Socialism and Communism

[ZenBowman]

I never stated outsourcing = bad.

What I mean is that manufacturing and factory work is predominately in countries with weak labor laws and human right laws.

This is not a bad point. I think its okay to have some regulations saying that if you outsource production, then you must meet some basic labor safety standards, no problem with that whatsoever.

[stealth_swimmer]

mercantilism?

You kinda look like a retard I cant tell if you're misspelling stuff or just making sh8t up.

Is that seriously all you got? Cus honestly, it's been a while since i can remember you making any post with any sort of factual or logical basis. You've been severely pwned on this forum multiple times, especially in the realm of economics.

Please go learn some science before making fun of people's spelling.

[Spetsnazos]

Is that seriously all you got? Cus honestly, it's been a while since i can remember you making any post with any sort of factual or logical basis. You've been severely pwned on this forum multiple times, especially in the realm of economics.

Please go learn some science before making fun of people's spelling.

I hate to resolve to ad hominems but you have no room to talk. When you get a real world job then we can have a conversation, until then you can keep on preaching ron paul retardopianism

[Spetsnazos]

Please go learn some science before making fun of people's spelling.

And LOL. Whats your degree again and what is your GPA? Come at me bro.

[Frozen_By_You]

There's no question that socialism is widely misunderstood not just in the US, but also elsewhere. Sustainable socialism is small-community socialism, not state-socialism.

Tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttthhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiisssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss .

When a group of people band together with the "i have your back and you have mine, let's pool our stuff and make things work", socialism is amazing.

The problem is that you can't force people to have your back. Just like you can't force someone to dance; as dancing requires that you put your heart into it in order to pull it off.

Socialism is the same thing. Everyone needs to love each other or have something in common (usually hardship) that forms a very strong bond. Everyone needs to be 100% selfless and give their heart and soul and sweat to their community. That's why a socialist country/society is doomed to fail: there are too many people you don't give a **** about.

[ZenBowman]

Tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttthhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiisssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss .

When a group of people band together with the "i have your back and you have mine, let's pool our stuff and make things work", socialism is amazing.

The problem is that you can't force people to have your back. Just like you can't force someone to dance; as dancing requires that you put your heart into it in order to pull it off.

Socialism is the same thing. Everyone needs to love each other or have something in common (usually hardship) that forms a very strong bond. Everyone needs to be 100% selfless and give their heart and soul and sweat to their community. That's why a socialist country/society is doomed to fail: there are too many people you don't give a **** about.

The irony is that these so-called socialists don't seem to realize that "state socialism" is a facade, there is no such thing. One of the main aims of socialism is to build a more caring society, having everything be run from the top-down and being forced to take care of everyone is not conducive to that at all, it has a mechanizing and dehumanizing effect.

I consider myself a liberal and support a basic social safety net, and I support having regulations to prevent monopolistic practices, but I'm constantly amazed by these guys like Spetz and vabyss who think that you can force people into loving each other. There's no conflict between small-community socialism and individualism. In fact, only a society that respects individualism will be able to create a successful socialist society. You have to learn to walk before you can run.

[Frozen_By_You]

The irony is that these so-called socialists don't seem to realize that "state socialism" is a facade, there is no such thing. One of the main aims of socialism is to build a more caring society, having everything be run from the top-down and being forced to take care of everyone is not conducive to that at all, it has a mechanizing and dehumanizing effect.

I consider myself a liberal and support a basic social safety net, and I support having regulations to prevent monopolistic practices, but I'm constantly amazed by these guys like Spetz and vabyss who think that you can force people into loving each other. There's no conflict between small-community socialism and individualism. In fact, only a society that respects individualism will be able to create a successful socialist society. You have to learn to walk before you can run.

Correct.

I will add that i'm absolutely a socialist, that's not even a question, but i wouldn't want to force people to pool their resources with mine if they don't want to.

Ideally, a socialist society should emerge from within a capitalist/individualistic society and would become successful when people from the capitalist side would join the socialist side by their own will.

[ZenBowman]

Correct.

I will add that i'm absolutely a socialist, that's not even a question, but i wouldn't want to force people to pool their resources with mine if they don't want to.

