Sounds like I’m about to tonight to push that envelope.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
AOC now actively hawking her own political merchandise.
- Thread starter Twilight Hue
- Start date
Sounds like I’m about to tonight to push that envelope.
I predict that the cromulence of the message depends
largely upon feelings of kinship with the messenger, ie,
your knuckles are safe.
I've answered this question for you many times.
Perhaps you might tell us all again for the sake of discussion?
Russia vastly improved under communism, far better than what they were previously.
Would you say that communist Russia is a success...in
terms of freedom, standard of living, & quality of life?
Is it your best example of socialism?
Is it a better model than Canuckistan, Denmark, etc.?
Compared to Tsarist Russia, yes, it was a resounding success.
There may be better examples, but I've studied Russia a lot more than other countries.
I can answer that with another question: Which country was in a better position to defend itself from Germany in WW2: Russia or Denmark?
I sense sidestepping.
I'd like answers to my question regarding economic systems first.
See post #81 for full context.
How can you claim irony when you've not
I will look at post #81 and respond to anything pertinent.
even yet responded directly to my posts?
All you have is praise for the USSR.
If that's your go to socialist country...better
than any capitalist alternative, then you &
I have irreconcilably different values.
I don't remember in what context "libertarian feminism" was banned or not from the Feminist Only section, but being pro-prostitution is not a disqualifier from posting there. In fact, taking a quick look at the few most recent threads in that forum, it seems that most posters (myself included) support regulated sex work.
It has been years since I needed to look up the relevant posts on the Feminist Only section's policies, so feel free to start a thread in Site Feedback if you have any questions about said policies.
Last edited:
It was an opinion expressed to me by one former staff member.
I chalked getting the boot up to experience rather than pursuing change.
Further affiant sayeth naught.
No need.
I've no desire to post there.
I think people might tend to see things as they are actually are from their own viewpoint and personal experience. People from Beverly Hills might say "Capitalism is a wonderful system," while people living in South Central L.A. might see the same system from a completely different vantage point.
Seldom do people actually try to look at things from the other guy's shoes, which is why discussions over economic systems can often be contentious.
Case in point: There's a lot of people out there crowing about socialism and how it's so evil and bad, yet none of them stop to consider the possible reasons why there might be those who gravitate towards socialism. Such considerations never even enter their mind, and this is where much of the dispute begins and ends. I often feel like I have to explain the history of the entire labor movement in this and other countries, and many people still don't get the message.
Well, if we're talking about observing the emergent properties of a given system, then it would also require looking at the methods and history of how they got to the point they're at now. Canada and the United States came about as a result of colonists from Britain and other countries who settled and expanded on this continent, mainly seeking resources and profit. Even though we broke off from the British Empire while Canada remained British, our systems paralleled each other.
Capitalism is often associated with industrialism and the Industrial Revolution, which suggests that capitalism didn't really exist in previous eras. My view is that socialism came about as a reaction against capitalism and its underlying philosophy, although they didn't oppose capitalism because of industry or machines. But in its early days, capitalism wasn't quite so slick or organized as it later came to be. In fact, it was pretty bad and a lot of people reacted against it, such as the Luddite revolt (although I wouldn't consider them to be socialists). And just as there was a strong, worldwide reaction against slavery and the plantation economy, there were also sharp reactions against the abuse of workers, particularly women and children working in factories.
This is a woodcut dated 1853, depicting a supervisor in a factory beating a young boy. These are the emergent properties of capitalism, at least at that early stage. Beatings of child workers were common, and loud crying and wailing could be heard from the factories into the late hours of the night. 14 hours a day, seven days a week, earning a grand total of 50¢.
And people wonder why someone like Karl Marx would come along and rail against such a system.
But it wasn't just Marx. There were also liberals of that era who wanted to restrain capitalism, at least in terms of what it was doing on their home soil. There were liberal nationalists who believed in taking care of their own people and favoring social programs and improving living and working conditions for the common people, although the upper classes still resisted, particularly in Russia. In the U.S., liberalism started to gain some momentum, at least in terms of the labor movement and other reform movements started to gain support in the late 19th/early 20th century.
Capitalists realized that they had to reform, at least in terms of how they conducted themselves and treated their workers within their own countries. The wealthy classes realized that they had to change their ways, and so did the politicians. It wasn't all just due to bleeding-heart liberalism or compassion, but also out of practical necessity and way of engendering the loyalty of the common people in their homeland, from whom they would need support to maintain their empires and/or defend it from its enemies (who might have imperial aspirations of their own).
