socialist or communist?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

I aggre that the american drea is a peic of shit but I'll give stories from my own life.
my grandfather was the son of a farmer, din´t wan't to be a farmer,
he wanted a better like for himself so whent fishing for 40 years
he nearly never got to meet his five children and had to be at sea for weeks if not months with nearly no sleep. But he dosen´t regret it, his children got education something he had worked for he was a part of the econamy he bult a littel part of it. Under communism it wun't have mattered wether he lved in the cuntry r in a town his living conditins would have been just as crappy.

First of all, you speak as if you had ever seen a communist society working, or as if you knew how communism works. Since you haven't seen how a communist society works and you don't know what communism pursues, then, you can't speak of what would happen under communism.

Your grandfather didn't improve his conditions for 40 YEARS as you put it, here merely worked as ard as possible for his children so that they could have a "better life" than his, and his children did the same thing and probably you would do the same. It's about working merely for you and your family, to leave your family a legacy, just to your family, and sometimes not even to your family but to your direct heir, and sometimes, not even to them.

Under communism it's not working just for you and your own, it's working under a REALLY HUMAN FRAMEWORK. Since we humans are sociable beings and are interdependant we need to think about ourselves and others, that's unexpendable. We cannot work simply for ourselves or our own interests and expect everything to work. We cannot have an animal society in which we're struggling against those of our kind and have to take advantage of others' needs, desires or even misfortunes.

I'll put it in a way that is clearer to you. Through communism is like if we all, the ones who study and work today think on the future of comming generations, as if we all were "fathers" or "grandfathers" thinking on the wellbeing of all our children and grandchildren. We're thinking not only about our direct heir but about our own future and the future of everyone to come after us. We're paving the road to the comming generations and we have to pave it well. But in common, in general, for everybody.

We eliminate the "nature's survival of the fittest" within our own society because we're not animals, we're beings able of reasoning, we're beings with social structures, we're beings that need to coexist with other beings of our kind for other issues than mere copulation. But that "nature's law" if you really want to call it a natural law applicable to all forms of life is not completely eliminated, we simply change it universally: Instead of being me and my friends against you and your friends is you, me and our friends against all our common difficulties. It's the elimination of a culture of waste, of a culture of consume, of a culture of fights, of greed.It's the elimination of a culture of conflict of mutual exploitation. Substituted by organization, by substituting the aim of having much with the aim of having a really workable society.

mattabesta wrote:

nothing changes in communis, you can't get what you want, only what the goverment thinks you need.

The thing is that living conditions don't change just for you, change for everybody.

But well... tell me something Matthías, do you really know what you want? Are you sure you know what to expect from this life? And do you know why you want what you want? These are important questions my friend, and I would really appreciate if you would answer them after thinking them well.

I'll tell you what I want: I want to be able to work without making out of my work a means of survival. I want to be able to have a comfortable life with a woman (or if possible two ) who loves me by my side. Living in a big enough apartment which for me is 45m² and which I'll be able to increase as my family grows if ever does. I want to live in Russia. I want to see no more conflicts, no more poverty, no more consumerism, no more wars, no more unnecesary violece, no more indifference. I don't want to see a dehumanized world in which we have to act like animals or like machines, either surviving and struggling against each other, or simply mechanically working to satisfy a lifestyle and competing with more efficient machines. I don't want to see more disregard to environment, I don't want to see a more hypersexualized society. I don't want to see an ever increasing number of shallow people.

And guess what Matthías? Communism CAN give me all of that. Even in the matters of women you know? A great deal of women unfortunately give a great focus to the survival factor of this society, most of them search for a man who aside from loving them, understanding them and fucking them the way they like it want a man who can support them economically. If there are no economical problems, then, women instead of focusing on material wealth and security would have no choice but to merely focus on the personal traits of men.

mattabesta wrote:

hears another exampel: a man whent broke tow decades ago. he then got an idear, beer, a good idear. he and his father built a big factory in russi then they sold it and now they had more money, then they bouht companies and changed them so that they were better and ect. the mans nme is irrelivant but his net worth is 5.5billion usd. that in tow decades,
under CAPITALISM, under communism he wun't even be abel to go broke he wun't be abel to buld a factory and make his life better.