Ideally, a socialist society should emerge from within a capitalist/individualistic society and would become successful when people from the capitalist side would join the socialist side by their own will.

I agree, with the caveat that regulation of monopolistic practices is necessary to avoid total corporate domination. Also, environmental regulation is absolutely necessary, as environmental destruction destroys the viability of sustainable communities, and can be rightfully viewed as a form of violence against which we have a right to self-defense.

[Spetsnazos]

these guys like Spetz and vabyss who think that you can force people into loving each other. There's no conflict between small-community socialism and individualism. In fact, only a society that respects individualism will be able to create a successful socialist society. You have to learn to walk before you can run.

Loving each other is not a requirement of socialism.

Come on now bro, if thats not a strawman then I dont know what is.

[ZenBowman]

Loving each other is not a requirement of socialism.

Come on now bro, if thats not a strawman then I dont know what is.

It's pretty apparent that you don't know what a strawman is, no need to point it out.

If socialism doesn't produce a more compassionate society, then it would be a worthless ideology.

[NiceBoat]

The irony is that these so-called socialists don't seem to realize that "state socialism" is a facade, there is no such thing. One of the main aims of socialism is to build a more caring society, having everything be run from the top-down and being forced to take care of everyone is not conducive to that at all, it has a mechanizing and dehumanizing effect.

I consider myself a liberal and support a basic social safety net, and I support having regulations to prevent monopolistic practices, but I'm constantly amazed by these guys like Spetz and vabyss who think that you can force people into loving each other. There's no conflict between small-community socialism and individualism. In fact, only a society that respects individualism will be able to create a successful socialist society. You have to learn to walk before you can run.

Aren't you being a little simplistic on what you consider proper motivation for socialism?

There can be a lot of reasons as to why someone supports socialism.

Off the top of my head I can think of three.

1.)To benefit society by lifting up the lowest rung
2.)To provide the individual with a safety net on the chance the worst happens to him such as him being crippled or seriously ill.
3.)Because you generally feel that morally speaking socialism is the correct way. This ties in heavily with point one but has a different motivation. You can be a moral socialist, who feels that one is morally obligated to help the rest of society. It doesn't even need to be everybody loving each other. You don't need to like or love someone to think they don't deserve to starve.

That is only a basic look at potential motivations for why one might support socialism. I am sure a deeper look would find a wealth of motivations for it.

[ZenBowman]

I agree with you generally, at least on points (1) and (2), but not to the extent that vabyss and Spetz take it, which is total government dominance. Let's take the argument about outsourcing, and look at it in a non-superficial manner.

Do I, as a human being have the right to purchase a product from another human being? If the answer is yes, then it shouldn't matter if the other human being is across an socially-constructed line known as a national border.

What Spetz and vabyss are arguing for is basically xenophobia under the guise of the "common good".

[gjohnson5]

Helping out your own community = selfishness. You drunk bro?

I'll remember that night time I fly and the attendants tell to to secure my own oxygen mask before helping someone else.
LOL clearly someone needs to look up the word selfish in the dictionary... But some people are so quick to try to make the hypocrisy argument that they make no sense at all

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/selfish

1.

Main Entry: self·ish
Pronunciation: \ˈsel-fish\
Function: adjective
Date: 1640

1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>
3 : being an actively replicating repetitive sequence of nucleic acid that serves no known function <selfish DNA>; also : being genetic material solely concerned with its own replication <selfish genes>

— self·ish·ly adverb

— self·ish·ness noun


Clearly self preservation is NOT SELFISH because the concern for one's self is not EXCESSIVE or in disregard for others. There's a difference between having concern for others and SACRIFICING one's self

[ZenBowman]

Except that I never said that helping out your own community was selfish. Nice attempt at a strawman.

What I said was that the argument that you must help your own before others was selfish.

BTW, this whole "helping your own before others" has been used as an argument to support "race preservation" and other discriminatory practices before. What you are demonstrating is that you are very anti-xenophobia when you are discriminated against, but when it is "third-worlders" who are the victims of national xenophobia, then you are all for it.

Nice, your hypocrisy is really shining through.

[gjohnson5]

What you've described (looking out for yourself and your own first) is basically selfishness. \.

