Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Don't you think that sounds rather much like when it was asked how Rival's views work?
-
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!
Republicans Hate College Now, Apparently
- Thread starter Quintessence
- Start date
I think the point is (if I'm right):
Say there is no state, but a socialist economic system is in play.
Socialism requires taxes to be paid to the government in order to redistribute the money.
If there is no government, how is it that this should work?
I don't recall that.
I think maybe you should start a thread about what you believe politically. You are like me in that your politics is a big part of your life and identity and so doing that would be like coming out of the closet. Trying to hide it isn't good for you and will probably leave you unsatisfied. Mostly people won't care if you live and let live and the fear of what other people can think is often worse than their reactions.
Whilst I'm sure you will get the online equivalent of "odd looks" and knee-jerk reactions, you can afford to be open here and a little bolder. Maybe you can connect with people more on some issues even if not on others but it would help the feeling of isolation somewhat.
RF has helped me emotionally just to have the "option" of being more open on here. True, I'm not officially a Communist anymore even if I still think like one. I am much happier for getting it off my chest and trying to find ways to share the positives. It might be something worth giving a try.
I already made such a thread a while ago. It was met mostly with 'You're a communist - old school communist.' We all know what that meansI think maybe you should start a thread about what you believe politically. You are like me in that your politics is a big part of your life and identity and so doing that would be like coming out of the closet. Trying to hide it isn't good for you and will probably leave you unsatisfied. Mostly people won't care if you live and let live and the fear of what other people can think is often worse than their reactions.
Whilst I'm sure you will get the online equivalent of "odd looks" and knee-jerk reactions, you can afford to be open here and a little bolder. Maybe you can connect with people more on some issues even if not on others but it would help the feeling of isolation somewhat.
RF has helped me emotionally just to have the "option" of being more open on here. True, I'm not officially a Communist anymore even if I still think like one. I am much happier for getting it off my chest and trying to find ways to share the positives. It might be something worth giving a try.
I already made such a thread a while ago. It was met mostly with 'You're a communist - old school communist.' We all know what that means
Lol. Do you have a link? I might have missed that.
You're not a commie.I already made such a thread a while ago. It was met mostly with 'You're a communist - old school communist.' We all know what that means
You're Rival.
You participated
What Is This Political Position?
Rival, you spend your time writing erotic fiction. I think we both know you have much more imagination and ambition and years of practice in coming up with your beliefs than that thread would indicate. I know there is more and if you want people to accept you, ultimately you would need to be more open with them including showing your darker side.
We're both thought criminals who've tested the limits of what we think is acceptable and possible. I don't have to know what those beliefs are to know you enjoyed coming up with them.
I'm too busy eating chocolate gelt to care right now tho.Rival, you spend your time writing erotic fiction. I think we both know you have much more imagination and ambition and years of practice in coming up with your beliefs than that thread would indicate. I know there is more and if you want people to accept you, ultimately you would need to be more open with them including showing your darker side.
We're both thought criminals who've tested the limits of what we think is acceptable and possible. I don't have to know what those beliefs are to know you enjoyed coming up with them.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
There wouldn't be any taxes or need for such an approach to redistribution as we think of under a Capitalist society because everything is commonly owned. Food, for example, there wouldn't be a need to take in taxes to redistribute them as SNAP/food stamp benefits because everyone is already entitled to the food that is produced. (in theory, at least, socialists and communists like freeloaders no more than a capitalist)
Back on whatever page when I mentioned to whomever it was that her ideas do not really nicely or neatly fit under a "Left v Right" dichotomy because such a thing doesn't really work that well.
I think the definition of socialism changes with every person. This is the problem.
I agree.
That's why I gave her the Nolan Chart.
One version of it even had her picture near the bottom corner.
It's true!
Why would socialism have to be imposed, and why would the populace be unwilling?
A socialist country is just a large, citizen owned and run co-op, with the proceeds shared among the owners. Why would a powerful government be necessary?
There'll always be a large percentage of a population who want to go their own way,
rather than work for some organization of "the people". They would form economic
associations, eg, vendor, customer, manufacturer, retailer, employer, employee.
Were this permitted, the whole economy would drift in that direction....& there goes
socialism down the drain. So enforcement to prevent emergence of free markets
must be severe. Still, it happens to some extent with black markets, eg, the old
USSR was notorious for this.
People in Americastan could form cooperatives wherein they support each other,
share goods/services based upon need, & create a socialist system on a small
scale. But they don't in any noticeable numbers. Even socialists would rather
partake in capitalism when socialism isn't forced upon all.
There are no examples of it ever existing without an authoritarian government
to prevent natural capitalistic tendencies.
Why do you think socialism exists at all? If everyone just "naturally" goes along with capitalism, why would there have been any revolutions against it?
Naivete.
History teaches us that history teaches us nothing.
So the mistake will be repeated endlessly.
Everyone goes along until a large enuf segment doesn't.
There's just no pleasing people, eh.
But the salient point is that socialism cannot exist
without oppression to prevent the rise of capitalism.
