NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been pondering an idea recently, and I've decided to try to spread it to the people of nationstates. Perhaps it's already been thought of and I'm behind, but it's new to me, so bear with me.

It is intersting how in American society, capitalism used to be, or still is, equated with patriotism. To be a communist used to be, or somewhat still is, considered unpatriotic. However, I find the opposite to be somewhat true; in a capitalistic system, a man works for himself, to earn his wages and bonuses. He is not motivated by his country or his fellow country men, only himself, only the all mighty dollar. However, in a communist society, people are (theoretically) motivated to work through love of their country and their countrymen, not their own intrests or own pay check.

Please note that I am not saying whether I am a patriot or an independent, or whether I am a capitalist or socialist, I am just sharing this idea with you, people of nationstates. What say you about this seemingly backword idea of patriotic capitalism? Any disagreements? Agreements?

Discuss.

It is intersting how in American society, capitalism used to be, or still is, equated with patriotism. To be a communist used to be, or somewhat still is, considered unpatriotic. However, I find the opposite to be somewhat true; in a capitalistic system, a man works for himself, to earn his wages and bonuses. He is not motivated by his country or his fellow country men, only himself, only the all mighty dollar. However, in a communist society, people are (theoretically) motivated to work through love of their country and their countrymen, not their own intrests or own pay check.



Pfft.

I find this OP to be made of fail. Capitalism is equated with freedom, because of the economic freedom it provides. Communism is equated with opression, because your economic freedom would be restricted. The American Spirit is usually equated with freedom, pioneers and free thinkers and all that.

in a capitalistic system, a man works for himself, to earn his wages and bonuses. He is not motivated by his country or his fellow country men, only himself, only the all mighty dollar.
Dollar is the US. US is the Dollar.


However, in a communist society, people are (theoretically) motivated to work through love of their country and their countrymen, not their own intrests or own pay check.
Yes, but through love of a country that isn't US.

Yes, but through love of a country that isn't US.

And in practice "love of country" does not motivate many workers--Communism (at least in the Soviet Union) used guns to make the people work--in est, slavery.

Capitalism is equated with freedom, because of the economic freedom it provides. Communism is equated with opression, because your economic freedom would be restricted.
If we are to be precise, there are two mostly unrelated kinds of communism.

The one that's advertised is the unregulated communism of abundance, where the ratio of supply to demand is too high to bother rationing it through money. It, by design, contains no oppression and offers even more economic freedom than capitalism. An example can be the open-source software: since copying costs nothing, it's counterproductive to ration it.

The "communism" that actually was attempted to be implemented, however, doesn't achieve such a supply-demand ratio. As a result, a rationing system becomes necessary. If a monetary rationing system is excluded, it has to be a non-monetary one... that's not communism already, but rather statism and socialism.
USSR and its followers were/are strictly socialist with capitalist elements, but without any elements of communism or attempts at it.


Possibly, in a distant and very utopian future, the first kind of communism will be possible, specifically when the cost of developing a product absolutely dwarfs the cost of reproducing it. Already most electronics (starting with air conditioners and microwave ovens) have 60%-80% of their price in the development, but it's far from 99.8% as with software, and production is still well out of everyone's reach.
Possible doesn't mean it will happen: the governments, as existing regulatory bodies, can not allow it out of self-preservation.

If we are to be precise, there are two mostly unrelated kinds of communism.

The one that's advertised is the unregulated communism of abundance, where the ratio of supply to demand is too high to bother rationing it through money. It, by design, contains no oppression and offers even more economic freedom than capitalism. An example can be the open-source software: since copying costs nothing, it's counterproductive to ration it.

The "communism" that actually was attempted to be implemented, however, doesn't achieve such a supply-demand ratio. As a result, a rationing system becomes necessary. If a monetary rationing system is excluded, it has to be a non-monetary one... that's not communism already, but rather statism and socialism.
USSR and its followers were/are strictly socialist with capitalist elements, but without any elements of communism or attempts at it.


Possibly, in a distant and very utopian future, the first kind of communism will be possible, specifically when the cost of developing a product absolutely dwarfs the cost of reproducing it. Already most electronics (starting with air conditioners and microwave ovens) have 60%-80% of their price in the development, but it's far from 99.8% as with software, and production is still well out of everyone's reach.
Possible doesn't mean it will happen: the governments, as existing regulatory bodies, can not allow it out of self-preservation.
I, like most people, am speaking of the 'Big C' Communism, the Statist kind once practiced in the USSR. It's easier to say 'Communism' then 'Socialism'.

I find this OP to be made of fail. Capitalism is equated with freedom, because of the economic freedom it provides. Communism is equated with opression, because your economic freedom would be restricted. The American Spirit is usually equated with freedom, pioneers and free thinkers and all that.

Reactionary bourgeois slander. Do you enjoy oppressing my proletariat comrades, you imperialist pig?

Possibly, in a distant and very utopian future, the first kind of communism will be possible, specifically when the cost of developing a product absolutely dwarfs the cost of reproducing it. Already most electronics (starting with air conditioners and microwave ovens) have 60%-80% of their price in the development, but it's far from 99.8% as with software, and production is still well out of everyone's reach.
Possible doesn't mean it will happen: the governments, as existing regulatory bodies, can not allow it out of self-preservation.

See: Star Trek. Technological advances have made it ridiculously easy to get pretty much anything. In the show we're treated to any number of people working for the sheer pleasure of it(probably due to a bit of writer on board), but if that kind of society were real, there'd probably be just as many(if not more) people who spend their lives exploring the possibilities afforded to them by replicators and holodecks.

Reactionary bourgeois slander. Do you enjoy oppressing my proletariat comrades, you imperialist pig?

Actually, yes. Yes I do. There's no better way to end a hard day's work then grinding my boot into the neck of a hard-working laborer. The crunching sound is quite magnificent actually.

Oh, wait, that is my job. :wink:

See: Star Trek. Technological advances have made it ridiculously easy to get pretty much anything. In the show we're treated to any number of people working for the sheer pleasure of it(probably due to a bit of writer on board), but if that kind of society were real, there'd probably be just as many(if not more) people who spend their lives exploring the possibilities afforded to them by replicators and holodecks.

See: The Culture in Iain M Banks's series of novels dealing with them. Explicitly written as such a society, to explain some thoughts about what it might look like. The essay A Few Notes On The Culture (http://everything2.com/title/A%2520Few%2520Notes%2520On%2520The%2520Culture) is a good start.

I, like most people, am speaking of the 'Big C' Communism, the Statist kind once practiced in the USSR. It's easier to say 'Communism' then 'Socialism'.
Easier, but wronger.
It's not just an academic distinction. And not just because open-source communism has nothing to do with USSR socialism. With Europe moving fast to adopt more and more socialism, we should remember what the actual socialism looked like - we can't see the future by itself, but we can see it in the past.

there'd probably be just as many(if not more) people who spend their lives exploring the possibilities afforded to them by replicators and holodecks.

"Sir, the holo-shed has broken down"
"Damn, last time that happened I got hit with three paternity suits!"

See: Star Trek. Technological advances have made it ridiculously easy to get pretty much anything. In the show we're treated to any number of people working for the sheer pleasure of it(probably due to a bit of writer on board), but if that kind of society were real, there'd probably be just as many(if not more) people who spend their lives exploring the possibilities afforded to them by replicators and holodecks.
I would somewhat, or more than somewhat, disagree about Star Trek. It's unrealistic in every possible sense. If I understand correctly (I've seen little of it), humans there were uplifted by the Vulcans. Thus, they didn't really have any time to develop the new attitude required for communism to work. [ Not to mention they are always at war with the Borg and the Dominion and whoever, which kills the whole idea, and makes even capitalism a barely affordable luxury, much less communism. ]

Said attitude doesn't develop overnight or over a century. For people to start actually choosing a Smart microcar over a Chrysler 300C when both are free, time must pass to eliminate not only its meaning as a status symbol, but completely change the attitude. To that of software - when you choose a simpler bit of software over a more functional one, because it does what you need, but is easier to use. No size of economy, no matter how technologically advanced, can afford unrestricted consumption. If you give unlimited production technology to the modern society, we'll exhaust Earth in a few years, for everyone with an IQ under 100 will be building themselves palaces and superyachts.

