Inkbunny

Look at the west. Now look at a communist country like Venezuela. Better or worse? Another way to put it would be, would you rather live in the western capitalist democracies or Cuba/Venezuela/DPRK etc? Yes, capitalist, democratic countries that value the individual at the centre of law are vastly superior in every conceivable way to communism.

Harleking

9 years ago

link

Edited 9 years ago by Owner

Well at the moment sure it's better in the west (but even here not for all that's a thing that in capitalistic systems get overseen realy easy)
The realy problem with the capitalism isn't his governmental form (trust me capitalism even work with oligarchy realy well) it's the economic system what will make the problems one day. as soon the scissors between poor mass and rich elite get's to wide (and that will happen, it's just a matter of time) the conditions and the demograthy (or at least the democratic freedom) will crumble too.

Like I said, in the long view both have there problems. Communism fails in the greed and egoism of humanity and can only be enforced by force. And the Capitalism fails because it based on the greed and egoism of humanity.
In the end both fails because humanity fails. (kinda ironical..)

RoareyRaccoon

9 years ago

link

If capitalism fails, why have western countries been the most successful in human history for more than a century? Individualist, secular, capitalist democracies are the best thing humanity has thus far come up with. I believe, of course, there can always be improvements and progress, but the left has got to stop being socialist/communist first. The main reason we see so much dirty laundry from capitalist democracies is because they are honest enough to publish national statistics. Dictatorships hide all their misdeeds.

Harleking

9 years ago

link

Edited 9 years ago by Owner

Honesty don' help the suffering. Calling problems by name don't solve them. In western counrties starve the poor. They freeze on the street 'cause they have no home. The capitasim (by the way capitalism have nothing to tdo with democraty, one is a economy system the other a governmental system, capitalysm would work in despotism too yes even in a theocracy) based on the concept thet the elite have "earn" her benefit (how doesn't matter) and the other hand doesn't matter anymore. I'm not sure if this realy an succes.

But ya ask about capitalysm fail. I never sait it already does, I only say it will do one day. Money is a finite resource and at least when it's concentratet on a small amount of people (what it is already to a huge stage) the system can't hold themself anymore. Or to explain it easy, as soon not enough people have the money anymore to buy stuff the economy and with it the system will fall
Look at 1924 to what can happen (just with an other trigger)
Ya see now what I mean with capitalysm is no solution on a long side?

And again, I differend democraty and capitalism 'cause both don't require each other.

RoareyRaccoon

9 years ago

link

People aren't starving and freezing to death in western countries. There are poor people, there are homeless, there are always people who fall off the deep end and end up fucked. But if you look at somewhere like Venezuela, which is communist, the hospitals have no gloves or soap and people are queuing up in the streets to get food from dumpsters. In the west, there are free soup kitchens, food banks for the very poor. Hell, in the USA most food stamps are used to buy candy, that's how hungry people behave is it? There's also an obesity epidemic. There is always a poor minority who suffer no matter where you go but in communist places that poverty exists for the MAJORITY.

Harleking

9 years ago

link

I throught we have already cleared that communissm isn't good? I never disagree with that, so ya don't have to adduce it as "argument" if I name the problems with the capitalim. Just 'cause somethign else is more worse then an other don't make the thing that is less worse good in general. Just 'cause I say that pest is more worse then cholera doesn't mean that cholera is something that is desirable .

What I wanna say is that capitalism has also his problems, and over time this problems will get worse for sure. And that I advocate that we have to look fo alternatives to both systems with less problems (or at least problems we just don't see from now) that's how sociaty works. Or at least should work.

RoareyRaccoon

9 years ago

link

I agree that it does have its problems, but it also has an enormous amount of good, which is very rarely ever appreciated. It's not beneficial to ONLY criticise. So I like to stick up for what we've got because it's actually fantastic.

Harleking

9 years ago

link

Sure it has a lot of beneficial too. Nobody disagree with that. But I still think, we (as humanity) should build upon this beneficial, eliminate the problems that the system necessarily brings with them and try to create something new based on this (as far as possible, I still think it would fail on humanity like everything, but thats still an other philosophy)

Roketsune

7 years, 9 months ago

link

Many Western countries are socialistic, not capitalistic. Including yours, I believe.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 9 months ago

link

@ Roketsune

You're as bad as a creationist, parroting the same old easily-discredited crap. Look up the definition of socialism. Western countries are capitalist. Some have expanded welfare systems. It is that simple, always has been that simple, so find another record to play.

Tai

9 years ago

link

Capitalism worked great when the united states tried it.
Shame they stopped.

MviluUatusun

8 years, 10 months ago

link

@ Tai

Hear, hear. With the implementation of the graduated income tax system in the early 20th Century, where success was punished and failure was praised as success AND the implementation of FDR's socialist "reforms", the middle class, which is the backbone of any capitalist society, diminished until it was no longer large and strong enough to support the country. What this country needs to do is repeal the Income Tax Amendment and replace it with a fair sales tax which limits what the government can enforce, 15% for example, except during times of declared war. BTW, contrary to what we're taught in school it wasn't FDR's socialist reforms which ended the Great Depression. It was World War II which put people to work, thereby expanding the middle class. After all, FDR had over 8 years for his ideas to work; they didn't.

CottonCandyPanda

9 years ago

link

Who can say for sure. All I know is that Capitalism BUILDS nations while Socialism and Communism DESTROYS them.

Harleking

9 years ago

link

Argentina, Greece . Lands that are in the process to be "destroyed" by the proceedings of capitalism..
The whole capitalims based on the princip that for every profit one side achieved an other have to suffer. And Nations are no exeption in there.

CottonCandyPanda

9 years ago

link

Edited 9 years ago by Owner

Capitalism is wrecking places like Greece because of the WAY it was implemented by their government, not because Capitalism is a failure. One of the factors that shows how fucked up Greece is would be in the way it taxes its citizens. In the United States, if your income is below a certain amount you don't get taxed.

Greece however, you get taxed no matter what, and that leads to fines and sentencing because they can't afford what they're being taxed.

Harleking

9 years ago

link

Primary it was a miscalculation and speculation that leads to the bankrot of greece. Speculator seeing profit in the bankrot of greece and they start actions that influence the creditworthiness in such a bad way that the goverment couldn't hold his national finances anymore. And btw just to make clear, the creditworthiness of US isn't that great anymore too. That means it could happend to them also one day. There are nearly no countrys in the world that are free of liabilities.

Roketsune

7 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 9 months ago by Owner

Scandinavia and France seem to be doing rather well, and they're quite socialistic. Sweden would be doing far better if they didn't feel it necessary to take in as many Muslim refugees from culturally inferior shitholes as possible and just let the savages resolve their own problems, but otherwise that's a great place. Switzerland's great to work and live in and they're socialistic as well, IIRC.

DeactivatedKobold

9 years ago

link

the only thing i can say socialism had done for us is give us some of the government programs we have today. i feel like there should be a balance, touching on the ideals of socialism while maintaining that the individual is important. I'm probably just blowing smoke out my ass though.

RoareyRaccoon

9 years ago

link

@ DeactivatedKobold

If socialism was a good idea, it would work. Since it doesn't, it isn't a good idea. The ideals of socialism are morally reprehensible, they involve the concept of equity (all are equal regardless of effort or merit) and the seizure of property for state redistribution. A denial of basic human nature, the removal of personal progress, the theft of other peoples' labour to give to those who haven't earned it. There is nothing of value in socialist doctrine, we can and do derive our moral and ethical values from other philosophical and cultural sources, such as the enlightenment, christian mythology and individualism. Socialism is collectivist, only the state, the nation matters, not the individual. So you are sacrificed in every possible way to "the greater good". We know how that turns out. Socialism belongs in a museum, alongside Fascism.

DeactivatedKobold

9 years ago

link

so i am just blowing smoke out my ass. good to know.

Roketsune

7 years, 9 months ago

link

Have you bothered looking outside your own failing SJW-dominated country for examples of socialism? You don't have to look far to find fellow Western European nations which are socialistic in nature and do fine. Just because Venezuela is a dystopian shithole doesn't mean that's representative of a socialistic society.

TheAtomicDog

9 years ago

link

Mmm.
Low hanging fruit.
Change the object of condemnation to traditional Christianity and then we'll see some sparks.

Challenge level: the atrocities of "communist" Russia and China are not because they're commie or Marxist, but because they're Russia and China.

Vincentive

9 years ago

link

Mmm. More pretentious than usual. Christianity is the low hanging fruit compared to the other Abrahamic religions tbh.

Vincentive

9 years ago

link

Isn't "that wasn't real communism" a self-evident fallacy? Because communism leads to dictatorship virtually every time doesn't make it a result of communism ideology but of... culture? The human condition?

We don't have matter/energy converters, so I don't see it working anywhere until then.

The ways it has manifested itself without said matter/energy converters is a despot takes over after a violent revolution and proceeds to dictate what each individual needs. I don't know why this leads to mass starvation. Or why Venezuelans sneak across borders for commodities like soap and toilet paper these days.

