasan is automatically a Communist?

*Texan accent*

"You're either with us, or against us."

http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/you.jpg

Peace,
Stephanie!

Teeheehee. That does indeed rocketh!

Interesting how someone who wants individual freedoms for citizens are ready and willing to beat down others who are exercising said individual freedoms.
What if someone proposed to beat capitalists with a stick? I think that's more in order than beating communists...In real life...who's taking over the world? Capitalists.

Explain how we're "taking over the world"...

I think by the very nature of communism, they are poor.

I would rather be "imperialized" under capitalism than impoverished and starving under communism.

Soveregnity may be nice, but who bring us MTV and Nikes? Not the Politburo that's for sure.


Who brings us MTV and Nikes? This is a valid argument? What do either of these things have to do with capitalism/communism, and why are they being used as benchmarks?

And personally, I'd rather be free and poor than "imperialized" and rich.

"We're" taking over the world by imposing standards of living on so-called "third world" countries that may or may not flourish under such standards. By abusing our power to coerce and influence countries that may be completely happy the way they are, we are taking over the world. Who is to say that these countries need Nikes or MTV? Who is to say that Nikes and MTV are a sign of prosperity in the life of a person who might be happy with their life the way it stands without "our" standards? I am very happy without a television, Nikes, or any other product that people lust after.
The Western World has made significant economic progress in the last few hundred years, but that's fine for the West. Leave the rest of the world alone to figure out their own standards of progress and standards of living. It's not right to assume that, just because the West has financial (and therefore political) clout, that we have it all figured out. As far as I'm concerned the culture of capitalism is just as destructive as the culture of communism was...that I'm not arguing.
That's what I meant by "we're taking over the world." Capitalism seems to require, in essense, the acquisition of labor, raw materials, and land in order to prosper. The West has been conquered and industrialized, and now the rest of the world is going to have it's turn. I shudder to think what's going to happen in the next century as the world demands more and more Nikes and MTV.
As an added note, or my philosophy...I think that Western people try too hard to avoid and escape the difficulties life brings, and therefore do everything in their power to mask the fact that life can stink, hard times happen, and people die. By avoiding this, we tend to have complexes about the realities of life, become bitter about being dealt a bad hand, and think that we have a right to avoid it all. Then, by virtue of imposing our standards of living on other nations, there is that new option to forget our troubles by masking it with a variety of things and activities.
That's all for now...

"We're" taking over the world by imposing standards of living on so-called "third world" countries that may or may not flourish under such standards. By abusing our power to coerce and influence countries that may be completely happy the way they are, we are taking over the world. Who is to say that these countries need Nikes or MTV? Who is to say that Nikes and MTV are a sign of prosperity in the life of a person who might be happy with their life the way it stands without "our" standards? I am very happy without a television, Nikes, or any other product that people lust after.
The Western World has made significant economic progress in the last few hundred years, but that's fine for the West. Leave the rest of the world alone to figure out their own standards of progress and standards of living. It's not right to assume that, just because the West has financial (and therefore political) clout, that we have it all figured out. As far as I'm concerned the culture of capitalism is just as destructive as the culture of communism was...that I'm not arguing.
That's what I meant by "we're taking over the world." Capitalism seems to require, in essense, the acquisition of labor, raw materials, and land in order to prosper. The West has been conquered and industrialized, and now the rest of the world is going to have it's turn. I shudder to think what's going to happen in the next century as the world demands more and more Nikes and MTV.
As an added note, or my philosophy...I think that Western people try too hard to avoid and escape the difficulties life brings, and therefore do everything in their power to mask the fact that life can stink, hard times happen, and people die. By avoiding this, we tend to have complexes about the realities of life, become bitter about being dealt a bad hand, and think that we have a right to avoid it all. Then, by virtue of imposing our standards of living on other nations, there is that new option to forget our troubles by masking it with a variety of things and activities.
That's all for now...

