|
Post by Angel Aries on Feb 2, 2003 18:02:08 GMT -5
Also please name a time when the United States military took any action on a socialist nation.
|
|
|
Post by NeoEllis on Feb 3, 2003 15:44:40 GMT -5
The US has directly attacked both Cuba (the "Bay of Pigs") and the Soviet Union (right after the 1917 revolutuion).....oh and don't forget about Vietnam and Korea.
|
|
|
Post by Angel Aries on Feb 3, 2003 21:37:28 GMT -5
Ellie, Aries thought you would know the difference better than anyone.
Neither North Korea, nor the Soviet Union, nor Cuba, nor even so far as Vietnam were ever considered socialist.
All four of those countries were (read it an' weep) Communist nations, not Socialist.
The fact is, Ellie, that Communism and Socialism are a lot alike in the fact that they both look good on paper, they're both easily corrupted, they both failed miserably (which is actually kinda sad), but Socialism is somewhat different from Communism in that the former wasn't hated nearly as badly as the latter, and it went out with a much quieter bang.
If either socialism or communism were such great and wonderful ideas, why didn't either one of them stick? If they were the truly righteous cause, using your supposed evidence that America did take action against a socialist nation, why weren't they able to defend themselves better?
Ellie, Aries will tell you straight, and Aries is not making this personal, so Aries would appreciate the same. Hear these words from Aries, and at least try to see the truth in them:
Neither Communism nor Socialism works in the modern world, nor does it look like either will in the forseeable future. It does not work, and the only reason we hear anything of it anymore is when it pops its head up to annoy the world.
Look, capitalism isn't fair. It's not. Aries knows the bad side of it full well. Then again, evolution wasn't very fair either, and evolution got us to the point where we are, discussing this very topic right now. The strong survive. The weak don't. And yet there is another facet to things, a purely human facet: it is the truly honorable amongst the strong who help the few weak who do not belong amongst them.
We as human beings cannot save everyone. It's like trying to cross a river with a battalion, knowing there's a battle on the other side you have to fight. You can either pick the huge battalion of weak soldiers and get them all across, knowing full well you'll lose some to the river unless you take your time, or you can take the smaller battalion of the strong, get across quickly, and still have enough punch to fight.
In tactics, and in finances, and in life, sacrifices have to be made. We can't save everyone, especially those who can't or should not be saved.
|
|
|
Post by NeoEllis on Feb 4, 2003 16:13:55 GMT -5
Well first off all, your right, I would know better than anyone else on this board. Aries, I'm sorry but your just plain wrong there.
Communism is a more radical, more advanced variation of socialism. I've known and studied this for years and my father teaches a college class on Marx, so no matter which way you spin it, I'm right here. I can't think of any better way to explain it; it's just a hard fact.
In all of those countries (i.e. the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), the government held ownership of the means of production (i.e. factories, farms, etc).
In a communism, the proletariat (the people) has control of the means of production. Socialism comes first because it is necessary to put laws in place to ensure right for workers. In a communism the state has all but disappeared because the needs of the proletariat have been fully met. It is not likely that in the near future or maybe even ever true communism will arise, that is why all governments favoring the proletariat over the bourgeosie are called socialisms. When people talk about communism, they generally mean scientific socialism (USSR, China).
It's true that many (but by no means all) scientific socialisms have been unsuccessful, but do you know why?
Marx predicted that socialism would first arise in the most industrially advanced nations (like the USA, Japan, Germany etc) and the fruits of that industry would be evenly spread out. But most of us know that scientific socialism arose in the poorest of counties. Therefore, they could not focus on social benefits and instead on industrialization. This process was not what socialism was intended for so many socialist nations had to greatly modify socialism to suit their needs. This lead to a multitude of problems that often caused the downfall of many socialist states.
