World Republic

Uniting All People!
 
HomeHome  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  UsergroupsUsergroups  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Socialist thought

Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
AuthorMessage
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 30
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Sun Mar 08, 2009 7:44 am

Kenzu wrote:
Could I ask you to answer only to the most important parts of my post. You don't have to argue with me on each sentence I make.

I like to answer thoroughly.

Plus, if you had read my post, you'd notice I'm not arguing over every sentence you do: I merely deconstruct your post point by point to adress each one of them as thoroughly as I consider pertinent. So that "ironic statement" (if it can be called so) is uncalled for.

By the way, there's a lot you haven't answered in regards to previous posts.

Kenzu wrote:

You write a lot but your point isn't clear AND you have misunderstood what I have said.

Translation: "I'm too uninterested/lazy/both to read your post thoroughly, let alone replying to it".

I'll grant truthfulness to this accusation when you can demonstrate it by quoting my arguements and yours and back up why my point isn't clear and how I misunderstood you.


Kenzu wrote:

I basically said that in the East Block some money which has been "produced" went to the workers in terms of wage, but a huge portion came in terms of health care, education, infrastructure, security, job safety, holidays, paid vacation and so on.

You didn't say this. You argued that workers in the Eastern Bloc were not exploited because they were given welfare.

Kenzu wrote:

Directors didn't earn much of what workers earned.


This very specific statement is very relative and I don't see how it is relevant at all.

Kenzu wrote:

In Czechoslovakia for example a director earned maybe a triple of what a worker earned. (but the same director earned LESS than a worker at the time when he started working, because workers had much more work experience at the point where the graduate only finished university.)

So? the director is merely another worker being exploited by the state.

Kenzu wrote:

It's not so easy to lead a factory, or a company. You don't earn much more than workers, but you are responsible for all of them, and if you make some grave mistake, you will be acused of being a western spy sabotaging socialism.

Great relevance to the point. You're merely bringing the "value as proportional to responsability" arguement and mixing it with the (justified) paranoia of the Eastern Bloc regimes.

Kenzu wrote:

Directors in the west earn 1000 times more than workers! While a worker earn now maybe 15.000$ per year, the CEO earns 2.000.000 and many CEOs earn even more!

Because, often, CEO's are the owners while their Eastern Bloc counterparts were workers of the state.

Even so, you've failed to notice that the problem doesn't lie within the income ratios but within class relationships.

Here there are enterprises in which the CEO earns in average "just" two times what his highest paid workers earn, yet he's the one to make the call on eveything and he's the owner of the enterprise, if he can manage to prescind from those workers, he will fire them and increase his revenues.

Kenzu wrote:

East block had a very egalitarian system.
People were much more equal in East European socialist countries than anywhere in the world!

You're repeating like a tape recorder without adressing the points that have refuted both the validity of this statement and its relevance.

Kenzu wrote:

And let me repeat for you again, Soviet Union has been defeated not by its economic system, but by 2 people: Gorbachev and Yeltsin. If these 2 people had an "accident", Soviet Union would still exist and socialism would be continued to be exported until USA, Israel, South Korea and Japan were the last countries on earth to remain capitalist. And they would fall themselves, isolated from the world.


Bring arguements. Arguements, not statements and fantastic speculations on how some magic super premier would have saved the USSR from collapse.

1. If the whole destiny of a nearly 300 million community such as USSR (or URUCSD* as I should start calling it) depended on two men, the system was politically failed. It failed to provide the people with enough awareness and knowledge to evaluate for themselves.

2. If the Soviet system hadn't failed to provide the people with all their needs and hadn't entered a crisis (the origin of which I already explained**) there would have never been such a civil unrest as to overthrow the Soviet system.

3. You haven't rebutted our (Zach's and mine) points on why the Soviet system wasn't socialist therefore I won't consider valid your assertion that USSR was socialist.


Also, I'll consider it offensive if you don't reply to my post. I take my time to read yours thoroughly and reply to it in the same manner. I request you to do the same if at least out of mere respect. And I remind you, so long as you don't refute your interlocutors' arguement you're granting validity to it.


*Union of Republics Under Capitalist Social Dictatorship
**I have explianed why Soviet economy failed and you haven't rebutted that either.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
Kenzu
Chairman of the WR Committee
avatar

Posts : 1842
Join date : 2007-08-17
Age : 31
Location : Austria - Vienna

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:24 pm

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Translation: "I'm too uninterested/lazy/both to read your post thoroughly, let alone replying to it".

No, I simply don't have as much time as you. My last post took me 15 minutes to write. If I had responded to each of your points it could take 45 minutes


Kenzu wrote:

I basically said that in the East Block some money which has been "produced" went to the workers in terms of wage, but a huge portion came in terms of health care, education, infrastructure, security, job safety, holidays, paid vacation and so on.

You didn't say this. You argued that workers in the Eastern Bloc were not exploited because they were given welfare.

