Why socialism is not the way - Turn communist!

[Unrelenting Steve]

Socialism is a pretty good thing, but it just doesnt work when in competition with capitalism. When we truely become a world economy, products from socialist countries just wont be competitive enough. Thats the sad truth of it. And its still basicly capitalism, which means you might survive if you rip off the poor even more, but that will only transplant suffering from within your borders abroad to where they already have enough. So its ok for you Europeans to talk about socialism, but it just doesnt help unless you dont consider Africa a continent with human life on it.

Would there be starving Africans if we where all WASP's?

[Hampton]

Would there be starving Africans if we where all WASP's?

If we were all white it might be conceivable that slavery would have not happened and Africa might have had a chance to grow on its own. But if you mean now, if Africa was full of white people instead of Africans would they still be starving? Do poor white people starve in America, Canada, England? Yes, albeit not on the massive scale as in Africa but that's due to 400 years of rape and pillage. I would yes that there would be starving, just not on the scale that Africa has today.

[anti machine]

ultimately, socialism is a compromise, a middle ground for cappies and commies. It is, in essence, accepting the truth that communist revolution is too complicated, long, and bloody.

Perhaps from socialism true Marxist reality will emerge. A socialist country, because of its centrist views, is not exactly the breeding ground for revolution.

I agree-go communist, but not until one is well read in both departments should he choose between the two.

[Invader Zim]

Sorry, but you are fundermentaly wrong. Communism is actualy a type of socialism, it fits in the socialistmovment as a specific sect or cult of it not as a completely different movment. Communism is part of the scientific socialist theorys as aposed to being in the utopian socialist set of theorys. All however are part of socialism. So to say that communism is better than socialism is like saying that socialism is better than socialism.

[Unrelenting Steve]

Can you contradict my points? because if you cant then you must submit that socialism wont work and communism is the only way.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Unrelenting Steve on 6:31 pm on June 12, 2003
Can you contradict my points? because if you cant then you must submit that socialism wont work and communism is the only way.

Im not trying to contradict your points I am pointing out that comminusm cannot be better that socialism because communism is a type of socialism.

[Unrelenting Steve]

Sorry I was not talking to you. to that other guy with a pic of pic as his avatar.

But does it really matter what is a "part" of what, since they are differant, and not the same thing in practice. If they are not the same thing in every aspect then of course you can make cases from why one is better than the other and why one fails and the other doesnt, which is pretty simple when you think about it.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Unrelenting Steve on 6:42 pm on June 12, 2003
Sorry I was not talking to you. to that other guy with a pic of pic as his avatar.

But does it really matter what is a "part" of what, since they are differant, and not the same thing in practice. If they are not the same thing in every aspect then of course you can make cases from why one is better than the other and why one fails and the other doesnt, which is pretty simple when you think about it.

Sorry I was not talking to you. to that other guy with a pic of pic as his avatar.

Ok sorry...


But does it really matter what is a "part" of what, since they are differant

No, think about it this way: -

You have sport for example all games such as football and tennis are types of sport, you could say that tennis is better than football, but you could not say that football is better than sport.

It's the same with socialism: -

You have socialism, all types of socialism such as "democratic socialism" and "Marxist Leninism" are types of socialism, you could say that "Marxist Leninism" is better than democratic socialism, but you could not say that Marxist Leninism is better than socialism.

If you see what I mean, of course it is far more complex than I have made out, but hey im not an expert.

[anti machine]

"Sorry I was not talking to you. to that other guy with a pic of pic as his avatar."

...I thought I was agreeing with you...In fact, I'm pretty sure I'm agreeing with you. But only in principle. You would have us believe that socialist production cannot compete in a capitalist world, but communism can? The Soviet Union kept up for a couple decades but eventually succumed to capitalist productive power. (Not that the Soviet Union was a model for Marxism by any stretch of the imagination)

I don't submit that communism, in its pure form which i believe we both advocate, can work in a capititalist world. Neither, then, can socialism.

[Som]

But does it really matter what is a "part" of what, since they are differant, and not the same thing in practice. If they are not the same thing in every aspect then of course you can make cases from why one is better than the other and why one fails and the other doesnt, which is pretty simple when you think about it.

You're showing here that you dont know the definition of socialism.

Socialism is ANY system where the means of production are publicly owned.

Socialism can be everything from anarchy, to marxism-leninism, so socialism can include from a stateless society with no authority, to the a brutal authoritarian dictatorship, and everything inbetween.
Communism is a classless society, usually therefore it must be stateless and monetaryless.

