a few questions for socialist/communists

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
actually i was not asking for grades, perhaps something can be said for reading comprehension being important?
-----------------------------
Please note that I said "asking for or talking about grades" implying that by talking about grades which you did you also ask to be graded. You made grades a bone of contention. Reading comprehension is indeed important.
 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
actually i was not asking for grades, perhaps something can be said for reading comprehension being important?
-----------------------------
Please note that I said "asking for or talking about grades" implying that by talking about grades which you did you also ask to be graded. You made grades a bone of contention. Reading comprehension is indeed important.



the grades themselves were not the subject of the sentence, but whether they should be shared or not and the benefits/pitfalls of the sharing. and i am glad we agree on the importance of reading comprehension. :)

in the grand socialistic society, should we word all prose and poetry down to a level that those who through no fault of thier own do not have the good fortune to have the comprehensive skills others have?

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
actually i was not asking for grades, perhaps something can be said for reading comprehension being important?
-----------------------------
Please note that I said "asking for or talking about grades" implying that by talking about grades which you did you also ask to be graded. You made grades a bone of contention. Reading comprehension is indeed important.



the grades themselves were not the subject of the sentence, but whether they should be shared or not and the benefits/pitfalls of the sharing. and i am glad we agree on the importance of reading comprehension. :)

in the grand socialistic society, should we word all prose and poetry down to a level that those who through no fault of thier own do not have the good fortune to have the comprehensive skills others have?
Well I didn't in my first post and I got in trouble for it, so to speak. :D

I guess one of my big complaints about the now almost ritualistic critique of capitalism and socialism is that it is made by people who fear, without reason, that they will be dragged down into mediocrity. My experience has been that such people already feel intensely inferior inwardly and it's this resentment that shows. The feeling that one is being dragged down into mediocrity is the feeling it's already true expressed outwardly as egotistical denial. Your mileage may vary. (How was that for contemporary grammar?)

 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,999
109
106
Heh...this thread makes my head spin. Shad0hawK was a little ambititious in asking his question, and he did so using an analogy that doesnt quite work in most of our minds regarding socialism/communism. Unfortunately, many of the more senior members here responded with personal attacks and the such (like all the grammar criticism and "you have no idea of what youre talking about") instead of answering his question or telling him that there was a problem with the way he was presenting his question. And Shad0hawK, I do believe you are correct in your assesment of some of the more established members here. Although some are still open-minded to a true debate, quite a few of them already are set in their political philosophies and will just repeat it. Its not uncommon for them to come down on you in these situations. You have to just get used to it I guess. Perhaps you should've phrased your question differently such as: Can anyone explain why socialism/communism is a desireable system of government/economics given the failures of socialistic/communistic governments in the 20th/21st century? Its still open to flaming, but at least you'd get more serious answers here than you've been getting. Just some constructive criticism here. I'm not looking for a flame...
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
81
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Why are you even posing the question(s) if you've already made up your mind? Further, some people (myself not one of them) would argue that the U.S. has become at least partially socialist. What do you think about that?

i think a great attempt is being made to turn us to socialism by the extreme left. as far as my mind being made up i am not a closed minded person, but when i ask legitimate questions that are only answered by personal attacks, i assume that those with the opposing viewpoint cannot rationally defend thier viewpoint and only have to ability to use their wit for insults rather than thinking on issues.

i have many valid points and questions.

if socialism is the superior philosophy, why has it never worked? (and yes it has been tried..many times)

if socialism is the superior economic philosophy, why are the top 3 performing economies capitalistic?

people like to talk about how bad the economy is in the state of california, and relatively speaking to it's past performance it is not as good as it was, but the GP of california still exceeds that of the nation of france... the GNP of the US is still the best in the world by a wide margin.

if everyone is equal in socialism, why is the gap between rich and poor much greater in socialistic economies than in the US?


according to the UN Human development index the gap between poor and rich is smaller in countries like France, Norway and Canada

according to these figures the GDP of France is bigger then that of california linky

just prove that you don't have a frigging clue what you are talking about
 

Quixotic

Senior member
Oct 16, 2001
662
0
0
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK


if everyone is equal in socialism, why is the gap between rich and poor much greater in socialistic economies than in the US?