Socialism wasn't even on the map at this point. It existed as an idea, and there may have been some early experiments, but for the most part, it was an entirely capitalist world on the eve of World War I, but also a very nationalistic one.
You asked above: "What actually happens in the real world of imperfect humans running things?"
Leading the world to World War I - that's what a capitalist world leads to. That's one of its emergent properties. Note that I'm not saying that they planned it that way; I've never put much stock in the idea that the war was the result of a conspiracy of munitions makers. I think it was mostly the result of blind nationalism and arrogant stupidity. Capitalists tend to support it largely because their property interests are tied with the government that is pledged to defend those interests (and the interests of the whole country, theoretically).
It was at this point that socialism gained a foothold. Revolutionaries in Russia overthrew the Tsar in 1917, and the Kaiser was forced to abdicate in 1918, with an attempt by socialists to gain power, but could not. However, both countries would ultimately fall under dictatorships. The liberal western democracies, victorious in war and the U.S. virtually untouched, were in a pretty good position at this point. The French and British still had large empires (and stripped Germany of all her colonies as well), and the U.S. also had a booming economy, a minor empire in the Pacific, and continued hegemony over Latin America.
In terms of the "emergent properties" of capitalism and what actually happens in the world, U.S. (and by extension, the western capitalist world - to include Canuckistan since that's what you're using for example) started to look closer to what we might call a more finished product in terms of how we look at capitalism today. Labor unions were still struggling, but there was greater sympathy in the press. Plus, the rise of Bolshevism in Russia might have convinced a good many capitalists towards a more liberal consciousness, out of practical necessity. Besides, they could well afford it.
I know you don't like it when I write long posts, but you speak of socialists not living in the real world, but everything I'm writing here happened in the real world. You speak of comparing the emergent properties of both systems, but capitalism had a head start on socialism - and many of its emergent properties in the early days are considered abhorrent by today's standards.
Of course, you could say many aspects of socialism are abhorrent and malignant, such as the periods of Collectivization and Industrialization in Russia, as well as the Stalinist purges and show trials of the 1930s. Some socialists might argue that Stalinism is an atrocious and distorted aberration from Marxism.
Others have argued that socialism is antithetical to human nature and that it's a natural human response to resist it. This invariably causes socialist regimes to become more heavy-handed and forceful in the execution of their policies, which is how the end up becoming the dreaded dictatorships that so many people have grown to fear and loathe.
The argument seems to rest upon the notion that human nature is inherently greedy and selfish, and that drives and motivates people more than appealing to a sense of duty to the community and state. But statements like that about human nature are problematic, since "human nature" can be shaped by many things.
There's also some practical considerations. Getting back to Canuckistan and their "social capitalism," it sounds good in theory and all, but how long can it be sustained? We also need to look at what it actually takes to maintain and supply the populace and keep them at the bounteous, plentiful cornucopia of goods and resources of a luxury-driven, first-world economy. Their economy is multiply-linked to our economy, and if we go down, they go down - along with a lot of other countries tied in to the same global economic system.
It's easy to talk about the wonders of capitalism in the abstract, but it's also insufficient when discussing the practical reality of what we're facing and the tough questions we're going to have to answer. Another problem is the world itself and our dependence upon numerous other nations having stable governments in order to maintain commerce and keep this global capitalist machine running.
There's many countries in the capitalist world which are a total mess. Then we also have to deal with Russia and China. Russia isn't communist anymore, but they still seem to bother many of our leaders. China looked like it was going to stop being communist, but who can say? I think both are gripped by nationalism these days. I think we should try to work things out diplomatically, but with so many warmongers in our government, I don't know what will happen.
That's why we need a better organized system, one that's determined to get things done. Our current system is decrepit and outdated. Too many politicians, bureaucrats, and lawyers - and they all want their piece of the pie, dipping into the till, and feathering their own nests. The system is bloated with too much corruption and internal rot. If the warmongers get their way and do something incredibly stupid, we could be in for a world of hurt.
I don't know about their opinion in detail and consequently can't comment on it, but policies are based on consensus rather than individual opinions. What I clarified is demonstrably the case given that more than one pro-sex work member posts in the Feminist Only forum.
Fair enough. You're still welcome to post in SF if you feel like asking at any point.
