NationStates Jolt Archive

Well how?

Hmmm.
Well.
Answer me.

Meet me in Lincolnshire in two hours. I'll bring the guns. You bring the pamphlets.

It's a poll! YAY!!! :D

By growing wings and halos and fluttering around in the air playing the harp and singing random psalms.

It's a poll! YAY!!! :D

polls- for when debating hurts your head!

polls- for when debating hurts your head!
...Or thinking.

Not sure I understand the question fully. Who is "we?"

From what I understand you're British [right?] in which case you're really not that far from socialism to begin with; if by "we" you mean "the world" I'm going to have to go with mass lobotomy.

Well how?

Hmmm.
Well.
Answer me.

Obliterate mankind. :)

Meet me in Lincolnshire in two hours. I'll bring the guns. You bring the pamphlets.

No, I'll bring the guns and pamphlets. You bring drugs. Bags and bags of drugs.

Not sure I understand the question fully. Who is "we?"

From what I understand you're British [right?] in which case you're really not that far from socialism to begin with; if by "we" you mean "the world" I'm going to have to go with mass lobotomy.

Ooh. Mass Lobotomy. Good answer. :)

Not sure I understand the question fully. Who is "we?"

From what I understand you're British [right?] in which case you're really not that far from socialism to begin with; if by "we" you mean "the world" I'm going to have to go with mass lobotomy.

I meant the world. Fine. I'll lobotomise every single man woman and child in the world if it'll get the job done

'Socialism' and 'achieve' don't really fit in the same sentence.

I vote a small band of gorillas. Just think of it. Pissed off apes spouting the word of the working man. It will be great.

I meant the world. Fine. I'll lobotomise every single man woman and child in the world if it'll get the job done
Desperation is a stinky cologne, DHomme ;)

Lets hope we never achieve the tyranny that is socialism. I'm all for giving, but it should be left up to the individuals descretion, not forced on him by the outside.

The working class will be replaced by robots, thereby making capital meaningless.

I don't think that real socialism will work in reality as it is, so I favour a mixed economy regulated by a parliamentary government.

From what I understand you're British [right?] in which case you're really not that far from socialism to begin with; if by "we" you mean "the world" I'm going to have to go with mass lobotomy.
Now I understand you. You're so far to the right-wing, that to you "socialism" means 'mixed economy'. Britain is not a socialist country, nor anywhere near it.

I doubt it will be acieved. The increasing globalization of the world is increasingly blurring the lines between the developed and developing nations; the dismantling of the trade protections, the decline of economic nationalism and the whittling away of subsidies is slowly removing many of the things which led to the creation of the Third World and its disaffected population that so stongly embraced socialism.

At the same time, many of the problems that served as support for socialists are also gone. We now have the worker protections, the laws against illegal and unsafe conditions, and the social infrastructure to provide for people after their retirement that did not exist during the era of socialism's strongest growth.

I don't think that real socialism will work in reality as it is, so I favour a mixed economy regulated by a parliamentary government.


Now I understand you. You're so far to the right-wing, that to you "socialism" means 'mixed economy'. Britain is not a socialist country, nor anywhere near it.


Britian's on the road, socialized medicine, especially compared to Ireland. In fact Ireland's got the fastest growing European economy. Its growth rates around 6% I think.

Britian's on the road, socialized medicine, especially compared to Ireland. In fact Ireland's got the fastest growing European economy. Its growth rates around 6% I think.
This is true. But back on topic, no EU country is socialist, and income taxes are higher here than they are in the UK. Along with all other EU countries we also have nationalised healthcare (socialized is not a valid word in this context, you Americans!). But this is not socialism. All EU countries have market economies and are thus capital-based mixed economies.

We won't. Oh and Dhomme, by 'I suck' in the poll, does that refer to the voter, or that you suck? ;)

I suck

Now I understand you. You're so far to the right-wing, that to you "socialism" means 'mixed economy'. Britain is not a socialist country, nor anywhere near it.
Two things: first, America is a goddamn mixed economy-- hell, just about every nation under the sun is a mixed economy. I know what a mixed economy is.

Second, if you think Britain [and for that matter, most of Europe] isn't close to socialism, you ought to have your head examined. No, they're not socialist. They are close; much closer than the U.S. If you're going to challenge my assertation that Britain is "not that far" from socialism, the onus is on you to explain why: instead what you've done here is said "no its not" like we're on an elementary school playground or some equally infantile shit like that.

Look, there's no denying that Britain has been moving farther and farther right since Tony Blair and Thatcher took office: in fact Blair is so pro-Bush it's kind of eerie. That said, Britain's attitudes on things like gun control and tax policy [along with things like subsidized healthcare] are a lot closer to the socialism party-line than a more pro-capitalist viewpoint. They're much closer to Socialism than they are to pure capitalism, hence my statement. They're "not that far" from socialism on the grounds that they--culturally--seem to share many pseudosocialist ideas.

How will you achieve socialism?

Well, step one, you'll have to kill me first.

No idea. I can't see the future, though I suspect that it will involve a number of factors rather than one single way.

Interesting comparasion. Socialism and the mormon law of concecration. They're very similar, except that the law of concecration states, "all things are God's, to be distributed as He directs." Joseph Smith Jr. (first mormon prophet) died before Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto.
The mormons de-implemented the law of concecration because the people were too corrupt to abide by it. Without a massive change in society, socialism fails in the same way, and considering that socialist countries usually ban the worship of God, such a drastic change would be short lived (the wrath of God is an effective deterent from corruption).

see, there's an inherent problem with the question. no sane person would ever want to switch to socialism.

anyone who has lived in a socialist country wil tell you, it's hell.

so stop idealizing a terrible idea

What should we do with counterrevolutionaries?

Why would we want to achieve socialism? It doesn't work on a large scale, and even on a small scale (kibbutzim, hippie communes, etc.) it has a short life. And yes, I know capitalism doesn't work either, but it works better than socialism.

What should we do with counterrevolutionaries?

take their guns away, drive them to alabama, pat them on the head, and say "that's nice... well then, off you go".

take their guns away, drive them to alabama, pat them on the head, and say "that's nice... well then, off you go".

It would be odd to see Alabama surpass the rest of the western world in economic development.

It would be odd to see Alabama surpass the rest of the western world in economic development.

It's got one of the healthiest economies in the United States...

How will we achieve socialism?

Can you 'achieve' socialism? Generally, I think if you have socialism, you have probably failed at some point along the way.

And the answer is no, by the way. Socialism is a utopian dream and I really do pity anyone naive enough to follow a political idealogy that preaches utopia as its final goal. Socialism is, quite frankly, a concept removed from the reality of human nature, the reality of the nature of power and the reality of running a state (no matter how non-existent said state is supposed to be).

The chances of it being achieved are extraordinarily remote. Instead, politics will simply centralise to the point where swings between 'left' and 'right' are neglible. This is happening in Europe at the moment - the welfare state and the free market are slowly meeting together at a mutually beneficial point. All that is left to decide is where that point should be.

"How will it be achieved?" That implies that it would be some sort of achievement or success, rather than a pathetic and abysmal failure of intellect, reason, and civilization.

You'd need a gigantic machine workforce in order to make socialism possible, because people generally have less productivity when they don't need to do anything for their daily bread.

"How will it be achieved?" Never. If it did, it would drive most Satanists to rage against the socialists leaders in power. Satanic rebels would then take over the government and change it back to capitalism, the perferred system for Satanists.

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~

I can bring you socialism. Just bring me an Asian hooker, a gallon of good beer, some cocaine, and three days.

I can bring you socialism. Just bring me an Asian hooker, a gallon of good beer, some cocaine, and three days.

I can give you the good beer and three days but your on your own with the Asian hooker and cocaine.

I think it's funny how many morons come drooling into the thread with inane bullshit like, "omg socializm is bad" and "its a pipe dream lolerz".

I LOL'd. Please, stupid people: do go read up instead of listening to 50-year-old Cold War propaganda like the robots you claim are the product of socialism. You don't want to be a dirty commie, do you?

How about No, Scott.

I think it's funny how many morons come drooling into the thread with inane bullshit like, "omg socializm is bad" and "its a pipe dream lolerz".

I LOL'd. Please, stupid people: do go read up instead of listening to 50-year-old Cold War propaganda like the robots you claim are the product of socialism. You don't want to be a dirty commie, do you?

Not a commie, no. Can I just be dirty? :)

The only way to properly achieve socialism is through the Stalinist ideal. Build a strong socialist system in one country and then proceed to expand socialism to the rest of the world. Stalinism is the only form of socialism that has been the most successful, and before the Great Comrade Stalin died he had brought and supported socialism across half of Europe and most of Asia. Once the world learns to accept the necessity of Stalinist socialism, then socialism will be achieved.

The only way to properly achieve socialism is through the Stalinist ideal. Build a strong socialist system in one country and then proceed to expand socialism to the rest of the world. Stalinism is the only form of socialism that has been the most successful, and before the Great Comrade Stalin died he had brought and supported socialism across half of Europe and most of Asia. Once the world learns to accept the necessity of Stalinist socialism, then socialism will be achieved.

I'd like to point out that it didn't work the first time. In fact, it didn't even last fifty years. Color me skeptical.

The only way to properly achieve socialism is through the Stalinist ideal. Build a strong socialist system in one country and then proceed to expand socialism to the rest of the world. Stalinism is the only form of socialism that has been the most successful, and before the Great Comrade Stalin died he had brought and supported socialism across half of Europe and most of Asia. Once the world learns to accept the necessity of Stalinist socialism, then socialism will be achieved.
Please, do shut up, and don't make the rest of us socialists look like the moron Stalin was. He's fucked up enough already; we don't need his bullshit ruling half the world again.

When someone tells me why I'm equal to people that choose to be drains on society.


EDIT: No wait, perhaps that's communism.

You people have no idea how much Comrade Stalin contributed to the cause. As usual you are only going by what you read in the general sense told in history books "STALIN THE INSANE TOTALITARIAN DICTATOR WHO DIDN'T CARE ABOUT HIS PEOPLE!!!" Give me a break. Look at all the good things Stalin did, and when he was around you didn't see all these different socialist factions competing to be number 1. No, it was just one: the Stalinist ideal. Stalinism brought the Soviet Union into a world superpower, brought the Soviet Union to the nuclear age, and many MANY countless other things. And unfortunately, Stalinism died with Comrade Stalin, as after his death his followers decided to denounce him to gain power for themselves, and once the USSR went away from Stalinism it resulted in its inevitable demise. Do not blame defeat on the one responsible for victory.

As a libertarian, it's hard for me to be objective. But a working socialist system would require a series of checks and balances that only exist in established democratic systems.

Basically, the biggest threat to socialsm is corruption. The only weapon against corruptions of government is the will of the people. So in order to run a stable and long lasting socialist government, one would need the mechanisms alreayd in place to assure that the people are equally influencing the government that is influencing them.

Dennis said it best: "Supreme executive power derives from a mandate by the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony!"

You people have no idea how much Comrade Stalin contributed to the cause. As usual you are only going by what you read in the general sense told in history books "STALIN THE INSANE TOTALITARIAN DICTATOR WHO DIDN'T CARE ABOUT HIS PEOPLE!!!" Give me a break. Look at all the good things Stalin did, and when he was around you didn't see all these different socialist factions competing to be number 1. No, it was just one: the Stalinist ideal. Stalinism brought the Soviet Union into a world superpower, brought the Soviet Union to the nuclear age, and many MANY countless other things. And unfortunately, Stalinism died with Comrade Stalin, as after his death his followers decided to denounce him to gain power for themselves, and once the USSR went away from Stalinism it resulted in its inevitable demise. Do not blame defeat on the one responsible for victory.

