Socialism = evil

[guevarista]

5-5 so much for the transcendence of the Left vs Right Paradigm haha

Originally Posted by kit carruthers

i'm no socialist but i don't understand how taking care of your people could be considered evil. i don't agree with socialism but i certainly don't think it's evil. communism either... or, in principle at least, i mean i don't think we've had one communist nation that wasn't at least a little evil.

i believe society should filter out the weak because i, in fact, am a little evil.

Define weak, surely you don't mean people born handicapped through no fault of their own?

I don't think the problem is with the "communist" bit, more the "nation" bit.

IMO Nations are essentially a residue of inequality, the most powerful tribes took the best hunting lands and claimed them, to maintain Nations is to maintain an illusion, imo a very profitable illusion for a select few "in charge" of the Nation.

Now don't reflex here and say "oh look at the evel commie, must be a member of the UN", UN is United Nations, united illusionary demarcations would be more accurate imo, I want a world, not a world government, I want Unity, not United Nations.

Socialism:

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

[guevarista]

Originally Posted by mithios

Well,here's the thing: You have to get passed politics full stop.

If you have no input to how you and your land is ruled/governed how does that empower you?

[kit carruthers]

Originally Posted by guevarista

Define weak, surely you don't mean people born handicapped through no fault of their own?

...kinda. i think they should be euthanized at birth. but only because i believe in reincarnation and think they would be better off in a new body. and i think eugenics would eventually fix the need to euthanize anybody. as for people who have become handicapped and can't work, they should receive pay from their old job and not from the government.

see? evil.

[rhydra]

Socialism, rounding people up, putting them in gulags and murdering them by the millions, I don't believe in the concept of evil as it is a human action, however, it's a pretty rotten concept and one which deprives of their dignity and individualism those who have to live under it. I include National Socialism as it is the same collectivisation of wealth by a centralised government going around nationalising stuff and public works such as road building and militarisation.

[aheroicstand]

Originally Posted by mushroomhead

why do you think you would be a work slave in a socialist society while other sat back and did nothing ,
that only exists in market economy's where profits determine workforces and output ,
in a socialist state output would be needs dependant and workforce quantity dependant .

I find that hard to believe. There are people today who have no interest in working, or rather would prefer to scam/harm others to get what they want. A socialist society isn't going to make those people disappear(unless it has gulags). As someone else said, Some will be paying in far more than they take out, while others take out far more than what they pay in. We have that kind of socialism already in the U.S., and it's debilitating economically.

Doesn't sound viable to me. I prefer freedom, profit should determine workforces and output, not the state. With that freedom, there should be the responsibility for the people to provide for themselves and, if they so desire, each other. If as a society they choose not to, then a socialist system will not change those morals, not without force anyway. And to use such force defeats the supposedly noble purpose of a socialist society in the first place.

[nirvana]

Originally Posted by mushroomhead

why ?

Why ?

Hitler killed millions.

Pol pot killed millions

Stalin killed millions

do i need to go on?

Not to mention the hypocrisy with the UAF now having a muslim extreemist as vice-chair Adzard Ali a man who hates democracy a man who hates gay people,a man who wants to take over the UK and install sharia law.

With a muslim extreemist as vice-chair of UAF is it any wonder the UAF and certain parts of the far left defend the pakistani sex gangs.

[decode reality]

I don't know about "socialism is evil". Tell me what ISN'T? If you look back in recent history, it doesn't really matter what the system of government is called, socialism or whatever - they usually end up shafting people and mismanaging resources.

[guevarista]

Surely you are talking about Ideologues/Demagogues Nirvana, not Socialism?

If Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot are "evil" for murdering people, like you say, surely democracy by the same coin is equally "evil", Democratic governments having been equally involved in warfare and bloodshed? Infact if you go by that logic you could make an equally strong case for "good" being "evil" with the amount of murders that have been committed in the name of good?
Socialism:

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

If we stick to the term and it's definition, I find it hard to find anything evil in it?

[nirvana]

Originally Posted by guevarista

Surely you are talking about Ideologues/Demagogues Nirvana, not Socialism?

If Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot are "evil" for murdering people, like you say, surely democracy by the same coin is equally "evil", Democratic governments having been equally involved in warfare and bloodshed? Infact if you go by that logic you could make an equally strong case for "good" being "evil" with the amount of murders that have been committed in the name of good?
Socialism:


If we stick to the term and it's definition, I find it hard to find anything evil in it?

The problem is there is always someone who wants to lead. Could you really trust any socialist groups around at the moment? they are as bad as the far right.

[guevarista]

I don't think you can trust any "groups" full stop.

If you can fit into a group without making compromises then you're already lost imo, and who wants to make compromises all their life?

saying that I do think in times like these, tory government and neo liberalism steam rolling the poor, "socialist groups" definitely have a purpose.

[aheroicstand]

Originally Posted by guevarista

Surely you are talking about Ideologues/Demagogues Nirvana, not Socialism?

If Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot are "evil" for murdering people, like you say, surely democracy by the same coin is equally "evil", Democratic governments having been equally involved in warfare and bloodshed? Infact if you go by that logic you could make an equally strong case for "good" being "evil" with the amount of murders that have been committed in the name of good?
Socialism:


If we stick to the term and it's definition, I find it hard to find anything evil in it?

Yes democracies have been evil as well, the people only vote in leaders, they don't lead themselves.

The definition of socialism you listed looks fine when the word advocates is used. When advocates turns to funds(taxes and subsidies) which then turns into mandates(force) is where I have problems with it or any system of governance.

To me socialism is only preferable where it can naturally occur from the voluntary peaceful actions of the people.

[knightofthegrail]

Calling Socialism "evil" is overstretching the point. It has serious problems but it also has good aspects (such as promoting duty and service to community, with rewards contingent to such - as opposed to Capitalism's standard, where personal profit is the motive and reward is only contingent on market success, regardless on whether what you sell is healthy or not).

[quiranitramsab]

The poll needs more options in between , not only extreme positions .
The way they are proposed now , I donīt feel compelled to vote .

[nirvana]

Originally Posted by guevarista

I don't think you can trust any "groups" full stop.

If you can fit into a group without making compromises then you're already lost imo, and who wants to make compromises all their life?

saying that I do think in times like these, tory government and neo liberalism steam rolling the poor, "socialist groups" definitely have a purpose.

Socialist groups like the swp and uaf You do know unite against fascism now has a fascist leader

I was a member of the SWP for a few years and that has put me off socialism full stop.

[wthree]

Originally Posted by nirvana

Socialist groups like the swp and uaf You do know unite against fascism now has a fascist leader

I was a member of the SWP for a few years and that has put me off socialism full stop.

UAF are not socialist. They are an extremist anti-right group whose purpose is little more than to stiffler opinion.




as for the main topic

Socialism as a basic principle is neutral,, it purposes that all means of production should be owned by the public as a whole, meaning no one person has more power over the direction nation goes in than another.

When you combine socialism with other parts of a functioning nation, you get socialism mixed with democracy, dictatorship or whatever. Unfortunately, there has never been a functioning socialist democracy.

The primary purpose of a socialist democracy is to give the workers and consumers a say in the running of the means of production.

In a capitalist system, the changes in protocol are dictated by profit and the whims of the owners and executives. Say what you want about existing socialist states, capitalism by its very nature relies on the worker being subservient to their boss.

Capitalism relies on the simple purpose of blackmail: if a consumer dislikes a product, he will take his business elsewhere. Of course, without state intervention, businesses gain monopolys very easily and then can essentially dictate the market.

In a socialist system, profit no longer becomes the deciding factor. In its initial stages, profits of the now nationalized factories, shops and other industries go directly to all workers in the company, because they all own the company as much as the manager does. Smaller differences in wage would still exist to reflect how much work the employee does. Wage is set based on hours and effort worked.

After time, the need for wage would become irrelevant, and a business is no longer measured in profit, but in goods produced. A planned economy would allow resources to be given based on necessity, not bidding. Steel which might have gone on pots and pans that would not bought would instead go on cars or other products which are lacking. Food wasted would be minimized as food is distributed by necessity, not by potential profit. At this point, everyone would be given a house to live in, food, water and all living necessities, while those that work would be given extra luxuries based on goods produced by the state owned products. The produce of the workers would be shared among them.