TheAtomicDog

9 years ago

link

Mankind has never encountered a fully "real communism" system the same way it has never encountered a true free market system. America herself has always been a command economy, with the conflict being between who issues the commands, government as an agent of the people or government as an agent of big business.
"Socialism" is merely a full return to the old Feudalism system of old: all-dictating central government, heavily and simply stratified society with a nobility (communist party), the military and then the sprawling peasantry supporting the whole thing. In Russia and China, their communism really was just a re-dress of the out-of-vogue feudalist system from the 19th Century. Compare them carefully. What actually changed in those two countries except the titles and the uniforms? ALL THAT SAID, is cannot be denied that the average Russian actually fared better under the commie yoke than the yoke of the Christian Czars. And then one considers the amazing free-market policies adopted by China since the Wall fell...
"Because communism leads to dictatorship virtually every time doesn't make it a result of communism ideology but of... culture? The human condition?"
Does not absolute power corrupt absolutely? The first time that Christianity ever embraced any concept of freedom or liberty was with the founding of the USA. And that was considered an heretical act at the time. And certainly history teaches us that despotism does not need the excuse of any Marxist doctrine to take root. The term "despot" itself is antique in origin, after all.

Vincentive

9 years ago

link

While I find the reference to Czarist Russia to be a bit of a deflection, I agree that the USSR was almost an improvement. I read Hitchens' take on it a few years ago, though he did consider himself a Marxist for the longest time. While the deaths to attributed to the USSR are in the tens of millions, despite those slaughtered and imprisoned under the Czar, the Czarist secret police's propagation of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" has had an enormous influence on Europe especially and was one of the factors that led to the waging of the second world war itself. That and the (((Rothschilds))).

TheAtomicDog

9 years ago

link

What defletion? If you wish to understand Russian communism, then understand the soil in which it sprouted. The same with China.

Vincentive

9 years ago

link

It was a deflection because it had nothing to do with my point. To my point, you say that "despotism does not need the excuse of any Marxist doctrine to take root."

My point was not that any one case of despotism was a result of communism but that every case of communism results in despotism.

Also, did you read the rest of what I said? I was attempting to find a common ground, or bridge some kind of gap.

CottonCandyPanda

9 years ago

link

Edited 9 years ago by Owner

"	MrSOCKS wrote:
	Does not absolute power corrupt absolutely?

That's bullshit right up their with money being the root of all evil! Power enables people to become who they really are, so if the power drove someone "mad", then it's because they were already some kind of megalomaniac. It was just that they were in no position to act on their true nature until they had the means to do so without guarantee of retribution.

When you're weak (doesn't matter in what), you act carefully to not get stomped on by the giants. If you want to see how someone really is, you give them power, see how they treat people they don't need to be nice to, people who they could get away with treating like dirt. You look to how someone treats their lessers, not their equals or betters to find out the kind of person they are. ANYONE can and will be nice if there's a high chance they'll get slapped into the ground or worse if they don't.

TheAtomicDog

9 years ago

link

And yet history is full of people who start out virtuous and well-meaning, who end up monstrous and corrupt because they couldn't handle the power they were given. Robert Mugabe is an easy example, with the French Jacobins' Reign of Terror another.
Power "going to their head" is a mainstay of political disaster across human history.

CottonCandyPanda

9 years ago

link

Edited 9 years ago by Owner

I can only refer back to the original point. You might as well say humanity is inherently evil while you're at it far as I'm concerned. All too easy for anyone to act clean cut until they're in a position until they don't have to be. Plenty of examples of such people in the history books.

In fact, I'd be more willing to give my trust to someone who was honest about their greed and lusts rather than anyone claiming to be virtuous for any reason. Many a heinous act happens in the name of morality.

TheAtomicDog

9 years ago

link

Mankind has equal capacity for good and evil. That is not news.
"I'd be more willing to give my trust to someone who was honest about their greed and lusts rather than anyone claiming to be virtuous for any reason."
This does seem to be how Trump got elected.

Roketsune

7 years, 9 months ago

link

I very much love and agree with this point you made. Bravo!

TheAtomicDog

9 years ago

link

All the Abrahamic religions are monstrous. They are all based in bloodletting, warfare, genocide, systemic abuse and terrorism. Their histories are filled with torture, wanton destruction, inflicted miseries, rampant and rationalized corruption, and often outright whoredom. But when a religion is based upon the fear-driven worship of so wretched a diety, what should one expect?
http://inktank.fi/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Spock-on-...

RoareyRaccoon

9 years ago

link

And yet, for all that, socialism is even worse. Modern christianity is not the monster it was, secularism, individualist, free, capitalist democracies have tamed and tempered it. Socialism raises all cultures it touches to the ground within decades, yet USA is doing just fine despite a majority of its citizens being religious. Making excuses for socialism, avoiding criticising it by pointing at something else, is pathetic and shame on you for being intellectually dishonest enough to do it.

TheAtomicDog

9 years ago

link

A world rid of all these miseries is entirely desirable.
"Modern christianity is not the monster it was..."
But should Christianity even been a monster to begin with? The church became so corrupted so quickly-- starting with Paul-- that it became precisely the kind of heavily political, materialistic, power-hungry, Mammonistic demon-whore that the Christ himself preached against.
The forces of progressive liberalism have not tamed Christianity in as much they have held the evil of the church at bay. Should those bastions of human dignity that are progressive liberalism ever be overthrown, the church will instantly regress to its ancient ways of tyranny, terrorism and misery. Because in the eyes of the church, it's their duty to do so.

RoareyRaccoon

9 years ago

link

Er, no. Traditional Christianity has been a stable belief system for hundreds of years, the individualist philosophy comes from protestant christianity. There are evils in religion when one treats them with unquestioning dogmatism but you'll find the moral foundations of humanity itself written into the christian mythology. Socialism is a more modern invention that directly results in hell on earth, which is why every single time, no matter what the place, it results in a dictatorship of the proletariat, which translates into authoritarian party state ruled by the most ruthless people. If you bother to study it and how it works, you will know this for a fact. Doesn't matter what society it's tried in, people do not work hard and strive for anything when they have only some utopian vision of the great society for comfort. People strive to better themselves, to gain from their labours. Socialism dictates that this very thing is a form of oppression in society and all should work for the benefit of the many at their own expense. To do this requires theft of the labour of the best people to redistribute it to the rest, since that requires coordination and authority, the state becomes owner of all produce and labour and arbiter of the redistribution. The result is the elite at the top do what they like, nobody makes an effort and everybody ends up equally poverty-stricken and starving. Every, single, time. As the old Soviet joke goes: "They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work.".

Low-hanging fruit my ass.

TheAtomicDog

9 years ago

link

Edited 9 years ago by Owner

"Traditional Christianity has been a stable belief system for hundreds of years". Stability should not be mistaken for "free", or "just", or "equitable", or even "righteous". And traditional? Seeing has how the Bible condemns both tradition and traditionalists more than anything else, how Godly should traditions be viewed?

To be clear, I am not supporting socialism. But socialism is hardly alone in inflicting those miseries that your submission lists. Both Christianity and my own United States of America has gambled lives in the millions just to prove itself correct, the first many times more than the second. Indeed, gambling so many lives that are not your own just to be proven right, is called "warfare". Mankind loves that shit.
The reason I called this submission "low hanging fruit" is that I sense your originality slipping. To attack Marxism is to attack terrorism: the epitome of rhetorical ease. Your original political submissions used to be more sharp in their provocation than this.

RoareyRaccoon

9 years ago

link

So what? I've drawn tons of anti-religious cartoons over the past decade. This one is about socialism. Not religion, not other forms of evil, one form of evil, socialism.

TheAtomicDog

9 years ago

link

Your commentary as a whole was once sharper, regardless of the subject matter. Here (in the submission that is) you're just talking belligerent trash.
You ARE better than this.

RoareyRaccoon

9 years ago

link

Belligerent truth, you mean XP. There's nothing false about my cartoon here, it isn't trash. And no, I've always been this sharp, you just see it differently when what I've expressed is more in line with your own beliefs.

TheAtomicDog

9 years ago

link

Your attitude's trash. All this snarley nonsense should be beneath you. You can catch more flies with honey, you know.
And stop belching out these pablum talking points. And instead unilaterally telling people what they mean, perhaps ASKING them what they mean might profit you?

RoareyRaccoon

9 years ago

link

The reason I'm aggressive and making a moral argument is because that's all the left does. They paint conservatives as vicious, selfish scum. I'm turning that around on them, because socialism is morally evil, truly revolting. Being angry with it creeping into policy around the world is the correct response. I'm not here to conform to your expectations or provide content that's up to your personal standards, which you never have to meet yourself. If you don't like what I produce, don't give it the time of day.

TheAtomicDog

9 years ago

link

Being as petulant and spiteful as those whom you declare immoral does not give you any moral high ground. It merely proves you to be just as bad as them, just in a different direction. By becoming like them, you allow them the victory because you let them change you into them. Talking trash at the trash-talkers only produces more trash. Slap them with the evidence as to how bad practiced Marxism is, show them the doom they court. Calling them names achieves exactly nothing.
"I'm not here to conform to your expectations or provide content that's up to your personal standards, which you never have to meet yourself."
Oh, my dear child! Living up to my higher standards is my natural pastime. And given just how high my standards are, it has proven a constant and delightful challenge.

