Socialists set to gain a majority in French parliamentary elections - Polidicks

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36281758]Also, are we going to use Trotsky's definitions of socialism or are we just going to cite any intellectual on the matter because different people have different definitions.[/QUOTE] Considering that Trotsky and left communists have similar definitions in this case, I used both, as I made clear with "according left communism and most social revolutionary movements". My entire point is that "State capitalism, by proponents of the latter-variety of socialism, is equivalent to nationalization, and the former-variety socialism." And guess what? That's what matters when we're talking about social revolutionary thought. We aren't going to use the Adams definition of whatever when he's talking in relation to capitalism, we're going to use the social revolutionary terms in relation to topics of social revolution.

[QUOTE=znk666;36281707] It's ''voluntary'' enslavement,workers are owned and their lives depend on their wages. Allowing anyone to live in poverty or die of hunger is disgusting.[/QUOTE] Millions of people died from starvation as a result of communist nations' failures at creating a planned economy. Capitalism allocates resources better, and through voluntary means that maximize individual liberties. In free market capitalism companies would compete for labor, driving wages and working conditions up. The workers would also have the freedom to start businesses based on unique and innovative ideas.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36281758]Also, are we going to use Trotsky's definitions of socialism or are we just going to cite any intellectual on the matter because different people have different definitions. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] That's one person's definition damnit. Are we going to do this like scrabble where we all have to use the same dictionary or what?[/QUOTE] Alright, let me be clear because my first post wasn't, apparently. When you're talking leftism, EVERYTHING has multiple definitions because EVERYTHING has thirty goddam ideas and trends and theories and they all mean different things. Socialism means A, but it means B, and yet is is actually state capitalism, and it's nationalism, yet B is also communism, yet it's not socialism in the form of A, and so on. I chose to adhere to both the definition that I believe in per my ideology, as well as the one that is shared by the largest chunk of revolutionary thought.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];36281810']Alright, let me be clear because my first post wasn't, apparently. When you're talking leftism, EVERYTHING has multiple definitions because EVERYTHING has thirty goddam ideas and trends and theories and they all mean different things. Socialism means A, but it means B, and yet is is actually state capitalism, and it's nationalism, yet B is also communism, yet it's not socialism in the form of A, and so on. I chose to adhere to both the definition that I believe in per my ideology, as well as the one that is shared by the largest chunk of revolutionary thought.[/QUOTE] As long as you acknowledge that the definition is maleable and arguable then that's fair.

[QUOTE=Noble;36281797]Millions of people died from starvation as a result of communist nations' failures at creating a planned economy. Capitalism allocates resources better, and through voluntary means that maximize individual liberties. In free market capitalism companies would compete for labor, driving wages and working conditions up. The workers would also have the freedom to start businesses based on unique and innovative ideas.[/QUOTE] Yes, but in free market communism, they have the same. This is what this entire state capitalism issue is over. A planned economy is socialism of the first variety- nationalised industry and [I]arguably[/I] state capitalism. The second variety is free market socialism, and [I]arguably[/I] the original and intended meaning, but definitely the economic ideal for communism.

[QUOTE=Noble;36280950]Socialism stands for reduced freedoms, reduced productivity, reduced choices, reduced progress, and the state controlling your life. [/QUOTE] Noble makes a stupid post about something he doesn't know - In other news, the sky is blue. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;36281139]Actually, North Korea is as close to a socialist dystopia as possible.[/QUOTE] There is literally barely anything socialist about North Korea. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Noble;36281246] I'm not a republican[/QUOTE] Nobel, you always say this but every post you make proves otherwise. You may not be a Republican, but you're sure as shit an apologist for them.

I'm all ears Governor Goblin, please tell me exactly what socialism is, and what countries fall into the criteria of socialist. I'm tired of everyone saying "well this isn't socialist!" because I have no idea what your definition is.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36282090]I'm all ears Governor Goblin, please tell me exactly what socialism is, and what countries fall into the criteria of socialist. I'm tired of everyone saying "well this isn't socialist!" because I have no idea what your definition is.[/QUOTE] That the means of production,distribution and exchange has to be owned and governed by a community as a whole - not individuals. Technically there has never been such a system in practice,at least not the way i described it.

You're the one claiming it's socialist, boyo. YOU made the argument. It's a bit difficult to disprove a notion locked away inside your skull.

[QUOTE=znk666;36282118]That the means of production,distribution and exchange has to be owned and governed by a community as a whole - not individuals.[/QUOTE] So a commune or prehistoric caveman society would be socialist. Not any modern nation. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36282127]You're the one claiming it's socialist, boyo. YOU made the argument. It's a bit difficult to disprove a notion locked away inside your skull.[/QUOTE] You can't just say "it's not socialist" when I have no idea what the fuck you think socialist means. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] But I give you a B+ for deftly dodging my post.