Oh yes, 8-9% annual real GDP growth in China, 6% in Vietnam, (two of the most open to globalization third world countries) I see how our economic philosophy doesn't work in the third world :roll:

So you want to beat me with a stick?
Why? You dislike Communists and Socicalists.
So what?
I dislike Facists and Nazis.
The feeling is the same.
Lets nuke eachother untill our Nations are just powder.
LOL
You like money.
I like Social Welfare.
You like slaves.
I like Social equality.
You like oil.
I like the enivroment.
You hate tax.
I need tax.
You are a small Government.
I am everywhere

Concentrate on your own issues. I shall do the same. If war is to come. The United Communists and CACE are prepared for action.

I wish not to change your state. But your people may do so if they feel the need.

I am fed up with all the damn Commie Socialists who talk about how they need to steal my rights or deny me a right to worship however I see fit, because they know better what I should do with my life. I'm sick of these hypocrites talking about how they're so tolerant and want people to be free, while at the same time insult, mock, and ridicule you, and say you don't have a right to fight back against their assaults because they have some magical immunity from citicism.

It's time to shut up the hypocritical lefties once and for all (or at the very least get a laugh trying to).

"Beat Commies With Sticks" proposal:
Description: Whereas the extreme left wing is taken far too seriously these days, and Whereas their ideals seek to erase individualty and take away the right of the individual, be it hereby Resolved that Communists and Socialists are enemies of humanity, seeking to murder freedom itself.

Be it further resolved, that henceforth, whenever a Communist/Socialist espouses views that seek to "steal individual liberty to protect people from themselves," "Erase Moral Traditions in the name of social justice," or "Deny someone the right to worship because god is 'stupid' or otherwise invalid," any United Nations citizen will have the right to beat said Commie Socialist with a stick until they have either shut up or are dead, whichever comes first. Civilians will be immune from prosecution in such cases, as they are merely defending themselves and society from an "Freedom-killer."

you talk about your religious freedom.. what about their political freedom?

"We're" taking over the world by imposing standards of living on so-called "third world" countries that may or may not flourish under such standards. By abusing our power to coerce and influence countries that may be completely happy the way they are, we are taking over the world. Who is to say that these countries need Nikes or MTV? Who is to say that Nikes and MTV are a sign of prosperity in the life of a person who might be happy with their life the way it stands without "our" standards? I am very happy without a television, Nikes, or any other product that people lust after.
The Western World has made significant economic progress in the last few hundred years, but that's fine for the West. Leave the rest of the world alone to figure out their own standards of progress and standards of living. It's not right to assume that, just because the West has financial (and therefore political) clout, that we have it all figured out. As far as I'm concerned the culture of capitalism is just as destructive as the culture of communism was...that I'm not arguing.
That's what I meant by "we're taking over the world." Capitalism seems to require, in essense, the acquisition of labor, raw materials, and land in order to prosper. The West has been conquered and industrialized, and now the rest of the world is going to have it's turn. I shudder to think what's going to happen in the next century as the world demands more and more Nikes and MTV.
As an added note, or my philosophy...I think that Western people try too hard to avoid and escape the difficulties life brings, and therefore do everything in their power to mask the fact that life can stink, hard times happen, and people die. By avoiding this, we tend to have complexes about the realities of life, become bitter about being dealt a bad hand, and think that we have a right to avoid it all. Then, by virtue of imposing our standards of living on other nations, there is that new option to forget our troubles by masking it with a variety of things and activities.
That's all for now...

Oh yes, 8-9% annual real GDP growth in China, 6% in Vietnam, (two of the most open to globalization third world countries) I see how our economic philosophy doesn't work in the third world :roll:

How about Chile and Argentina? The IMF and the World Bank did a number on their economies, that's for sure. Read some of Greg Palast's investigative journalism on how they destroyed what was becoming a stable economy in Argentina--scary shit. What works for some countries won't work for all TGM--and the simple fact is that the IMF and World Bank fails more often than it succeeds.