RoareyRaccoon

9 years ago

link

What utter bollocks mate. I don't claim a moral high ground, but calling out evil for what it is is a basic fucking moral duty as a human being. I don't give a toss if you think that makes me a bad person, I know for a fact that it doesn't. And how bloody dare you imply I'm the same as those I call out, I don't don a mask and cause mayhem like antifa, I don't support ideologies that have gigantic death-tolls of systematic human elimination. I don't go for individual people to make their lives hell or even give them a shitty day. I draw pictures and write journals about how I really feel and what I really think, then I leave them open for others to talk about them and react to them. End of story.

TheAtomicDog

9 years ago

link

"I don't claim a moral high ground, but calling out evil for what it is is a basic fucking moral duty as a human being."
That's claiming the moral high ground. Calling out anything as evil is declaring that thing evil by your own moral code. There's nothing at all wrong with it, that's what you're supposed to do. Everyone does it. Politics/economics; lifestyle; religion, you name it. Why do you bristle as if it were a bad thing? it's not like you're wrong, is it?

Vincentive

9 years ago

link

He's referring to the tactic by regressives to name call and shout down those with whom they disagree. If they call you 'racist' or 'fascist' to respond with "No, you're an asshole and a liar" is literally the only path to reason with those who evidently make no use of it, lest their noises convince others.

Talking trash to people who can only speak "trash" is unfortunately the only way to get through.

TheAtomicDog

9 years ago

link

I am only calling Our Host those names that he deserves. He wants to by hyper-defensive and belligerent? He wants to be as irrational and claws-out as the SJWs? Okay. Then those are the names he has earned. I treat everyone like that. That's only fair and balanced.
I mean, isn't Political Correctness dead? Soooo..? Fuck Your Feelings, right?

RoareyRaccoon

9 years ago

link

There's a reason I am frustrated with you, which you are neglecting to mention. You are a critic with no body of work, someone I don't know on any basis beyond the comments you have left on my stuff over the past few years, which is very little. You are more pretentious than almost anybody I've ever encountered and seem to be entirely lacking in self-awareness. You have openly trolled me in the past, pretending to possess the standards you expect others to represent, yet you don't produce anything yourself. It is easy, the easiest thing there is, to only be on the attack, never on the defence. To never express your own beliefs and principles on your own, to just write them out or draw them for others to criticise. Instead, you critique other people while roleplaying as some sort of victorian gentleman with obnoxious pomposity. I don't respect that, I find it ridiculous. You can talk about respect all you like, but you don't bloody well show any.

TheAtomicDog

9 years ago

link

Edited 9 years ago by Owner

I've been explaining myself this entire thread. I've answered the points you've raised. I didn't answer every single point, because then these posts would be gigantic and I do have a life offine.
And as for my highbrow way of writing, know and be certain that I do that for my personal amusement, and no other reason. I LIKE talking and writing like this. I got hooked on Edwardian/Victorian prose and rhetoric when I started reading Edgar Allen Poe in Seventh Grade. Then it was on to all those other writers like Twain, Wells, Kipling and Creswick and then over to philosophies and commentaries by Fontaine and Bacon and Tom Jefferson and Ben Franklin. One of my books on this topic is entitled "American Oratory Of To-Day", published 1910. Lots of good shit there. I'm old enough to remember when people took pride in both apprehending and using an extended, advanced vocabulary. It meant maturity, education and literacy. And shouldn't that be the intellectual ambition of any grown man?
You're too easily distracted (intimidated?) by my writing style, and you allow it to grate you so that you can't get past it, so you cannot counter my replies or points, but only complain about the way I write. It's a misdirection, like complaining about a debate opponent's necktie. This comportment does not flatter you.

RoareyRaccoon

9 years ago

link

Yes and when you make an argument its fine, but your diagnosing me as a person is not wanted or appreciated. It makes you look like a pompous snob and I'm not going to respond kindly to it.

TheAtomicDog

9 years ago

link

I openly smile are your resentment at being "diagnosed" when you spent your last post doing that exact thing to me. And yet, do I howl in injury?

RoareyRaccoon

9 years ago

link

I'm saying what reaction I have to you when I read your comments, not describing what you are. It is obnoxious, that's it. If you want to be obnoxious then fine, I'm not stopping you am I? I'm not some guy who's going to pretend nothing affects me when it does, I don't give a shit about some pissing contest to be the most sociopathic, jaded twat who doesn't give a toss.

TheAtomicDog

9 years ago

link

Thank you for the rebuking.
Seems I have some introspection to perform.

Roketsune

7 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 9 months ago by Owner

Your attitude's trash. All this snarley nonsense should be beneath you.

Being as petulant and spiteful as those whom you declare immoral does not give you any moral high ground. It merely proves you to be just as bad as them, just in a different direction.

He's even worse than how he came across here. He's so irascible and aggressive sometimes. One time on Twitter, he just abruptly informed me I don't contribute anything to furrydom and I'm a nobody compared to him,despite us not really even being in conflict and despite me just having helped him by giving him info he might want about the block list he was on.

I believe he was apparently still miffed about my remarks in a journal I had made some time before regarding that transgender cartoon his foolish detractors went apeshit over. I said, overall he's not a consequential or powerful person and thus the degree of outrage was not only wildly disproportionate but actually HELPED him, and added for additional effect rather than to truly insult him that he is arguably not even a very good artist. So he retaliated with his "you're a nobody" outburst months later, ensuring he'd be a personal lolcow I'd keep tabs on periodically.

I don't know him very well, and I presume you're overall better acquainted with him than I am. But he just comes off as this perpetually condescending and indignant right-winger who can only regurgitate various invectives and rightist talking points against socialism and communism when prompted, as if he was one of those dolls pre-programmed to say them when you pull and release a string. He's not persuasive or inspiring at all, at least not here. He doesn't project the aura of a righteous and enlightened person at all.

Oh, my dear child! Living up to my higher standards is my natural pastime. And given just how high my standards are, it has proven a constant and delightful challenge.

This was a delightfully arrogant and self-aggrandizing thing to say, and I fully identify with and sympathize with it. Being sure we're right and re-assessing ourselves and our past deeds repeatedly can be quite exhausting and impeding, but it's far preferable to being wrong or mediocre. I'm a furry drama investigator and commentator, and thus I sometimes make accusations against people or exonerate them. It's especially important for me to trust what I say will be irrefutable and unregrettable. I'm quite proud of the fact I'm excruciatingly scrupulous and even-handed even when plotting to crucify someone.

TheAtomicDog

7 years, 9 months ago

link

@ Roketsune

https://78.media.tumblr.com/997a4f22782bad4b71f0a913ce3...

Zakurei

9 years ago

link

Mmmm. Text book baiting 101. Let's not know the points or difference in points and instead misdirect with a Wikipedia entry. No one will notice right?

TheAtomicDog

9 years ago

link

@ Zakurei

Wikipedia entry..?

Ohgun312

9 years ago

link

I'm very glad that I do not associate myself with marxists nor communists. I could never fit in to those systems, so I'm pro-capitalism all the way at this point. Thanks for sharing that view with us.

Silverlonewolf

9 years ago

link

GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!

Zakurei

9 years ago

link

@ Silverlonewolf

Your icon is perfect for this comment xD

moyomongoose

9 years ago

link

Edited 9 years ago by Owner

Capitalism can go into fascism in the same way that socialism can go into communism.
After all, those "nanny states" in the northeast United States (Massachusetts being a prime example) could be by some folk's definition a socialist state...Countries like North Korea and the former Soviet Union are full blown, totalitarian, red flag communist.
And when the Nazis took control of Germany in 1933, that is when their capitalism morphed into fascism.
That is why Germany and the USSR did not get along during WW2...Of the two evils, one was fascist, and the other was communist.

And it should be noted that there are some countries that are called "Marxist states" that should not really be call a Marxist state...They practice a few socialist ideas, and everyone says, "Ohhh, they're nothin' but a bunch-a commies in THAT country".

Regardless what kind of system a country has, corrupt government and corrupt leaders can make any country a Hellhole to live in.

Vincentive

9 years ago

link

@ moyomongoose

The problem is only authoritarian government in the case of capitalism. I think it was Milton Friedman who said "Not all capitalist societies are free, but all free societies are capitalist." Seems to hold up.

The argument can be made that socialism is a "stepping stone" to communism, I've heard it referred to as the non-violent way to become a communist state.

Anyway, I agree that corrupt leaders lead to hell-holes, but would add that capitalism has the best track record of any system yet.

CottonCandyPanda

9 years ago

link

FUNNY YOU SAY THAT. Lenin (if I remember) espoused that the end goal of Socialism IS Communism.

monalisaoverdrive

9 years ago

link

lol how do you manage to be such a fat cunt it's impressive

AloofPeacock

9 years ago

link

How do you manage to be such an ignorant asshole?

Vincentive

9 years ago

link

Got a little bit of autism there, I see.

