I'll say what I said in the previous thread.
My great grandparents came there to be somebody. They busted their ass every day of the week and that's how my family got where we are today.. Why should my family work their ass off just to give it away?
[QUOTE=QuikKill;26935771]I'll say what I said in the previous thread.
My great grandparents came there to be somebody. They busted their ass every day of the week and that's how my family got where we are today.. Why should my family work their ass off just to give it away?[/QUOTE]
Funny my family busts there ass off every day and they are just as poor as they started. and by bust ass I mean clean the asses of old people every day. 2ndly did you ever think that perhaps some people cant work?
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;26900907]The same could be said for capitalism, too.[/QUOTE]
Let's not get started on how anarcho-capitalists think no matter what horrible think a company might do, people will simply vote with their wallets, and they'll cease to exist.
[QUOTE=R3mix;26935487]Good for you, but you weren't involved in the discussion of the USSR. It's the fact you don't read words for their true definitions and try to use big words that make you look like an idiot.[/QUOTE]
I'm so sorry I didn't get involved in your petty debate about the USSR. I don't have to talk about the USSR if I don't want to, are you going to stop me from doing so? There are many political parties in Africa claiming to be democratic but they aren't, same applies to many governments that have been in power.
At one stage you claim no one in Europe was or is Socialist, yet you're quite eager to say the USSR was socialist country (including when they were in control of nearly half of Europe) because;
[B]A.[/B] It is in their name.
[B]B.[/B] It says so on wikipedia.
The USSR didn't practice socialism in the strictest sense. It was a totalitarian communist state, which meant that there were actually different levels of citizenship. In a socialist state, everyone - EVERYONE - is equal. However, in the USSR, there were different classes based on corruption, cronyism, and toadying that was as bad as French Nobility before Napoleon. If anything, the USSR showed that for true Socialism to succeed, the system requires complete consent of the people and complete confidence in government, something that was not in evidence then and may not ever be possible.
Many systems take control of industry, including Fascism, just because the USSR took control of everything does not make them Socialist or even Communist. USSR was striving to be a communist nation but it only became a totalitarian planned economy with socialist ideals.
[QUOTE=Vasili;26936028]I'm so sorry I didn't get involved in your petty debate about the USSR. I don't have to talk about the USSR if I don't want to, are you going to stop me from doing so? There are many political parties in Africa claiming to be democratic but they aren't, same applies to many governments that have been in power.
At one stage you claim no one in Europe was or is Socialist, yet you're quite eager to say the USSR was socialist country (including when they were in control of nearly half of Europe) because;
[B]A.[/B] It is in their name.
[B]B.[/B] It says so on wikipedia.
The USSR didn't practice socialism in the strictest sense. It was a totalitarian communist state, which meant that there were actually different levels of citizenship. In a socialist state, everyone - EVERYONE - is equal. However, in the USSR, there were different classes based on corruption, cronyism, and toadying that was as bad as French Nobility before Napoleon. If anything, the USSR showed that for true Socialism to succeed, the system requires complete consent of the people and complete confidence in government, something that was not in evidence then and may not ever be possible.
Many systems take control of industry, including Fascism, just because the USSR took control of everything does not make them Socialist or even Communist. USSR was striving to be a communist nation but it only became a totalitarian planned economy with socialist ideals.[/QUOTE]
If you're going to get involved into a conversation and not talk about what the discussion is based on you're digressing from the topic.
Also, He's talking about Europe as a whole you illiterate dumb shit.
[QUOTE=Recurracy;26933713]Socialism is the best possible system ever.
[b]Hail Europe.[/b][/QUOTE]
At no point did I say that the USSR was socialistic because it was "in their name." Their political ideology of an economy was founded on Socialism, although their government may have ran things a bit differently.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;26935517]You either were born rich or never had a job.[/QUOTE]
So you're saying the government NEEDS to help you in order for you to survive?
[QUOTE=Mingebox;26935860]Let's not get started on how anarcho-capitalists think no matter what horrible think a company might do, people will simply vote with their wallets, and they'll cease to exist.[/QUOTE]
Yea like how even though walmart uses slave labor, kills companies and pays there workers nothing. the poor still have to buy there products most of the time.
[editline]24th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Explosions;26936352]So you're saying the government NEEDS to help you in order for you to survive?[/QUOTE]
This might sound bad but yes. If you want I can explain. but I bet you arnt going to ask because you dont want to be proven wrong.