To exploit someone you have to keep wealth away from the person who produced something. This wasn't true for socialist countries. A capitalist does anything he can to make more money, even if it means to force workers to work 14 hours a day, and fire as many as he can. A socialist government does ANYTHING to prevent workers from becomming homeless or losin their job. Many working class families benefited from it, especially if they had more children. Compared to living standard in the WEST, they were much better of, because they could live in much bigger appartments and were not bonded into slavery with mortgages

(A family with 2 children received 4 room appartments and the government gave them 0% interest loans AND they didn't have to repay 25% of the appartment price per child they had.)

=> Does it mean that families with children were exploiting the state?

What about handicapped people, who cannot work at all?
They also exploited the state?
They didnt do anything, and receive as much money as a hard working individual.


Kenzu wrote:

Directors didn't earn much of what workers earned.


This very specific statement is very relative and I don't see how it is relevant at all.

Because it shows that the "elite" as you call it wasn't much better of. They were only slighlty better of.

Kenzu wrote:

In Czechoslovakia for example a director earned maybe a triple of what a worker earned. (but the same director earned LESS than a worker at the time when he started working, because workers had much more work experience at the point where the graduate only finished university.)

So? the director is merely another worker being exploited by the state.

In that case EVERYONE was exploited by the state, even highest party members. Even the chairman of USSR didn't get much. His appartment, dacha, car. All belonged to the state. If EVERYONE was exploited in a socialist state, how is it possible that life was much more economically secure than anywhere else? And what individual was exploiting the system, when ALL were exploited by the state? A state cannot use money on itself, because it isn't a living being. It always serves some individuals or people.


Kenzu wrote:

It's not so easy to lead a factory, or a company. You don't earn much more than workers, but you are responsible for all of them, and if you make some grave mistake, you will be acused of being a western spy sabotaging socialism.

Great relevance to the point. You're merely bringing the "value as proportional to responsability" arguement and mixing it with the (justified) paranoia of the Eastern Bloc regimes.

Shouldn't a person who studied at a university for 4 years and had worked for 20 years already earn more than a worker who didnt study and didnt work as many years?

In most socialist countries people who worked longer earned a higher monthly wage. I think it's fair.


Kenzu wrote:

Directors in the west earn 1000 times more than workers! While a worker earn now maybe 15.000$ per year, the CEO earns 2.000.000 and many CEOs earn even more!

Because, often, CEO's are the owners while their Eastern Bloc counterparts were workers of the state.

Even so, you've failed to notice that the problem doesn't lie within the income ratios but within class relationships.

Here there are enterprises in which the CEO earns in average "just" two times what his highest paid workers earn, yet he's the one to make the call on eveything and he's the owner of the enterprise, if he can manage to prescind from those workers, he will fire them and increase his revenues.

The workers don't know how to manage a factory. It isn't so easy, you know? It isn't just watching them work. Usually you have to work on models how to improve the ways of production and train people for how to produce new parts.

Furthermore directors usually work longer hours than workers



Kenzu wrote:

And let me repeat for you again, Soviet Union has been defeated not by its economic system, but by 2 people: Gorbachev and Yeltsin. If these 2 people had an "accident", Soviet Union would still exist and socialism would be continued to be exported until USA, Israel, South Korea and Japan were the last countries on earth to remain capitalist. And they would fall themselves, isolated from the world.


Bring arguements. Arguements, not statements and fantastic speculations on how some magic super premier would have saved the USSR from collapse.

1. If the whole destiny of a nearly 300 million community such as USSR (or URUCSD* as I should start calling it) depended on two men, the system was politically failed. It failed to provide the people with enough awareness and knowledge to evaluate for themselves.

Almost each system relies on a handful of people. I haven't seen a working example where it would rely on a majority of a group. Most people don't bother to care until it's too late anyway.

2. If the Soviet system hadn't failed to provide the people with all their needs and hadn't entered a crisis (the origin of which I already explained**) there would have never been such a civil unrest as to overthrow the Soviet system.

There was no civil unrest to overthrow Soviet Union. In a referendum held before the dissolution of USSR, the majority of soviet citizens voted in favor of USSR.

In economic terms, I think the problem was that it was heavily centrally planned, and the planners didn't take much interest in the market forces.


3. You haven't rebutted our (Zach's and mine) points on why the Soviet system wasn't socialist therefore I won't consider valid your assertion that USSR was socialist.

You don't say why you think it's not socialist except that it exploits people

Also, I'll consider it offensive if you don't reply to my post. I take my time to read yours thoroughly and reply to it in the same manner. I request you to do the same if at least out of mere respect. And I remind you, so long as you don't refute your interlocutors' arguement you're granting validity to it.

I replied to your previous post. I don't see a need in replying to things which I have already said. It seems you ask me the same question again and again.


