NedimNapoleon
Weird Little Human
a Reds opinion on Tito.
Ask a Red, Second Edition
- Thread starter Cheezy the Wiz
- Start date
- Status
Perfection
The Great Head.
Not my favourite Jackson, but he's ok.
civver_764
Deity
Because
1) The capitalist system is unjust at the core, adding social programs to it doesn't change the core. It doesn't change the unjust power relations, it doesn't change the nature of the state as a tool of the bourgeoisie, and it doesn't change the fact that workers are exploited and alienated from the means of production.
2) Social democracy will never reach its intended goals. We'll get a few reforms every few decades or so to pacify the population but beyond that you have to remember who is in charge of the reforms in the first place - the state. And the state has really no interest in making society more equitable or "more fair"(why would it?), it only exists to serve the interests of those who prop it up -- ie. the bourgeoisie.
3) It isn't even a consistent ideology. You believe in property rights but also believe in violating those rights for some arbitrary feelings of "fairness" and "social justice"?
4) Social democracy involves some hefty taxation of some sort which can't really be justified all that well.
5) And why go half way when you could go all the way?
GhostWriter16
Deity
This needs to be said more often.
I disagree with Civver on almost everything, and certainly everything related to economics. However, I do have respect for him since he tends to be consistent. I don't agree with his ideology, but assuming its axioms it is consistent.
Its the wishy-washy middle that bugs me, they can't decide if their Capitalist or Socialist, and all it does is give the state more power.
Free-market economics are about the freedom to make money, or, at least, this is the intended goal of most people who believe in them.
"Red" economics are about equality, or at least, equality is the intended goal of most people who believe in them.
"Social Democrat" economics try to get the equality AND the individual freedom, and in trying to achieve both, it acheives neither.
Personally, I'm willing to give up guaranteed equality in favor of more economic freedom to do as well as I possibly can. But, you CANNOT have both. The state artificially trying to create both just props up the state.
civver_764
Deity
Red economics are every bit about individual freedom.
GhostWriter16
Deity
I specifically said individual freedom to make as much money as possible. Red economics are against that, in favor of more equality. They claim that in equality more freedom can be found.
The validity of that claim? Discussing that isn't for this thread.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
So is Christianity, but no one seems to listen.
If no one has self-discipline, neither capitalsim nor communism will work. Won't there always be people who feel great following a leader, as well as people who feel humbled being a leader? A dictator can use both capitalism and communism, if they realize the potential of ones people? Just because capitalism is not socially driven does not mean it is wrong, it just means it can be abused more easily.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
I suppose in the perverse sense that the Chinese are "free" from having to choose which party to vote for in their elections. Collectivism isn't about individual freedom because you don't value the individual, you value the collective.
Let's test this "freedom" of yours: I apply for a job at an apple orchard for a part-time summer job for some pocket money. I agree to pick apples for $3/hr to undercut potential competitors applying for the same job. What happens under your system? I assume you would use the law to stop either myself or the employer and if one/both of us refused, you would use force to stop us. Who then is free? Despite that I'm of legal age, I'm not free to make my own decisions.
galdre
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
- Messages
- 1,859
The Chinese are communist in name only...
Some level of regulating the actions of individuals is important - like speed limits. Yes, they limit the individual freedom to drive however fast one wants, but they do that for the good of all drivers.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Why should we have to wait for handouts from Master, and thank him for his infinitely warm heart for finding the mercy to provide us with them, in order to survive?
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
That wasn't the point.
civver_764
Deity
Or in the perverse sense that workers are "free" to choose which company will extract their surplus value? We can play that game if you want.
Except that's just something you guys made up and has nothing to do with the word collectivism.
What happens under *my* system is that this scenario would be completely unrealistic. People aren't forced to sell themselves on a market under communism.
Lone Wolf
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 9,908
I find it amusing how the "radicals" here are uniting against "los moderados". This can be seen anywhere, I guess.
What's the proper Communist position on gun control?
How "tough on crime" a Proper communist must be? Should the criminals be sent in truly hellish conditions - after all, if they commit transgressions against a truly just Communist society, they must be really horrible people? Or, on the contrary, should they be sent in luxury sanatoriums, like disney-pinkos want it?
Or maybe all this are issues separate from Communism? Speaking of it, are there any social issues that are unaffected by the ideology of Communism?
What's the proper Communist position on gun control?
How "tough on crime" a Proper communist must be? Should the criminals be sent in truly hellish conditions - after all, if they commit transgressions against a truly just Communist society, they must be really horrible people? Or, on the contrary, should they be sent in luxury sanatoriums, like disney-pinkos want it?
Or maybe all this are issues separate from Communism? Speaking of it, are there any social issues that are unaffected by the ideology of Communism?
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
There are no criminal issues.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
It isn't perverse, you're just using the same words I did to try and defend a morally bankrupt system.
Now you're misusing "freedom" and "force."
Honestly, this thread isn't living up to its red diamond status. Legitimate questions are answered simply with that it will be different under communism. Why? I've got the answer: communism can't answer these questions.
civver_764
Deity
I only support the minimal amount of gun control necessary for public safety. Most communists want to see most military grade weapons destroyed, but don't intend on restricting access to recreational gun use.
There's not really a single "communist" position on this, although this section may be of interest to you.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
False. We value the individual, just not at the expense of other individuals.
I guess not. Maybe we should make it legal for people to sell themselves into slavery, too, that's real freedom!
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Amazing, isn't it, when people are honest? We can't predict the future. We can't anticipate everything about a system that's never been tried before.
If you don't like the way the thread is run, go start your own thread and compete with ours, where you can blow blood vessels at the thought of social responsibility.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
This coming from a Leninist?
I quote Murray Rothbard:
"The concept of 'voluntary slavery' is indeed a contradictory one, for so long as a laborer remains totally subservient to his master's will voluntarily, he is not yet a slave since his submission is voluntary; whereas, if he later changed his mind and the master enforced his slavery by violence, the slavery would not then be voluntary."
With that, I'm leaving this thread. My questions are not being answered to any satisfactory degree.
- Status