[QUOTE=R3mix;26936117]If you're going to get involved into a conversation and not talk about what the discussion is based on you're digressing from the topic.[/QUOTE]
This thread is about socialism, USSR was not socialist. Their ideals were but the system was not.
[quote]At no point did I say that the USSR was socialistic because it was "in their name." Their political ideology of an economy was founded on Socialism, although their government may have ran things a bit differently.[/quote]Here you go:
[QUOTE=R3mix;26933880][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union[/URL]
[B]Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - USSR[/B]
:frog:[/QUOTE]
This is insinuating that you think just because you think the USSR has the word socialist in their name, that would imply they're socialist. The Democratic Republic of Congo was founded on democracy, but it isn't, same with the National Socialists Workers party.
[QUOTE=Vasili;26936457]This thread is about socialism, USSR was not socialist. Their ideals were but the system was not.
Here you go:
This is insinuating that you think just because you think the USSR has the word socialist in their name, that would imply they're socialist. The Democratic Republic of Congo was founded on democracy, but it isn't, same with the National Socialists Workers party.[/QUOTE]
If I was implying something don't you think I would have only bolded out the Socialist part rather than the entire thing? You can assume all day on what I'm insinuating but that's your opinion. The thread may be on socialism, but the USSR was socialist considering their ideals on their economy. To say they were not socialist is to lie about history.
[QUOTE=R3mix;26936740]If I was implying something don't you think I would have only bolded out the Socialist part rather than the entire thing? You can assume all day on what I'm insinuating but that's your opinion. The thread may be on socialism, but the USSR was socialist considering their ideals on their economy. To say they were not socialist is to lie about history.[/QUOTE]
No it isn't and frankly how can you say its a lie to history? Because I don't agree with your statement? I don't think you have the merit to say something as bold. If you didn't agree with a user believing the USSR was communist then you wouldn't even bring up such a 'correction', despite the fact that the Soviet Union was dominated by the communist party and again, having a word in their party name does not make them outright socialist, just like how you claim many countries in Europe claim to be socialist (or have a socialist mixed government) but are not according to you.
[QUOTE=Vasili;26937047]No it isn't and frankly how can you say its a lie to history? Because I don't agree with your statement? I don't think you have the merit to say something as bold. If you didn't agree with a user believing the USSR was communist then you wouldn't even bring up such a 'correction', despite the fact that the Soviet Union was dominated by the communist party and again, having a word in their party name does not make them outright socialist, just like how you claim many countries in Europe claim to be socialist (or have a socialist mixed government) but are not according to you.[/QUOTE]
It has been proved over time and time that the USSR has had socialistic ideals and you don't agree with that statement. Their economy was based on a socialistic ideal, you can even research it yourself! I didn't claim that many countries in Europe are socialistic either! I'm really starting to think you're illiterate at this point considering that Recurracy who said that. The matter of the fact is that not all of Europe is socialistic. Just because a government is dominated by a certain party does not make it true that their country was founded on that political ideal, considering again that their economy was founded on a socialistic ideal. To say that Europe may have a socialist mixed government, you might as well say that the United States of America is socialistic which we are most definatly not!
[QUOTE=R3mix;26937258]It has been proved over time and time that the USSR has had socialistic ideals and you don't agree with that statement.[/QUOTE]
Are you sure you know the definition of illiterate? Apparently you didn't read this:
[QUOTE=Vasili;26936457]Their ideals were but the system was not.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Vasili;26937420]Are you sure you know the definition of illiterate? Apparently you didn't read this:[/QUOTE]
" It has been proved over time and time that [b]the USSR has had socialistic ideals[/b] and you don't agree with that statement. "
:derp:
Are you saying that an economy is not part of "the system?"
USSR lacked many soclialist principles, the USSR was closer to bureaucratic collectivism. socialism stresses co-operation in the market, the USSR was completely based on hierarchical and bureaucratic operations.
Well atleast thisispain understands what I'm trying to explain
[editline]24th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=R3mix;26937445]
Are you saying that an economy is not part of "the system?"[/QUOTE]
Again are you sure you're not being illiterate here? I said ideals, not that their economy is not part of their system.
