Fundamental Flaws of Communism

[ThePatriot]

I agree that there is much wrong with our current system, and many Socialist ideals sound good in theory, but in practice the result is places like North Korea and Soviet Russia.

I can see the advantages of an egalitarianist outlook. The problem is, it reduces innovation. Nobody would want to work hard. Our country would fall behind.

We need to lower the capital gains tax, and give more tax cuts to the rich. This way they will spend more money, and create a trickle-down effect. This was what gave our country so much financial success under Reagan.

We need increased funding for the military. In the long run, this will actually save us money because without a stronger military standing we can't protect our interests in other nations.

We need to drill more oil, especially in Alaska, and we can't let environmental concerns get in the way of progress.

[Nolan]

I agree that there is much wrong with our current system, and many Socialist ideals sound good in theory, but in practice the result is places like North Korea and Soviet Russia.

I can see the advantages of an egalitarianist outlook. The problem is, it reduces innovation. Nobody would want to work hard. Our country would fall behind.

We need to lower the capital gains tax, and give more tax cuts to the rich. This way they will spend more money, and create a trickle-down effect. This was what gave our country so much financial success under Reagan.

We need increased funding for the military. In the long run, this will actually save us money because without a stronger military standing we can't protect our interests in other nations.

We need to drill more oil, especially in Alaska, and we can't let environmental concerns get in the way of progress.

You're going to be restricted. But oh well.

All Socialist nations have had pros and cons, and it's our duty to learn from the successes and mistakes of the past. People talk about how much of a house of cards Socialism is, but actual Socialism economics worked very well during Stalin's time and shortly after. (it had problems when they started to implement market reforms) It also worked well under Mao, his policies brought China out of feudalism, just like in Russia. The question with Marxism is not 'is this feasible?' but 'how can we make it work even better?'

The Soviet Union industrialized, gave the Nazis 80% of their casualties, became a superpower, and put the first man in space all in under 40 years. That's pretty damn impressive if you ask me.

Why wouldn't people work in Communism?

[Rjevan]

It's really very late here so I will reply to some of your points later, just some short stuff.


I agree that there is much wrong with our current system, and many Socialist ideals sound good in theory, but in practice the result is places like North Korea and Soviet Russia.
Forget what you heard about Soviet Russia, while many communists would actually agree that it was terrible and so on one should realise that history is no sacrosanct holy text which is ultimately true. Where do we get the material about the USSR from? Right, the Nazis and the McCarthy Cold War guys. Oh, and people like Solzhenitsyn, who was a fascist and Khrushchev and Gorbachev who were both no communists but traitors.
And North Korea is no communist and no socialist state, no matter how often the media screams it is. Compare basic elements of a socialist state with the DPRK and you will see.


I can see the advantages of an egalitarianist outlook. The problem is, it reduces innovation. Nobody would want to work hard. Our country would fall behind.
This "people will be lazy and won't work anymore" has been addressed quite often, I'll talk about that later.


We need to lower the capital gains tax, and give more tax cuts to the rich. This way they will spend more money, and create a trickle-down effect. This was what gave our country so much financial success under Reagan.
It's good to hear that your country had financial success but I doubt that the ordinary people had. The rich getting richer for the sake of the whole community? Nah, not really.


We need increased funding for the military. In the long run, this will actually save us money because without a stronger military standing we can't protect our interests in other nations.
You mean invade them if they don't play as you like? And "your" interests might very well turn out to be the interests of some oil oligarches and weapon producers. If they are "the nation", fine, but getting shot for the sake of some capitalist's money bag is not that much fun actually.
Again, later more.


We need to drill more oil, especially in Alaska, and we can't let environmental concerns get in the way of progress.
Sure, because climate change is just made up by some hysterics, all those massive floods and hurricans and that stuff which increased in the last years musn't stand in the way.

[Nolan]

It's good to hear that your country had financial success but I doubt that the ordinary people had. The rich getting richer for the sake of the whole community? Nah, not really.


Don't fall for that, Trickle down is the biggest lie in economic history. Real wages have been going down ever since Reagan, and the middle class has been loosing ground since his policies were put in place.

[ThePatriot]

Why wouldn't people work in Communism?

Because they have no reason to. I'm not going to want to work if I'm forced into a job I don't like, or if someone is twice as lazy but gets paid as much as me. What we really need is tax cuts for producers and no more reliance on foreign oil.

[lombas]

I can see the advantages of an egalitarianist outlook. The problem is, it reduces innovation. Nobody would want to work hard. Our country would fall behind.

The US is falling behind now. Drastically.

Your gold stock's in China. Go figure.



We need to lower the capital gains tax, and give more tax cuts to the rich. This way they will spend more money, and create a trickle-down effect. This was what gave our country so much financial success under Reagan.

That's funny, taking into consideration the fact that under Reagan, government spending increased quite nicely. Tax cuts for the rich? For what reason? You think them buying more jewelery benefits the African diamond miner?



We need increased funding for the military. In the long run, this will actually save us money because without a stronger military standing we can't protect our interests in other nations.

You improve trade by investing in the military? What a brilliant idea.

Seriously though, the US military has never been deflated after the second world war. It's about time you do, though.



We need to drill more oil, especially in Alaska, and we can't let environmental concerns get in the way of progress.

