Now while some people thing that communism would fail after a certain point... what if... you reformed it into a more socialistic society?
In theory communism is best, we all know that. But in real life a less stringent form of goverment like socialism would be far better as we know not everyone will work equally like machines. Although socialism is similar, in many ways it is also different. It prevents the oppresive dictators from forming and more rights to the people. I believe that capitalism is about as sad as it gets. The Soviet Union would of lasted much longer had they increase consumer goods and decrease military might. See the way to a great nation is not through death and war. It is through creating a country that is so great, safe, and powerful. That people from other places would say.
Hey, would i want to fight them, they've done no harm. In fact i would rather go and fight for them than here.
It is sort of a unique form of socialism, keeping the basics, but working on the details, show others that you are strong, happy, and proud of your country. That if it came down to it. Would you give your life to go fight for your motherland? You, by your own mind, would immediately say Yes.
And to one day, have peace, by achieveing a global socialistic state. It have a end to wars, to focus on reserch in space, and work on technology for quicker food production, cheap and clean fuel sources.
To have the Reformed USSR on the globe and nothing else in my dream. For everyone to be equal and have a fair chance at life, if they want to be an astronaut, they will be. Not have some school deny him or her that dream because they can't afford the ridulose price of college.
For education and healthcare to be cheap or free. To help their neighbor in times of need. This is my dream, and i'm ready to make it happen.
[i]The Revolution is coming... The Question is... Are You Ready...?
All your arguments have been pre assumed statements of your own ramblings. You started bashing me from the first response you made at me, and you have the guts to use big words to describe me something that your guilty of. For some reason you think because you accepted the flaws of capitalism, it justifies any statement you make?
NoName has a beef (a very tastey beef) with topics that have to do with government. Why? Who knows!?
Communism was never implanted. This had nothing to do with people being honest.
Look at the eastern side of the world. I suppose Russia isn't communist?
That is not even an adjective that can describe humans.
World War 1, and World War 2.
Communism was never implanted. Jesus...
Western Europe and Asia, hurr durr.
And capitalism lasted on exploitation and imperialism
Go figure, the countries with capitalism lasted longer due to being stronger AND smarter. Who would have guessed?
Id like to ask you to define communism even after this worthless debate and see if you even payed attention to my points.
All I got from this debate is that you are debating about something you lack knowledge of. It's a lost cause to debate with you due to this. I can usually understand the opposing side, but with this, I just don't see how you managed to get the political views you have.
Actually everything has ups and downs, under pure socialism you can't be a billionaire but you can't be homeless either; under pure capitalism you can be a billionaire but you can also be homeless. And the beef I have with capitalism is that there are more penniless people than there are billionaires.
What about the healthy middle class? They can ALWAYS rise out of there and become billionaires.
A penniless person can become a billionaire if they say "Screw welfare, I'm going to go get a job and attempt to better myself."
Simple.
There is little economic or political freedoms under capitalism and history's "Communist States", under capitalism you have corporate lobbyists and special interest groups that can get whatever they want done. CEOs control who gets a job, how many jobs are given, layoffs, where the business leads itself, and what amount of money a worker can earn. In "communist" states, you have a repressive bureaucracy controlling means of production that exerts its rule over a slave population of workers. Party officials and military officers basically get more freedoms and privileges than the rest of the population under authoritarian socialism ("communist" states).
There is infinite political and economic freedoms in capitalism. It's the people who let themselves be suppressed who get suppressed. In socialism, there is less freedoms. The very nature of socialism disallows many corporations from becoming economic powerhouses, furthering the economic growth of a state. If you have an infinitely rich government, you are no different from the monopolies you try to stop. When that happens, you get corruption, and then Stalinism. Give them an inch, take you a mile. Essentially, the government becomes a giant corporation, just with complete access to itself. The government then controls who gets to live and die, in a literal sense. Who gets a job, and who doesn't. The government is essentially a giant, unstoppable corporation capable of destroying entire cities.
As for lobbyism, they are lazy fools who take advantage of the system that is in place to stop them. Lobbyists rarely get far without socialists as their masters.
F off. You have not made a single THEORETICAL point.
I made plenty of theoretical points. You simply dismissed them as false without any understanding of the human psych.
And because communist ideals did not exist all that time means we should never fight for it? So yeah lets not improve on anything because its always been bad and will always be.
