Amercians, anti-communist/socialist?
- Thread starter Starseeker
- Start date
Democracy can kill its own citizens by millions too. If a government denies social caring for its poor citizens, and the country HAS the money for social service, than thats no better than sending your citizens to the gas chamber or sending them to gulags.
Gulags are bad. There were Gulags in USSR. USSR was socialist, therefore socialism can never be good.
In soviet russia, arguments fail at you.
In soviet russia, arguments fail at you.
But the government DOESN'T have the money for it. That's why they are trying to tax the friggin middle class to make up for the poor class (which most of the time wouldn't be poor if they didn't have adolescent pregnancies and smoke drugs all day instead of going to high school and making a decent effort). And to be honest, no one DESERVES anything for free. Not school, not healthcare, and definetely not welfare.Radiated Heinz said:
Awesome logic. Keep it coming.OakTable said:
And on the "no one DESERVES anything for free" bit, why would people deserve free security from the police and army for example ? I think you just lost sight of why do people get together in the first place, why and how do tribes, then communities, then cities and then states form.
And you realize that poor people pass the day using drugs and stuff because they didnt had the proper education, which should be of a good quality and for free in first place. People thinking like you make the poor people stay lazy (which I disagree, lots of poor people put a lot of effort on their low salary jobs) and uneducated.
Stop trolling.OakTable said:
Seriously, stop trolling.OakTable said:
Cimmerian Nights
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Good point, I think we're missing the boat here, because Gas Chambers are actually much more efficient, and Gulags are much more pragmatic (work them to death and save money on public works projects). Anything worth doing, is worth doing right mom always said.Radiated Heinz said:
OakTable said:
I'd like you to name one country that abolished the state, private property, and class. If you manage to find that then you'll have found a Communist country. I've never seen anyone die under Communism, probably because so called "Communist" countries were actually State Socialist, or State Capitalist "State capitalism has various different meanings, but is usually described as a society wherein the productive forces are controlled and directed by the state in a capitalist manner, even if such a state calls itself socialist.[1]" "The earliest critique of the USSR as state-capitalist was formulated by various groups adhering to left communism. One major tendency of the 1918 Russian communist left criticized the re-employment of authoritarian capitalist relations and methods within production. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
See also: http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1936/dictatorship.htm
Socialism is merely an "economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.[1][2][3] " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
State Socialism is Socialism through the State as a proxy, and IT NEVER WORKS. Libertarian(traditional) Socialism is "Libertarian socialism (including social anarchism and libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy."
Now you see, Communism has no government. So how can the government kill people? As stated, Communism is Socialism without private property, government, and classes. ""Pure communism" in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life. In modern usage, communism is often used to refer to the policies of the various communist states which were authoritarian governments that had centrally planned economies and ownership of all the means of production. Most communist governments based their ideology on Marxism-Leninism." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism Marxism-Leninism can smfd.
well it has a reason why certain systems have been labeled as lenism, stalinism or maoism.
There is not true communism like there is no true democracy. Its always just at best a compromise.
There is not true communism like there is no true democracy. Its always just at best a compromise.
UniversalWolf
eaten by a grue.
The Obamacare bill is hated because it's a terrible bill. There's really nothing more to it than that. Even the people who want it know it's bad, but they want it anyway.
Why limit this to citizens? If your country has the money and you're not providing "social caring" to anyone anywhere who needs it at any time, aren't you sending them to the gas chambers too? Just because they had the bad luck to be born in an evil, uncaring democracy doesn't mean they deserve to be exterminated.Radiated Heinz said:
You dont limit to its citizens. But you put citizens on the first place, because thats whats the state for: for caring for its citizens. When your Nation is perfect and everyone has everything, then its morally compulsory to help people outside your borders.
Until that, if you help others, you are just being nice (nah) or you probably have some interest helping these people (yeah).
and something I can't get for people saying nothing is for free and the state shouldnt care so much for its people: if the state is not that important, if it should not provide free services etc, why do you think actually States exist? All these guys complaining about health care and interventionist methods are pretty nationalistic most of time, but I don't get why.