Every economic model has its consumption restriction system. In the tribe, the sum total is barely enough to survive. A slave only consumes what he's given to by his handlers. An early feudalism peasant only gets what he produces in his limited soil in his limited time. In early capitalism, you get to spend only your wage. In modern capitalism, you have to measure your ability to pay back the credit. For communism to work, the restriction system has to be in your mind. But few people have the ability to live like Warren Buffett. Only when and if such an attitude becomes commonplace will communism with material goods be possible.

See: The Culture in Iain M Banks's series of novels dealing with them. Explicitly written as such a society, to explain some thoughts about what it might look like. The essay A Few Notes On The Culture (http://everything2.com/title/A%2520Few%2520Notes%2520On%2520The%2520Culture) is a good start.

A bit tl; dr for me at the moment, but it looks interesting. *makes mental note to look back at this thread tomorrow*

I've been pondering an idea recently, and I've decided to try to spread it to the people of nationstates. Perhaps it's already been thought of and I'm behind, but it's new to me, so bear with me.

It is intersting how in American society, capitalism used to be, or still is, equated with patriotism. To be a communist used to be, or somewhat still is, considered unpatriotic. However, I find the opposite to be somewhat true; in a capitalistic system, a man works for himself, to earn his wages and bonuses. He is not motivated by his country or his fellow country men, only himself, only the all mighty dollar. However, in a communist society, people are (theoretically) motivated to work through love of their country and their countrymen, not their own intrests or own pay check.

Please note that I am not saying whether I am a patriot or an independent, or whether I am a capitalist or socialist, I am just sharing this idea with you, people of nationstates. What say you about this seemingly backword idea of patriotic capitalism? Any disagreements? Agreements?

Discuss.It is in the interest of those in power to equate capitalism with patriotism, because this way the capitalist system is never seriously questioned.

<snip>

For once, we actually agree on economic matters. I would extend it slightly, and note that the reverse also holds: if people develop that attitude, material communism is the natural result. This is why a) attempts to impose it always fail, and b) the most successful communist experiments have been voluntary and near-unanimous.

A bit tl; dr for me at the moment, but it looks interesting. *makes mental note to look back at this thread tomorrow*

On skimming, some parts are less relevant to this discussion. Still, it's highly interesting, and he's a skilled writer.

However, in a communist society, people are (theoretically) motivated to work through love of their country and their countrymen

No, communists are not (for the most part) so naive: indeed, I would argue, if civic duty were the only motive for labor in a communist society, then communism would be an injustice, because all the labor would be allocated to the reluctantly-toiling virtuous and dutiful.

What say you about this seemingly backword idea of patriotic capitalism?

You are focusing too much on the specific economic doctrines, without taking into account the relevant history. Communist movements historically have been fairly hostile to patriotism, at least in their more radical tendencies, arguing that allegiance to national states was only a tactic of the capitalist class to divide the workers from their true interests in international solidarity with each other. Capitalism itself is not by its nature patriotic, but when the national state is aligned with it (as has been the case in the West for at least the past century and a half), patriotism and the defense of social order serve as useful ideological weapons in its defense.

As an additional element, while there is a definite tension between conservatism's veneration for collective entities like "the nation" and a market ethic of private wealth accumulation, capitalism qua class structure does not imply a lack of principles: conservative and nationalist political movements are often suspicious of the market, yet regularly willing to leave the distribution of wealth and the private ownership of the means of production alone.

The one that's advertised is the unregulated communism of abundance, where the ratio of supply to demand is too high to bother rationing it through money.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "one that's advertised", but "post-scarcity communism" is not really what communists are talking about, because communism the political movement is an attempt to change the distributive principles of society, and in a post-scarcity situation distributive principles are irrelevant.

(It is true, however, that theorists like Marx envisioned communism taking place in a technologically-advanced, highly productive economy.)

I'm not sure what you mean by the "one that's advertised" The one that's advertised.
The communists always promise prosperity. An utopian world where people work for fun and everything is free. Indeed, the very idea of being not restricted by your wage is a very lucrative one.


but "post-scarcity communism" is not really what communists are talking about, because communism the political movement is an attempt to change the distributive principles of society, and in a post-scarcity situation distributive principles are irrelevant.
It is what they are talking about. In an abundance scenario distributive principles are unneeded, and the lack of such principles is called communism.
The communists have always promised to reach said scenario through early adoption of communistic principles. Indeed, in theory communism is the most efficient economic system possible. In theory.

In a scarcity scenario, free-will communism is simply not possible, for the needs exceed the supply. "Military communism" or "tribal communism" are rather a very different system, where the needs are defined as the basic survival needs, and this system is properly called socialism.

See, what we need is Anarchy, then there wouldnt be forums to debate the niceties of political and economic theory.....

The US has had a pretty significant portion of its lifetime spent in a geopolitical struggle with Communism and other statist ideologies, so it makes perfect sense that there would be some strong patriotic sentiment towards capitalism as a key component of our way of life. Not coincidentally, the more extreme attitudes towards non-capitalist systems coincided with periods where either capitalism itself was under stress or those systems appeared to be making progress against it.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing; the history of fascism and communism kind of show that their implementation ends up causing massive devastation and horrific evils against mankind. However, at the same time it also causes a kind of myopia where people refuse to recognize the potential pitfalls of our system and continue to embrace problematic systems (e.g. our healthcare) because of a confusion between preserving the merits of the free-market capitalist system and correcting its shortfalls.

The US has had a pretty significant portion of its lifetime spent in a geopolitical struggle with Communism Socialism.


It's not 1960, you don't have to call the Bible brown.

Socialism.


It's not 1960, you don't have to call the Bible brown.

He did say Communism with a capital C.

He did say Communism with a capital C.
Straight with a capital S doesn't mean gay.

Straight with a capital S doesn't mean gay.

Unless its associated with Republican congressmen of course....

Socialism.

It's not 1960, you don't have to call the Bible brown.

Big C.

Don't forget it was also the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics.

Don't forget it was also the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics.

Bolsheviks referred to themselves as communists and also as the Communist party.

Don't forget it was also the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics.

But, it wasnt any more "Socialist" than the National Socialists were, more commonly known as Nazis...

Or the People's Republic of China having anything to do with Republicans...

Don't forget it was also the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics.
You mean the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Really, the US is already screwed, us having a republican form of government and all.

You mean the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Really, the US is already screwed, us having a republican form of government and all.

OMG! :eek:

Its all been a Conspiracy, the whole time! Right under our noses, HOW DIDNT WE SEE IT!! :p

But, it wasnt any more "Socialist" than the National Socialists were, more commonly known as Nazis...
It was perfectly socialist. Proper, textbook socialism.

Socialism is, according to a common definition: state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.

That's exactly what USSR was. State ownership - check, state administration - check, equality - check, egalitarian compensation - check.

You cannot be a patriotic American who subscribes to the foundational principles of this republic and be a socialist, communist or any other form of statist. If you oppose individual liberty and free enterprise, you are no patriot.

If you oppose individual liberty and free enterprise, you are no patriot.
Arguably, if you oppose individual liberty and free enterprise, you are no communist.

You cannot be a patriotic American who subscribes to the foundational principles of this republic and be a socialist, communist or any other form of statist. If you oppose individual liberty and free enterprise, you are no patriot.