you're kidding, right?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Heh...this thread makes my head spin. Shad0hawK was a little ambititious in asking his question, and he did so using an analogy that doesnt quite work in most of our minds regarding socialism/communism. Unfortunately, many of the more senior members here responded with personal attacks and the such (like all the grammar criticism and "you have no idea of what youre talking about") instead of answering his question or telling him that there was a problem with the way he was presenting his question. And Shad0hawK, I do believe you are correct in your assesment of some of the more established members here. Although some are still open-minded to a true debate, quite a few of them already are set in their political philosophies and will just repeat it. Its not uncommon for them to come down on you in these situations. You have to just get used to it I guess. Perhaps you should've phrased your question differently such as: Can anyone explain why socialism/communism is a desireable system of government/economics given the failures of socialistic/communistic governments in the 20th/21st century? Its still open to flaming, but at least you'd get more serious answers here than you've been getting. Just some constructive criticism here. I'm not looking for a flame...
Dang, here he was criticizing socialism and you wanted me to be social and polite and all that communist rot. I say f*ck him and the horse he road in on. It's compete or die. :D You too and your pinko pinkie pointing.! This is America, damn it, where only the strong survive. Buck up!



 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Heh...this thread makes my head spin. Shad0hawK was a little ambititious in asking his question, and he did so using an analogy that doesnt quite work in most of our minds regarding socialism/communism. Unfortunately, many of the more senior members here responded with personal attacks and the such (like all the grammar criticism and "you have no idea of what youre talking about") instead of answering his question or telling him that there was a problem with the way he was presenting his question. And Shad0hawK, I do believe you are correct in your assesment of some of the more established members here. Although some are still open-minded to a true debate, quite a few of them already are set in their political philosophies and will just repeat it. Its not uncommon for them to come down on you in these situations. You have to just get used to it I guess. Perhaps you should've phrased your question differently such as: Can anyone explain why socialism/communism is a desireable system of government/economics given the failures of socialistic/communistic governments in the 20th/21st century? Its still open to flaming, but at least you'd get more serious answers here than you've been getting. Just some constructive criticism here. I'm not looking for a flame...
Dang, here he was criticizing socialism and you wanted me to be social and polite and all that communist rot. I say f*ck him and the horse he road in on. It's compete or die. :D You too and your pinko pinkie pointing.! This is America, damn it, where only the strong survive. Buck up!

It's refreshing to hear that from you Moonbeam :D ....even though it was dripping with sarcasm;) Now we just have to work on that "reality" part for you so you realize your sarcasm is reality.

CkG
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Heh...this thread makes my head spin. Shad0hawK was a little ambititious in asking his question, and he did so using an analogy that doesnt quite work in most of our minds regarding socialism/communism. Unfortunately, many of the more senior members here responded with personal attacks and the such (like all the grammar criticism and "you have no idea of what youre talking about") instead of answering his question or telling him that there was a problem with the way he was presenting his question. And Shad0hawK, I do believe you are correct in your assesment of some of the more established members here. Although some are still open-minded to a true debate, quite a few of them already are set in their political philosophies and will just repeat it. Its not uncommon for them to come down on you in these situations. You have to just get used to it I guess. Perhaps you should've phrased your question differently such as: Can anyone explain why socialism/communism is a desireable system of government/economics given the failures of socialistic/communistic governments in the 20th/21st century? Its still open to flaming, but at least you'd get more serious answers here than you've been getting. Just some constructive criticism here. I'm not looking for a flame...
Dang, here he was criticizing socialism and you wanted me to be social and polite and all that communist rot. I say f*ck him and the horse he road in on. It's compete or die. :D You too and your pinko pinkie pointing.! This is America, damn it, where only the strong survive. Buck up!

It's refreshing to hear that from you Moonbeam :D ....even though it was dripping with sarcasm;) Now we just have to work on that "reality" part for you so you realize your sarcasm is reality.

CkG
It's a fool who does battle with his reflection.

