Spew All About Politics Here

[Acriku]

Wouldn't the people rebel against "PURE" communism since other people are doing less work for the same shares, while hard-working individuals work more and get the same shares? They have no incentive to work hard. So why should they? IMO communism falls under its own weight.

[nemafakei]

Thankyou for some sense in this place, Acriku!

Yes, that is one major flaw in communism, that I have made sure to repair in what small things I take from communism.

Morover, about fredom, do you mean alleviation of responsibility and duty to others (ie helping people be selfish) or freedom to conduct your own life more or less as you see fit?

[emprworm]

That is a rahter awkward type of logic. Let's see here:

Sadam Hussein is a human being

You hate Sadam Hussein

So you hate human beings.

I take it to mean Earthnuker is saying:

The US is socialist

I hate the US government

So therefore I hate socialism

Lets just cut to the chase, Earthnuker and spell out what you are arguing: all governments are socialist.

If you really enjoy sounding rediculous, that is ok with me. People say all kinds of crazy things.

Yet there is no socialist on earth that will agree with your claim that the US is not a capitalist based government and is instead socialism. You are confused person. However, there is ample proof, including the very definition of socialism itself that backs up my claims.

You claims: arbitrary and non-substantiated. Almost silly.

My claims: substantiated. Verified.

full redistribution

I never said FULL redistribution. If you put words in people's mouths, fine. Obviously you cannot have FULL redistribution in any socialist society- including communism. There will always be items that the government need not redistribute. My claim is that all socialism redistributes wealth. If you want to "insert" the word FULL, then go ahead, but that is an example of your confusion and limited understanding. Distribution of wealth means government owns wealth. Period. Full or partial. Doesn't matter. Government owning wealth means no private property. Plain and simple. Socialism that claims private property is a lie. Never existed. Never will. The end.

[emprworm]

"It is a failed system of government, flawed in its fundamental philosophy"

This is a more logical stance, but at least try to prove it, without simply asserting the concetpt of rights.

I explained this throroughly in posts above.

[Anathema]

Obviously you cannot have FULL redistribution in any socialist society- including communism.

That's what I've been saying all along.

Government owning wealth means no private property.

What if the people would own a share of the government?

Socialism that claims private property is a lie. Never existed. Never will. The end.

I've asked you several times to provide any article that states all socialisms claims collective ownership. As of yet you provide nothing to support your claim.

[emprworm]

You are the one claiming that there is a form of socialism that allows for private property. You must prove that. I am not the one who needs to prove anything. I already gave the definition of socialism. I read your little quotes on various forms. None of them advocated private property. So loooks like you have some more work to do.

[Anathema]

I'll start looking for evidence for my claim- and you start looking for evidence for your claim ok?

[emprworm]

i already did. I looked up the philosophy of socialism and the various forms of socialism that have existed. There is no such thing as private property in any of them. Private property is diametrically opposed to the philosophy of socialism. Therefore logically the two cannot co-exist. If you change the philosophy of socialism in order to accomodate private property, you no longer have socialism, but something else entirely different

[Anathema]

I just found a Dutch site

http://www.politiekejongeren.nl/stromingen/socialisme/

(but you won't understand Dutch :) )

I'll translate the first few sentences.

Socialismn, as a term the summary of all forms of social strife wich are aimed for abolition of the class society and wich sees in aboliton or restricting private property of means of production a more or less excessive regulation of or overseeing of the production process and the distribution of that by the community the most effective way to a more just society.

Maybe Dutch people view socialism differently then Americans, but you can no longer say all socialism is for the abolition of private property.

[emprworm]

restrict what? What form of socialism is it that merely "restricts" private property and how much does it restrict? IF a government restrics ownership of a thing, the government is "letting" you own it to begin with, hence you dont really own it anyway. The government, which actually owns the thing, "lets" you own some of it. But your ownership of it is an illusion. You really dont own a thing.

[emprworm]

or restricting private property .....overseeing of the production

I "own" a CD burner in your socialist society. I start burning CD's of one of my songs, which everyone in society loves. They all want a copy. Since it takes time and money to aquire CD's and burn then, people are sending me checks to do the work. In addition, they are sending me an extra 20% simply because that is my markup. So I start burning CD's. But demand is huge. So I buy some more CD burners and burn several at a time. Supposedly I "own" these burners. This is a lie.