Do you, however, believe that all men are created free and equal? Here lies the problem with individual liberty versus a level of equality - there's no possible way to reach a maximum of equality AND freedom. You need to find a balancing point, because within a classical liberal society like America, you have to have minimums.

The communists always promise prosperity. An utopian world where people work for fun and everything is free.

But not where everything is infinitely abundant. What communists have you been talking to?

In an abundance scenario distributive principles are unneeded, and the lack of such principles is called communism.

No, communism has a very explicit distributive principle: "to each according to his/her need." This is contrasted with the market principle, "to each according to what he/she can afford." The conflict makes no sense in a post-scarcity scenario: the market value of any good in a circumstance of infinite abundance is always zero, so both principles are irrelevant.

The communists have always promised to reach said scenario through early adoption of communistic principles.

If you're referring to the policies of the "transitional stage", within Marxist theory they actually do not amount to "communistic principles" of distribution at all: the principle is "equal pay for equal work", within a framework where everyone is a worker (rather than having workers and capitalists).

In a scarcity scenario, free-will communism is simply not possible, for the needs exceed the supply.

The presence of scarcity does not preclude economic equality along communist lines--not, in any case, unless you make further assumptions about the efficiency of communist economics.

Communists who (rather naively in my view) oppose any explicit rule restricting consumption rely on social pressure and self-restraint to accomplish the same end.

"Military communism" or "tribal communism" are rather a very different system, where the needs are defined as the basic survival needs, and this system is properly called socialism.

Socialism proper has no distributive principle: it is about socialized ownership of the means of production. This is why it is possible to coherently outline forms of "market socialism."

Communist principles of distribution are equally communist whether they are applied to a situation of extreme scarcity or one of extreme abundance. Their rule is equality, distribution according to need rather than according to status or contribution. They do not prescribe the possibility of unlimited consumption.

equality - check, egalitarian compensation - check.

The Soviet economy had neither.

More specifically, socialist theory as outlined in the major socialist political trends (certainly Marxism and anarchism, and most of the other varieties floating around the Left for the past century and a half) seeks a particular kind of equality, an abolition of a class structure in which the majority work for a minority owning class that rules over and exacts profit from its workers: an abolition achieved by uniting the two categories, granting the workers ownership of the means of production.

State ownership is indeed a traditional way of bringing this about, but it makes no sense unless the state in question actually represents the people, that is, is democratic. State ownership in the context of an oligarchy misses the point entirely.

The Soviet economy had neither.
Yes it did.

Equality - most things were free. Not just education, healthcare and whatever services. Apartments and houses were dispensed for free, specifically one apartment and one suburban house per family, square footage depending on family size. Even hobbies were free: those officially recognized were sponsored by the state. Food wasn't free, but it was cheap enough that the limitation rather was availability at the shop.

Compensation - everyone was paid roughly similar salaries. It depended little on what the person actually did, the 20% and the 80% mark differed less than twice.

That is textbook socialism.


State ownership is indeed a traditional way of bringing this about, but it makes no sense unless the state in question actually represents the people, that is, is democratic.
Not once has actual democracy even been seriously attempted, let alone approached since the fall of the Ancient Greece and Rome. And don't tell me US is democratic. All we get is to occasionally have a say in what rich person do we prefer to be stripping away our freedoms for the next 4 years.

The state has never represented the people, and never will. It's always an oligarchy.

Yes it did.

When the class at the top was able to acquire extensive special privileges for itself while the majority suffered through extreme scarcity and rationing? Hardly.

That is textbook socialism.

Nobody ever said textbooks were particularly good at political theory. Try actually reading the theorists involved.

The state has never represented the people, and never will. It's always an oligarchy.

So? At most, this would mean that socialism has never yet existed: it indicates nothing at all about its definition.

Furthermore, in the real world we speak in terms of approximations, not implemented perfect ideals (which don't exist), and it is evident that Western liberal democracies manage to give the public far more input in policymaking than the Soviet Union ever did.

*Tests it out*

I find this OP to be made of fail. Capitalism is equated with freedom, because of the economic freedom it provides. Communism is equated with opression, because your economic freedom would be restricted. The American Spirit is usually equated with freedom, pioneers and free thinkers and all that.
You absolutely TAI'd this thread.

You cannot be a patriotic American who subscribes to the foundational principles of this republic and be a socialist, communist or any other form of statist. If you oppose individual liberty and free enterprise, you are no patriot.

By believing in the necessity of a state the founders were statists. Also given that the founding principles allowed the onwnership of human beings they are not neccessarily just principles.

When the class at the top was able to acquire extensive special privileges for itself while the majority suffered through extreme scarcity and rationing? Hardly.
What "class at the top"?
Officially, there wasn't any class at the top.
Unofficially, you were exempt from the Party if you/your parents used to belong to the top class pre-1917, but otherwise all you needed to get into the Party was vocally supporting their ideals.


So? At most, this would mean that socialism has never yet existed: it indicates nothing at all about its definition.
It is socialism. The state can't represent the people by its very nature.


it is evident that Western liberal democracies manage to give the public far more input in policymaking than the Soviet Union ever did.
Just like a soft drink X contains more alcohol than soft drink Y. It still won't get you drunk.
The influence is either unusable or illusory - big difference.

You cannot be a patriotic American who subscribes to the foundational principles of this republic and be a socialist, communist or any other form of statist.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

I'd quibble with the phrasing ("Creator", "Men") but I'm fine with the basic political theory. I remain a communist.

If you oppose individual liberty and free enterprise, you are no patriot.

I see no mention of capitalism in the Declaration of Independence. I see values that can underlie arguments for socialism and communism just as they can underlie arguments for capitalism. Patriotism does not imply unanimity.

but otherwise all you needed to get into the Party was vocally supporting their ideals.

So? There are no hard-and-fast class barriers in capitalism either. That's not the issue; the issue is, are there class differences, that is, economic inequalities? Of course there were in the Soviet Union: both of the non-socialist variety (oligarchs, rather than the people, effectively owning and controlling the means of production) and of the non-communist variety (differences in compensation based on class status.)

It is socialism. The state can't represent the people by its very nature.

You seem to be confused about the nature of a definition. I do not think that people can return from the dead by the very nature of "people" as biological, material organisms. But that does not make the definition of "ghost" other than what it is.

The influence is either unusable or illusory - big difference.

It requires really dogmatic cynicism to deny that citizens in a Western democracy have more substantive political power as citizens than citizens in the Soviet Union had.

So? There are no hard-and-fast class barriers in capitalism either.
Much more barriers than in USSR socialism. Capitalism has inertia of capital; USSR didn't, you didn't own anything, all major material goods were assigned to you, not granted.


That's not the issue; the issue is, are there class differences, that is, economic inequalities? Of course there were in the Soviet Union: both of the non-socialist variety (oligarchs, rather than the people, effectively owning and controlling the means of production) and of the non-communist variety (differences in compensation based on class status.)
For 99% of the people who weren't in the ruling class, this didn't matter. There was no underclass other than criminal (for unemployment was a felony), and working and middle class were merged and equalized.

Even the ruling class, if we don't include the absolute top like the Secretary General, didn't differ all that much from the regular people. They could informally get a bit better apartment, but still within the same bounds, and they could exchange some favors for a bit better things, but all that was under the carpet.
Even with that, the difference was far from substantial. In US, you can point people out just walking on the street - underclass, working class, middle class, middle-upper class, upper class. In USSR, you wouldn't be able to. They were living in similar apartments, with similar furniture and equipment. The ruling class could, illegally, get or not get some exclusive things, but the lifestyle was still the same.


You seem to be confused about the nature of a definition. I do not think that people can return from the dead by the very nature of "people" as biological, material organisms. But that does not make the definition of "ghost" other than what it is.
Then you're going after semantics. In either case, USSR was as close as it ever got to socialism - and, very likely, nearly as close as it can possibly get.