 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
do you think that in your class should take all grades of all students and average them out and that everyone should pass no matter who did the most or least work, or do you think you should keep your grade that you worked for and if another student fails it is his responsibility and not yours?
------------------------------
No, I don't want my grade averaged with yours because it would bring yours up.
--------------------

that would not be an issue since i graduated many years ago :) but still i commend you on the capitalistic thinking in your answer!



after graduation, should the person who did the least amount of/and/or quality work get the best job available because he needs it more than other people who would do the job better?
--------------------------
This is where you base your argument on a hypothetical that can't previously be known. We can't tell if the person who most needs the job will not also do the best job. Before people actually try to do something, we can't know who will do well and who not. If we did we would always chose the best person for the job.

actually this is firmly grounded in reality. since we cannot tell that the person who needs the job the most will do the best job(as you yorself pointed out) it would make much more sense to get an idea of the quality of future performance from past performance...
-------------------------
should a person who cannot or will not do their job properly be dismissed?
-------------------------------------------
Not if they're self employed.

it would happen anyway, customers dissatisfied would find someone else...the business would die.
----------------------

what if they do not want to work at all?
-----------------------------
Everybody whats to fulfill himself, and that comes through achievement.

many people fulfil themselves by doing nothing, after all why should they if the state will support them anyway?
---------------------------
what effect would this have on the quality of work done overall? what effect would it have on cost of production? what effect does cost of production have on the consumer?
-----------------------------
If everybody were achieving their inner desire for achievement, the world would be a paradise.

that is of course assuming everyone had the same inner desires, and that those desires are benevolent, as we see in reality,this is quite often not the case. in fact many people achive thier inner desires by dominating thier fellow man.
-----------------------
name one modern country where the end result of socialism/communism has proved beneficial overall to the welfare of the people and give historical evidence.
------------------------------------
Tibet and its history.

fascinating. socialistic equality and harmony even despite the caste system? would you say the average tibetan has a higher quality of life than the average american do you know anyone from tibet? i know several people from there.
--------------------
think them through!
---------------------
This flippant remark is a product of cultural saturation in a sitcom college world. It makes me feel terrible because I can't think. The grammar I use is from a whole other place. Spelling errors have been fixed.

as long if i know what you mean is good enough, if i am not sure i will ask. that is my laid back "literdisestablimentarianist" approach ;) hehe
 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Heh...this thread makes my head spin. Shad0hawK was a little ambititious in asking his question, and he did so using an analogy that doesnt quite work in most of our minds regarding socialism/communism. Unfortunately, many of the more senior members here responded with personal attacks and the such (like all the grammar criticism and "you have no idea of what youre talking about") instead of answering his question or telling him that there was a problem with the way he was presenting his question. And Shad0hawK, I do believe you are correct in your assesment of some of the more established members here. Although some are still open-minded to a true debate, quite a few of them already are set in their political philosophies and will just repeat it. Its not uncommon for them to come down on you in these situations. You have to just get used to it I guess. Perhaps you should've phrased your question differently such as: Can anyone explain why socialism/communism is a desireable system of government/economics given the failures of socialistic/communistic governments in the 20th/21st century? Its still open to flaming, but at least you'd get more serious answers here than you've been getting. Just some constructive criticism here. I'm not looking for a flame...



actually the analogy works very well, because when it come right down to it even an adamant socialist wants to save his own @$$ and keep what is his!

and i am used to how many supporters of socialism respond since it is such a hard position to defend givin it's track record of failure. hell, i would be upset about it too! ;) no flame here, and thanks for the input :)

 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
according to these figures the GDP of France is bigger then that of california linky

the linky no worky.

here are the figures from 2002


http://www.ecsa.ch/econ/france_en/

i am still looking for the 2002 figures but as you can see in 2001 california beat out france here

http://countingcalifornia.cdlib.org/pdfdata/csa02/P54

i have seen other estimates placing france just in front of cali but with a margin that small it is practically a dead heat.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/09/20/MN2339.DTL

http://www.e-edge.org/special/GDP.htm

of course just for fun we can combine the GNP of all the other countries to the US in total....

yay!! i like capitalism!!!