RoareyRaccoon

9 years ago

link

EDGE

Silverlonewolf

9 years ago

link

KEK

Ukiwa

9 years ago

link

Please don't forget - capitalism has about 500 years history, but socialism less than 100 years yet.

I was born and grown up in socialism, so I can't say it is so bad without any doubt. Of course, if socialism is too young formation, there were too many errors admitted by socialist governments, and the USSR collapsed because of it too. But capitalism also was not such successful in its first century.

Vincentive

9 years ago

link

@ Ukiwa

I think that this speaks to how capitalism has had so many years to demonstrate its effectiveness/ineffectiveness, and capitalist countries still flourish to this day.

Meanwhile, in the time that socialism has plagued the earth, no success to speak of. Only unnecessary suffering.

Ukiwa

9 years ago

link

The USSR was very successful till about 1960s. But then something goes wrong... As we say - first puncake always crumpled :)

RoareyRaccoon

9 years ago

link

@ Ukiwa

Read the Gulag Archipelago. Decades before 1960 they had "liquidated" (murdered) millions of people and had enslaved millions more in work camps. Successful? Fuck me.

Vincentive

9 years ago

link

Look at the science the USSR produced. They narrowly lost the space race to the moon against the USA itself. Now that's commendable. To think that it only cost the lives of tens of millions of Russians. Worth it for second place if you ask me.

Ukiwa

9 years ago

link

Of course I did! We learned it in school, when "perestroyka" has begun.

But! He says about millions Gulag victims. It means almost every family must has at least one person, who was died or just enslaved there. But I did a little school researche, I've asked every neighbor, every familiars, every relatives - do you have anybody who was suffered in Gulag? How do you think how many I found? One! Only one of about a hundred families. It means Solzhenitsyn is liar, because soviet peoples also lost millions in The Great Patriotic War (Second World War) and there is at least one dead or missed in action almost in every family.

Also there are many documents of secret KGB archives are declassified now, historians examined tham and said that all these "awful Stalin terror victims" are overestimated at least ten times.

Why all this bullshit was distributed? Try to guess...

Vincentive

9 years ago

link

@ Ukiwa

Anecdotal evidence much? Your doubtful interviewing of one hundred families and "a little school research" is not entirely convincing.

Tokon

9 years ago

link

I'd like to put out that there is a difference between what Marx believed would be a communist state and what happened with the Soviet Union China and other countries.  Marx stated that a communist state would have no over reaching form of government.  There would be communites that would be self supstaining.  He also thought that this change would happen naturally over time as technology improved to allow people to easily have access those things that are needed to live (think Star Trek replicator).  This would allow the indiviual to work for the joy of working instead of having to slave away in factories.  He also thought that it would happen in Euorpe or the United States as there in the middle of the industrial revoluation with the vast majority of the work force in factories.

What communism was in the countries that have tried it so far are horribly twisted and brutal forms of socialism.  Socialism was suppose to be the step between capitalism and communism where there was still government but its purpose was to push society towards communism. But when the communist revoluations happened those in power found that they liked being in power and would commit brutal acts to keep that power.  The communist governments that exist today and in the recent past can not be commpared to Marx ideals because in the end they twist those ideals to meet their own ends.

While I do call myself a Marxist and to believe in many of his ideas (mostly about how society is in conflict with each other) I do not believe that communism can work by itself.  Much like I believe that capitalism can not work by itself.  There needs to be a blend that also economic advancement but at the same time protects those who are in a lower economic strata from those who are better off.  I truely believe that if there are no protects the wealth will use and abuse those who are poorer and history backs that up.

RoareyRaccoon

9 years ago

link

Marx was a fool, his ideas have never worked because they are foolish ideas. Everything he thought would happen didn't. The tragedy is that anyone ever took him seriously. The reason socialist countries end up as famine-ridden dictatorships is because the ideas themselves are rotten, great ideas don't produce hellhole societies ridden with masses of imprisoned slaves, destroyed culture and starvation.

Tokon

9 years ago

link

Well I don't disagree completely as I said I don't think communism and work completely. The US has brought Marxist ideas into our society with minimum wage, social security and public education, even unions. Also look at the success from countries that have brought socialist programs into their country and the success they have had such as Norway. They are bend of the two ideologies.

Vincentive

9 years ago

link

The Scandinavian countries' current economic decline has everything to do with their current governments, and the imminent obliteration of their culture and modern society is as well.

Socialism coming close to "functioning" in these states is due to their almost completely individually homogeneous cultures and values, something that doesn't exist anywhere else in the world, and doesn't exist there anymore.

Vincentive

9 years ago

link

Then how have capitalist societies gone on for so long? I don't see how dragging everyone to the same arbitrary level "according to their need" solves anything.

Inequality does not mean inequity. Poor people are usually bad with money. Poor people tend to smoke more, a now increasingly expensive thing to do due to taxation. Capitalism, more than anything else on this earth, has lowered the poverty line exponentially since the industrial revolution. The poor in Western societies are the upper class in Africa, where I currently reside.

In Africa, I am amazed by the accessibility of smartphones and internet in one of the poorest countries in the world. People here do not starve because white farmers (with actual knowledge of successful agricultural practices) come into the country and provide something for which there is a hell of a demand: food and water. They do so for a profit. At the same time, this country's standard of living have increased dramatically and the scarcity of food and water which existed previously is enormously reduced.

Is it unfair that the farmer in this scenario makes a profit for his endeavors?

What better motivation is there, than to play on man's desire to provide the best for themselves and their families?

Tokon

9 years ago

link

Capitalism societies have existed so long because they have adopted to the changing times.  Socialist thought was brought in such as minimum wage and worker protections that have brought up the worker class.

I never said that everyone should be dragged to "same arbitrary level."  The idea that "poor people are bad with money" is blaming the victim.  Of course there are those who are poor and bad with money but there are also those who are rich and bad with money and they are still rich.  Most poor people are poor because of a system of inequity that is existed for decades.

As I said in my original post I am for a society that allows for a upward mobility and protects the workers.  I do not want a pure communist society I want a bend of the two ideologies.

Vincentive

9 years ago

link

1. Minimum wage has negatively affected poor communities as they cannot get a job where someone is willing to pay them $15 an hour, so they are unemployed instead of gaining experience and training from a lesser paying job.

2. I do not believe that being poor is to be a victim. When my grandmother immigrated to Canada from Poland during WWII her standard of living (and that of virtually any European immigrant escaping the war with nothing but the clothes on their backs) was way below the poverty line. My grandma's mother worked as a cleaning lady 6 days a week and cooked meals that lasted for days as leftovers to save on bulk, which they kept in an ice chest outside.

My grandma always tells me of how she never felt poor; she was loved and happy with what they had. She then did not go to university and became one of the top real estate agents in the city. I don't buy that being poor is to be a victim and to be actively oppressed by those who have more than you. A capitalist system enabled my grandma to be who she is today and for her children to have lived in the comfort that they did.

3. "The rich" are not a static entity. People fluctuate in income their whole lives. People who come into a lot of money through inheritance, for example, and are terrible with money quickly return to the level of wealth they were before, if not worse. Being "bad with money and rich" is an oxymoron. Lots of people have gotten rich through the stock market. If you are bad at playing the stock market you lose your money. Simple as that.

4. No system allows for upward mobility more than the free market. It transcends race and sex. If you, by the merit of your own ability can make money for a company and this much is evident in your experience and previous employment, a company won't go "Wow, this person is a walking profit. This sure will make my shareholders happy!" only to see that they are black, or a woman, and turn them away. It is not in their self interest.

Your labor is worth as much as someone is willing to pay you for it. The labor of someone who is conscientious, dedicated and a fast learner is not worth the same as someone who has been fired from various jobs for not showing up or not meeting expectations. This is reality.

The true minimum wage is zero. The thing is that there is now no in between for people who can't get hired for a minimum wage job but who shouldn't be paid nothing. "Volunteer" programs exist so that unskilled youth can gain experience relevant to obtaining a job now, for which they are paid nothing for their time by law, instead of being paid something lower than the minimum wage to begin with. This is especially damaging to America's black community, whose youth more often find drugs and gangs to be a more likely path of success than trying to get someone to pay them minimum wage and work from there.

Tokon

9 years ago

link

I'm confused. I have said many times that I think capitalism is good because it allows to move upward economically.  I think we agree on that point.  Am I wrong?  However, America has a history of those with money abusing those who do not, low pay, long hours and hazardous working conditions.  Protections were put in place by the government that were socialist ideas that raised the standard of living for the workers.  That's all I'm saying.

When I said that there are people who are poor with money who are rich and remain rich I was mostly speaking of the young people.  I should have explained further.  There are young people who a given a lot of money by their parents lose and are bailed out by their parents.  This doesn't happen to all people of course but a good number.

You said you were in West Africa correct?  I do not know how society is there as I've only lived in America or on American military bases.  However, in America people are judged by race, gender, sexual orientation and economic status.  They are denied jobs, loans, housing and a number of other things because of it.  There are a number of studies that have been done to prove this.

