This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
We won't have to waste anymore resources to the militaries when the world no longer competes for resources, and we finally can focus on things like combatting the climate emergency and the exploration of space.Socialist Appeal wrote:
In the early years of capitalism, the development of nation states were a progressive factor in taking society forward. In contrast to the isolated city-states and principalities found under feudalism - each with their own laws, customs, measures, and taxes - larger states were developed which unified nations into single markets and political systems.
This was necessary for capitalism to take off, since the markets of small cities and regions were insufficient for large-scale industry.
At a certain point however, even the expanded markets developed by nation states proved insufficient to keep up with the growth of the productive forces of one country. The entire world was thus colonised by the imperial powers, resulting in the development of a world market.
The nation state, from being a progressive factor that encouraged growth, turned into its opposite: a regressive fetter on the development of humanity, which requires the fullest and freest use of the resources of the whole world, unconstrained by borders and competition for resources.
BrutusTrump wrote:
Europe always makes fun of America for stuff, kind of understandably. However, they have to remember that without us, they’re another province of Russia.
AK140 wrote:
How about we instead go beyond capitalism? We won't need militaries to "defend" from other nations when nation states have been abolished.
Nations, as in groups of people sharing common language and culture will still exist, but nation states have got to be abolished.
We won't have to waste anymore resources to the militaries when the world no longer competes for resources, and we finally can focus on things like combatting the climate emergency and the exploration of space.
BrutusTrump wrote:
Europe always makes fun of America for stuff, kind of understandably. However, they have to remember that without us, they’re another province of Russia.
AMG Morgan wrote:
Would be nice but let's be honest it's more of a pipe dream than actual reality.AK140 wrote:
How about we instead go beyond capitalism? We won't need militaries to "defend" from other nations when nation states have been abolished.
Nations, as in groups of people sharing common language and culture will still exist, but nation states have got to be abolished.
We won't have to waste anymore resources to the militaries when the world no longer competes for resources, and we finally can focus on things like combatting the climate emergency and the exploration of space.
AK140 wrote:
Calling it a "pipe dream than actual reality" without backing a source or provide any argument... yeah, such an "honest" move there.
I do admit that capitalism is that effective at making you unable to see reality without the lens of its ideology.
K.Rokossovski wrote:
Do you think Putin really wants us?BrutusTrump wrote:
Europe always makes fun of America for stuff, kind of understandably. However, they have to remember that without us, they’re another province of Russia.
AMG Morgan wrote:
Wtf is wrong with you man?? there is no such thing thing as a " bad pick" both ideologies are the worst of humanity. if we did let the n@zi Germany do whatever it wanted. the holocaust would have been much bigger. if we let the communist win it's just as bad the fascist
AMG Morgan wrote:
As I said it would be nice. but It would require all of humanity coming together to make a global revolution, and knowing how we already hate each other that's simply asking too much.
AK140 wrote:
Calling it a "pipe dream than actual reality" without backing a source or provide any argument... yeah, such an "honest" move there.
I do admit that capitalism is that effective at making you unable to see reality without the lens of its ideology.
AK140 wrote:
AMG Morgan wrote:
Wtf is wrong with you man?? there is no such thing thing as a " bad pick" both ideologies are the worst of humanity. if we did let the n@zi Germany do whatever it wanted. the holocaust would have been much bigger. if we let the communist win it's just as bad the fascist
That being said, I'm glad that now you're more open to the idea of communism by changing your stance of "one of the worst of humanity" into "nice but unrealistic". That's a progressAMG Morgan wrote:
As I said it would be nice. but It would require all of humanity coming together to make a global revolution, and knowing how we already hate each other that's simply asking too much.
AK140 wrote:
Calling it a "pipe dream than actual reality" without backing a source or provide any argument... yeah, such an "honest" move there.
I do admit that capitalism is that effective at making you unable to see reality without the lens of its ideology.
I invite you to either debate me on this or learn more. I'll put forth a claim that Socialism gives better quality of life and that people are starting to realize that capitalism is failing. It's not all bleak, new movements all over are starting to rise.
Yes, America would need the UK's one working destroyer. Without it, we'd be dead.Claudio von Panjim wrote:
Wrong, it's probably the other way around.BrutusTrump wrote:
Europe always makes fun of America for stuff, kind of understandably. However, they have to remember that without us, they’re another province of Russia.
vietcong2005 wrote:
. Although Nazi Germany was more cruel, Aryans within the country still lived in relative prosperity until the last few years of World War II.
vietcong2005 wrote:
Communism does not work. Although Nazi Germany was more cruel, Aryans within the country still lived in relative prosperity until the last few years of World War II. However, in the Soviet Union everyone starved and died, when Russians soldiers that entered Germany were quite shocked by how wealthy the average German was compared to a regular Soviet citizen. Communism is technically what you call state capitalism, it is where the government takes all the money, while everyone remains poor. Despite its mistakes, Capitalism still allow a good amount of citizens to make money. Some of you may call the nordic countries socialist, in reality they are not, they still allow private property, free market, private companies, etc. Meanwhile, China and Russia are more Fascist than Socialist, the government does not give any benefits to the people. If you want to experience socialism, go live in North Korea, they have a good quality of life. They have a benevolent and charismatic president, and an open democracy.
vietcong2005 wrote:
Communism does not work.
vietcong2005 wrote:
Although Nazi Germany was more cruel
vietcong2005 wrote:
Aryans within the country still lived in relative prosperity until the last few years of World War II.
vietcong2005 wrote:
However, in the Soviet Union everyone starved and died
vietcong2005 wrote:
when Russians soldiers that entered Germany were quite shocked by how wealthy the average German was compared to a regular Soviet citizen.
vietcong2005 wrote:
Communism is technically what you call state capitalism, it is where the government takes all the money, while everyone remains poor.