[QUOTE=Vasili;26937552]Again are you sure you're not being illiterate here? I said ideals, not that their economy is not part of their system.[/QUOTE]
So now you're saying that an ideal of an economy is not part of the system? They had their economy based on socialism, and your denying they had socialistic ideals.
Separate political ideologies along with the left/right debate are outdated in a time where bits are selectively chosen to fit a population or a dictator/government; I don't think there's really any point in classifying socialism or capitalism or anything that isn't ridiculously extreme (and anyway those just don't work).
I'm saying just because a government calls themselves something does not make them that system. As you said earlier (or as I recall) socialism has not been properly implemented yet, same with a lot of systems. Americans sometimes call themselves capitalists and their system even goes towards the favour, but they're not a capitalist nation per say. I'm just saying that the USSR's ultimate standard of perfection - their embodiment, the ideal - socialism, was not.
[editline]24th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Denicide;26937782]Separate political ideologies along with the left/right debate are outdated in a time where bits are selectively chosen to fit a population or a dictator/government; I don't think there's really any point in classifying socialism or capitalism or anything that isn't ridiculously extreme (and anyway those just don't work).[/QUOTE]
Another point I'm trying to make, that many systems whether right or left embody very similar policies.
All systems will suck until we can make a technocracy and have machines do all the hard work.
I wish we'd stop arguing about the USSR. They thought they'd be socialist, the turned out communist. End of story.
Oh hay guys, I thought I would stop by to debunk that "Sweden has the highest suicide rate in the world" stuff that I see popping up every now and again.
Let me present you with Table A:
[img]http://fathersforlife.org/images/who_suicide_rates.gif[/img]
As you can see, Sweden is not that much different from other countries. Another thing that is important to know about stats like this, is that comparing one country to another can be very risky business. For example, rape in Sweden is a very broad term and can be used to describe actions that in other countries could be seen as abuse or harassment. Also, one could discuss how willing people are to report crimes such as these.
Anyways, you get the point!
Edit: Just noticed the little text about Socialism in Table A. Enjoy!
I don't understand everyone's fears with taxes, it's completely unjustified.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26940478]I don't understand everyone's fears with taxes, it's completely unjustified.[/QUOTE]
They think there money is going to lazy people or something
[QUOTE=Vasili;26934534]Maybe I don't have to reply to everything you say and can throw my own explanations and answers and even questions towards you, I don't have to stay completely related to your post. You don't have to take everything so personally. You actually came into a thread about socialism to not actually talk about the subject at hand? You must be idiotic or you can't even remember your first post in this thread, disagreeing with the prinicbles of Socialism/Marxism etc.
Really have no idea what you're trying to prove, but its not working.[/QUOTE]
You [b]DO[/b] need to stay relevant to my post as you click the 'reply' button. Do you understand what a reply is?
I was never [i]trying[/i] to prove anything, I was simply stating my opinion on the subject of "the government should take rich corporation's money and give it to the unwealthy" which is a popular topic in America; which is in the thread title by the way. I was not agreeing or disagreeing with the principles of Socialism/Marxism as I admittedly know little to nothing about them and you obviously do so cheers for you. Keep this a friendly debate and leave your insults to your self.
[editline]24th December 2010[/editline]
I do not watch Fox news.
[editline]24th December 2010[/editline]
you are obviously the smartest one here so I will just walk away
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;26937980]All systems will suck until we can make a technocracy and have machines do all the hard work.[/QUOTE]
Computers are far too rational, they work on "on" and "off".
Anyway, I think we should abolish the income tax and have a giant national sales tax. Any rationalized, detailed reason why we shouldn't?
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;26947150]Computers are far too rational, they work on "on" and "off".[/QUOTE]
Is there a such thing as too rational?
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;26947162]Is there a such thing as too rational?[/QUOTE]
Yes, ever heard of someone who doesn't take risks?
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;26947202]Yes, ever heard of someone who doesn't take risks?[/QUOTE]
you can take logical risks. In fact everything the computer would do would be a risk.
what makes you think computers cant take risks?
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;26947226]you can take logical risks. in fact everything the computer would be a risk.
what makes you think computers cant take risks?[/QUOTE]
If something will statistically not work why would they do it?
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;26947242]If something will statistically not work why would they do it?[/QUOTE]
why would you do it?
why would it be a good thing to take a risk that has a better chance of ending badly and the reward isnt as good the possible consequence.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.