LOL looks like those same people might wanna reread their own posts as well

[ZenBowman]

LOL looks like those same people might wanna reread their own posts as well

Right, that is selfishness, as per the dictionary definition you posted:

arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others

It's simply a greater selfishness.

[gjohnson5]

Except that I never said that helping out your own community was selfish. Nice attempt at a strawman.

What I said was that the argument that you must help your own before others was selfish.

Clearly you're walking a tight rope and not making any sense at this point
Helping out one's own can be considered the community and infact I would say they are interchangeable
Nice attempt at trying to make a distinction

Secondly helping out one's self is not selfish if it is not in disregard for others. One can easily help themselves first AND THEN help others.
Once again there's a difference between preservation and sacrifice. One can help themselves without sacrificing (actually I should say disregard not sacrifice) others or help others without sacrificing themselves.

You're painting with a wide brush stroke and not seeing any middle ground.

[ZenBowman]

Explain how giving a job to a third-world guy (provided the pay is good) is any more or less selfish than giving a job to an American.

[Spetsnazos]

It's pretty apparent that you don't know what a strawman is, no need to point it out.

If socialism doesn't produce a more compassionate society, then it would be a worthless ideology.

Socialism isnt based on creating a more compassionate society. As said by Niceboat, it is on pragmatic principles. The fact that you contribute into a social pool, you are ensuring your own survival incase something happens to you. Think of it as insurance. You are essentially investing in your own group for your own sake. You aren't required to love your neighbor but a side-effect is that you would become more compassionate because the well-being of others influences your own well-being.

A Strawman

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

1.I present socialism
2.You present the fact that socialism requires people to love each other(distorted version of compassion based on survival)
3. You attack the fact that not everyone can love each other
4. Therefore socialism is bad


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html


Its ok bro i'm doing this for your own good. It looks like you've been mind controlled or been drinking too much the last few days...

[Spetsnazos]

Explain how giving a job to a third-world guy (provided the pay is good) is any more or less selfish than giving a job to an American.

You cant say one way or the other. It is really based on your definition of selfishness.

[ZenBowman]

Socialism isnt based on creating a more compassionate society. As said by Niceboat, it is on pragmatic principles. The fact that you contribute into a social pool, you are ensuring your own survival incase something happens to you. Think of it as insurance. You are essentially investing in your own group for your own sake. You aren't required to love your neighbor but a side-effect is that you would become more compassionate because the well-being of others influences your own well-being.

I have no problem with a basic social safety net. Socialism has nothing to do with the petty nationalism you mentioned.

1.I present socialism

No, you presented an alternative socialism based on nationalism.

2.You present the fact that socialism requires people to love each other(distorted version of compassion based on survival)

I didn't say that, what I said was that one of the goals of socialism was a more compassionate society.

3. You attack the fact that not everyone can love each other

Didn't say that either, I said people cannot be forced to love each other.

4. Therefore socialism is bad

And I definitely didn't say that. Don't be an idiot.

[Spetsnazos]

in b4 psampty substitutes altruism for selflessness

[gjohnson5]

Explain how giving a job to a third-world guy (provided the pay is good) is any more or less selfish than giving a job to an American.

In terms of the government or the corporation?
In business, generally the person who gets the job is the person who has the best qualification who can do the work at the lowest bid. So in this sense the corporation will ALWAYS being selfish because the decision is in disregard for the people making the bids.....

The government may or may not have any bearing on this decision. So in terms of the government it may or may not be selfish depending on the policies which allow the foreigners to compete with the locals. In higher paying jobs , it's not always the foreigners who win a bid on the contract since many people may be trying to underbid each other.

Hopefully you're not trying to compare direct employees with outsourcing....

[Spetsnazos]

I have no problem with a basic social safety net. Socialism has nothing to do with the petty nationalism you mentioned.

i'm not being nationalist. I already explained that outsourcing is never done to promote life of other nations but to rake in more profits. The end result is you improve the society somewhere else(temporarily and often times hurt them) AND you hurt the society in which you live by driving down wages and driving up unemployment.

Just to make another buck.

[ZenBowman]

i'm not being nationalist. I already explained that outsourcing is never done to promote life of other nations but to rake in more profits. The end result is you improve the society somewhere else(temporarily and often times hurt them) AND you hurt the society in which you live by driving down wages and driving up unemployment.