AK140 wrote:
Misconception, Communism is not about equality, nor is it about control. Communism is simply a classless, stateless, and moneyless society, but that definition sounds too simplistic and I guess people can conflate it to equality, so I independently developed a new method of explaining what Communism is.
And Communism is... in the air! Literally. Air is a finite resource, yet it is just so abundant that we don't have to pay money to breathe air, your class status has no role in you breathing air, and the state doesn't tax nor enforce you for breathing air. Adults consume more air than children and therefore they're not consuming air equally, but do we criticize adults for that? Do we think how much air do we "want"? But what about those who wanna hoard air? My question is: why, though? But I'm sure there, however few, are people who wanna hoard air anyway. Well, they need the equipments, storages, and others' help to hoard air, and maybe I'm being presumptuous, but I don't think many will help you in such a quest unles and they might even stop you if you take too much air that it starts to be noticeable. And besides, you probably need to hoard a shit ton anyway until it starts to be noticeable, so you probably can hoard some in the weird case that you wanted to hoard air and actually succeeded.
Now, replace air with basic human needs like: food, water, shelter, and clothing. What Communism is, essentially, a post-scarcity world for basic human needs. Money, class, and state are simply obselete when they are in such abundance to satisfy everyone's needs. Of course, now the question lies whether that be possible or just a utopian dream? I'd argue that yes, it's possible. We produce enough food to feed 10 billion humans, but most of them are wasted. There are more empty houses than there are homeless people in the US. What's utopian is expecting capitalism, a system that relies on infinite growth on a finite planet, to either be the best or the only option we have.
To debunk another common misconception that's circulating around as memes: No, Communism is not when nobody can own anything.
So no, it's not when you share your own toothbrush with everyone. If anyone takes your personal property without your knowledge and consent, that is stealing from you. But if you have a private property, hire workers to produce goods and profit off their surplus labor, you are stealing from them.azureScapegoat wrote:
If you're afraid the communists are going to break into your home and take your Xbox because private property has been abolished, you can sleep easy knowing that "private property" is not the same as "personal property." Private property refers to means of production (factories, machinery, etc.), whereas personal property refers to the things you the common person own. Your house, your car, and your Xbox are all personal property, and belong to you.
vietcong2005 wrote:
Despite its mistakes, Capitalism still allow a good amount of citizens to make money.
vietcong2005 wrote:
Some of you may call the nordic countries socialist, in reality they are not, they still allow private property, free market, private companies, etc.
Socialism101 wrote:
We are not social democrats
Many European nations practice an ideology known as social democracy. Social democracy is an ideology which supports "economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy", and thus it a capitalistic ideology, not a socialistic ideology. Socialism, by definition, opposes capitalism and seeks to dismantle the capitalist system. Whilst social democratic nations do well in some regards, they are only able to offer things like social security to their citizens due to the availability of cheap off-shore labour in the third world, and by high taxes on the working class. We socialists oppose outsourcing jobs to third-world nations and we oppose taxes on the general population. We believe in common ownership of enterprise, the productivity of which will be used to benefit all of society and not just CEOs. Taxes and redistributionism only attack the symptoms of inequality, not the cause.
We are not social democrats. We are not Democrats. We are not Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama.
As you can see, social democratic countries exploit poorer countries. There's no middle ground of capitalism and Socialism/Communism. Capitalism must be abolished.Socialism101 wrote:
Is social democracy, or "Nordic-style socialism" a viable alternative to capitalism?
Social democracy is a system that, by definition, advocates for social justice within the framework of a capitalistic economy. It serves not as an alternative to capitalism itself, but rather a different, "friendlier" version of it. To many, the social democratic system seems like a good middle-ground between capitalism and socialism. But social democracy is a system built not only on the exploitation of the workers in the country it is established, but also on imperialistic exploitation of the global south's "third world" countries. Social democracy is not viable without the luxury that cheap offshore labour provides. If conditions for the workers in third world countries improve (e.g. child labour is outlawed and the 12-hour workday is changed to an 8- or 6-hour workday), the standards of living in social democratic countries fall.
Further critiques of social democracy include the fact that democratic systems of social democratic countries still serve the bourgeoisie. The rich and the corporations work tirelessly to undo any victories won by the workers through democratic means (universal healthcare, free education, unemployment subsidies, raising of the minimum wage, etc.), resulting in effectively half the parliament in any given social democratic country being bourgeois, and the other being social democratic, both sides of which carry on a back-and-fourth political battle that never ends and doesn't have a winner. The short 4-year terms only add to the problem: A party with majority parliamentary representation in a social democratic country tries desperately to make as much short-term change as possible, and do nothing when they don't have majority, resulting in no party ever making any long-term commitments and practically abandoning ideology altogether. It turns politics into a sports game where people vote for their favourite team, not for any ideological reason but because they believe their team is the best, or has the prettiest logo, or the best slogan, or the most handsome party leader, or simply because their parents vote for that party. (Source)
vietcong2005 wrote:
Meanwhile, China and Russia are more Fascist than Socialist, the government does not give any benefits to the people.
vietcong2005 wrote:
If you want to experience socialism, go live in North Korea, they have a good quality of life. They have a benevolent and charismatic president, and an open democracy.
What fights? I don't see any fights. I was being cheeky sure, but there were no apparent hostilities between any of us.Claudio von Panjim wrote:
Stop the fights, or this thread will be closed by the moderators, the only chatroom in the forum
BMfox wrote:
Here you can discuss all that you want, about who you want and this thread will not be moderated strictly so that all the users here can have their own space.
Pathos wrote:
i) Deputy Sheriffs are not welcome. In problematic threads, the moderators will take care of it.
cl0xy wrote:
russia is a failed nation
1 Guest