In areas of poverty people today are kept alive by living on $1-$3 a day.
If your going to ramble on "fixing capitalist government", at least offer an example, you chauvinist.
I was stating that it is human nature to form seperate classes. Communism conflicts with human characteristics.
I don't know what you're trying to point out with living $1-$3 a day. Are you suggesting that everyone should live in poverty? Because that's one way communism can work. You make everyone live in poverty. Is that what you want? A world of poverty?
The biggest mistake is that you assumed I support Capitalism as a flawless system. I am well aware it has flaws. In fact, I don't care for capitalism myself.
Communism is the idea that you can make a classless society by giving everyone the same relative pay while everyone works for each other. If everyone is given similar pay, they will grow lazy. They will not be motivated to work hard. Most people don't have the devotion you have when it comes to supporting the government.
Even if everyone did do their job, some people will spend money while others save it. The people who spend their money will be poor as those who save their money will become rich. What can you do about that? Force the rich to spend their money?
You post 1 liners to my paragraphs of text and I'm a god dam chauvinist.
My one liners were posted after my walls of text. Thanks for ignoring everything else. You can write a book on why you think you are right, but if you refuse to accept the truth, you're a chauvinist.
What about the healthy middle class? They can ALWAYS rise out of there and become billionaires. A penniless person can become a billionaire if they say "Screw welfare, I'm going to go get a job and attempt to better myself." Simple.
It is never "simple", the healthy middle class, assuming they have public health care and schooling, can also fail to even find a job and end up homeless.
There is infinite political and economic freedoms in capitalism. It's the people who let themselves be suppressed who get suppressed. In socialism, there is less freedoms. The very nature of socialism disallows many corporations from becoming economic powerhouses, furthering the economic growth of a state. If you have an infinitely rich government, you are no different from the monopolies you try to stop. When that happens, you get corruption, and then Stalinism. Give them an inch, take you a mile. Essentially, the government becomes a giant corporation, just with complete access to itself. The government then controls who gets to live and die, in a literal sense. Who gets a job, and who doesn't. The government is essentially a giant, unstoppable corporation capable of destroying entire cities.
Tried that in 19th century Europe and it failed because many nations attacked each other, there was a low literacy all the nations with private schooling only, and many people got sick and died because they couldn't even afford a doctor. And the definition of what is to be earned was very low but there was nothing anyone could do about it, elsewise they'd all starve to death. Therefore, most of the nation would basically be slaves to employers earning 3 bux a day for working 16 hours.
No, I study psychology. Not only are these my views, but the views of other people I know. Teachers and friends.
As Marxists will define it...
"Communism (from Latin: communis = "common" is a family of economic and political ideas and social movements related to the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, or stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general, as well as the name given to such a society"
So, no.
World War 1, and World War 2.
What does calling people territorial or its counter argument have to do with WW1 or 2?
Go figure, the countries with capitalism lasted longer due to being stronger AND smarter. Who would have guessed?
Because of exploitation and imperialism...Do you even know what Im saying lol.
All I got from this debate is that you are debating about something you lack knowledge of. It's a lost cause to debate with you due to this. I can usually understand the opposing side, but with this, I just don't see how you managed to get the political views you have.
Read this if you want a short understanding of Marxist theory
Marx and Engels considered capitalism to be a system based on relentless competition for profit, or surplus value as they put it, among capitalists and capitalist states. In his labour theory of value, Marx argued that this becomes possible by the exploitation and the oppression of workers. According to Marx, the main characteristic of human life in a class society is alienation, while communism entails the full realisation of human freedom.[10] Marx here follows Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in conceiving freedom not merely as an absence of restraints but as action with content.[11] Marx believed that communism would give people the power to appropriate the fruits of their labor while preventing them from exploiting others. Whereas for Hegel the unfolding of this ethical life in history is mainly driven by the realm of ideas, for Marx, communism emerged from material forces, particularly the development of the means of production.[11]
Marxists hold that due to the innate antagonism and class conflict between labour and capital, the inevitable process of revolutionary struggle can result in victory for the proletariat, or the workers, and the establishment of a communist society in which private ownership is abolished over time and the means of production and subsistence become the collective property of society. Marx himself wrote little about life under communism, giving only the most general indication as to what constituted a communist society. The German Ideology (1845) was one of Marx's few writings to elaborate on the communist future:
"In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."[12]
In the late 19th century, the terms "socialism" and "communism" were often used interchangeably. However, Marx and Engels argued that communism would not emerge from capitalism in a fully developed state, but would pass through a lower phase in which productive property was owned in common but people would be allowed to take from the social wealth only to the extent of their contribution to the production of that wealth. As the masses of the people begin to overcome their alienation and replace competition with social cooperation, this "lower phase" would eventually evolve into a "higher phase" in which the antithesis between mental and physical labour has disappeared, people enjoy their work, and goods are produced in abundance, allowing people to freely take according to their needs. Lenin frequently used the term "socialism" to refer to Marx and Engels' "lower phase" of communism and used the term "communism" interchangeably with Marx and Engels' "higher phase" of communism.