I like you. Yu're silly. :)

P.S.: A government that can't survive the death of one man isn't much of a government.

I like you. Yu're silly. :)

P.S.: A government that can't survive the death of one man isn't much of a government.

It could have survived, but unfortunately his successors went a different route then he was going and therefor it failed. If they had continued on the same path then we would probably be living in a socialist world by now.

If they had continued on the same path then we would probably be living in a socialist world by now.
The Cold War just went WHOOSH over your head, eh?

The Cold War just went WHOOSH over your head, eh?

And what about the Cold War? It is said that Stalin is one of the reasons it began, and I suppose this is true. However, during the years during the Cold War, socialism made very little expansion, mainly only in Vietnam and Cuba. Stalin, on the other hand, had expanded it across half of Europe and almost all of Asia. The Korean War would have only ended in victory on Stalin's side, but once he was gone his successors decided to agree to end the Korean War and let the nation remain divided instead of working hard to unite it under socialism.

I'm finished by the way. You asked how we will achieve socialism and I gave you my answer. As usual some people found it an excuse to denounce Great Stalin and his SUCCESSFUL SOCIALIST SYSTEM. Oh well, in reality socialism will probably never be reached again because socialists don't agree with each other.

I think that the struggle between the social classes to become number one is a good thing. Competition leads to progress, and progress leads to better styles of living and so on and so on. Socialism is like a cancer to the society its supposed to "liberate", it slowly kills the society, it spreads like wild fire, and it comes in all shapes and sizes.

this is a socialist: :)

this what my goverment does to socialists: :eek: :sniper:

I think it's funny how many morons come drooling into the thread with inane bullshit like, "omg socializm is bad" and "its a pipe dream lolerz".

I LOL'd. Please, stupid people: do go read up instead of listening to 50-year-old Cold War propaganda like the robots you claim are the product of socialism. You don't want to be a dirty commie, do you?
Two things:

First: WARNED for flamebaiting. Calling your opposition "drooling morons" and "stupid people" is about on par with the intellectual vacuity you've apparently come to expect from your opponents; and I'd make the case that your dumb-assery is a bit more profound on the simple fact of the matter that there's a goddamn Moderator taking part in this discussion--me. Do it again and I'll forumban your ass. Capeesh?

[EDIT: Scratch that--ten day forumban on virtue of prior offenses.]

Second: Did it ever occur to you that such complaints might actually [gasp!] be legitimate? At least one poster has so far apparently confused Socialism with Communism, but suggesting that we're all engaging in such a practice is painting your opposition with something of a broad brush. You seem to be brushing off these arguments on the same epistemological grounds that [you perceive] created them; not bothering to challenge the substance of the complaints, but rather that they exist in the first place. Arguments that are solely the result of propaganda [and thus having not rational basis in reality] are usually pretty easy to put down: if you'd like to be taken seriously here you should attack the substance of an argument rather than its origin--and whether or not that's even the case is debatable.

Dennis said it best: "Supreme executive power derives from a mandate by the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony!"

dennis from the autonomous anarcho-syndicalist commune...

Sadly I do believe we will get stuck with socialism - for a while at least - through a combination of public ignorance and political apathy, and the efforts of a very determined minority to slowly steer both government and the people it serves to the far left of the political and economic spectra.

It has never happened, it will never happen

Its completely against human nature

Human Nature + Socialism = Does not compute.

It can't work.

I was really ashamed.. It's not that I don't think socalists are cool, and that it can be a good idea, but I just don't think it'll happen any time soon. The whole I suck thing after that made me think twice about answering the poll.

I like some of the tennants of socalism, but I like social inequality for some philosophical reasons. Plus the control all being in the hands of the state scares me.

Its completely against human nature

Human Nature + Socialism = Does not compute.

It can't work.

how so?

Other I don't care it is a load of balderdash and piffle

Lets hope we never achieve the tyranny that is socialism. I'm all for giving, but it should be left up to the individuals descretion, not forced on him by the outside.
Tyranny is not having free health care, not having free education, not beeing able to work ones way up in society, beein descriminated couse of you etnicety.

So if you consider that above to be the products of tyrany that i cant wait for tyrani

A combination of unions, the democratic process, and civil disobedience.

Hah! I have just ended the stalemate. Now it's 41 to 40 that socialism will never be achieved.

I can bring you socialism. Just bring me an Asian hooker, a gallon of good beer, some cocaine, and three days.

I got the hooker and the yayo.

It has never happened, it will never happen

Its completely against human nature

Not to mention it woud never work in America. Especially "Revolutions" or "Guerilla" wars. 2nd Amendment at work..again!

Not wise. Americans do not like Socialism.

How will you achieve socialism?

Well, step one, you'll have to kill me first.

Suits me fine.

A combination of unions, the democratic process, and civil disobedience.

Agreed, I suspect that the driving force will be mass strikes and walkouts, followed by a gradual progression to socialism.

It has never happened, it will never happen

Its completely against human nature

Human Nature + Socialism = Does not compute.

It can't work.

In early societies people were quite capable of sharing and cooperating with each other, this leads me to conclude that this 'human nature' of which you speak is ingrained by society rather than being an unavoidable trait in human beings.

For this reason I don't think we can progress to Socialism instantly, it'll have to be a gradual transition, maybe over as much as 50 years, but it can be done.

It'll be worth the wait though.:)

"How will it be achieved?" Never. If it did, it would drive most Satanists to rage against the socialists leaders in power. Satanic rebels would then take over the government and change it back to capitalism, the perferred system for Satanists.

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~

1. I doubt there are enough Satanists in the world to take over a small city, let alone a government.
2. If a satanist faction started fighting against socialism then the 2 billion Christians in the world would join the socialist side on general principle (in the same way that the US supported even the most tyrannical dictator if they declared themselves to be anti-communist).
3. That post has casued me to lose most of the respect that I had for the Church of Satan.

"How will it be achieved?" Never. If it did, it would drive most Satanists to rage against the socialists leaders in power. Satanic rebels would then take over the government and change it back to capitalism, the perferred system for Satanists.

Satanism is watered down Nietzscheanism. I really don't fear it.

When someone tells me why I'm equal to people that choose to be drains on society.


EDIT: No wait, perhaps that's communism.

In communism you accept that you are equal to those who are drains to society, in socialism the government informs you that you are lower than the drains on society.

/ I suck

Human Nature + Socialism = Does not compute.

It can't work.
Someone prove to me that there is an intrinsic human nature, then we'll talk. Merely stating that it is so, without taking into account social context and other factors won't do.

What really puzzles me is how people seem to believe that capitalism is eternal, and the best system that there can be. I'm sure that's what some people thought of feudalism. Of course capitalism won't last forever, we're just trying to replace it with something better.

Lets hope we never achieve the tyranny that is socialism. I'm all for giving, but it should be left up to the individuals descretion, not forced on him by the outside.

Amen.

Of course capitalism won't last forever, we're just trying to replace it with something better.Yes, I agree. What puzzles me is that some people view socialism as a utopia, and when people say utopia, they mean an impossible dream. But that isn't the case, socialism is the best system of all possible systems, and is not an impossible dream.

Tyranny is not having free health care,

No, tyranny is not having the choice of who you want to provide said health care. Tyranny has nothing to due with not buying something. It is about not choosing.

not having free education,

No, tyranny is being spoonfed crap to make the tyrant happy.

not beeing able to work ones way up in society,

Which you can do in a capitalist society. But, by defenition, social climbing has to be unattainable in a socialist society.

beein descriminated couse of you etnicety.

No, thats racism. Of course, that has nothing to do with either of the economic systems we are discussing.

So if you consider that above to be the products of tyrany that i cant wait for tyrani

Not being able to live my life as I see fit so long as I don't harm my neighbor is very much tyranny and is required by socialism.

Socialism will never be achieved as long as I live.

But that isn't the case, socialism is the best system of all possible systems, and is not an impossible dream.

Socialism brings nothing but corruption, mass poverty, and economic stagnation.

Socialism brings nothing but corruption, mass poverty, and economic stagnation.

No, government brings corruption, socialism empowers the corruption.

Socialism will never be achieved as long as I live.
Thanks for your input.

What really puzzles me is how people seem to believe that capitalism is eternal, and the best system that there can be. I'm sure that's what some people thought of feudalism. Of course capitalism won't last forever, we're just trying to replace it with something better.

No, you want to replace it with something different. That does make it automatically better. In fact, people go through great pains to point out how it isn't better.

Socialism brings nothing but corruption, mass poverty, and economic stagnation.
The first two happen in capitalism, the third isn't by definition a bad thing.

You people have no idea how much Comrade Stalin contributed to the cause. As usual you are only going by what you read in the general sense told in history books "STALIN THE INSANE TOTALITARIAN DICTATOR WHO DIDN'T CARE ABOUT HIS PEOPLE!!!" Give me a break. Look at all the good things Stalin did, and when he was around you didn't see all these different socialist factions competing to be number 1. No, it was just one: the Stalinist ideal. Stalinism brought the Soviet Union into a world superpower, brought the Soviet Union to the nuclear age, and many MANY countless other things. And unfortunately, Stalinism died with Comrade Stalin, as after his death his followers decided to denounce him to gain power for themselves, and once the USSR went away from Stalinism it resulted in its inevitable demise. Do not blame defeat on the one responsible for victory.

Let's all just conveniently forget the massacres he perpetrated to cull the government of possible political enemies and dissidents, the perpetual state of degraded, oppressed poverty the Soviety people lived in, and the countless tortured prisoners in the Siberian gulags.....

"Convenient forgetfulness" at implied government gunpoint to protect the lack of political, social, and economic freedom is what communists are good at, right?

Let's all just conveniently forget the massacres he perpetrated to cull the government of possible political enemies and dissidents, the perpetual state of degraded, oppressed poverty the Soviety people lived in, and the countless tortured prisoners in the Siberian gulags.....

"Convenient forgetfulness" at implied government gunpoint to protect the lack of political, social, and economic freedom is what communists are good at, right?
Stalin brought Russia out of agrarian backwardness to a modernised state in 10 years. He said that they were 100-150 years behind the capitalist countries, and either they make up the difference in 10 years or they crush us. And exactly 10 years later Germany invaded, and because of the economic acheivements made by Stalin under collectivisation, industrialisation and GOSPLAN they were able to destroy the Nazi's and the flag of the USSR flew above the Reichstag, this was due to the planned economy, nothing else. In the state that Russia was in when Stalin came to power, he had no choice but to execute such drastic actions. You may say whatever you like about Stalin, but the fact remains that he did in 10 years what capitalists did in centuries.

So his ideological and political predecessors destroyed the capitalistic system, catapulted them backwards and halted the very means to progress, and then when he came along and realized they were in a damn tight spot that would require all the things capitalism created to get out of, he gripped the nation in a titanium fist instead of merely an iron one, threw what tatters of an economy the "nation" had into a Holocaust-esque forced march at top speed, which required some mass killings, political imprisonments, and further heavy erosion of freedom of every kind to lubricate the gears, and managed to beat back the Germans through massive numbers, familiarity with wintry conditions, and sheer stubbornness, and then went on to oppress and impoverish hundreds of millions of people and propogate the oppression of other countries' populations for the next 50 years. What a hero!

Socialism will come around when benevolent superintelligent AIs control the means of production(molecular assemblers maybe) lavishing tons of resources on humanity as their pampered pets. Humanity may even be genetically engineed to be smarter(to better entertain them) and to be more altruistic(pets should get along after all). It will be similiar to Ian Banks Culture novels.:p

Stalin brought Russia out of agrarian backwardness to a modernised state in 10 years. He said that they were 100-150 years behind the capitalist countries, and either they make up the difference in 10 years or they crush us. And exactly 10 years later Germany invaded, and because of the economic acheivements made by Stalin under collectivisation, industrialisation and GOSPLAN they were able to destroy the Nazi's and the flag of the USSR flew above the Reichstag, this was due to the planned economy, nothing else. In the state that Russia was in when Stalin came to power, he had no choice but to execute such drastic actions. You may say whatever you like about Stalin, but the fact remains that he did in 10 years what capitalists did in centuries.