;)
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
81
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
according to these figures the GDP of France is bigger then that of california linky

the linky no worky.

here are the figures from 2002


http://www.ecsa.ch/econ/france_en/

i am still looking for the 2002 figures but as you can see in 2001 california beat out france here

http://countingcalifornia.cdlib.org/pdfdata/csa02/P54

i have seen other estimates placing france just in front of cali but with a margin that small it is practically a dead heat.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/09/20/MN2339.DTL

http://www.e-edge.org/special/GDP.htm

of course just for fun we can combine the GNP of all the other countries to the US in total....

yay!! i like capitalism!!!

;)


population below poverty line

USA: 12,1 %
France: 6,4 %

CIA factbook

Cuba has a higher literacy rate then the USA


CIA factbook


yumm capitalism ;)
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
do you think that in your class should take all grades of all students and average them out and that everyone should pass no matter who did the most or least work, or do you think you should keep your grade that you worked for and if another student fails it is his responsibility and not yours?
------------------------------
No, I don't want my grade averaged with yours because it would bring yours up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that would not be an issue since i graduated many years ago but still i commend you on the capitalistic thinking in your answer!
----------------------
Back then is when I wouldn't have wanted it averaged. And my point was to get you to look at the unexamined assumption you have that if things were averaged you's come out worse off. You're always in the lower 50% of something.

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
after graduation, should the person who did the least amount of/and/or quality work get the best job available because he needs it more than other people who would do the job better?
--------------------------
This is where you base your argument on a hypothetical that can't previously be known. We can't tell if the person who most needs the job will not also do the best job. Before people actually try to do something, we can't know who will do well and who not. If we did we would always chose the best person for the job.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
actually this is firmly grounded in reality. since we cannot tell that the person who needs the job the most will do the best job(as you yorself pointed out) it would make much more sense to get an idea of the quality of future performance from past performance...
-------------------------
Nope, anybody who looks at this system knows well enough to cheat. Falsifying your past history is part of the capitalist's game.
------------------

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
should a person who cannot or will not do their job properly be dismissed?
-------------------------------------------
Not if they're self employed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it would happen anyway, customers dissatisfied would find someone else...the business would die.
----------------------
That's ok after you have their life savings.
---------------------------------------

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
what if they do not want to work at all?
-----------------------------
Everybody whats to fulfill himself, and that comes through achievement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
many people fulfil themselves by doing nothing, after all why should they if the state will support them anyway?
---------------------------
Nobody is fulfilled by doing nothing. That's not the nature of man. Although the ability to do nothing is a very important thing.
----------------------------------

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
what effect would this have on the quality of work done overall? what effect would it have on cost of production? what effect does cost of production have on the consumer?
-----------------------------
If everybody were achieving their inner desire for achievement, the world would be a paradise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that is of course assuming everyone had the same inner desires, and that those desires are benevolent, as we see in reality,this is quite often not the case. in fact many people achive thier inner desires by dominating thier fellow man.
-----------------------
That they are the same is not an assumption. What you see is people not achieving them and what they do as a result. You think you know your hearts desire. I can assure you you do not. Wish you could read this story.
-----------------------

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
name one modern country where the end result of socialism/communism has proved beneficial overall to the welfare of the people and give historical evidence.
------------------------------------
Tibet and its history.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fascinating. socialistic equality and harmony even despite the caste system? would you say the average tibetan has a higher quality of life than the average american do you know anyone from tibet? i know several people from there.
--------------------
Do you know anybody from Tibet when Tibet was Tibet? Would be sort of like comparing the greys to cave men.
---------------------------

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
think them through!
---------------------
This flippant remark is a product of cultural saturation in a sitcom college world. It makes me feel terrible because I can't think. The grammar I use is from a whole other place. Spelling errors have been fixed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
as long if i know what you mean is good enough, if i am not sure i will ask. that is my laid back "literdisestablimentarianist" approach hehe
-----------------
Feel free.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,085
5,618
126
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Why are you even posing the question(s) if you've already made up your mind? Further, some people (myself not one of them) would argue that the U.S. has become at least partially socialist. What do you think about that?

