|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
posted March 04, 2004 12:47 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You can't blame capitalism for how a business advertises either...
Well, watch me!  Capitalism is a system which aims for maximum profit, no matter the cost. It would sell its own mother (if it had one) for profit.
Quote:
Okay, dargon, redhawk, Consis, Celfious, and the rest of you debaters -- you guys need to come see if your presence at HC balances out this Ghandi-esque group of anarchists all huddled together down in the lower left corner at all -- ?????
Sure they stand no chance. And btw, we are not anarchists, we are socialists!
Oh, Peacemaker, I will add the new scores as soon as i can.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 04, 2004 12:51 AM |
|
|
And communism in practice is a system designed to oppress as many people as possible. Communism has never been successful in any country's government in the world.
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted March 04, 2004 12:55 AM |
|
|
"And communism in practice is a system designed to oppress as many people as possible."
LOL!  LOL!
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 04, 2004 01:00 AM |
|
|
That's what I thought when I read your post...
But seriously, true communism has never been achieved in a country. In the Soviet Union, Stalin took power after Lenin died. If no one had taken power, true communism may have formed.
Communism in practice has never worked and has led to the oppression of the people in that country.
____________
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted March 04, 2004 01:17 AM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 3 Mar 2004
|
okay, somebody explain this one...
Quote:
Astrology accurately explains many things.
Agreeing with this statement pushes your social score towards Authoritarianism. Disagreeing with it pushes your score towards Libertarian. The only explanation I can think of is that the test-makers associate disagreeing with astrology to an ability to think critically and an ability to think critically with a Libertarian worldview...hmmm. That's pretty iffy. Anyone got a better idea?
Edit: spelling
Edit 2: relevance:
Quote:
But seriously, true communism has never been achieved in a country.
And how often is "true" capitalism practiced? Even here in the States where free markets are highly valued, we have programs that are state-owned and industries that recieve government subsidies. Governments don't like to leave capitalism to its own devices because it chews up the weak and spits them out. Attacking the extremes isn't going to get your debate anywhere -- it just burns up a lot of strawmen.
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 04, 2004 01:52 AM |
|
|
It creates monopolies, exactly. It did in the 1800's before the government had laws on such behavior. It is a mutated form of capitalism here in the US, and throughout most of the world.
The mutated form of Communism that formed in the world had a harsh authoritarian rule that oppressed its people. People as a rule, want power. That's why communism in Russia didn't truely form, Stalin wanted power and he took it.
Stalin taking power may have been a good thing for the whole world if you step back and look at things. Would the USSR under any other leader have entered WWII to fight Hitler in the east? Hitler probably would have won if he didn't have to worry about the USSR.
____________
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted March 04, 2004 02:09 AM |
|
|
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -3.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.44
Dunno what that really means though.
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted March 04, 2004 12:07 PM |
|
|
Economic Left/Right: -9.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.23
Pretty far to the left, uh?
And not so far from my Anarchistic utopia as I'd feared?
Btw, how do you feel about the American law that denies anarchists entrance to the country?
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 05, 2004 01:13 AM |
|
|
OMG Asmodean -- you're more authoritarian than I am ?!?!?!?!
(I think not man.)
All of you who now us must seriously look at this test as questionable.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted March 05, 2004 01:20 AM |
|
|
Probably not, since I list one of my hobbies as 'rebelling'. But I'm probably just a conforming anti-conformist or some other silly sociological phrase.
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted March 05, 2004 03:02 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Communism has never been successful in any country's government in the world.
If no one had taken power, true communism may have formed.
Communism in practice has never worked and has led to the oppression of the people in that country.
You need a history lesson, Wolfie, which I don’t intent to give you right now. But however, I do intent to “enlighten” you with some common facts about communism.
The fact that communism has never been achieved, you are right about that, but some pretty much leftist ideologies have been implemented in many countries. Even today, free market capitalism, such as in USA, is hard-core communism compared to 19the century capitalism, the way it was then. I’m exaggerating a bit, but that’s the general idea.
You can’t claim that Soviet socialism was unsuccessful. What are your merits of success? Is it not success the advancement of Russia from a poor peasant feudal country (as it was before WW1) to a world superpower in only 50 years? Or take former Yugoslavia, China, for instance.
