Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

The Socialism/Communism Discussion Thread

socialism communism Marxism MLM anarchism leftism class war dialectical materialism USSR Stalin

  • Please log in to reply
431 replies to this topic

#41
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Marxist-Leninist Futurist ☭

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,530 posts
  • LocationUK

Joe, why are you defending a racist, sexist, totalitarian dictatorship?

Okay. Nazi Germany is the most demonized nation in history, and the Nazis are a persecuted minority.

Makes no sense, right? You won't even attempt to deny THAT. But because the DPRK lied about being communist once, that's okay?

Racist: [citation needed]

Sexist: [citation needed]

 

Yes, North Korea has problems with excessive authoritarianism but the WPK still represents the interests of the masses and "totalitarianism" is a pretty useless phrase that can be applied to anything.

 

You'd think it would be Nazi Germany, wouldn't you? But the way things are, it seems to be North Korea.

 

The DPRK isn't communist, it's socialist. 


"The Proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains." - Karl Marx
"A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentleso temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."  - Mao Zedong


#42
Logically Illogical.

Logically Illogical.

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Locationunknown; Destination unknown; Inducements classified; Identification unknown

This is rather humorous to watch.


De chacun selon ses facultés, à chacun selon ses besoins.


#43
Outlook

Outlook

    when you penetrate the most high god

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 661 posts
  • LocationHyperion

Meritocracies are the only true system of government.


https://mail.google.com

 

Gmail is the easiest, and most hastle free email service the internet can provide you. It will not bar you from your email during vacation, or give you stupid recovery questions. Gmail: The Easy Solution


#44
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Marxist-Leninist Futurist ☭

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,530 posts
  • LocationUK

Meritocracies are the only true system of government.

You mean the only good system? Because you do get functioning governments that aren't meritocratic. Like capitalism, for example. I explained more or less in a previous post on a separate thread: "The rich are only "the rich" because they've exploited the poor - the workers. That's how it works. Anyone with these types of extremely large fortunes can only have ever had this wealth through the exploitation of the labour of others - in Marxist theory, this is called the extraction of the surplus value, whereby workers are not compensated fully for their labour and have most of the value they create extracted from them to profit the capitalist class and ultimately, they are alienated from the product of their labour. The value their labour creates won't come to benefit them, but those who exploit them."


"The Proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains." - Karl Marx
"A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentleso temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."  - Mao Zedong


#45
Lunix688

Lunix688

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,286 posts
  • LocationUnited States

 

Meritocracies are the only true system of government.

You mean the only good system? Because you do get functioning governments that aren't meritocratic. Like capitalism, for example. I explained more or less in a previous post on a separate thread: "The rich are only "the rich" because they've exploited the poor - the workers. That's how it works. Anyone with these types of extremely large fortunes can only have ever had this wealth through the exploitation of the labour of others - in Marxist theory, this is called the extraction of the surplus value, whereby workers are not compensated fully for their labour and have most of the value they create extracted from them to profit the capitalist class and ultimately, they are alienated from the product of their labour. The value their labour creates won't come to benefit them, but those who exploit them."

 

 

No offense, but can you get over this whole 'exploitation' crap? Most people are not exploited. Pursuing profit is the most humanitarian and noble things someone can do, after all, through their greed, they create products that they know people will want and satisfy their needs and wants in exchange for making money. How is that exploitative? 

"Marxist theory", give me a break - it's a failure of an ideology economically and morally, and every state that aspires to Marxism ultimately fails. Honestly, it seems that the people that adhere to Marxism have a very grim outlook on the world - it's a story of "us versus them", and a constant story of struggle. Struggle for what? Billions of people have been lifted out of poverty in the past decades because of capitalism. For a lot of people, their quality of life expands rapidly. The poorest in America are well off by global standards. For people in extreme poverty, the best way to help them is to open up markets and allow their countries to apply market capitalism to their economies (i.e: what Singapore did, what China has done, et cetera) Singapore went from third world to first world in a generation by allowing capitalism to 'do the job'. 