*here's or here is. went broke. idea or ideal.

Yeah in communism he would have never gone broke and wouldn't have opened a factory, but, if he had the technical knowledges for something useful he would have been able to manage a factory or be chief of design of something.

Now think about this: Better life than he used to have or a life better than the ones that surround him?

One of the great problems with capitalist ideologues is that they think that wellbeing is measured merely on material wellbeing. That's horrible, as if all we humans needed was having cars, big houses and wipe our asses with 100 dollar bills after defecating on a platinum toilet....

In my view a human being is not worth for what he has but for what he can give to society. And a human being is not worth at all if all he wants is merely having more than others, if he just merely works to survive or to increase his ego.. Humans should merely work for love to their work and for consciousness that through it they'll benefit others and themselves and such can only exist within a communist framework.

wow long,
1.wtf
2.wtf
3. i don't like you.
4. your always saying ther hasn't ever been a real communis cuntry
why can´t i sat there has never been a capitalist cuntry. The fact is that all ideolgys aregood and bad none is perfect but trough time pepole have
voted and comunist partyes rearly ever get more the 5%of the vote.
Even though her has never been a communist society the pepole who revolt or are in communist parties really belev in communism wher really trying to make real communsm, wich has never happend.

capitalism urges pepole to improve theyer own life wich gives the state more money to help the poor.

Communism gives all a eqal shere even tho you do more then the other person, so wher is your motovaion. we try to survive as individuals first, then as a society give a person the freedom for the first than the second is sure to folow.

p.s: we need to cool down

No, capitalism encourages poverty for the sake of the economy.

mattabesta wrote:

wow long,

Ideas have to be developed broadly and detailed so other people don't miss your points. I hope you're not too lazy to read.

mattabesta wrote:

1.wtf
2.wtf

I don't know what you are refering to, probably to something you were totally unable to understand.

mattabesta wrote:

3. i don't like you.

Who said you had to like me? And what does this have to do with the discussion overall?

mattabesta wrote:

4. your always saying ther hasn't ever been a real communis cuntry
why can´t i sat there has never been a capitalist cuntry.

I can say there has been no communist countries because... guess what? I got something funny called "evidence": All countries that have called themselves communist had employed some sort of currency, trade, market. All these elements are alien to a communist system thus nulifying the possibility that those systems are communist, leave aside the fact that there was no real equalty in those countries.

Now, why can't you say no country has been really capitalist? Because, again, of the very same funny fact that supports my arguement: Evidence. So far all considerable economies employ capitalism: currency, its investment into production and services to increase the ammount of currency (capital) and again boost economy to increase again that capital.... Capital, capitalism.

mattabesta wrote:

The fact is that all ideolgys aregood and bad none is perfect but trough time pepole have
voted and comunist partyes rearly ever get more the 5%of the vote.
Even though her has never been a communist society the pepole who revolt or are in communist parties really belev in communism wher really trying to make real communsm, wich has never happend.

The quality of ideolgies as good or bad is relative to the personal aims of each individual, however, people base their elections considering their experience which is in the case of the largest part of population, a capitalist experience. People have never been able to compare communism and capitalism and find it very hard to conceive a money and tradeless economy reigned by the people through the state.

Under circumstances in which the people really have no options but different versions of capitalism they will either choose the already known form of capitalism or one that does promise a more efficient capitalism, as simple as that.

"Communist" and "Socialist" parties usually propose forms of capitalism that are supposedly "communist" or "socialist" but that in practice are nothing but either implosive state capitalisms or merely state or mixed capitalisms under a socialist/communist mask.

mattabesta wrote:

capitalism urges pepole to improve theyer own life wich gives the state more money to help the poor.