Why do we "need to"? You want to become "independent"? How ridiculous.

[danyboy27]

I agree that there is much wrong with our current system, and many Socialist ideals sound good in theory, but in practice the result is places like North Korea and Soviet Russia.
.
state capitalism buddy, that all it was. Plus there was so much elitism in those system you have to wonder why people still call those system communists.





We need to lower the capital gains tax, and give more tax cuts to the rich. This way they will spend more money, and create a trickle-down effect. This was what gave our country so much financial success under Reagan.

fuck you man. Seriously. the rich already fuck me over has a worker, for the time that capitalist system exist, i dont see the harm into taxing them.



We need increased funding for the military. In the long run, this will actually save us money because without a stronger military standing we can't protect our interests in other nations.

LOLOLOLWHUT that fascist. anyway, if you want a better army you dont need to put money in it, you have to manage it more efficiently. btw this money come from those taxes you want to cut.




We need to drill more oil, especially in Alaska, and we can't let environmental concerns get in the way of progress.

yea fuck nature, we have plenty other ecosystem to fuck over anyway. Hoo wait....

[Nolan]

Because they have no reason to. I'm not going to want to work if I'm forced into a job I don't like, or if someone is twice as lazy but gets paid as much as me. What we really need is tax cuts for producers and no more reliance on foreign oil.

Income equality is not part of Socialism, for starters.
I live under capitalism and I have been forced into a job I don't like. I still work. The boss inherited the business, and he gets to extract my surplus value. He just sits on his ass all day ordering us around.

[lombas]

Because they have no reason to. I'm not going to want to work if I'm forced into a job I don't like, or if someone is twice as lazy but gets paid as much as me. What we really need is tax cuts for producers and no more reliance on foreign oil.

What does reliance on foreign oil got to do with incentives for worker productivity?

1) "Lazy people" get paid in capitalist countries as well. I'm a government official getting paid like hell and sure not as productive as the newspaper man across the street.

2) I don't believe people should work twice as much as me. If they decide to do so, it's for their own happiness.

3) No one should be unemployed.

4) Being "forced into a job" is a very lousy excuse. You think those kids sewing your t-shirt in Vietnam love what they do?

[ThePatriot]

You think them buying more jewelery benefits the African diamond miner?


Thats how it works. They're not going to just buy African Diamonds, however. More money spent = more jobs.


fuck you man. Seriously. the rich already fuck me over has a worker, for the time that capitalist system exist, i dont see the harm into taxing them.

It's your fault the rich are fucking you over. How about we discuss things civilly.


LOLOLOLWHUT that fascist. anyway, if you want a better army you dont need to put money in it, you have to manage it more efficiently. btw this money come from those taxes you want to cut.
You can only do so much with management, then you have to increase spending. A perfectly managed army of flying squirrels isn't going to do crap.

[lombas]

Thats how it works. They're not going to just buy African Diamonds, however. More money spent = more jobs.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Search for a graphic portraying real wage increase versus profit increase.

[Nolan]

It's your fault the rich are fucking you over.


You heard that right. :rolleyes:

[ThePatriot]

What does reliance on foreign oil got to do with incentives for worker productivity?

1) "Lazy people" get paid in capitalist countries as well. I'm a government official getting paid like hell and sure not as productive as the newspaper man across the street.

2) I don't believe people should work twice as much as me. If they decide to do so, it's for their own happiness.

3) No one should be unemployed.

4) Being "forced into a job" is a very lousy excuse. You think those kids sewing your t-shirt in Vietnam love what they do?

1} Yea, but not as much as a socialist country. There even if I sit around all day you'll have to give me a job and provide me with things I don't deserve.

2} I don't think you understood my point here.

3}If they are lazy as hell, then they deserve it.

4}Again, I don't think you understood my point.

[lombas]

1} Yea, but not as much as a socialist country. There even if I sit around all day you'll have to give me a job and provide me with things I don't deserve.

2} I don't think you understood my point here.

3}If they are lazy as hell, then they deserve it.

4}Again, I don't think you understood my point.

I don't think you understand all too much from socialist thinking or my answers, for starters.

This already showed from your opening post:



and many Socialist ideals sound good in theory, but in practice the result is places like North Korea and Soviet Russia.

[ThePatriot]

Seems I've been restricted. Seems like kinda of a fascist thing to do, so much for free speech.

[Weezer]

Seems I've been restricted. Seems like kinda of a fascist thing to do, so much for free speech.

Hey, we don't make the decisions, go gripe to the admins, not this thread.

[ThePatriot]

I don't think you understand all too much from socialist thinking or my answers, for starters.


So you gonna respond to what I said or dance around it?

Why would most people work hard, innovate, or generally give a crap about their job?

[mykittyhasaboner]

Seems I've been restricted. Seems like kinda of a fascist thing to do, so much for free speech.

Learn the definition of fascism.

[lombas]

Seems I've been restricted. Seems like kinda of a fascist thing to do, so much for free speech.

Freedom of speech is a "fixed idea" according to Stirner.

Also, you should love you being restricted. It's a matter of private property, the decentralisation of power, local justice, &c. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, doesn't it?

[ThePatriot]

Freedom of speech is a "fixed idea" according to Stirner.

Also, you should love you being restricted. It's a matter of private property, the decentralisation of power, local justice, &c. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, doesn't it?

