Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .4,3444,3454,3464,3474,3484,3494,350. . .8,7278,728»

Purnelaw wrote:Please keep in mind that the current situation of the 'haves' vs 'have-nots' isn't whether or not somebody is going to starve to death vs not, it's people who can afford gold plated private jets and those who can't even afford to live in a real house. IRL we HAVE all the bananas we need to feed everybody, it's just that those who own the bananas don't want to, because that means less money for them. There is so much excess in our daily lives yet so much poverty, and that really doesn't make any sense, especially since we don't have infinite resources to throw around like you say.

This. "There's not enough resources" he says while a tiny elite hoard the vast majority of wealth like dragons on mountains of treasure.

Aigania, DaPiFanatic, and Free market buisnesses

I mean holy hell, we've been DESTROYING this planet in the name of profit for how many years, now? Our rainforests, our oceans, how many instances have there been of animals being hunted to extinction not because of need, but for want? We've lost so many beautiful birds of paradise because we like selling their feathers, leopards are endangered to make rugs, ivory trinkets..

Not to mention what it's doing to us, there's nets outside of the windows of Apple factories in Asia-- because that's apparently a better solution than actually treating their workers fairly. Living in squalor to create the very luxuries we take for granted.

I know, but Purnelaw, you're taking advantage of the very system you decry! It's not like I really have a choice, all those who build those fancy self sufficient cabins in the woods and are living off grid already had plenty of capital to burn on their pet project. Besides, just because we live in a society doesn't mean we can't wish for it to improve.

Purnelaw wrote:I mean holy hell, we've been DESTROYING this planet in the name of profit for how many years, now? Our rainforests, our oceans, how many instances have there been of animals being hunted to extinction not because of need, but for want? We've lost so many beautiful birds of paradise because we like selling their feathers, leopards are endangered to make rugs, ivory trinkets..

Not to mention what it's doing to us, there's nets outside of the windows of Apple factories in Asia-- because that's apparently a better solution than actually treating their workers fairly. Living in squalor to create the very luxuries we take for granted.

I know, but Purnelaw, you're taking advantage of the very system you decry! It's not like I really have a choice, all those who build those fancy self sufficient cabins in the woods and are living off grid already had plenty of capital to burn on their pet project. Besides, just because we live in a society doesn't mean we can't wish for it to improve.

Blaming someone who criticises capitalism for taking part in capitalism is like criticising a serf for taking part in feudalism by growing crops on his lord's land. It's not as if we have much choice. We need to, like...live? That argument always annoyed me too.

Aigania, Purnelaw, Guiness Freaks, DaPiFanatic, and 1 otherFree market buisnesses

Divine Egypt wrote:I've never advocated for a one-world government so I don't know where you're getting that from. And saying something is impossible doesn't make it so. You've bought the myth that this is as good as things are going to get and we should just accept it and "live in the real world." Sad. If everyone thought like you, we wouldn't have made it out of the caves.

The goal of early communists was always one world wide classless society without borders. Whenever somebody points to a historical example of communism and says "that wasent really communism" it's because it didnt technically meet the "offical" definition of communism, that being it wasn't global in scale.

Purnelaw wrote:Please keep in mind that the current situation of the 'haves' vs 'have-nots' isn't whether or not somebody is going to starve to death vs not, it's people who can afford gold plated private jets and those who can't even afford to live in a real house. IRL we HAVE all the bananas we need to feed everybody, it's just that those who own the bananas don't want to, because that means less money for them. There is so much excess in our daily lives yet so much poverty, and that really doesn't make any sense, especially since we don't have infinite resources to throw around like you say.

Divine Egypt wrote:This. "There's not enough resources" he says while a tiny elite hoard the vast majority of wealth like dragons on mountains of treasure.

While I agree that the "haves" have a little too much, I fail to see how stripping them of everything they have and entrusting it to a all powerful government is going to make the situation any better. In fact I think that would make everything a whole hell of alot worse. Instead why dont we just raise taxs a little bit and make the government invest that tax money into things the have nots need, like healthcare and education? I'm sure that would work out better for everybody instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water so we can adopt a system that has been proven to fail everytime its implemented.