Really? How urging me to "improve" my life gives more money to the state? Are you perhaps implying that my efficiency will be proportional to the pressure the system excerts over me and so will be the taxes state takes from me which will be unavoidably used for social programmes?

mattabesta wrote:

Communism gives all a eqal shere even tho you do more then the other person, so wher is your motovaion.

If you're a doctor your motivation SHOULD BE to SAVE LIVES. If you're an engineer TO BUILD MACHINES or BUILDINGS or whatever.
If you don't have any vocation or academic passion or don't have the required intellect for an intellectually demanding task you get to be something like a mason, a peasant, or something less intellectually demanding yet physically demanding.
What's your motivation if not the simple satisfaction of success? That work is what makes you eligible for your rights.

mattabesta wrote:

we try to survive as individuals first, then as a society give a person the freedom for the first than the second is sure to folow.

Surviving as individuals within a society makes us enter into conflict with others of our own society. Survival has to be supressed within society since we should see each other as friends, brothers, at least species' comrades.

Remember this: conflict of interests. Your freedom can be my slavery and my freedom your slavery.

mattabesta wrote:

p.s: we need to cool down

I think this goes more for you than for me I'm always at good disposal but you seem not to be so much....

oligarch wrote:

No, capitalism encourages poverty for the sake of the economy.

There always has to be a poor class that aspires what the higher class has in order to consume more.

I like you Zealot...

Diogritor wrote:

I like you Zealot...

For any particular reason?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

wow long,

Ideas have to be developed broadly and detailed so other people don't miss your points. I hope you're not too lazy to read.

mattabesta wrote:

1.wtf
2.wtf

I don't know what you are refering to, probably to something you were totally unable to understand.

mattabesta wrote:

3. i don't like you.

Who said you had to like me? And what does this have to do with the discussion overall?

mattabesta wrote:

4. your always saying ther hasn't ever been a real communis cuntry
why can´t i sat there has never been a capitalist cuntry.

I can say there has been no communist countries because... guess what? I got something funny called "evidence": All countries that have called themselves communist had employed some sort of currency, trade, market. All these elements are alien to a communist system thus nulifying the possibility that those systems are communist, leave aside the fact that there was no real equalty in those countries.

Now, why can't you say no country has been really capitalist? Because, again, of the very same funny fact that supports my arguement: Evidence. So far all considerable economies employ capitalism: currency, its investment into production and services to increase the ammount of currency (capital) and again boost economy to increase again that capital.... Capital, capitalism.

mattabesta wrote:

The fact is that all ideolgys aregood and bad none is perfect but trough time pepole have
voted and comunist partyes rearly ever get more the 5%of the vote.
Even though her has never been a communist society the pepole who revolt or are in communist parties really belev in communism wher really trying to make real communsm, wich has never happend.

The quality of ideolgies as good or bad is relative to the personal aims of each individual, however, people base their elections considering their experience which is in the case of the largest part of population, a capitalist experience. People have never been able to compare communism and capitalism and find it very hard to conceive a money and tradeless economy reigned by the people through the state.

Under circumstances in which the people really have no options but different versions of capitalism they will either choose the already known form of capitalism or one that does promise a more efficient capitalism, as simple as that.

"Communist" and "Socialist" parties usually propose forms of capitalism that are supposedly "communist" or "socialist" but that in practice are nothing but either implosive state capitalisms or merely state or mixed capitalisms under a socialist/communist mask.

mattabesta wrote:

capitalism urges pepole to improve theyer own life wich gives the state more money to help the poor.

Really? How urging me to "improve" my life gives more money to the state? Are you perhaps implying that my efficiency will be proportional to the pressure the system excerts over me and so will be the taxes state takes from me which will be unavoidably used for social programmes?

mattabesta wrote:

Communism gives all a eqal shere even tho you do more then the other person, so wher is your motovaion.

If you're a doctor your motivation SHOULD BE to SAVE LIVES. If you're an engineer TO BUILD MACHINES or BUILDINGS or whatever.
If you don't have any vocation or academic passion or don't have the required intellect for an intellectually demanding task you get to be something like a mason, a peasant, or something less intellectually demanding yet physically demanding.
What's your motivation if not the simple satisfaction of success? That work is what makes you eligible for your rights.

mattabesta wrote:

we try to survive as individuals first, then as a society give a person the freedom for the first than the second is sure to folow.

