Socialism or democracy?

Black_Cross wrote:

Because centralization is antithetical to socialism.

Centralization is required to start the process. After that, government will decentralize and will become more democratic, eventually becoming anarchy. If you start with democracy, you'll risk having what is in US and other "civilized" countries.

Riddler wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

I can't see how an elected body of ppl, chosen by the ppl is bad

Because it's an oligarchy (power to the small amount of people). And completely inefficient in strategical sense.

mattabesta wrote:

and really autocracy dose just not "evolve" into anarchy becuse autocracy is ruled by one man who's not intrested in loosing power.

Any form of government is ruled by people. People are not perfect. But if a man's power is controlled by constitution, it will give positive results.

1. no what if we let the poor vote as well that would be cool, yes

2.when you give goverment enuf power it will use it and it WILL ignore it's restrictions, like in the us and in Venezuelan.

3. centralisation mean power to 1 man riddler, EVRY FREAKING time this has been done that man ruled until he was disposed or died.

Riddler wrote:

Centralization is required to start the process. After that, government will decentralize and will become more democratic, eventually becoming anarchy.

Centralization is necessary to decentralize? How do you rectify this obvious contradiction?

Quote :

If you start with democracy, you'll risk having what is in US and other "civilized" countries.

If people need to be force-fed socialism, it's not a goal worth achieving. In all authoritarian attempts at socialism you see the same violent, blood riddled situation. This is not a coincidence; if the state is not annihilated completely, it will do what it can to maintain itself (being by its nature reactionary), which brings it to commit all sorts of heinous acts in the name of centralization (the only concept it understands).

Quote :

3. centralisation mean power to 1 man riddler

Erm, no

Democracy = Rule of the People

Socialism = Rule of the Workers (in one country/nation) AKA the people

Communism = Socialism all over the World

Simple as that.

Capitalism is the opposite of human rights and freedom since it strives for one propose only. And that is to profit. At ANY cost.

Jeiro Sijakeuigwan wrote:

Capitalism is the opposite of human rights and freedom since it strives for one propose only. And that is to profit. At ANY cost.

But what is consisdered human rights, it can be a very subjective thing. And in many 1st world countries these human rights we now have are being followed.

Jeiro Sijakeuigwan wrote:

Democracy = Rule of the People

Socialism = Rule of the Workers (in one country/nation) AKA the people

Communism = Socialism all over the World

Simple as that.

Capitalism is the opposite of human rights and freedom since it strives for one propose only. And that is to profit. At ANY cost.

No, Capitalism, is the self made man, AKA, it must benefit you, but profit doesn't mean Benefit. You can intentionally register losses, to crash a company you don't fully own, to force the other owners to be bought out. In that case you don't strive for profit, because you make your stock crash. It will not necesarily bring more profit to your own company, but more stability. In that way, you research your well being but not the profit. And must i remind you, that in the Capitalist System, you need the others to survive, so to ensure your well being, you will take away part of your profit, to make sure the profit is durable, but not necesarily the biggest possible. Since the biggest possible would make the others crasg,AKA your market, so the biggest profit would make you crash.And that is not the point of capitalism. The theorical point of it, is to ensure that everyone gets the best deal, as competition forces the man to offer the best quality and the best price, ensuring the well being of the buyers.

CoolKidX wrote:

But what is consisdered human rights, it can be a very subjective thing. And in many 1st world countries these human rights we now have are being followed.

Heh...calling exploitation of millions for money a human right. Calling the alienation of society itself a human right. Calling the very disintergration of family and love altogether a human right.

If that is good enough to you to make money and yet not find an understanding nor underlying truth to humanity (see: Love), then...yeah. I suppose that is "good enough".

For capitalists at least.

@Jesus

LOLWUT? I live in a capitalist society my friend. I've seen what it can do to people and victimize them into mindless animals with no love, no care, no trace of humanity left in them.

Jeiro Sijakeuigwan wrote:

CoolKidX wrote:

But what is consisdered human rights, it can be a very subjective thing. And in many 1st world countries these human rights we now have are being followed.

Heh...calling exploitation of millions for money a human right. Calling the alienation of society itself a human right. Calling the very disintergration of family and love altogether a human right.

If that is good enough to you to make money and yet not find an understanding nor underlying truth to humanity (see: Love), then...yeah. I suppose that is "good enough".

For capitalists at least.

@Jesus

LOLWUT? I live in a capitalist society my friend. I've seen what it can do to people and victimize them into mindless animals with no love, no care, no trace of humanity left in them.

As far as i know, all ''attempts'' to communsim pretty much gave the same results.

Jeiro Sijakeuigwan wrote:

Heh...calling exploitation of millions for money a human right. Calling the alienation of society itself a human right. Calling the very disintergration of family and love altogether a human right.

