My political profile

Experienced Pioneer Posts : 50 Join date : 2009-04-02

1. What's your understanding of Democracy?
Democracy basically just means rule by the people. It means that the general population can vote to decide on the issues. In a democratic republic, such as the United States, people elect leaders who decide on the issues for them. I personally favor a more directly democratic approach.
2 What's your understanding of Communism?
Communism is an interesting idea, and i love the concept of it, but its just too utopian. It doesn't work in real life which is why all attempts at communism have become such failures.
3. What's your understanding of Capitalism?
Capitalism is a system in which there is money, and people can buy and sell things. It is not a perfect system, but it's the least worst option.
4. What's your understanding of Fascism?
Fascism is an authoritarian ideology which is based on the suppression of individual liberties. Mussolini and Hitler were both fascists.
5. Make a list of the all human rights you consider essential
Personal freedom, which means people can do anything they want as long as it doesn't harm others, and also positive freedom, which means the right to health care and decent wages, etc.
6. What's your understanding of Freedom?
Freedom is the ability of people to do what they want. Freedom can be achieved by removing restrictions and also by redistributing the wealth. This gives poorer people more freedom.
7. What's your understanding of Equality?
Equality is when all people are treated the same and not discriminated because of race, gender, sexuality, religion, etc.
8. What's your understanding of a prosperous society?
A prosperous society has to have freedom, equality, and happy citizens
9. What's your stance towards the environment?
I believe that global warming is man made and we need to do everything we can to stop it. We are harming the environment and many restrictions need to be put in place to prevent people from damaging the environment.
10. What's your understanding of Socialism? (Added by Kenzu)
Socialism is a system that has been implemented in some countries in Europe like France and in Scandinavia. I think we need to find the right balance between capitalism and socialism to have a free and equal society.

Subject: Re: My political profile Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:22 pm

bcarsham129 wrote:: 1. What's your understanding of Democracy?
Democracy basically just means rule by the people. It means that the general population can vote to decide on the issues. In a democratic republic, such as the United States, people elect leaders who decide on the issues for them. I personally favor a more directly democratic approach.

So would you say democracy is limited to merely voting?

bcarsham129 wrote:: 2 What's your understanding of Communism?
Communism is an interesting idea, and i love the concept of it, but its just too utopian. It doesn't work in real life which is why all attempts at communism have become such failures.

False. Communism works and it was proven during the Spanish Civil war where Communists were militarily crushed by Nazi forces, Italian Fascist Army, Franquists and Stalinists.

Communism merely stands for workers controlling the whole economy by ownership of the means of production. How is that utopic or disfunctional?

bcarsham129 wrote:: 3. What's your understanding of Capitalism?
Capitalism is a system in which there is money, and people can buy and sell things. It is not a perfect system, but it's the least worst option.

Based on what is it the "least worst option"?

bcarsham129 wrote:: 4. What's your understanding of Fascism?
Fascism is an authoritarian ideology which is based on the suppression of individual liberties. Mussolini and Hitler were both fascists.

"Individual liberties" meaning?

bcarsham129 wrote:: 5. Make a list of the all human rights you consider essential
Personal freedom, which means people can do anything they want as long as it doesn't harm others, and also positive freedom, which means the right to health care and decent wages, etc.

Would you agree with the notion that freedom, in capitalism, is limited by income? If you do, would you agree that under such a framework it is impossible for everyone to have freedom?

bcarsham129 wrote:: 6. What's your understanding of Freedom?
Freedom is the ability of people to do what they want. Freedom can be achieved by removing restrictions and also by redistributing the wealth. This gives poorer people more freedom.

Ok with this you partially answer to my previous question. Are poor people legitimately poor?

bcarsham129 wrote:: 8. What's your understanding of a prosperous society?
A prosperous society has to have freedom, equality, and happy citizens

Would you say that's possible under capitalism? If so, how?

bcarsham129 wrote:: 9. What's your stance towards the environment?
I believe that global warming is man made and we need to do everything we can to stop it. We are harming the environment and many restrictions need to be put in place to prevent people from damaging the environment.

Ok,so you contend that climate change is anthropogenic and that we humans are damaging the environment.

Considering that capitalism is a profit oriented economy which requrires constant production and constant creation of needs, that is, it is reliant on ever increasing consumerism... how is sustainability possible within a capitalist framework?

bcarsham129 wrote:: 10. What's your understanding of Socialism? (Added by Kenzu)
Socialism is a system that has been implemented in some countries in Europe like France and in Scandinavia. I think we need to find the right balance between capitalism and socialism to have a free and equal society.