Vincentive

9 years ago

link

I live in North America but am currently residing in South-Central Africa for volunteer work. I made the case that capitalism was the great enabler of merit, transcending racism, sexism etc. My example was that if someone has the best qualifications for a job at given corporation, that it is in that corporation's best interest to hire that person rather than lose them to a competitor. If a racist member of a corporation turns down someone because of their race, a corporation that is not prejudiced will profit from it, and the other corporation will be the worse for it.

Racism and the like could be a factor if two potential employees had the same or very similar qualifications. In that case, I am adamant in the fight against it, and at the same time adamant in defending an employer's right to turn down any potential employee for any reason. You can't force someone to hire someone. Just as you can't force someone to work for someone.

In regards to loans and housing I am aware of these studies and such and of their validity. I would say to this what I said before: you can't force someone to give a loan to someone or rent/sell them a house. If it is seen to be a worthwhile investment, it will happen. If banks find that certain races or even families like single mothers tend to be bad investments, do we blame them for not taking unnecessary risks? This ends up with the same conclusion as before. If it really is a good investment and someone was turned down due to their race, then a competitor would profit from not being prejudiced.

If no such non-prejudiced banks exist (an actual possibility) then there is an obvious service for which there is a demand, and either someone without these prejudices or someone of a race in question themselves can endeavor to open such a business, as it would be immensely profitable and with no competition.

The free market is meant to allow for profit motivation to supplement needs and wants. If there is a need/want for someone who will provide loans/housing to a certain group, the motivation is there, though it's never that simple. Stats regarding different races could seriously discourage bankers from investing in them. In the black community (USA) the single parenthood rate is 70%. The worse it has ever been, up from 30% since before systems like welfare were implemented. Realities like these can lead whole communities of people to be pre-judged. At the end of the day it is up to the community to change themselves, for individuals to disassociate themselves from this community (which many do), and to seriously look at the policies which have serious consequences in these communities more than anything.

Tokon

9 years ago

link

Thank you for the enjoyable debate. It is as been a long time since I have been able to have such a pleasant intellectual discussion. However, I feel like you and I are blowing up this thread. If you like we could move this to PM or even email. Just a suggestion as I see us going back and forth a bit.

nekkofox

9 years ago

link

Venezuela is all the proof I need of modern day Communism ain't working, and a look at Stalin's "Biggest Man-Made Famine in History" snafu definitely doesn't win it any points either.

FassiveMaggot1488

9 years ago

link

Are you autistic?

RoareyRaccoon

9 years ago

link

I'm artistic!

FassiveMaggot1488

9 years ago

link

Nothing goes together as well as conservative political thought and gay furry cub porn. Not really complaining, just saying.

RoareyRaccoon

9 years ago

link

I'm artistic!

VileFiend

9 years ago

link

To be fair, not all conservatives are christian fundamentalists (where most of the homophobia is rooted), especially outside the U.S.

Vincentive

9 years ago

link

Edited 9 years ago by Owner

@ VileFiend

Most of homophobia today is rooted in ALL Abrahamic religion. Gays haven't been prosecuted or killed en masse in Western civilization for some time. This still occurs in many areas in the world, including Christian Africa (homosexuality is illegal where I am currently living in Africa) and virtually any Muslim-majority nation.

VileFiend

9 years ago

link

I'm aware of that, but I was referring to western law and politics in particular.

VileFiend

9 years ago

link

I thought the new default insult was "cuck"?

FassiveMaggot1488

9 years ago

link

@ VileFiend

It still is, but I wasn't trying to insult him. This is just such a bizarre way to present political thoughts. I even agree with what he says, but come the fuck on this is definition of autism

RoareyRaccoon

9 years ago

link

Do a better job yourself then, rather than whining about my tone. I'm not here to communicate and draw in the way you desire me to, life doesn't work like that.

TenTen

9 years ago

link

Edited 9 years ago by Owner

FassiveMaggot1488

Ever heard of freedom of speech?

FassiveMaggot1488

9 years ago

link

@ TenTen

Yes, I was using it to express my opinion. I'm not trying to shut the author down or anything.

Sleepyly

9 years ago

link

By what i hear from crybaby socialists capitalism is bad cuz it ain't perfect, they want to live in a society where everyone has everything and no one ever starves, they believe in some Robin hoodish fairy-tale where you steal from the rich and feed the poor.
They can't accept the world will always be flawed and stealing is immoral, also they think everyone should care for everyone despite being impossible to know and care for everyone's needs, economy is a chaotic system, you can't possibly predict and control everything.
Im not the best example of a role model capitalist citizen but even if i became homeless i rather live in a capitalist society, at least there will always be plenty of food and resources so there is a chance i won't starve to death.
Don't commies realize how communism is an unsustaineble system that can only be mainteined by authoritarism and results in mass starvation and genocide?

pentrep

9 years ago

link

Marxism is just an umbrella term for what socialism and communism can often be refereed to. Ideally overly liberal and free with little restrictions on society in general. However in practice Marxism as a whole has never succeeded. Marxism, imho, is a philosophy that enables people to feel overly entitled. Humankind, being a self interested being, often needs incentive to perpetuate it's existence. Marx erased the whole concept of self enterprise, ownership, and entrepreneurship. Contrary to what he believed people do not always get along and seldom can get away with self management in it's many forms.

CuriousFerret

9 years ago

link

As Venezuela keeps coming up, I'd like to point out when any country bases their entire exports and internal budget off a single fluctuating commodity they are asking for up heavel.

If oil wasn't so low there would be a more stable, if still corupt goverment in place there.

TravisRetriever

9 years ago

link

*Standing Ovation!*

otterguy

9 years ago

link

Edited 9 years ago by Owner

Why did you block me on Furaffinity? I thought you were a "free speech absolutist"?

Here's the comment that got me blocked, just for context. Let's let the viewers decide:

"'100% record of totalitarian dictatorships'

Not really.

'Totalitarianism' refers to something specific. A country can be authoritarian without being totalitarian.

But they don't even have a 100% record of authoritarianism. Nepal's communists turned the country into a democracy and held power for some years. Rojava has set up a democratic system under some exceptionally harsh circumstances.

Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunni.....3Kruger_effect&...;

Now there was obviously a joke at the end, but who here was offended by that? Honest question.

RoareyRaccoon

9 years ago

link

@ otterguy

Your free speech is not infringed by me not wanting to read your garbage. Bye!

SageOfShadow

9 years ago

link

I'm just passing by and i want to tell .... it's amazing. Not only your art but also all the comments. How can i say that, I feel i have learn a lot more than what i have learn at school through all of them. So i have only one thing to say...thanks guys, to share all of yours point of view, shall i agree with them or not XD.

silver2075

9 years ago

link

Have you ever contemplated writing some literature where you or anyone else tried to create your own form of government? I would be curious as to what you felt was the best while trying to keep the corruption of man or society realistic.

RoareyRaccoon

9 years ago

link

@ silver2075

Nah, the reason being that my assumption is that I, nor anyone else, possesses the wisdom and knowledge required to know what is best for society as a whole. We can only come to better arrangements with open debate, democracy and government with limited power. In other words, we can organise our own lives far better than someone who will never even know of our existence ever could.

silver2075

9 years ago

link

I was just curious. The fallible governing of society is kind of a common theme in my stories. I always recognize more problems than I find solutions though. lol

Woofstep

9 years ago

link

These comments are a treat to read, especially when it's actual debates showing pros/cons of different types of government alongside its effectiveness when actually acted upon.

Glad to see you didn't let the gender picture stop you from continuing to debate.

saggatb

9 years ago

link

God. Could you imagine being a furry AND a communist AND a social justice warrior?

ExistentialTimeCrisis

9 years ago

link

making friends again, I see!

Morkheleb

9 years ago

link

Let's be clear : I found this comment gratuitous insulting and patronizing.
And you are mixing socialism, communism and marxism as if it was the same thing, oversimplifying those complex concepts in 4 small phrases (or caricatures) of "synthesys".
If politic was simple enough to reduce it to a bad/good concept, there would be no discussion at all.
Yes, communism can lead to dictatorship, but capitalism too. None of these systems are perfect. And both have good/bad sides, and you clearly did not search for them objectivly (how could you ? Reading a "chunk of " a book doesn't mean reading it).
I think you should read recent foreign politic history from foreign point of view.

Vincentive

9 years ago

link

Edited 9 years ago by Owner

@ Morkheleb

What capitalist dictatorships are you referring to? Pinochet? The private ownership of the means of production is itself independent of government by definition. It doesn't matter if it's a dictatorship or a democratic republic.

"If politic was simple enough to reduce it to a bad/good concept, there would be no discussion at all."

This is exactly what the regressive left of today is trying to do. Making the emotional argument rather than the rational one in order to try and convince people that their political opponents are evil people. In my eyes, what Roarey is doing is simply demonstrating that the moral/emotional argument is actually stronger against Marxism/communism if you value human life.