*Union of Republics Under Capitalist Social Dictatorship
**I have explianed why Soviet economy failed and you haven't rebutted that either.

_________________
World Republic will prevail!
Back to top Go down
View user profile https://www.patreon.com/SocialistWorldRepublic
Tyrlop
Chairman of the WR Committee


Posts : 1853
Join date : 2008-06-01

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:36 pm

you can't blame one single person or two in this case. Some people are just sick and should'nt have to much power, thats why the people should have equal power, so they keep each other in check. example you shoul'nt blame Hitler for World War two, it happened thanks to rest of europe, World War one was started by greedy emperialists and nationalists galvanized by capitalist media,
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 30
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:30 pm

Kenzu wrote:


No, I simply don't have as much time as you. My last post took me 15 minutes to write. If I had responded to each of your points it could take 45 minutes

Then it would be recommendable that you didn't reply at all. If you can't do something right, don't do it.



Kenzu wrote:


To exploit someone you have to keep wealth away from the person who produced something. This wasn't true for socialist countries. A capitalist does anything he can to make more money, even if it means to force workers to work 14 hours a day, and fire as many as he can. A socialist government does ANYTHING to prevent workers from becomming homeless or losin their job. Many working class families benefited from it, especially if they had more children. Compared to living standard in the WEST, they were much better of, because they could live in much bigger appartments and were not bonded into slavery with mortgages

You still don't get it's not matter of proportions or living standards do you?

I already wrote about three times how workers were exploited in the USSR and alike systems, you simply keep ignoring those parts of my posts. And wouldn't expect you not to ignore it a 4th, 5th and 70th time if so happened.

Long asnwer short: The government owned the means of production and the workers worked for the state which sold goods to the soviet people to regain income which would be used to suffice welfare needs, suffice expenditure needs (like the army), reinvest in capital and suffice state's needs, which, for some strange reason resulted much higher than the people's.

Soviets worked for the state to obtain a wage because they needed to and the state needed that surplus value to invest it in all its projects, because after all, every single soviet worker needed a wage to suffice his/her needs.

Plus, when I was in Hungary, I was told by several people how 7 people were stuffed into 70m² (~753.47 sq ft) apartments during the pro-soviet regime. Not that they live better today, there are lots of homeless people, but that's not what I'd call idyllic housing either.

Kenzu wrote:
[color:099a="orange"]
(A family with 2 children received 4 room appartments and the government gave them 0% interest loans AND they didn't have to repay 25% of the appartment price per child they had.)

=> Does it mean that families with children were exploiting the state?

What about handicapped people, who cannot work at all?
They also exploited the state?
They didnt do anything, and receive as much money as a hard working individual.

What the hell? The state was unexploitable because it owned the means of production and determined all the policies by which economy and society had to abide.

The state exploited workers and from said exploitation it provided welfare to every citizen, as simple as that.

As for housing, my Russian language teacher told me Soviets received apartments for free since paying for it was optional; all you had to do was request housing to the state and they'd register you and give you the keys to an apartment. At least according to my Russian language teacher. Does this eliminate exploitation? No. Soviets still received a wage they had to spend on the various goods sold to them by the state.

Kenzu wrote:



Because it shows that the "elite" as you call it wasn't much better of. They were only slighlty better of.

Earning triple should imply triple acquisitive power and therefore triple standards of living.

Even so, those are not the ones I call the elite, as I told you in the previous post, the elite were the rulers. Directors were just highly paid workers given your arguement.



Kenzu wrote:



In that case EVERYONE was exploited by the state, even highest party members. Even the chairman of USSR didn't get much. His appartment, dacha, car. All belonged to the state.


The state is not some aetheral superstructure from the 4th dimension. It is composed by men. In the case of the USSR, the chairman was part of the state, part of those who determined the economic and political destiny of the Soviet population, one among those that decided what was to be done with the entire system in the USSR, those who owned USSR Inc. its shareholders.

And its not matter of how much the chairman received, he still was in control of everything, he owned with the rest of those who composed the state, the means of production. They profited from the workers' labour, they managed the economy at will.

Kenzu wrote:

If EVERYONE was exploited in a socialist state, how is it possible that life was much more economically secure than anywhere else?

1. Socialist state is an oxymoron.
2. No country had as much welfare as USSR, perhaps it was just rivaled by other Eastern Bloc systems but, as it was demonstrated, this didn't provide economic nor social stability. While proportionally higher social stability than in say USA, the USSR lacked enough. As for economic stability, it ended up collapsing revealing a terrible economic weakness product of its contradiction: based on a profit oriented economic system, it had far more expenditures than profit.

Kenzu wrote:
[color=orange]
And what individual was exploiting the system, when ALL were exploited by the state? A state cannot use money on itself, because it isn't a living being. It always serves some individuals or people.

Individual exploiting the system... I don't see how this makes sense so I'll skip it.