 

I really cannot see whatsoever how communism is a better form of economic system. Sadly, there will be people at the bottom - however the people at the bottom are significantly freer and better off under capitalism then totalitarian communism. Communism is incompatible with freedom and respect for human rights. 


  • Jakob likes this
"Liberterianism is a mental disease. A national health crisis and a threat to the future of this country...Worse than the threat from terrorism, asteroids, disease and yes global warming.
It is mindless anti-government idiocy. If it isn't turned back I predict the end of this country as a world power. Simply put the need to educate our entire population like any sane country is sen as wrong by the cult that practice this foolish idiocy. So is simple workers rights, child labor and every other sane policy of the modern world."
-Matthew
 
"The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone.”
-Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
"The world runs on individuals pursuing their self interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a, from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way."
-Milton Friedman
 
 

 


#46
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Marxist-Leninist Futurist ☭

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,530 posts
  • LocationUK
^ That just sounds like emotionalism. You haven't provided any actual refutation other than just "I don't want to believe what you're saying, so can you stop now?" and also you're simply repeating yourself. Again, billions have not been lifted out of poverty because of capitalism, they've been plunged into it. Again, "Marxism is a failure" without any actual facts, just emotionalism. The struggle is the class struggle, that the interests of the ruling class are irreconcilably antagonistic towards the interests of the workers, and vice versa. Socialism is better because the workers are in power and they own the means of production - it's so much fairer. Communism is later when the whole concept of class is able to wither away completely. Communism is incompatible with... Which "freedoms", exactly?... And which "human rights"?...

"The Proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains." - Karl Marx
"A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentleso temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."  - Mao Zedong


#47
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,859 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

 And which "human rights"?...

The right to own property.


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#48
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Marxist-Leninist Futurist ☭

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,530 posts
  • LocationUK

 

 And which "human rights"?...

The right to own property.

You can own personal property like your home, your clothes, your food, etc, and the workers collectively own the formerly private (or economic) property. This is quite a common misconception people have of socialism and communism, which is understandable for someone who hasn't read Marx or Engels thus doesn't know the distinction between private and personal property, which is usually only referred to by socialists.


"The Proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains." - Karl Marx
"A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentleso temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."  - Mao Zedong


#49
PhoenixRu

PhoenixRu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,415 posts
  • LocationRussia

Not going to insult anyone but IMHO any debate of person with Ayn Rand in signature vs person with Karl Marx in signature is only a waste of time and nerves... in best case.

 

distinction between private and personal property

 

Yes, i highly doubt that most of people understand this difference. A very simple definition: personal property is something for personal use while private property is something to earn income.  For example, you have a car and this is your personal property, but after you started to use this car as taxi to earn income - this same car turned into private property.


  • illykitty, joe00uk and Outlook like this

#50
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Marxist-Leninist Futurist ☭

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,530 posts
  • LocationUK

Not going to insult anyone but IMHO any debate of person with Ayn Rand in signature vs person with Karl Marx in signature is only a waste of time and nerves... in best case.

Haha, yes, that is very true (in terms of trying to convince your opponent) but also it is good intellectual exercise.


"The Proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains." - Karl Marx
"A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentleso temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."  - Mao Zedong


#51
Outlook

Outlook

    when you penetrate the most high god

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 661 posts
  • LocationHyperion

Not going to insult anyone but IMHO any debate of person with Ayn Rand in signature vs person with Karl Marx in signature is only a waste of time and nerves... in best case.

 

I was inspired to do the same with my personal great thinkers and heroes.


https://mail.google.com

 

Gmail is the easiest, and most hastle free email service the internet can provide you. It will not bar you from your email during vacation, or give you stupid recovery questions. Gmail: The Easy Solution


#52
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Marxist-Leninist Futurist ☭

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,530 posts
  • LocationUK

 

Not going to insult anyone but IMHO any debate of person with Ayn Rand in signature vs person with Karl Marx in signature is only a waste of time and nerves... in best case.

