Originally posted by: JediSage
If socialism has resulted into people getting killed, and we should ban it from the world, why not ban cars or guns?
BY THE WAY, I support a free market capitalist society. I focus on PEACE and on making sure resources get everywhere. So before anyone calls me a communist bastard, there ya go.
Originally posted by: oojason
Besides, in a capitalist world it seems as long as people have a nice house, car, holidays, a big tv and are subjected to the mindnumbing blandness that appears on the majority of it, nearly everyone under capitialism are content - many of which have a 'so what' attitiude to the preventable and addressable horrific events that take place around the world.
It dosen't work because there IS capitalism around
So it doesn't work because of a competing system?
Hmn, well, in a way, yes, but not exactly as to competition. It's kinda like, you have a black and white 14 inches TV set, and right next to you, ready to be plugged, a nice 50 inches widescreen plasma 1080p HDTV. Not sure the analogy was 100% effective but still...
But in different ways.
Originally posted by: JediSage
"Supporting socialism for fear of facism is suicide for fear of death" - Not sure who said it but I LOVE it.
So it doesn't work because of a competing system?
Hmn, well, in a way, yes, but not exactly as to competition. It's kinda like, you have a black and white 14 inches TV set, and right next to you, ready to be plugged, a nice 50 inches widescreen plasma 1080p HDTV. Not sure the analogy was 100% effective but still...
Originally posted by: JediSage
Right, but they both result in totalitarian control OF the economy.
1. Since socialst nations have existed in the past and failed, what do you attribute their failure to? Is it reasonable to believe that these "obstacles" can be overcome in the short term?
Failed due to economical imbalance, improper investments in a war machine, personal greed, tyrany, inability to cope with today's globalized market.
Does the system's obvious weaknesses (failure to meet changing market forces, inability to cope with human nature(greed, laziness, etc)) not mean that it's NOT the best system? Or are we talking "theory" or "on paper" socialism?
I agree. Maybe the system takes some stuff for granted.
Idi Amin Dada was also a mass murderer and not a socialist. Don't mix up the system with the crimes.
Originally posted by: JediSage
17. What is the difference between Facism and Communism? Do they not both lead to state control of the economy, thus making ideologies irrelevant?
Who do you think controls the economy in the US? Or UK? Or Australia? Facism is a ruling policy, comunism is an economical and social system.
Failed due to economical imbalance, improper investments in a war machine, personal greed, tyrany, inability to cope with today's globalized market.
Does the system's obvious weaknesses (failure to meet changing market forces, inability to cope with human nature(greed, laziness, etc)) not mean that it's NOT the best system? Or are we talking "theory" or "on paper" socialism?
I agree. Maybe the system takes some stuff for granted.
Originally posted by: JediSage
No, but Marx's disciples have been implementing murder on a massive scale since the October Revolution.
2. Were any of these nations imperialistic in nature, meaning did they expand beyond their national borders and conquer territory not in their possession prior to the Bolshevic revolution of the early part of the 20th century?
USSR did but not after the period you have mentioned
What about the BLOC states it obsorbed during and after WWII (Hungary, Romania, East Germany, Ukraine, etc)?
I was sort of considering them to be part of the iron curtain, therefore USSR, but yes.
Brazil was under a bloody, brutal dictatorship from 1964 to 1985 and supported the Church 100%. Also, a democratic socialist regime would have NO need to ban religion. Don't mix up the SYSTEM with FASCISM, there are facist regimes with no socialism envolvement at all.
Originally posted by: JediSage
16. Given that the socialist death toll is at 100 million and counting, vastly outpacing "facist" numbers, does socialism get a free pass because it's more "altruistic"...at least on the surface? Can any ideology that results in the death of even one life be considered to be altruisitic?
I don't remember reading on Karl Marx works that genocide was necessary. Don't mix up the system, to whom has tried to apply it.
USSR did but not after the period you have mentioned
What about the BLOC states it obsorbed during and after WWII (Hungary, Romania, East Germany, Ukraine, etc)?
I was sort of considering them to be part of the iron curtain, therefore USSR, but yes.
Originally posted by: JediSage
Because they teach that there's a higher power than the state, and typically socialist countries are unwelcoming to religious insitutions.
China did
North Korea and Vietnam as well.