What is NOT socialism, which is what you seem to be describing, is Sweden, Norway, so on.

You can't say blue is better than colors, just like you cant say communism is better than socialism. repeating a point someone else already made i know, but maybe this'll help ingrain it.

Theres nothing centrist or comprimising about destroying capitalism.


Really, what the hell are you even advocating here?


(Edited by Som at 8:44 pm on June 12, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Som on 8:24 pm on June 12, 2003
But does it really matter what is a "part" of what, since they are differant, and not the same thing in practice. If they are not the same thing in every aspect then of course you can make cases from why one is better than the other and why one fails and the other doesnt, which is pretty simple when you think about it.

You're showing here that you dont know the definition of socialism.

Socialism is ANY system where the means of production are publicly owned.

Socialism can be everything from anarchy, to marxism-leninism, so socialism can include from a stateless society with no authority, to the a brutal authoritarian dictatorship, and everything inbetween.
Communism is a classless society, usually therefore it must be stateless and monetaryless.

What is NOT socialism, which is what you seem to be describing, is Sweden, Norway, so on.

You can't say blue is better than colors, just like you cant say communism is better than socialism. repeating a point someone else already made i know, but maybe this'll help ingrain it.

Theres nothing centrist or comprimising about destroying capitalism.


Really, what the hell are you even advocating here?


(Edited by Som at 8:44 pm on June 12, 2003)


I tried to explain, but you did a far better job than me.

[anti machine]

agreed with som. When i hear "socialism", democratic socialism immediately comes to mind.

[Sandanista]

Ermmmmmm socialism and communism are the same meaning different words, because revolutionary socialists are marxists, who wrote the communist manifesto

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Sandanista on 12:10 am on June 13, 2003
Ermmmmmm socialism and communism are the same meaning different words, because revolutionary socialists are marxists, who wrote the communist manifesto

No socialsim is the name given to all the movments with in socialism such as Anarchism and Marxist Lenonism or Communism.

I created this diagram for a different thread, you could possibly argue about the council communism position but appart from that and not having all the different types its pritty good.

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/SocialismMap.jpg

[Vinny Rafarino]

The flawa in your posts are as such.

become a world economy, products from socialist countries just wont be competitive enough

If there is a world economy that is socialists there would be no competition as products would be produced as needed rather than for profit.

ou are mixing political theory with economics...Thats really the only flaw (a big one I might add)
I personally believe in a much more hard-lined brand of political doctrine than most of our comrades here but I can safely say we all believe in one economic platform.
Socialism.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from Unrelenting Steve on 5:41 pm on June 12, 2003
Socialism is a pretty good thing, but it just doesnt work when in competition with capitalism. When we truely become a world economy, products from socialist countries just wont be competitive enough. Thats the sad truth of it. And its still basicly capitalism, which means you might survive if you rip off the poor even more, but that will only transplant suffering from within your borders abroad to where they already have enough. So its ok for you Europeans to talk about socialism, but it just doesnt help unless you dont consider Africa a continent with human life on it.

Would there be starving Africans if we where all WASP's?


See this for a communist system that compeats just fine with free markets.

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...pic=189&start=0 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=189&start=0)

[Chiak47]

AK-47

where is national socialism in that chart?
Even though it's on the rise you fail to mention it's existance.

thanks,
?

[Pete]

National Socialism is the name Hitler gave to his oppurtunist party that he used to gain power during the late 1920's and early 1930's in Germany. After gaining power the last shreds of anything socialist where thrown inside and all the unemployed where thrown into an aggressive army inorder to unite Greater Germany under the rule of the Third Reich. It is a side branch of Facism, not socialism, and has nothing to do with socialism past Hitler ran on a partilly socialist platform to get the workers votes.

[Chiak47]

pete,

Hitler subsidized everything.He gave tractors to farmers who were still using mules and other pack animals for daily farm work.He also subsidized factories with modern machinery.Not too mention he was in with the Swede's who produced many of his prototypes for the war machine.Germany was under a strict depression like much of the world at the time.He quickly turned that around and had almost every able bodied person making competitive wages.

What would the Baa'th socialist party fall under?

Thanks,
Eric

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Chiak47 on 4:54 am on June 13, 2003
pete,

Hitler subsidized everything.He gave tractors to farmers who were still using mules and other pack animals for daily farm work.He also subsidized factories with modern machinery.Not too mention he was in with the Swede's who produced many of his prototypes for the war machine.Germany was under a strict depression like much of the world at the time.He quickly turned that around and had almost every able bodied person making competitive wages.