And a state of course can use money on itself for the state is composed by men. From all the revenues the state takes a share and uses it on itself for whatever purposes within the soviet economic framework.


Kenzu wrote:



Shouldn't a person who studied at a university for 4 years and had worked for 20 years already earn more than a worker who didnt study and didnt work as many years?

I think that should be up to the workers to decide, that considering the economic framework to employ some sort of abstract trade instruments.

In my view needs are to be determined by the workers production and distribution having to suffice said needs thus being these two determined as well by the workers. Whether harder, skilled and/or long time work performance should be rewaded with luxuries is something that should be determined by the workers.

Kenzu wrote:

In most socialist countries people who worked longer earned a higher monthly wage. I think it's fair.

There were no socialist countries. You haven't rebutted my arguements on why those systems were not socialism so I don't acknowledge as valid your use of the term "socialism" and derivates in this context and I won't until you refute my arguements.

As for whether it's fair or not, that is up to the workers to decide.

Kenzu wrote:


The workers don't know how to manage a factory. It isn't so easy, you know? It isn't just watching them work. Usually you have to work on models how to improve the ways of production and train people for how to produce new parts.

Whether workers don't know how to manage a factory or the details on the productive process is not matter of the "workerity of workers", it is a matter of knowledge not being provided to the workers and lack of organizational systems. Either way, the policies that rule the factory, that is what it ought to produce, the ammount of time that should be comprised by shifts, the rewards to higher value work or extra time work and so forth ought to be determined by the workers. The needs that factory is intended to suffice are tio be determined by the workers.

Kenzu wrote:

Furthermore directors usually work longer hours than workers

That depends on organizational models and wether this worker's value is greater, lesser or equal to an average worker's one is something that ought to be decided by the workers.


Kenzu wrote:


[color=orange]Almost each system relies on a handful of people. I haven't seen a working example where it would rely on a majority of a group. Most people don't bother to care until it's too late anyway.

Then you should read on the Spanish communes during the civil war, that will expand your knowledge.

By the way that is not an arguement, it's just a statement and the admitance that you haven't seen enough and another statement.



Kenzu wrote:

There was no civil unrest to overthrow Soviet Union. In a referendum held before the dissolution of USSR, the majority of soviet citizens voted in favor of USSR.

I'm not the only one in this world who has seen Soviet protesters throwing molotov cocktails at BMPs and signs reading "Death to Red Fascism!". If that's not civil unrest, then what is it?

Either way, the results of the referendum as it's patent, had no effect.

And, had USSR been able to suffice more needs, or at least enough needs in comparison to the actual post-Soviet systems, Russians, Ukrainians, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, etc. would have protested and revolted to get things back to how they were and USSR would have been reestablished. The CPRF had indeed some popularity until 1999-2000 (greatly thanks to the crisis), after Putin took charge that changed. I hope though the actual crisis has some positive impact on Russians' minds.

As my ex-gf's parents put it, a Russian historian (mother) and Russian soldier (father) , put it:

"Me: Was life better in USSR than in actual Russia?
Mother: It's hard to tell. I'd say we're roughly in the same conditions. During USSR we had more social stability, we had much less worries, we enjoyed greater solidarity among people, everyone was more friendly or at least tried to, streets were far safer, you could study even 5 different careers without any cost. But we lacked material wealth, we could enter stores and find at best 2-3 items for a certain kind of good, it took us years to be able to get a car, we had to ration our wage in order for it to be enough. Now things switched, while we don't have the same welfare, and social stability, we now have a much greater chance at consuming goods of far higher quality. To many it's even".
Father: We were okay then, and we are okay now."

Soviets had lacks they don't have now and lack now what they didn't lack.

The point here in regards to your arguement that there was no civilian unrest is that the Soviet system failed at sufficing several needs which evoled in civil unrest and the eventual collapse of the soviet system.

Kenzu wrote:

In economic terms, I think the problem was that it was heavily centrally planned, and the planners didn't take much interest in the market forces.

Capitalism fails, specially when being a profit-reliant system it's more heavily focused on expenditures like welfare and military.



Kenzu wrote:

You don't say why you think it's not socialist except that it exploits people

See what happens when you don't read to others' posts yet try replying to them? We explain thoroughly why it isn't socialism as per definition and you haven't adressed our arguements.


Kenzu wrote:

I replied to your previous post. I don't see a need in replying to things which I have already said. It seems you ask me the same question again and again.

If you say something and I refute it you must either accept your mistake or present a counter rebuttal, something you haven't done.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
Kenzu
Chairman of the WR Committee
avatar

Posts : 1842
Join date : 2007-08-17
Age : 31
Location : Austria - Vienna

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:50 am

Your explanations are very simplistic.

What you expect will never happen!

What are you trying to prove?