No offence Aries( I want to keep this strictly political as well) but you really don't have a strong concept of Marxism. If you can't even tell the difference between socialism and communism, then you need to take some time a reorganize your argument, it lacks structure.
|
|
|
Post by CygnusMkII on Feb 4, 2003 16:18:19 GMT -5
Wow, Aries, you got whipped. Ellis completely covered it.
|
|
Triyun
GM III
Correct me if I'm wrong but are you asking for a Challenge!!!!!!!!
Posts: 739
|
Post by Triyun on Feb 4, 2003 20:18:41 GMT -5
I don't think Aries got whipped, socialism didn't emerge in the poorest countries at first, the idea came about in Europe. It failed in the industrialized countries to gain any steam as a political movement. Eugene Debbs the socialist canidate got easily beaten in 1912 and he's the only ever serious socialist canidate in the United States. German socialist states during the post great war period collapsed. Socialist programs have worked in the industrialized nations but the economic system itself has failed. Even in China and back when the USSR was still around people's living conditions improved upon a move towards capitalism. If you want to see the difference between a socialist system and a capitalist system look at North Korea and South Korea, or what was east germany and West Germany. The Capitalist side did better. And for the record we didn't invade North Korea we defended against there aggression against the south leading a UN task force. There's a big difference. The fact remains socialism has failed in every major country its tried to be implemented on a large scale, welfare, social security, and universal health care are good ideas but a socialist based economy fails.
|
|
|
Post by CygnusMkII on Feb 5, 2003 17:19:32 GMT -5
I don't think Aries got whipped, I'm just saying that he was very wrong about everything in his postie, as you can see above. Well, of course is emerged in Europe, remember a little someone named Marx? And Europe in Marx's time was very poor. There were a few hundred fabulously rich families, and the rest were dirt poor. That isn't what I call wealthy. That's the key word; United States. Of course socialism can't arise here! Nearly everyone in the U.S. is an idiot. You very well know that the U.S. has the lowest educational standards of all the industrialized countries in the world, and that's a fact that a badly educated populus will reflect on our government directly. Well, not directly, seeing that the U.S. isn't a democrocy. Well, if we could keep the government from corrupting, that would all be different. Uh huh.... the living conditions were better in Czarist Russia. Let's face it, things changed for the better with the revolution. Stalin is a different story, not socialism itself. I bet the Soviet Union would still be here is Trotsky had come to power. "Better"? What the hell is better anyway? One percent of the state having 60% of the wealth and the remaining ninety-nine percent getting whatever is left over? I don't think so. Honestly, I'd rather have everybody be poor than having a few people leach the labour from everbody else. Well the point is that we entered their war to keep big corperations from losing money. Death for money. Death for oil in the case of Iraq, of course oil is money. The fact remains that capitalism isn't much better. Look at Indonesia, many african countries, India, the Phillipines, the list goes on. Anyway, what about Chile? Chile isn't a major country? It hasn't worked? Oh, wait, capitalism happened to have skrewed it over.
|
|
|
Post by Exile on Feb 24, 2003 15:30:36 GMT -5
*Grabs head*
AHH! What kind of topic is this! Mr. Ellis! You might as well wipe your ass with the constitution right now if you want a socialist nation! You know why we are the greatest nation in the world? Morality! Socialism leads people to not give 2 shits about anything! Why bust my ass to be a brain surgon when I can be no better off that Johnny down the street someking pot all day then working at the Kwik-E-Mart? You want your every right taken away? Fine, go to a socialist nation and live there, have fun!