Wrong again. Socialism is Communism. The misinterpretation came with Lenin's notions that there could be something like a "workers' state" and taht the period during which it would exist would be called "socialism" and would ultimately evolve into communism. This is an erred conception of socialism.

Socialism, from a Marxist viewpoint, is synonimous to communism while it is more generally contended that socialism is the broad array of economic and philosophic ideas that promote ownership of the means of production by the workers.

Since communism stands for direct control of the economy by the workers, then, socialism would be synonimous to communism.

The notion you're employing mistakens "socialism" for "welfare" and "state ownership". And it's not that.

Experienced Pioneer Posts : 50 Join date : 2009-04-02

"would you say democracy is limited to merely voting?"
Well, this is the main form of democracy. Another method for people's control is demarchy, which is when a random group of people are chosen to make decisions. But the main thing is, the issues are supposed to be decided based on the popular opinion.
"False. Communism works and it was proven during the Spanish Civil war where Communists were militarily crushed by Nazi forces, Italian Fascist Army, Franquists and Stalinists.

Communism merely stands for workers controlling the whole economy by ownership of the means of production. How is that utopic or disfunctional?"
I don't know about the Spanish Civil War, so could you please link me to a website describing this? But even without knowing anything about it I can still say that since the communists were defeated it just shows how it is impossible to reach. Secondly, workers controlling the economy sounds nice but when all people are completely equal there is no incentive to work. The economy would not be able to have the production levels of capitalist society.
"Based on what is it the "least worst option"?"
Well, communism and socialism are ideally better but as I have said the ideas can not be applied to reality, so we will have to make do with regulated capitalism.
""Individual liberties" meaning?"
I mean that the government system is socially conservative and is not run democratically.
"Would you agree with the notion that freedom, in capitalism, is limited by income? If you do, would you agree that under such a framework it is impossible for everyone to have freedom?"
I think that capitalism can be regulated so that everyone can have access to basic needs. Although not all people have complete freedom right now, the way that capitalism expands will raise the overall standard of living more than communism can.
"Ok with this you partially answer to my previous question. Are poor people legitimately poor?"
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Poor people are poor compared to the rest of the country. However, poor people in America and Western Europe are richer tan poor people elsewhere and this is evidence of the capitalist system.
"Would you say that's possible under capitalism? If so, how?
Yes, because as the economy grows, it makes everyone richer, and with the right amount of economic regulation, the economy will be stable and all people will have access to the things they need.
"Ok,so you contend that climate change is anthropogenic and that we humans are damaging the environment.

Considering that capitalism is a profit oriented economy which requrires constant production and constant creation of needs, that is, it is reliant on ever increasing consumerism... how is sustainability possible within a capitalist framework?"
Capitalism just needs to be regulated correctly. For example, there can be carbon taxes, such as Al Gore suggests. This will discourage businesses from using too much carbon
"Wrong again. Socialism is Communism. The misinterpretation came with Lenin's notions that there could be something like a "workers' state" and taht the period during which it would exist would be called "socialism" and would ultimately evolve into communism. This is an erred conception of socialism.

Socialism, from a Marxist viewpoint, is synonimous to communism while it is more generally contended that socialism is the broad array of economic and philosophic ideas that promote ownership of the means of production by the workers.

Since communism stands for direct control of the economy by the workers, then, socialism would be synonimous to communism.

The notion you're employing mistakens "socialism" for "welfare" and "state ownership". And it's not that."
You might be right aobut this but that is just the definitions from your communist point of view. The traditional American definitions of socialism and communism are the ones I am using.

Subject: Re: My political profile Fri Apr 03, 2009 3:11 am

bcarsham129 wrote:: Well, this is the main form of democracy. Another method for people's control is demarchy, which is when a random group of people are chosen to make decisions. But the main thing is, the issues are supposed to be decided based on the popular opinion.

How is that democracy? The people are not making the decisions, just having people do them.

bcarsham129 wrote:: I don't know about the Spanish Civil War, so could you please link me to a website describing this? But even without knowing anything about it I can still say that since the communists were defeated it just shows how it is impossible to reach.