That there was exploitation?
Just because someone earned a triple of someone else, it doesnt mean that people have been exploited. Just because there is small inequalities it doesnt mean there is exploitation. Exploitation exists only in sharp disproportions of work to benefits ratio. You cannot measure everything with money. Jut because someone earns 3 times more in a socialist country it doesnt mean the living standard is 3 times higher. Many things are free in socialist countries, you dont pay for them.

What I am saying is that people were quite equal. Much more equal than any West European country.

Soviet system turned a backward feudal society into a modern society with strong social security, and strongly egalitarian.

Minor exploitation will always exist.

_________________
World Republic will prevail!
Back to top Go down
View user profile https://www.patreon.com/SocialistWorldRepublic
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 30
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:07 am

Kenzu wrote:
Your explanations are very simplistic.

Demonstrate it. And furthermore explain the relevance of their simplicity..

Kenzu wrote:

What you expect will never happen!

In summary, denial.

Kenzu wrote:

What are you trying to prove?

In essence:

1. That USSR was not socialist.
2. That your conception of "socialism" is merely Leninist and not Marxist in which case is nothing buut a disguise (sometimes involuntarily) for a dictatorship that relies on welfare.
3. That there was exploitation in USSR. (As granted by yourself below)

Kenzu wrote:

That there was exploitation?
Just because someone earned a triple of someone else, it doesnt mean that people have been exploited. Just because there is small inequalities it doesnt mean there is exploitation.

If you had bothered to read my posts you would know that I never even implied that.

Workers don't control the means of production, the State does. The workers work for the state and produce goods which are sold to them, the state profiting from the workers' labour. That in very simple terms is an exploitative relationship. Of course, I explained more thoroughly but you wouldn't even read, would you?

Kenzu wrote:

Exploitation exists only in sharp disproportions of work to benefits ratio. You cannot measure everything with money. Jut because someone earns 3 times more in a socialist country it doesnt mean the living standard is 3 times higher. Many things are free in socialist countries, you dont pay for them.

You simply don't read to what you reply do you? Exploitation is not a matter of living standards' proportions; it is matter of a relationship between classes.

Read my posts and then reply to them, if you don't read them please don't reply.

Kenzu wrote:

What I am saying is that people were quite equal. Much more equal than any West European country.

So? Please read my posts.

Kenzu wrote:

Soviet system turned a backward feudal society into a modern society with strong social security, and strongly egalitarian.

USSR was indeed inmensely progressive in comparison to any country in the world. It reached a ratio of development unparalleled in history. It raised the living standards of serfs to one of the most developed peoples in the world in a span of a couple of decades. So? That doesn't mean exploitation was abolished in the USSR and that the economic system was functional.



Kenzu wrote:

Minor exploitation will always exist.

Aha! Now you acknowledge there was exploitation. Keep euphemisms to yourself. Exploitation is exploitation, period. And now if you will please give a back up to this rather unfounded (and historically proven wrong) statement.

I'm glad you finally acknowledged there was exploitation.

_________________


Last edited by Zealot_Kommunizma on Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:31 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
CoolKidX
Chairman of the Supreme Council
avatar

Posts : 4639
Join date : 2008-02-14
Location : Netherlands

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:39 pm

Kenzu wrote:

The goal of socialism isn't to make everyone earn the same amount of money, the goal of socialism is to give people equal rights and equal opportunities.

What is your understanding of "equal"?
As I hear it you say it has social equality.

And equal opportunities?
You mean you make something and sell it to let's say a big ass buisness who will advertise it and sell it for their porvit while you got provit to?
Or what?

Because, sir, in this(capitalist) society, atleast in W-Europa and Austria also social equailty and equal opportunites are already there.
We got all the same right, as in the right to vote, free speech, security etc.

But do you mean equal opportunities as in "He is born rich so he gets rich with doing nothing though he is born poor and has to do lots of things to live in a house etc." ?

_________________
"Fuck gotta invade Ukraine" -- Vladimir Putin
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Kenzu
Chairman of the WR Committee
avatar

Posts : 1842
Join date : 2007-08-17
Age : 31
Location : Austria - Vienna

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Wed Mar 11, 2009 2:13 am

CoolKidX wrote:
Kenzu wrote:

The goal of socialism isn't to make everyone earn the same amount of money, the goal of socialism is to give people equal rights and equal opportunities.

What is your understanding of "equal"?
As I hear it you say it has social equality.

For me people are equal if they have equal rights and equal opportunities.
No one should be forced to live in poverty, just because he/she has been born into a poor family, and no one should benefit from inheriting a fortune from family, because that's NOT FAIR!

Social equality means that all people will have similiar living standard for similiar workload. It cannot happen that person A works same as person B and earns 10 times the income of person B. That would be unequal.

If person C worked 20 hours per week and person D 40 hours per week and they earn the same income, it would be unequal too.


And equal opportunities?
You mean you make something and sell it to let's say a big ass buisness who will advertise it and sell it for their porvit while you got provit to?
Or what?