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36282056]Noble makes a stupid post about something he doesn't know - In other news, the sky is blue.[/quote] haters gonna hate [quote]Nobel, you always say this but every post you make proves otherwise. You may not be a Republican, but you're sure as shit an apologist for them.[/QUOTE] My views are more in line with anarcho-capitalist philosophy, I don't associate myself with the GOP

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36282128]So a commune or prehistoric caveman society would be socialist. Not any modern nation.[/QUOTE] Not true,it can work and can be achieved if people weren't greedy capitalist bastards. [quote] You can't just say "it's not socialist" when I have no idea what the fuck you think socialist means. [/quote] Well,no one knows your definition of socialism either...

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36282128] You can't just say "it's not socialist" when I have no idea what the fuck you think socialist means. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] But I give you a B+ for deftly dodging my post.[/QUOTE] Clearly you've never heard the phrase "Burden of proof". You'd be a lot of fun in a court room. But you're right, I'm dodging the point, I'm purposely not using my mind reading device to see what you think a "socialist dystopia" is.

[QUOTE=znk666;36282156]Not true,it can work and can be achieved if people weren't greedy capitalist bastards. [/QUOTE] It can work on small scales, but it's never been achieved on a large scale for an entire nation. [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36282165]Clearly you've never heard the phrase "Burden of proof". You'd be a lot of fun in a court room. But you're right, I'm dodging the point, I'm purposely not using my mind reading device to see what you think a "socialist dystopia" is.[/QUOTE] I've already said why it's a socialist dystopia. It's a socialist system that utterly failed. They try and provide for the general welfare of the population, but can't. The state is supposed to provide everything for the citizens but cannot. Burden of proof isn't on me. It's on you. So tell me, what definition of socialist are you using so we can argue that. Or are you just going to be a complete dunce, like always?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36282201]It can work on small scales, but it's never been achieved on a large scale for an entire nation. [/QUOTE] Keep in mind that this system was [B]never[/B] in practice so there's no way of telling whether or not it would work.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36282201]It can work on small scales, but it's never been achieved on a large scale for an entire nation.[/quote] And your justification for that is? [quote]I've already said why it's a socialist dystopia.[/quote] Ignoring the fact you basically just invented that label up, you're not really making a point. [quote]It's a socialist system that utterly failed. They try and provide for the general welfare of the population, but can't. The state is supposed to provide everything for the citizens but cannot.[/quote] This may come as a shock to you, but when a country can't facilitate a system, it does not have that system in use. That's like me labelling myself rich, but I don't have the capability of being rich - Therefore I am not rich. I said it's not socialist now, and you just basically said mostly why. [quote]Burden of proof isn't on me. It's on you. So tell me, what definition of socialist are you using so we can argue that. Or are you just going to be a complete dunce, like always?[/QUOTE] I like how in the same sentence you call me a "dunce" (Who the fuck uses that?), you demonstrate you have absolutely no fucking clue what burden of proof means. YOU made the fucking claim, YOU prove it. stay classy. Your posts are a constant stream of arguing the most asinine and completely retarded points humanly possible.

[QUOTE=znk666;36282230]Keep in mind that this system was [B]never[/B] in practice so there's no way of telling whether or not it would work.[/QUOTE] It's been attempted in the USSR, Venezuela, and China, but failed miserably.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36282243]It's been attempted in the USSR, Venezuela, and China, but failed miserably.[/QUOTE] No it wasn't. The system he just described was not tried in any of those countries. A Stalinist style system that's basically a mutated version of communism but isn't actually communism, or could be considered as, was tried. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] Even then, even if you want to bullshit and say that the idea or concept was to be employed, the fact it failed has nothing to do with anything.

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36282235] This may come as a shock to you, but when a country can't facilitate a system, it does not have that system in use. That's like me labelling myself rich, but I don't have the capability of being rich - Therefore I am not rich.[/QUOTE] Or just like how you call the United States Capitalist when it is not Capitalist? [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36282254]No it wasn't. The system he just described was not tried in any of those countries. A Stalinist style system that's basically a mutated version of communism but isn't actually communism, or could be considered as, was tried.[/QUOTE] Shows how much you know about the USSR, Venezuela, and China dude. I would suggest you go read up on what was attempted and what was achieved, but you would probably drool on the pages. So here is history in a nutshell. The PRC and USSR both tried to collectivize their systems and create a communist utopia. Due to inept leadership, and functional problems of trying to collectivize such a large country, people ended up starving and dying. The USSR wasn't always run by Stalin, and wasn't always Stalinist. In fact, the idea of having the USSR be "socialist"(as in the system that it called socialist) was meant to be a temporary situation to ease the country into communism.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36282297]Or just like how you call the United States Capitalist when it is not Capitalist? Shows how much you know about the USSR, Venezuela, and China dude. I would suggest you go read up on what was attempted and what was achieved, but you would probably drool on the pages. So here is history in a nutshell. The PRC and USSR both tried to collectivize their systems and create a communist utopia. Due to inept leadership, and functional problems of trying to collectivize such a large country, people ended up starving and dying. The USSR wasn't always run by Stalin, and wasn't always Stalinist. In fact, the idea of having the USSR be "socialist"(as in the system that it called socialist) was meant to be a temporary situation to ease the country into communism.[/QUOTE] For a short time right after the revolution socialism worked very well,but then Stalin came into power and throughoutly fucked up the entire soviet union so badly,that it in no way could be fixed. So Socialism nor communism can be blamed. Soviet union is an example of what'll happen if a selfish madman gets power.

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36282254]No it wasn't. The system he just described was not tried in any of those countries. A Stalinist style system that's basically a mutated version of communism but isn't actually communism, or could be considered as, was tried. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] Even then, even if you want to bullshit and say that the idea or concept was to be employed, the fact it failed has nothing to do with anything.[/QUOTE] Even ignoring the history, it's a bad idea even in theory. You're taking away individual liberties by abolishing private property, and you're initiating force against an individual by stealing their contributions and redistributing it to everyone else. And as I said in my first post here, the system is going to fall apart when people realize they can work less hard than the next person, and still receive the same benefits. People's "needs" will rise while individual contributions stagnate or decrease, and at some point there will not be enough production to meet the demand.

[QUOTE=znk666;36282348]For a short time right after the revolution socialism worked very well,but then Stalin came into power and throughoutly fucked up the entire soviet union so badly,that it in no way could be fixed. So Socialism nor communism can be blamed. Soviet union is an example of what'll happen if a selfish madman comes into power.[/QUOTE] But the fact still remains that Socialism has never succeeded in any large scale. You have no empirical evidence that suggests socialism could work. You say it might work if everyone wasn't a "greedy capitalist", but that implies such a drastic change in the entirety of human society that it's pretty much a null point.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36282385]But the fact still remains that Socialism has never succeeded in any large scale. You have no empirical evidence that suggests socialism could work. You say it might work if everyone wasn't a "greedy capitalist", but that implies such a drastic change in the entirety of human society that it's pretty much a null point.[/QUOTE] This is like arguing whether or not there is a god. Neither of us have sufficient amount of evidence to prove whether or not would socialism work. Humans adapt and can change,if they are in the right ''environment''.

[QUOTE=znk666;36282400]This is like arguing whether or not there is a god. Neither of us have sufficient amount of evidence to prove whether or not would socialism work.[/QUOTE] I don't think I ever said it could never be achieved, I am saying that there is no evidence it could be achieved. In that sense it is similar to believing in a god, you are believing in a system that has no evidence to support it. That's fine and all, but please don't claim that it is somehow this great system even though it has never been achieved. Once you can show me a successful socialist system implemented on the scale of a small or medium sized nation, then we can start having the talk about whether pure socialism is the way to go.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36282297]Or just like how you call the United States Capitalist when it is not Capitalist?[/quote] Capitalism is a pretty wide term. [quote]Shows how much you know about the USSR, Venezuela, and China dude. I would suggest you go read up on what was attempted and what was achieved, but you would probably drool on the pages.[/quote] So I pointed out the exact same thing you did, and you proceed to insult me. If that's what you consider to be a stupid description, then we're both in the same boat. [quote]The PRC and USSR both tried to collectivize their systems and create a communist utopia. Due to inept leadership, and functional problems of trying to collectivize such a large country, people ended up starving and dying.[/quote] And this proves socialism fails... how? [quote]The USSR wasn't always run by Stalin, and wasn't always Stalinist. In fact, the idea of having the USSR be "socialist"(as in the system that it called socialist) was meant to be a temporary situation to ease the country into communism.[/QUOTE] The final stage of a socialist state to ease a country into communism is known as the dictatorship of the proletariat. I still fail to see how this has anything to do with what I'm talking about.

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36282426]Capitalism is a pretty wide term. So I pointed out the exact same thing you did, and you proceed to insult me. If that's what you consider to be a stupid description, then we're both in the same boat. And this proves socialism fails... how? The final stage of a socialist state to ease a country into communism is known as the dictatorship of the proletariat. I still fail to see how this has anything to do with what I'm talking about.[/QUOTE] It has nothing to do with what you're talking about because we aren't even talking about the same subject anymore. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] You're way off in left field dude.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36282420]I don't think I ever said it could never be achieved, I am saying that there is no evidence it could be achieved. In that sense it is similar to believing in a god, you are believing in a system that has no evidence to support it. That's fine and all, but please don't claim that it is somehow this great system even though it has never been achieved. Once you can show me a successful socialist system implemented on the scale of a small or medium sized nation, then we can start having the talk about whether pure socialism is the way to go.[/QUOTE] I can't show you a nation that has even attempted to achieve socialism because there isn't any,as i said USSR had it for a while but Stalin fucked it up. By definition,it is in fact a great system and we are yet to see whether it's the same in practice.

[QUOTE=znk666;36282481]I can't show you a nation that has even attempted to achieve socialism because there isn't any,as i said USSR had it for a while but Stalin fucked it up. By definition,it is in fact a great system and we are yet to see whether it's the same in practice.[/QUOTE] And until we see that, I'm not throwing in for socialism.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36282503]And until we see that, I'm not throwing in for socialism.[/QUOTE] I never said you should,but you shouldn't blindly stand by and approve of slavery either.

[QUOTE=znk666;36282529]I never said you should,but you shouldn't blindly stand by and approve of slavery either.[/QUOTE] And what slavery are we talking about here?