This makes no sense whatsoever for anyone with even a basic knowledge of economics.

First, how can offering a job (which people are free to take or refuse) hurt them. All evidence points to the opposite, that the availability of jobs is always better than their non-availability.

Second, once the profit is made, the money remains in the society in which you live. It is normally either spent or reinvested, except in times of economic uncertainty.

Follow the precept to its logical conclusion. If you stop outsourcing jobs to other nations, you can use the same arguments to stop outsourcing jobs to other states, then to other cities, and finally, to other families. By consistently applying this principle, you would have to hire blood relatives first, and only proceed with hiring other people once all of them were fully employed. It's quite ridiculous.

The more you spout your nonsense, the more it becomes apparent that you have no knowledge or understanding of the socialist ideal at all, any more than you have an understanding of the capitalist ideal.

[NiceBoat]

I agree with you generally, at least on points (1) and (2), but not to the extent that vabyss and Spetz take it, which is total government dominance. Let's take the argument about outsourcing, and look at it in a non-superficial manner.

Do I, as a human being have the right to purchase a product from another human being? If the answer is yes, then it shouldn't matter if the other human being is across an socially-constructed line known as a national border.

What Spetz and vabyss are arguing for is basically xenophobia under the guise of the "common good".

While I think generally all socialists would like to do away with property, wages, wealth and all of that. Then bring in an era where people work because they enjoy it, and its something to do and they will be fed, clothed, cared for medically and all of that, because the people doing it also enjoy doing what they do, that sort of situation frankly isn't possible currently, as such we need property. While we need property, wages and all we need labor and work to produce wealth and give value to property and attain money for the basic essentials of human life. While this at the very least hybrid capitalist-socialist society is essential we must also make sure there is work for people in what ever nation the individual happens to live in.

I don't think we should get rid of outsourcing entirely. An entirely closed economy will stagnate. However we need to also make sure there is work for the people at home, wouldn't you agree?

[Spetsnazos]

I don't think we should get rid of outsourcing entirely. An entirely closed economy will stagnate. However we need to also make sure there is work for the people at home, wouldn't you agree?

Agreed completely. Dunno why psampty wants to kill me today

[vabyss]

I agree with you generally, at least on points (1) and (2), but not to the extent that vabyss and Spetz take it, which is total government dominance. Let's take the argument about outsourcing, and look at it in a non-superficial manner.

Do I, as a human being have the right to purchase a product from another human being? If the answer is yes, then it shouldn't matter if the other human being is across an socially-constructed line known as a national border.

What Spetz and vabyss are arguing for is basically xenophobia under the guise of the "common good".

What...the...f*ck?

You're no better than the hard right maniacs on this site.

Because I want outsourcing done away with, and corporations to be forced to conduct business ethically...it means I hate or fear every foreigner and want complete government dominance?

Jesus...Tapdancing...Christ.

There is not one shred of logic or rationality in that statement. Giving people in other countries a job is not the issue here. DOING IT TO MAKE A LARGER PROFIT WHILE CUTTING AMERICAN JOBS IS. What is so f*cking hard to understand about that? That is the reason WHY they do it. It's not to help out third world citizens. I know you can't really believe that.

I'm becoming more convinced that you may be slightly insane, but you can't be THAT easily duped. The entire argument about helping citizens in those countries is supposed to work on the Bible and gun toting crowd. I can't believe you really buy into it.

[noworriess]

...Plan for the future, don't have kids if you can't afford them, don't buy a ridiculously expensive house with an unstable job?

Welfare and EI should be a small helping hand for finding a job, not a 1 year hiatus from working.

I couldn't agree with you more. But that's what I'm fighting. Americans only think socialism and communism is welfare. It's not just that. It's people working together for the better of the people. I'm sure we all see people in America that have been on welfare for their whole life. What we need to realize that this is not the face of socialism. We all work together to make sure we all get benefits instead of people being selfish and controlling the whole industry. We must rule ourselves together without being power hungry.

[john197030]

Socialism and comunism is the greatest evil on the planet. To take the hard labor from one and give it to another is wrong and leaves no incentive. It is contrary to our founding documents and has no place in this country. If any of you were alive 30+ years ago you would remember the atrocities caused by those ideologies.