Equal opportunities is that all people have the same rights in terms of economic and political freedom. They can study in universities, find jobs where they aren't exploited, have access to the same services and security.

Of course handicapped people who can't work shouldn't be punished for their handicap and therefore should enjoy similiar living standard like working people.


Because, sir, in this(capitalist) society, atleast in W-Europa and Austria also social equailty and equal opportunites are already there.
We got all the same right, as in the right to vote, free speech, security etc.

But do you mean equal opportunities as in "He is born rich so he gets rich with doing nothing though he is born poor and has to do lots of things to live in a house etc." ?

Not a single person who has millions of Euros of wealth has earned it with honest means. Most of the money comes from exploitation of workers and consumers.

I don't say we should take away all their wealth, but I think we should tax is heavily so that it will flow back into government budget and can be redistributed to people who need it more.

A millionaire doesn't benefit from receiving 1 Euro as much as a poor person. If someone who has 1.000.000.000 Euros looses half of it, the living standard of that person won't decrease much, but if it will be given to workers in higher incomes, 1.000 or more workers could have doubled their living standard and at the same time economy would be boosted by higher consumption of the income.



_________________
World Republic will prevail!
Back to top Go down
View user profile https://www.patreon.com/SocialistWorldRepublic
CoolKidX
Chairman of the Supreme Council
avatar

Posts : 4639
Join date : 2008-02-14
Location : Netherlands

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Wed Mar 11, 2009 6:13 pm

Kenzu wrote:


Social equality means that all people will have similiar living standard for similiar workload. It cannot happen that person A works same as person B and earns 10 times the income of person B. That would be unequal.

Indeed it would be pretty sucky for the person, but if a business is private and decide to give more money to person A, and person B works in a other private business who does not give person B the same amount of money like the person A in the other business, it would be kinda sucky, but unfair?
Just having bad luck that you didn't work there or atleast that you don't make the same, but someone can't do something about it, its a private business and the manager or boss or whatever can decide what he wants to give that person, ofcourse there should be the rule for a minium wage for a certain job, but a maximum? Its the freedom we give to a business, but why a minimum wage then? Well because then their won't be poverty and that guy will be able to feed his family.


Kenzu wrote:
Equal opportunities is that all people have the same rights in terms of economic and political freedom. They can study in universities,
If ofcourse they can be able to do it in the sense of their brain is good enough to say it like that.

Kenzu wrote:
find jobs where they aren't exploited,
Why can't they choose their own jobs?

Kenzu wrote:
have access to the same services and security.
The police right now serves anyone, rich, poor etc.

Kenzu wrote:
[color=orange] Of course handicapped people who can't work shouldn't be punished for their handicap and therefore should enjoy similiar living standard like working people.

I agree.

Kenzu wrote:
[color=orange]Not a single person who has millions of Euros of wealth has earned it with honest means. Most of the money comes from exploitation of workers and consumers.

Hell yeah you got them, I know someone who has this dad and begun a little fruit stand, and before you know it he could buy a house to sell it in, etc.
All alone in the beginning.
He did that alone and he was lucky that his fruits sold good, after that he could hire someone, then more, then he could open two businesses.

He worked for it alone in the beginning, and you could say he "exploits" those people, but hey no-one forced those people to work for him, and he begun alone with a idea of a fruit stand, so those people who works under him should have the same as him?
That guy begun with a idea, he at first didn't know if that fruit stand would even last, so that is a risk he made.
He now is rewarded for all that.

Also think of one-people businesses, the guy who made dynamite got really rich without "exploiting" someone.

Kenzu wrote:
I don't say we should take away all their wealth, but I think we should tax is heavily so that it will flow back into government budget and can be redistributed to people who need it more.
So you say we should tax rich people more then middle-class one's?
Right, that's equal...

Kenzu wrote:
A millionaire doesn't benefit from receiving 1 Euro as much as a poor person.
In EU the middle-class people or even the poor one's don't benifit from 1 euro.

Kenzu wrote:
If someone who has 1.000.000.000 Euros looses half of it, the living standard of that person won't decrease much, but if it will be given to workers in higher incomes, 1.000 or more workers could have doubled their living standard and at the same time economy would be boosted by higher consumption of the income.

The rich man who has 1.000.000.000 already boosts the economy, why you think he got that many money? He did something the people bought much.

But I have to say if he has 1.000.000.000 Euro he could atleast give 100 million away because that number is just huge.

_________________
"Fuck gotta invade Ukraine" -- Vladimir Putin
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 30
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Wed Mar 11, 2009 6:53 pm

CoolKidX wrote:

The rich man who has 1.000.000.000 already boosts the economy, why you think he got that many money? He did something the people bought much.

Correction: he put hundreads maybe thousands of people to produce something that many bought.

And regardless of how taxed that man was, it wouldn't ever reach equality: he's still the owner of the means of production and he determines the rules of production and still gets a massive income from exploitation.