Still waiting for a response. To my points.

[lombas]

Why would most people work hard, innovate, or generally give a crap about their job?

On the one hand, if you claim people in capitalist countries only work hard, innovate and generally give a crap about their job because they're forced to do it (or be ostracized materially), that would make a pretty f*cked up system.

On the other hand, if you claim people in socialist countries wouldn't work hard, innovate, or generally give crap about their job because it would be hard to make zillion bucks and own a Maserati, you overestimate the amount of jobs giving you a zillion bucks or a Maserati and the amount of incentives the private sector gives. For example, the academic world is largely government-oriented yet delivers most innovations.

[ThePatriot]

On the one hand, if you claim people in capitalist countries only work hard, innovate and generally give a crap about their job because they're forced to do it (or be ostracized materially), that would make a pretty f*cked up system.

They arent forced to in capatalism, they are in communism, and it does make an F'd up system.

[lombas]

Still waiting for a response. To my points.

I'm sorry, I work for an ultra-bureaucratic intergovernmental institution. Bit on the late side of things, mostly.

[lombas]

They arent forced to in capatalism, they are in communism, and it does make an F'd up system.

No one is forced to work in capitalist countries? That's absurd. Hypocritical at least.

[ThePatriot]

No one is forced to work in capitalist countries? That's absurd. Hypocritical at least.

No, it isnt. I dont have a job right now, and nobody is making me get one.

[Ravachol]

Because they have no reason to. I'm not going to want to work if I'm forced into a job I don't like, or if someone is twice as lazy but gets paid as much as me. What we really need is tax cuts for producers and no more reliance on foreign oil.

Boy am I lucky all those people under capitalism work in jobs they like. Like errr McDonalds, Bus Drivers, Garbage collectors, cleaners,etc :rolleyes: Those people sure did choose their job because they 'like' it.

Also, who said anything about full income equality? It really depends on your strain of revolutionary leftism. I for one, don't argue in favor of full income equality.



What we really need is tax cuts for producers


You do realize the only producers that actually exist are the working class right?



It's your fault the rich are fucking you over. How about we discuss things civilly.


Is it now? Thanks for the elaborate analysis of socio-economic conditions under early 21st century western Capitalism. :laugh:

Also, obvious troll is obvious.

[lombas]

No, it isnt. I dont have a job right now, and nobody is making me get one.

Then either you are well off, living off wellfare, or in the near future getting in troubles.

[ThePatriot]

Then either you are well off, living off wellfare, or in the near future getting in troubles.

The point is, nobody is forcing me to get a job.

[lombas]

The point is, nobody is forcing me to get a job.

Are you well off?

[ThePatriot]

Are you well off?


That's not the point. stop trolling. The point is nobody is forced to work.

[lombas]

That's not the point. stop trolling. The point is nobody is forced to work.

I'm not trolling, I'm asking for your reason not to work. You are the one starting about incentives.

[GPDP]

The guy's an obvious troll, but for the love of fuck, you all should at least have the intellectual decency of establishing that in communism, people wouldn't be forced to work either, instead of throwing tu quo que fallacies ad infinitum at the failures of capitalism.

[lombas]

The guy's an obvious troll, but for the love of fuck, you all should at least have the intellectual decency of establishing that in communism, people wouldn't be forced to work either, instead of throwing tu quo que fallacies ad infinitum at the failures of capitalism.

You won't hear me arguing that people shouldn't work if they don't want to unless they bear the consequences...

And I don't like the "either" in your post. Just a thought.

[ThePatriot]

I'm not trolling, I'm asking for your reason not to work. You are the one starting about incentives.

Thats my point. I have an incentive to work in a capalist society. Im going to have to work hard if I want to have a decent life. Im communism, I slack off and still get provided for.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I agree that there is much wrong with our current system, and many Socialist ideals sound good in theory, but in practice the result is places like North Korea and Soviet Russia.

I can see the advantages of an egalitarianist outlook. The problem is, it reduces innovation. Nobody would want to work hard. Our country would fall behind.

We need to lower the capital gains tax, and give more tax cuts to the rich. This way they will spend more money, and create a trickle-down effect. This was what gave our country so much financial success under Reagan.

We need increased funding for the military. In the long run, this will actually save us money because without a stronger military standing we can't protect our interests in other nations.

We need to drill more oil, especially in Alaska, and we can't let environmental concerns get in the way of progress.


Moron.

Do me a favour and look up "Anarchist Spain".

Tell me the people in Catalonia and Aragon didn't work hard.

[lombas]

Thats my point. I have an incentive to work in a capalist society. Im going to have to work hard if I want to have a decent life. Im communism, I slack off and still get provided for.

However, most people in capitalist society work hard and don't get a decent living. And who says that in a socialist country you can just do nothing and be totally "pampered"?

[ThePatriot]

Moron.

Do me a favour and look up "Anarchist Spain".

Tell me the people in Catalonia and Aragon didn't work hard..

The people in Catalonia and Aragon didn't work hard

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

I agree that there is much wrong with our current system, and many Socialist ideals sound good in theory, but in practice the result is places like North Korea and Soviet Russia.

If they're good in theory then they are good in practice, but the fact is, the theories never been put into practice before. North Korea is not socialist and Soviet Russia had only a few socialist characteristics. Cuba is probably the country that is closest to socialism right now and it's actually doing very well.


