NationStates Jolt Archive

Seeing as several other parties have started other threads for this I was wondering if any of our voters/ potential voters in the future had any questions/suggestions or if anybody would be interested the RTP?

Also, does anybody have any suggestions for the manifesto- are there points that we omitted, policies that need rethinking or even are there sections that simply need re-wording?

The Manifesto can be found at http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=422701

Wow, I've actually found a party which I disagree with on just about every single issue. :p

I'm not lying. It's somewhat frightening.

So, let me get this straight. Your party is basically a nationalized, extreme socialist, authoritarian left, oligarchy?

Your manifesto is fairly clear, however, maybe if you described some of the specifics such as whether or not you are going to allow land ownership, other political parties, a private/govt controlled media, etc.

I think some details would be helpful for those interested.

For me, it was just a good laugh. ;)

Comment: Don't go basing yourself on disproven theories of a man who was a traitor to the Union and whose theories not only split the movement, but also have failed to create revolution....anywhere. There is a reason when Lenin was selecting a candidate for General Secretary in 1922, that he passed over Leon Trotsky for nomination. Quite simply, that reason is Trotsky was not qualified. His theory of permanent revolution is an Anti-Marxist theory and his commanding he is so famous for nearly caused the end of the revolution due to the arrogance of Trotsky to think he could take on the Germans single handedly instead of signing the treaty like Lenin said. Russia lost quite a bit because the second German treaty after Trotsky's army faltered, was much more harsh on Russia than the first.

Koba was a far better choice all-round, which is why Lenin selected him over Trotsky. Trotsky, then, angry and thinking that the revolution would be "betrayed", fought the Soviet councils until he himself was exiled. You would think that would have stopped him, but instead he and his old pals Kamenev and Zinoviev assassinated Sergei Kirov, a prominant young comrade. Trotsky met with an end he deserved, he was a traitor to Marx and Lenin and to the entire movement and he has served the benefit of Western Imperialists who still point to his essays on "Stalinism". Trotskyism has never grown big in any country and never will, just as it will never be the leading theory of revolution. Marxism-Leninism is the true line people should adhere to and taking an ultra-left stance like Trotsky is just as bad as taking the line of a Kautsky or Khruschev.

So, let me get this straight. Your party is basically a nationalized, extreme socialist, authoritarian left, oligarchy?

Not authoritarian in government structure but in takeover yes.
Extreme socialist yes
oligarchy no
nationalised- i dont understand what context you're using that in

Comment: Don't go basing yourself on disproven theories of a man who was a traitor to the Union and whose theories not only split the movement, but also have failed to create revolution....anywhere.

I'm sorry but if you class stalinism as the movement then i would rather disregard that section of politics


There is a reason when Lenin was selecting a candidate for General Secretary in 1922, that he passed over Leon Trotsky for nomination. Quite simply, that reason is Trotsky was not qualified. His theory of permanent revolution is an Anti-Marxist theory and his commanding he is so famous for nearly caused the end of the revolution due to the arrogance of Trotsky to think he could take on the Germans single handedly instead of signing the treaty like Lenin said. Russia lost quite a bit because the second German treaty after Trotsky's army faltered, was much more harsh on Russia than the first.

Just how is permanent revolution anti-marxist?
Admittedly he did fuck up over by continuing the war with Germany. In that incident he focused too much on ideals and not enough on the reality of the situation but that does not take away from his theory, which is what this party is based on


Koba was a far better choice all-round, which is why Lenin selected him over Trotsky. Trotsky, then, angry and thinking that the revolution would be "betrayed", fought the Soviet councils until he himself was exiled. You would think that would have stopped him, but instead he and his old pals Kamenev and Zinoviev assassinated Sergei Kirov, a prominant young comrade.