You are contending that Communism is impossible to be achieved. It was achieved so your point has been nullified. The communist communities were destroyed being attacked by 5 different parties which happened to be some of the most powerful armies in Europe. And that doesn't serve at all as an arguement against communism. Communism was established; its establishers killed.

bcarsham129 wrote:: Secondly, workers controlling the economy sounds nice but when all people are completely equal there is no incentive to work.

How does the first assertion lead to the second?

Workers controlling the economy determine what and how should be produced. The incentive is production to satisfy needs, needs do not vanish with the implementation of communism.

Workers will receive in accordance to how they contribute to society as determined by themselves.

bcarsham129 wrote:: The economy would not be able to have the production levels of capitalist society.

Actually in regards to some goods socialist production would be far larger than capitalist while in other goods it would even become nil. Socialist production, in contrast to capitalist is need-satisfaction oriented not profit-oriented that means that there would be things that would be produced once or twice in a lifetime while there would be massively produced goods.

bcarsham129 wrote:: Well, communism and socialism are ideally better but as I have said the ideas can not be applied to reality, so we will have to make do with regulated capitalism.

Again, communism has been applied so your point that it can't be applied is moot. Either way I'd like to see an arguement to back up that statement.

bcarsham129 wrote:: ""Individual liberties" meaning?"
I mean that the government system is socially conservative and is not run democratically.

Sorry, didn't clarify much to me. Would you please define what you understand as "individual liberty"?

bcarsham129 wrote:: I think that capitalism can be regulated so that everyone can have access to basic needs. Although not all people have complete freedom right now, the way that capitalism expands will raise the overall standard of living more than communism can.

The standard of living is product of material condition swhich are determined by three main factors 1) natural resources 2)technical knowledge 3) social organization.

How on Earth can a system in which the workers can't have what they produce and in which the workers are under the command of someone else having no control over the economy provide more to the workers than a system in which they determine what, how much and in which way should they get?

I don't see why workers should not be able to get what they produce. Doesn't make much sense to me. Nor I see why should workers work for a guy who out of the blue and in blatant illegitimacy declares ownership over land and its produce-

bcarsham129 wrote:: I'm not sure what you mean by this. Poor people are poor compared to the rest of the country. However, poor people in America and Western Europe are richer tan poor people elsewhere and this is evidence of the capitalist system.

My question is "Is poverty legitimate?"

bcarsham129 wrote:: Yes, because as the economy grows, it makes everyone richer, and with the right amount of economic regulation, the economy will be stable and all people will have access to the things they need.

"The economy grows" what does this mean? That workers at some point are freed from their relationship to the bourgeoisie? That workers at some point get the exact same power of determinaton over means of production as the bourgeoisie?

Plus, who determines what people needs if not people themselves?

bcarsham129 wrote:: Capitalism just needs to be regulated correctly. For example, there can be carbon taxes, such as Al Gore suggests. This will discourage businesses from using too much carbon

That will mean that carbon dependant businesses will have to raise their prices. Just that.

You cannot regulate capitalism into stop depleting nature because otherwise you simply kill economy. How do you keep a paper-producing factory working when you don't let trees get cut down?

If you regulate too much prices go up, inflation ensues, you end up discouraging entrepeneurs and end up fomenting greater ratios of explaoitation.

bcarsham129 wrote:: You might be right aobut this but that is just the definitions from your communist point of view. The traditional American definitions of socialism and communism are the ones I am using.

Which are wrong since the terms not only are not american but because American political schools have a completely twisted vision of communism.

Experienced Pioneer Posts : 50 Join date : 2009-04-02

"How is that democracy? The people are not making the decisions, just having people do them."

As I said, I prefer pure democracy, but that is considered democracy, according to my professor at least.

"You are contending that Communism is impossible to be achieved. It was achieved so your point has been nullified. The communist communities were destroyed being attacked by 5 different parties which happened to be some of the most powerful armies in Europe. And that doesn't serve at all as an arguement against communism. Communism was established; its establishers killed."

Well, communism may be established, but it can not be maintained for a long time, as was proved. It also does not have as much economic growth as capitalism.

"How does the first assertion lead to the second?

Workers controlling the economy determine what and how should be produced. The incentive is production to satisfy needs, needs do not vanish with the implementation of communism.

Workers will receive in accordance to how they contribute to society as determined by themselves."

Do they receive according to their needs or how much they contribute?