I can see the advantages of an egalitarianist outlook. The problem is, it reduces innovation. Nobody would want to work hard. Our country would fall behind.

It doesn't reduce innovation - what makes you say that? The incentive argument keeps being brought up, but it's incorrect. You're also assuming that you're in competition with the rest of the world: ''our country would fall behind''? It isn't a race.


We need to lower the capital gains tax, and give more tax cuts to the rich. This way they will spend more money, and create a trickle-down effect. This was what gave our country so much financial success under Reagan.

:laugh: The trickle down effect was the biggest con in economic history. By wanting financial success for your country you're missing the point of communism. It isn't about financial ''success''.


We need increased funding for the military. In the long run, this will actually save us money because without a stronger military standing we can't protect our interests in other nations.

By ''interests in other nations'' I assume you're talking about imperialism?


We need to drill more oil, especially in Alaska, and we can't let environmental concerns get in the way of progress.

But surely environmental concerns will get in the way of progress whether you like it or not? Progress will stop as soon as nature stops functioning the way it normally does.

You're just coming here to wind people up. Everything about you - your username, your arguments - are so stereotypical. I don't believe that you genuinely think all of these things.

[GPDP]

You won't hear me arguing that people shouldn't work if they don't want to unless they bear the consequences...

And I don't like the "either" in your post. Just a thought.

What's at stake in this conversation (and it's more of a shouting match than a conversation by this point, really) is the notion that people are forced to work at gunpoint. That is what worries the troll, and it's what he is probably thinking of when we speak about being forced to work.

Yes, it's true people are forced to work under capitalism, but it isn't as if someone bursts into a house, puts gun to your head, and tells you to work or else. Instead, what forces them to work is necessity, because if you don't work, unless you live on welfare or other kind of safety net like a relative's income, you starve and die. And chances are high they will acquire a job they don't like with a boss they will hate. Social and economic arrangements force that upon the vast majority of the population. Nevertheless, they are not physically beaten into working like slaves.

What I am saying you should do is instead of just going "well, capitalism forces people to work," you also establish that no such at-gunpoint forced labor would go on under communism either. If it did, it wouldn't be communism. By just engaging in tu quo que fallacies, all you do is reinforce the notion that we do believe in forced labor, and are desperately engaging in apologetics for it. It gives the opposing poster the idea that he's right about us.

[Nolan]

.

The people in Catalonia and Aragon didn't work hard

boo troll:thumbdown:

[lombas]

What's at stake in this conversation (and it's more of a shouting match than a conversation by this point, really) is the notion that people are forced to work at gunpoint. That is what worries the troll, and it's what he is probably thinking of when we speak about being forced to work.

I'm aware of the libertarian rhetoric.



Yes, it's true people are forced to work under capitalism, but it isn't as if someone bursts into a house, puts gun to your head, and tells you to work or else.

In fact, this happens in quite a few capitalist countries. In countries with a well developed welfare system, this can also be the case.



Instead, what forces them to work is necessity, because if you don't work, unless you live on welfare or other kind of safety net like a relative's income, you starve and die. And chances are high they will acquire a job they don't like with a boss they will hate. Social and economic arrangements force that upon the vast majority of the population. Nevertheless, they are not physically beaten into working like slaves.

Tant mieux.



What I am saying you should do is instead of just going "well, capitalism forces people to work," you also establish that no such at-gunpoint forced labor would go on under communism either. If it did, it wouldn't be communism. By just engaging in tu quo que fallacies, all you do is reinforce the notion that we do believe in forced labor, and are desperately engaging in apologetics for it. It gives the opposing poster the idea that he's right about us.

You may have a point. Though I never said that (a) people would be forced to work "under communism" or (b) people would not be forced to work "under communism" in (c) these and those conditions.

[danyboy27]

It's your fault the rich are fucking you over. How about we discuss things civilly.


no its not. you dont even know my story. Some people are born with advantages and other arnt. that the way the system work man. of course you will have some exception, those 1 /10 000 people who actually started piss poor and finally made it.




You can only do so much with management, then you have to increase spending. A perfectly managed army of flying squirrels isn't going to do crap.
logistics and management save more money than the cost of it. Innovation arnt necessarly costly btw. I know a thing or 2 about it, i have been innovating various thing where i woks, most of them didnt cost a freaking dollars. We love to put money in the military beccause it look good, not beccause this is necessarly effective. For exemple do you guy need a f-22, the most badass multi million plane in the world when the cold war is finished?
even if things goes badly with china or whatever country in the world the nukes will goes off way before the need of those planes.

the usa will never invade china, and china will never invade he us. get over it.

[Muzk]

Now I've only read about 1/8 of this thread, but here goes.

Marx himself said everyone is forced to work in socialism! Being a lazy bum is no excuse for living off of the community. Hard? Take it as it is. Communism=Together, not lazy sitting around and waiting for others to get your food.

Btw, you are indirectly forced to work or to starve. And if first world countries didn't have welfare or (the chance to beg), the streets would smell because of the rotting bodies.