RoareyRaccoon

9 years ago

link

@ Morkheleb

They are the same thing. Marxism is the birthplace of socialism. Socialism in practice is communism. They are the same thing, with the same philosophy, the same basic tenets. Communism is just the practical application of socialism through political violence, it's a tiny difference of method, not of principle. I don't care if you are insulted, I'm not the one hiding behind technicalities to pretend my precious worldview isn't what it actually is.

jakob601

9 years ago

link

True marxism has never been tried, true marxism expects the proletarians of all countries to rise and fight the bourgeoisie this never happened so you can't say that the past is a good example that it can not work it can not work because humans are a terrible excuse for a sentient species they are simply too greedy and too dumb to make marx' ideas work

Vincentive

9 years ago

link

@ jakob601

So maybe it's an idea that doesn't work with humanity?

jakob601

9 years ago

link

Not until humanity realizes that the evolutional rules don't really apply for an advanced species anymore the only real threat to our survival is humanity itself. Greed is a very natural emotions animals are greedy because they have to be but humans today have real enemy but people still hoarde useless stuff

Vincentive

9 years ago

link

@ jakob601

So Marxist ideals defy human nature, and it's humanity's fault. Got it.

jakob601

9 years ago

link

It is humanitys fault that they are unable to overcome stupid instincts

VileFiend

9 years ago

link

Edited 9 years ago by Owner

I'm not a fan of socialism either, but perhaps it's not so much the difference of opinion but rather the rub that "triggers" people. People tend to dig their feels in if they feel it's been made personal. If it becomes about egos and emotions, it won't matter how well substantiated and rational your argument is. People are more likely to respect and perhaps even consider your point of view depending on how you present it. Of course, respect and tolerance also need to be mutual in order to work.

Relee

9 years ago

link

Do you have an economic model you prefer over modern socialism or communism?

RoareyRaccoon

9 years ago

link

@ Relee

Of course XP. Western free market capitalism, like we have already and has produced fantastic results compared to anything else in the world.

Relee

9 years ago

link

Alright, well, given the way you posted this, I expect that you're looking for discussion and debate. You've already gotten lots of comments and been pretty active, but I'll throw my hat in too.

The first thing I've got to say is that I'm not a Marxist, I'm an egalitarian democratic socialist. A more modern form of socialism you're probably already familiar with.

The second thing I've got to say is that what we already have is not free market capitalism. What we have is a conglomerate between extremes of capitalism and socialism, economically speaking. In the west we have socialized education, health care (except in the states), welfare and disability supports, and that's just a start. These are not part of the capitalist economic system. We also have economic elements that run contrary to socialism. It's a mix that varies nation to nation.

Now, I've had people argue that Socialism is too naive or too idealistic, but to suggest it's evil is a new one on me. I went through the comments you left on the discussions here and looked at some of the other discussions, and it's a bit of an echo chamber. The only people disagreeing with you are quibbling about details, not coming to the defense of Socialism. So I'll have to do what I can.

You seem to have a pretty good understanding of the mechanics of Socialism but you've only seen negative examples of Socialism in action, and you seem to disregard the failures of Capitalism at the same time. What's more is that you seem to ignore the successes of Socialism in the western world, cherrypicking the benefits and calling them Capitalism and the deficits and calling them Socialism. The problem I have here is finding good proofs to argue with, since it's probably not possible to measure the benefits and detriments either has had directly except in the most extreme cases.

Instead, why don't I tell you why I'm a Socialist?

This world of ours is filled with people, and the population keeps growing and changing. The world has finite resources, and economics is the way we decide how to divide those resources amongst oneanother. In a Socialist system the resources are divided by need first, and shared fairly amongst the people. I figure this is best because I believe all people are equal in merit.

Comparatively, the Capitalist system is heartless. Resources are controlled by private owners who distribute them or withhold them at their leisure. In the best case scenario a meritocracy forms, but without Socialist safety nets, people who are disabled or just unlucky get to die. In a realistic scenario, like what we've seen from history, it's even worse. Power gets concentrated and people in power are able to deny essential resources to whoever they please.

I don't understand how you can say Socialism is evil and ignore the cruelty of Capitalism. It may have succeeded in ushering society into a modern age, but only in a very "Law of the Jungle" way. It's like evolution, it's just a stepping stone. Socialism is the future. Even in a Capitalist economic system, Socialism succeeds and supplants. Just look at western society today. Not only do we have countless social programs to help people who are failed by the Capitalist system, we have socialist businesses like Co-Ops and Credit Unions where people thought to work together instead of against one another.

I'm pretty confident Socialism will prove its superiority in the future.

As for the past, well, there's not much good in the past for Socialism, any successful socialist experiment was shut down pretty quick, like the Paris Commune, and there's plenty of failed Socialist experiments with Communist Dictatorships. But there's plenty of bad history for Capitalism too. Labour Unions have fought for worker rights since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Countless disasters both to people and to the environment have come at the hands of Capitalist businesses seeking profit before human good.

Anyways I'm out of room in the comment.

Vincentive

9 years ago

link

@ Relee

I think "I believe all people are equal in merit." is the biggest dividing factor here. It's also an incredibly vague statement. I assume this is related to the labor theory of value, which is not remotely viable in the world we currently live in. Maybe when we get those fancy energy/matter converters and harness the energy of our entire sun. Until then, there is quantifiable value to labor which differs from individual to individual for any given task.

Relee

9 years ago

link

Yeah, there's a certain value to labour, but if we let that rule us, we ignore the people who can't perform labour for whatever reason.

To me the biggest problem in our world isn't economics it's birth control and reproductive rights. For all my economic leanings and theories I can't come up with a fair way to get people to stop having more kids each generation, diminishing the amount of resources available to each individual.

SerathDuo

9 years ago

link

Socialism, like any great government idea, only works perfectly on paper. That's why almost every attempt at a genuine, socialist society has failed. Sure, on paper, everyone is equal. In reality however, there are always going to be the assholes who believe they are more equal than others, due to greed, ego, bigotry, and plain old narcissism. One only needs to read Animal Farm for proof of that. So yes, people who still insist on pushing the ideal, in the face of all proof to the contrary, are either naive or crazy. That said, that does not make any Socialism in any situation, A Bad Thing.

Universal Heath Care, Social Security, and the twins Medicare and Medicaid, are socialist programs at their heart. And yet all three have been around for decades and have run just fine. The U.S. programs are having problems now, only because Congress used money from it, to shore up a few screw-ups elsewhere. And the funny thing is, the people most opposed to these programs, tend to be the ones who are rich enough on their own, to never need them. But that's an argument for another day.

RoareyRaccoon

9 years ago

link

@ SerathDuo

Great political ideas work in real life. On paper, Socialism isn't good at all, it is stripped of all human understanding, all reasonableness. It posits equity as a goal to be striven for, which is insane and nobody wants it or could want it. Socialism describes human beings like they are termites with no individual desires, concerns or ambitions. It isn't selfishness that corrupts socialism, it's all of human nature. Selfishness merely turns it from an ignorant pile of tripe to a genocidal pile of tripe.

graymuzzle

9 years ago

link

Capitolism sucks. And I'm your worst nightmare. I'm a Lefty in power!
Screw you and Ayn Rand, too.

ZephonTsol

9 years ago

link

May I ask what the point of these is? The last one caused such a riot that it really didn't provide good discourse so much as angry vitriol and a hell of a lot of assholes coming out of the woodworks on either side of the issue to sneer at one another.

I don't understand because I'm failing to see what positive effect this discussion will have on furry artwork & media sites. It feels like this would be better suited for somewhere else that you could debate this with people whose first reaction was not immediate and total anger or snide sarcasm.

RoareyRaccoon

9 years ago

link

@ ZephonTsol

Its just self-expression lol. Sometimes it gets discussions going, sometimes it doesn't. Its like asking me why I draw porn, it's an unnecessary question.

AlexReynard

9 years ago

link

Edited 9 years ago by Owner

"Would you rather live in capitalistic America or communist Venezuela." My answer is that I'd rather live in current-day America precisely because it is no longer a free market utopia.

My take is that I'm a socialist for capitalistic purposes. I love capitalism. Nothing spurs on innovation like competition. But capitalism is, at heart, 100% amoral. A company is like a superorganism with only one instinct: profit. It will do anything to increase profit, including harm to humans, animals, the Earth and even its own future self. The best analogy for capitalism, then, is a guard dog. Trained well, it can be a great benefit to you. But if you train it sloppy and let it become the alpha, you will be its bitch. Or its meat.

Capitalism needs socialism. Just like socialism needs capitalism. This debate over which is better is as inane as whether a person needs their heart or lungs more. Without a free market, innovation stagnates and the government amasses too much power. Without government regulation, competition becomes endless mergers that squash rather than encourage competition, and robber barons amass too much power. There is a reason why the US government has three branches designed to check and balance each other.

Plus, this seems like such a simple idea I feel like I'm taking crazy pills for not seeing it expressed more often: a worker who is constantly worried about starvation or death is not going to put in their best work. If I were in charge, I would install a baseline standard of living. We would not allow anyone to go without food, shelter, water and healthcare. These services would be intentionally minimal; enough to keep a person alive, but not much better than jail with open doors. But gaining financial independence would be incentivized up the ass. Not like the insane, constricted welfare system we have now where you're essentially punished for trying to get off of it. In my world, the role of the government would not be like an omnipresent, smothering parent to its citizens, but more like a bank offering a loan. You get a guaranteed standard of living, in exchange for an expectation that, once you are stable, you will work to better the lives of others. My government would not hold your hand to make sure you never fail, but it would extend a hand if you hit rock bottom and reached out for help. This seems like such a basic idea. And why wouldn't corporations want a workforce that's not constantly fretting about whether they can buy food or medicine this month, and instead they can focus on doing their work?