New vedan wrote:The goal of early communists was always one world wide classless society without borders. Whenever somebody points to a historical example of communism and says "that wasent really communism" it's because it didnt technically meet the "offical" definition of communism, that being it wasn't global in scale.

While I agree that the "haves" have a little too much, I fail to see how stripping them of everything they have and entrusting it to a all powerful government is going to make the situation any better. In fact I think that would make everything a whole hell of alot worse. Instead why dont we just raise taxs a little bit and make the government invest that tax money into things the have nots need, like healthcare and education? I'm sure that would work out better for everybody instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water so we can adopt a system that has been proven to fail everytime its implemented.

We'd very much like to see the taxes of the wealthy invested into things like healthcare and education but whenever someone suggests that, right-wingers foam at the mouth about communism because helping people is anathema to their very being.

Guiness Freaks, DaPiFanatic, and Free market buisnesses

New vedan

Divine Egypt wrote:We'd very much like to see the taxes of the wealthy invested into things like healthcare and education but whenever someone suggests that, right-wingers foam at the mouth about communism because helping people is anathema to their very being.

Well what did you expect? For the wealthy to be all like "sure take all my money, I never needed it anyways. Id just buy myself another private island with it anyways." Nah m8 those guys dont want higher taxes, they do everything they can to get out of paying the the taxes there supposed to be paying now. Of course there going to pull strings with the opposition party to try and prevent there taxs from getting higher.

Guiness Freaks, DaPiFanatic, and Free market buisnesses

New vedan wrote:Instead why dont we just raise taxs a little bit and make the government invest that tax money into things the have nots need, like healthcare and education?.

That's kind of the idea. They've been fighting for decades to not pay their fare share, but I believe we can eventually hold them accountable. What that might look like, I don't know, but I'd like to be able to actually drive on roads rather than re-enacting the oregon trail every time I need to get groceries.

New vedan wrote:I'm sure that would work out better for everybody instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water so we can adopt a system that has been proven to fail everytime its implemented.

If we wanna get technical, there's never actually been true communism in practice. They've all functioned more as dictatorships rather than decentralized communes --it's the whole Democratic People's Republic of Korea thing, they call themselves that, but are neither democratic, a republic, or for the people. But that's more of an issue of opportunistic leadership taking advantage of public anger rather than a fault of Communism.

Guiness Freaks, DaPiFanatic, Free market buisnesses, and Divine Egypt

Purnelaw wrote:That's kind of the idea. They've been fighting for decades to not pay their fare share, but I believe we can eventually hold them accountable. What that might look like, I don't know, but I'd like to be able to actually drive on roads rather than re-enacting the oregon trail every time I need to get groceries.

If we wanna get technical, there's never actually been true communism in practice. They've all functioned more as dictatorships rather than decentralized communes --it's the whole Democratic People's Republic of Korea thing, they call themselves that, but are neither democratic, a republic, or for the people. But that's more of an issue of opportunistic leadership taking advantage of public anger rather than a fault of Communism.

And there you go with the whole "no true communism" thing. Society isnt going to devolve into a bunch of decentralized communes unless something catastrophic happens to kill most of the population and force us to live in small communes. And even if we did without some sort of centralizing force those independent communes would probably start raiding and killing each other given some time.

Look m8 every single time communism had been tried we wind up with another Joseph Stalin. Some parts of the ideology might work if you pluck it out of communism and inject it into a capitalist system, but that's socialism not communism. Actuall communism inevitably leads to authoritarianism because Karl Marx wasn't some all knowing prophet with a perfect system. It might be "diffrent" but at the end of the day it's to idealistic and dosent actually work when applied to real life.

Post self-deleted by Magyarostan.

I like how my country is in the top 4% in the world and top 5% in the region for its agricultural sector. Very fitting since Egypt was known as Rome's breadbasket.