If the state regulates him too much then he'll have no incentive to develop his company and said company will stop existing unless it is seized by the state in which case the state merely will act in the same way as the previous owner but with more social investments. The condition won't change, just the owner and the profit management.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
mattabesta
Chairman of the Supreme Council
avatar

Posts : 3936
Join date : 2007-12-23
Age : 23
Location : Iceland

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:33 pm

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:
CoolKidX wrote:

The rich man who has 1.000.000.000 already boosts the economy, why you think he got that many money? He did something the people bought much.

Correction: he put hundreads maybe thousands of people to produce something that many bought.

And regardless of how taxed that man was, it wouldn't ever reach equality: he's still the owner of the means of production and he determines the rules of production and still gets a massive income from exploitation.

If the state regulates him too much then he'll have no incentive to develop his company and said company will stop existing unless it is seized by the state in which case the state merely will act in the same way as the previous owner but with more social investments. The condition won't change, just the owner and the profit management.

well the state isn´t allowed to start investing in foring markets or making theire facilityes larger, the money will just go into raising wages wich is useless.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://Pichunter.com
Kenzu
Chairman of the WR Committee
avatar

Posts : 1842
Join date : 2007-08-17
Age : 31
Location : Austria - Vienna

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:56 pm

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:
CoolKidX wrote:

The rich man who has 1.000.000.000 already boosts the economy, why you think he got that many money? He did something the people bought much.

Correction: he put hundreads maybe thousands of people to produce something that many bought.

And regardless of how taxed that man was, it wouldn't ever reach equality: he's still the owner of the means of production and he determines the rules of production and still gets a massive income from exploitation.

If the state regulates him too much then he'll have no incentive to develop his company and said company will stop existing unless it is seized by the state in which case the state merely will act in the same way as the previous owner but with more social investments. The condition won't change, just the owner and the profit management.

I think the government should nationalis successful businesses.

_________________
World Republic will prevail!
Back to top Go down
View user profile https://www.patreon.com/SocialistWorldRepublic
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 30
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:07 pm

Kenzu wrote:


I think the government should nationalis successful businesses.

To what ends? Plus you have dodged nearly 70-80% of our previous discussion.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
Kenzu
Chairman of the WR Committee
avatar

Posts : 1842
Join date : 2007-08-17
Age : 31
Location : Austria - Vienna

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:10 pm

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:
Kenzu wrote:


I think the government should nationalis successful businesses.

To what ends? Plus you have dodged nearly 70-80% of our previous discussion.

Sorry I got an exam on tuesday.

_________________
World Republic will prevail!
Back to top Go down
View user profile https://www.patreon.com/SocialistWorldRepublic
CoolKidX
Chairman of the Supreme Council
avatar

Posts : 4639
Join date : 2008-02-14
Location : Netherlands

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:12 pm

Kenzu wrote:
Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:
Kenzu wrote:


I think the government should nationalis successful businesses.

To what ends? Plus you have dodged nearly 70-80% of our previous discussion.

Sorry I got an exam on tuesday.

You learn 4-5 days before a exam?
You probably have alot to learn for the exam.
That's sucky.

_________________
"Fuck gotta invade Ukraine" -- Vladimir Putin
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Kenzu
Chairman of the WR Committee
avatar

Posts : 1842
Join date : 2007-08-17
Age : 31
Location : Austria - Vienna

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:57 am

CoolKidX wrote:
Kenzu wrote:
Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:
Kenzu wrote:


I think the government should nationalis successful businesses.

To what ends? Plus you have dodged nearly 70-80% of our previous discussion.

Sorry I got an exam on tuesday.

You learn 4-5 days before a exam?
You probably have alot to learn for the exam.
That's sucky.

I learn every day, and one week before the exam I study 6-12 hours a day.

Every time I have an exam I have to learn a whole book which is anywhere between 100-500 pages long, but usually 300. Roughly 55% fail each exam in this university. But they can repeat in the exam.

The standards are very high, but it is the best economics university in the country, everyone is admitted to study here and the university education is free.

_________________
World Republic will prevail!


Last edited by Kenzu on Sat Mar 14, 2009 2:02 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile https://www.patreon.com/SocialistWorldRepublic
CoolKidX
Chairman of the Supreme Council
avatar

Posts : 4639
Join date : 2008-02-14
Location : Netherlands

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Sat Mar 14, 2009 2:01 am

Kenzu wrote:

I learn every day, and one week before the exam I study 6-12 hours a day.

Every time I have an exam I have to learn a whole book which is anywhere between 100-500 pages long, but usually 300. Roughly 55% fail each exam in this university. But they can repeat in the exam.

The standards are very high, but it is the best economics university in the country, everyone is admitted to study here and the university education is free.

Holy sh!t that is sure something!

6 to 12 hours!?
Wow...