It requires really dogmatic cynicism to deny that citizens in a Western democracy have more substantive political power as citizens than citizens in the Soviet Union had.
How is zero more substantive than zero?

For 99% of the people who weren't in the ruling class, this didn't matter.

The political issue of control most certainly did.

Then you're going after semantics.

...yes.

This entire line of debate is a semantic one. One major obstacle to substantive understanding of socialist positions and arguments are serious confusions about the meanings of terms, so I consider it worthwhile to argue about definitions sometimes.

In either case, USSR was as close as it ever got to socialism - and, very likely, nearly as close as it can possibly get.

You have yet to provide either theoretical argument or empirical evidence to support your claims regarding democracy, so I see little reason to accept this claim.

How is zero more substantive than zero?

No government in the US or Western Europe could ever have gotten away with the neglect of consumer goods and living conditions that characterized the Soviet economy throughout most of its history.

I would somewhat, or more than somewhat, disagree about Star Trek. It's unrealistic in every possible sense. If I understand correctly (I've seen little of it), humans there were uplifted by the Vulcans. Thus, they didn't really have any time to develop the new attitude required for communism to work. [ Not to mention they are always at war with the Borg and the Dominion and whoever, which kills the whole idea, and makes even capitalism a barely affordable luxury, much less communism. ]

Said attitude doesn't develop overnight or over a century. For people to start actually choosing a Smart microcar over a Chrysler 300C when both are free, time must pass to eliminate not only its meaning as a status symbol, but completely change the attitude. To that of software - when you choose a simpler bit of software over a more functional one, because it does what you need, but is easier to use. No size of economy, no matter how technologically advanced, can afford unrestricted consumption. If you give unlimited production technology to the modern society, we'll exhaust Earth in a few years, for everyone with an IQ under 100 will be building themselves palaces and superyachts.

Every economic model has its consumption restriction system. In the tribe, the sum total is barely enough to survive. A slave only consumes what he's given to by his handlers. An early feudalism peasant only gets what he produces in his limited soil in his limited time. In early capitalism, you get to spend only your wage. In modern capitalism, you have to measure your ability to pay back the credit. For communism to work, the restriction system has to be in your mind. But few people have the ability to live like Warren Buffett. Only when and if such an attitude becomes commonplace will communism with material goods be possible.

That's because you didn't watch enough of the show.

The human attitude of the 24th Century didn't evolve overnight. It's roots were laid during World War 3 and the chaotic aftermath that followed. They were already moving toward that before the first human warp drive was invented. And Vulcans didn't bother with Earth until the first human ship capable of warp drive was launched. By the time we hit the 23rd century, these attitudes would have been in place for around 2 centuries. By the 24th, 3 centuries.

You cannot be a patriotic American who subscribes to the foundational principles of this republic and be a socialist, communist or any other form of statist. If you oppose individual liberty and free enterprise, you are no patriot.

Many of the items that are part of the principles of this republic were taken from socialist, communist, and other statist works. So, really, you can't support the founding principles of this republic without also supporting those other ideologies to a degree.

So? There are no hard-and-fast class barriers in capitalism either. That's not the issue; the issue is, are there class differences, that is, economic inequalities? Of course there were in the Soviet Union: both of the non-socialist variety (oligarchs, rather than the people, effectively owning and controlling the means of production) and of the non-communist variety (differences in compensation based on class status.)

In theoretical capitalism, this is true. In realistic capitalism, this proved to be false.

But, then, true capitalism, like attempts to bring about true communis, failed nearly a century ago.

The political issue of control most certainly did.
That's a non-issue. Political control doesn't determine what you eat.


This entire line of debate is a semantic one. One major obstacle to substantive understanding of socialist positions and arguments are serious confusions about the meanings of terms, so I consider it worthwhile to argue about definitions sometimes.
Well then. USSR wasn't the definition of socialism. But, all in all, the system could only be characterized as socialism, and was the most matching one ever.


You have yet to provide either theoretical argument or empirical evidence to support your claims regarding democracy, so I see little reason to accept this claim.
Empirical evidence: Whoever you vote for, the results are the same.
Bush HW did Gulf War.
Clinton did Kosovo.
Bush W did Iraq.
Bush W did Afghanistan.
Obama is calling for continuing the War Of Terror.

Bush HW was cutting the freedoms.
Clinton was cutting the freedoms.
Bush W was cutting the freedoms.
Obama seems intent to cut the freedoms.


No government in the US or Western Europe could ever have gotten away with the neglect of consumer goods and living conditions that characterized the Soviet economy throughout most of its history.
Oh, they totally could. They just didn't have to. And very possibly, some will. The so-democratic Zimbabwe did.

Don't also forget the starting conditions: USSR had post-WWI poverty, and then it took the bulk of WWII, which threw the economy back again.

In a capatalist society, the harder you work - the more you receive. Hence the bonus of being a solid hard worker. You can also progress up the ladder of success - position, title, money.

In a comunist society, you work for....the state. Usually you are assigned a job and position and that is the end of it. No matter how hard you work, that is what is expected of you by the state. If you work below par - then you can be subject to mistreatment for not pulling your share of the load. Speaking out is conspiring against the state and subject to prison or death, even to the point of your family members. There is a clear and definate separation between the working class and the privelaged - and you will never be able to change your class. Little to no freedoms.

In a socialist state, you again work for the state etc. But there is no class structure - any wealth you attain is distributed equally among the rest of the public. The harder you work or the less you work has no bearing because the society in large (hence social-ist) will provide. Speaking out is dissention and can have you put into a state reform program to make you compliant. Freedoms are little to non existent.

The third is where america is headed, welfare, social programs, government take over, etc. The Obama Nation. So why work your bum off to achieve when you will be taxed harder and higher to provide to those that desire to live off society and get away with it.

I am not the scholar of all knowledge - but this is what I have seen in my world travels over the last 30 years and then in the private sector working overseas (outside the US).

Go Capitalism.

How well did "Buy Our Shit, or the Terrorists Win" do for the Big 3 Auto anyways?

How well did "Buy Our Shit, or the Terrorists Win" do for the Big 3 Auto anyways?

the terrorists won

In a capatalist society, the harder you work - the more you receive. Really? A janitor working 70 hours a week will make more than a doctor working 30 hours a week?

In a comunist society, you work for....the state. False. There is no state in a communist society.

In a socialist state, you again work for the state etc. But there is no class structure - any wealth you attain is distributed equally among the rest of the public. The harder you work or the less you work has no bearing because the society in large (hence social-ist) will provide.According to whom?

False. There is no state in a communist society.

I agree. That is what is wrong with the otherwise excellent exposition of Vault 10 that the USSR was anywhere close to theoretical Communism.

By threat of invasion (and hence, overthrow of their political system) the USSR was for most of its history forced to behave like any other nation, aligned nationalistically against foreign "others." It wasn't the laziness of workers without individual profit motive which brought it down ... but the bottomless pit of defence spending.

Not that I believe that the "state will wither away" ... but certainly in the case of the USSR, there was a strong nationalistic reason for it NOT to wither away. Quite simply, the threat of invasion.

You can't have strong armed forces (on the conventional command-pyramid model anyway) without a strong government ... or else the armed forces will usurp the government. Even allowing the best of intentions, the armed forces have needs by their own standards, supplies of weaponry and ammunition, wages for their soldiers and staff, infrastructure like roads and ports. If the government isn't providing those needs, the armed forces will arrange them for themselves and become de facto ... the government.