[How about Chile and Argentina? The IMF and the World Bank did a number on their economies, that's for sure. Read some of Greg Palast's investigative journalism on how they destroyed what was becoming a stable economy in Argentina--scary shit. What works for some countries won't work for all TGM--and the simple fact is that the IMF and World Bank fails more often than it succeeds.:roll:

That's what I keep telling him, but he won't listen. Like all doctrinaire corporate globalists, he insists on judging everything by economic activity. I'm sure the west coast of Africa experienced a HUGE surge in economic activity during the trans Atlantic slave trade but I wouldn't propose it is a model for economic development.

"We're" taking over the world by imposing standards of living on so-called "third world" countries that may or may not flourish under such standards. By abusing our power to coerce and influence countries that may be completely happy the way they are, we are taking over the world. Who is to say that these countries need Nikes or MTV? Who is to say that Nikes and MTV are a sign of prosperity in the life of a person who might be happy with their life the way it stands without "our" standards? I am very happy without a television, Nikes, or any other product that people lust after.
The Western World has made significant economic progress in the last few hundred years, but that's fine for the West. Leave the rest of the world alone to figure out their own standards of progress and standards of living. It's not right to assume that, just because the West has financial (and therefore political) clout, that we have it all figured out. As far as I'm concerned the culture of capitalism is just as destructive as the culture of communism was...that I'm not arguing.
That's what I meant by "we're taking over the world." Capitalism seems to require, in essense, the acquisition of labor, raw materials, and land in order to prosper. The West has been conquered and industrialized, and now the rest of the world is going to have it's turn. I shudder to think what's going to happen in the next century as the world demands more and more Nikes and MTV.
As an added note, or my philosophy...I think that Western people try too hard to avoid and escape the difficulties life brings, and therefore do everything in their power to mask the fact that life can stink, hard times happen, and people die. By avoiding this, we tend to have complexes about the realities of life, become bitter about being dealt a bad hand, and think that we have a right to avoid it all. Then, by virtue of imposing our standards of living on other nations, there is that new option to forget our troubles by masking it with a variety of things and activities.
That's all for now...

Oh yes, 8-9% annual real GDP growth in China, 6% in Vietnam, (two of the most open to globalization third world countries) I see how our economic philosophy doesn't work in the third world :roll:

How about Chile and Argentina? The IMF and the World Bank did a number on their economies, that's for sure. Read some of Greg Palast's investigative journalism on how they destroyed what was becoming a stable economy in Argentina--scary shit. What works for some countries won't work for all TGM--and the simple fact is that the IMF and World Bank fails more often than it succeeds.

This is because Chile and Argentina refused to open up their economies the way that CHina and Vietnam did. The IMF "fails" because of the nations' economic policies themselves, not the IMF.

Refused? Are you stoned? Here's what happened to Argentina--they signed a "Technical Memorandum of Understanding" on September 5, 2000, which required them to cut their deficit from $5.3 billion to $4.1 billion in 2001. Their economy was on the knife-edge of a recession anyway--unemployment was almost 20%--and to cut back on government spending at that time was ludicrous. Any economist knows that--but the IMF forced them to do it anyway, as well as slash salaries for civil servants and pensions for the aged by 12-15%. As predicted, the economy went into free-fall, and the World Bank stepped in. What happened? They continued the IMF's ruinous policies, and the middle class, unused to hunting the garbage for food, started to burn down Buenos Aires.
It gets worse--the government, forced by the IMF and the World Bank to continue exorbitant interest payments on their national debt, has to further cut social services, and void labor contracts, further slashing employment and incomes for consumers. The IMF also required Argentina to peg their peso to the US dollar, which made an already crippling debt impossible to pay. Add to it that the banks lending Argentina the money required a 16% premium on the interest because of the "risk" Argentina posed and you see the coming chaos.
So what was the result? Argentina's economy is still in the shitter, and now, because they've sold off many of their national interests, like utility cxompanies, in order to satisfy debts, they have no way to reasonably capitalize any other future investments in their infrastructure. Also, thanks to the imposition of "an open trade policy," Argentinian exporters can't compete because their Brazilian neighbors can undercut them in every instance.
Listen, I'm a fan of globalization, as long as it's done with regulations in place to protect worker's rights and the environment, and as long as governments aren't forced to give up their control of public works (electricity, water, etc) and sell them to private companies who then turn around and gouge consumers.
Full disclosure: the above information os from Greg Palasts's book the Best Democracy Money Can Buy.

Yes, yet some people don't want to believe that US policies don't work everywhere, so they close their eyes and ears to those countries in which the policies failed, and just say they didn't try hard enough.

"They didn't try hard enough," is the excuse. The truth is, US policies don't work everywhere.

I don't have a source for this, but isn't Sweden a perfectly good example of a working socialist country? I might be wrong, maybe it's not socialist, but I think I remember hearing somewhere that it was.

<( .'. )>

Yes, yet some people don't want to believe that US policies don't work everywhere, so they close their eyes and ears to those countries in which the policies failed, and just say they didn't try hard enough.

"They didn't try hard enough," is the excuse. The truth is, US policies don't work everywhere.

I don't have a source for this, but isn't Sweden a perfectly good example of a working socialist country? I might be wrong, maybe it's not socialist, but I think I remember hearing somewhere that it was.

<( .'. )>

Until recently it was a good example of a working social democracy. They have now abandoned many of these policies and as a result the country has problems.

Actually, Sweden is a perfect example of a socialist failure.

Case in point: For a while, Sweden required that any company give its workers unlimited paid absences. It isn't too hard to realize what this resulted in. Pretty soon, people realized that they could get paid even if they didn't show up to work. Not surprisingly, they decided not to show up to work. So the companies had to pay them, but since no one actually did any work they didn't have any revenue coming in. After the company's cash reserves were depleted, it could no longer afford to pay its employees for not working and so it went under--meaning the employees suddenly got paid absolutely nothing. Pretty soon, the entire economy went to hell.

Meaning: The socialist bastards got what they deserved for the subhuman cretinous immoral (and, less importantly, impractical) policy they implemented.

Actually, Sweden is a perfect example of a socialist failure.

Case in point: For a while, Sweden required that any company give its workers unlimited paid absences. It isn't too hard to realize what this resulted in. Pretty soon, people realized that they could get paid even if they didn't show up to work. Not surprisingly, they decided not to show up to work. So the companies had to pay them, but since no one actually did any work they didn't have any revenue coming in. After the company's cash reserves were depleted, it could no longer afford to pay its employees for not working and so it went under--meaning the employees suddenly got paid absolutely nothing. Pretty soon, the entire economy went to hell.

Meaning: The socialist bastards got what they deserved for the subhuman cretinous immoral (and, less importantly, impractical) policy they implemented.

So the fact that things started messing up as soon as they started liberalising the economy is purely coincidence? and having the highest standard of living in the world was nothing at all to do with "socialist" policies?

yes. which particular 'company's' are you talking about?

I'm sure the destitute and starving masses of Sweden are hanging on your every word.

Meaning: The socialist bastards got what they deserved for the subhuman cretinous immoral (and, less importantly, impractical) policy they implemented.

You know what, I'm getting tired of your shit, Ithuania. No one here is calling you names because you believe in the supremacy of property rights above all. We disagree, but we aren't stooping to the level of insults. So cut it out.

You do know that this will never pass? I don't like communists either, but this proposal is a waste of bandwith.

yes. which particular 'company's' are you talking about?

I'm sure the destitute and starving masses of Sweden are hanging on your every word.

Has sort of an "urban legend" quality about it, doesn't it?

DOWN WITH CAPITALISM!

THE FUTURE IS SOCIALISM!

http://www.cpusa.org
http://www.communist-party.org.uk

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/questionnaire.pl?page=printable_graph&X=-0.75&Y=0.05
this is my political spectrum...
Sorry Capitalism is in theory the greater of the two and usually in practice, but not always.