Surviving as individuals within a society makes us enter into conflict with others of our own society. Survival has to be supressed within society since we should see each other as friends, brothers, at least species' comrades.

Remember this: conflict of interests. Your freedom can be my slavery and my freedom your slavery.

mattabesta wrote:

p.s: we need to cool down

I think this goes more for you than for me I'm always at good disposal but you seem not to be so much....

oligarch wrote:

No, capitalism encourages poverty for the sake of the economy.

There always has to be a poor class that aspires what the higher class has in order to consume more.

wow dude again plz keep your answers shorter it's a thing you need to learn.

yes your right captalism dose use capital but ther are diffrent states of capitalism the pure form of capitalism is well, Evil but no cuntry uses that enymore.
The us has the purest capitalism still working they have privatised nearly evrything even transport trucks for the millatary.

Britan and westren europe balace it better keeping health in gov hands but privatising most things.

Skandinavian cuntryes( norway,denmark,sweeden,finland,iceland)
use tax to balace the diffrence beetwen classes in skandinavia socal proggrams and benifits for the elderly are the best in the world the goverment still owns big companyes for exampel norway's biggest oil company is gov owend. capitalism and socalism are L-R things that work toghether and need to balanced to give the best outcome.

capitalism in it's purest form is only one step away from ancrsism and I can say that that kind of capitalism has never existed so then can't i say that capitalism has never existed?(talking to my self)

communism in it's purest form has never existed and has no comparison it's alone, it´s uniq. But partyal communism has existed just like partyal capitalism dose. In cuba the states owns evrything you don't have to pay for education nor healthcare and the gov tells the factoryes what to make.
Isn't that at least part communism?

wow I'm getting long too.

mattabesta wrote:

wow dude again plz keep your answers shorter it's a thing you need to learn.

If you come to a forum you ought to read what others write if you want to reply. You don't go to a forum and full it with empty posts my friend. You ought to put quality into what you write and to do so you have to broadly develop your ideas. Try not being so lazy to read what you consider a "long post". If you don't understand something it isn't because you're stupid, it's because there are some things you might not know the meaning of or because you lack some information. Take a dictionary and if necesary a book and get the information you need both to understand and reply. English is not your native language, it's understandable that it's heavy for you to read "long" texts in english, but, take your time, a dictionary and you'll understand pretty nicely, then you can reply.


yes your right captalism dose use capital but ther are diffrent states of capitalism the pure form of capitalism is well, Evil but no cuntry uses that enymore.
The us has the purest capitalism still working they have privatised nearly evrything even transport trucks for the millatary.

mattabesta wrote:

Britan and westren europe balace it better keeping health in gov hands but privatising most things.

Skandinavian cuntryes( norway,denmark,sweeden,finland,iceland)
use tax to balace the diffrence beetwen classes in skandinavia socal proggrams and benifits for the elderly are the best in the world the goverment still owns big companyes for exampel norway's biggest oil company is gov owend. capitalism and socalism are L-R things that work toghether and need to balanced to give the best outcome.

capitalism in it's purest form is only one step away from ancrsism and I can say that that kind of capitalism has never existed so then can't i say that capitalism has never existed?(talking to my self)

communism in it's purest form has never existed and has no comparison it's alone, it´s uniq. But partyal communism has existed just like partyal capitalism dose. In cuba the states owns evrything you don't have to pay for education nor healthcare and the gov tells the factoryes what to make.
Isn't that at least part communism?

wow I'm getting long too.

I love when you start talking about pure and impure systems... what a nice arguement.... you see Capitalism is Capitalism no matter if pure or not pure. Anarcho-capitalism is nearly what we have, in fact is what we have all around the world. The only thing that brings limits is that some group gets enough strength to impose its kind of capitalism, that's it.