Vietnan merely took the whole country as a whole. And what did North Korea conquer?
That's like when religious parents dosen't want their child to study Darwin at school. Home school then, if you want to.
Originally posted by: JediSage
14. Should religious institutions be permitted in socialist societies?
Why not?
North Korea and Vietnam as well.
Vietnan merely took the whole country as a whole. And what did North Korea conquer?
Originally posted by: JediSage
Does the state's interests lie in perpetuation of the system in spite of it's shortcomings? Should the state provide moral or ethical teachings that contradict those of a parent?
4. If inequitable distribution of wealth is the cause of crime and social injustice, how do you explain people who are wealthy that committ crimes?
Drugs, greed, passion crimes, and insanity. Pretty much it.
Is there a moral component in society that gives people a sense of right and wrong or is that a state issue?
Basically, moral, based on ethics, education, good social conditions, and stuff like that.
Works in the US of A.
Originally posted by: JediSage
13. In a socialist system, who's interests should/will take precedence in case of child rearing? Parents, or the State?
At school, state. Outside school, parents.
Drugs, greed, passion crimes, and insanity. Pretty much it.
Is there a moral component in society that gives people a sense of right and wrong or is that a state issue?
Basically, moral, based on ethics, education, good social conditions, and stuff like that.
Originally posted by: JediSage
Is coersion via "Go live in France" an acceptable substitute for violence?
5. Is brute labor the only force that is essential to the prosperity and equality of a society?
Uh... no. Point is?
See point below re: incentive to strive.
OK...
The dictator from Qatar is quite a nice fellow. Again, seriously speaking, it is possible. Isn't the Queen of England a nice person? Oh, uh... bad example. The British Royal Family, when they had political power, did some nasty things. Not to its own people, but still...
Originally posted by: JediSage
11. What if 1 or 2 people in said country decided they didn't feel socialism was right for them. Would the government be justified in using any and all means to implement the system for the greater good?
No. But they could say "If you are not happy, get out of here and go live in France!", sounds familiar anyway.
Uh... no. Point is?
See point below re: incentive to strive.
OK...
Originally posted by: JediSage
I've had that discussion as well. A benevolent dictator....sadly not to happen (in our lifetime, at least).
8. What incentive does a person who has guaranteed health care, housing, food, water, and clothing have to strive for a better life?
If they have that, not only as a guarantee on a paper, why would they need it?
Because in a system in which everyone gets "...according to his needs", why would anyone need.....the new Power MAC or Nintendo Revolution (I refuse to call it Wii) when the Commodore 64 will do the job? According to his needs puts a glass ceiling on innovation. The progress the soviets made in the space race was due to the needs of the state, not the needs of any individual.
Totally agree. Thing is, what do you prefer, to play with the Wii while children are starving next door, or to play with the Commodore knowing everyone has one? Should we sacrifice "progress" for the well-being of the rest of the world? Also, is it really necessary to? What exactly would be sacrificed? Electronic goods?
If at first you don't succeed... than dust yourself and try again! You can dust it off and try again, try again...
Seriously now, should we continue to persue wars given it's shortcomings? And please don't answer that only at the point of view of the war winners...
But, on the other hand, I agree that a socialist society, let alone a communist one, is sort of uthopic, not due to flaws on how it is done, but on the behaviour of men. It asumes we'll all behave. Maybe some years in the future we will, if we don't nuke ourselves before that.
Originally posted by: JediSage
10. Do people try to accumulate more or less power?
More power, less responsability. Power is not the problem. I would love if we had a single tyrant that ruled the world, but did good things.
If they have that, not only as a guarantee on a paper, why would they need it?
Because in a system in which everyone gets "...according to his needs", why would anyone need.....the new Power MAC or Nintendo Revolution (I refuse to call it Wii) when the Commodore 64 will do the job? According to his needs puts a glass ceiling on innovation. The progress the soviets made in the space race was due to the needs of the state, not the needs of any individual.
Totally agree. Thing is, what do you prefer, to play with the Wii while children are starving next door, or to play with the Commodore knowing everyone has one? Should we sacrifice "progress" for the well-being of the rest of the world? Also, is it really necessary to? What exactly would be sacrificed? Electronic goods?