Capitalism : You're forced to work your ass off for a small wage, your boss is some bourgeoise.
Socialism : You're forced to work (not quite sure about how hard the work is, it's subjective nevertheless, just to get everyones need done, and maybe build guns to fight the remaining capitalist countries :P), your boss is the community! So, you're like your own boss, but you're dependent on the community just as much as the community depends on you. Forcing people that are able to work is needed. Being lazy is no excuse. (sickness is, of course, another thing, obviously)

Btw, maybe it's a bad example, but in the former GDR they worked hard as hell, even though there was, the way you put it, no "reason" to work. The people worked together to keep up with their capitalist backed neighbor.

3:19 in the morning and I probably fucked my post up as always, the way they make no sense etc...

[Weezer]

.

The people in Catalonia and Aragon didn't work hard

:rolleyes:

Really?

[#FF0000]

Everyone in this thread except for GDPD is fucking stupid as all hell.

I'm kidding, sort of. Most of the arguments around here are pretty weak and it's really frustrating.

Anyway, I'll address the initial points the OP posted, since I can't really wade through the whole thing and pick out each question.

First off, people wouldn't be forced to work. It's that simple. Really GDPD addressed this the best, I think.

Second, the "reduces innovation" thing is a myth. For almost all of human history, progress has been made for necessity and convenience, and not specifically for more cash. And it isn't as if people tinkering in their workshops are the primary source of innovation and progress now anyway. It is now almost always a team of folks with government funding. But anyway...

The trickle down economic theory, that made things so much better under Reagan. Huge myth. Reagan turned a big surplus into a massive deficit during his time, and brought with him a huge, huge increase in the gap between the rich and the poor.

And lastly, the military issue. I really don't know where to begin with this. It seems so counter to basic sense, and really, just common decency. It's too easy to go into the moral and emotional side of it so we'll just do cost-value analysis.

We increase funding to the military, make our armed forces stronger, so me and my brothers and sisters and fellow workers get to go, or have our relatives and friends go to possibly die so companies can bleed 3rd world economies dry and so I can get some cheaper bananas and shoes.

Doesn't seem worth it to me as a worker, boyo.


Seems I've been restricted. Seems like kinda of a fascist thing to do, so much for free speech.

It's something we had to put in place to keep every thread in the main forum from turning into capitalism v. communism. This is a board specifically for leftists to discuss leftism, not a general political forum. It isn't our fault that people can't stay on topic.

[danyboy27]

Everyone in this thread except for GDPD is fucking stupid as all hell.


:(

[#FF0000]

:(

Except for you, of course. :cool:

[Drace]

We need to drill more oil, especially in Alaska, and we can't let environmental concerns get in the way of progress.

How is environmental destruction progressive?

[Jimmie Higgins]

What I am saying you should do is instead of just going "well, capitalism forces people to work," you also establish that no such at-gunpoint forced labor would go on under communism either. If it did, it wouldn't be communism. By just engaging in tu quo que fallacies, all you do is reinforce the notion that we do believe in forced labor, and are desperately engaging in apologetics for it. It gives the opposing poster the idea that he's right about us.

Right. The difference between a worker revolution and past revolutions in class society is that rather than a minority class coming to power, the majority class will be in power. This means there will necessarily be more democracy and more collective decision making than any revolution in the past.

The reason that this did not exist in the so-called "socialist" "republics" and "democracies" is because in Russia, the working class was weak and small and the revolution failed. In other so-called socialist countries, there was not even an attempt at revolution by workers - most of the time USSR style systems (what I would call state-capitalism) was imposed from above while workers were offered reforms (if that). In these examples the workers did not control production directly.

However, there are many cases where capitalist countries have forced people to work at the end of a gun. In Latin America, for example, Pinocette's "free-market" reforms (the kinds the OP said we need more of here) were not possible without the use of brutal force not unlike the worst examples in Stalinist countries. The free-market could not exist without the brutal repression of the labor and radical movements.

In the US there is the Taft-heartly act which GW Bush evoked as a threat to striking dockworkers... this gives the US government the power to "force" workers to work and the dockworkers were told to accept this or the national guard would be sent to force them back to work.

So, for me, forced labor is not due to some particular ideology in of itself, it is due to a minority class (capitalists or state-capitalists) needing to make workers go against their own interests and desires.

[Valeofruin]

Disregard my last post.. this thread DOES have potential:

I agree that there is much wrong with our current system, and many Socialist ideals sound good in theory, but in practice the result is places like North Korea and Soviet Russia.

I can see the advantages of an 'pure' egalitarianist outlook. The problem is, it reduces innovation. Nobody would want to work hard. Our country would fall behind.

We need to lower the personal income tax, and give more tax increases to the rich. This way the middle class will spend more money, and create a trickle-up effect. This was what gave our country so much financial success under Clinton.

We need increased funding for the welfare. In the long run, this will actually save us money because without a stronger lower class we can't protect our interests in other nations.

We need to erect more wind farms, especially in Nebraska, and we can't let conservative concerns get in the way of progress.

/thread

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I agree that there is much wrong with our current system, and many Socialist ideals sound good in theory, but in practice the result is places like North Korea and Soviet Russia.

These are only two examples of individual nations making some attempt at 'socialism.' In truth any contemporary path to socialism would look as different from those examples as Russia in 1917 does to modern Russia.


I can see the advantages of an egalitarianist outlook. The problem is, it reduces innovation. Nobody would want to work hard. Our country would fall behind.How so? As has probably been stated before Soviet Russia or Maoist China industrialized under 'communism,' but I understand those are bad examples.

So let's just go with the fact that this BS (that nobody will work if they aren't threatened with homelessness or starvation if they don't) was said in opposition to the creation of welfare, food stamps programs, the minimum wage, even the 40 hour work week. So far it's turned out to be, well, a lot of BS.


We need to lower the capital gains tax, and give more tax cuts to the rich. This way they will spend more money, and create a trickle-down effect. This was what gave our country so much financial success under Reagan. Why?

Why should I have to pay more taxes on every dollar that I earn through sweat and blood than someone who earns a dollar sitting in front of their computer, trading stocks? I mean, in one part of your argument you state that an egalitarian society would end innovation, and yet at the same time you call for those who labor in the field to pay the share of those who get fat on the profit.

It rewards those who do the least for society and not those who actually go out and build it.

I'll put up a counter proposal: Instead of the capital gains tax, all capital gains will be viewed as what it really is: Income. Therefore, if you're a day trader and earn $100k/year off of your trading, you pay the same amount in taxes as a welder who makes $100k/year.

Roth IRA's and other retirement accounts (with a $ limit) will be unaffected, of course.


We need increased funding for the military. In the long run, this will actually save us money because without a stronger military standing we can't protect our interests in other nations.Wrong again. We need to refocus the military on the jobs it may actually have to do and not keep upgrading to fight World Wars III-XII.

Take the F-22 for example. We've paid billions in contracts for it. And it is a technological marvel. However, for the billions spent the Air Force will never use it for the purpose it was designed (Total Air Force pilots with an air-to-air victory: Zero). Even if I did support our current wars, it would make much more sense to invest in attack helicopters or unmanned drones which would come at a fraction of the price and would actually be useful.

Fuck, why does the air force even have fighter planes? It's an interesting question if you ask me, since they never use them and the only number of fighters they'd really need would be bomber escorts.


We need to drill more oil, especially in Alaska, and we can't let environmental concerns get in the way of progress.Well, I'll agree with you that the liberal desire to save the planet from our CO2 emissions is a bit disturbing, especially now they're actually talking about pledging money to solve this bullshit crisis. With that said, however, oil is a commodity that will run out and we should be looking to adapt to that reality.

Don't get me wrong, however. I cannot stand these doomsayers, post-modernist types who really want some apocalyptic nightmare to come forth in their heart of hearts. Even if we could change the temperature drastically it's just as well we could change ourselves to move along with it.

We're not fucking dinosaurs, nor are we wholly mammoths, ready to fall over and die should the ice melt. We're Homo fucking Sapiens and we don't adapt to our environment. We make the environment adapt to us.

[ComradeRed22'91]

Yeah, he's a troll, which is sad for his case. But here's my take on it.

North Korea is not a state i defend, state-capitalist it was, but i certainly don't think it was better off before that. and it's important to know that SK was a dictatorship. The USSR was very progressive (though they weren't wrong all of the time) and as was pointed out, was turned into a superpower when it had previously been a wreck, (while Gorbachv's 'free market' drove it into chaos) and sent the first man, woman, and dog into space. And gave us Tetris. :)

The whole 'no incentive to work' thing is something some right-wing nut pulled out of their ass to pretty much find a reason to put down an equal-pay system. As was pointed out, this country contributes more for less. Reagan's presidency saw a deficit, a decline in real-hourly wages, a lower median family income, and so fourth, and the support of murderous neo-nazi dictatorships in Latin America.

You are more or less saying both "we need to care less about the planet and more about money" and "let's tax the poor more and the rich less" disguised in comfortably packed PC language.

[The Red Next Door]

You sir are a fucking idiot, do us a favor and go R-E-A-D. Then come back.

[btpound]

I agree that there is much wrong with our current system, and many Socialist ideals sound good in theory, but in practice the result is places like North Korea and Soviet Russia.

First of all, I would like to first point out that there is no simple reason why countries and societies develop the way that they do. It is a incredibly complex process that you cannot just ingest by simply gleaning the surface. You have to go deep into it and take a critical look at the events that play out. I am not saying this to belittle you, or make it seem like there is a complicated process that you can't understand, i am simply explaining that the real truth of the matter cannot be determined by a tacit glance. If you look at NK and the USSR, and other countries like it, you see that an interesting series of conditions were present. Firstly, these are third world countries. They have a low development of productive forces on a national level and a small proletariat, that is working class. A fundemental criteria for socialism is there has to be enough for everyone. Otherwise it just goes back to "the same shit" to quote Marx. By "same shit" he means the class antagonisms that stem from the struggle between the working class and the capitalist class. Except here, it developed out of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Also, many of these countries in the so-called "soviet bloc" abopted the Russian model of socialism. This had a great deal of flaws with it. It focused more on heavy industry which made the divisions between city and country lopsided. It focused on one-man-management instead of democratic workers control. It tried to motivate the workers with bonuses and piecemeal intead of focusing on what it was they were actually acieving with the work itself. All these conditions, and many more, lead to the resurgence of class antagonisms in many of there countries and the counter-revolution from within.


I can see the advantages of an egalitarianist outlook. The problem is, it reduces innovation. Nobody would want to work hard. Our country would fall behind.