DaPiFanatic and Free market buisnesses

That's why I said "If you wanna get technical", if you're expecting me to defend genocidal regimes because they use my favorite buzzword, I'm sorry-- you can go on r/sino for that. One of Communism's greatest weaknesses is the transition from capitalism, I'll give you that, but that's more endemic of power vacuums in general. That period is an incredibly vulnerable time in any political system. Marx isn't omnipotent, but he was pretty good at guessing. It's also interesting to note that most societies that underwent a botched transition were also agrarian in origin, --most people in pre-soviet russia wouldn't even know what an orange was-- and Marx's ideal transition was one of a post-industrial revolution society, where support and logistical networks were already in place.

Socialism, however, is more of a transitional phase from Capitalism to Communism, you can have Socialist policies in a Capitalist country, but that's just beating around the bush. I personally believe that Socialism is the best we're gonna get, because attempting to maintain our current standard of living under a Communist society would require some sort of legislative body to regulate and coordinate. Someone has to make sure food and supplies get to where they need to go when they need to.

But let's not kid ourselves here, Capitalism requires constant economic growth and therefore is demonstrably unsustainable, why can't we strive to a new ideal? But I can promise you, China and those claiming to have achieved Communism in our lifetime are liars.

Aigania, Surd, New vedan, Guiness Freaks, and 3 othersDaPiFanatic, Free market buisnesses, and Divine Egypt

Purnelaw wrote:That's why I said "If you wanna get technical", if you're expecting me to defend genocidal regimes because they use my favorite buzzword, I'm sorry-- you can go on r/sino for that. One of Communism's greatest weaknesses is the transition from capitalism, I'll give you that, but that's more endemic of power vacuums in general. That period is an incredibly vulnerable time in any political system. Marx isn't omnipotent, but he was pretty good at guessing. It's also interesting to note that most societies that underwent a botched transition were also agrarian in origin, --most people in pre-soviet russia wouldn't even know what an orange was-- and Marx's ideal transition was one of a post-industrial revolution society, where support and logistical networks were already in place.

Socialism, however, is more of a transitional phase from Capitalism to Communism, you can have Socialist policies in a Capitalist country, but that's just beating around the bush. I personally believe that Socialism is the best we're gonna get, because attempting to maintain our current standard of living under a Communist society would require some sort of legislative body to regulate and coordinate. Someone has to make sure food and supplies get to where they need to go when they need to.

But let's not kid ourselves here, Capitalism requires constant economic growth and therefore is demonstrably unsustainable, why can't we strive to a new ideal? But I can promise you, China and those claiming to have achieved Communism in our lifetime are liars.

How about we try my country's system, i.e. the sexy god-pharaoh decides everything. :P

Delta Vega IV, DaPiFanatic, and Free market buisnesses

Divine Egypt wrote:How about we try my country's system, i.e. the sexy god-pharaoh decides everything. :P

That just sounds like monarchism with extra steps...

Purnelaw wrote:That just sounds like monarchism with extra steps...

It is. Monarchy but the King is a living god.

Delta Vega IV, DaPiFanatic, and Free market buisnesses

Dogestania

New vedan wrote:All authoritarian systems are cringe af honestly. I mean seriously what kind of dumba$$ wants to give up all there and freedoms rights away to the government. I dont know about yall but I personally enjoy being able to do what I want to do and say what I want to say without fear that the secret police isnt going to kick my door down and drag me away into the night.

Only a braindead retard looks at Nazi germany and facist Italy and says "Hey that's a great system! Genocide,curroption,the complete and utter loss of everything that makes men free...Wow why arnt we using this system today? I wanna get killed in a concentration camp for disagreeing with my country's leader! That's sounds like a absolutely wunderbar way to die!"

And that goes for the commies to. Youd think that the fall of the soviet union would be enough to tell these people that Karl Marx's vision was nothing but a unrealistic pipe dream but no. They just keep on saying "True communism hasn't been tried yet" as if a worldwide communist government is even remotely possible. All the communist partys in the world promise everything under the sun to there supporters so they can get themselves in power, and then they reward those supporters with starvation and death! I swear the only reason the facists and communists hate each other is because there fighting over the same idiots.