Most people don't have the devotion you have when it comes to supporting the government.
In communism? There is not state under Drace's belief system, Drace would argue that the state would "wither" away as the proletariat grow accustomed to making choices for themselves and worker for each other.
It is never "simple", the healthy middle class, assuming they have public health care and schooling, can also fail to even find a job and end up homeless.
That very same middle class can also rise up and terminate the billionaires and become billionaires themselves. It's a double edged sword.
Tried that in 19th century Europe and it failed because many nations attacked each other, there was a low literacy all the nations with private schooling only, and many people got sick and died because they couldn't even afford a doctor. And the definition of what is to be earned was very low but there was nothing anyone could do about it, elsewise they'd all starve to death. Therefore, most of the nation would basically be slaves to employers earning 3 bux a day for working 16 hours.
That was working with the corporations running things, including civil and political rights. The government with too much power becomes the very thing it tries to combat.
Anyone in America can start up a billion dollar business today, but it may not make it there.
In socialism, no one can start up a billion dollar business because their business is absorbed by the government before it even makes a million.
That very same middle class can also rise up and terminate the billionaires and become billionaires themselves. It's a double edged sword.
Three out of 100 of them could go on to be billionaires while the rest of them get the same pay for the rest of their lives or end up becoming lower class.
Don't you understand that it is impossible for everyone to be a billionaire no matter how hard they try? You'll always end up with more poor people than rich people if you have a society with billionaires.
What does calling people territorial or its counter argument have to do with WW1 or 2?
Study up on the causes next time, then respond.
Because of exploitation and imperialism...Do you even know what Im saying lol.
Exploitation is basically using a land to its benefits, well, that sounds like a good idea. And imperialism is taking land from weaker countries. So yeah, smarter and stronger.
As much as I would love to argue, the only way one of us could win this debate is if we meet up and beat each other with lead pipes. Persuasion through words has failed. Continuing this debate will do nothing but evolve into a flame war.
Three out of 100 of them could go on to be billionaires while the rest of them get the same pay for the rest of their lives or end up becoming lower class.
Very untrue. Almost fail untrue. Here's the real number:
? in 100.
Anyone can be a billionaire. Not everyone will.
Don't you understand that it is impossible for everyone to be a billionaire no matter how hard they try? You'll always end up with more poor people than rich people if you have a society with billionaires.
Don't you understand that in socialism that no one can even be a millionaire? Socialism is by definition economic suppression. It cannot be an economic ideology that will work. It requires perfection, something we will never have.
There will always be poor people. How poor is the question. In a state 300,000,000 people and everyone has the same networth, then everyone is poor. We would be in as much debt as the big brother, about 5 trillion dollars. It cannot work.
Exploitation is basically using a land to its benefits, well, that sounds like a good idea. And imperialism is taking land from weaker countries. So yeah, smarter and stronger.
Exploitation is the process of the bourgeoisie exploiting their workers by giving them unfair pay. One big winner, millions of losers. And your partly right on the imperialism, but I dont see how you can view that as a good thing. Lol
OH YEAH WOOT WE JUST KILLED A MILLION AFRICANS. AWESOME WOOT You cant debate politics with someone who has a disregard for human life.
Its And imperialism is taking land from weaker countries. So yeah, smarter and stronger
As much as I would love to argue, the only way one of us could win this debate is if we meet up and beat each other with lead pipes. Persuasion through words has failed. Continuing this debate will do nothing but evolve into a flame war.
Id have to agree for now, but what I didn't like is you saying I had blind faith in the subject.