That's a lot of text.I think people might tend to see things as they are actually are from their own viewpoint and personal experience. People from Beverly Hills might say "Capitalism is a wonderful system," while people living in South Central L.A. might see the same system from a completely different vantage point.
Seldom do people actually try to look at things from the other guy's shoes, which is why discussions over economic systems can often be contentious.
Case in point: There's a lot of people out there crowing about socialism and how it's so evil and bad, yet none of them stop to consider the possible reasons why there might be those who gravitate towards socialism. Such considerations never even enter their mind, and this is where much of the dispute begins and ends. I often feel like I have to explain the history of the entire labor movement in this and other countries, and many people still don't get the message.
Well, if we're talking about observing the emergent properties of a given system, then it would also require looking at the methods and history of how they got to the point they're at now. Canada and the United States came about as a result of colonists from Britain and other countries who settled and expanded on this continent, mainly seeking resources and profit. Even though we broke off from the British Empire while Canada remained British, our systems paralleled each other.
Capitalism is often associated with industrialism and the Industrial Revolution, which suggests that capitalism didn't really exist in previous eras. My view is that socialism came about as a reaction against capitalism and its underlying philosophy, although they didn't oppose capitalism because of industry or machines. But in its early days, capitalism wasn't quite so slick or organized as it later came to be. In fact, it was pretty bad and a lot of people reacted against it, such as the Luddite revolt (although I wouldn't consider them to be socialists). And just as there was a strong, worldwide reaction against slavery and the plantation economy, there were also sharp reactions against the abuse of workers, particularly women and children working in factories.
This is a woodcut dated 1853, depicting a supervisor in a factory beating a young boy. These are the emergent properties of capitalism, at least at that early stage. Beatings of child workers were common, and loud crying and wailing could be heard from the factories into the late hours of the night. 14 hours a day, seven days a week, earning a grand total of 50¢.
And people wonder why someone like Karl Marx would come along and rail against such a system.
But it wasn't just Marx. There were also liberals of that era who wanted to restrain capitalism, at least in terms of what it was doing on their home soil. There were liberal nationalists who believed in taking care of their own people and favoring social programs and improving living and working conditions for the common people, although the upper classes still resisted, particularly in Russia. In the U.S., liberalism started to gain some momentum, at least in terms of the labor movement and other reform movements started to gain support in the late 19th/early 20th century.
Capitalists realized that they had to reform, at least in terms of how they conducted themselves and treated their workers within their own countries. The wealthy classes realized that they had to change their ways, and so did the politicians. It wasn't all just due to bleeding-heart liberalism or compassion, but also out of practical necessity and way of engendering the loyalty of the common people in their homeland, from whom they would need support to maintain their empires and/or defend it from its enemies (who might have imperial aspirations of their own).
Socialism wasn't even on the map at this point. It existed as an idea, and there may have been some early experiments, but for the most part, it was an entirely capitalist world on the eve of World War I, but also a very nationalistic one.
You asked above: "What actually happens in the real world of imperfect humans running things?"
Leading the world to World War I - that's what a capitalist world leads to. That's one of its emergent properties. Note that I'm not saying that they planned it that way; I've never put much stock in the idea that the war was the result of a conspiracy of munitions makers. I think it was mostly the result of blind nationalism and arrogant stupidity. Capitalists tend to support it largely because their property interests are tied with the government that is pledged to defend those interests (and the interests of the whole country, theoretically).
It was at this point that socialism gained a foothold. Revolutionaries in Russia overthrew the Tsar in 1917, and the Kaiser was forced to abdicate in 1918, with an attempt by socialists to gain power, but could not. However, both countries would ultimately fall under dictatorships. The liberal western democracies, victorious in war and the U.S. virtually untouched, were in a pretty good position at this point. The French and British still had large empires (and stripped Germany of all her colonies as well), and the U.S. also had a booming economy, a minor empire in the Pacific, and continued hegemony over Latin America.
In terms of the "emergent properties" of capitalism and what actually happens in the world, U.S. (and by extension, the western capitalist world - to include Canuckistan since that's what you're using for example) started to look closer to what we might call a more finished product in terms of how we look at capitalism today. Labor unions were still struggling, but there was greater sympathy in the press. Plus, the rise of Bolshevism in Russia might have convinced a good many capitalists towards a more liberal consciousness, out of practical necessity. Besides, they could well afford it.