_________________
"Fuck gotta invade Ukraine" -- Vladimir Putin
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lensky1917
Young Pioneer


Posts : 15
Join date : 2009-03-14

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Sat Mar 14, 2009 7:23 am

kenzu i want to give you some exeling eadvice

if they are teaching you bourgoies economics do not believe it

they must teach you marxian economics that says capitalism will ineviabtly olapes

if they dont do that im afraid your educsation is worthless but too ba
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 30
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Sat Mar 14, 2009 7:32 am

Lensky1917 wrote:
kenzu i want to give you some exeling eadvice

if they are teaching you bourgoies economics do not believe it

they must teach you marxian economics that says capitalism will ineviabtly olapes

if they dont do that im afraid your educsation is worthless but too ba

This is right. Sadly, it is spam.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
Kenzu
Chairman of the WR Committee
avatar

Posts : 1842
Join date : 2007-08-17
Age : 31
Location : Austria - Vienna

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Mon Apr 06, 2009 12:14 am

Lensky1917 wrote:
kenzu i want to give you some exeling eadvice

if they are teaching you bourgoies economics do not believe it

they must teach you marxian economics that says capitalism will ineviabtly olapes

if they dont do that im afraid your educsation is worthless but too ba

Our professor was explaining on our last lecture that if we read Marx, we would all know that profit is the money that you dont let others have.

"To make more profit I can either force my slaves to work harder for me, or force the consumers to pay more for my products, or both."

_________________
World Republic will prevail!
Back to top Go down
View user profile https://www.patreon.com/SocialistWorldRepublic
WeiWuWei
World Republic Party Member


Posts : 624
Join date : 2008-04-14
Age : 42

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Mon Apr 06, 2009 12:32 am

Lensky1917 wrote:
kenzu i want to give you some exeling eadvice

if they are teaching you bourgoies economics do not believe it

they must teach you marxian economics that says capitalism will ineviabtly olapes

if they dont do that im afraid your educsation is worthless but too ba

Actually, they should teach you EVERYTHING. Y'know, let people think for themselves.

It's just as bad to propagate the message of Marxism as it is to propagate the message of Capitalism.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://worldrepublic.forumotion.com/groupcp.forum?g=11
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 30
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Mon Apr 06, 2009 1:42 am

WeiWuWei wrote:


Actually, they should teach you EVERYTHING. Y'know, let people think for themselves.

It's just as bad to propagate the message of Marxism as it is to propagate the message of Capitalism.

The thing is that with Marxism you understand capitalism. It's a scientific deconstruction of capitalism.

Anyway, why replying to this guy if he's Melon?

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
Kenzu
Chairman of the WR Committee
avatar

Posts : 1842
Join date : 2007-08-17
Age : 31
Location : Austria - Vienna

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Sun Apr 12, 2009 10:07 pm

WeiWuWei wrote:
Lensky1917 wrote:
kenzu i want to give you some exeling eadvice

if they are teaching you bourgoies economics do not believe it

they must teach you marxian economics that says capitalism will ineviabtly olapes

if they dont do that im afraid your educsation is worthless but too ba

Actually, they should teach you EVERYTHING. Y'know, let people think for themselves.

It's just as bad to propagate the message of Marxism as it is to propagate the message of Capitalism.

He is very critical of capitalism, but no one likes capitalism in our university anyway.

"Privatisation" sounds like "robbery" in our students ears.

_________________
World Republic will prevail!
Back to top Go down
View user profile https://www.patreon.com/SocialistWorldRepublic
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 30
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:30 am

Kenzu wrote:


"Privatisation" sounds like "robbery" in our students ears.

Even when privatisation is carried out by the state in the form of "nationalization"?

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
Kenzu
Chairman of the WR Committee
avatar

Posts : 1842
Join date : 2007-08-17
Age : 31
Location : Austria - Vienna

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:18 am

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:
Kenzu wrote:


"Privatisation" sounds like "robbery" in our students ears.

Even when privatisation is carried out by the state in the form of "nationalization"?

That's impossible, since nationalisation is the opposite of privatisation.

_________________
World Republic will prevail!
Back to top Go down
View user profile https://www.patreon.com/SocialistWorldRepublic
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   

Back to top Go down
 
Socialist thought
Back to top 
Page 3 of 4Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 Similar topics
-
» ...and you think Royal Mail are slow? (this is a lovely story!)
» I thought McCanns knew about diary, Myler tells court
» Just a thought.....how is all this monopoly money lent to EU countries to be repaid?
» Has Anybody heard Anything from the Lawyers or SISIP ????? I thought the GAG was over?
» To The Honorable Minister O'Toole & The Federal Government ! ... some food for thought as you gain ground with Veterans from across this " Great Nation " ........Consider the following " 2 Significant points " please , for Your A

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
World Republic :: Socialist Paradise :: Kenzu Milagro-
Jump to: