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

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36282537]And what slavery are we talking about here?[/QUOTE] Wage slavery. America's favourite past time

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36282537]And what slavery are we talking about here?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36282544]Wage slavery. America's favourite past time[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36282544]Wage slavery. America's favourite past time[/QUOTE] Ah, the slavery that isn't really slavery but people like to call it slavery anyways. Gotta love that one. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] I mean, if you want to call me a slave you better back this shit up with an airtight argument because I don't find myself to be quite as enslaved as you guys seem to state.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36282550]Ah, the slavery that isn't really slavery but people like to call it slavery anyways. Gotta love that one. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] I mean, if you want to call me a slave you better back this shit up with an airtight argument because I don't find myself to be quite as enslaved as you guys seem to state.[/QUOTE] Saying wage slavery exists in American does not mean you are a slave. I mean shit, do you not know how to read? Clearly you've gone far enough in life, you'd think you'd be able to read context.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36282550]Ah, the slavery that isn't really slavery but people like to call it slavery anyways. Gotta love that one. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] I mean, if you want to call me a slave you better back this shit up with an airtight argument because I don't find myself to be quite as enslaved as you guys seem to state.[/QUOTE] In capitalism people are property,their values differ and those old or damaged(handicapped) are thrown away into garbage.

[QUOTE=znk666;36282580]In capitalism people are property,their values differ and those old or damaged(handicapped) are thrown away into garbage.[/QUOTE] Not really. Capitalism operates on the goodwill of society just as much as socialism does. In an objectivist society you would be right, but not in a mixed system like the USA. If you are a citizen you have certain protections and rights. I do agree, however, that non-citizens get the shaft.

[QUOTE=znk666;36282580]In capitalism people are property,their values differ and those old or damaged(handicapped) are thrown away into garbage.[/QUOTE] People are not property in capitalism. In capitalism people voluntarily sell their labor to employers. The employer essentially pays "rent" on the employee's labor.

[QUOTE=Noble;36282610]People are not property in capitalism. In capitalism people voluntarily sell their labor to employers. The employer essentially pays "rent" on the employee's labor.[/QUOTE] In the most simplified use of the word, maybe.

[QUOTE=Noble;36282610]People are not property in capitalism. In capitalism people voluntarily sell their labor to employers. The employer essentially pays "rent" on the employee's labor.[/QUOTE] And if they are not ''rented'' they're fucked. Besides your definition proves my point,that they're slaves what you said is essentially the same as forced labor.

[QUOTE=znk666;36282654]And if they are not ''rented'' they're fucked. Besides your definition proves my point,that they're slaves what you said is essentially the same as forced labor.[/QUOTE] So in a socialist system, work is completely voluntary and any worker can simply refuse to work for extended periods of time and still be compensated?

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36280192]Granted - how are these guys extremists?[/QUOTE] In Sweden the "socialists" were extremists, do note were because their party has almost nobody in it anymore. Every other party in Sweden has all the good things from socialists already so the only thing they are doing is ruining the economy over extremely exaggerated well-fare, like 5 hours work days, free years and pensions at 50.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36282684]So in a socialist system, work is completely voluntary and any worker can simply refuse to work for extended periods of time and still be compensated?[/QUOTE] I was more referring to the fact that government does not provide sufficient employment and then says ''Fuck you unemployed people,it's your fault go die in a fire'' Whereas Socialist government attempts to employ as many people as possible by following the principle ''From each according to their ability,to each according to their need'' and provides proper unemployed benefits/welfare for those less fortunate. And offers free public services.

[QUOTE=znk666;36282855]I was more referring to the fact that government does not provide sufficient employment and then says ''Fuck you unemployed people,it's your fault go die in a fire'' Whereas Socialist government attempts to employ as many people as possible by following the principle ''From each according to their ability,to each according to their need'' and provides proper unemployed benefits/welfare for those less fortunate. And offers free public services.[/QUOTE] So what about a system like the US that has protections and benefits for the unemployed? I mean, it isn't perfect, but it isn't like we just let people rot.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36282602]Not really. Capitalism operates on the goodwill of society just as much as socialism does. In an objectivist society you would be right, but not in a mixed system like the USA. If you are a citizen you have certain protections and rights. I do agree, however, that non-citizens get the shaft.[/QUOTE] Thank you for clarifying this for people. Any political or economic system in place requires trust in the leaders. A socialist economy could be just as corrupt as a capitalist one. Safe guards are needed to protect the people. If you think a socialist economic system somehow automatically protects the poor, regardless of who is in charge, you are mistaken. Clean up politics, then you clean up the economy.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36282923]So what about a system like the US that has protections and benefits for the unemployed? I mean, it isn't perfect, but it isn't like we just let people rot.[/QUOTE] Us welfare system is like giving child a dollar and saying ''buy yourself a dinner for ten''.