There's capitalism, like it or not. There's no less capitalism if 100% of the industry is owned by the state and it still used capital. Capitalism is not given merely by the ownership but how distribution and production are managed and wether capital is used or not...

And Matthías, please, read what one posts. I asked you not to quote what you're not going to use.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

wow dude again plz keep your answers shorter it's a thing you need to learn.

If you come to a forum you ought to read what others write if you want to reply. You don't go to a forum and full it with empty posts my friend. You ought to put quality into what you write and to do so you have to broadly develop your ideas. Try not being so lazy to read what you consider a "long post". If you don't understand something it isn't because you're stupid, it's because there are some things you might not know the meaning of or because you lack some information. Take a dictionary and if necesary a book and get the information you need both to understand and reply. English is not your native language, it's understandable that it's heavy for you to read "long" texts in english, but, take your time, a dictionary and you'll understand pretty nicely, then you can reply.


yes your right captalism dose use capital but ther are diffrent states of capitalism the pure form of capitalism is well, Evil but no cuntry uses that enymore.
The us has the purest capitalism still working they have privatised nearly evrything even transport trucks for the millatary.

mattabesta wrote:

Britan and westren europe balace it better keeping health in gov hands but privatising most things.

Skandinavian cuntryes( norway,denmark,sweeden,finland,iceland)
use tax to balace the diffrence beetwen classes in skandinavia socal proggrams and benifits for the elderly are the best in the world the goverment still owns big companyes for exampel norway's biggest oil company is gov owend. capitalism and socalism are L-R things that work toghether and need to balanced to give the best outcome.

capitalism in it's purest form is only one step away from ancrsism and I can say that that kind of capitalism has never existed so then can't i say that capitalism has never existed?(talking to my self)

communism in it's purest form has never existed and has no comparison it's alone, it´s uniq. But partyal communism has existed just like partyal capitalism dose. In cuba the states owns evrything you don't have to pay for education nor healthcare and the gov tells the factoryes what to make.
Isn't that at least part communism?

wow I'm getting long too.

I love when you start talking about pure and impure systems... what a nice arguement.... you see Capitalism is Capitalism no matter if pure or not pure. Anarcho-capitalism is nearly what we have, in fact is what we have all around the world. The only thing that brings limits is that some group gets enough strength to impose its kind of capitalism, that's it.

There's capitalism, like it or not. There's no less capitalism if 100% of the industry is owned by the state and it still used capital. Capitalism is not given merely by the ownership but how distribution and production are managed and wether capital is used or not...

And Matthías, please, read what one posts. I asked you not to quote what you're not going to use.

I only read books in english.

fuck you didn't understand enything i said so plz read again .

man zealeot(cant remember or spell) your statements are so long yet so intersting, yet mat your a shorter yet boring! zealeot could make a great poloitician.( but i guess democracy is not his thing)

i regret the last paragraph

sorry for htre double post but i signed up for socialism like maby feb 3 0r 4

so how long does it take to join and how do i join, just by clicking the joun button on the usergroups page

mattabesta wrote:

fuck you didn't understand enything i said so plz read again .

I guess you just have trouble reading long text. Sorry for ya

P.S. Please, don't overquote

Riddler wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

fuck you didn't understand enything i said so plz read again .

I guess you just have trouble reading long text. Sorry for ya

P.S. Please, don't overquote

no i don't normal pepole don't like reading hours log text wich could be a lot shorter not thaat zelot is making that long post i´m simply pointing out that he can make his posts shorter

mattabesta wrote:

I only read books in english.

Really, doesn't look like you do.

mattabesta wrote:

fuck you didn't understand enything i said so plz read again .

Really? What's your arguement to claim that I didn't understand anything? On which basis can you state that?

mattabesta wrote:

no i don't normal pepole don't like reading hours log text wich could be a lot shorter not thaat zelot is making that long post i´m simply pointing out that he can make his posts shorter

Again, please elaborate a solid enough arguement on how I could make that shorter. And please take note: You cannot make a substatiated enough arguement in a three words sentence.