This is simply not true at all. Imagine how economy would be diffrent under a socialist model. A model in which we worked toward meeting the needs of working people instead of the rich. This society works to meet their needs, not ours. They want bombs we build bombs. They want large mansions and estates, we build mansions and estates. They want churches, we build churches. Nevermind that the people who are building it can't feed their children. Or themselves. Nevemind that they are living paycheck to paycheck praying they don't get sick or seriously injured because they can't afford to miss work, let alone pay for the hospital bills. All these billions to pay for yachts, and limosines, and strech hummers, and churches, and tanning beds, while there are people down the street with a sign in their hands standing on the side of the road begging for change because no one will hire them and they live on the streets. This is the kind of progress capitalism brings to us. This is what will "hold us back". The whole idea is simply not true. I'll give you another example. Around the turn of the century Nicola Tesla was hired by JP Morgan to work on a system that would provide the nation with AC power to bring electricity into peoples homes for the first time. Tesla worked out a machine that would transmit electricity all over the world. But when Morgan found out that he coulden't put a meter on it he fired tesla. Tesla was blackballed. One of the greatest thinkers in world history is thrown out on the streets and eventually dies in a shit motel in NYC. This is capitalism. This is it's morality. And this is it's progress.


We need to lower the capital gains tax, and give more tax cuts to the rich. This way they will spend more money, and create a trickle-down effect. This was what gave our country so much financial success under Reagan.

How could we have forgotten the great contributions of Mr. Reagan. Who brought are country into such a glorious prosperity and made the world safe for democracy. Flash forward about 20 years and look at the world now. Between 1980 and 1990 the american debt grew from 909 billion to over 3 trillion. Since then it has grown to over 10 billion. And how do they pay for this massive bill? Through taxes! And who pays those taxes? Not the rich. Because if we tax them they they'll stop trowing it down to us by the bucket in huge clumps like they do now. No. It's the working class who pays the bill. It's always the working class who pays the bill. And now capitalism is leading us off the side of a cliff. Because after all they always have us to break the fall.


We need increased funding for the military. In the long run, this will actually save us money because without a stronger military standing we can't protect our interests in other nations.

The capitalists have gutted almost every social benifit project that exists in America so they can pay for their growing millitary budget. They pull the funding from education, public development, welfare, and anything else they want to suck dry so they can build weapons. After all, what do they care about public education? They can afford private school. What do they care about parks? Or healthcare? Or food? They've got plenty of it!


We need to drill more oil, especially in Alaska, and we can't let environmental concerns get in the way of progress.

Why do we even use oil at all? Why do we spend billions of dollars at the pump evry year? Why is it that in Venzuala gas is less than 25 cents a gallon? Not because they've "got so much of it". It's expencive in the Middle east just like here. It because they nationalized their industry. It's because they said no to big buisness and yes to the working class. If capitalism weren't around, fossil fuels would be an antique. Now who's standing in the way or progress?

[#FF0000]

You sir are a fucking idiot, do us a favor and go R-E-A-D. Then come back.

Hey, consider this a verbal warning. Don't just flame, it adds nothing to the discussion. If you must, at least make it funny.

[Chambered Word]

And gave us Tetris. :)

This is a bloody excellent quote. :D

[Green Dragon]

First of all, I would like to first point out that there is no simple reason why countries and societies develop the way that they do. It is a incredibly complex process that you cannot just ingest by simply gleaning the surface. You have to go deep into it and take a critical look at the events that play out. I am not saying this to belittle you, or make it seem like there is a complicated process that you can't understand, i am simply explaining that the real truth of the matter cannot be determined by a tacit glance. If you look at NK and the USSR, and other countries like it, you see that an interesting series of conditions were present. Firstly, these are third world countries. They have a low development of productive forces on a national level and a small proletariat, that is working class. A fundemental criteria for socialism is there has to be enough for everyone. Otherwise it just goes back to "the same shit" to quote Marx. By "same shit" he means the class antagonisms that stem from the struggle between the working class and the capitalist class. Except here, it developed out of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Also, many of these countries in the so-called "soviet bloc" abopted the Russian model of socialism. This had a great deal of flaws with it. It focused more on heavy industry which made the divisions between city and country lopsided. It focused on one-man-management instead of democratic workers control. It tried to motivate the workers with bonuses and piecemeal intead of focusing on what it was they were actually acieving with the work itself. All these conditions, and many more, lead to the resurgence of class antagonisms in many of there countries and the counter-revolution from within.



This is simply not true at all. Imagine how economy would be diffrent under a socialist model. A model in which we worked toward meeting the needs of working people instead of the rich. This society works to meet their needs, not ours. They want bombs we build bombs. They want large mansions and estates, we build mansions and estates. They want churches, we build churches. Nevermind that the people who are building it can't feed their children. Or themselves. Nevemind that they are living paycheck to paycheck praying they don't get sick or seriously injured because they can't afford to miss work, let alone pay for the hospital bills. All these billions to pay for yachts, and limosines, and strech hummers, and churches, and tanning beds, while there are people down the street with a sign in their hands standing on the side of the road begging for change because no one will hire them and they live on the streets. This is the kind of progress capitalism brings to us. This is what will "hold us back". The whole idea is simply not true. I'll give you another example. Around the turn of the century Nicola Tesla was hired by JP Morgan to work on a system that would provide the nation with AC power to bring electricity into peoples homes for the first time. Tesla worked out a machine that would transmit electricity all over the world. But when Morgan found out that he coulden't put a meter on it he fired tesla. Tesla was blackballed. One of the greatest thinkers in world history is thrown out on the streets and eventually dies in a shit motel in NYC. This is capitalism. This is it's morality. And this is it's progress.