[QUOTE=znk666;36282981]Us welfare system is like giving child a dollar and saying ''buy yourself a dinner for ten''.[/QUOTE] It is based on how much you made and how long you worked in most states.

[QUOTE=draugur;36279846]Wellp, France is screwed. Extremists are never good news.[/QUOTE] Good thing so many people in this thread are properly informed about the red threat and how it must be repelled even outside own borders.

You have high income inequality and poverty when your political system is serving a particular group, such as themselves. That is why we have these issues in America. Our mixed economy is plagued with high unemployment, income inequality, and poverty because our representatives no longer represent us, simply the rich corporations that buy them. And don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those, "Corporations are the devils!" Not all corporations or rich people take part in these games, in fact, most don't; the problem is, the ones who do are huge and are bringing our country to its knees.

[QUOTE=wanksta11;36280447]You're calling Canada, Sweden and Finland overall shitty countrys for using this system?[/QUOTE] Sweden isn't socialist - I'd know, my mom is Swedish and I visit my Swedish family a couple of times a year. Social-liberalist? Sure. Socialist? No. Same with Denmark and Norway.

[QUOTE=Noble;36282354]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. [B]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.[/B][/QUOTE] Cite your sources, even if you are ignoring the fact that communism (in Marxist theory terms) requires superabundance of resources edit: Ah misread production and demand, I thought you meant resources or material. Even then, what proof do you have of this claim?

This article is wrong: the french "parti socialiste" is not socialist but social democrat

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36282297] 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] Ah...apparently you don't know the first thing about Mao and how China went about its system. It's actually very clear to everyone who hasn't jumped on the Maoist bandwagon that Mao was an idiot and was not a socialist. I'll direct you to this book: [url]http://www.amazon.com/Mao-Unknown-Story-Jung-Chang/dp/0679746323[/url] The situation in the USSR is actually quite simple but also totally different from your interpretation. The USSR saw very little collectivization until Stalin, and considering how the nation was industrially backwards, and they had just gone through a civil war and a world war, they had slim pickings. It's not like they were absolutely shit at it, the conditions were shit. Both under the NEP and before you saw the same shortcomings because it wasn't the economic system, it was the availability of resources and the international isolation. Also, you don't seem to understand the point of socialism. Socialism is only temporary, but it's the same kind of temporary in how you start with a wolf and end up with a chihuahua, and the stages in-between are temporary to achieving the goal of a chihuahua. The time it takes for the transition stage to complete can be as long as it needs to be, and no one expects that society is going to form a communalized society without vertical command and elimination of the state, with social values moving to the norm offered in this system, in a mere ten years. Socialism can take a long damn time. No socialist leader excluding some of the more radical ones expected to bring communism. Which, by the way, is not utopian. I suggest you read some early Marx as to why this is, where he rips apart utopian communism and the notion of the utopia pretty good. Saying that communism is intended to be utopian is like saying that America is intended to be a utopia. It's not, it's just another system. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] [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] I'm tired of this stupid argument that it can't work on a large scale. Obviously free-market socialism can, and therefore communism can, but the argument that it won't work on a large scale is used and done. I really don't want to go over this argument again. This argument has been proven wrong so many times, and it's still being used without basis. I don't have time to go into it in detail now, but if you seriously insist, I'd be happy to rip this a new one tonight. Additionally: [quote]I'll direct you to the following: (keep in mind that I am applying anarchist nations as communist nations, as they are mostly identical in final form. The only difference is the method by which the communist/anarchist nation is achieved. I also include 'proper' Marxist states.) [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain#1936_Revolution[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_faction_(Spanish_Civil_War)[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_commune[/url] (this is what started the anarchist and communist political factions, between Bakunin and Marx, and what both describe as the application of socialist revolutionary theory.) [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Soviet_Republic[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution[/url] (Not Marxist Socialist, but socialist none the less, with political support coming directly from Marxists. The government was primarily social democrats (Marxist split off), Social Revolutionaries (anarcho-communists), and Mensheviks (Marxists/communists). This is the workers' revolution that Goldman saw the Bolsheviks (initially, but we all know how that turned out) as an extension of. Because they nationalized as opposed to cooperated the industries, and continued the war, it saw a direct jump to Bolshevik support, leading to the October Revolution. The Kronstad Rebellion of 1921 is seen as the final point of no return, where the embers of the 'true' revolution were wiped out for good and totalitarianism fully grasped the USSR.) [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation[/url][/quote] [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;36282550]Ah, the slavery that isn't really slavery but people like to call it slavery anyways. Gotta love that one. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] I mean, if you want to call me a slave you better back this shit up with an airtight argument because I don't find myself to be quite as enslaved as you guys seem to state.[/QUOTE] Labor produces all values. Therefore all value is the product of laborers. A capitalist uses all the labor value of an individual to gain profit, while creating an upper limit to the income of the laborer. Because the laborer [I]must[/I] generate an income for survival, and that income is in the form of the limited wage, and that wage is only generated through work for a capitalist, essentially the laborer is in servitude tot he capitalist in order to provide him labor value. The capitalist takes the majority of the product of the labor and gives the worker a wage. Part of the argument can basically be summed up in these two images (though very simplified): [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Flq2k.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Xtanl.jpg[/IMG] Additionally, reading the article is a good start: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery[/url]