Very True. That’s why the only form of true government is an absolutist Monarchy run by doges democracy

“I love Democracy”

-Emperor Palpatine

Delta Vega IV, New vedan, Guiness Freaks, DaPiFanatic, and 2 othersFree market buisnesses, and Divine Egypt

Dogestania wrote:Very True. That’s why the only form of true government is an absolutist Monarchy run by doges democracy

“I love Democracy”

-Emperor Palpatine

The Pharaoh loves democracy too (he says crossing his fingers behind his back)

Delta Vega IV, DaPiFanatic, Free market buisnesses, and Dogestania

I washed my hands for 19.9 seconds 😈

Treadwellia, DaPiFanatic, Free market buisnesses, Dogestania, and 1 otherFrench roman republic

The civitas islands

The hardest choices require the strongest wills.

Surd, DaPiFanatic, and Free market buisnesses

Furutani heavenly host hat shrine llc

The sakhalinsk empire wrote:I washed my hands for 19.9 seconds 😈

Suddenly, the background switches to a black screen with fire raging behind the deviant, with villainous music playing.

DaPiFanatic and Free market buisnesses

Elven pizza angel

Famine wrote:Now that's progress.

Yeah, pretty good

Free market buisnesses wrote:Public forest? What's that?

*heavy socialist noises*

DaPiFanatic and Free market buisnesses

Nordicland84

FART-A-TART!

Capitalism will *eventually save us all. Just give it a few more hundred years or so.

Also there is absolutely a discussion to be had regarding power and the powerful in any governmental structure. Even anarchy. My personal problem is that the system is designed for power to be held by a select few and they in turn make the rules (speaking about the USA here) to keep themselves and their *friends wealthy and in power. A true representative government would give every citizen a voice and truly look out for all citizens.

Free market buisnesses

13 days until 2 Tubby years!

Aigania, Delta Vega IV, Leonism, DaPiFanatic, and 3 othersFree market buisnesses, Dogestania, and French roman republic

Free market buisnesses

New vedan wrote:Classless,stateless society=A fairy tale. Nothing of the sort can or will ever exist.

Ok wow, wasnt expecting that. Let's see where should I begin....

1. The USA is not the source of all the worlds problems. During the cold war the Soviets did just as many underhanded things as we Americans did. And they helped there friends out just as much as we did. The commies had just as much of a chance to succeed as the Capatalists and they blew it.

2. Communism IS inherently authoritarian. You cant just go and take away everybody's stuff and expect them to be ok with it. And likewise you cant redistribute the wealth without a massive centralized authority to say who gets what and how much. Power corrupts and communist governments are given unlimited power. China, North Korea,The USSR, they all were given control the entirety of there nations private property which they were trusted to redistribute "Fairly". We can see how that turned out. Once you turn over that kind of power to the government then that's it, there not giving it up and you have no way to take any of that power back for the people. Communism lacks the checks and balances that western democracies have.

3. Communism goes against human nature. Throught all of time there has been have and have nots. With the exception of small primitives tribes every nation in history has been composed of people that are wealthy ruling over people who are poor. Whenever something happens to even the playing field (such as a uprising) the status quo always winds up reemerging, even if the people who were once rich are now poor and vice versa there is still wealth inequality. This is because it is human nature to try and succeed in life, and horde as much wealth and prosperity as you can for yourself and those that matter to you. We may be willing to give scraps to the needy and help our neighbors from time to time, but usually that only happens when we have the time and recorces to bother caring about other people.

4. There are simply not enough recorces on this planet to go around evenly, which has always been a soure for conflict throughout millennia. For example If you have 2 bananas and 7 hungry people then how do you decide who gets to eat? And furthermore if you come up with a solution then how do you force the ones that dont get to eat to listen to you? When communists are confronted with scarcity the higher ranking party leaders make sure that they and there families and friends are first in line for the scarce recorces. Then if theres any left they will "redistribute" it very slowly. And if anyone starts making trouble because the state is not providing what it should, then they disappear. This goes against what communism is supposed to be all about, but goes along with human nature quite perfectly. As long as there are a limited ammount of recorces to go around (which there always will be.) Then inequality will always exist.