How could we have forgotten the great contributions of Mr. Reagan. Who brought are country into such a glorious prosperity and made the world safe for democracy. Flash forward about 20 years and look at the world now. Between 1980 and 1990 the american debt grew from 909 billion to over 3 trillion. Since then it has grown to over 10 billion. And how do they pay for this massive bill? Through taxes! And who pays those taxes? Not the rich. Because if we tax them they they'll stop trowing it down to us by the bucket in huge clumps like they do now. No. It's the working class who pays the bill. It's always the working class who pays the bill. And now capitalism is leading us off the side of a cliff. Because after all they always have us to break the fall.



The capitalists have gutted almost every social benifit project that exists in America so they can pay for their growing millitary budget. They pull the funding from education, public development, welfare, and anything else they want to suck dry so they can build weapons. After all, what do they care about public education? They can afford private school. What do they care about parks? Or healthcare? Or food? They've got plenty of it!



Why do we even use oil at all? Why do we spend billions of dollars at the pump evry year? Why is it that in Venzuala gas is less than 25 cents a gallon? Not because they've "got so much of it". It's expencive in the Middle east just like here. It because they nationalized their industry. It's because they said no to big buisness and yes to the working class. If capitalism weren't around, fossil fuels would be an antique. Now who's standing in the way or progress?\

But don't you see what you have done? You critiqued decisions made the USSR (focus on bonuses, ect) as being flawed and I guess un-socialist. Then you make some sweeping indictment of capitalism in general, and say we would never do this.

But what is NOT said, is what would be done when faced with these issues.

[Green Dragon]

[
QUOTE=Jimmie Higgins;1636525]Right. The difference between a worker revolution and past revolutions in class society is that rather than a minority class coming to power, the majority class will be in power. This means there will necessarily be more democracy and more collective decision making than any revolution in the past.

But so what? The bigger issue is what they are democratically deciding to do.



The reason that this did not exist in the so-called "socialist" "republics" and "democracies" is because in Russia, the working class was weak and small and the revolution failed.

The working class was also divided as to what to do, something which will be true in countries with larger working classes. And those divisions are problems as well for the nascent socilist community.



In other so-called socialist countries, there was not even an attempt at revolution by workers - most of the time USSR style systems (what I would call state-capitalism) was imposed from above while workers were offered reforms (if that). In these examples the workers did not control production directly.


So the complaint here is that somebody said "X" is good, and the majority agreed. But since it was not the majority saying, collectively, coming up with "X" it is not a workers revolution.

True, there is much dissent about vanguard theories amongst the revlefters. But then somebody, somewhere has to be in a position to pass judgement as to whether the workers are making the proper socialist choices. It makes more sense than relying upon armchair quarterbacks making judgements decades after the fact.



In the US there is the Taft-heartly act which GW Bush evoked as a threat to striking dockworkers... this gives the US government the power to "force" workers to work and the dockworkers were told to accept this or the national guard would be sent to force them back to work.


Well, let's think about this. A "strike" in a capitalist community occurs when the workers are not happy with some aspect of their working conditions.
We are told that in a socialist commuity, the workers collectively and democratically decide their working consitions. But unless a "collective" decision requires a 100% vote, there will always be somebody on the losing side; somebody who will not be happy with his working conditions. Can that person quit the job? Probably, but that can pose problems for the socialist system. Can he organise a "strike?" A much more different and difficult problem.
What do the dock workers in a socilaist community do when faced with disgruntled fellow workers? Give in? hardly democratic. Force them to work? Hardly an act of a free community.

[danyboy27]

Personally, i dont see any problem about drilling alaska, if its made without harming the environnement, nothing wrong with that, beside the fact that its not the worker who will gain the ressources but corporates bullies.

[Dr Mindbender]

That's not the point. stop trolling. The point is nobody is forced to work.
ha ha ha. Yes no one is forced to work in as much as they have a choice between shelter and homelessness.

I am forced to work because if i dont my family and i will be forced onto the street. Capitalism doesnt need the armed guard to force people into work because it already has the landlord and the bailiff.

but then the point is people shouldnt be forced into work for works sake. We need a higher level of automated labour accompanied by greater emphasis on education and training.

[Valeofruin]

God damnit... stop validating this thread with replies..

unless you are saving your answers to paste to literally every other capitalist on the planet...

[btpound]

\

But don't you see what you have done? You critiqued decisions made the USSR (focus on bonuses, ect) as being flawed and I guess un-socialist. Then you make some sweeping indictment of capitalism in general, and say we would never do this.

But what is NOT said, is what would be done when faced with these issues.

Faced with what?

[Muzk]

Can someone lock this? :D

[Dr Mindbender]

Can someone lock this? :D

aye, guess this was another drive by trolling.

Lock n' trash.

[Robocommie]

instead of throwing tu quo que fallacies ad infinitum at the failures of capitalism.

Dude you have exceeded the allowed Latin idiom limit in a single sentence. ;)