Fun fact: Even South Korea under Park Chung He's rule used 5-year-planning and heavy government investment in order to develop its economy, establish a strong industrial base and develop its education, all of this resulting in one of the most impressive economic miracles know to man. Government-induced investment has to be used in moderation, just like everything.

[QUOTE=Noble;36282610]People are not property in capitalism. In capitalism people voluntarily sell their labor to employers. The employer essentially pays "rent" on the employee's labor.[/QUOTE] Considering that all value is a product of labor, a capitalist takes all of my labor values and pays me a small percent in return. I am required to accept this wage else I starve. There is no volunteerism in capitalism. Economic factors and wealth are as powerful as weapons and handcuffs, and because the capitalist owns the wealth and controls the economics, you have to abide by that system and under their rule. You are given the choice of giving your entire labor value to an employer in exchange for your wage, or starvation. There's no volunteerism about it. If you don't do that, you lose your house, you lose your possessions, you lose your food, you lose your life. That's not volunteerism.

[QUOTE=thisispain;36281505]feudalism has ownership by lords who amass capital.[/QUOTE] Feudalism from the Marxist perspective is somewhat broken, given that the system existed in many differing forms (Even throughout Europe) that can't really be summed up as a stage in history. It's horribly inaccurate and outdated.

ITT: Americans with incredibly insular views of the world misunderstand the term 'Socialist' and perceive it to be an evil ideology due to Fox News.

i'm going to stop saying "no true scotsman" I'm going to call it "no true socialist" from now on [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] marxist history is unfalsifiable and a just-so story on a scale that would embarrass an mra [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];36284736']I'm tired of this stupid argument that it can't work on a large scale. Obviously free-market socialism can, and therefore communism can, but the argument that it won't work on a large scale is used and done. I really don't want to go over this argument again. This argument has been proven wrong so many times, and it's still being used without basis. I don't have time to go into it in detail now, but if you seriously insist, I'd be happy to rip this a new one tonight.[/QUOTE] yeah I want to see proof that centralised planning can efficiently manage an arbitrary number of resources as far as I can tell it's NP-hard [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];36284892']Considering that all value is a product of labor, a capitalist takes all of my labor values and pays me a small percent in return. I am required to accept this wage else I starve. There is no volunteerism in capitalism. Economic factors and wealth are as powerful as weapons and handcuffs, and because the capitalist owns the wealth and controls the economics, you have to abide by that system and under their rule. You are given the choice of giving your entire labor value to an employer in exchange for your wage, or starvation. There's no volunteerism about it. If you don't do that, you lose your house, you lose your possessions, you lose your food, you lose your life. That's not volunteerism.[/QUOTE] you're only given a small amount back because the capitalist gave you the materials to make the product in the first place. he or she essentially loaned you capital, and the contract says you add value to it, then give it back, and you are compensated for doing so. if you don't like it, start your own factory.

[QUOTE=draugur;36279846]Wellp, France is screwed. Extremists are never good news.[/QUOTE] Excuse me?

[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.[/QUOTE] Gauging how successful something, based on a "short period of time," probably isn't the best thing to do.

[QUOTE=OreoExtremist;36285221]Excuse me?[/QUOTE] Not even Oreos are exempt. Tough cookies, son.