This is one of the lessons of history that many socialists
won't learn.
But capitalism can exist without the need to suppress
socialism. Of all the socialists on RF, I think none have
gotten together with like minded folk to create such a
system. It's perfectly legal here.
Well, in the case of socialism, we're really only talking about recent history - past 200 years or so, coinciding with the Industrial Revolution. Some of the early forerunners of socialism were monarchists/nationalists like Napoleon III, Bismarck, the Kaiser, and others who felt that their nation's strength depended on the state's ability to marshal their collective resources, engender the loyalty of the populace, and have a more efficient, better organized society.
Their main drawback was their embrace of nationalism which caused them to fight each other and waste lives and resources in the process. We still seem to be stuck in that mode even today, with all the flag-waving and so forth. That's the lesson from history that has yet to be learned.
To be fair, the early industrialists and capitalists were quite abusive to the lower classes. History has also shown that people don't react well to abuse. They fight back. The early capitalists actually made it quite easy for socialists to gain a following, especially in places like Russia.
In the West, the capitalists of the 20th century (unlike their 19th century counterparts) eventually became smart enough to make deals with labor, so that working people could get a better taste of the good life. They learned from historical lessons like 1848, along with other violent events associated with labor unrest and the vast disparities between rich and poor.
As a result, socialism didn't gain as large a following in America or other Western countries. Moreover, many labor leaders went out of their way to oppose communism, since they didn't want to be tarred with that brush. Besides, the workers were getting better deals, their standard of living was improving by leaps and bounds. It seems clear that the government and ruling class were quite afraid of communism and the possibility of revolution, but in order to prevent the worst from happening, they had to compromise. As a result, the working classes fared much better in the middle part of the 20th century, which was the peak of America's industrial might and what many capitalists will point to today as an example of the "greatness" of capitalism (even though it was those pesky "socialistic" aspects which made life better for the common people).
The only reason socialism might be getting attention nowadays is because the capitalists and their supporters ostensibly want to eliminate and reverse the reforms of the 20th century and want to bring us back to the 19th century. It's a regressive philosophy in which its adherents are deliberately forgetting their history and the consequences of having large disparities between rich and poor.
Government is a necessary evil which can not exist without some level of "oppression," however one wants to define it. Oppression is necessary to maintain law and order, even in capitalist societies. You can't get away from it, no matter what system you embrace. The only real difference is whether oppression can work for the benefit of the collective whole, or if it works only to benefit the few at the top.
As far as what government actually does and how it operates in practice - that's more a reflection of the culture, resources, and level of development of the individual nation - not so much a systemic issue. Two main examples: Russia and China. They were both brutal and oppressive before their communist revolutions. They remained brutal and oppressive during communist rule. And now that both have turned capitalist again, they're still brutal and oppressive. That's just the way they are. It has nothing to do with being socialist or capitalist. It's just what their culture and environment have raised them to be.
That's the lesson that many capitalists wantonly refuse to learn, erroneously believing that everything hinges on an abstract "system" which totally removes the human element.
Capitalists did find the need to employ strikebreakers, though. They also felt the need to engineer various Red Scares, McCarthyism - along with a Cold War and nuclear brinkmanship which could have conceivably led to the end of all life as we know it. Capitalism needed all that and much more to be able to survive, not to mention all that they did to gain their wealth in the first place - colonialism, imperialism, slavery, racism, genocide. Not exactly a clean track record.
Nowadays, many capitalists try to tout a whitewashed, historically revisionist version of "capitalism" which never really existed in practice.
Whether it's "legal" or not would have to be explored in greater detail. Some people believe that being a "sovereign citizen" is legal, but whenever people try to actually do it, it doesn't work.
There are employee-owned companies, though.
Then there's the Amish and some forms of "collective" ownership that might exist among certain tribes, such as with gaming casinos, tobacco shops, etc. I'm not sure how that works in practice, though, as I get the sense that there's various clan rivalries within the tribes. It's not exactly copacetic.
Monarchies as socialism?
Nah!
Abuse of the lower classes is a feature which is independent of economic systems.
Capitalism, feudalism, socialism....any one can be either benevolent or abusive,
while still adhering to its fundamental defining characteristics.
The rabble don't ever appear to understand that which they'd replace an existing system with.
I don't apply the word, "oppression", to all governments.
To do so would deprive it of useful meaning.
"Oppression" is when governmental control is onerous.
One can criticize every economic system ever imagined for its flaws.
I don't deny them.
But the issue I've tried to explain is that socialism differs from capitalism
by the necessity of oppression to prevent voluntary economic association.
Capitalism creates an environment wherein voluntary socialism can exist.
I said "forerunners" of socialism, not that they were actually socialists.
Why do you say that? Who are the "rabble"?
But that's subjective and open to interpretation. It mostly depends on whose ox is gored.
I disagree with the view that there is a "necessity of oppression." In our own mixed economy, we have been able to combine elements of socialism and capitalism which have not prevented voluntary economic association. Western European socialism has demonstrated that it can work, and they have a better quality of life than we do.