What do you mean by alienation of society?
And disintergration of family and love... is caused by capitalism? Is that what your trying to say? If so, explain.

Yes. Capitalist "societies" (if they can be called societies) leads to literal disintergration of family values and tradition. Like many have acknowledged and accepted, the motive of working to YOUR OWN interests makes you selfish and egocenteric (See - "Profit motive"). Motive of working to a united common goal which is to benefit all of humanity to become equal again leads to quite naturally, a balance in this world.

It's what I like to call "The Way"

Jeiro Sijakeuigwan wrote:

Yes. Capitalist "societies" (if they can be called societies) leads to literal disintergration of family values and tradition. Like many have acknowledged and accepted, the motive of working to YOUR OWN interests makes you selfish and egocenteric (See - "Profit motive"). Motive of working to a united common goal which is to benefit all of humanity to become equal again leads to quite naturally, a balance in this world.

It's what I like to call "The Way"

I sincerely don't give a fuck about my family, i would care about my friends before, because unlike parents i am acutally bounded to them, because i like them, and chose them, and lived life changing experiences with them, sharing your blood with someone doesn't mean shit, as far as i know i could have went out of any other vagina. And btw, your own interest, can be the one of your family, as your well being can be directly linked to the one of your family.

The question is, do you friends understand you and try to communicate with you in a heartfelt matter? Friends are great and all, but are they going to be there when you are sick and dying? Are they going to be there when you need emotional support? Are they gonna be there...

To listen to you?

Jeiro Sijakeuigwan wrote:

The question is, do you friends understand you and try to communicate with you in a heartfelt matter? Friends are great and all, but are they going to be there when you are sick and dying? Are they going to be there when you need emotional support? Are they gonna be there...

To listen to you?

Well so far, they done the job pretty good. I'm not gonna live enough long to be sick and dying, that's for sure, i will live fast and die young.

Jeiro Sijakeuigwan wrote:

Yes. Capitalist "societies" (if they can be called societies) leads to literal disintergration of family values and tradition. Like many have acknowledged and accepted, the motive of working to YOUR OWN interests makes you selfish and egocenteric (See - "Profit motive"). Motive of working to a united common goal which is to benefit all of humanity to become equal again leads to quite naturally, a balance in this world.

It's what I like to call "The Way"

Give me example of this.

Jesus wrote:

Well so far, they done the job pretty good. I'm not gonna live enough long to be sick and dying, that's for sure, i will live fast and die young.

Commit suicide?

CoolKidX wrote:

Jeiro Sijakeuigwan wrote:

Yes. Capitalist "societies" (if they can be called societies) leads to literal disintergration of family values and tradition. Like many have acknowledged and accepted, the motive of working to YOUR OWN interests makes you selfish and egocenteric (See - "Profit motive"). Motive of working to a united common goal which is to benefit all of humanity to become equal again leads to quite naturally, a balance in this world.

It's what I like to call "The Way"

Give me example of this.

Jesus wrote:

Well so far, they done the job pretty good. I'm not gonna live enough long to be sick and dying, that's for sure, i will live fast and die young.

Commit suicide?

Nope just live in ways that will increase the fun, but the odds of my death also

liberalism is the fundament of communism. liberalism stands for the basic human rights, like: freedom to live, freedom of speech, and that we are all born equal, there is no one that is "better" then others when they get born. communism adds the values: that we all should live equal because we are born equal. simple
and capitalism is canibalism, think about it. instead of spending so much "power" on "stealing" from your fellow humans, then you should work together and get that wealth, and then share it.

Tyrlop wrote:

liberalism is the fundament of communism. liberalism stands for the basic human rights, like: freedom to live, freedom of speech, and that we are all born equal, there is no one that is "better" then others when they get born. communism adds the values: that we all should live equal because we are born equal. simple
and capitalism is canibalism, think about it. instead of spending so much "power" on "stealing" from your fellow humans, then you should work together and get that wealth, and then share it.

We do not steal, we sell and buy, we never force anyone to sell and buy.

BTW, the ones that wrote the fondamentals of liberalism,
had a black guy holding theyr ink reservoir while they were writing.

Jesus wrote:

Tyrlop wrote:

liberalism is the fundament of communism. liberalism stands for the basic human rights, like: freedom to live, freedom of speech, and that we are all born equal, there is no one that is "better" then others when they get born. communism adds the values: that we all should live equal because we are born equal. simple
and capitalism is canibalism, think about it. instead of spending so much "power" on "stealing" from your fellow humans, then you should work together and get that wealth, and then share it.

We do not steal, we sell and buy, we never force anyone to sell and buy.

BTW, the ones that wrote the fondamentals of liberalism,
had a black guy holding theyr ink reservoir while they were writing.