Koba was an arse who played no role in the revolution, could not come up with any significant additions to marxist-leninist doctrine and was basically known for being selfish. In Lenin's political testament he treated Stalin a lot worse than he did Trotsky, recognising that he was to keen to grab power for his own ends and would fuck anybody over that he did not like


Trotsky met with an end he deserved, he was a traitor to Marx and Lenin and to the entire movement and he has served the benefit of Western Imperialists who still point to his essays on "Stalinism". Trotskyism has never grown big in any country and never will, just as it will never be the leading theory of revolution. Marxism-Leninism is the true line people should adhere to and taking an ultra-left stance like Trotsky is just as bad as taking the line of a Kautsky or Khruschev.
Trotsky died at the hands of Stalinism- his murder shows that Koba's interpretation of Marxist-Leninist theory is intolerant and unsocialist in its very nature. Trotskyism has never grown big because for many years stalinists ran the communist parties across the globes and ensure that the Trots could have no significant place in left-wing society.
The fact that all the Stalinist revolutions have ultimately failed tells you something about their ideology's flaws.

Wrong on most all points my Trotskyite friend. Stalin's theories of the possibility of a bourgeois rising up from within the party in the transition to Socialism is quite true.

However, he did not dig far enough to see that it is still possible to have bourgeois rise up during Socialism. In 1939, Stalin declared that Socialism had been fully achieved and there was no longer a bourgeois, this theory was quite wrong a led to the rise of a new bourgeois within the party led by Nikita Khruschev who in the post-Stalin USSR teamed up with Malenkov to eliminate Marxist-Leninists like Molotov from the party by 1958 and turn the USSR into a state-capitalist, imperialist power. While you may see this as a natural effect of Marxism-Leninism, it is not. While Albania and China both fell into revisionism and eventually Capitalism as well, Cuba and Korea have not. Korea is a shining beacon of Socialism and Cuba, at least for now, is too. Marxism-Leninism is also rising in Nepal and India thanks to People's Wars and also in Colombia thanks to a similar war. Meanwhile, we can simply stare at Korea as the model Socialist state while the Trotskyists have none to ever look upon.

Edit: Also note that Stalinism is not an ideology, Stalin put forward very few theories and merely followed the line of Lenin. He is not as important as Marx, Engels or Lenin, but merely is a protector of Marxism-Leninism like Enver Hoxha or Kim Il Sung.

Not authoritarian in government structure but in takeover yes.

You've severly inhibited private interprise, abolished all private medical facilities, outlawed private/religious schools, outlawed certain political parties, limited free speech, outlawed the possession of a second home, and you claim that this is authoritarian? Please.

oligarchy no

Who's enforcing your laws? Who's making the laws? Obviously, if you are going to dismiss democracy (which you hint at in your manifesto), then all you're left with is an authoritarian government either of a monarchy, dictatorship, or an oligarchy. I pretty much figured the first two weren't very accurate, so that leaves an oligarchy. A select few government officials making virtually all the laws. If this is not accurate, explain.

A good way to test my theory is to ask yourself. What if enough people wanted to change the political system? Could they vote? Or is your socialist regime in place indefinitely.

nationalised- i dont understand what context you're using that in

That term could have been summed up by the "extreme socialism" but bascially what I meant was that virtually everything (most industry, hospitals, schools, pharmacies, etc.) is under a centralized, national control.

I will not defend Trotskyism, but I will defend Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism is the best democracy you will find today because power genuinly resides in the people, whose votes are not bought in a multi-party system, but who vote among themselves rather than on a candidate who has spent millions to get himself on TV. A Collectivised economy is vastly superior to the privatized economy if run in a truly Socialist manor as is proven by the burst from the USSR who went from one of the most backward countries, to one of the most advanced in 9 years from 1928-1937. Socialism provides the ultimate rights of man, it provides the basic necessities including healthcare, education, housing, clothing, food and also provides secondary necesities like a job, freedom of religion and freedom of speech. As for making laws, all major changes in the state are put up for public referendum while all minor changes are decided by the Council of Soviets (Soviet councils are workers councils which elect from amongst themselves to sit in the higher council) or another representative body of similar origin.

You've severly inhibited private interprise, abolished all private medical facilities, outlawed private/religious schools, outlawed certain political parties, limited free speech, outlawed the possession of a second home, and you claim that this is authoritarian? Please.

Private enterprise is authoritarian in it's very nature, it gives way to the exploitation of billions by a select few.
We feel that by segregating the school/hospital system economically it is taking away from the education/care of the vast majority who cannot afford private schools/hospitals.
We are ending the possession of second homes so that we can get people off the streets and ensure that all citizens have a roof over their heads.
These seem authoritarian to you but will benefit huge numbers of people.