Finally, because scientific advancement is driven by increasing efficiency, quality and longevity, instead of profitability and competition; we are no longer faced with the dilemma of increasing efficiency meaning less jobs. Robotics would allow factories operate with very little human control, meaning that the human element is no longer needed for manual labour.The functioning society no longer needs a large workforce, allowing peoples time to be free for personal and communal development. If a citizen chose not to work for the society, they are not a drain as the means of production is self expanding.

Finally we are left with a self sustaining society based on desired progress, not forced progress. Allowing those that wish to work, to work for personal or communal benefit, and not our of a necessity to eat.

[jesusistruth]

Socialism is the external manifestation of egomanical control. I.e., control freaks.

[cpfc12]

What became of socialism, in the soviet union or Cambodia wasn't what socialism was intended to be, same with what you see of capitalism today, its almost like a mutation or a perversion of it.

[nirvana]

Originally Posted by wthree

UAF are not socialist. They are an extremist anti-right group whose purpose is little more than to stiffler opinion.




as for the main topic

Socialism as a basic principle is neutral,, it purposes that all means of production should be owned by the public as a whole, meaning no one person has more power over the direction nation goes in than another.

When you combine socialism with other parts of a functioning nation, you get socialism mixed with democracy, dictatorship or whatever. Unfortunately, there has never been a functioning socialist democracy.

The primary purpose of a socialist democracy is to give the workers and consumers a say in the running of the means of production.

In a capitalist system, the changes in protocol are dictated by profit and the whims of the owners and executives. Say what you want about existing socialist states, capitalism by its very nature relies on the worker being subservient to their boss.

Capitalism relies on the simple purpose of blackmail: if a consumer dislikes a product, he will take his business elsewhere. Of course, without state intervention, businesses gain monopolys very easily and then can essentially dictate the market.

In a socialist system, profit no longer becomes the deciding factor. In its initial stages, profits of the now nationalized factories, shops and other industries go directly to all workers in the company, because they all own the company as much as the manager does. Smaller differences in wage would still exist to reflect how much work the employee does. Wage is set based on hours and effort worked.

After time, the need for wage would become irrelevant, and a business is no longer measured in profit, but in goods produced. A planned economy would allow resources to be given based on necessity, not bidding. Steel which might have gone on pots and pans that would not bought would instead go on cars or other products which are lacking. Food wasted would be minimized as food is distributed by necessity, not by potential profit. At this point, everyone would be given a house to live in, food, water and all living necessities, while those that work would be given extra luxuries based on goods produced by the state owned products. The produce of the workers would be shared among them.

Finally, because scientific advancement is driven by increasing efficiency, quality and longevity, instead of profitability and competition; we are no longer faced with the dilemma of increasing efficiency meaning less jobs. Robotics would allow factories operate with very little human control, meaning that the human element is no longer needed for manual labour.The functioning society no longer needs a large workforce, allowing peoples time to be free for personal and communal development. If a citizen chose not to work for the society, they are not a drain as the means of production is self expanding.

Finally we are left with a self sustaining society based on desired progress, not forced progress. Allowing those that wish to work, to work for personal or communal benefit, and not our of a necessity to eat.

The UAF are a front group for the SWP. I was a member of the swp for a few years.

The swp have had plenty of front groups in the past anti nazi league,globalise resistance,stop the war coalition.

When i was a member of swp we would invite other people ,groups etc to come to the initial meetings for the groups we were starting then gey our members to vote on mass to make sure we pulled all the strings.

How can UAF be an anti right wing? its more right wing than the bnp.
Its vice chair is a extreemist from the Islamic forum of Europe

[nirvana]

Originally Posted by cpfc12

What became of socialism, in the soviet union or Cambodia wasn't what socialism was intended to be, same with what you see of capitalism today, its almost like a mutation or a perversion of it.

When Lennin was coming to power he managed to get the workers on side and they all supported him. He told them the workers should all have an equal share of the business,factory etc.


When he came to power he changed his mind so the workers came out on strike and Lennin had them shot

He then had alot of farmers killed so he could have their land. He also had all the leaders of the church's shot aswel.

But befor he came to power he was the peoples champion

[gonzo75]

Originally Posted by nirvana

When he came to power he changed his mind so the workers came out on strike and Lennin had them shot

This one sentence both defines and encapsulates the true spirit of communism entirely.

Excellent