 

I was inspired to do the same with my personal great thinkers and heroes.

 

"Obstacles do not exist to be surrendered to, but only to be broken." Hitler: Mein Kampf

"Guilt. It's this mechanism we use to control people. It's an illusion. It's a kind of social control mechanism and it's very unhealthy. Its does terrible things to our body." Ted Bundy

Is that an attempt at satire?


"The Proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains." - Karl Marx
"A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentleso temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."  - Mao Zedong


#53
Lunix688

Lunix688

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,286 posts
  • LocationUnited States

Can you please show me a statistic showing 'all the billions plunged into poverty because of capitalism'. 

 

I know those that believe in communism aren't exactly the biggest thinkers (they'd much rather exploit and rob from those that DO think), but here's a few statistics to back my claims up.  

Fig%203_0.png

Fig%204.png

Fig%205.png

Fig%206.png

Fig%207.png

World life expectancy, source - World Bank

 

As a futurist, surely you are somewhat optimistic (hopefully) of the future. The world is become richer, freer, and healthier as time goes by. Why? Not because we've embraced the dark political and economic systems to control individuals that reigned in the 20th century, but rather, so many countries have embraced the individual and freedom - allowing capitalism to 'take its place'. 

 

Also as a side note, I'm not going to convince you - and your not going to convince me (since we obviously hold opposite ideologies), but nevertheless, its a nice debate to have. 


  • Jakob likes this
"Liberterianism is a mental disease. A national health crisis and a threat to the future of this country...Worse than the threat from terrorism, asteroids, disease and yes global warming.
It is mindless anti-government idiocy. If it isn't turned back I predict the end of this country as a world power. Simply put the need to educate our entire population like any sane country is sen as wrong by the cult that practice this foolish idiocy. So is simple workers rights, child labor and every other sane policy of the modern world."
-Matthew
 
"The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone.”
-Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
"The world runs on individuals pursuing their self interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a, from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way."
-Milton Friedman
 
 

 


#54
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Marxist-Leninist Futurist ☭

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,530 posts
  • LocationUK
The billions plunged into poverty was hardly a sudden event. It's due to the capitalist superstructure which has existed for hundreds of years. The most sudden poverty plunge for a large number of people would be Eastern Europe in the 1990's. I don't even know where most of these graphs come from, and also GDP is meaningless when there are high levels of inequality. And as for another graph, well, we have very different definitions of "democracy". What factors is that poverty graph basing itself on? Total GDP or the average citizen? Yes, I'm optimistic, I don't think capitalism will last forever and I think we may see its demise within our lifetimes. Just a question here - what does "individuality" and "freedom" mean to you?

"The Proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains." - Karl Marx
"A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentleso temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."  - Mao Zedong


#55
Lunix688

Lunix688

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,286 posts
  • LocationUnited States

The billions plunged into poverty was hardly a sudden event. It's due to the capitalist superstructure which has existed for hundreds of years. The most sudden poverty plunge for a large number of people would be Eastern Europe in the 1990's. I don't even know where most of these graphs come from, and also GDP is meaningless when there are high levels of inequality. And as for another graph, well, we have very different definitions of "democracy". What factors is that poverty graph basing itself on? Total GDP or the average citizen? Yes, I'm optimistic, I don't think capitalism will last forever and I think we may see its demise within our lifetimes. Just a question here - what does "individuality" and "freedom" mean to you?

Ahem.. billions plunged into poverty? No, I think clearly capitalism is the reason billions have been lifted OUT of poverty. 

But you do recognize that Eastern Europe is doing relatively well now... exponentially better then they were under Marxist-socialism. 

image018.gif

The graph showing GDP is for PER CAPITA, the global GDP per CAPITA has been steadily rising. I mean honestly, this isn't that hard to imagine, considering all of the economic growth we see in Asia and elsewhere. 