Who's enforcing your laws? Who's making the laws? Obviously, if you are going to dismiss democracy (which you hint at in your manifesto), then all you're left with is an authoritarian government either of a monarchy, dictatorship, or an oligarchy. I pretty much figured the first two weren't very accurate, so that leaves an oligarchy. A select few government officials making virtually all the laws. If this is not accurate, explain.

We are not going to dismiss democracy, you are now putting words into our mouths. We favour an immediate system of council control of industry and representative left-wing democracy to make decisions regarding the state. This will of course be eventually broken down into direct democracy through the use of soviets.


A good way to test my theory is to ask yourself. What if enough people wanted to change the political system? Could they vote? Or is your socialist regime in place indefinitely.

This is why we advocate arming the workers. If the government tries to cut its links with the people then it gets overthrown. Brutal but fair.


That term could have been summed up by the "extreme socialism" but bascially what I meant was that virtually everything (most industry, hospitals, schools, pharmacies, etc.) is under a centralized, national control.
Yup. Sounds like us.

Karuchea I don't have time to respond now but I'll try to comment tomorrow afternoon. Night night everybody.

Demand better mops :D

Private enterprise is authoritarian in it's very nature, it gives way to the exploitation of billions by a select few.

Wrong. A true free-market capitalist system is run on the demands of the consumer, so the people have the power, not the corporations. This occurs after the elimination of tariffs, corporate welfare, corrupt governments, etc. Private enterprise increases economic prosperity amongst all members of society. Proof of this is everywhere. Consider China for a minute. It's poverty has nearly halved as the result of the increased free-market capitalist policies introduced to replace the communist command economy (while not exactly your Socialist state--you still have a partial command economy). Private enterprise only exploits the consumers when it works in unison with the government. If that is avoided (as a true free-market advocate would want), it is the best method of increasing the standard of living on a worldwide scale.

We feel that by segregating the school/hospital system economically it is taking away from the education/care of the vast majority who cannot afford private schools/hospitals.

If you cut taxes and allowed free enterprise to raise the standard of living, people could afford their own healthcare without the use of the government. Besides, governments are ALWAYS less efficient than a citizen helping him/herself.

These seem authoritarian to you but will benefit huge numbers of people.

They seem authoritarian because they are!

We are not going to dismiss democracy, you are now putting words into our mouths. We favour an immediate system of council control of industry and representative left-wing democracy to make decisions regarding the state. This will of course be eventually broken down into direct democracy through the use of soviets.

Fine. If you claim to endorse democracy, I ask you again. What if the people vote to change your socialist policies?

Make a proposal to be debated in the parliament. The procedure bill has a majority, and is as such in effect, so we are looking to move on to more interesting political debate.

a "Free Market" is based around profit, the exploiting class is determined to create the most profit possible. In the real world scenario, they will go and exploit cheaper labour, either they will go and find that cheap labour or the labour will find them.

Either way, the profit is based off of low wages, wages which are not equal to the value of the labour. If the working conditions are horrid, it will not matter unless those people demand change, in which case you provide them a small, miniscule amount of change that will make them feel better and send them back to produce more. In almost all cases, the Imperialist country's labour is not oppressed much at all because the third world is the real labour supply who is being exploited. This means the revolutions will occur in the Third World, not the First.

Now, on the issue of democracy, the people can choose anything they want, they are the councils and they run the state. In reality, where Socialism benefits 90% of the people in the world and Capitalism benefits 10%, why would the people want a change?

The only problem with Socialism is Revisionists, the ex-exploiters or the people with that mindset who wish to see things restored to the old way so they can make a larger profit and exploit their fellow man. The revisionists will appear like Marxists, they will use Marxist rhetoric, but their intentions are to kill it. The first sign of Revisionism came in the Second International, where the so-called "Socialist Parties" supported their countries, not the workers, in the First World War. This would turn into many movements including Kautskyism, Trotskyism, Titoism and Khruschevism. In many cases, the followers aren't even wanting to exploit, they genuinly believe that that is true Marxism. The answer to revisionism which destroyed the USSR from 1953-1958 and turned it into an Imperialist State-Capitalist power, destroyed Albanian Socialism and Vietnamese Socialism is to educate the people and to show them the revisionists lines, revisionist rhetoric and to genuinly put power in their hands and trust them to guide the revolution.

Wrong on most all points my Trotskyite friend.
First of all, do not refer to me as a "Trotskyite"- you know why.


Stalin's theories of the possibility of a bourgeois rising up from within the party in the transition to Socialism is quite true.

However, he did not dig far enough to see that it is still possible to have bourgeois rise up during Socialism. In 1939, Stalin declared that Socialism had been fully achieved and there was no longer a bourgeois, this theory was quite wrong a led to the rise of a new bourgeois within the party led by Nikita Khruschev who in the post-Stalin USSR teamed up with Malenkov to eliminate Marxist-Leninists like Molotov from the party by 1958 and turn the USSR into a state-capitalist, imperialist power.

The USSR was turned into a degenerative workers' state- while the workers had some control of the economy (to a limited extent) they recieved no advantages that genuine socialism brings. Stalin and his sucessors were selfish and uncaring of the people and, as Trotsky predicted, the USSR degenerated into a capitalist state when a second proleterian revolution could have saved it


While you may see this as a natural effect of Marxism-Leninism, it is not. While Albania and China both fell into revisionism and eventually Capitalism as well, Cuba and Korea have not. Korea is a shining beacon of Socialism and Cuba, at least for now, is too. Marxism-Leninism is also rising in Nepal and India thanks to People's Wars and also in Colombia thanks to a similar war. Meanwhile, we can simply stare at Korea as the model Socialist state while the Trotskyists have none to ever look upon.

Why have you got it into your head that I am not a marxist leninist? Trotsky was particularly key in interpreting Marx and Lenin as situations developed and needed evaluating by somebody who wasn't massively corrupt.
Stalinist style governments which encourage "cults of personality" (which lenin warned against!) have always ultimately failed due to the way that they cut themselves off from the workers. In Korea and Cuba a dictatorship is being run alright, but it's not the dictatorship of the proleteriate and we cannot support those states.



Edit: Also note that Stalinism is not an ideology, Stalin put forward very few theories and merely followed the line of Lenin. He is not as important as Marx, Engels or Lenin, but merely is a protector of Marxism-Leninism like Enver Hoxha or Kim Il Sung.
Stalin corrupted Marxist-Leninism and exploited it to further himself. He held no allegiance to the people and was ultimately a corrupt dictator who took any excuse to eliminate any potential threats to his power within the party.

Sorry it took me a few days to get back. I only just found a note I wrote to reply to you.

Oh and does anybody have any suggestions other than stop being revolutionary trotskyists?

Seeing as several other parties have started other threads for this I was wondering if any of our voters/ potential voters in the future had any questions/suggestions or if anybody would be interested the RTP?

Also, does anybody have any suggestions for the manifesto- are there points that we omitted, policies that need rethinking or even are there sections that simply need re-wording?

The Manifesto can be found at http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=422701

Stay away from men with axes and hammers.

Stay away from men with axes and hammers.
Surely you mean ice picks?

I have a few suggestions

Give up, we dont want no commies here
Beware the owls

I have a few suggestions

Give up, we dont want no commies here
Beware the owls

1)no
2)we sent the owls

Well I suppose even the owls have to have a job lol
Sorry but can you honestly believe in Trotskyism? Why do you want to repress the people while destroying the world in war?

Well I suppose even the owls have to have a job lol
Sorry but can you honestly believe in Trotskyism? Why do you want to repress the people while destroying the world in war?
That's not trotskyism, that's what cold war propaganda and right-wingers have painted it out to be

That's not trotskyism, that's what cold war propaganda and right-wingers have painted it out to be

Rubbish, Trotsky believed in the spreading of world communism which was what made him different to Stalin. I dont think you even have a clue what Trotskyism is from reading your manifesto. This is just idealist liberal authoritarian socialism. Its not even communism, let alone Trotskyism!

Rubbish, Trotsky believed in the spreading of world communism which was what made him different to Stalin.