In your socialist government where I am supposedly "free" and I supposedly "own" the CD burners, I suddenly get a bunch of governmental scum knocking on my door and force me to quit burning CD's else have my CD burner confiscated. The REAL owners of that CD burner is the government. I own nothing. They were just being "nice" to "allow" me to burn some CD's for some people like a parent watching his children play with toys. The child is under the illusion that he owns the toys which really belong to the parent. But once I started burning to many CD's, they had to step in. I actually owned nothing.

[Anathema]

That scenario is a misinterpretation. Restricting property can mean many things. For example, nobody should own all companies in a particular commercial sector.

[emprworm]

the scenario i described is an exceedingly accurate description of the economic component of capitalism. If you approve of the scenario I described of in your government, I would challenge that your government is not socialistic, since it is approving of capitalism.

[emprworm]

YOu have been vague since the day I started talking to you. You refuse to clarify your position...on anything. Surely you are not just a wafting bowl of jello, so its time for you to specify precisely what form of government you are FOR and what you are AGAINST. I have done you the favor and EXPLICITLY in GREAT DETAIL laid out for you what form of government I want. ALl you do is spew vague, foggy jargon, to which I am growing weary. Can you answer a yes or no question? we will see.

I'll just ask you flat out for a yes or no so you can quit being so vague and help me understand your point of view.

Do you approve of the scenario I was trying to do in my previous example?

yes or no please.

[DukeLeto]

I "own" a CD burner in your socialist society. I start burning CD's of one of my songs, which everyone in society loves. They all want a copy. Since it takes time and money to aquire CD's and burn then, people are sending me checks to do the work. In addition, they are sending me an extra 20% simply because that is my markup. So I start burning CD's. But demand is huge. So I buy some more CD burners and burn several at a time. Supposedly I "own" these burners. This is a lie.

JSYK, it's illegal to charge for burned CD's in the US.

[Anathema]

I do not believe your scenario matches the ideal described in the article.

First, you must understand that a socialist government does not necessarily want to control the economy. If it does, it would abolish private property. If it lays restrictions on private properties (for example, a single person cannot own all the companies in the same commercial sector) it is guiding the economy.

You can go ahead and burn your CDs. But if you start managing all the other music artists as well, and thus have a monopoly, the government may revoke your rights on that music.

I agree that a relatively free market economy shares some properties with capitalism- but it is not the same.

(btw, I've already defined my ideal society earlier in this thread)

[Edric O]

Wow, this thread went down the drain fast...

I see Emprworm and Earthnuker keep arguing semantics, namely the definition of "socialism"... ::)

[Anathema]

Actually, Emp keeps ignoring my claims that all socialism is the same. When I provide material to indicate it comes in many forms he responds with:

Naaah, it's all the same. No private property.

[Edric O]

I plan to make another very long post soon, to answer Emprworm's points, but I'll wait until the rythm of the forum slows down a little.

In the mean time, I'll just answer the "CD burner issue":

In my economical system, that kind of situation would never arise, because the collectively-owned companies can do things better and cheaper than you can. If that's not the case, then something must be wrong with the CD company and we will simply address the issue.

Besides, you are not normally allowed to mass-produce things. That would be capitalist private enterprise...

[Anathema]

Besides economical aspects, will you describe other properties of your ideal society? I'm just curious.

[emprworm]

well if its ok to burn my cds and sell them to anyone I wish, then your society is quite capitalistic. But since I might have all the recording equpiment (I took my allocation of money and chose to spend it on recording equipment instead of other things), I may have other musicians knocking on my door asking me to help them sell too, since the government doesn't give them enough money to buy EVERYTHING. They can't afford to buy recording equipment. So they choose to use mine. But of course, I'm going to charge them a modest fee. Far cheaper then it would cost them to buy it. Plus they get my valuable services. Their choice. They choose me because I am good at it. So NOW do you take away our freedom?

As for Duke Leeto's statement:

JSYK, it's illegal to charge for burned CD's in the US.

he did not read what I said. I said MY songs, I wasn't referring to selling copyrighted material privately owned by someone else. Selling one of my own songs in the US is perfectly legal.

[Edric O]

The political system is Nema's council "network"...

[Anathema]

If every artist comes to you for management, than that is formation of a monopoly. My ideal society would not tolerate monopolies.

My society is a minglement of capitalism and socialism.

[emprworm]

well heck, even in the US we dont allow monopolies. Personally, I'd like to see the system tightened a bit. But hey, as long as I can manage artists, and make a killing off of it, sounds good to me. I'm finally liking your system of government. I have no problem with regulating monopolies.

[Acriku]

It seems to me if the society is giving such a high demand, you would need permits and legal papers to legally set up a small business such as yours. LEGALLY! Since what you are doing is illegal, the government has every right to tell you to stop.