It is good to see someone accept the reality of things. Everyone acts like living under Stalin was the worse thing of all time, yet the people were willing to follow him to the end. And of course the Stalin critics will be quick to say "OMG HE FORCED HIS PEOPLE TO FOLLOW HIM!" How can one force an entire population to follow them if the people did not like that person in the first place? People angry at their leader leads to revolution, yet there was none of this from Stalin's people. Fact of the matter is, Stalin did a lot of good for socialism and had many socialist elements inside the Soviet Union during his time. It was only thanks to him that the USSR was even able to last as long as it did. It still would have lasted too if pigs like Kruschev didn't take power.

It still would have lasted too if pigs like Kruschev didn't take power.
That's how I always felt about pigs like *spits* Stalin.

Capitalism=The simple and universal right of the individual to own property, and to bargain, contract, and deal his goods and services freely. A basic human right, and the foundation for a society based on individual rights and liberty.

Communism=A soft-minded, idealistic and utopian fantasy popular among know it all college freshmen and psuedo intellectuals with a shaky grasp of economics, human behavior and history. In reality, communism is a totalitarian nightmare of famine, violent repression, and despair.

Socialism will never be achieved as long as I live.

Oh you big tough man, we're all terrified, once you're out of nappies I'm sure you will be a fearsome opponent to socialism.:rolleyes:

Yes, I agree. What puzzles me is that some people view socialism as a utopia, and when people say utopia, they mean an impossible dream. But that isn't the case, socialism is the best system of all possible systems, and is not an impossible dream.

I just felt this deserved to be quoted.

The first two happen in capitalism, the third isn't by definition a bad thing.

Another excellent post.

So his ideological and political predecessors destroyed the capitalistic system, catapulted them backwards and halted the very means to progress, and then when he came along and realized they were in a damn tight spot that would require all the things capitalism created to get out of, he gripped the nation in a titanium fist instead of merely an iron one, threw what tatters of an economy the "nation" had into a Holocaust-esque forced march at top speed, which required some mass killings, political imprisonments, and further heavy erosion of freedom of every kind to lubricate the gears, and managed to beat back the Germans through massive numbers, familiarity with wintry conditions, and sheer stubbornness, and then went on to oppress and impoverish hundreds of millions of people and propogate the oppression of other countries' populations for the next 50 years. What a hero!

Catapulted Russia backwards? Do you have any idea what Russia was like before the revolution? The Tsar's incompetance both ecomnomically and millitarily had crippled the country, the rich were living in luxury while the vast peasant population (77%) either starved or were conscripted.

I detest Stalin and his methods of rule but you must admit that he empowered the economy, if the USSR and the US hadn't got locked into a 'my rocket is bigger than your rocket' weapons race it's likely that the USSR could have survived.

[EDIT: Scratch that--ten day forumban on virtue of prior offenses.]

Second: Did it ever occur to you that such complaints might actually [gasp!] be legitimate? At least one poster has so far apparently confused Socialism with Communism, but suggesting that we're all engaging in such a practice is painting your opposition with something of a broad brush. You seem to be brushing off these arguments on the same epistemological grounds that [you perceive] created them; not bothering to challenge the substance of the complaints, but rather that they exist in the first place. Arguments that are solely the result of propaganda [and thus having not rational basis in reality] are usually pretty easy to put down: if you'd like to be taken seriously here you should attack the substance of an argument rather than its origin--and whether or not that's even the case is debatable.


What's the point of asking him a question when you banned him?

Britain's attitudes on things like gun control are a lot closer to the socialism party-line

What does gun control have to do with socialism? I mean, OK, you could argue something along the lines of 'power in the hands of the many rather than the few' but really...?? The association between the left and gun control is really just an American thing.

Also, as to your "Europe is close to socialism" assertion; this all depends on your perspective. . British Socialism was at its height between the 1950s and the 1970s. We have moved relatively far away from that now. There are no state industries anymore, and it is state industries which make a country socialist. We have got rid of British Steel, British Coal, British Gas, British Telecom, British Rail, etc, etc, etc (some of the company names remain, but they are no longer state owned). So there is very little of the socialised economy left. The only major state-owned areas that still exist are the NHS and the BBC. It is arguable that the welfare mechanisms in place in Europe are merely an ingenious attempt to placate workers by giving them better conditions (this especially applies to the NHS) and thus avert the revolution of the proletariate that was predicted by Marx.

Although that said, these welfare mechanisms are generally a good thing in terms of their effect in minimising the adverse effects of poverty.


It is good to see someone accept the reality of things. Everyone acts like living under Stalin was the worse thing of all time, yet the people were willing to follow him to the end. And of course the Stalin critics will be quick to say "OMG HE FORCED HIS PEOPLE TO FOLLOW HIM!" How can one force an entire population to follow them if the people did not like that person in the first place? People angry at their leader leads to revolution, yet there was none of this from Stalin's people. Fact of the matter is, Stalin did a lot of good for socialism and had many socialist elements inside the Soviet Union during his time. It was only thanks to him that the USSR was even able to last as long as it did. It still would have lasted too if pigs like Kruschev didn't take power.

Yes, but the problem with Stalinist 'Communism' is that rather than actual 'value' people, it treated them as a commodity to an even greater extent that the Capitalist system they detested. The whole point of communism is that it tries to change the system whereby the working class are treated as a mere commodities, but what Stalin did was create USSR LTD, with a totally disposable workforce of 250million who were 'equal' only in the sense that it didn't really matter if some were killed, because they could be replaced by another worker 'equal' in their commodity value.

And he could kill or injure millions at a time if he thought that their commoditiy value was compensated for by whatever ends he had in mind. For example, nuclear testing in Kazhakstan.

Not communism.

Another excellent post.

How so? Since when is rising unemployment, falling growth or recession and a falling standard of living a good thing?

Im both suprised and insulted you didnt add to the poll "through a socialist messiah ;p" VOTE INTELLECTUAL SOCIALISTS 2016!... What i mean is most likely we'll have a charismatic person win power, who just so happens to be socialist

Second, if you think Britain [and for that matter, most of Europe] isn't close to socialism, you ought to have your head examined.
Bollocks. It's not an in-depth response, I know, but it's got the force of truth.

That said, Britain's attitudes on things like gun control and tax policy [along with things like subsidized healthcare] are a lot closer to the socialism party-line than a more pro-capitalist viewpoint. They're much closer to Socialism than they are to pure capitalism, hence my statement. They're "not that far" from socialism on the grounds that they--culturally--seem to share many pseudosocialist ideas.
Gun control is not a 'socialist' issue. Yes, there is a tendency for the left to espouse it more than the right, but I think that it is more of a cultural issue than a political one.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs, here, but your assertion that Britiain is 'close' (as opposed to saying, for instance, 'closer than many countries') seems to me, as a British 'maybe-kind-of-pseudo-socialist-ish', absurd. Yes, we have a national health service, but this is being slowly dismantled. Our infrastructure is massively liberalised, the education system is going the same way. Just because a government spends like there's no tomorrow doesn't mean to say it's socialist. It's just incompetent. The two don't have to go hand in hand (or that capitalism and incompetence don't either, looking at it slightly differently).

Bollocks. It's not an in-depth response, I know, but it's got the force of truth.


Gun control is not a 'socialist' issue. Yes, there is a tendency for the left to espouse it more than the right, but I think that it is more of a cultural issue than a political one.

Maybe I'm splitting heirs, here, but your assertion that Britiain is 'close' (as opposed to saying, for instance, 'closer than many countries') seems to me, as a British 'maybe-kind-of-pseudo-socialist-ish', absurd. Yes, we have a national health service, but this is being slowly dismantled. Our infrastructure is massively liberalised, the education system is going the same way. Just because a government spends like there's no tomorrow doesn't mean to say it's socialist. It's just incompetent. The two don't have to go hand in hand (or that capitalism and incompetence don't either, looking at it slightly differently).

Im inclined to agree. If anything we are Centrist drifting toward Liberal economy Mid-Liberal Civil rights... although Gay marriages ARE legal now.

How so? Since when is rising unemployment, falling growth or recession and a falling standard of living a good thing?

Who said that rising unemployment, falling growth or recession and a falling standard of living a good thing?

I'm increasingly moved to say "Democracy."

I'm increasingly moved to say "Democracy."

hehe

The increasing globalization of the world is increasingly blurring the lines between the developed and developing nations

This is just false. Neoliberal globalization is _aggravating_ the lines between developed and developing nations. In 1990, the ratio between the richest and the poorest country was 1/72th. In 1997, it was 1/727th. The same goes for the gap between the 20% richest and 20% poorest countries, I don't have the exact figures at hand, but the gap is around 4 times what it was 20 years ago.

Well how?

Hmmm.
Well.
Answer me.
Hopefully, you wont.

It has never happened, it will never happen

Its completely against human nature

There is no human nature. "Human nature" is as much altruism than egoism. What makes people act one way or another way is the society around them, and their own experience. One of the main reason why men nowadays rules the world is the capacity of men to _adapt_ to their environement, which includes the society.

Capitalism praises and rewards selfishness, egoism, one-against-every-other. No wonder that in such a society people tend to act selfishly. Adapating to a reckless and selfish system requires to be reckless and selfish... or to suffer from troubles.

In a communist system, what is praised and rewarded is working together, it's helping your bretheren, it's acting as a generous and kind person. That can only result in better men.

This is one of the main reason why Marx stated that there must a transition between capitalism and communism: socialism. Socialism is this phase were the society tries to be human, helping, caring, while the people are still twisted and corrupted by capitalism greed and selfishness. Once the society became more human, people will be more human, and the society will once again improve. Until we reach communism.

People are naturally inclined to be territorial. It ensured that we had hunting grounds that could sustain our communities a long time ago and it has been seen in animals which have no "social pressure" that has been observed as all populations, despite some being far apart, act in the same way. This is human nature, and the only way that you can supress it is by indoctrination (which requires you to control the government for a long period of time) or force, as the Bolsheviks did. Communism isnt impossible, but it cannot be a conscience choice as a great deal of people will always opt out, and without the whole world on side it never works.

Believe it or not, Capitalism is not about greed, it is about individual responsibility. This does not mean you must be greedy, it means that you must try your hardest to look after yourself and no one is obligued to help if you dont / cant. However, human nature being what it is, people always like to help each (although, I hasten to add, not at vast expense to themselves / in exchange for loss of property rights, liberty, Etc.) and charity has always occured where people have had excess money. However, in a truely free society this must always be someone's own choice and not one forced upon them by an overarching government.

Lets hope we never achieve the tyranny that is socialism.

Socialism and democracy are inherently symbiotic, while capitalism and democracy are inherently opposite. I'll try to explain quickly why I say that.

First, what is democracy ? Democracy is "rule by the people", which means that decisions that concerns the "life of city" are taken by the people themselves. This is usually implemented by electing representatives. This is not true democracy, this is what we call "representative democracy" which is the easiest way to get closer to democracy.

Now let's see how this interacts with capitalism. The more capitalist a society is, the less power is in the end of the "democratic" governement, and the more power is in the hands of the "market". Sure, governement of "representative democracies" are far from real democracy. But, there are several important issues:

- The governements are far closer to democracy than the market is. In the market, the power of each individual is directly dependant of how rich the person is; be it the purchasing power, the "voting for a company by buying its products" effects or by buying stocks (which gives you a direct control over a company). So, inherently, the market system is not democratic, but ploutocratic: the power is not in the hands of the people, but in the hands of the most wealthy.