i think a great attempt is being made to turn us to socialism by the extreme left. as far as my mind being made up i am not a closed minded person, but when i ask legitimate questions that are only answered by personal attacks, i assume that those with the opposing viewpoint cannot rationally defend thier viewpoint and only have to ability to use their wit for insults rather than thinking on issues.

i have many valid points and questions.

if socialism is the superior philosophy, why has it never worked? (and yes it has been tried..many times)

if socialism is the superior economic philosophy, why are the top 3 performing economies capitalistic?

people like to talk about how bad the economy is in the state of california, and relatively speaking to it's past performance it is not as good as it was, but the GP of california still exceeds that of the nation of france... the GNP of the US is still the best in the world by a wide margin.

if everyone is equal in socialism, why is the gap between rich and poor much greater in socialistic economies than in the US?

1) Extreme Left trying to establish Socialism? You think? Of course, that's what "Extreme Left" is. Of course, who is "Extreme Left" will vary greatly depending on who makes the Judgement.

2) Socialism has never worked? Which "Socialism" are we talking about, Soviet(Communist) or the much more successful European(Democratic) Socialism?

3) I don't think even Socialists believe their Economic Philosophy will outperform Capitalism, could be wrong. Socialists are more concerned with Wealth Parity then Wealth Accumulation then Capitalists are, so in that sense they are more "successful". It's a difference of Priorities, IOW, they are not focussed on Wealth Accumulation as Capitalists are, so of course Capitalism is more "successful" as far as Wealth Accumulation is concerned.

4)US GNP the best in the World? See point #3. However, Capitalism is not the only reason for this. For a very long time the US has been the most populous Industrialized nation, but there are other factors that have helped it to be the dominant Economy it is. Those are:

a) Unlike most other Industrialized Nations, the US was founded on a landmass that was relatively undeveloped, Japan and Europe had Centuries and even Millenia of Civilizations who exploited Natural Resources(see next point b). Add to this situation that the US was founded at the start(circa) of the Industrial Revolution so those newfound Resources could be put directly into efficient production.

b) Partly due to lack of exploitation, but also due to the very large(in comparison to most other Industrialized Nations) landmass of the US, there was a lot of Natural Resources to be exploited. Not only were these Resources in very large Volume, but they also were of a very great Variety, something that smaller landmass Nations lack.

c) In relation to point (a): The fact that the US landmass was unexploited meant that the cost of acquiring its' Natural Resources was quite inexpensive. The more exploited European and Japanese resources meant that it was more difficult and costly to Acquire the Resouces. This was why Europe had tried to maintain Colonies in the New World, the Lumber, Fish, Metals, and other Resources that were plentiful in the New World were making them very Wealthy. It only stands to reason that the Colonists would become extremely Wealthy if they kept those Resources for themselves.

d) War or the lack thereof. Besides WW1/WW2, Europe had many War's amongst it's Nations. Some of these were in distant places of the World, but many of these wars were fought on European soil which increases the cost(loss of Infrastructure, homes, Industry) of war significantly. The US had only 1(Civil War) or 2(War of 1812) of these events. They did fight many other wars, but those were on the enemies Territory(what was the Enemy Territory in many cases) and were usually very profitable acquisitions.

e) The relatively Peaceful Isolation that he US enjoyed and the vast abundance/variety of Resources meant that the US could take their own Natural Resources, Manufacture them, and Sell them to Europe at great Profit. Most Europeans were only able to do similar by exploiting far off Colonies and Transport those Resources at great cost to the Homeland where they would be Manufactured into Goods.


Capitalist's like to pat themselves on the back, but the Truth is that they would have become Wealthy no matter what, it was Luck or Providence more than Economic System. That's not to say that Capitalism is without its' merits or that Capitalism had no effect on what the US is today, it's just disingenuous to attribute Wealth solely to Capitalism as it is today.