EDIT: Additional thought. The ideal system would have the government and big business at each other's throats instead of both of them ganging up on the citizens.

Alfador

9 years ago

link

Edited 9 years ago by Owner

@ AlexReynard

I have a rider to add to your Universal Basic Income proposal. At the exact same moment that goes into effect, Minimum Wage goes out. Once job income is decoupled from basic survival, we don't need artificial minimum caps on the price of labor. Currently, if you are paid minimum wage, the company is effectively saying "We would pay you less for this work if we could, but we are legally required not to." Small wonder that minimum-wage work has a reputation for poor quality. Many of these people probably don't WANT to work, but they are forced to by the fact that if they don't, they will either starve, or be without shelter, or go without essential medicines.

But once everyone's utter basic survival needs are provided for, we will, in short order, have a workforce entirely comprised of those who genuinely want to work at the positions they are in. The quality of work will improve. Turnover will drop as the worst labor drops out of the pool. People will work as many hours as they feel they can put in their best effort for. (Yes there will always be some who push themselves to exhaustion just to get a few extra bucks. But on average, once the market for labor becomes actually fair for both workers and employers, most ought to push for raises or leave for other jobs if they feel they're not making enough money at their optimum hours.)

This is going to be especially necessary in the coming decades. So much of the Industrial Age factory, shipping, and other unskilled labor positions are being automated, that we really don't have enough of a demand for labor to support all the people who, right now, need jobs to survive. (And on the topic of skilled labor, the education system here in the States could REALLY use an overhaul.)

Oh, and one more thing. The universal basic income has to be mandatory to accept. If some people can waive it and look down their noses socially at those who "suckle at the government teat", then that creates a massive perverse incentive for people who genuinely do need it, to also reject it, in order to consider themselves "better" even when they are demonstrably worse off.

[EDIT: The worst part of this is... this probably can never happen in the United States, because Minimum Wage laws exist both at the federal AND state level, and it ALL has to turn off at the exact same time that Universal Basic Income comes in, for it to work this way. And I strongly doubt that 51 separate governing bodies can coordinate their efforts to take effect on a single day for anything except elections to keep themselves in power.]

AlexReynard

9 years ago

link

@ Alfador

All very good points that I'll deal with in the call because I've done enough typing today. :P

Roketsune

7 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 9 months ago by Owner

@ Alfador

But once everyone's utter basic survival needs are provided for, we will, in short order, have a workforce entirely comprised of those who genuinely want to work at the positions they are in. The quality of work will improve. Turnover will drop as the worst labor drops out of the pool. People will work as many hours as they feel they can put in their best effort for. (Yes there will always be some who push themselves to exhaustion just to get a few extra bucks. But on average, once the market for labor becomes actually fair for both workers and employers, most ought to push for raises or leave for other jobs if they feel they're not making enough money at their optimum hours.)

That's an intriguing theory, and I hope it plays out this way as more countries adopt the UBI system. Alas, I have no doubt the USA will be the last modern major society to adopt it- assuming we will remain a modern major society by that point.

This is going to be especially necessary in the coming decades. So much of the Industrial Age factory, shipping, and other unskilled labor positions are being automated, that we really don't have enough of a demand for labor to support all the people who, right now, need jobs to survive. (And on the topic of skilled labor, the education system here in the States could REALLY use an overhaul.)

Oh, yeah. If society/companies can't find viable alternative paid uses for manpower that's freed up by automation, miniaturization, reduction of material needs, increase of yields, etc, we have to either start just paying people merely to exist or increase min wage several times over. I do think we also would need rational and non-bigoted eugenics programs to increase the viability of these advanced socialistic systems, and frankly we wouldn't be nearly as encumbered and dysfunctional as we are now had we embraced this- and I wouldn't be permanently disabled and on services had this been implemented.

Oh, and one more thing. The universal basic income has to be mandatory to accept. If some people can waive it and look down their noses socially at those who "suckle at the government teat", then that creates a massive perverse incentive for people who genuinely do need it, to also reject it, in order to consider themselves "better" even when they are demonstrably worse off.

No, no, don't do that. I can assure you, people are a combination of moderately pragmatic and lazy. They will accept it, and those who decline will not only not have a deterring effect on those who do need/want it, but will also help the state by freeing resources for the remaining population. Hell, IIRC, even Ayn Rand accepted Medicare after having paid into it when she became severely ill later in life (I vaguely remember it was her rampant smoking that caused it, but I could be wrong), and she vehemently opposed Medicare.

Alfador

7 years, 9 months ago

link

@ AlexReynard

Since I got a response to my earlier comment, it brought it back to my attention, and I would like to amend my earlier proposal because I thought of something.

Instead of zero minimum wage, set minimum wage to 1 cent, or 5 cents, an hour. Or at least keep the mandate that all paid positions be paid in legal US currency only. Otherwise we might see the old company store / company scrip system creep its slimy way back into the labor market.

PrysmTKitsune

9 years ago

link

Comunism will never be able to work and socialism is a rather flimsy pipe dream
democratic Capitalism is the best system for social and economic growth as it plays to all humanites strengths and weaknesses so well, it allows greed but doesnt overly encourage it, it allows for a person if they chose to follow whatever dream they desire to whatever ends it may lead to for beter or worse.
at least till someone invents a replicator then capitalism as we know it is boned

LukaBun

9 years ago

link

oh look another reason why i watch you xD

you know what they say my friend, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And that can't be closer to the truth than with marxism and its bastard children (socialism and communism)

InsaneProxy

9 years ago

link

Socialism is awesome.

lostredpanda

8 years, 11 months ago

link

Edited 8 years, 11 months ago by Owner

@ InsaneProxy

"Socialism is NOT cool." >:( ;-)

Roketsune

7 years, 9 months ago

link

@ InsaneProxy

*giggles mischievously* Yes. Yes, it is.

Derpmander

9 years ago

link

Well I have to applaud your bravery on sticking up for your beliefs, especially since you pick the side that's so socially unpopular, both on this, and other aspects. If only more did the same...

Fatman3

9 years ago

link

I think part of the problem with socialism and communism is the lack choice and accountability. So, as a counter, what do you think of voluntary communes within a capitalist society? Keep the numbers small enough and everyone can hold everyone else accountable. Also, I was under the impression that the U.S. Postal Service and the school system were socialist in nature. Is that wrong?

Seclius

8 years, 10 months ago

link

@ Fatman3

No, the US postsl service and state-wide education are not socialist. They exist within the field of economics known as "command economics", which can exist within a capitalist system, hence why the US has these and is still considered a capitalist country.

lostredpanda

8 years, 11 months ago

link

Edited 8 years, 11 months ago by Owner

...

Yay!

Seclius

8 years, 11 months ago

link

I know I'm late to the party, but fuck it. This line of argumentation you're using is absolutely horrible. And no, I'm not a Marxist. The problem with the argument you put forth is that it solely lays blame at the feet of an ideology and not those who use it. Should we blame capitalism for all of the people killed by it? Of course not, we look at various examples as to why those people died in the first place and who inevitably killed them. People died in Soviet Russia due to Stalin's authoritiarianism and his government's poor centralized planning. You can't honestly blame Communism for that. You can lay partial blame on it for somewhat starting it all, but you can't act as thought Marxism is to blame for all those who have died under "socialist" regimes. They have all died to a power hungry aristocracy each and everytime, which priotritizes their (the aristorcracies) own selfish wants over the masses needs.

RoareyRaccoon

8 years, 11 months ago

link

Your line of argument is the one that's horrible, not to mention completely mistaken. Communism is an ideology, Marxism is an ideology, every time these things are applied they lead to complete disaster because they are wrong in their very founding principles. To believe that FAILED SHIT IDEAS are magically off the hook because the worst people apply them in practice is fucking ridiculous. Jumping off a cliff is a stupid idea no matter who advocates for it or why. BOTH the sacks of shit who apply communism AND communism itself are morally, ethically, practically and economically bankrupt.

Seclius

8 years, 11 months ago

link

Hi, thanks for responding. Firstly, you seem to have bypassed my very first point. If we were to stay logically consistent and lay blame at the feet of a socio-economic ideology, then why are you not campaigning against all those who have died under capitalism? You seem to be more than willing to attribute such disasters to socialism, so why do you not do the same for capitalism? This is why I do not support such argumentation which is seen frequently by communists online, "Look at all the people capitalism has killed!" Like previously established, if you want to stay logically consistent, you would have to acknowledge the other side of the argument as well (look at all the people socialism has killed!), which I don't, therefore I do not use it. It seems you do not either, as you do not accept that capitalism has inadvertently killed people, so I would recommend you drop using it as well.