What would the Baa'th socialist party fall under?

Thanks,
Eric



While Hitler did those things, I think don't socialists like to include anyone who believes in purifying the world by eradicating races.

I mean Germans don't seem to claim Hitler with exuberance either

(Edited by Lardlad95 at 5:16 am on June 13, 2003)

[Vinny Rafarino]

Quote: from Chiak47 on 4:54 am on June 13, 2003
pete,

Hitler subsidized everything.He gave tractors to farmers who were still using mules and other pack animals for daily farm work.He also subsidized factories with modern machinery.Not too mention he was in with the Swede's who produced many of his prototypes for the war machine.Germany was under a strict depression like much of the world at the time.He quickly turned that around and had almost every able bodied person making competitive wages.

What would the Baa'th socialist party fall under?

Thanks,
Eric


I can toss a piece of shite in the air and call it a "socialist piece of shite" but when it lands it's still the same old piece of shite. Do some research boy. Your posts are foolish.

[Bianconero]

Hitler subsidized everything.He gave tractors to farmers who were still using mules and other pack animals for daily farm work.He also subsidized factories with modern machinery.Not too mention he was in with the Swede's who produced many of his prototypes for the war machine.Germany was under a strict depression like much of the world at the time.He quickly turned that around and had almost every able bodied person making competitive wages.

Fascism in Germany had nothing to do with socialism. As Pete already said, Hitler claimed to be the "man of the little people" in order to come to power. In fact, after Hindenburg made him prime minister workers practically had no rights. Sure, they got food rations, they got work (construction of weapons etc. for the uppcoming war) but they were never free. In the end, it was the capitalist class that took profit from Hitler, not the workers.

I'd say that, having a look at the facts of WW2, one should call Hitler's "movement" National Capitalist instead of National Socialist.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Chiak47 on 4:54 am on June 13, 2003
pete,

Hitler subsidized everything.He gave tractors to farmers who were still using mules and other pack animals for daily farm work.He also subsidized factories with modern machinery.Not too mention he was in with the Swede's who produced many of his prototypes for the war machine.Germany was under a strict depression like much of the world at the time.He quickly turned that around and had almost every able bodied person making competitive wages.

What would the Baa'th socialist party fall under?

Thanks,
Eric


He also set up enterprises designed to increase trade, and removed taxes on imports and exports, which is capitalistsic free trade, also he encouraged the economic rights of the individual he two of these being the basis of all capitalist systems.

Well I suppose your wife does all your finances and is the educated one so I understand that you dont have a clue what the fuck your on about.

[Unrelenting Steve]

Quote: from anti machine on 6:07 pm on June 12, 2003
"Sorry I was not talking to you. to that other guy with a pic of pic as his avatar."

...I thought I was agreeing with you...In fact, I'm pretty sure I'm agreeing with you. But only in principle. You would have us believe that socialist production cannot compete in a capitalist world, but communism can? The Soviet Union kept up for a couple decades but eventually succumed to capitalist productive power. (Not that the Soviet Union was a model for Marxism by any stretch of the imagination)

I don't submit that communism, in its pure form which i believe we both advocate, can work in a capititalist world. Neither, then, can socialism.




Yes but in communism it doesnt matter that you dont compete, because everything is state owned, you wont not buy your own stuff because another capitalist country is selling it cheaper (which it probably will especialy if your selling the same stuff internationaly they will try and out mass produec you and then steal the market back). That is why socialism in any other way than communism fails in a world that has capitalism present in it. I think I answered that very well! And I have not gone back on nething I have said proir.

[Unrelenting Steve]

Quote: from Som on 7:24 pm on June 12, 2003
But does it really matter what is a "part" of what, since they are differant, and not the same thing in practice. If they are not the same thing in every aspect then of course you can make cases from why one is better than the other and why one fails and the other doesnt, which is pretty simple when you think about it.

You're showing here that you dont know the definition of socialism.

Socialism is ANY system where the means of production are publicly owned.

Socialism can be everything from anarchy, to marxism-leninism, so socialism can include from a stateless society with no authority, to the a brutal authoritarian dictatorship, and everything inbetween.
Communism is a classless society, usually therefore it must be stateless and monetaryless.