"Actually in regards to some goods socialist production would be far larger than capitalist while in other goods it would even become nil. Socialist production, in contrast to capitalist is need-satisfaction oriented not profit-oriented that means that there would be things that would be produced once or twice in a lifetime while there would be massively produced goods."

This is how it is in capitalism also. When there is more supply, the demand also goes up. The sellers adjust their supply to the need.

"Sorry, didn't clarify much to me. Would you please define what you understand as "individual liberty"?"

Right to do drugs, marry anyone you want, do anything with another adult as long as its consensual, those sorts of things.

"The standard of living is product of material condition swhich are determined by three main factors 1) natural resources 2)technical knowledge 3) social organization.

How on Earth can a system in which the workers can't have what they produce and in which the workers are under the command of someone else having no control over the economy provide more to the workers than a system in which they determine what, how much and in which way should they get?

I don't see why workers should not be able to get what they produce. Doesn't make much sense to me. Nor I see why should workers work for a guy who out of the blue and in blatant illegitimacy declares ownership over land and its produce-'

The capitalist system has a higher rate of economic growth than communism, leading to a higher standard of living. And in capitalism people do have the right to what they produce. If you make something, you own it, and you have the right to sell it.

"My question is "Is poverty legitimate?""

No I don't think so, which is why capitalism needs to be regulated.

""The economy grows" what does this mean? That workers at some point are freed from their relationship to the bourgeoisie? That workers at some point get the exact same power of determinaton over means of production as the bourgeoisie?

Plus, who determines what people needs if not people themselves?"

I mean there is a higher gross domestic product. People can decide what they need, and they do in capitalism. But if you knew economics you would know that capitalism increases the standard of living for everyone.

"That will mean that carbon dependant businesses will have to raise their prices. Just that.

You cannot regulate capitalism into stop depleting nature because otherwise you simply kill economy. How do you keep a paper-producing factory working when you don't let trees get cut down?

If you regulate too much prices go up, inflation ensues, you end up discouraging entrepeneurs and end up fomenting greater ratios of explaoitation."

The businesses that raise their prices will have less deman and thus less profit than those businesses which do not use as much fossil fuels.

I'm not saying stop cutting trees down. I'm just saying cut less trees and find more efficient ways to do it.

Regulation does not necessarily lead to inflation unless you inject too much money into the economy. Regulation can actually help the economy by giving money to poorer people which can increase the demand, which stimulates production.

Subject: Re: My political profile Fri Apr 03, 2009 4:34 am

bcarsham129 wrote:: As I said, I prefer pure democracy, but that is considered democracy, according to my professor at least.

Yet it is not democracy when democracy is understood as a system in which the people decide, in which teh people have power which is what Democracy means.

bcarsham129 wrote:: Well, communism may be established, but it can not be maintained for a long time, as was proved. It also does not have as much economic growth as capitalism.

False again. Communism didn't fail, those who practiced it were killed. It's two different things.

Fundament your statement that communism doesn't have as much economic growth with an arguement please and explain why that is relevant.

bcarsham129 wrote:: Do they receive according to their needs or how much they contribute?

In accordance to what they determine. They determine their needs setting up the satisfaction of those needs as the minimum. Surplus will come with extra contribution and said extra contribution will be met with proportional extra reward.

bcarsham129 wrote:: This is how it is in capitalism also. When there is more supply, the demand also goes up. The sellers adjust their supply to the need.

You didn't seem to get my point.

In communism people simply produce what they deem necesary. Period. There's no "supply and demand" it's production determination.

bcarsham129 wrote:: Right to do drugs, marry anyone you want, do anything with another adult as long as its consensual, those sorts of things.

Those are examples of individual liberties, yet not precisely a definition.

bcarsham129 wrote:: The capitalist system has a higher rate of economic growth than communism, leading to a higher standard of living.

This didn't make much sense considering that you're not even fundamenting it with an arguement.

In commuism people produce what they deem necesary and distribute according to the rules they set, therefore economic growth is as determined by the people and is always set to suffice all needs.

Capitalism, in the other hand and as it has been widely demonstrated, fails to provide people even with the most basic of needs.

bcarsham129 wrote:: And in capitalism people do have the right to what they produce. If you make something, you own it, and you have the right to sell it.

This is false. The workers at a Ford assembly plant in Mexico do not own the cars they produce. They're owned by the Ford Company which sells them paying a fraction of the value of that product to the workers. The masons building Burj Dubai do not own Burj Dubai. The guys at the grill in McDonald's grilling the patties and assembling the hamburgers do not own the hamburgers.