You can't have strong armed forces (on the conventional command-pyramid model anyway) without a strong government ... or else the armed forces will usurp the government. Even allowing the best of intentions, the armed forces have needs by their own standards, supplies of weaponry and ammunition, wages for their soldiers and staff, infrastructure like roads and ports. If the government isn't providing those needs, the armed forces will arrange them for themselves and become de facto ... the government.
Which is exactly the problem with the communist focus on the relations and forces on production: it ignores political relations (the hierarchical structures of legal and political institutions; such as were co-opted by the Bolsheviks post-1917) and political forces (the forces of coercion; the police, military, etc.).

If you don't tackle both the economic forces/relations and the political forces/relations, then although you may get rid of inegalitarian and oppressive economic systems, systems of power remain, and are quickly filled by military juntas or The Party.

(Incidentally, many anarchist theorists also get this wrong, but from the opposite angle; stressing the political forces/relationsto the detriment of the economic forces/relations.)

That's a non-issue.

That's ludicrous.

Political control doesn't determine what you eat.

In the Soviet Union, at times it determined whether you lived or died. Throughout its history it determined economic priorities, generally at the expense of the population's living standards.

But, all in all, the system could only be characterized as socialism,

No, it couldn't. It is more reminiscent, if anything, of ancient despotisms in which the state controlled economic life.

and was the most matching one ever.

As far as I am concerned, any democracy with substantial government intervention in the economy--and especially democracies with large welfare states like Sweden--are more evocative of what socialism is about than the Soviet Union ever was. I am not particularly fond of equating social programs with socialism, but if you insist upon looking for closest approximations....

Empirical evidence: Whoever you vote for, the results are the same.

There are three problems with your list.

First, you disregard all nuance and context. Is Kosovo Iraq? Is staying in Iraq and Afghanistan equivalent to invading them in the first place? Are the freedoms people think Obama threatens equivalent to the ones Bush abridged in his "war on terror"? No, no, and no: your examples at most prove that there are not extreme shifts between governments, not that there are no substantial differences.

Second, you have no control--not even something as simple as some hypothetical speculation. You don't ask questions like "Would US policy after 9/11 have been the same had Gore been elected?" The answer, in all probability, is no, considering among other things that Gore was an early and consistent opponent of the Iraq War.

Third, even leaving aside your methodological problems your point, even if it were proved, still would not address the necessary question. Are the differences between the major parties minor? Sometimes, yes. But who is it who determines the content of these points of consensus? An oligarchical elite? Or the people themselves?

Of course, the actual answer is "both": by no means do we have perfect democracies, and there is plenty of room for critique and improvement. But the dogmatic recitation of "Democracy is impossible"--with the implicit and sometimes explicit addition that so-called democracies are no more democratic than anything else--is just pointless cynicism in the service of the status quo, difficult enough to prove (and probably wrong) with respect to real cases and impossible to prove with respect to possibilities.

Oh, they totally could. They just didn't have to.

A mere recession tends to be a fairly decisive influence on electoral results in Western democracies. Serious harm to living standards? The government had better have a really good reason, one that makes sense and will be accepted by the public.

And very possibly, some will. The so-democratic Zimbabwe did.

If you have to cite Zimbabwe as an example of democracy in the real world, you have already lost.

Don't also forget the starting conditions: USSR had post-WWI poverty, and then it took the bulk of WWII, which threw the economy back again.

That is true, but does not address the relevant issue, which is economic priorities.

In the Soviet Union, at times it determined whether you lived or died.
If you kept your mouth shut, you lived.


No, it couldn't. It is more reminiscent, if anything, of ancient despotisms in which the state controlled economic life.
Well, it is reminiscent of that too. Because socialism is an inherently oppressive system - it takes away the economic freedom, the right to the products of your labor.


As far as I am concerned, any democracy with substantial government intervention in the economy--and especially democracies with large welfare states like Sweden--are more evocative of what socialism is about than the Soviet Union ever was.
They're evocative of what the socialists advertise their society to be.
But the thing is, in their core, they're still built on capitalism.


First, you disregard all nuance and context.
Nuance, context... All you get to do in democracy is a voice on nuances. Have a black or a white president. Invade a white or a dark country. Lose economic freedoms (regulation) and personal freedoms (guns) or lose political freedoms (speech) and personal freedoms (gayrriage).
Whichever way you vote, the course is the same. You only get to choose to be hit in the left testicle first or in the right one first.


Are the differences between the major parties minor? Sometimes, yes. But who is it who determines the content of these points of consensus? An oligarchical elite?
The oligarchical elite.

You don't get to vote on "I want the republican party to relax on religion" or "I want the democrat party to stop going after guns". You only get a choice of an offered package. Not that they won't be bought by the same people afterwards anyway.



A mere recession tends to be a fairly decisive influence on electoral results in Western democracies. Serious harm to living standards? The government had better have a really good reason, one that makes sense and will be accepted by the public.
And if the public doesn't accept this reason, what can it do?

Vote for the second ruling party that is mostly the same, and which takes turns with the first one anyway, so you'd be voting for it now in either case?



That is true, but does not address the relevant issue, which is economic priorities.
The economic priorities of USSR were:
1. Defense.
2. Long-term economic growth.
3. Social equality.
4. Science, culture, healthcare, etc.
Seems reasonable enough. Well, they forgot luxury. But it's not certain if the country, hindered by an inferior socioeconomic system, could afford it.

In a capatalist society, the harder you work - the more you receive.

This is true, as it goes, but it only applies on an individual level, not as a general distributive principle: I will (probably) get more if I work harder and less if I work less hard, but I may nevertheless get far less than someone else who works far less than I do. This is because people in capitalism are paid according to the market value of their labor, which is simply not solely a function of how hard a person works. A coal miner may put a great deal of effort into a job whose conditions are miserable, while still making far less than a well-educated, naturally-talented person in upper management with the right connections.

You can also progress up the ladder of success - position, title, money.

There are no absolute barriers, but it is not an easy or a common process, thanks to the salient fact of massive inequality of opportunity: people are born into different economic conditions, raised in different circumstances, and possessed of different talents.

In a comunist society, you work for....the state. Usually you are assigned a job and position and that is the end of it.

Actually, us communists are generally pretty keen on the freedom of workers to choose their own labor... that's kind of the whole point. In contrast to capitalism, where labor in conditions of subordination to others is required as a matter of economic necessity, communism demands the emancipation of workers from the need to work for a wage rather than for themselves and their own fulfillment and satisfaction.

No matter how hard you work, that is what is expected of you by the state. If you work below par - then you can be subject to mistreatment for not pulling your share of the load. Speaking out is conspiring against the state and subject to prison or death, even to the point of your family members.

You seem to be referring to a totalitarian monstrosity evocative of the Soviet Union, not to communism as its principles have been described by actual advocates of communism. (Not results--that would obviously be unfair--but political and economic principles, that is, what policies a communist society would put into practice.)

There is a clear and definate separation between the working class and the privelaged - and you will never be able to change your class.

For what it's worth (not much insofar as we are actually intent upon discussing socialism and communism), upward mobility was far from impossible in the Soviet Union; expanding educational opportunities for the population was one of its successes, and the attitude it had toward the pre-revolutionary upper class in the first few decades (along with the rather horrible factor of the purges) enabled a massive influx of upwardly-mobile people throughout the bureaucracy and up to the highest rungs of the Soviet hierarchy.

In a socialist state, you again work for the state etc. But there is no class structure - any wealth you attain is distributed equally among the rest of the public.

Socialists envision socialized ownership, yes--thus, you work for "the state" or for some such collectively-owned entity--but equal distribution is a communist idea, not a socialist one. Plenty of socialists envision the maintenance of at least some income differentiation for the sake of labor incentives; the absence of a class structure is contained in the fact that there is no owning class separate from and above the workers, not that everyone's remuneration is equal.

Again, this is why it is possible to coherently outline versions of "market socialism" in which wages are determined in something resembling a labor market, though with the means of production still under public ownership.