 

I'm just curious.. but what exactly are you smoking, because basically 'most' metrics show that the world is becoming a BETTER place to live in, and it's not becoming a better place because all of the sudden many successful economies are deciding to completely abandon liberalism and apply Marxist economics. In fact, almost all countries that attempted Marxist style economics have FAILED.

 

Also,

median_household_income.gif

Above graph shows median household income in the USA - it's trend is up, not down. 

 

I can honestly think of no better of a system for the poorest, middle class, and the richest then capitalism. I'm not talking about laissez-faire here, I'm just simply defending 'capitalism' as a concept. 

 

I just don't get where you are getting this whole 'billions plunged into poverty' nonesense. Show me statistics or graphs, you accused me of using few statistics and just using emotion - however I think in this instance you are running on just mere emotion with no facts. 

FallingPoverty2-446x288.png

Oh yes.. clearly the world is getting poorer. Right? No. World poverty is declining. How do I know that people in China are better off now then they were under Mao? Easy. Boom in luxury goods, boom in consumer goods. I mean, 

chinese_consumer_spending.png

 

I deduce from this that consumer spending is rapidly rising in China, and steadily rising in most of the world - which leads me to think that these people have more income and wealth to spend on luxury and consumer goods. China's consumer spending is expected to reach 6.8 trillion dollars by 2025. That's not the 1%, that's the new and rapidly growing middle class.

 

Communists want us to all be equally poor. 

 

Also joe00uk, explain to me how 'technology', 'futurism', and innovation will occur in a purely communist Marxist economy that you want? Also, how can you so blindly believe that the government is better spending your money then you yourself? 

 

Do you also recognize that absolute control of the economy by the government will undoubtedly lead to abuse (i.e: North Korea, China under Mao, Soviet Union) People don't want to live like that. I don't want to live in a country where I risk being sent to a concentration camp for not publicly being in absolute love and admiration for my Great Leader. 


  • Maximus and Jakob like this
"Liberterianism is a mental disease. A national health crisis and a threat to the future of this country...Worse than the threat from terrorism, asteroids, disease and yes global warming.
It is mindless anti-government idiocy. If it isn't turned back I predict the end of this country as a world power. Simply put the need to educate our entire population like any sane country is sen as wrong by the cult that practice this foolish idiocy. So is simple workers rights, child labor and every other sane policy of the modern world."
-Matthew
 
"The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone.”
-Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
"The world runs on individuals pursuing their self interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a, from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way."
-Milton Friedman
 
 

 


#56
Outlook

Outlook

    when you penetrate the most high god

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 661 posts
  • LocationHyperion

In a perfect world...

 

FIVR


https://mail.google.com

 

Gmail is the easiest, and most hastle free email service the internet can provide you. It will not bar you from your email during vacation, or give you stupid recovery questions. Gmail: The Easy Solution


#57
Unity

Unity

    Information Organism

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,356 posts


Meritocracies are the only true system of government.

You mean the only good system? Because you do get functioning governments that aren't meritocratic. Like capitalism, for example. I explained more or less in a previous post on a separate thread: "The rich are only "the rich" because they've exploited the poor - the workers. That's how it works. Anyone with these types of extremely large fortunes can only have ever had this wealth through the exploitation of the labour of others - in Marxist theory, this is called the extraction of the surplus value, whereby workers are not compensated fully for their labour and have most of the value they create extracted from them to profit the capitalist class and ultimately, they are alienated from the product of their labour. The value their labour creates won't come to benefit them, but those who exploit them."