What you're describing is a petit bourgeoise position in which you work for yourself. This is not the predominant class. The predominant classes are Bourgeoisie and Petit Bourgeoisie.

If all were to own the means of production and what they produce and trade it then it would be something similar to Anarcho Mutualism, not capitalism.

bcarsham129 wrote:: No I don't think so, which is why capitalism needs to be regulated.

So if poverty is illegitimate, why keeping a system that relies on its existance?

It doesn't matter how much you regulate capitalism, if you get people working at the orders of others which profit at their expense you got exploitaition. This condition intrinsically gives prerrogatives to the exploiter, for example, private property. The exploiter is as well to become automatically far richer than those that he exploits.

bcarsham129 wrote:: I mean there is a higher gross domestic product.

This means nothing. GDP is just an abstract measure with no pragmatic application.

In communism GDP is 0. People produce what they determine.

bcarsham129 wrote:: People can decide what they need, and they do in capitalism.

They can decide what they need, that doesn't mean they can get it. In capitalism it's not the workers who determine what is to be produced and how, that is, they do not determine what is necesary and what is not. They just produce in accordance to the planifications of the capitalist they're working for.

bcarsham129 wrote:: But if you knew economics you would know that capitalism increases the standard of living for everyone.

This is a baseless statement completely. Plus it's false. In capitalism those that are unemployed and unspported by welfare, and sometimes even living on welfare do not have their living standards improved, they literally have to survive like animals. And that to assess things from a very shallow perspective.

Capitalism keeps majorities breakig their backs to enrich minorities. If those majorities could enjoy the same living standards as those minorities they work for, why would they work for them in the first place? Thewre would be no incentive to be exploited.

bcarsham129 wrote:: The businesses that raise their prices will have less deman and thus less profit than those businesses which do not use as much fossil fuels.

You didn't seem to get what I was adressing. There are industries entirely reliant on using carbon from charcoal producers to pencil makers. You tax carbon, you raise prices and simply hinder both the industry and the consumers by not making them able to get the goods their need (for being too expensive) and the company.

bcarsham129 wrote:: I'm not saying stop cutting trees down. I'm just saying cut less trees and find more efficient ways to do it.

And what is that supposed to solve? That will not increase paper production, it will diminish it hindering the paper industry's growth and eventually leading it to crisis.

bcarsham129 wrote:: Regulation does not necessarily lead to inflation unless you inject too much money into the economy. Regulation can actually help the economy by giving money to poorer people which can increase the demand, which stimulates production.

If you regulate an enterprise, its forced to raise its prices or cut expenditures for you're limiting its profit capabilities.

Experienced Pioneer Posts : 50 Join date : 2009-04-02

You are right. I am now converting to Marxism. I will study it on wikipedia.

Subject: Re: My political profile Fri Apr 03, 2009 4:48 am

bcarsham129 wrote:: You are right. I am now converting to Marxism. I will study it on wikipedia.

NO, wikipedia bad. Go to www.marxists.org

Experienced Pioneer Posts : 50 Join date : 2009-04-02

Thanks for the tip comrade.

Subject: Re: My political profile Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:43 am

bcarsham129 wrote:: You are right. I am now converting to Marxism. I will study it on wikipedia.

woah.

that was easy.

its not everyday someone listens and accepts new ideas.

Subject: Re: My political profile Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:27 pm

Alek4A wrote:: woah.

that was easy.

its not everyday someone listens and accepts new ideas.

And at the first encounter...

Experienced Pioneer Posts : 50 Join date : 2009-04-02

Well, I was already very left wing by American standards, and I am open minded, so I realized that Marxism is best to benefit the working people.

Subject: Re: My political profile Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:08 pm

If you'd like to read a quick little review of the Spanish revolution, i made a post on the matter not too long ago.

https://worldrepublic.forumotion.com/people-s-library-f10/to-understand-the-spanish-revs-significance-t2800.htm

It's kinda long, but it's shorter than anything else you'll find on this lengthy subject (anything worth reading, that is).

Experienced Pioneer Posts : 50 Join date : 2009-04-02

Thans for that. I will read it right now.

Subject: Re: My political profile Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:28 am

Go away Watermelon.

Subject: Re: My political profile Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:24 am

lolol

» RA's Political Profile
» My political profile
» My Political Profile.
» My Political Profile !
» Political Profile