The harder you work or the less you work has no bearing because the society in large (hence social-ist) will provide.

While a welfare state is not, strictly speaking, socialist or necessary for socialism, it is true that most socialists envision a socialized economy providing a variety of public benefits for free to the population. It is not true, however, that socialists envision this as the only or even (necessarily) the main source of income.

Speaking out is dissention and can have you put into a state reform program to make you compliant. Freedoms are little to non existent.

This has absolutely nothing to do with socialism or communism, just right-wing paranoia.

So why work your bum off to achieve when you will be taxed harder and higher to provide to those that desire to live off society and get away with it.

If you don't want to... don't. But don't keep whining about it; you have the choice.

I am not the scholar of all knowledge - but this is what I have seen in my world travels over the last 30 years and then in the private sector working overseas (outside the US).

Which is just a helpful reminder that anecdotal evidence does not constitute a substitute to actually knowing what you are talking about.

:rolleyes:

If you kept your mouth shut, you lived.

Not during the purges.

Because socialism is an inherently oppressive system - it takes away the economic freedom, the right to the products of your labor.

Any reasonable economic system gives people far, far more than the "products of [their] labor." This is a simple enough thing to see: the product of your labor, and your labor alone, is simply what you would produce if you were a hermit, and that is easily and massively dwarfed even on a per capita basis by any industrial economy.

They're evocative of what the socialists advertise their society to be.
But the thing is, in their core, they're still built on capitalism.

Yes, they are. And they are not socialist.

Have a black or a white president. Invade a white or a dark country. Lose economic freedoms (regulation) and personal freedoms (guns) or lose political freedoms (speech) and personal freedoms (gayrriage).

These choices are quite substantive ones, actually: to use myself as an example, I'd take Kosovo, regulation, and gun control over Iraq, censorship, and same-sex marriage bans any day, and as far as I am concerned the options are not even close.

What you seem to mean is that both options can be described in the same terms if you willfully and disingenuously choose to ignore their differences, but I can't say I particularly care.

You don't get to vote on "I want the republican party to relax on religion" or "I want the democrat party to stop going after guns". You only get a choice of an offered package.

Your view is too limited. You don't get to vote directly, true. But your opinion still matters: the reason the Republican Party emphasizes religion is because it perceives more political advantage (that is, votes) in doing so than in not doing so. Were voting demographics to shift, so, ultimately, would the Republican Party. By making up your mind and expressing it in your votes and your stated opinions, you influence that process.

Not that they won't be bought by the same people afterwards anyway.

Who buys the Republicans into religiosity? They benefit from church get-out-the-vote campaigns (prototypically democratic) more than campaign contributions; religiosity goes down with increased education, while income goes up....

Vote for the second ruling party that is mostly the same,

If the first ruling party makes a tragic error like putting trillions of dollars into a pointless and unnecessary war, the second ruling party is likely enough to point this out and take power from it in succeeding elections... even if circumstances on the ground make ending the matter seem impractical.

Well, they forgot luxury.

If by "luxury" you mean "actually providing for the population's needs and wants", yes. Both economic growth and social equality are pretty pointless without that.

But it's not certain if the country, hindered by an inferior socioeconomic system, could afford it.

You're framing the issue wrong. Could the Soviet Union, as it was, have afforded consumer goods? Perhaps not, though in the Khrushchev period they met with some success at that, as did those Eastern Bloc countries that made the attempt. But the very reason the Soviet Union as it was might have had difficulty affording it was because (among other things) it lacked democratic accountability.

If you kept your mouth shut, you lived.
Not necessarily; those killed in the purges or pogroms were not all political dissidents, even if they were labelled as such.

There were, quite clearly, classes within the USSR; whole sections of society who were advantaged or disadvantaged when compared to other sections of society. Indeed, the political ruling class -- the 'vanguard' -- were, by the very theory of Marxism-Leninism, a class above that of the proletariat; both economically and (in some respects) intellectually.

Any reasonable economic system gives people far, far more than the "products of [their] labor." This is a simple enough thing to see: the product of your labor, and your labor alone, is simply what you would produce if you were a hermit,
Or if you were a group of 50 people running a factory and bartering your products for those of others.

The right to the products of your labor - and that includes the right to freely exchange or sell them - is as inalienable as the rights to life, freedom and property.



These choices are quite substantive ones, actually: to use myself as an example, I'd take Kosovo, regulation, and gun control over Iraq, censorship, and same-sex marriage bans any day, and as far as I am concerned the options are not even close.
But you see, you get censorship either way. The reps will censor anti-war speech, the dems the political correctness. You get your freedoms defecated on either way, be it through PATRIOT or DMCA. You get to lose your rights either way, be it the right to own a gun or the right to stick your gun in the butt. You get a war either way, only Clinton was lucky enough to have a better excuse for it.





http://xs136.xs.to/xs136/09065/goofy284.gif



Who buys the Republicans into religiosity?
Not into religion. Religion and churches are lower down the food chain - it's what parties buy and sell. Above parties in the food chain are the zaibatsu or their Western equivalents. Corporate and criminal conglomerates. Halliburton and some other oil companies own the Republicans. Their competitors own the Democrats. Everyone has their price, and for a politician, selling himself is the only way to get the necessary support and money to be elected.



If the first ruling party makes a tragic error like putting trillions of dollars into a pointless and unnecessary war, the second ruling party is likely enough to point this out and take power from it in succeeding elections...
Exactly. So nothing changes - you get more of the same with a different label.

When both parties suck, and they usually do both suck, you change nothing. So you get to flip the parties. Which flip every 8 years anyway. That's not to mention that both parties constitute the government, not just the leading one.

"Tonight you finally get a change of underwear!"... [Chorus:"Hurray!"] ..."Prisoner #102805, exchange your underwear with prisoner #102806!"



You're framing the issue wrong. Could the Soviet Union, as it was, have afforded consumer goods? Perhaps not, though in the Khrushchev period they met with some success at that, as did those Eastern Bloc countries that made the attempt. But the very reason the Soviet Union as it was might have had difficulty affording it was because (among other things) it lacked democratic accountability.
And "democratic" accountability would help it how?

You would be able to vote for Stalin or Beria - how would it save you?

The reps will censor anti-war speech

That is total bullshit.


, the dems the political correctness.

So is that.

That is total bullshit.
Ever heard of First Amendment Zones?


So is that.
Go on TV and say "n1ggers" or "fags".

The right to the products of your labor - and that includes the right to freely exchange or sell them - is as inalienable as the rights to life, freedom and property...
...within a system that upholds the rights to life, freedom, property and the free exchange of labour.

Unless you can produce some dramatic argument that shows humans have a natural right to free exchange of labour?

Go on TV and say "n1ggers" or "fags".
Is it illegal to say such things, or merely highly chastised?

...within a system that upholds the rights to life, freedom, property and the free exchange of labour.
Unless you can produce some dramatic argument that shows humans have a natural right to free exchange of labour?
I can, but there'll be no drama.
Free exchange of labor and goods is naturally possible, like breathing, without any system. The protection of fairness of the exchange is a weaker version of the MAD, specifically that fighting will cause both more damage than it's worth.



Is it illegal to say such things, or merely highly chastised?
Likely illegal today. If you're lucky, a huge slander lawsuit, where you lose your house, so your kids are thrown out on the street and become drug addicts. If not, hate speech and a long term in prison, where you get to be a butt monkey, unable to find a job once you're released, and forced into a life of crime, though if luck turns to you again, your kids might take you into their gang.



[Yes, it's an exaggeration. But still, legal mechanisms exist today to ruin your life for calling things what they are.]

I can, but there'll be no drama.
Free exchange of labor and goods is naturally possible, like breathing, without any system. The protection of fairness of the exchange is a weaker version of the MAD, specifically that fighting will cause both more damage than it's worth.
Neither of these show that free exchange of labour is a natural right, only that free exchange of labour is possible and, perhaps, desireable.