1. Stalin blew it, and that doesn't make US actions justified.

2. Communism isn't a type of government, it's a type of economy. Additionally there is a difference between "private property" and "personal property". Private property is stuff like land, farms, and factories. Personal property is stuff like your house (probably), phone and tooth brush. Personally, I'm in favor of capitalism, but I do hate it when people say something is stupid without understanding it.

3. The thing that is the greatest advantage of humans over similar species—like monkeys—is that we can learn and do things against our nature. Honestly, that's just insulting, and humans are the only species that even considers helping things that it's not genetically related to, so I would say helping each other is in our nature.

4. If there aren't enough resources, we make more. That's what we do. We are capable of producing more food and the only thing that's holding us back is our cultural obsession with money. Money isn't human nature; if it was economics would be easy. People care so much about money because it's hammered into their skull from infancy that they can't be successful without it. Also, communism is and economic system, you're arguing about a form of government run economy spread by Stalin. Communism can exist without government interference. Besides, what you described is what happens in capitalism.

5. The angry rant was not the important part of what I wrote. You were meant to respond to the lower section. Interesting that you only responded to the angry rant, perhaps you don't have anything to counter what I said below it?

6. A classless and stateless society is unavoidable unless technology stagnates or we kill ourselves off in WW3 or 4, which I expect to happen in less than 200 years and 500 years, respectively. At the very latest a classless, stateless society will be achieved by the end of the millennia.

New vedan wrote:No m8 republic's had existed in Greece long before the monarchs. That was very real and possible threat. Worldwide communism and "classless society?" That's make belive. Hell you do know that any worldwide government attempt would fail because it would require world conquest right? And that any world conquest attempt would result in total atomic annihilation. And I think I already explained it out how a "classless society" is impossible on a national scale.

Communism just does not work, yall need to learn to accept that fact and start living in the real world.

Or perhaps peaceful unification? We do have a UN, so maybe that slowly grows more powerful as a wave of globalism and workers rights appears as a reaction to the current rise of isolationism and nationalism? Also, nearly all republics were run by nobles. I am only aware of two peasant republics in recent history, and those only existed due to small size, difficult terrain, and low value. (And they all got stomped)

New vedan wrote:The goal of early communists was always one world wide classless society without borders. Whenever somebody points to a historical example of communism and says "that wasent really communism" it's because it didnt technically meet the "offical" definition of communism, that being it wasn't global in scale.

While I agree that the "haves" have a little too much, I fail to see how stripping them of everything they have and entrusting it to a all powerful government is going to make the situation any better. In fact I think that would make everything a whole hell of alot worse. Instead why dont we just raise taxs a little bit and make the government invest that tax money into things the have nots need, like healthcare and education? I'm sure that would work out better for everybody instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water so we can adopt a system that has been proven to fail everytime its implemented.

Is English not your first language? If not what is? I'd be interested to see what sort of place you come from. If not middle US, then probably Eastern Europe, Asia, or South/Central America. Also, so you're an advocate for socialism? Also, if you think "global communism" was what they meant when they said "true communism", then I don't think you were listening. What they meant was that communism is when the workers have the means of production, and that those examples you gave were when the state had seized the means of production.

New vedan wrote:Well what did you expect? For the wealthy to be all like "sure take all my money, I never needed it anyways. If just buy myself another private island with it anyways." Nah m8 those guys dont want higher taxes, they do everything they can to get out of paying the the taxes there supposed to be paying now. Of course there going to pull strings with the opposition party to try and prevent there taxs from getting higher.

"M8", that's the point of communism. That the wealthy have too much power, and therefore drastic change will be required to get anything done.

Aigania, The isles of great britain and ireland, and DaPiFanatic

Free market buisnesses

I'M ALMOST THERE!!! JUST ONLY INDUSTRY LEFT!!!
nation=free_market_buisnesses/detail=government

DaPiFanatic, Dogestania, French roman republic, and Veautopia

«12. . .4,3444,3454,3464,3474,3484,3494,350. . .8,7278,728»

Advertisement