- The "governement" can easily be made more democratic. Ideas for "participative democracy" or even "direct democracy" are plenty, and the facts show that they work quite well. In a capitalist system, this would not improve much overall democracy because... the most important decisions are taken by the ploutocratic market, and not by the more-or-less democratic governement.

- The more you shrink the field of "democracy", the more you give power away to a non-democratic entity like the market, the more the people will get bored by "politics", which will lead to voter appaty, less control of the citizen to what "politicians" do, and so on. On the other hand, the more the "democracy" has power, the more the people will be interested in it, which will make the democracy itself more real. Politicians saying "we can't do anything on that" is one of the major reason for the democratic decline in western countries.

The second aspect is that non-democratic socialism is an oxymoron. Socialism, in addition to being the transition between capitalism and communism, is defined by being the "collective ownership of means of production". If the "governement" is not democratic, there can be no "collective ownership". In Stalin's USSR, the means of production were, in facts, owner by Satlin and his close advisors, not by the people of USSR. It was not "collective ownership", but closer to private ownership. That's why many speak of "state capitalism" to speak of such societies, and not "socialism".

I'm all for giving, but it should be left up to the individuals descretion, not forced on him by the outside.

So, in fact, you're advising a society were the nicer you are, the less you have, and the more selfish you are, the better it is ? Let selfish people be as selfish as they want, and then ask to the nice people who do have a heart to give away to compensate ?

That's definitely not my view of an acceptable system. People who are nice and altruist should be rewarded as much as possible, while people who are egoistic should be encouraged to act otherwise.

And by adding the fact that in a capitalist system, the more money you have, the more power you have, you are in fact giving more power to more selfish and heartless people... what a nice society !

How will we achieve socialism?


Over my dead body?

A combination of unions, the democratic process, and civil disobedience.

I totally agree with this one.

Except that I don't think socialism can be "acheived", in my marxist PoV, socialism is not a static state, but a dynamic process: the transition between capitalism and communism. So you don't "acheive" it, but you mostly "perform" it ;)

Why would we want to acheive scocialism? Especially since it has not been working in France, Germany, or any other country that is socialist.

Two things: first, America is a goddamn mixed economy-- hell, just about every nation under the sun is a mixed economy. I know what a mixed economy is.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

All right now I'm done laughing. Norway (!!) has a mixed economy. The UK had a mixed economy, but now they are moving farther right. The US is probably as far right the economy has gone in this world, but I agree that you do have a certain degree of welfare ordinances.

My point is, you obviously know what a mixed economy is, on the theoretic plane.

@Twitch: It isn't working? How can you say that the economy of Europe isn't working? It has bloody been working for a really long time! It was the Democratic Socialist governments that rebuilt Europe after the war (although I will admit that we got foreign aid from the US, but it WAS the Socialist governments that put the money to good use). Do your homework, kid!

Socialism brings nothing but corruption

Corruption exists in capitalism too. It's even more present in capitalism, for several reasons.

First, the wider the gap between rich and poor is, the more potential for corruption there is. Stories of corruption involving millions of $ are common in the capitalist world, all those couldn't not exist in socialism, because no single individual would be able to manage such a ridicully huge amount of cash.

Then, the importance of having money is much lower in a socialist system (money can't as easily gives you power, nor can it make it easier to earn even more money, nor is it required to live decently), therefore lowering the incentive to be corrupted.

Another point is that, while capitalism praises and rewards egoism and selfishness (and therefore, corruption is just "normal"), socialism praises and rewards solidarity, altruism and responsibility towards the society. Which makes corruption less socially and morally acceptable, and therfore creates a strong cultural counter-incentive.

To speak of the facts now, you must probably ignore the enormous amount of coruption that exists in the United States of America, which is much more important than in the more socialist (even if still far from socialism) western Europe. All the public life of USA (from the way political parties/campaigns are run, to the enormous power of lobbies in the US senate) are a perfect example of capitalism corruption - which couldn't exist in a socialist system.

You also probably ignore the amount of "corporate corruption" that exists in the capitalist world. If you want to have just a small glimpse into it, which is counted in _thousands of billions_ each year, just read the books from the Judge Eva Joly, for example (I hope they are translated in english). Or look at clearing societies like Clearstream.

mass poverty

Mass poverty is a consequence of capitalism. And the more capitalist a country is, the more poverty there is in it. Socialist governements, like Chavez' one, do a wonderful job in reducing poverty. While Chavez divided by two the number of poor in his country, UK, by following neoliberal policies, ended up with an increase of 1 million in number of poors, while its GDP did +20%. And the examples are plenty.

and economic stagnation.

Which is not bad in itslef. Endless seek of economic growth, without any second thought, can only end up with the destruction of natural ressources and the ecosystem. We have to stop purely mathematic growth, while increasing socially useful growth. That means, among other, reducing (if not suppressing) all the waste inherent to capitalism, like mass advertising or duplication of infrastructure (why the hell do we need 4 cell phone transmitters covering every single inch of surface ?)

No, government brings corruption, socialism empowers the corruption.

Any form of power brings corruption. Corporate power no less than governement power. The only way to reduce corruption is to reduce all form of power and to increase democracy, which requires going towards socialism, as I explained in a previous post.

Why would we want to acheive scocialism? Especially since it has not been working in France, Germany, or any other country that is socialist.

As said already on this thread, and many times in many other threads, France and Germany (and other western countries) are very far from socialism. They are (or used to be, at least) social-democrats, which means capitalists with a tiny bit of socialist-inspired ideas to make the capitalism less awful. This is nothing to do with socialism.

And as said on many other threads too, the situation in western europe social-democratic countries is, much, much better than the one in more capitalist countries, on all things that matters.

Another point very interesting to note is that those countries are having more and more trouble, misery and sufferings those past 20-30 years, which _exactly_ match with the neoliberal policies they were following: more capitalism, less social. The current decline of western europe is happening at the same time than they become more capitalist... is there really no link ?

Over my dead body?

Don't tempt me.

Who said that rising unemployment, falling growth or recession and a falling standard of living a good thing?

They tend to happen in a stagnant economy...

Which is not bad in itslef. Endless seek of economic growth, without any second thought, can only end up with the destruction of natural ressources and the ecosystem. We have to stop purely mathematic growth, while increasing socially useful growth. That means, among other, reducing (if not suppressing) all the waste inherent to capitalism, like mass advertising or duplication of infrastructure (why the hell do we need 4 cell phone transmitters covering every single inch of surface ?)

Economic growth can mitigate the problems associated with natural-resource consumption, since the possibility of improved profit motivates innovation and more efficent use of resources while still maintaining strong growth. For example, the 1970's/1980's oil crisis triggered a massive improvement in the efficency of petroleum consumption in the US/Europe due to the desire to maximize profit and reduce input costs.

Economic growth also drives productivity, which makes resource consumption more efficent, and also motivates the implementation of new technology to capitalize on it.

There are so many cell phone towers because consumers want to have service in as many places as possible with the best reception, and are willing to pay for it to the company that can provide it.

A magic wand and a thoroughly unauspicious set of events. Other than that the enlightened facets of society, ostensibly those with the means to do so, would suppress any socialist revolution or insurgence prior to its conquest. And frankly, who wouldn't support them wholeheartedly?

It isn't working? How can you say that the economy of Europe isn't working? It has bloody been working for a really long time! It was the Democratic Socialist governments that rebuilt Europe after the war (although I will admit that we got foreign aid from the US, but it WAS the Socialist governments that put the money to good use). Do your homework, kid!

High unemployment and low growth rates, combined with bureaucratic inefficency and a demographic crisis that puts strain on the welfare system are definitely signs of Europe having serious economic problems. Their rate of inflation is also higher than wage growth, resulting in falling living standards at the same time. The only country with a possibility of a sustainable recovery is Germany, and that's only because they're reforming.

Don't forget that per capita GDP is only about 3/5 that of the US, although various types of welfare make that less of an issue by reducing costs.

Second, if you think Britain [and for that matter, most of Europe] isn't close to socialism, you ought to have your head examined. No, they're not socialist. They are close; much closer than the U.S. If you're going to challenge my assertation that Britain is "not that far" from socialism, the onus is on you to explain why

Closer than the US, yes. But you're speaking from a position that assumes the US is some sort of objective norm. It isn't; it's as subjective a point to stand from as any other. Perhaps more so, given that the US' system is rather unique in the Western world. By European standards, the US' 'centre' is a long way to the right; no-one would ever consider the Democratic Party as anything but right-wing. By US standards, Europe's moderate right is often left of the centre. New Labour in Britain is decidedly to the right of what constitutes the centre in European terms. Saying it is 'close to socialism' is thus a culturally subjective viewpoint, not an objective one. Being simultaneously right-wing and socialist is a bit of a contradiction in terms.

Economic growth can mitigate the problems associated with natural-resource consumption, since the possibility of improved profit motivates innovation and more efficent use of resources while still maintaining strong growth. For example, the 1970's/1980's oil crisis triggered a massive improvement in the efficency of petroleum consumption in the US/Europe due to the desire to maximize profit and reduce input costs.

If you look at one the most succeeding country in getting rid of oil, France, the most important changes were done not by the market, but the state, especially by developping the civil nuclear program, and by tightening car regulation. While the most capitalist state, USA, still use much more oil.

It was not economic growth the main motivation, but a crisis that forced the governement to react, under popular pressure. The same would happen in socialism, and it would be even better.

Economic growth also drives productivity, which makes resource consumption more efficent, and also motivates the implementation of new technology to capitalize on it.

You do a mistake here. Better productivity means more wealth produced by working hour, but very often, if not always, it also means _more_ ressources used for the same production. Man power being replaced by machines which themselves use much more ressources than men, mass production of low quality stuff instead of less production of higher quality stuff (never noticed that nowadays buildings, stereo, and even computers last less longer than the ones built long ago ?)

There are so many cell phone towers because consumers want to have service in as many places as possible with the best reception, and are willing to pay for it to the company that can provide it.

I said, why 4 transmitters _for the same area_. The reason is _only_ competition. A cell phone public service could cover the same area, with the same reception level, for only 1/4th of the total transmitters (for low-population areas, where distance is the limit, and which concern most of the transmitter). That would mean less usage of ressources, cheaper prices, less power consumption, and less potential nocive radiation. And the same is true in many, many other fields. A lot of ressources are wasted in capitalism.

If you look at one the most succeeding country in getting rid of oil, France, the most important changes were done not by the market, but the state, especially by developping the civil nuclear program, and by tightening car regulation. While the most capitalist state, USA, still use much more oil.

We don't use very much nuclear because it is so difficult to get the permits and the storage facilities. It's the product of wrongheaded legislation more than anything, since nuclear plants produce huge quantities of energy for a low cost; the construction cost is high, but pays off in the long run.

Car efficency would've been addressed by the market rather than the government in the US had they been forced to compete against Japan rather than protected because of politics. The reason why the free market fails to address these problems is government intervention in the competitive aspect of the economy, especially in regard to international trade.
You do a mistake here. Better productivity means more wealth produced by working hour, but very often, if not always, it also means _more_ ressources used for the same production. Man power being replaced by machines which themselves use much more ressources than men, mass production of low quality stuff instead of less production of higher quality stuff (never noticed that nowadays buildings, stereo, and even computers last less longer than the ones built long ago ?)

Well, not really. More productivity uses more resources, but those resources are being translated in to more product rather than simply wasted; lower productivity industries tend to produce considerably more waste than those with high productivity, and are more expensive. The important thing is the amount wasted, rather than used for the product. Ideally, the entire process of resource extraction/product production would be cyclical with a majority of waste recycled in to new products.