|
|
|
Post by CygnusMkII on Mar 1, 2003 18:46:17 GMT -5
*Grabs head* AHH! What kind of topic is this! Heh, one for someone who can handel the thinking prosses. Actualy, the constitution was basical made for this country to be fair, just, and have equality. i.e. Socialism. As Marx said, communism will best arise in the most wealthy nations. Heh, proof please. Well, in a socialism, people will get paid more with the jobs they do, but the gap won't be as huge as it is in the States. Income will also be determined by number of family members, therefore the government will limit the number of children a person can have, in turn limiting over population. Every right, huh? I wouldn't have my right to a free education, right of sexuality, right of music, right of books, right to a chosen leader. or anything taken away in a socialism. The government would just control the aspects of my life that they should conrtrol. i.e. laws, healthcare, curriculum, land, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Exile on Mar 2, 2003 0:02:40 GMT -5
*Attempting to stay calm*
Cyg..... You like it there in those other countries so much.... Get the fuck out of here and move there. If this country was founded on socialism, why was it called a republic? In the states, people make what they deserve, the gap is there because it should be. The government controlls land? What do you mean by that? OH! Right, they tell you where to live.... Great. Get stuck in some shithole. No where does it say free speach in your little socialism bilboard. Stand by for vocabulary:
Main Entry: so·cial·ism Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m Function: noun Date: 1837 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
Yeah, thats how I wanna live my life.
|
|
|
Post by Maverick on Mar 2, 2003 0:19:02 GMT -5
ok, Exile, calm down, this place is for civilized debates, you're just swearing up a storm, you complained about me telling you to "shut the hell up", why do I do that? Because you're not being civil, look, I'm cracking down on you because ofg that, there is no room for swearing in a civilized debate, do you see anyone else swearing like you? No, you're just showing your weak mind at work. So, if you don't like it, and will swear, then don't post.
|
|
|
Post by Zorak on Mar 2, 2003 11:48:25 GMT -5
Also, you do realize that Socialism and Communism basically drops a Nuke on the whole concepts of Stock, Rewards for Extra Work, and People-With-Harder-and-Life-Threatening-Jobs-Get-more?
I mean, do you think some guy working at a Blimpies should get more than Mr. Aries, who's in the Military? I think not. Stock Market CANT EXIST, since everyone makes the same amount of money.
And actually, Money can't exist either since people who own a better item to be sold will get more money then someone else, and then Capitalism comes back! So you guys wouldn't allow that.
And if someone works overtime or does something fantastically great in their job, shouldn't their boss be able to give them a Bonus or a Raise?
Socialism DESTROYS Competition. Competition brings choice. Choice brings Freedom. Freedom brings HAPPINESS.
Schwing!
|
|
|
Post by Angel Aries on Mar 2, 2003 12:13:25 GMT -5
'Mister'?!
*punts.*
Lieutenant, thank you!
But that is actually a fairly good point of contention right there...
...and, of course, gives more credence to the idea that the philosophical enemy of my philosophical enemy is the one unlucky son of a gun who agrees with me...
|
|
|
Post by NeoEllis on Mar 2, 2003 14:28:25 GMT -5
*sigh*
I hate it when people talk about things they don't understand.
That depends on how much relative work they are doing.
Hey hold on now Zorak, when did I say that everyone would have equal wages? It's these kind of baseless biases that breads anti-socialism. To quote the CPUSA:
"It does NOT equalize wages. Wages vary according to occupation and efficiency, although everyone is guaranteed a liveable wage."
Also, who cares whether or not the stock system is in place? In case you haven't noticed, it hasn't been doing that well. The top buyers and sellers play with people's lives to make money they don't need.
A money less economy is communism not scientific socialism, that's very far off. Get your facts strait.
Sure, why not?
Capitalism DESTROYS Democracy. Capitalism brings imbalance to the economy (the rich and the poor). This imbalance allows the rich to influence and take control of the government. Upper class control of the government brings SORROW.
|
|
|
Post by Angel Aries on Mar 2, 2003 14:35:12 GMT -5
Ellie. It doesn't work. It's not gonna work here, because nobody is in much of a mood to try it out.
SO WILL YOU PLEASE SHUT UP ABOUT IT BEFORE ARIES GOES OUT OF HIS MIND?!!!!
Jeez!!! Aries can only deal with SO MUCH dogma before he goes bonkies, ferchristssake!!!
|
|