5) Gap between Rich/Poor. I think the answer to this question is that you are dyslexic! ;)
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,085
5,618
126
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Not a socialist or communist, but perhaps the originator of the thread might explain why he felt Scrooge was right?


i almost missed this one!

i do what i can to help my fellow man because it is in my heart to do so, scrooge did so after he had a change of heart as well, not because the political philosophy of a socialistic goverment forced him to with the threat of siezure of property and vacation time at a re-education camp. ;)

Yea, but Scrooge was also a Fiction.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,999
109
106
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Heh...this thread makes my head spin. Shad0hawK was a little ambititious in asking his question, and he did so using an analogy that doesnt quite work in most of our minds regarding socialism/communism. Unfortunately, many of the more senior members here responded with personal attacks and the such (like all the grammar criticism and "you have no idea of what youre talking about") instead of answering his question or telling him that there was a problem with the way he was presenting his question. And Shad0hawK, I do believe you are correct in your assesment of some of the more established members here. Although some are still open-minded to a true debate, quite a few of them already are set in their political philosophies and will just repeat it. Its not uncommon for them to come down on you in these situations. You have to just get used to it I guess. Perhaps you should've phrased your question differently such as: Can anyone explain why socialism/communism is a desireable system of government/economics given the failures of socialistic/communistic governments in the 20th/21st century? Its still open to flaming, but at least you'd get more serious answers here than you've been getting. Just some constructive criticism here. I'm not looking for a flame...



actually the analogy works very well, because when it come right down to it even an adamant socialist wants to save his own @$$ and keep what is his!

and i am used to how many supporters of socialism respond since it is such a hard position to defend givin it's track record of failure. hell, i would be upset about it too! ;) no flame here, and thanks for the input :)

Yeah, I understood your analogy myself. I kinda take your view on this. I've always wondered the same thing, and I usually end up in these types of discussions when I go out to eat with friends since one happens to be almost a party-line marxist. We keep engaging the guy about his views, but he never seems to justify communism's failure. He keeps rattling on and on how everyone should be "equal" and how things "should be" without addressing the reality of what communism is in its current form. Finally, we just stopped talking about it since it was the same old arguement over and over again. I'm not at all suprised at how this thread has gone, though...seems just like that lunch table....
But as for socialism, the modern, European version, I see its problems as well as its sucesses. I'd take it over old-style communism anyday. Capitalism, on the other hand, has its problems too. I prefer what we have here in the states from what I do know about these other systems though.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,999
109
106
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Heh...this thread makes my head spin. Shad0hawK was a little ambititious in asking his question, and he did so using an analogy that doesnt quite work in most of our minds regarding socialism/communism. Unfortunately, many of the more senior members here responded with personal attacks and the such (like all the grammar criticism and "you have no idea of what youre talking about") instead of answering his question or telling him that there was a problem with the way he was presenting his question. And Shad0hawK, I do believe you are correct in your assesment of some of the more established members here. Although some are still open-minded to a true debate, quite a few of them already are set in their political philosophies and will just repeat it. Its not uncommon for them to come down on you in these situations. You have to just get used to it I guess. Perhaps you should've phrased your question differently such as: Can anyone explain why socialism/communism is a desireable system of government/economics given the failures of socialistic/communistic governments in the 20th/21st century? Its still open to flaming, but at least you'd get more serious answers here than you've been getting. Just some constructive criticism here. I'm not looking for a flame...
Dang, here he was criticizing socialism and you wanted me to be social and polite and all that communist rot. I say f*ck him and the horse he road in on. It's compete or die. :D You too and your pinko pinkie pointing.! This is America, damn it, where only the strong survive. Buck up!

??? I thought this thread was supposed to be directed towards socialism/communism as a political and/or economic structure, not as something purely "social" in nature. Asking to be civil in a discussion forum is hardly "communist rot" or "pinko pinkie pointing", its common courtesy. Maybe you were just trying to be sarcastic or I simply missed the point of your post, but I'm used to these kinds of replies here anyway. :D
 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Yeah, I understood your analogy myself. I kinda take your view on this. I've always wondered the same thing, and I usually end up in these types of discussions when I go out to eat with friends since one happens to be almost a party-line marxist. We keep engaging the guy about his views, but he never seems to justify communism's failure. He keeps rattling on and on how everyone should be "equal" and how things "should be" without addressing the reality of what communism is in its current form. Finally, we just stopped talking about it since it was the same old arguement over and over again. I'm not at all suprised at how this thread has gone, though...seems just like that lunch table....
But as for socialism, the modern, European version, I see its problems as well as its sucesses. I'd take it over old-style communism anyday. Capitalism, on the other hand, has its problems too. I prefer what we have here in the states from what I do know about these other systems though.