And please don’t blame communism for dictators like Stalin. Socialism has many faces. I thought you realized that from the compass here.
------------------
Quote:
Astrology accurately explains many things.
Khaelo, I don’t think this will satisfy you, but it’s worth a shot.
Maybe people who believe in astrology (superstitious people) are more subjective to control. Or maybe they believe in the cosmic order and therefore, government order. (No forget that, stupid one).
Or maybe it’s all those 3 reasons combined, you and I mentioned, as stupid as they sound, they all push a believer to the Authoritarian end.
As for this test, it guessed for me, but it is truly odd how few people got right-wing results.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
IYY
Responsible
Supreme Hero
REDACTED
|
|
posted March 05, 2004 04:26 AM |
|
|
To support communism, I'd also like to bring in the argument of the Kibbutz towns in Israel.
These socialist towns were born along with the state itself and are little community, usually rural but often industrial, that employ all the concepts of socialism. Inside the community all decisions are made by a council, there is hardly any capital, services of any sort are freely avaliable (in fact the schooling there is among the best in the country, I went to one of them), and work is assigned based on need and skill.
I never lived in such a community but I did study there and found that the people are much kinder and nicer than anywhere else, everybody is very open and friendly and happy to do their job (well, obviously not quite that great but much better than you'd expect in communist societies). You can feel that the people don't care about money as much.
Also, these communities are rather effective. Even though right now there are many conflicts in them due to war and such, but in the past this method was always very effective in production and the country was basically built on it.
Those of you who think of socialists as evil dictators like Stalin and also see Israel in the same way (thinking now "Ooh, everything is falling into place, these Arab hating Jews are also commies!") will be surprised to find out that pretty much every single Kibbutz believes in pacifism, is against the war and votes in its entirety for the Mertz party (the most peaceful one of them all).
Just some evidence that there is hope!
____________
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted March 05, 2004 05:11 AM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 4 Mar 2004
|
off-topicish diversion
Quote:
Maybe people who believe in astrology (superstitious people) are more subjective to control.
Why would they be more subject to control? Maybe insofar as astrology uses a system of destiny? Fate and the motions of the sky become a serious, unquestionable, and implacable authority. Someone who believes that things are simply destined to happen might have an easier time accepting that which is beyond their control, like authoritarian rule. (I dunno about superstition...superstitious behavior assumes that one does have control over one's surroundings.) Another aspect of astrology is immutability of character, so it would be easier to argue that one is "by nature" a follower or a leader. That also would play into authoritarianism.
The problem here is that the (modern) population I know of who buys into astrology tends to be very libertarian-oriented. While I can't think of a theoretical connection between astrology and libertarianism at the moment, the reverse connection is obviously quite tenuous. All of the characteristics of astrology I just listed are those built into the system's foundation, but those who practice the system spend a great deal of time and energy arguing against and trying to disprove those exact tendancies! There's something else going on here.
But that's neither here nor there for this thread. Suffice to say that that particular indicator makes some questionable assumptions.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled debate on economic systems...
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Wiseman
Known Hero
|
|
posted March 05, 2004 06:00 PM |
|
|
Economic Left/Right: -3.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.79
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 06, 2004 01:15 AM |
|
|
and now for a totally half-baked comment on communism...
Actually you are all correct that true communism has not been achieved -- at least in developed/developing countries. And, neither has complete free - market capitalism.
Two things: First, complete communism (defined as "from each according to his or her ability, to each according to his or her needs") was and is the way most lingering subsistence cultures flourished and continue to flourish. The reasons it works that way are manifold.
Tribal societies have historically been comprised of small, homogeneous groups of similar peoples, with a spiritual mentality that does not emphasize profit or individualism, but rather the family/group/clan and spiritual focus on ethics such a love of one's tribe and and connection with the creative forces. These societies tend to exist in subsistence economics with a very natural, basic lifestyle that permits all members to "work" for their lifestyle about one tenth to one twentieth the amount of time that members of "modern" cultures have to work in order to maintian their lifestyles.
In this isolated framework, communism worked very well for most of our ancsetors and still works very well for the remaining pockets of tribals around the world.