And if "normal people" (like you probably) don't like to read "hours long" texts, that would explain why "normal people" are unable to sustain a well fundamented discussion...

And you want a blatant demonstration of who is the one who is not understanding here? I asked you already two times not to quote what you're not going to use, as Riddler stated well "don't overquote". It's the 4th time this is being asked to you Matthías.

mattabesta wrote:

Riddler wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

fuck you didn't understand enything i said so plz read again .

I guess you just have trouble reading long text. Sorry for ya

P.S. Please, don't overquote

no i don't normal pepole don't like reading hours log text wich could be a lot shorter not thaat zelot is making that long post i´m simply pointing out that he can make his posts shorter

I think the term you're looking for is tl;dr

ilych wrote:

Socialism is the transitional phase into communism. True communism can't be achieved unless world wide socialism is achieved first.

Exactly my words!

I say communism is better than socialism, because it is a paradise and one is fully free to do anything they want.

Socialism is less liberal, because there is a state, many laws and other regulations which prevent people to act freely in order to guarantee certain freedoms for everyone. The basic freedoms which exist in a socialist country are the free access to education including university education, the best health care the country can provide (free too), the right to have a home and the right to have a job.

Communism has no state and no money, people are completely free to do anything they like, but they would never do something that harms other people.

Kenzu wrote:

Communism has no state and no money, people are completely free to do anything they like, but they would never do something that harms other people.

I think, personally, that is already Anarcho-Communism which in my view is still quite far away.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Diogritor wrote:

I like you Zealot...

For any particular reason?

A. Mexico is awesome. I go there when I want to really party.
B. You're not retarded.
C. I don't dislike Socialist ideals.I just think outright communism would be very bad.
D. You have given me no reason to dislike you.

Diogritor wrote:

Fascism, Capitalism minus dumb people voting.

Yes and how did you get that, are you saying marx was "dumb", he was infact a very intelligent man, you always seem to group every one together so that they seem like all the same people, which is false, every one is different, your intalerent comments will only hurt your credibility, you seem like the kind of guy that thinks of people as stereotypes .

RedNation wrote:

Yes and how did you get that, are you saying marx was "dumb", he was infact a very intelligent man, you always seem to group every one together so that they seem like all the same people, which is false, every one is different, your intalerent comments will only hurt your credibility, you seem like the kind of guy that thinks of people as stereotypes .

he's not meaning Marx was dumb hes saying Fascism avoids unnecesary votation.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

RedNation wrote:

Yes and how did you get that, are you saying marx was "dumb", he was infact a very intelligent man, you always seem to group every one together so that they seem like all the same people, which is false, every one is different, your intalerent comments will only hurt your credibility, you seem like the kind of guy that thinks of people as stereotypes .

he's not meaning Marx was dumb hes saying Fascism avoids unnecesary votation.

The average American does not educate himself about the issues. Those are the people that should not vote...or reproduce.

49% of the voting population.

oligarch wrote:

49% of the voting population.

49? lol, that's sad. What's even sadder is that I asked a classmate of mine the same exact question and his answer was this.

87 percent.

Pretty sad if you ask me. I personally think 70 percent are "non-educated". Nice people but...their views are...well...

Jeiro Sijakeuigwan wrote:

Pretty sad if you ask me. I personally think 70 percent are "non-educated". Nice people but...their views are...well...

I don't they have many actual views themselves, they're just very susceptible to propaganda.

As ychoosedemocracy's friend, we have large arguments over this matter. Yet though I see that socialism has its good points, I still prefer capitalism. However, without a shred of government regulation, a capitolistic democracy cannot survive.

Jinnyjinster wrote:

However, without a shred of government regulation, a capitolistic democracy cannot survive.

But there's no such thing as capitalist democracy to begin with. Every few years the oppressed get to choose who represses and represents them.

oligarch wrote:

But there's no such thing as capitalist democracy to begin with. Every few years the oppressed get to choose who represses and represents them.

Capitalism could be democratic if all people within a capitalist society were conscious of the implications of capitalism and were eager to accept them.