i get into the same kinds of discussions all the time as well, and it is true capitalism does have it's problems as any type of "system" does. what always entertains me is when having nothing to stand on they start spouting of literacy figures from other countries, what cuba's literacy rate has to do with a debate on political/economic systems i do not know! perhaps since all the young children in cuba can read the che quevera and castro propaganda posters mean communism really IS better ROFL!!! :) maybe the fact that the nation of france is on par with the state of california(1 of 50 in the entire US with france having a much higher unemployment rate than the US as well) AND the fact france's economy is more capitalist than socialist somehow makes the socialistic economic theory better...

the ironic thing about socialism is it's disdain for the individual, but as history demonstrates, it is individuals that kill it. or as a mentor of mine once put it "the failure of socialism is that people tend to be human."
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,999
109
106
"the failure of socialism is that people tend to be human."
Yes...I agree here (although it was interpreted in many different ways by us)....that was the final conclusion we all reached with the exception of the marxist in our group. :D
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,085
5,618
126
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
"the failure of socialism is that people tend to be human."
Yes...I agree here (although it was interpreted in many different ways by us)....that was the final conclusion we all reached with the exception of the marxist in our group. :D

That is the failure of any system, which is why the "US Capitalism" is a mixed(Capitalist/Socialist mixed in, also like Europe, except it is Socialist/Capitalist). There is no "Capitalist"(pure) nation like there has been "Communist"(pure).
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,085
5,618
126
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Yeah, I understood your analogy myself. I kinda take your view on this. I've always wondered the same thing, and I usually end up in these types of discussions when I go out to eat with friends since one happens to be almost a party-line marxist. We keep engaging the guy about his views, but he never seems to justify communism's failure. He keeps rattling on and on how everyone should be "equal" and how things "should be" without addressing the reality of what communism is in its current form. Finally, we just stopped talking about it since it was the same old arguement over and over again. I'm not at all suprised at how this thread has gone, though...seems just like that lunch table....
But as for socialism, the modern, European version, I see its problems as well as its sucesses. I'd take it over old-style communism anyday. Capitalism, on the other hand, has its problems too. I prefer what we have here in the states from what I do know about these other systems though.


i get into the same kinds of discussions all the time as well, and it is true capitalism does have it's problems as any type of "system" does. what always entertains me is when having nothing to stand on they start spouting of literacy figures from other countries, what cuba's literacy rate has to do with a debate on political/economic systems i do not know! perhaps since all the young children in cuba can read the che quevera and castro propaganda posters mean communism really IS better ROFL!!! :) maybe the fact that the nation of france is on par with the state of california(1 of 50 in the entire US with france having a much higher unemployment rate than the US as well) AND the fact france's economy is more capitalist than socialist somehow makes the socialistic economic theory better...

the ironic thing about socialism is it's disdain for the individual, but as history demonstrates, it is individuals that kill it. or as a mentor of mine once put it "the failure of socialism is that people tend to be human."

Socialism doesn't have "disdain" of the Individual, it puts the whole above the Individual. A significant difference. Again I must ask though: What "Socialism" are you talking about? It seems you want to use one forms faults in order to criticize the other.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,999
109
106
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
"the failure of socialism is that people tend to be human."
Yes...I agree here (although it was interpreted in many different ways by us)....that was the final conclusion we all reached with the exception of the marxist in our group. :D

That is the failure of any system, which is why the "US Capitalism" is a mixed(Capitalist/Socialist mixed in, also like Europe, except it is Socialist/Capitalist). There is no "Capitalist"(pure) nation like there has been "Communist"(pure).

Well, I was referring to old-style (USSR)communism/socialism when we came to that conclusion in our discussions. Human nature was more opposed to that system of economics, politics, and government imho than it is for our current system. I realize that we are not a pure capitalist system as some would wrongly claim. I wouldnt want that anyway. I'm glad you brought up that point, though.