Originally posted by: JediSage
Should it continue to be persued given it's shortcomings?
9. For socialism to be truly implemented, the government must assume vast powers. Once assumed, what guarantee is there that the government will not abuse these powers?
None. Ethics. That's why it dosen't work.
None. Ethics. That's why it dosen't work.
Should it continue to be persued given it's shortcomings?
If at first you don't succeed... than dust yourself and try again! You can dust it off and try again, try again...
Seriously now, should we continue to persue wars given it's shortcomings? And please don't answer that only at the point of view of the war winners...
But, on the other hand, I agree that a socialist society, let alone a communist one, is sort of uthopic, not due to flaws on how it is done, but on the behaviour of men. It asumes we'll all behave. Maybe some years in the future we will, if we don't nuke ourselves before that.
Originally posted by: JediSage
10. Do people try to accumulate more or less power?
More power, less responsability. Power is not the problem. I would love if we had a single tyrant that ruled the world, but did good things.
I've had that discussion as well. A benevolent dictator....sadly not to happen (in our lifetime, at least).
The dictator from Qatar is quite a nice fellow. Again, seriously speaking, it is possible. Isn't the Queen of England a nice person? Oh, uh... bad example. The British Royal Family, when they had political power, did some nasty things. Not to its own people, but still...
Originally posted by: JediSage
11. What if 1 or 2 people in said country decided they didn't feel socialism was right for them. Would the government be justified in using any and all means to implement the system for the greater good?
No. But they could say "If you are not happy, get out of here and go live in France!", sounds familiar anyway.
Is coersion via "Go live in France" an acceptable substitute for violence?
Works in the US of A.
Originally posted by: JediSage
13. In a socialist system, who's interests should/will take precedence in case of child rearing? Parents, or the State?
At school, state. Outside school, parents.
Does the state's interests lie in perpetuation of the system in spite of it's shortcomings? Should the state provide moral or ethical teachings that contradict those of a parent?
That's like when religious parents dosen't want their child to study Darwin at school. Home school then, if you want to.
Originally posted by: JediSage
14. Should religious institutions be permitted in socialist societies?
Why not?
Because they teach that there's a higher power than the state, and typically socialist countries are unwelcoming to religious insitutions.
Brazil was under a bloody, brutal dictatorship from 1964 to 1985 and supported the Church 100%. Also, a democratic socialist regime would have NO need to ban religion. Don't mix up the SYSTEM with FASCISM, there are facist regimes with no socialism envolvement at all.
Originally posted by: JediSage
16. Given that the socialist death toll is at 100 million and counting, vastly outpacing "facist" numbers, does socialism get a free pass because it's more "altruistic"...at least on the surface? Can any ideology that results in the death of even one life be considered to be altruisitic?
I don't remember reading on Karl Marx works that genocide was necessary. Don't mix up the system, to whom has tried to apply it.
No, but Marx's disciples have been implementing murder on a massive scale since the October Revolution.
Idi Amin Dada was also a mass murderer and not a socialist. Don't mix up the system with the crimes.
Originally posted by: JediSage
17. What is the difference between Facism and Communism? Do they not both lead to state control of the economy, thus making ideologies irrelevant?
Who do you think controls the economy in the US? Or UK? Or Australia? Facism is a ruling policy, comunism is an economical and social system.
Right, but they both result in totalitarian control OF the economy.
But in different ways.
Originally posted by: JediSage
"Supporting socialism for fear of facism is suicide for fear of death" - Not sure who said it but I LOVE it.
If socialism has resulted into people getting killed, and we should ban it from the world, why not ban cars or guns?
BY THE WAY, I support a free market capitalist society. I focus on PEACE and on making sure resources get everywhere. So before anyone calls me a communist bastard, there ya go.
Originally posted by: oojason
Besides, in a capitalist world it seems as long as people have a nice house, car, holidays, a big tv and are subjected to the mindnumbing blandness that appears on the majority of it, nearly everyone under capitialism are content - many of which have a 'so what' attitiude to the preventable and addressable horrific events that take place around the world.
Quite right. Consumism blinds everyone from seeing the problems with capitalism. Just because you are free and having good stuff, that dosen't mean everyone is. If you are too lazy to get a job or do anything, then you should starve, but it's not always fair.