In these cultures, what you might think of as "progess" in the technological sense is practically non-existent. The whole worldview of Tribal cultures is that "progress" is an illusion tending to hypnotise its consitutents into participating in a grand machine of the state system which achieves an artifical sense of security by bringing lots of "stuff" into the lives of the constituents, at the cost of nearly half their lifetime working to procure the "stuff."
However, in the present nation-state system, nation-states must compete economically on a global basis in order to survive in the nation-state system. This makes "communism" in a pure sense idealistic and impracticable. This is the reason that the closest any modernized nation has ever gotten to communism is some variation of socialism.
On the other hand, pure capitalism was developed in a vaccuum as well, albeit in a modern paradim of progress and development. However, pure capitalism presumes a level playing field from the get-go (everybody starts with the same advantages like in the game "monopoly.")
However, the nation-state system has been imposed on conglomerations of pre-existing organic, tribal nations, most of which have an ethical foundation that does not presuppose profit as a basic ethic to the culture.
Therefore, the coerced membership of those nations by the frequently arbitrary drawing of boundaries to include inorganic elements to the consituency of the nation-state, leads to the result where there are seldom if ever situations where a "level playing field" exists.
Emmanuel Wallertsin would define this situation, that afflicts nearly every nation-state on the globe, as manifesting what he calls "segmentalism" -- the coerced inclusion of mutiple organic nations, almost always comprising a permanently, econically segregated underclass, which is usually (at least initially) considered less than equal to the populace of the "dominant culture" in some sense or another. This is where socialism enters the picture, for nearly every presumably capitalist nation of the world. Socialist elements of governemnt policy inflict every nation where permanently underclassed subcultures continue to be disadvantaged by their marginal status in society.
So, there are very practical reasons why neither pure communism nor pure capitalism have been permitted to flourish in the present nation-state sysem. The primary reason is the nation-state sysem, which has been artifially, mostly militarily imposed over the entire globe. The first (communism) assumes nothing but the tribal community, and the latter (capitalism) assumes the tribal community never existed.
Neither paradigm is realistic, given the current nation-state system.
More to come when this line of thinking gets more "baked" according to this particular line of thinking.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
gorman
Promising
Legendary Hero
Been around since before 2003
|
|
posted March 06, 2004 01:35 AM |
|
|
!... ...believe it or not but I just finished and got a plain 0 for all...:S is this...possible? I filled it out a second time and got the same result...:S
____________
When all else fails... Take notes.... ALL the time... ESPECIALLY when playing D&D.... or Pokemon in my case
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted March 06, 2004 01:53 AM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 5 Mar 2004
|
Updated Compass
PS: gorman, you are right in the middle.
Socialists still rule. 
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted March 06, 2004 06:19 AM |
|
|
Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.36
Hmm, at least my mom would be happy. And what's with all of you kooky liberals anyway?
I need to retake this test. I've got my job on the line here.
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
posted March 06, 2004 10:02 PM |
|
|
Yeah this is test is really bias towards liberals.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted March 09, 2004 11:06 PM |
|
|
Peacemaker, interesting approach you have there. Is it an extract (cause it’s in italics) by an expert or is it your own work (by expert )?
You are more on the “nationstate-tribes” line here, which you often promote. And it’s interesting stuff to read, esp. because you belong to such a special social group.
But, you seem to attack socialism, (the tribe where I belong) and my instinct tells me to stand for it now.
Firstly, I don’t think I can agree with the analogy you make about “tribal communism” and “state communism”. Although, they do function on the same “need-ability” principle, they are pretty different. Main difference – number. But a very huge difference here. Because, you see, the reason for “tribal communism“ being not too progressive, as you say, is technological progress. Very much agree. You cannot achieve an organization of labor within a group of hundred people or so, and have all their needs met. They can meet only the basic needs, food and clothing, and surely you cannot expect them to “assign scientists in order to research new technologies” (very roughly said).
Whilst in an ideal communist state, you would have an organization of labor, where scientific institutes will take it upon themselves the role of progress. It is the case today also, wouldn’t you agree? But the great advantage the capitalist society has over communist, in this case, is its lust for profit, which makes private companies through competition exploit and implement new technological developments a lot faster.
If you ask me, whether I’m prepared to sacrifice speed of technological progress, in order to achieve general happiness and egalitarianism, I undoubtedly agree.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