What is NOT socialism, which is what you seem to be describing, is Sweden, Norway, so on.

You can't say blue is better than colors, just like you cant say communism is better than socialism. repeating a point someone else already made i know, but maybe this'll help ingrain it.

Theres nothing centrist or comprimising about destroying capitalism.


Really, what the hell are you even advocating here?


(Edited by Som at 8:44 pm on June 12, 2003)



Yes yes your right technicaly, but what I was trying to say (which was pretty evidient from all my proir posts (sorry im not that articluate)) was that becuase of the reasons I have stated, only communism will work and not any other type of socialism because of the reasons I gave in my first post.

[Unrelenting Steve]

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 12:07 am on June 13, 2003
The flawa in your posts are as such.

become a world economy, products from socialist countries just wont be competitive enough

If there is a world economy that is socialists there would be no competition as products would be produced as needed rather than for profit.

ou are mixing political theory with economics...Thats really the only flaw (a big one I might add)
I personally believe in a much more hard-lined brand of political doctrine than most of our comrades here but I can safely say we all believe in one economic platform.
Socialism.



What are you on about, my whole contxt is a world that has capitalism and why only communism can survive in that world and not any other type of socialism.

[Unrelenting Steve]

Yes I must admitt, I didnt know the true meaning of the word socialism, I thought that only applied to Democratic socialism and the like. So please read the topics heading and my very first posts with that in mind.

Than you very much AK47 for the very nifty diagram, I have saved it onto my comp for further informative glances.

(Edited by Unrelenting Steve at 5:34 pm on June 13, 2003)

[Vinny Rafarino]

I agree with you steve. You are not articulate.

Here is a portion of your original post.

When we truely become a world economy, products from socialist countries just wont be competitive enough.

When you speak of "we" becoming a "world economy" you never hint as to what "we" means. Are you saying "we" as in Capitalists? I consider "we" to be communists. As you left out this major piece of information that would give your question true meaning, I was forced to make my own judgement on what "we" means. Ichose communism. Thus, giving merit to my last post. In a world communistic environment there is no competition making your initial question flawed. Would you like to re-phrase it?

-Jules

[Anonymous]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 4:48 am on June 13, 2003
National Socialism is the name Hitler gave to his oppurtunist party that he used to gain power during the late 1920's and early 1930's in Germany. After gaining power the last shreds of anything socialist where thrown inside and all the unemployed where thrown into an aggressive army inorder to unite Greater Germany under the rule of the Third Reich. It is a side branch of Facism, not socialism, and has nothing to do with socialism past Hitler ran on a partilly socialist platform to get the workers votes.


Sorry I beg to differ. German politics with and without Hitler has always had a socialist bent. Remember our "Hitler was a capitalist" discussion.

[Chiak47]

Yep every capi I know hands out free tractors and subsidized health care.And yes my wife does handle the bills.I handle the car car and house upkeep.
For a commie you sure do like to belittle people.Everything I thought commies were against.

[Vinny Rafarino]

What Boychiak, you assumed we were all just hippies griping about the establishment? I may commit acts that would be deemed "against communist philosophy" But I will be forgiven once the new government is established as my actions are essential for the progression of the movement.

[Pete]

"History will ablsove me" ... Immortal words. And so far they have been proven true.

[Blibblob]

Sorry I beg to differ. German politics with and without Hitler has always had a socialist bent. Remember our "Hitler was a capitalist" discussion.
Of course German politics have always been very socialist. But Hitler used whatever was needed to get people on his side. People were used to socialism.


"History will ablsove me" ... Immortal words. And so far they have been proven true.
You just wait until you get to and understand God Emperor of Dune... You'll love his reasoning.

[Unrelenting Steve]

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 11:05 pm on June 13, 2003
I agree with you steve. You are not articulate.

Here is a portion of your original post.

When we truely become a world economy, products from socialist countries just wont be competitive enough.

When you speak of "we" becoming a "world economy" you never hint as to what "we" means. Are you saying "we" as in Capitalists? I consider "we" to be communists. As you left out this major piece of information that would give your question true meaning, I was forced to make my own judgement on what "we" means. Ichose communism. Thus, giving merit to my last post. In a world communistic environment there is no competition making your initial question flawed. Would you like to re-phrase it?

-Jules





In my orginal post it said very clearly, IN COMPETITION WITH CAPITALISM. Why would that be an issue if capitalism didnt exist in this world that was talking about! Read between the lines! and if you cant just try reading all the lines next time!