Why be proud to be reunited under a flag if you think that what this flag represent is not important?
Until that, if you help others, you are just being nice (nah) or you probably have some interest helping these people (yeah).
and something I can't get for people saying nothing is for free and the state shouldnt care so much for its people: if the state is not that important, if it should not provide free services etc, why do you think actually States exist? All these guys complaining about health care and interventionist methods are pretty nationalistic most of time, but I don't get why.
Why be proud to be reunited under a flag if you think that what this flag represent is not important?
UniversalWolf
eaten by a grue.
Umm...no.Radiated Heinz said:
The citizens grant just enough power to the government in order to prevent anarchy, because government is a necessary evil. The citizens take care of themselves and each other. This is the premise the U.S. was founded upon. It doesn't end up working that way in the real world, of course, but I can dare to dream.
That's all theory and philosophy anyway. In the real world, the Obamacare bill is a big, stinking pile of crap that will ultimately make things worse for most people.
Cimmerian Nights
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Don't forget all the hidden earmarks and Pork!
If the citizens REALLY just cared for themselfs and each other, and no one care or mess with them besides themselfs, that would be anarchy.
The citizens get together and grant power to the government so he can care of everyone. Neoliberals says that the market dont need state intervention, but the state should still regulate and mantain the economy so the market can do all the job. Thats maybe as far as you can get with democracy. But saying that the state dont need to care to its citizens, and thats not his job its a clear demonstration of lack of politic knowledge.
Thats why you pay taxes. So the government can use everyone's money to care for its citizens. Or you just pay or taxes so the little and cute senators and politicians in general have their salaries paid?
geez, sometimes you guys sounds like real anarchist. "We don't need the state! The state just fucks up everything!"
The citizens get together and grant power to the government so he can care of everyone. Neoliberals says that the market dont need state intervention, but the state should still regulate and mantain the economy so the market can do all the job. Thats maybe as far as you can get with democracy. But saying that the state dont need to care to its citizens, and thats not his job its a clear demonstration of lack of politic knowledge.
Thats why you pay taxes. So the government can use everyone's money to care for its citizens. Or you just pay or taxes so the little and cute senators and politicians in general have their salaries paid?
geez, sometimes you guys sounds like real anarchist. "We don't need the state! The state just fucks up everything!"
Stealste said:
I think you might be talking about blind trust. Because the idea of the populace trusting its institutions to run the country is the very basis of modern democracies.
Can't argue with the correction... However I still don't believe a governments primary concern its to take care of it's people- In theory yes but in practicality, they'd rather remain in power, and will appease the populace only so much as is neccessary to remain there. I suppose i'm just stating the obvious, but Radiated Heinz seems to imply they're doing it out of more selfless reasons.
Brother None said:
I think you might be talking about blind trust. Because the idea of the populace trusting its institutions to run the country is the very basis of modern Republics. fixd, don't disgrace democracy by confusing it with the disaster known as Republicanism.
Stealste said:
That's kind of the purpose of the feedback loop. Any functioning democracy is about two main concepts of democracy; the populace's capability and freedom to check the power of the government (procedural democracy) and the government's spread of rights, wealth, stability, security and other things amongst as large a portion of the populace as possible, as to get said support (substantive democracy).
Some states put more emphasis on procedural democracy (US), some states put more emphases on substantive democracy (France/Germany). If a state goes to an extreme of either format it becomes a parody if democracy, such as Russia, which is now almost purely a substantive democracy without procedural rights.
The point of "trust" in this model is not about the populace simply assuming the government will do what is best, because then the procedural feedback loop fails. Rather, it is about the populace trusting that their basic institutional framework functions, and thus being willing to pay taxes and participate in the democracy, trusting this will eventually pay out in substantive rights.
The US is very cynical in said trust, and this stems in their procedural rights being overemphasized compared to substantive rights. This results in a view that democracy doesn't do anything for you, which is why the US has such extremely low turnouts in elections compared to a number of European states. It's a clear flaw in the US' functioning as a democracy.
cogar66 said:
You're a monarchist?