Log in

View Full Version : Socialism



Schmök
25th May 2004, 11:26
I'm from Austria and we have what is called "Soziale Marktwirtschaft" or just socialism. I was wondering if socialism is the best political system since it guarantees basic rights and aid for even the poorest (at least if they are registered in Austria). I personally do not believe that the best political system is to be found in a radical left or right sector. Socialism has both capitalistic and communist sides to it and I happend to see it as the political system which is closest to the ideal utopic one.
When you are a registered citizen of Austria you get medical support and medical checkups for free. You get a certain amount of money from the state on a monthly base when unemployed. Unemployment rate is however rather small. So is the crime rate which is actually one of the smallest in Europe.
So why is it that you would stick to a communist system if socialism actually works?
(I'm sorry if I have offended somebody, that really wasn't my intention. I'm just asking.)

redstar2000
25th May 2004, 15:06
You don't, in fact, have a "socialist" system. What you have is "capitalism with a human face".

Most of the wealth in Austria is in private hands; probably upwards of 90% or more.

Working people in Austria have no more power over their own lives or public policy than they have in the United States.

What you do have is a much better welfare system than exists in the United States.

You'll have that until the capitalist class decides to take it away from you.

Which, sooner or later, they will.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

Capitalist Imperial
25th May 2004, 15:42
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 03:06 PM

Working people in Austria have no more power over their own lives or public policy than they have in the United States.





What in the heck are you talking about? Explain to me how American citizens have no power over their own lives.

Even better, show me a nation where people actaully exude more control over their own lives and public policy than in the USA.

commie-puke

redstar2000
25th May 2004, 16:20
Explain to me how American citizens have no power over their own lives.

I'll start by noting your careful and subtle change of subject. I said working people and you changed that to read American citizens.

If you are independently wealthy and an American (or Austrian) citizen, then you do indeed "have control over your own life".

You don't have to work!

And any work you do decide to do will be on your terms, not anyone else's.

For most American citizens, who are working people, this option is unavailable. We must have a job; we must work for some rich bastard...on his terms, not ours.

As to public policy, the circle of "decision-makers" is much narrower. Only the very wealthiest "movers and shakers" and their lackeys have any input, at least in "normal" times.

The exception to that rule comes only when huge numbers of working people "take to the streets" (or its equivalent).

Faced with the spectre of revolution, the ruling class will make serious concessions -- for the moment -- in the hope of averting catastrophe.

When things "quiet down", the concessions will be gradually withdrawn.

That's what "reform" means now in the capitalist lexicon...the gradual withdrawal of all concessions made to the working classes during the period 1930-1965 (roughly).


Even better, show me a nation where people actually exude more control over their own lives and public policy than in the USA.

As written, your statement is incoherent.


exude verb. 1. Release (a liquid) in drops or small quantities; 2. Make apparent by one's mood or behavior.

Perhaps you meant to say "exert".

If so, my answer to your question is that it's pretty much the same everywhere.

Wage-slavery is universal at the present time...as is rule by small and corrupt elites (the elite in Cuba appears to be markedly less corrupt, by the way).


commie-puke

You are well advised to return to form...arguments are not your strength. Stick to abuse...and use small words that you can both spell and know the meaning of.

cappie-puke.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

BOZG
25th May 2004, 16:20
The massive general strikes in Austria seem to reject the idea that Austrians are presently happy with the supposed "social democracy".

Capitalist Imperial
25th May 2004, 17:39
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 04:20 PM

commie-puke

You are well advised to return to form...arguments are not your strength. Stick to abuse...and use small words that you can both spell and know the meaning of.

cappie-puke.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
LOL, please keep posting. You make yourself and your pinko bretheren look mmore stupid by the second.

ex·ude ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-zd, k-sd)
v. ex·ud·ed, ex·ud·ing, ex·udes
v. intr.
To ooze forth.

v. tr.
To discharge or emit (a liquid or gas, for example) gradually.
To exhibit in abundance: a face that exuded self-satisfaction.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Latin exsdre : ex-, ex- + sdre, to sweat; see sweid- in Indo-European Roots.]