What is being referred to as "theft" here is not simple market transactions, and it's not even referring to the fact that the rich own more and better things than the poor. The "theft" is the appropriation of the means of production. The "theft" is an economic system wherein one group of people tends the field while the other group owns it and profits from the products that it produces. That is what we object to.

Also, not all proponents of Liberalism were slave-owners - Thomas Paine comes immediately to my mind, but I'm sure I can think of others. Even still, the early modern Liberals were as much products of their own time just as everyone else who has ever lived is. The fact that they gave less sympathy to the plight of women and non-whites is very unfortunate, but frankly expected for men of their time. However, the mere fact that they contended that monarchies were illegitimate, that science and reason were preferable to faith and dogma, and that a government can only be legitimate if it had the consent of the governed makes them, in my mind at least, quite revolutionary for their time.

What's up Jeiro. Been a while.

Jeiro Sijakeuigwan wrote:

Democracy = Rule of the People

Socialism = Rule of the Workers (in one country/nation) AKA the people

Communism = Socialism all over the World

Simple as that.

Only if we accept a Leninist definition, but i don't know why we'd allow Lenin to steal a word he didn't coin.

For reference, this is like allowing the US and Canada to change the definition of genocide, posited by the man who coined it, Raphael Lemkin, so as to ignore the fact that they committed the genocide of the Native Americans (possibly without the biased agenda).

According to Marx, however, the terms socialism and communism are synonymous.

CKX wrote:

What do you mean by alienation of society?

Capitalism in the form of colonization, imperialism, or globalization has genocidal effects. I assume that's what was meant.

For one example of many, your own country has done a lot to destroy the lives of the East Timorese by producing weapons for Indonesia for a hefty profit. Hence Canada is involved in genocide, their motive being capital valorization (a motive peculiar to the capitalist system). Honestly one of the more mild examples that came to mind, yet no less morally despicable.

Jesus wrote:

We do not steal, we sell and buy, we never force anyone to sell and buy.

De facto, yes, people are forced to sell and buy. Just like they are forced to work for wage. Force doesn't necessarily mean physical. A gun to the head isn't necessary to force people to do things they wouldn't want to do.

Hell, even capitalists are forced to sell and buy. They are held to capital, and capital wants to grow. This system serves the humanist instincts of no one.

Also, and to further what WWWei has already stated, capitalism begins with theft. It couldn't have come to being without massive amounts of theft, followed by brutal mass repression in order to perpetuate the genocidal effects of that theft, and to make the people understand that capitalism is the right way. Without this physical and mental torture, there is no foundation for capitalism. Coincidentally (lol, no), this is where the police come to be a significant force within society.

Quote :

As far as i know, all ''attempts'' to communsim pretty much gave the same results.

All statist attempts, yes. And reasonably so.

Hence anarchy; a refutation of authoritarian (i.e. statist) revolutionary praxis.

Force to get a wage... well it wouldn't change for 1-2 fuck in communism or anarchy, you couldn't survive doing nothing all day, even if it's not directly for a wage, you would have to work for the commune to do well financially.

Jesus wrote:

Force to get a wage... well it wouldn't change for 1-2 fuck in communism or anarchy, you couldn't survive doing nothing all day, even if it's not directly for a wage, you would have to work for the commune to do well financially.

If it was a gift economy, then yes, you could survive off the labor of others. This would necessarily make you the community pariah, but you could do it.

Labor is a necessary part of our lives (if, of course, we want to maintain this level of civility). That's why we labor. It doesn't need to be coerced, and people wouldn't just stop working if they weren't coerced.

Black_Cross wrote:

What's up Jeiro. Been a while.

Lol, yeah. It's been a while. Sorry I'm not as active as I used to be.

Black_Cross wrote:

According to Marx, however, the terms socialism and communism are synonymous.

Ahahah, that is what I meant. Sorry about the misunderstanding comrade.

1 rule is marx is always right. i miss some critic on my posts, i feel no real use to post if i dont get this! get to work smartasses.
and about the "steal" thing just use another word, it was the word i had in my mind. then use "take" or "borrow" instead.

Tyrlop wrote:

1 rule is marx is always right. i miss some critic on my posts, i feel no real use to post if i dont get this! get to work smartasses.
and about the "steal" thing just use another word, it was the word i had in my mind. then use "take" or "borrow" instead.

Nah, has nothing to do with selling or buying. Nothing.

Jeiro Sijakeuigwan wrote:

Lol, yeah. It's been a while. Sorry I'm not as active as I used to be.

It's all good. I know you left for good reason.

Welcome back.

Jesus wrote:

Nah, has nothing to do with selling or buying. Nothing.

And mere selling/buying has little to do with the reality capitalism offers us.