I dont see how this is a reply to my post.
Trotskyists dont support invading capitalist countries because that is not productive- it is imperialist. Instead we need to fund any rebel groups within the country and encourage the education of the international working class about communism so they overthrow their own shackles


I dont think you even have a clue what Trotskyism is from reading your manifesto. This is just idealist liberal authoritarian socialism. Its not even communism, let alone Trotskyism!

Well see this is the problem we face. In a liberal bourgeoise parliament we can only implement some changes and cannot achieve a true socialist society. We need a revolution to completely destroy capitalism- working within the system is ultimately flawed as right-wingers will ultimately seek to destroy every gain you make. Our manifesto currently reflects what we feel we can achieve in parliament to some extent. However, I did cobble it together in less than half an hour so any suggestions would be appreciated.

I dont see how this is a reply to my post.
Trotskyists dont support invading capitalist countries because that is not productive- it is imperialist. Instead we need to fund any rebel groups within the country and encourage the education of the international working class about communism so they overthrow their own shackles


Its a reply to your post because it shows what trotskyism involves when you said it did not. Invading capitalists is trotskyite, it is not imperialist but ideological, forcing the world revolution by any means. OK the use of comintern is part of that but its not all of it.

Well see this is the problem we face. In a liberal bourgeoise parliament we can only implement some changes and cannot achieve a true socialist society. We need a revolution to completely destroy capitalism- working within the system is ultimately flawed as right-wingers will ultimately seek to destroy every gain you make. Our manifesto currently reflects what we feel we can achieve in parliament to some extent. However, I did cobble it together in less than half an hour so any suggestions would be appreciated.
If you dont want immediate communism thats not trotskyite either, its Menshevik. And stop with the idealism, you cant make anything in parliament, the developed world will reject communism in all forms.

Its a reply to your post because it shows what trotskyism involves when you said it did not. Invading capitalists is trotskyite, it is not imperialist but ideological, forcing the world revolution by any means. OK the use of comintern is part of that but its not all of it.
Its not ideological at all, there is a massive difference between a revolution and an invasion- one is done by the working classes and the other is an act by external forces which is ultimately counter-productive

If you dont want immediate communism thats not trotskyite either, its Menshevik. And stop with the idealism, you cant make anything in parliament, the developed world will reject communism in all forms.
That's ridiculous, we need to build up a vanguard party and use a capitalist-caused-crisis to show the working class the need for revolution before overthrowing the government. Trying to overthrow the government by yourself will be fruitless but acting with the workers will help to achieve socialism.

Participate in the processes.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=427448

Its not ideological at all, there is a massive difference between a revolution and an invasion- one is done by the working classes and the other is an act by external forces which is ultimately counter-productive


Thats not the point, the point is Trotsky supported invasion of countries in order to force revolution! Dont claim to be trotskyite if you dont believe in his beliefs!


That's ridiculous, we need to build up a vanguard party and use a capitalist-caused-crisis to show the working class the need for revolution before overthrowing the government. Trying to overthrow the government by yourself will be fruitless but acting with the workers will help to achieve socialism.
Thats not trotskyite! Thats not the beliefs of any communist, thats neither menshevik, bolshevik, trotskyite or anything! I dont have a problem with belief in the ideal, but calling yourself revolutionary trotskyites is ridiculous!

If you are revolutionaries, why bother participating in the normal democratic process.

That's ridiculous, we need to build up a vanguard party and use a capitalist-caused-crisis to show the working class the need for revolution before overthrowing the government. Trying to overthrow the government by yourself will be fruitless but acting with the workers will help to achieve socialism.

This "capitalist-caused-crisis" you speak of is laughable. Free market capitalism has brought quick growth to several impoverished countries around the world (most notably South Korea, Japan, and now China). Don't believe me? Case in point:

Not so long ago N and S Korea were both in serious economic trouble. Interestingly, both countries took directly opposite goals to achieve what they perceived to be a better way to increase economic prosperity. North Korea increased the tariffs on foreign products and isolated their economy from the rest of the world in order to "protect" their interests and caused growth. It failed miserably, and today we see the fruits of such actions--N Korea is led by a merciless dictator and elite, who rules his country with an iron fist and is backed by the military. His people are starving, and standard of living continues to decrease. I'm not arguing that a command economy leads to dictatorship, but, much like pre-WWII Germany, economic hardship caused a dictator to be able to rise to power. This hardship was caused by a restrictive command economy, much like your extreme socialist calls for.

S Korea on the other hand LOWERED tariffs and encouraged globalization and trade with foreign nations. Its economy is now comparable to Western European economies, and it took only an incredible 11 years to double its wealth. Standard of living is high, and the economy continues to grow at a consistent rate.

What does this mean? It means that the best way for the working class to achieve prosperity is free-market capitalism, rather than a command economy.

What does this mean? It means that the best way for the working class to achieve prosperity is free-market capitalism, rather than a command economy.

I wouldnt say the working class really benefit greatly from free market capitalism, they are the tools with which others get rich. However command economy doesnt benefit anyone so what can you do?

I wouldnt say the working class really benefit greatly from free market capitalism, they are the tools with which others get rich. However command economy doesnt benefit anyone so what can you do?

Do you agree that generally a given form of democracy best ensures the right and freedom of a society? I realize by your name that you are Socialist, I don't know whether you attribute this to your economic or political views, but in either case I present you with an interesting thought. I consider free-market capitalism (meaning no tariffs and limited government intervention--only regulations that ensure competition, meaning to corp welfare, anti-monopolization laws, etc.), a means of providing the lower class with freedom. You have to admit, one is given more freedom if one can choose to buy products from all around the world rather than just domestic products (which tend to be more expensive than other alternatives). With that said, people can save money and provide for themselves much better with the forces of competition and availability of cheaper products on their side. I've used this example before, but in countries like India (a pseudo-democratic nation), a caste system dictates the freedom of people. However, with the increase of free market capitalism, the "untouchables" and lower classes (especially women) have the opportunity to break away from a social structure ruled by the elite, through financial independence. Furthermore, farmers that are stuck in perpetual indentured servitude can start buisnesses to increase their own economic independence as well. Free-market capitalism does favor corporations and certainly the rich, that much is true. But what difference does that make, if the poor and middle class also grow more prosperous as a result?

My socialism applies more to politics, I cant really think of a better economy. Im just saying that capitalism is not ideal, but socialist economy is pretty crap as well. It depends really, capitalism and communism both sacrifice some for the greater good. China for example joins the two and is doing very well for itself. I dont really know how to run the economy without sacrifice. I think im more meritocratic than socialist economically, I believe people should get what they deserve. But thats idealist.

My socialism applies more to politics, I cant really think of a better economy. Im just saying that capitalism is not ideal, but socialist economy is pretty crap as well. It depends really, capitalism and communism both sacrifice some for the greater good. China for example joins the two and is doing very well for itself. I dont really know how to run the economy without sacrifice. I think im more meritocratic than socialist economically, I believe people should get what they deserve. But thats idealist.

Fair enough. I don't believe capitalism is the ideal form of economic gain either, however I tend to be more of a realist and "work with what I have" so to speak. Humans aren't perfect so therefore no human society is perfect, therefore no socio-economic structure will be perfect. I simply think free-market capitalism (as I define it at least) is simply the best solution out of a number of flawed ideals. Your meritocratic ideals mesh well with free-market capitalism though. You should consider joining me, in my quest for economic equality through free market capitalism! ;)

Yes thats fair enough

I will not defend Trotskyism, but I will defend Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism is the best democracy you will find today because power genuinly resides in the people, whose votes are not bought in a multi-party system, but who vote among themselves rather than on a candidate who has spent millions to get himself on TV. A Collectivised economy is vastly superior to the privatized economy if run in a truly Socialist manor as is proven by the burst from the USSR who went from one of the most backward countries, to one of the most advanced in 9 years from 1928-1937. Socialism provides the ultimate rights of man, it provides the basic necessities including healthcare, education, housing, clothing, food and also provides secondary necesities like a job, freedom of religion and freedom of speech. As for making laws, all major changes in the state are put up for public referendum while all minor changes are decided by the Council of Soviets (Soviet councils are workers councils which elect from amongst themselves to sit in the higher council) or another representative body of similar origin.

hmmmm, where to start.

Socialism sucks.

that should cover it

why?

a)It inhibits entrepreneurialism.
b)It favors financial equality over financial freedom
c)Inhibits economic/lifestyle/consumer freedom (in general) due to the crappy economy which socialism fosters.

Extreme socialist economies are poor because they simply can't compete with capitalist/free enterprise countries in terms of product value. So your people, whom you love so much (well you love some of them anyway, and steal from the rich and middle class to uplift the poor), are subject to crappy products and long waits in line to get them... How great!

People are not equal in talent/drive/luck/intelligence etc. If you try to make people equal, you end up marginalizing the attributes of those who could HELP those without such attributes (EG, by providing jobs for them). You punish greatness/success and reward averageness.

When greatness is allowed to foster (as in capitalist countries), it will generally reward averageness by providing investment/job opportunities for Average Joe.

hmmmm, where to start.

Socialism sucks.

that should cover it

why?

a)It inhibits entrepreneurialism.
b)It favors financial equality over financial freedom
c)Inhibits economic/lifestyle/consumer freedom (in general) due to the crappy economy which socialism fosters.

a)Thats not a bad thing
b)Again, thats not a bad thing. I'd rather live in a world where we were all guaranteed food, clothing and housing rather than a world where somebody who inherited the company I work at makes money off my labour
c)All these freedoms aren't constricted in true socialism where because all consumers are also workers, they put forward their demands and then meet it.



Extreme socialist economies are poor because they simply can't compete with capitalist/free enterprise countries in terms of product value. So your people, whom you love so much (well you love some of them anyway, and steal from the rich and middle class to uplift the poor), are subject to crappy products and long waits in line to get them... How great!

I'd love to see some actual evidence for this without trying to point to the Soviet Union or it's satellite states as "conclusive proof".


People are not equal in talent/drive/luck/intelligence etc. If you try to make people equal, you end up marginalizing the attributes of those who could HELP those without such attributes (EG, by providing jobs for them). You punish greatness/success and reward averageness.

When greatness is allowed to foster (as in capitalist countries), it will generally reward averageness by providing investment/job opportunities for Average Joe.
We don't say everybody has equal abilities, but all should be given equal opportunities and equal rights. Under socialism we give all people jobs and the chance to better themselves. Those that choose to become better and more skilled workers are payed higher than they would be if they were unskilled.
Capitalism doesn't reward certain attributes though, does it? Kids work in sweatshops for over 12 hours at a time and they arent rewarded for hard work or endurance, they just get royally fucked by companies who seem them as an easy way to make money.

This "capitalist-caused-crisis" you speak of is laughable. Free market capitalism has brought quick growth to several impoverished countries around the world (most notably South Korea, Japan, and now China). Don't believe me? Case in point:

Not so long ago N and S Korea were both in serious economic trouble. Interestingly, both countries took directly opposite goals to achieve what they perceived to be a better way to increase economic prosperity. North Korea increased the tariffs on foreign products and isolated their economy from the rest of the world in order to "protect" their interests and caused growth. It failed miserably, and today we see the fruits of such actions--N Korea is led by a merciless dictator and elite, who rules his country with an iron fist and is backed by the military. His people are starving, and standard of living continues to decrease. I'm not arguing that a command economy leads to dictatorship, but, much like pre-WWII Germany, economic hardship caused a dictator to be able to rise to power. This hardship was caused by a restrictive command economy, much like your extreme socialist calls for.

S Korea on the other hand LOWERED tariffs and encouraged globalization and trade with foreign nations. Its economy is now comparable to Western European economies, and it took only an incredible 11 years to double its wealth. Standard of living is high, and the economy continues to grow at a consistent rate.

What does this mean? It means that the best way for the working class to achieve prosperity is free-market capitalism, rather than a command economy.

Don't even try to argue that North Korea is a communist state- it's a brutal dictatorship where as long as Kim Jong Il and his cronies are still living in luxury the people are largely ignored. They made some attempts to try and look like a communist state with a few socialist economic policies but isolated themselves in the process and socialism cannot survive in one country alone, this is why a global revolution is needed.

Also, if free-market capitalism is so fucking fantastic then why are there trade unionists being murdered by coca cola and kids dying in sweatshops run for Nike, Converse and Gap. Why is half the world living on less than £1.50 a day? Why does 12 percent of the United States of America live below the poverty line? Neoliberalism fails billions of people across the world yet capitalist theorists choose to ignore it and claim that the starvation is a result of tariffs, governments or something else.

Don't even try to argue that North Korea is a communist state- it's a brutal dictatorship where as long as Kim Jong Il and his cronies are still living in luxury the people are largely ignored. They made some attempts to try and look like a communist state with a few socialist economic policies but isolated themselves in the process and socialism cannot survive in one country alone, this is why a global revolution is needed.

Um, I didn't try to argue that N Korea is a communist state. In fact my exact word in reference to their regime was "N Korea is led by a merciless dictator and elite, who rules his country with an iron fist and is backed by the military". Please read my posts fully. Besides, your point is irrelevant because I am attacking ALL command economies--dictatorships, oligarchies, and communist/socialist govts alike. I even stated in my previous post: "[N Korean] people are starving, and standard of living continues to decrease." I recognize the problem, so don't pretend I don't know what's going on. I have given you plenty of information backing my views, and I see not a scrap of any semblance of information to convince me that a "global revolution" is needed, and furthermore, that it's good way to solve the problems of the world. You need to realize that Socialism or any command economy for that matter is economically isolationist by default.

Also, if free-market capitalism is so ing fantastic then why are there trade unionists being ed by coca cola and kids dying in sweatshops run for Nike, Converse and Gap. Why is half the world living on less than £1.50 a day? Why does 12 percent of the United States of America live below the poverty line? Neoliberalism fails billions of people across the world yet capitalist theorists choose to ignore it and claim that the starvation is a result of tariffs, governments or something else.

Your arguments are typical and shortsighted. You like to take certain instances and use them for your own agenda, but you severely neglect the overall picture. Half the world may be living on 1.50 a day, but guess what? It was worse before global capitalism was instituted. Here are some facts that show you the overall picture. Of the countries with the least economic freedom the average per capita GDP (in US dollars) was 2,916 (only a 0.5% growth over a period of 18). However, for countries with the most open economies, the avg per capita GDP was 22, 306 (a 2.4% increase over 18 years). If this isn't enough proof, poverty in areas that have newly implemented free market policies have drastically decreased. Since the 1960s Indonesia has had a redution of absolute poverty from 58% to 15%, Malaysia: 37% to 5%. More facts: between 1970 and 1989 the average annual growth rate of open-market economies was 4.49%, while closed economies only grew 0.69%.

I could throw more statistics at you all day long, but you will probably stubbornly ignore them and continue to rant about the evils of capitalism and neglect the overall perspective.

One thing about U.S. poverty that is important to note is that a large portion of those considered "poor" are retirees, the elderly and the mentally ill, not generally people who are capable (in both mind and body) to work. Furthermore, U.S. poverty and poverty in most other countries are not comparable. U.S. poverty in most other countries is mid-upper class. You should look at the huge growth in prosperity that the genuinely poor around the world have underwent, rather than focus on the U.S.

Neoliberalism fails billions around the world? That's not what the facts say.

Don't even try to argue that North Korea is a communist state- it's a brutal dictatorship where as long as Kim Jong Il and his cronies are still living in luxury the people are largely ignored. They made some attempts to try and look like a communist state with a few socialist economic policies but isolated themselves in the process and socialism cannot survive in one country alone, this is why a global revolution is needed.

Well at least you have said something trotskyite at last but NK is still communist, its just more stalinist.

Also, if free-market capitalism is so fucking fantastic then why are there trade unionists being murdered by coca cola and kids dying in sweatshops run for Nike, Converse and Gap. Why is half the world living on less than £1.50 a day? Why does 12 percent of the United States of America live below the poverty line? Neoliberalism fails billions of people across the world yet capitalist theorists choose to ignore it and claim that the starvation is a result of tariffs, governments or something else.
Communism puts far more under the poverty line and exploits workers far more. What you are advocating is a form of socialism, not communism!

Surely you mean ice picks?

It looks like hand tools are just a bad idea around Trotsky.

I'll be glad to be Clodagh Rogers...