[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


exude

( P ) exude: log in for this definition of exude and other entries in Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, available only to Dictionary.com Premium members.


Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


exude

\Ex*ude"\, v. t. [L. exudare, exsudare, exudatum, exsudatum, to sweat out; ex out + sudare to sweat: cf. F. exuder, exsuder. See Sweat.] To discharge through pores or incisions, as moisture or other liquid matter; to give out.

Our forests exude turpentine in . . . abundance. --Dr. T. Dwight.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


exude

\Ex*ude"\, v. i. To flow from a body through the pores, or by a natural discharge, as juice.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


exude

v 1: release through one's pores, as of sweat [syn: exudate, transude, ooze out, ooze] 2: make apparent by one's mood or behaviour; "She exude great confidence"

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

exude

exude: in CancerWEB's On-line Medical Dictionary

Source: On-line Medical Dictionary, © 1997-98 Academic Medical Publishing & CancerWEB

Please, Redstar2000, note the 2nd definition: [i]"To exhibit in abundance: a face that exuded self-satisfaction."

and also: 2: make apparent by one's mood or behaviour; "She exude great confidence"

You should be well advised to make sure to check your own linguistic ability and vocabulary before pretentiously, embarassingly, and inaccurately correcting others.

I'll admit that your writing is pretty good relative to many on this board, but I am a far better writer with a more developed vocabulary and better command of the english language and it's structure than you will ever be, sir.

I am a natural linguist, and you can't compete, as evidenced by your erronous attempted correction of my correct word usage.

Invader Zim
25th May 2004, 18:21
The fact, (though I may be wrong) that Redstar used to be a writer, from what I remember people saying. Kind of gives him a major advantage over you CI.

Though not to be unfair, you are rather good at your linguistics, shame it doesnt substitute for conent.

Capitalist Imperial
25th May 2004, 19:06
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 06:21 PM
The fact, (though I may be wrong) that Redstar used to be a writer, from what I remember people saying. Kind of gives him a major advantage over you CI.

Though not to be unfair, you are rather good at your linguistics, shame it doesnt substitute for conent.
I am a writer too. There you go. I have as much confirmed status as a writer as Redstar2000 now.

How does speculation as to how good of a "writer" he is give him an advantage? Is he a professional? Is his work published? Or is this just blabber on an internet chat-board, where everyone is a writer, boxer, fighter pilot, revolutionary, or other delusional embellishment of their actual status?

As evidenced by his above error, he obviously is not a good enough writer even to accurately refute my simple word usage, and thus is not really that good in the 1st place. I think that if you honestly compare my body of prose to his throughout this board, and don't let you ideological bias get in the way, you would concede that I dominate Redstar2000 in the writing arena.

And the content of my commentary is legitimate, relevant, and valid. You just don't agree with it.

Fidel Castro
25th May 2004, 22:49
What the comrades have said is very true. In the UK we have the NHS, which on the face of it is wonderful as everyone has the oppertunity to recieve high-standard medical care on behalf of all taxpayers.

However the private sector has it's claws dug deep into the NHS, and I firmly believe that without the private sector the NHS would collapse. There are many hospitals run by the NHS trust that are privately-owned, private-sector nurses are used to fill in staff shortages (and have to recieve higher pay than their NHS counterparts). The NHS is under-funded, over-constrained, under-paid, and pushed to achieve statistics rather than top-class patient care.

Britain is owned by the private-sector, and so is the rest of the capitalist world.

fuerzasocialista
25th May 2004, 23:44
However the private sector has it's claws dug deep into the NHS, and I firmly believe that without the private sector the NHS would collapse. There are many hospitals run by the NHS trust that are privately-owned, private-sector nurses are used to fill in staff shortages (and have to recieve higher pay than their NHS counterparts). The NHS is under-funded, over-constrained, under-paid, and pushed to achieve statistics rather than top-class patient care.



In the U.$ there are many strikes of union nurses that often lasts months while the CEOs' of the hospitals bus in strike relief nurses to take there place. This can sometimes lasts for months. The settlement usually results once the Labor and Health departments get involved and force a deal. But by that time the damage is down as many nurses with families could be collecting food stamps by the time that happens.




Britain is owned by the private-sector, and so is the rest of the capitalist world


There is no greater example of the than the good ole U$ ;)

redstar2000
26th May 2004, 00:59
Your post, CI, is...simply unbelievable. I'd almost be willing to wager that someone who is a personal enemy of yours is posting in your name...except for that unmistakable arrogance.

Now here is what you wrote...


Even better, show me a nation where people actually exude more control over their own lives and public policy than in the USA.

Did you intend to convey the idea of people "oozing" control, "drop by drop", over their own lives and public policy?

Or the idea that they abundantly exhibit the confidence that they "do" have such control, regardless of the real situation?

Do you understand that such a poor choice of words can completely obscure your meaning?


You make yourself and your pinko bretheren look mmore stupid by the second.

Bretheren? Note that you also misused the word as well as misspelled it; brethren is an all-male group and there are radical women on this board.

Mmore?


...but I am a far better writer with a more developed vocabulary and better command of the english language and it's structure than you will ever be, sir.

Then you must have a fantastic editor.

Look at the mistakes you made in that single paragraph.

1. English is capitalized in standard usage as are the names of all languages; e.g., Russian, French, German, etc.

2. You used "it's" as a possessive; the proper spelling is "its". "It's" is a contraction of "it is".

3. The construction of your last sentence is confusing. "I am a far better writer...than you will ever be" is ok. But inserting the phrase "with a more developed vocabulary..." suggests that the sentence should actually end "than you will ever have". A comma after the word "structure" was needed.


I am a natural linguist...

Evidently...you make it up as you go along.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

Professor Moneybags
26th May 2004, 06:50
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 06:21 PM
Redstar used to be a writer
An interesting choice of words.

Hiero
26th May 2004, 07:33
Originally posted by Schmö[email protected] 25 2004, 11:26 AM
(I'm sorry if I have offended somebody, that really wasn't my intention. I'm just asking.)
Dont write that at the end of any political statements when expressing your view on politics. Maybe if you talk about race problmes or something similar but when it comes to politics peope have to fluent in what they mean, we cant hold back anything when it comes to politics, we cant tip toe around because it may offend someone. If we do this there will not be progression

This is what has happened with the war in iraq the leading opposition in australia has not yet used the word imperilist, they have not yet claimed america's motives were economics and i beleive because they dont want to offend America.

Basically say what the fuck you want, this is politics.

Capitalist Imperial
26th May 2004, 17:03
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 12:59 AM
Your post, CI, is...simply unbelievable. I'd almost be willing to wager that someone who is a personal enemy of yours is posting in your name...except for that unmistakable arrogance.

Now here is what you wrote...


Even better, show me a nation where people actually exude more control over their own lives and public policy than in the USA.

Did you intend to convey the idea of people "oozing" control, "drop by drop", over their own lives and public policy?

Or the idea that they abundantly exhibit the confidence that they "do" have such control, regardless of the real situation?

Do you understand that such a poor choice of words can completely obscure your meaning?


You make yourself and your pinko bretheren look mmore stupid by the second.

Bretheren? Note that you also misused the word as well as misspelled it; brethren is an all-male group and there are radical women on this board.

Mmore?


...but I am a far better writer with a more developed vocabulary and better command of the english language and it's structure than you will ever be, sir.

Then you must have a fantastic editor.

Look at the mistakes you made in that single paragraph.

1. English is capitalized in standard usage as are the names of all languages; e.g., Russian, French, German, etc.

2. You used "it's" as a possessive; the proper spelling is "its". "It's" is a contraction of "it is".

3. The construction of your last sentence is confusing. "I am a far better writer...than you will ever be" is ok. But inserting the phrase "with a more developed vocabulary..." suggests that the sentence should actually end "than you will ever have". A comma after the word "structure" was needed.