I mean, shitting yourself is naturally possible without any system, but you haven't an inalienable right to shit your pants.

Likely illegal today.
I'm fairly certain it's not in the UK or US.

Otherwise why is Chris Rock (and inumerable other black or gay comedians) not locked up?

I'm fairly certain it's not in the UK or US.

It's not in the U.K.

Otherwise why is Chris Rock (and inumerable other black or gay comedians) not locked up?

Because of the Liberal Conspiracy.

Otherwise why is Chris Rock (and inumerable other black or gay comedians) not locked up?

Not to mention that south park just recently aired an episode with 40+ utterances of n*gger, and frequently makes use of the word fag.

Not to mention that south park just recently aired an episode with 40+ utterances of n*gger, and frequently makes use of the word fag.
A much better example.

Vault is perhaps confusing a society where terms like ****** are illegal, with a society where terms like ****** are seen as unacceptable in most instances and in which institutions self-censor.

Just as Jolt is doing, above.

I've been pondering an idea recently, and I've decided to try to spread it to the people of nationstates. Perhaps it's already been thought of and I'm behind, but it's new to me, so bear with me.

It is intersting how in American society, capitalism used to be, or still is, equated with patriotism. To be a communist used to be, or somewhat still is, considered unpatriotic. However, I find the opposite to be somewhat true; in a capitalistic system, a man works for himself, to earn his wages and bonuses. He is not motivated by his country or his fellow country men, only himself, only the all mighty dollar. However, in a communist society, people are (theoretically) motivated to work through love of their country and their countrymen, not their own intrests or own pay check.

Please note that I am not saying whether I am a patriot or an independent, or whether I am a capitalist or socialist, I am just sharing this idea with you, people of nationstates. What say you about this seemingly backword idea of patriotic capitalism? Any disagreements? Agreements?

Discuss.

The point is never that capitalism is patriotic. The point is that as patriots we are lovers of liberty. Patriotism to an American means that we love the idea of America. This idea consists to a large extent of the belief in liberty for all and equality.

Part of this concept is the idea that we have economic freedoms. This seems to be what "the pursuit of happiness" means in our Declaration of Independence. Defending the inalienable right of the individual to pursue happiness means that we are never going to compromise with the forces of communism that seek to deprive our fellow man of their God given human economic rights.

...their God given human economic rights.
So now economic rights are 'God given'?

I forget, which passage in the Bible ensures the modern capitalist state?

So now economic rights are 'God given'?

I forget, which passage in the Bible ensures the modern capitalist state?

It does not need to be in the Bible to be evidently God given. Human rights are God given because if they are not being violated the spirit of man does not stir the conscience of the people into rebellion. Where there is justice you will find peace and the flowering of man's potential. All flowers must come from seeds. In this case the seeds are found in the human soul. Since there can be no souls without God, we know that the human rights are the gifts of God.

Even if the atheists are correct that there is no God, there is still an objective justice or rather a just society that recognizes human rights as something that no tyrant may limit without doing so at his eventual peril.

When North Koreans are able to be free it will be because of a revolution that never would have happened had they not been oppressed for example. It is no coincidence that all of the European Kings who oppressed their people following the Napoleonic wars had their crowns (and often their lives) taken from them by their people. It was only those monarchs who gave into the will of the people that kept their crowns.

So now economic rights are 'God given'?

I forget, which passage in the Bible ensures the modern capitalist state?

Despite what I wrote earlier, perhaps the passage about men reaping what they sow might be on point although I am not the best Bible scholar out there.

It does not need to be in the Bible to be evidently God given.
On the contrary, I think it does need to be.

Otherwise you get unprovable, wooly arguments such as:

Human rights are God given because if they are not being violated the spirit of man does not stir the conscience of the people into rebellion. Where there is justice you will find peace and the flowering of man's potential. All flowers must come from seeds. In this case the seeds are found in the human soul. Since there can be no souls without God, we know that the human rights are the gifts of God.

Despite what I wrote earlier, perhaps the passage about men reaping what they sow might be on point although I am not the best Bible scholar out there.
Heh, I'm sure you could wrangle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" out of reaping what you sow.

I'm fairly certain it's not in the UK or US.

Otherwise why is Chris Rock (and inumerable other black or gay comedians) not locked up?

Because within the U.S., it's contextually illegal. If you're black, saying a certain N word is legal. Same if you're playing a racist character in a movie. If you're white, you say it on national television, and you're not playing a character, you could get charged with a hate crime.

However, a discussion of this and a number of other issues the U.S. has in the area is something I refuse to go into any length on.

Human rights are God given
No. Rights are a product of society, and society decides what rights humans can have and they cannot have. Society decided that we had a right to free speech, decided that blacks had the right to own themselves, and so on and so on. Those things were not decided by God.

Just as Jolt is doing, above.

******

Because within the U.S., it's contextually illegal. If you're black, saying a certain N word is legal. Same if you're playing a racist character in a movie. If you're white, you say it on national television, and you're not playing a character, you could get charged with a hate crime.
Your claiming there is a law on US federal or state statute books that criminalises the the use of the word '******'?

******
Clever.

Clever.

I worked it out the day Jolt started filtering back in September (was it September?) and proceeded to use it legitimately in the Technical forum where this was being discussed with the admins. I think I managed to use **** a couple of times too. It made me feel like a big man.

Your claiming there is a law on US federal or state statute books that criminalises the the use of the word '******'?

Racial epithets are covered under U.S. hate crimes laws as illegal. In practice, this is actually only enforced contextually, as it is only in certain contexts that it actually qualified as a hate crime and gets treated as illegal.

So, yes, the word is illegal.

Racial epithets are covered under U.S. hate crimes laws as illegal.
It's my understanding that, apart from slander/libel and incitement to violence, no speech is criminalised in the US.

In practice, this is actually only enforced contextually, as it is only in certain contexts that it actually qualified as a hate crime and gets treated as illegal.

So, yes, the word is illegal.
It appears that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio) SCOTUS disagrees with you.

Though if you've any evidence that the utterance of certain words regarding minorities is illegal, or that poor ol' Whitey is being persecuted unfairly, please do tell.

On the contrary, I think it does need to be.

Otherwise you get unprovable, wooly arguments such as:




Heh, I'm sure you could wrangle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" out of reaping what you sow.

You don't need to bother with that. Try Acts 2:44-45, for example:


44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.

I worked it out the day Jolt started filtering back in September (was it September?) and proceeded to use it legitimately in the Technical forum where this was being discussed with the admins. I think I managed to use **** a couple of times too. It made me feel like a big man.

I remember that. I recall that the NS contingent collectively trashed their admins so thoroughly they erased all traces of the thread.

Racial epithets are covered under U.S. hate crimes laws as illegal.

No, they aren't. That would almost certainly be a First Amendment violation.

In practice, this is actually only enforced contextually, as it is only in certain contexts that it actually qualified as a hate crime and gets treated as illegal.

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Potentially, you might mean that racial epithets can make another already-illegal act constitute a hate crime: I believe this is true, if they provide evidence for the element of "intent" necessary to convict someone of a hate crime. So what?

Potentially, also, you may be referring to "speech codes", which have nothing whatsoever to do with hate crime law, but rather are rules (not laws) set up by institutions (workplaces, universities) for conduct among their members. This case is admittedly more debatable, but if that's what you are referring to you have mischaracterized it somewhat, and it really has the character of an anti-harassment policy more than a restriction on freedom of expression in some abstract public forum.

Neither of these show that free exchange of labour is a natural right, only that free exchange of labour is possible and, perhaps, desireable.
Then produce proof that the right to life is a natural right.