Another point of contention is the false equivalence with jumping off a cliff. It would be more of a fair equivalence if jumping off of a cliff gave some sort of empowerment to the person who was about to do it. As you know, it does not, while socialism does. Socialism offers disenfranchised workers the perceived chance to free themselves from their controlled labour, jumping off of a cliff only offers death. The two are completely inconsistent.

Lastly, I'm curious as to what these terms mean to you. What are your criteria for Communism, Socialism, or Marxism? While I do recognize the difficulty of implementing such systems, I do believe they teach important humanitarian lessons like empowering the less fortunate and being wary of placing things like the profit motive over more selfless actions. I'm interested to see how you respond to this question without resorting to grandstanding and false equivalences.

RoareyRaccoon

8 years, 10 months ago

link

I'm not giving you definitions of socialism etc, if you have to ask then you haven't studied them, I have. Capitalism has built the modern world, done more to reduce poverty, enhance technology, improve healthcare, life expectancy, just about anything you care to measure that's any good has been improved by it. Is it perfect? Fuck no, but its the very best thing we have. That's why I don't decry it. We can tackle individual issues and improve them over time, as our societies have done, but capitalism on the whole is the best there is. Marxist ideology and the political philosophies thereof have killed more people and destroyed more economies in a relatively short space of time than any other way of organizing society. If you don't recognize that you haven't bothered to learn history and I can't help you. Honestly, if all you can do is ask for definitions of words and point out a problem in a metaphor then you've got nothing. Its an argument so pointless it isn't worth having. Implementing socialism when it FAILS EVERY TIME is the same as leaping off a cliff like someone suicidally depressed. The metaphor is accurate.

Seclius

8 years, 10 months ago

link

I think you misunderstand the ideology of Socialism, or at least how Socialists understand Socialism. The reason I say this is one, you seem very unwilling to get me a solid definition that we can actually discuss because it is quite clear you and I differ on how to define it, and two you seem all too willing to attribute all of these buzz words to it without really clarifying on what that truly means. You strike me as another dime-a-dozen-person who is under the impression that Socialism = Statism (or more specifically, Authoritarian Statism) which is not necessarily true. In fact, if you actually read Marx, which you claim to have done, you'd understand that Marx was fundamentally against the state existing as he saw it as another extension of capitalist privatization. So, in this case, if we are talking about Orthodox Marxist Socialism, the state is not necessarily a factor, and in reality, shares more in common with Anarcho-Communism. If you want to talk about Lenin's interpretation of Marx, then yes, he was a statist as his philosophy was that Marx's vision of Communism was only attainable through the use of a state, then once the society had transitioned from Capitalism to Socialism, the state could be abolished and Communism would be attained. Now we can debate how sound these extrapolations are and I'd be delighted to, as like I previously stated, I'm not a Communist. I would still consider myself a supporter of Capitalism (just a supporter of heavily regulated capitalism with a power-checkable state so that we don't end up with a police state in its place), however instead of strawmanning the other side, I've listened to their concerns and points and come to my own conclusions on them without putting words in their mouth. This is why I ask for definitions, it isn't a debate weakness, it's so that we can find some ground to work with if we want this conversation to be worthwhile instead of it just devolving into a mudslinging match. Therefore, I'll ask you again very kindly, what is your criteria for Socialism, Communism, Marxism, etc. Whatever you want to talk about, what are your criteria for them? If we don't establish this, we will continue to talk past each other, and that is not what I intend to do.

RoareyRaccoon

8 years, 10 months ago

link

Edited 8 years, 10 months ago by Owner

No, I understand it perfectly. Socialism is the goal of a classless, stateless society, reached via a dictatorship of the proletariat and state ownership of the means of production. Capitalist countries like Sweden are often called socialist but they are not, because there is a free market. They have expanded programs of welfare, that's all, and welfare isn't socialist in principle, equity and redistribution of wealth are socialist. You're the one who needs to do some learning, which I advise you do.

You want definitions so you can try and poke holes in the minutia of my argument, which most people think is clever. I'm not falling for it. You make an argument for your own beliefs so I can attack them too or this is not a level playing field and thus I won't play the game.

Seclius

8 years, 10 months ago

link

You're confusing Communism and Socialism. Communism advocates for a classless, stateless, moneyless society with a dictatorship of the proletariat. It DOES NOT, however, call for state ownership of the means of production. I'm going to repeat myself here, but when Marx theorized Communism, he did not want there to be a state because as previously mentioned, he viewed the state as being a scapegoat for the Bourgeois to hide behind whenever the workers needed someone to blame. The state has no justification for existing except for the benefit of capitalists themselves under his view, as the state is normally used to enforce private property rights.

I will applaud you on recognizing that many Scandinavian countries are not Socialist as they are in actuality Capitalist social democracies with a welfare state, so good on you for that. However, like before it’s the second part that I take the most grievance with. Equity and redistribution of wealth are not Socialist. They aren't inherent to either system really, they are, rather, only reliant on a market system that uses currency. It’s what is known in economics as a "transfer payment", taking money from one person and sending it to another. That isn't Socialist. It is, however, like previously explained, inherent to the ideologies of social democracy, which is still Capitalist as it defends the use of private property (referring to means of production and not personal property).

Lastly,

"	RoareyRaccoon wrote:
	You make an argument for your own beliefs so I can attack them too or this is not a level playing field and thus I won't play the game.

. Fair enough, I will give you my position.

I am a progressive (I am not an SJW, so don't get too excited by hearing that I'm a progressive) with some liberal economic theory in the sense that I support further regulation on financial institutions like the banks and the reimplementation of past regulations like Glass–Steagall, in order to better protect against the alien and spontaneous forces, present due to the market system of economics that our society functions on. On social issues, I'm a libertarian, so people who push for forced-pronoun usage, for example, I am against. If you want to be respectful, use their pronouns, if not, don't. We don't need the arm of the state force us into doing so. We can go into further specifics depending on what you'd like to know.

RoareyRaccoon

8 years, 10 months ago

link

Communism is not different to socialism in its goals, only in its methodology of achieving them. Communism is the institution of socialist principles via revolution. That's why Marx and Engels, the founders of socialist theory, also wrote the communist fucking manifesto. The differences are minute, the core values are the same and those core values are wrong on every level. Equity is evil (equality of outcome), state ownership of the economy is evil. We know this because every mother fucking country that has adopted it as a model for society has crumbled to the ground and killed vast numbers of people, through starvation and purges. Your willingness to pretend that socialism is this slippery other thing that is actually good, but people like me don't see it in the right way makes me think of you as post modernist. That interpretation is the order of the day and we can't be objective about ideas. Socialism is objectively reprehensible, communism is the most violent and drastic way of enshrining it. Stop making excuses for it.

Also, you call yourself a progressive, that title alone is never anything but conceited. Everybody is for progress, we disagree on what progress looks like and how to achieve it, which is the entirety of politics. To call yourself a progressive is either totally meaningless and benign or is a deliberate act of conceit. Either way its a completely stupid label.

If you bother to read Kapital, or the actual socialist material you would know that redistribution of wealth, equity, is the whole point of it. The end goal of socialism is a stateless, classless society in which we are all equals. Since that utopian bullshit is impossible, we always, always end up with socialism grinding to a revolting halt after the first stage. The first necessary stage to the overthrowing of capitalism is the domination of the economy and state by the proletariat, the dictatorship of the proletariat is its official name. Since the working class are not qualified administrators the job is given to university educated elites who run the whole system. In that system the worst people seize power through sheer brutality and we're left with a dictatorship headed by someone like Stalin. That is the reality of it. If you're going to accuse me of not knowing enough you could at least demonstrate it.

Roketsune

7 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 9 months ago by Owner

state ownership of the economy is evil

Socialism is objectively reprehensible

Corporate ownership of the economy seems just as bad, or at best slightly less so. America is a terrible place to be a worker. Or to be disabled. Capitalism in its purest form means the government does not intervene to help its citizens even during emergencies and depressions, even if they will die or go bankrupt from medical costs. This is not a humane system. I'm sorry if your regime's maladroit attempts at socialism and egalitarianism causes you to have to wait obscene amounts of time just to see a doctor, or watch your back for fear of arrest for "hate crime", but this is because your government is absolute shit, not because socialism is absolute shit.

The end goal of socialism is a stateless, classless society in which we are all equals. Since that utopian bullshit is impossible, we always, always end up with socialism grinding to a revolting halt after the first stage. The first necessary stage to the overthrowing of capitalism is the domination of the economy and state by the proletariat, the dictatorship of the proletariat is its official name. Since the working class are not qualified administrators the job is given to university educated elites who run the whole system. In that system the worst people seize power through sheer brutality and we're left with a dictatorship headed by someone like Stalin. That is the reality of it. If you're going to accuse me of not knowing enough you could at least demonstrate it.

Do the French, Swiss, Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, and Fins seem to you to be living in Stalinist shitholes where everyone's poor and the gulags are full?! Are these deranged third-world backwaters in your opinion? If not, if they seem rather advanced and first-world to you, then you have just refuted your own retarded and laughably easily disprovable accusations against socialism.

Good day.

Roketsune

7 years, 9 months ago

link