I am a natural linguist...

Evidently...you make it up as you go along.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

Your post, CI, is...simply unbelievable. I'd almost be willing to wager that someone who is a personal enemy of yours is posting in your name...except for that unmistakable arrogance.

Oh, come on!!!



Did you intend to convey the idea of people "oozing" control, "drop by drop", over their own lives and public policy?

Or the idea that they abundantly exhibit the confidence that they "do" have such control, regardless of the real situation?

Do you understand that such a poor choice of words can completely obscure your meaning?

I was conveying that they exhibit behaviors and actions consistent with the notion of individual control and choice, so I suppose the second would apply. I stand by my choice of word, as the definition is legitimate for the concept I was trying to convey.


Bretheren? Note that you also misused the word as well as misspelled it; brethren is an all-male group and there are radical women on this board.

Good shot, you have me on the spelling. I don't run spell-check on my posts, nor would I call you out on a minor spelling error. I was merely responding to your critique of my overall writing skills, not initially challenging yours. As far as the definition goes, I agree that it is rooted in terms of "brothers" or an all-male entity, but according to dictionary.com and modern usage, some of it's contemporary definitions can include groups that include women, just like "mankind" refers to all people, not just men. Aren't we splitting hairs at this point?


Then you must have a fantastic editor.

Look at the mistakes you made in that single paragraph.

1. English is capitalized in standard usage as are the names of all languages; e.g., Russian, French, German, etc.

2. You used "it's" as a possessive; the proper spelling is "its". "It's" is a contraction of "it is".

Again, I don't edit my posts that closely, nor do I call out people on small errors like this. I just try to write reasoanably legible responses fast. Rest assured, I know that when writing about a specific language, capitalization is used. And I know the difference between the possessive and contraction version of it(')s. Thanks for the heads-up though.


3. The construction of your last sentence is confusing. "I am a far better writer...than you will ever be" is ok. But inserting the phrase "with a more developed vocabulary..." suggests that the sentence should actually end "than you will ever have". A comma after the word "structure" was needed.

I don't think it is confusing. It should in fact end with "be", because we are still refering to the subject and it's action, which is me "being", not "having". So, because it is one sentence and not two, we must adhere to sentence construction around the core idea, "I am a far better writer than you will ever be". What is inserted in the middle is not important. Thus, I stand by that sentence (it's structure, that is. The content was admittedly somewhat faceteous and inflammatory, meant more as a return of your original volley of insults).


Evidently...you make it up as you go along.

Please...

Honestly, from what I have read, you are among the best writers here, with a good command of language, grammar, and structure. However, I take pride in my prose as well, and must defend myself when my linguistic skills are questioned.

Nas
26th May 2004, 20:27
even though "Capitalist Imperial" is capitalist , i agree with him in this argument

lucid
26th May 2004, 21:03
Order hukt own fonix. It wurkt four mi!

Mike Fakelastname
26th May 2004, 22:03
I agree with the first poster, "if it works, don't change" it. But redstar did bring up an interesting point, the capitalist class is allowing that to "work", the masses really have no say in it, and the capitalists can take that away anytime they feel it necessary... I have some rethinking to do...

BOZG
27th May 2004, 06:02
Mike,

But it's not working. The Austrian working class is coming under more and more attacks. Austria has had no significant industrial action since the end of World War 2, until last year, when there was a huge general strike with nearly 2 million people on strike action.

Schmök
29th May 2004, 13:44
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 04:20 PM
The massive general strikes in Austria seem to reject the idea that Austrians are presently happy with the supposed "social democracy".
Actually, strikes are far more seldom than you'd think. I can only remember two major strikes which really influenced my life in the last ten years (and they only lastet one or two weeks). The general strike mentioned was the ÖBB strike. People found a solution to it. We have, in order to prevent those strikes, trade and labor unions which can influence the government directly and push them in the direction the people want. It's quite effective and I think you're confusing Austria with Italy, where strikes are a common thing because they do not have labor unions.