I'm fairly certain it's not in the UK or US.
Otherwise why is Chris Rock (and inumerable other black or gay comedians) not locked up?
It is. Just because there's no blanket ban on the combination of letters doesn't mean it's legal. Clearly, comedies are safe. The "self-loathing" seems to be an absolute defense too. Quoting is almost surely OK. It's not a wordfilter.

But use these words in a serious context, without any clear defense, sufficiently publicly, and you well might get charged with a hate speech crime. Even if your speech wasn't overall stirring hate.



******
How unelegant. There's a much better solution. Just write the right phrase.

I LOVE NIGGΕRS.

You see. Oh, and, at that, you also need to be honest.

But use these words in a serious context, without any clear defense, sufficiently publicly, and you well might get charged with a hate speech crime.

No. You won't.

You are just plain wrong.

No. You won't.
You are just plain wrong.
I'm not. And even the link above proves that. You can not only be charged, but convicted for "hate speech". In some cases, it took SCOTUS to reverse the conviction. If the people in question didn't/couldn't take it that high, they'd very likely stay behind the bars.

You can not only be charged, but convicted for "hate speech".

Not legally. And with clear Supreme Court precedent, no court would buy it if some government attempted it.

So, just as abortion is legal, hate speech is too.

No, they aren't. That would almost certainly be a First Amendment violation.

The First Amendment protects the freedom to say what you wish. It doesn't protect you from the consequences of using that freedom.

And, yes, they are:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-849725.html
academic.udayton.edu/Race/03justice/crime16.htm
http://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/vermont-man-charged-with-hate-crime-for-something-the-reporter-cant-specify/

I didn't say they were illegal under federal law. I said they were illegal under hate crimes laws, which are currently the purview of the states.

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Nothing I said is that difficult to understand. I said it's enforced contextually. As in, the context in which the word is used determined whether or not it's prosecutable as a hate crime. If it's an African American using it, it's not. If it's a white guy? He's going to jail.

Despite what we may wish otherwise, race determines whether or not you can be prosecuted under certain laws within the U.S. for certain actions.

Potentially, you might mean that racial epithets can make another already-illegal act constitute a hate crime: I believe this is true, if they provide evidence for the element of "intent" necessary to convict someone of a hate crime. So what?

Nope. I mean the word itself is illegal. As in, you can be arrested, charged with a hate crime, and sent to jail for using it.

Potentially, also, you may be referring to "speech codes", which have nothing whatsoever to do with hate crime law, but rather are rules (not laws) set up by institutions (workplaces, universities) for conduct among their members. This case is admittedly more debatable, but if that's what you are referring to you have mischaracterized it somewhat, and it really has the character of an anti-harassment policy more than a restriction on freedom of expression in some abstract public forum.

I'm referring to actual, on-the-books laws. Laws which were passed, are enforced, are researched in academic institutions for studies and student papers, and which have made the news because of their enforcement and managed to be a source of controversy. Not to speech codes, ettiquette codes, forum rules, town ordinances, items that would get you popped across the lips by your mother, cryptic faux-Confuscism sayings, or anything like that. Actual laws.

And, yes, it is anti-harassment policy. I never even attempted to make it sound like anything else; thus, why I kept saying it's contextually-enforced.

It's my understanding that, apart from slander/libel and incitement to violence, no speech is criminalised in the US.


It appears that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio) SCOTUS disagrees with you.

Though if you've any evidence that the utterance of certain words regarding minorities is illegal, or that poor ol' Whitey is being persecuted unfairly, please do tell.

See my previous post.

It doesn't protect you from the consequences of using that freedom.

...yes, it does.

The logic is simple: if you punish people for the "consequences", you in effect restrain the initial expression as well.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-849725.html

"Three white men have been charged with committing a hate crime in Gaithersburg for allegedly berating a black man with racial slurs and pushing him into oncoming traffic, officials said yesterday."

academic.udayton.edu/Race/03justice/crime16.htm

"Thus, in the Minucci case, and contrary to the testimony offered in his defense, his use of the N-word while beating Glenn Moore provides evidence that Minucci's motivation was at least in part racially motivated. When the N-word is used by a White perpetrator in the context of committing a crime against a Black victim, this can, and should, be used as evidence that the crime was racially motivated."

http://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/vermont-man-charged-with-hate-crime-for-something-the-reporter-cant-specify/

Blog post, hmm?

From the article in question:

"That's when police say Cannon targeted 9-year-old Nahima Sheck Mohammed and her family with an intensified series of death threats and racial slurs. The prosecutor says it's a hate crime."

Racially-motivated death threats? Yeah, that's a hate crime. It's also not merely a racial epithet.

This is clumsy phrasing by the reporter, but does not prove anything about hate crime laws, which don't, in general, actually criminalize anything not already illegal: they just increase the penalties when illegal conduct (like death threats) is motivated by animus toward a protected group.

I didn't say they were illegal under federal law. I said they were illegal under hate crimes laws, which are currently the purview of the states.

Okay, first, they are neither illegal under state law nor illegal under federal law.

Second, you are wrong: there is federal hate crime legislation with respect to federal crimes, just as there is state hate crime legislation with respect to state crimes.

If it's an African American using it, it's not. If it's a white guy? He's going to jail.

All hate crime laws are race-neutral. If a black man assaults a white one and uses anti-white slurs, that would be evidence of an intent of racial animosity, too.

Despite what we may wish otherwise, race determines whether or not you can be prosecuted under certain laws within the U.S. for certain actions.

No, it doesn't.

Nope. I mean the word itself is illegal. As in, you can be arrested, charged with a hate crime, and sent to jail for using it.

Yet every single one of your sources indicates that I am right. And you are not.

:rolleyes:

I'm referring to actual, on-the-books laws. Laws which were passed, are enforced, are researched in academic institutions for studies and student papers, and which have made the news because of their enforcement and managed to be a source of controversy. Not to speech codes, ettiquette codes, forum rules, town ordinances, items that would get you popped across the lips by your mother, cryptic faux-Confuscism sayings, or anything like that. Actual laws.

Then I fear you are in the unfortunate position of just being completely and utterly wrong. I can no longer see any way to interpret your words in a way that is actually connected to the way hate crime laws actually work.

Merf. Let's just skip to the end. I'm in no shape to argue this further tonight.

Okay. I'm wrong. GG :)

Now, to find something silly to do.

Then produce proof that the right to life is a natural right.The right to life isn't a natural right; there's no such thing as a natural right.

Then produce proof that the right to life is a natural right.
Why should I?

I don't believe in natural rights; I don't believe there is a natural right to life.

It is. Just because there's no blanket ban on the combination of letters doesn't mean it's legal.
Eh?

'Just because something isn't illegal, doesn't mean it's legal'? Once again, if you can show a law on the statute books, at the federal or state level, that makes the utterance of certain words illegal, then do so.

Otherwise you don't have a leg to stand on.

But use these words in a serious context, without any clear defense, sufficiently publicly, and you well might get charged with a hate speech crime. Even if your speech wasn't overall stirring hate.
You might be charged, but you wouldn't be convicted.

As I have already shown (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14697570#post14697570), SCOTUS has ruled on this specific issue. Soheran has explained the difference between calling someone a ****** and harming them/intending to cause harm to them/inciting others to harm while using the term.

See the replies to Eluneyasa, above.

On the contrary, I think it does need to be.

Otherwise you get unprovable, wooly arguments such as:




Heh, I'm sure you could wrangle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" out of reaping what you sow.

This is not an issue that needs to be proven. There is nothing wrong with faith. I have faith in the concept of human rights. The only tricky part is determining what rights are fundamental and which are not.

Heh, I'm sure you could wrangle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" out of reaping what you sow.

I do not think so. However, there were some pretty pinko notions advanced by "Gee Whiz" (Sorry but I just love Aqua Teen Hunger Force) in the New Testament.