The economic growth caused by productivity results in higher demand for the product, that is true, but higher demand is where the increase in resource consumption comes from rather than waste. Effectively, the problem with resource consumption isn't the consumption in itself, but the way it is used. Higher productivity and a more efficent "circular" system of resource use go hand in hand

I said, why 4 transmitters _for the same area_. The reason is _only_ competition. A cell phone public service could cover the same area, with the same reception level, for only 1/4th of the total transmitters (for low-population areas, where distance is the limit, and which concern most of the transmitter). That would mean less usage of ressources, cheaper prices, less power consumption, and less potential nocive radiation. And the same is true in many, many other fields. A lot of ressources are wasted in capitalism.

Competition keeps prices low, and results in better service; it's better to have four transmitters from four different companies than to have one company with one tower who decides to raise rates 50 or 100% simply because there's no one else to provide the service.

All of the price shocks and cases of corporations manipulating the market (Enron in California) come from either incomplete deregulation, shoddy oversight by regulators or government intervention to protect failing companies for political reasons

Wow. I've only just discovered NS and I'm having quite a bit of fun seeing how different peope define socialism and communism. Posts claiming that France, the UK, Spain, Sweden, Norway etc are socialist had me rolling on the floor laughing and then getting up, dusting myself off and wondering what has happened to people's comprehension skills. And then I remembered...capitalism!

I don't pretend to know a lot about political and economic systems, I'm still learning. But one thing I do know is that capitalism is not working. And by not working, I mean 'people are starving to death under the system'. To me, that's a pretty clear indication that capitalism = not good.

High unemployment and low growth rates, combined with bureaucratic inefficency and a demographic crisis that puts strain on the welfare system are definitely signs of Europe having serious economic problems. Their rate of inflation is also higher than wage growth, resulting in falling living standards at the same time. The only country with a possibility of a sustainable recovery is Germany, and that's only because they're reforming.
Don't forget that per capita GDP is only about 3/5 that of the US, although various types of welfare make that less of an issue by reducing costs.

The differences in GDP is very huge within Europe - from very richt countries like Switzerland or Norway to emerging markets with still a rather low GDP like Poland, Romania or Bulgaria.

One reason for the economic stagnation in Europe is also the ageing population - and therefore the decline of domestic demand (after all: young families need to consume a lot and they are relatively rare in most of Europe). This tendency is continuing: ageing population, less working people, tendencial population decline - all that are factors that are creating an enormous burden on the economic development, as well as on the welfare system. After all: the pensions for most people in Europe are financed by a declining number of working people - while the number of pensioners is increasing.
Due to this development I think that an economic decline of Europe is inevitable. It is a deep structural problem.
A problem that - in different forms - all European countries have.
Germany by the way has a stagnant economy and since more than 12 years an unemployment rate above 10%. And its for shure that this is not going to change in the next 5-10 years.
A economic recovery may be there this year - with more tourists coming to the world soccer championship - but in the year 2007 it is likely to get a backlash due to the planned increase of the VAT by 3% from 16% to 19%.
The public deficits may increase - but the economic growth is going to remain low for years to come.

While this is happening the living standard in Central and Eastern Europe is increasing: with this development the differences in Europe are shrinking and mergering into a common market and economic (and currency) union.

Actually: both developments are linked together: with the fall of the iron curtain new competitors are on the employment market. And therefore many production facilities are moved from West to East Europe to decrease costs - increasing the living standard in East Europe, decreasing it in West Europe.


But the demographic problem is a challenge for all European countries: Italy, Spain, Poland, Czech Republic, Germany all have very low birth rates (the Ukraine and Russia as well by the way).
Therefore the total growth potential for the future is not very high.
There is no potential for much absolute growth in Europe (the growth per capita is another question - though the decrease of working people reduces the potential for that as well).

A huge difference to the US which expects a population increase to 350 million in 2025 and 420 million in 2050. This population development is adding one percent more growth per year to the US economy.
Also East and South Asia are growing very fast: the economy and - also the population.
The future centre of the world economy is the Asian-pacific region:
the US (west coast), China, India and the South-east Asian countries.

Europe is loosing relevance.

The 21rst century is the century of the Asian-Pacific region.

Wow. I've only just discovered NS and I'm having quite a bit of fun seeing how different peope define socialism and communism. Posts claiming that France, the UK, Spain, Sweden, Norway etc are socialist had me rolling on the floor laughing and then getting up, dusting myself off and wondering what has happened to people's comprehension skills. And then I remembered...capitalism!

I don't pretend to know a lot about political and economic systems, I'm still learning. But one thing I do know is that capitalism is not working. And by not working, I mean 'people are starving to death under the system'. To me, that's a pretty clear indication that capitalism = not good.

Noob indeed old boy.

How may people perish when a socialist or communist state, bereft of the affluent to be charitable, endure a famine or recession? A damn sight more than under a capitalist regime.

Two things: first, America is a goddamn mixed economy-- hell, just about every nation under the sun is a mixed economy. I know what a mixed economy is.

Second, if you think Britain [and for that matter, most of Europe] isn't close to socialism, you ought to have your head examined. No, they're not socialist. They are close; much closer than the U.S. If you're going to challenge my assertation that Britain is "not that far" from socialism, the onus is on you to explain why: instead what you've done here is said "no its not" like we're on an elementary school playground or some equally infantile shit like that.

Look, there's no denying that Britain has been moving farther and farther right since Tony Blair and Thatcher took office: in fact Blair is so pro-Bush it's kind of eerie. That said, Britain's attitudes on things like gun control and tax policy [along with things like subsidized healthcare] are a lot closer to the socialism party-line than a more pro-capitalist viewpoint. They're much closer to Socialism than they are to pure capitalism, hence my statement. They're "not that far" from socialism on the grounds that they--culturally--seem to share many pseudosocialist ideas.
Underlying it all is the free market, and there is no real cultural opposition to private property. You know that in socialism there is no free market and no private property, right? Most of the British government's programmes are funded by various taxes on privately earned and business income. In a socialist economy funds do not come from taxes.

But why should I explain? I'm sure DHomme would disagree enough to tell you how the Labour government is different from his own vision.

"How will it be achieved?" Never. If it did, it would drive most Satanists to rage against the socialists leaders in power. Satanic rebels would then take over the government and change it back to capitalism, the perferred system for Satanists.

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~
You heard him, fear the wrath of the Dark Lord!

Someone prove to me that there is an intrinsic human nature, then we'll talk. Merely stating that it is so, without taking into account social context and other factors won't do.

What really puzzles me is how people seem to believe that capitalism is eternal, and the best system that there can be. I'm sure that's what some people thought of feudalism. Of course capitalism won't last forever, we're just trying to replace it with something better.
What puzzles me are the fools who think that capitalism is "natural".

Noob indeed old boy.

How may people perish when a socialist or communist state, bereft of the affluent to be charitable, endure a famine or recession? A damn sight more than under a capitalist regime.

That's why there are more poors and people suffering heavily from poverty in nowadays Russia than in USSR in the 1980s ? That's why the "miracle" of Argentina ended up with thousands of death by starvartion each year, while the country produces _more_ food than required, and has oil reserves ? That's why the poverty in Venezuella was divided by 2 since Chavez took power ? That's why, all around the world, and especially in Europe, the neoliberal policies started in the 70s, leaded to a strong increase of poverty (while the overall economy still growth, even if not as much as some would like) ? That's why in Cuba, despite a very harsh economic blocus, they still have no famine, and one of the best healthcare and education system of the world ? That's why the WTO treaties which impose more capitalist (I would even say, neoliberal) policies upon third-world countries leaded to a huge widening of the gap between countries, and an increase of poverty ?

I don't pretend to know a lot about political and economic systems, I'm still learning. But one thing I do know is that capitalism is not working. And by not working, I mean 'people are starving to death under the system'. To me, that's a pretty clear indication that capitalism = not good.
Hmmmm. Let us examine this:

I presume that by "people starving to death under the system" you are talking about the Third World, most of whom are not capitalist at all but are regulatory dictatorships that impose tarrifs and such like. The free market nations (the US, Britain, Japan, Etc.) are in fact the richest in the world and only a tiny minority of the people living in these nations are starving.

Now, why are people in the third world starving? Is it because the evil nasty corporations are coming over and burning their crops for some reason? No. It's because most of Africa is poor farmland, the governments are corrupt, inept and unstable, vast swathes of the continent are in a state of civil war and Socialist elements in America and the EU are imposing tarrifs that mean food from these places far undercuts that grown in Africa and so, as African nations are primarily agrian economies, they are left with little of any value. Then, just to make it even better, to stimulate their internal markets they tarrif these goods meaning that not only can they not export their own produce, but their own non-agrian citizens can't afford to buy the surplus of food pouring in either. All of this means that they now have practically no international voice save that that concerned people in the rich nations give them and so they cant do much about it.

But, I hear you cry, are the evil baby-snatching evil corporations of doom setting up sweat-shops where people work for practically no pay? Why, yes. And without these companies they would have no jobs at all. In a socialist economy, all the companies would simply leave rather than pay higher wages and everyone would actually starve rather than almost starve. The fact is that socialism works by redistributing wealth from rich people to poor people, and if the only people of any wealth just got driven out by your trying to take all of their money, then what are you going to do?

The answer really is that capitalism is increasing the total amount of wealth in the world. Money doesnt need to be redistributed if more is being created and some of this, in import / export tax, corporation tax, income tax and port duties is going back to the governments of these poor nations, allowing them to set up education which in turn means that their workforces are not uncompletely unskilled and hence their labour is actually worth more than a subsistence wage and they can set up their own businesses. This is why China is doing so well now it's stopped being Communist, and this is why most third world countries (although not all) have growing economies.

Capitalism only doesnt work when it's interfered with. Either by imposing tarrifs or granting subsidies, all of which are inherently anti-free market policies and trying to regulate the market. Practically all of the "ills of capitalism" are actually due to regulation, or poor government management of the economy or (in the case of much of Africa) factors completely unrelated to economics entirely. Saying that "The world is dominated by mostly capitalist countries, therefore all the ills of the world are caused by capitalism" is a logical fallacy. Post hoc does not mean procter hoc.

Noob indeed old boy.

How may people perish when a socialist or communist state, bereft of the affluent to be charitable, endure a famine or recession? A damn sight more than under a capitalist regime.

I sincerely hope that you are being sarcastic. If not:

a) There are no socialist or communist states in existence, nor have there been in the past 500 years. So how you could determine what would happen in such a state during a famine or recession is unknown to me.

b) Are you actually claiming that it is only because of the saintly affluent people in society, that people who suffer during famine or recession recover? Seriously?

c) Your argument against socialism amounts to 'if something bad happens, rich people need to be there to help the poor folk out'. That is quite frankly BS.

d) Before you try BSing someone again at least take a look at an unbiased source explaining what socialism is. I have a feeling your knowledge on the subject is...lacking.

I sincerely hope that you are being sarcastic. If not:

a) There are no socialist or communist states in existence, nor have there been in the past 500 years. So how you could determine what would happen in such a state during a famine or recession is unknown to me.

b) Are you actually claiming that it is only because of the saintly affluent people in society, that people who suffer during famine or recession recover? Seriously?

c) Your argument against socialism amounts to 'if something bad happens, rich people need to be there to help the poor folk out'. That is quite frankly BS.

d) Before you try BSing someone again at least take a look at an unbiased source explaining what socialism is. I have a feeling your knowledge on the subject is...lacking.

Well quite, however, can we truly attest that any inherently and entirely capitalist system has ever existed? Only in so far as any truly communist and socialist state has existed.