No offense, but can you get over this whole 'exploitation' crap? Most people are not exploited. Pursuing profit is the most humanitarian and noble things someone can do, after all, through their greed, they create products that they know people will want and satisfy their needs and wants in exchange for making money. How is that exploitative?
"Marxist theory", give me a break - it's a failure of an ideology economically and morally, and every state that aspires to Marxism ultimately fails. Honestly, it seems that the people that adhere to Marxism have a very grim outlook on the world - it's a story of "us versus them", and a constant story of struggle. Struggle for what? Billions of people have been lifted out of poverty in the past decades because of capitalism. For a lot of people, their quality of life expands rapidly. The poorest in America are well off by global standards. For people in extreme poverty, the best way to help them is to open up markets and allow their countries to apply market capitalism to their economies (i.e: what Singapore did, what China has done, et cetera) Singapore went from third world to first world in a generation by allowing capitalism to 'do the job'.

I really cannot see whatsoever how communism is a better form of economic system. Sadly, there will be people at the bottom - however the people at the bottom are significantly freer and better off under capitalism then totalitarian communism. Communism is incompatible with freedom and respect for human rights.
Maybe it has little or nothing to do with economic system and more to do with cheap and freely available abundance of resources. I can guarantee you on average an ethnic Chinese person would feel more free to become a millionaire in China as you do in the USA, but is that a byproduct of an objective description of reality or merely that each of you is in the ethnic majority of your country, were born into a particular social class, etc?

#58
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,679 posts

Lunix:  Pursuing profit is the most humanitarian and noble things someone can do, after all, through their greed, they create products that they know people will want and satisfy their needs and wants in exchange for making money. How is that exploitative? 

 

 

Joe is refering to the theory of surplus value.  Under that theory, it is exploitive because capitalists get to keep the difference between the exchange value that the workers produce, and what the workers are actually paid for their labor.

 

A counter argument is that capitalists put at risk their capital, and therefore sould be rewarded for that risk.  Yet, the compensation of CEOs, who basically risk nothing, is sometimes hundreds of times what individual workers in the lower echelons are paid.  Clearly, something is out of whack in such a system.

 

Then there are the external diseconmies produced by the workings of many capitalist enterprises.  The negative affects of such external diseconomies are essentially socialized.  Think pollution and the way many suffer the health effects of such pollution. 

 

Sure, there are statisitical arguments showing a growth in wealth in recent years by western societies.  Societies that include democratic socialist forms of government.  Societies where the income of the extremely wealthy are averaged in with the income of the very poor.  In recent decades, the trend has been for the middle class to work furiously just to stay in place while virtually all of the benefits due to increased productivity go to the top 1% or so. Moreover, those trends in overall wealth are very much threatened by the potentially disastrous effects of global warming. Such effects will only get worse in the future.  Meanwhile,profit seeking fossil fuel based businesses, particularly in the United States, have done nothing but obstruct efforts to alleviate the problem. They have done so by a disinformation campaign that rivals anything produced by any actually existing Communist state of the past. They have been motivated by a greed that is the polar opposite of "humanitarian and noble".


  • joe00uk likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#59
PhoenixRu

PhoenixRu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,415 posts
  • LocationRussia

 

Joe is refering to the theory of surplus value.  Under that theory, it is exploitive because capitalists get to keep the difference between the exchange value that the workers produce, and what the workers are actually paid for their labor.

 

Oh... so, this is just a "theory"?  :o I always thought this is a self-evident reality, the very foundation of modern capitalist economy - and this is impossible to deny or ignore no matter you're marxist or not.

 

That's why i usually avoid such debates with guys like Linux688. To discuss something with someone, you should have at least some common ground, but in this case we're just living in two different univerces... let me guess, in his neo-liberal universe the very term of exploitation is "crap" while capitalists are creators and demiurges "moving our world forward" and great philanthropists "giving work to poor people so they can feed their families" and if some people are still poor, this is "their own fault, they're lazy and should work harder"  :biggrin:


  • Unity and joe00uk like this

#60
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Marxist-Leninist Futurist ☭

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,530 posts
  • LocationUK
That's exactly it though, we might as well be living in different universes...

"The Proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains." - Karl Marx
"A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentleso temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."  - Mao Zedong






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: socialism, communism, Marxism, MLM, anarchism, leftism, class war, dialectical materialism, USSR, Stalin

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users