I know you don't like it when I write long posts, but you speak of socialists not living in the real world, but everything I'm writing here happened in the real world. You speak of comparing the emergent properties of both systems, but capitalism had a head start on socialism - and many of its emergent properties in the early days are considered abhorrent by today's standards.
Of course, you could say many aspects of socialism are abhorrent and malignant, such as the periods of Collectivization and Industrialization in Russia, as well as the Stalinist purges and show trials of the 1930s. Some socialists might argue that Stalinism is an atrocious and distorted aberration from Marxism.
Others have argued that socialism is antithetical to human nature and that it's a natural human response to resist it. This invariably causes socialist regimes to become more heavy-handed and forceful in the execution of their policies, which is how the end up becoming the dreaded dictatorships that so many people have grown to fear and loathe.
The argument seems to rest upon the notion that human nature is inherently greedy and selfish, and that drives and motivates people more than appealing to a sense of duty to the community and state. But statements like that about human nature are problematic, since "human nature" can be shaped by many things.
There's also some practical considerations. Getting back to Canuckistan and their "social capitalism," it sounds good in theory and all, but how long can it be sustained? We also need to look at what it actually takes to maintain and supply the populace and keep them at the bounteous, plentiful cornucopia of goods and resources of a luxury-driven, first-world economy. Their economy is multiply-linked to our economy, and if we go down, they go down - along with a lot of other countries tied in to the same global economic system.
It's easy to talk about the wonders of capitalism in the abstract, but it's also insufficient when discussing the practical reality of what we're facing and the tough questions we're going to have to answer. Another problem is the world itself and our dependence upon numerous other nations having stable governments in order to maintain commerce and keep this global capitalist machine running.
There's many countries in the capitalist world which are a total mess. Then we also have to deal with Russia and China. Russia isn't communist anymore, but they still seem to bother many of our leaders. China looked like it was going to stop being communist, but who can say? I think both are gripped by nationalism these days. I think we should try to work things out diplomatically, but with so many warmongers in our government, I don't know what will happen.
That's why we need a better organized system, one that's determined to get things done. Our current system is decrepit and outdated. Too many politicians, bureaucrats, and lawyers - and they all want their piece of the pie, dipping into the till, and feathering their own nests. The system is bloated with too much corruption and internal rot. If the warmongers get their way and do something incredibly stupid, we could be in for a world of hurt.
More germane to my prior posts is this question.
Pick one.
Under which system would you rather live...
Canuckistan
USSR
Ameristan
PRC
Denmark
N Korea
New Zealand
Cuba
Well, I think anyone here can look back and see that you and I have had many conversations about this topic in past threads. I've posted some rather long posts which I don't know if you read. You've complained about them, though, and often times you've dismissed whole paragraphs with a handwave. How do you know the answers to your posts aren't contained in what I'm actually writing if you don't even bother to read it?
I've even pointed out the entire premise of your position is faulty. You can't compare the US of today versus Russia from 100 years ago and then say "capitalism is better." All I've been saying is that socialism can and does get better with time, even if they did have problems.
Your contention all along has been that, to implement a socialist society in the United States would make the United States worse than it is now. This is a highly speculative argument which has no basis in historical fact. Fact: Russia got better under socialism than it was under the regime they overthrew. Fact: China got better under socialism than it was under the regime they overthrew. You keep ignoring this over and over and only countering with "well, they're still not as good as the U.S.," which may be true, but totally irrelevant.
The way I see it, if socialism can improve a country and make it better than it was before, then there's no reason it can't do the same in America.
I don't ask for further comment or for change.
It should end with this, since it's inappropriate
for this thread. I expected little or no discussion.
To look solely at pre & post Russia avoids the larger
issue of what economic & governmental systems work
best together. If a Czarist government & capitalist
economy aren't as good as a Stalinist government
& a socialist economy, this isn't a meaningful criticism
of capitalism because it doesn't compare either
to better alternatives. See post #116.
BTW, posts can be more powerful
when focused & succinct.
Last edited:
Fair enough, but at least you can't say I don't respond to your posts.
I don't think this is a fair choice. I don't live under a "system." I don't think in those terms. I live in a country, a place that's familiar to me and a place I consider my home. I'd rather not play the "love it or leave it" gambit.
I've explained my position. You don't agree, and that's fine. I might still be interested in your thoughts about why you don't agree, but if you don't want to share them with me, that's cool, too.
I will ask you this, as an honest question: Are you interested in history as a general subject?
Speaking generally, response is more about relevance than volume.
Time to agree to not agree.