In relation to the discussion of affleunt individuals, that is a rather hyperbolic perception of my argument, since I merely alluded to the fact that charitable, affluent people are capable of aiding in a famine or disaster, whereas they are unable to do so in a communist state, since they do not actually exist.

Hmmmm. Let us examine this:

I presume that by "people starving to death under the system" you are talking about the Third World, most of whom are not capitalist at all but are regulatory dictatorships that impose tarrifs and such like. The free market nations (the US, Britain, Japan, Etc.) are in fact the richest in the world and only a tiny minority of the people living in these nations are starving.

Well my point was that there are starving. Whether that means one million or one thousand, there are people starving. And my definition of a system that works is one under which people do not starve to death. At all.

Now, why are people in the third world starving? Is it because the evil nasty corporations are coming over and burning their crops for some reason? No. It's because most of Africa is poor farmland, the governments are corrupt, inept and unstable, vast swathes of the continent are in a state of civil war and Socialist elements in America and the EU are imposing tarrifs that mean food from these places far undercuts that grown in Africa and so, as African nations are primarily agrian economies, they are left with little of any value. Then, just to make it even better, to stimulate their internal markets they tarrif these goods meaning that not only can they not export their own produce, but their own non-agrian citizens can't afford to buy the surplus of food pouring in either. All of this means that they now have practically no international voice save that that concerned people in the rich nations give them and so they cant do much about it.

I'm sorry, I stopped reading after your wild claim that socialist elements are imposing tariffs in Africa. That was just too hilarious for words. George W Bush (last time I checked he wasn't a socialist, but maybe I missed the memo?) subsidises the farmers in the US and several times more money is spent on subsidies for farmers than is spent on aid.

Because the farmers in the wealthier countries receive a subsidy from their governments they are able to sell their produce at far lower prices than third world farmers who do not receive a subsidy. And that constitutes a non-tariff barrier into the markets.

But, I hear you cry, are the evil baby-snatching evil corporations of doom setting up sweat-shops where people work for practically no pay? Why, yes. And without these companies they would have no jobs at all. In a socialist economy, all the companies would simply leave rather than pay higher wages and everyone would actually starve rather than almost starve. The fact is that socialism works by redistributing wealth from rich people to poor people, and if the only people of any wealth just got driven out by your trying to take all of their money, then what are you going to do?

I'm trying to stay polite but with each paragraph it becomes increasingly difficult. In a socialist society, the large enterprises would be state-owned and therefore the option of simply leaving doesn't arise.

The answer really is that capitalism is increasing the total amount of wealth in the world. Money doesnt need to be redistributed if more is being created and some of this, in import / export tax, corporation tax, income tax and port duties is going back to the governments of these poor nations, allowing them to set up education which in turn means that their workforces are not uncompletely unskilled and hence their labour is actually worth more than a subsistence wage and they can set up their own businesses. This is why China is doing so well now it's stopped being Communist, and this is why most third world countries (although not all) have growing economies.

Wait, didn't you just say that these countries were corrupt? Why on Earth would they want to develop the skills of their population? That money could be spent on a private jet! And just to clear something up, China was never communist. Ever.

Capitalism only doesnt work when it's interfered with. Either by imposing tarrifs or granting subsidies, all of which are inherently anti-free market policies and trying to regulate the market. Practically all of the "ills of capitalism" are actually due to regulation, or poor government management of the economy or (in the case of much of Africa) factors completely unrelated to economics entirely. Saying that "The world is dominated by mostly capitalist countries, therefore all the ills of the world are caused by capitalism" is a logical fallacy. Post hoc does not mean procter hoc.

Most of the claims that the capitalists make about their system are deliberate falsifications. For example, there is no such a thing as 'free trade', because not only through subsidies but through tariffs and non-tariff barriers, they try to undermine each other. That's the reason why we have a World Trade Organisation, to try and settle these disputes. America, Japan and Europe are constantly at odds with each other over subsidies.

Besides, who lobbies for subsidies and the like? The capitalists themselves use the state to protect them, to give them a competetive edge which suggests that the capitalist system isn't inherently efficient or capable of producing quality goods cheaply. The only time capitalists complain about the state interfering with the market is when they are taxed to provide a decent health and education system.

Hmmmm. Let us examine this:

I presume that by "people starving to death under the system" you are talking about the Third World, most of whom are not capitalist at all but are regulatory dictatorships that impose tarrifs and such like. The free market nations (the US, Britain, Japan, Etc.) are in fact the richest in the world and only a tiny minority of the people living in these nations are starving.

If you speak of US, more than 1/4th of the population doesn't have access to... health care ! That's definetly not what I call a success.

Even UK has a huge number of people living in inhuman conditions. And that's for the richest countries.

Now, why are people in the third world starving? Is it because the evil nasty corporations are coming over and burning their crops for some reason? No.

Actually, it does happen sometimes ;) But yes, it's not the main reason.

It's because most of Africa is poor farmland, the governments are corrupt, inept and unstable

Most African dictatorship only exist because they were created and are still supported by either western states or western corporations. The role of oil, diamonds, weapons, or even other big corporations in supporting and creating dictatorship among third world countries is highly underestimated, but saddly, very important.

And then there are two aspects you tend to forget.

The first one is the consequences of conlonization and slave trade. Nowadays richest countries (especially Europe and USA) built themselves by exploiting people of nowadays third world countries, especially Africa, either through colonization or through slave trade. While they developped themselves using the work of others, their puppet nations couldn't develop. Just a fact to show how the colonization ended up: when France finally granted its independance to Algeria, after a long and cruel war, there were only... 10 doctors on the whole country ! And guess who sended doctors to help them and train algerian doctors ? Not the UN. Not a rich country. Cuba did. Freely.

The second one is the debt. Many people speak of help to third world countries, and how generous we are. Each year, western countries give around 50 billions of dollars to third world countries. Nice. But each year, the third world countries give... around 350 billions of dollars to western countries ! So, each year, they are HEPLING us with 300 billions. No surprise we stay rich and they stay poor. And this is inherent to capitalism: the way rich take money away from the poor using usury is a fundation of capitalism, and one of its most abject side.

vast swathes of the continent are in a state of civil war


Wars mostly between groups supported by different coroporations/states, and which wouldn't last long without support from them, and without the very profitable weapons buisness done there.

Socialist elements in America and the EU are imposing tarrifs that mean food from these places far undercuts that grown in Africa and so, as African nations are primarily agrian economies, they are left with little of any value.

You could take the problem the other way around. The problem is not in subsidiased products from Europe IMHO, but in WTO rules forbidding them to put trade barriers on them. If Europe sent them half-cost food, but then they had a tax on European food, and pay back this tax to their local farmers, what happens ? More food is inside the country, so the prices go down, and people eat more. But the farmers receive money from the gov too, so they wages will not go down. Everyone wins (the western countries support their farmers AND help third world countries at once, the third world countries farmers have the same income, and third world countries people can eat more for less money).

Then, just to make it even better, to stimulate their internal markets they tarrif these goods

No they cannot, thanks to WTO, and that's the real problem.

meaning that not only can they not export their own produce

We are speaking of starving countries, who, as you said, for climatic or geographical reasons, can't produce enough food. How could they export it without making people to starve even more ?

But those countries can't produce food for themselves, they are forced to produce luxury food for us (like coffee or chocolate) just to... pay the interests of the debt !

But, I hear you cry, are the evil baby-snatching evil corporations of doom setting up sweat-shops where people work for practically no pay? Why, yes. And without these companies they would have no jobs at all.[QUOTE=Praetonia]

Those companies are using their enormous power, unmatched by the power of the local gov (even more since they are cribbled by WTO) to kill all local industries. Producing cheap good using cheap labour and then selling the goods in rich countries, and having the profits in the pockets of rich countries stock holders, is not going to help them at all.

A real way of developping could be to have local cooperatives selling goods to rich countries, and using the profits done this way to develop their own infrastructure, educate their kids, ... that's the way "fair trade" works. That's definitely not the way capitalism works. Those local cooperative have no chances to stand against the power of big corporations, without special help (either by people like me who buy "fair trade" as much as possible, or by their local governements which can regulate the economy... if not forbidden to do so by WTO).

[QUOTE=Praetonia]The answer really is that capitalism is increasing the total amount of wealth in the world.

Capitalism is increasing the amount of wealth in the world, BUT at the same time making the poors poorer (both at the scale of countries and at the scale of people: poor countries are getting poorer, and poor people in each countries are getting poorer), AND destroying the planet. Our planet is completly unable to whistand the speed at which we use natural ressources, and this is the condition for capitalism to be able to always increase wealth.

What we need is _less_ production, but more _useful_ production. That is, less waste (advertising, duplication of infrastrcuture, ...), more socially efficient productions (more public transports and less private cars), and step aside from the "cheaper low quality" production that is the consequence of free market, by producing maybe less, but more solid and long-lasting devices.

There is no solution, within capitalism, to suppress world poverty without destroying the planet itself.

Well quite, however, can we truly attest that any inherently and entirely capitalist system has ever existed? Only in so far as any truly communist and socialist state has existed.

In relation to the discussion of affleunt individuals, that is a rather hyperbolic perception of my argument, since I merely alluded to the fact that charitable, affluent people are capable of aiding in a famine or disaster, whereas they are unable to do so in a communist state, since they do not actually exist.

First of all, there is no such thing as a 'communist/socialist country'. Second, there is no disputing that the capitalist system exists throughout the world in the overwhelming majority of countries and therefore the argument about a 'pure' capitalist society is an abstract concept. Different as they are, all capitalist countries have this in common: that the means of production, distribution and exchange are generally speaking privately owned.

There is enough food being produced in the world to feed the population several times over. But because agricultural production is based on private profit, food is horded or destroyed rather than handed over to people who cannot afford to buy it. So they starve to death.

Every person is entitled to food, water, shelter, decent healthcare and a decent education. And under socialism, every person will have access to the above amenities. So the possibility of people starving to death under socialism is near zero. Hell, it is zero.

Well I believe that if socialism were to be achieved it would not be from any of the suggested methods in the poll. It would be through gradual social change as a whole either globally or in smaller communities and then spreading. If the latter were to take place it might cause some clashes. In this even I guess some of those "methods" might happen, namely "civil disobedience, perhaps some guerilla war.

Can I also just add that I believe no "socialist" state has ever been achieved.

I sincerely hope that you are being sarcastic. If not:
a) There are no socialist or communist states in existence, nor have there been in the past 500 years. So how you could determine what would happen in such a state during a famine or recession is unknown to me.

Yes, we've established that the USSR and its allies wern't "communist", but they were state-controlled, and the outcome of their policies in times of hardship were simply horrendous in their scale of death and privation. That is a picture of how a state-run economy responds in a famine or recession.

I'd go so far as to say that there's no miracle cure, no utopia. Such an 'end of history' would rely on humans being able to rise above our flaws. Which we won't.

Capitalism=The simple and universal right of the individual to own property, and to bargain, contract, and deal his goods and services freely. A basic human right, and the foundation for a society based on individual rights and liberty.

Communism=A soft-minded, idealistic and utopian fantasy popular among know it all college freshmen and psuedo intellectuals with a shaky grasp of economics, human behavior and history. In reality, communism is a totalitarian nightmare of famine, violent repression, and despair.

Damn right. Communism requires loss of political freedom leading to totalitarianism; it's a natural progression and necessity of the system, from multiple different points of view. The main two:

1) Communism and socialism run completely contrary to human nature. Therefore, human nature must be deliberately and willfully subverted to accept, support, pursue, etc. said socioeconomic system. Most human beings will not be capable of actually doing so, leading to three things: Manipulation of the masses via extreme propoganda, (such as false-evidence-based anti-Western/capitalism vitriol) military-political intimidation, (the threat of being sent to political prisons or of being 'visited' by the secret police) and violation of political freedom and justice to silence and suppress those who will not be hoodwinked or intimidated. It's required in order to make the population accept the programming and allow the system to run smoothly to its doom.

2) Communism/socialism is by definition, point, and purpose a loss of freedom, primarily economic freedom. Erosion of the ability to trade freely with your fellows, the ability to possess your own property, the ability to seek, obtain, give, and exchange value, the ability to keep and control your own value and property. Erosion of the individual. And as I stated above, to enable and continue those losses, it becomes necessary to cut political freedoms. Political freedoms and social/civil freedoms often end up going hand in hand. And why not? If you can't allow people power over their government or property, why allow them freedom of anything?

I don't pretend to know a lot about political and economic systems, I'm still learning. But one thing I do know is that capitalism is not working. And by not working, I mean 'people are starving to death under the system'. To me, that's a pretty clear indication that capitalism = not good.

Go check out a history book and figure out who had more people starving: the US or the USSR? Better yet, I'll tell you: it was, probably by multiple orders of magnitude, the USSR. Communism is the furthest thing from some heavenly everyone's-happy wonderworld - in reality, it's a bleak nightmare of poverty, desperation, injustice, and lack of freedom where everyone is equal - equally miserable and destitute, I mean.

Capitalism, on the other hand, provides the best possible system. How many people do you think actually starve to death in the United States? Damn few. Poor, maybe, struggling to eat, but death-by-starvation in the streets isn't something that happens here. The ingenuity, brilliance, and success capitalism rewards and nurtures created your computer and Internet; all of the capital and wealth in our nation exists because of the free market system. Capitalism is the best means of production and progress, and therefore the only system that doesn't by nature lock itself into a degenerating spiral. Those hideous Dark Ages, and all that barbarism and hunter-gatherer stuff? Capitalism turned that into what you see today. It's the only way up and out; it does everything. Calling it a failure is like religion calling science a failure; it's an idiotic ignorance of facts.

Go check out a history book and figure out who had more people starving: the US or the USSR? Better yet, I'll tell you: it was, probably by multiple orders of magnitude, the USSR. Communism is the furthest thing from some heavenly everyone's-happy wonderworld - in reality, it's a bleak nightmare of poverty, desperation, injustice, and lack of freedom where everyone is equal - equally miserable and destitute, I mean.

Capitalism, on the other hand, provides the best possible system. How many people do you think actually starve to death in the United States? Damn few. Poor, maybe, struggling to eat, but death-by-starvation in the streets isn't something that happens here. The ingenuity, brilliance, and success capitalism rewards and nurtures created your computer and Internet; all of the capital and wealth in our nation exists because of the free market system. Capitalism is the best means of production and progress, and therefore the only system that doesn't by nature lock itself into a degenerating spiral. Those hideous Dark Ages, and all that barbarism and hunter-gatherer stuff? Capitalism turned that into what you see today. It's the only way up and out; it does everything. Calling it a failure is like religion calling science a failure; it's an idiotic ignorance of facts.

Except that you mistakenly equate the US with capitalism. There are enough people starving already in the West and the only reason there aren't more is because of what measures of socialism you HAVE implemented, be it welfare, food stamps, and other social safety nets.

Go back to when there were fewer such things and the rates of starvation were much higher.

Fact is, BOTH ideologies in their pure form are brutal to the average person. You don;' have to go too far back to the days of the robber barons and company towns where most people eked out a fairly miserable existance, often augmented by subsistance farming, living at the whim of the few very rich.

Indeed, there isn't a civilized nation on the planet that doesn't implement some policies best described as socialistic to mitigate the worst excesses of capitalism. It generally just comes down to comparisons of degree.

This thread was funny in the beginning, so I skipped to the end to see how it had evolved and it's much angrier here.

That's why there are more poors and people suffering heavily from poverty in nowadays Russia than in USSR in the 1980s ?
Higher amounts of "live" births combined with most certainly false soviet reporting

Except that you mistakenly equate the US with capitalism. There are enough people starving already in the West and the only reason there aren't more is because of what measures of socialism you HAVE implemented, be it welfare, food stamps, and other social safety nets.

Um, not true. Actually, using africa as a template, the only real reason there are large amounts of people there starving at all is because of countries turning away from capitialism and going to command controlled economies. Zimbabwe nee Rhodesia was once know as the breadbasket of africa. Now it's starving to death. This has occurred to various degrees in almost all other african countries and is beginning to occur in South Africa because of decisions made by it's government.

Um, not true. Actually, using africa as a template, the only real reason there are large amounts of people there starving at all is because of countries turning away from capitialism and going to command controlled economies. Zimbabwe nee Rhodesia was once know as the breadbasket of africa. Now it's starving to death. This has occurred to various degrees in almost all other african countries and is beginning to occur in South Africa because of decisions made by it's government.

Err, your comment on Africa notwithstanding, which of my premises isn't true? That the US is NOT a purely capitalistic entity? Or that some elements of socialism haven't been implemented to attempt to mitigate some issues?

The US certainly is largely based on capitalism, however when you look at the number of legislative acts put in place to restrict excesses available under a PURE system (labour laws, minimum wage laws, welfare, disability benefits, medicare, medicaid, yadda, yadda, yadda) you find that there is some aspects of institutionalized socialism.

Which was all I was getting at. And I should further point out that a lot of the programs had their beginnings in the New Deal which was implemented to combat the great depression - which was arguably caused in part by a LACK of controls on a purely capitalistic economic framework.

My comment was directly in response to the previous poster who attributed capitalism in and of itself as being directly attributable to fewer deaths to starvation between the US and USSR. The larger picture of various causes of starvation around the world was not what I was attempting to discuss.

Yes, but the problem with Stalinist 'Communism' is that rather than actual 'value' people, it treated them as a commodity to an even greater extent that the Capitalist system they detested. The whole point of communism is that it tries to change the system whereby the working class are treated as a mere commodities, but what Stalin did was create USSR LTD, with a totally disposable workforce of 250million who were 'equal' only in the sense that it didn't really matter if some were killed, because they could be replaced by another worker 'equal' in their commodity value.

And he could kill or injure millions at a time if he thought that their commoditiy value was compensated for by whatever ends he had in mind. For example, nuclear testing in Kazhakstan.

Not communism.

The problem with Stalinist 'Communism' is that there is no such thing. The Stalinist system is a SOCIALIST system, hence the main question: How will we achieve socialism? This isn't about achieving communism at all. Communism is the end result that socialism works towards. Stalinism is socialism in its greatest sense, whether you like it or not. Socialism will never return, but at least under the Stalinist ideal it was a great and worthy system that had the possibility of covering the planet had it been able to continue.

We'll have to read the minds of every man, woman, and child.

The problem with Stalinist 'Communism' is that there is no such thing. The Stalinist system is a SOCIALIST system, hence the main question: How will we achieve socialism? This isn't about achieving communism at all. Communism is the end result that socialism works towards. Stalinism is socialism in its greatest sense, whether you like it or not. Socialism will never return, but at least under the Stalinist ideal it was a great and worthy system that had the possibility of covering the planet had it been able to continue.

That may have been the most illogical, substanceless, pointless, disjointed semantic/conceptual knot of a post I've ever seen. You didn't even say anything, much less actually respond to the previous post.

Yes, we've established that the USSR and its allies wern't "communist", but they were state-controlled, and the outcome of their policies in times of hardship were simply horrendous in their scale of death and privation. That is a picture of how a state-run economy responds in a famine or recession.

State-controlled does not automatically mean socialist or communist. The USSR was never socialist or communist. So how would looking to the USSR for answers on how they would respond to a famine be useful?

My whole point was that chances of people starving to death under socialism would be nil. Every person would have access to food, drink, shelter, decent healthcare and a decent education.

Go check out a history book and figure out who had more people starving: the US or the USSR? Better yet, I'll tell you: it was, probably by multiple orders of magnitude, the USSR. Communism is the furthest thing from some heavenly everyone's-happy wonderworld - in reality, it's a bleak nightmare of poverty, desperation, injustice, and lack of freedom where everyone is equal - equally miserable and destitute, I mean.

USSR was not, nor was it ever communist or socialist. Ever. So using it as some sort of 'see, this is what will happen when you try big bad communism!!!' ploy is just silly.

There has not been a communist or socialist state in the past 500 years, so it is impossible to say whether or not it is a 'bleak nightmare'.

But I'll play along for now.

Capitalism, on the other hand, provides the best possible system. How many people do you think actually starve to death in the United States? Damn few. Poor, maybe, struggling to eat, but death-by-starvation in the streets isn't something that happens here. The ingenuity, brilliance, and success capitalism rewards and nurtures created your computer and Internet; all of the capital and wealth in our nation exists because of the free market system. Capitalism is the best means of production and progress, and therefore the only system that doesn't by nature lock itself into a degenerating spiral. Those hideous Dark Ages, and all that barbarism and hunter-gatherer stuff? Capitalism turned that into what you see today. It's the only way up and out; it does everything. Calling it a failure is like religion calling science a failure; it's an idiotic ignorance of facts.

My entire point was that there ARE people starving to death. If capitalism is such a perfect system, why would people be starving to death at all when we produce enough food to feed the population of the Earth several times over? How does that work? No, capitalism is not the best means of production. How can producing purely for profit and not for social need be the best?

I just cannot believe that you are preaching as if Capitalism saved us all from those bad ol' days. Newsflash! Half the world's workers are living under the poverty line. If capitalism is so good and wholesome, why are people still living under those conditions? You don't find it barbaric that every year, fifteen million children die of hunger?

Damn right. Communism requires loss of political freedom leading to totalitarianism; it's a natural progression and necessity of the system, from multiple different points of view.

I would say exactly the same of capitalism ;) Fascism, be it state fascism or corporate fascism, is the natural consequence of capitalism.

The main two:

1) Communism and socialism run completely contrary to human nature.

There is no human nature. All the studies on history, different cultures, different civilizations just prove it. Humans reflect the society and the culture they were raised in.

But capitalism, by praising and rewarding it, encourages the darkest faces of men, while socialism encourages the brightest faces of men.

Most human beings will not be capable of actually doing so, leading to three things: Manipulation of the masses via extreme propoganda, (such as false-evidence-based anti-Western/capitalism vitriol) military-political intimidation, (the threat of being sent to political prisons or of being 'visited' by the secret police) and violation of political freedom and justice to silence and suppress those who will not be hoodwinked or intimidated. It's required in order to make the population accept the programming and allow the system to run smoothly to its doom.

That's exactly what is required for capitalism. Fox News style brainwashing and omnipresent police force is required to make people accept, even if they are revolted by it, that some will starve or sleep outside while some earn millions each day. As Bertold Bretch said: "there will be nothing stable in human institutions as long as some would sleep outside, in front of the doors of golden palaces".

This is shown, on a lesser scale, with what is called by sociologists "the conversion of welfare state into carceral state"; in European countries, the disbanding of welfare state during the latest 20 years leaded to an increase of criminality, which in turn leads to more repression, and a reduction of freedoms.

2) Communism/socialism is by definition, point, and purpose a loss of freedom, primarily economic freedom.

That's the exact opposite. By definition, point and purpose, communism is liberating people from capitalistic loss of freedom. The worker-ceo relationship, in capitalism, is more akin to a slave-master relationship than to anything else. "Do what I say, or else, I fire you and you starve". That's not freedom.

Socialism/communism aims to empower people with freedom. Not theorical freedom "you can always resign, sure, you'll starve, but you can do it", but real freedom that you can actually use.

The same goes for education. There is no freedom in ignorance. Capitalism leads to huge inequalities of education level, which leads to huge part of the population being kept in ignorance, without the knowledge and mental tools required to be really free.

Erosion of the ability to trade freely with your fellows, the ability to possess your own property, the ability to seek, obtain, give, and exchange value, the ability to keep and control your own value and property.

You use the word. Control. Property is not, in itself, a freedom. But a way to control. To prevent others from (using it, entering it, listening to it, whatever). This is not freedom.

What I agree with is that some forms of porperties are required to protect privacy and intimacy. But those are not threatened by socialism. Socialism won't prevent you from owning your underwear, nor to have a home. In fact, it'll guarantee that everyone can have clean underwears and a decent housing.

But private porperties of land, natural ressources, ideas, or means of production is in no way a freedom. It is a power, a power to restrict freedom of others.

Erosion of the individual.

The erosion of the individual is a consequence of the cusommation society, the massive advertising brain washing, the lack of education, the lack of free time, and the lack of any power over your own live, being forced to chose between being a wage-slave or misery.

If you can't allow people power over their government or property, why allow them freedom of anything?

If you don't have power over your own governement, it's not socialism, but state capitalism. Socialism is about _common_ ownership of means of production, if a non-democratic governement owns them, it's not socialism.

There is no human nature. All the studies on history, different cultures, different civilizations just prove it. Humans reflect the society and the culture they were raised in.

But capitalism, by praising and rewarding it, encourages the darkest faces of men, while socialism encourages the brightest faces of men.

Well, if people are formed by their own societies and cultures, how can you claim to know what is moral and what is not?

Socialism doesn't encourage people to embrace their brightest faces, theocracies do that. Socialism forces people to embrace their brightest faces and in so doing ceases to be moral.

Very good post, Kilobugya. I agree completely.


My entire point was that there ARE people starving to death. If capitalism is such a perfect system, why would people be starving to death at all when we produce enough food to feed the population of the Earth several times over? How does that work? No, capitalism is not the best means of production. How can producing purely for profit and not for social need be the best?

I just cannot believe that you are preaching as if Capitalism saved us all from those bad ol' days. Newsflash! Half the world's workers are living under the poverty line. If capitalism is so good and wholesome, why are people still living under those conditions? You don't find it barbaric that every year, fifteen million children die of hunger?

Excellent point. I often ask this, but no capitalist has ever offered a satisfactory response. They usually shirk the issue.

The mechanics and driving force behind capitalism not only lead to starvation, they encourage it. They make needless profit more important than other people's lives. The reason the poor are not fed is because it would not be profitable to feed them. Instead, tons and tons of food surplus are deliberately destroyed every year in Western country to avoid upsetting the market and jeapordising profit.

Regarding 'human nature', I agree there is no such thing, and it's absurd to say communism is contrary to "human nature". Look at Tokelau. It may not be communist in name, but it's very close to it in practice. All work is communal, and done to benefit one's entire atoll/village. All ressources are divided and shared equally. That system (inati) has been going on for a long while, and works perfectly well. Only in recent years have Tokelauans begun to express an inclination towards selfishness, due to an increasing awareness of how things are done in Western societies. So don't come saying greed is inherent to "human nature". It most obviously is not.

If you speak of US, more than 1/4th of the population doesn't have access to... health care ! That's definetly not what I call a success.

Even UK has a huge number of people living in inhuman conditions. And that's for the richest countries.
Everyone in the US has access to healthcare, just pretty rubbishy healthcare. Britain has one of the highest UN global development indicies in the world - far higher than all the Communist and ex-Communist states.

Actually, it does happen sometimes ;) But yes, it's not the main reason.
Errr... no it doesnt, What would they possibly have to gain from doing that?

Most African dictatorship only exist because they were created and are still supported by either western states or western corporations. The role of oil, diamonds, weapons, or even other big corporations in supporting and creating dictatorship among third world countries is highly underestimated, but saddly, very important.
This is just a lie. All of the African states, when they were granted independence from the European Empires, were required to be democratic. In some cases this didnt happen, as they broke away rather than were 'decolonised'. The military coups happened subsequently, and were caused by poor security, bad governments and corrupt military leaders. The fact that we didnt intervene doesnt really say much - why would we get involved in hundred of African wars when we had enough problems of our own? Even so, I dont see what Imperialism has to do with capitalism anyway. Saying "Western Europe indirectly caused this and it is capitalist therefore capitalism cause it" is non sequitur.

And then there are two aspects you tend to forget.

The first one is the consequences of conlonization and slave trade. Nowadays richest countries (especially Europe and USA) built themselves by exploiting people of nowadays third world countries, especially Africa, either through colonization or through slave trade.
The slave traded ended 200 years ago (150 if you're an American) and apart from the drop in population, it has no lasting affect. The fact is that we didnt build ourselves up on the back of the slave trade, we were building up anyway. The slave trade was just one part of the economy.

While they developped themselves using the work of others, their puppet nations couldn't develop.
This isnt actually true. The entire Indian and most of the African railways were built by British engineers, as were their sewer systems. Practically all of their infrastructure (which they could build on their own) was built by Old Europe which they could never have built themselves and it continues to be built by us. For example, most African oil rigs were bought and operated by companies like BP. They never had the money to do it themselves.

Just a fact to show how the colonization ended up: when France finally granted its independance to Algeria, after a long and cruel war, there were only... 10 doctors on the whole country ! And guess who sended doctors to help them and train algerian doctors ? Not the UN. Not a rich country. Cuba did. Freely.
Yeah, take the worst, most infamous example of bloody decolonisation through war and generalise it to cover the entire Third World. Great rhetoric, poor logic.

The second one is the debt. Many people speak of help to third world countries, and how generous we are. Each year, western countries give around 50 billions of dollars to third world countries. Nice. But each year, the third world countries give... around 350 billions of dollars to western countries ! So, each year, they are HEPLING us with 300 billions. No surprise we stay rich and they stay poor.
Yeah, that's called a "loan". What happens in a "loan" is one party "lends" another party some currency on the understanding that it will be "paid back" with "interest" some time later. They are not "giving" us money, they are honouring a legitimate agreement that they went into freely. I see no moral imperative to get people out of upholding their side of a bargain that they initiated. I would support debt relief for the democratic, free market countries because it will allow us greater trade, but most of the countries whose debt hasnt been cancelled are dictatorships and the money will never filter down to the people or encourage trade, it'll just strengthen the dictatorship.

And this is inherent to capitalism: the way rich take money away from the poor using usury is a fundation of capitalism, and one of its most abject side.
We dont take it from them, they give it to us in exchange for goods and services. There is a difference.

[quite]Wars mostly between groups supported by different coroporations/states, and which wouldn't last long without support from them, and without the very profitable weapons buisness done there.[/quote]
Errr... no. Corporations and states have nothing to gain from "funding wars", they will only lose massive amounts of money. It makes even less sense for a corporation to do this, as not only are they out to make profit and wars just cost billions of pounds and destroy things but no business wants to operate in a country that is so wildly unstable.

You could take the problem the other way around. The problem is not in subsidiased products from Europe IMHO, but in WTO rules forbidding them to put trade barriers on them. If Europe sent them half-cost food, but then they had a tax on European food, and pay back this tax to their local farmers, what happens ? More food is inside the country, so the prices go down, and people eat more.
No, this means that European food costs more and no one can afford it. It wont be European money going into the third world farmers, it will be money from citizens of the third world countries. You cant compete doing that. The better solution would be to end the CAP so that European farmers are no longer able to sell their food for massively below what it costs to make. And dont pretend that America doesnt do this too - America's farm subsidies are the main reason that people want to keep the CAP.

But the farmers receive money from the gov too, so they wages will not go down. Everyone wins (the western countries support their farmers AND help third world countries at once, the third world countries farmers have the same income, and third world countries people can eat more for less money).
No the Westerns dont win, because no one can afford their food. The citizens of the Third World countries dont win, because they cant afford the food. The farmers dont win because the money the government takes to give to them is tiny, and Europe just gets angry and increases tarrifs on them.

No they cannot, thanks to WTO, and that's the real problem.
That's a good thing. The answer to an unfree and unfair market isnt to make it completely unfree and therefore fair. Socialists only seem to care about helping the poor half as much as they care about hurting the rich.

We are speaking of starving countries, who, as you said, for climatic or geographical reasons, can't produce enough food. How could they export it without making people to starve even more ?
They use the money to buy food, maybe...? That's what all farmers do. They dont jsut eat their produce - no one can live on a diet consisting entirely of bananas, or wheat, or whatever the farm produces.

But those countries can't produce food for themselves, they are forced to produce luxury food for us (like coffee or chocolate) just to... pay the interests of the debt !
Errr.. what the hell? The Government doesnt decide what to produce, the market does. They produce whatever gets them the most cash for their effort.

Those companies are using their enormous power, unmatched by the power of the local gov (even more since they are cribbled by WTO) to kill all local industries. Producing cheap good using cheap labour and then selling the goods in rich countries, and having the profits in the pockets of rich countries stock holders, is not going to help them at all.
The Labour is cheap because it isnt worth anything - it's unskilled and it's in a place far from people who can afford the goods. If there are no companies giving them rubbish jobs, then all they will have are "local industries" which produce extremely expensive, poor quality goods that no one wants to buy.

A real way of developping could be to have local cooperatives selling goods to rich countries, and using the profits done this way to develop their own infrastructure, educate their kids, ... that's the way "fair trade" works.
This is stupidly contradictory. Why is it that apparently a co-operative can sell their goods perfectly well, but an individual farmer cant? Why is it that a co-operative can use the profits to develop infrastructure, but individual farmers and the government cant?

That's definitely not the way capitalism works. Those local cooperative have no chances to stand against the power of big corporations, without special help
Again, what the hell are you are on about? "Big corporations" dont own African farms, they buy the produce. Do you have any evidence that the evil nasty corporations are stealing farms, or are you just asserting it?

(either by people like me who buy "fair trade" as much as possible, or by their local governements which can regulate the economy... if not forbidden to do so by WTO).
Fair trade is a ripoff and you are being duped. Take this (www.traidcraft.com) for example. Looks nice, doesnt it? Like a charity? Now read their financial report (http://www.traidcraft.com/template2.asp?pageID=1644&fromID=1643). They make money off of people like you who think it looks nice so it must be good, but in actual fact they make a 33% profit on their turnover, which is massive. Everything they sell is horrendously overpriced and the extra that goes to the producers is tiny. That isnt charity, that's just tricking people like you into wasting your money.

Capitalism is increasing the amount of wealth in the world, BUT at the same time making the poors poorer (both at the scale of countries and at the scale of people: poor countries are getting poorer, and poor people in each countries are getting poorer),
No, it makes rich countries richer faster than it makes poor countries. Look up a few third world countries on wikipedia. Most of them have growing economies.

AND destroying the planet. Our planet is completly unable to whistand the speed at which we use natural ressources, and this is the condition for capitalism to be able to always increase wealth.
This is the condition for wealth to be produced at all. Not only that, it's the condition for wealth to be maintained.

What we need is _less_ production, but more _useful_ production. That is, less waste (advertising, duplication of infrastrcuture, ...), more socially efficient productions (more public transports and less private cars), and step aside from the "cheaper low quality" production that is the consequence of free market, by producing maybe less, but more solid and long-lasting devices.
Basically you want monopolies that produce good quality goods. Sadly, in practise, the two are completely contradictory. You can have no duplication of effort and have everything produced by one central government controlled manufacturing giant, or you can have competition, quality and low prices.

There is no solution, within capitalism, to suppress world poverty without destroying the planet itself.
This is stupid. As resources start to run out, it becomes uneconomical to extract them. Companies reduce inefficiency anyway because it saves them money.