I take the view, that an hours work, is an hours work and it may be more or less unpleasant than another hour.
Do you think that an hour worth of pushing a broom is of the same value as an hour worth of brain surgery?
Topic: comrades, is bitcoin a great leap forward for international socialism? - page 5. (Read 7819 times)
September 05, 2011, 05:03:04 AM
Do you think that an hour worth of pushing a broom is of the same value as an hour worth of brain surgery?
September 05, 2011, 04:59:11 AM
One might choose to live on an empty island? But remember, socialism knows no borders - wherever unfairness emerges, socialistic principles will gain popular support. You have to work with that, or suppress it. And if you are against suppression, then socialism will triumph - its fairly inevitable.
As marx said, "the definition of peace is the absence of resistance to socialism"
As marx said, "the definition of peace is the absence of resistance to socialism"
Marx was a bourgeois. You are a traitor to the cause by citing a bourgeois.
ha - thats a laugh.
if you are of the working class and advocate a return to socialism or communism - then you will be merely seeking personal advantage through the apparently unholy, politics of jealousy.
alternatively, if you are not of the dirt poor classes, then you are a hypocrite.
I don't buy it sorry.
Fact is, human nature could be described as communist, because for for most of its existence, human societies could be described as communist. Perhaps socialism is an attempt to marry human nature to the industry and technological age.
Typical bourgeois answer. You did not reply to what I said and tried to pass over it.
You are a traitor to the working class follower of the bourgeois Marx.
September 05, 2011, 04:59:03 AM
Fairness is a good thing. What's fair about you sitting in the shade and watching me felling a forest, clearing the stumps, plowing the soil, sowing the seeds, tending the crops, harvesting the corn and then you coming to claim some of it? You did nothing. I did all the work. That hardly seems fair.
fairness doesn't mean that those who do not contribute, should necessarily gain a near equal amount to those that do:
Its just I do not agree that our system, because of market failure correctly rewards work done. Markets have a problem of both over and under valuing goods, and that includes labour. I take the view, that an hours work, is an hours work and it may be more or less unpleasant than another hour.
September 05, 2011, 04:55:28 AM
Fairness is a good thing. What's fair about you sitting in the shade and watching me felling a forest, clearing the stumps, plowing the soil, sowing the seeds, tending the crops, harvesting the corn and then you coming to claim some of it? You did nothing. I did all the work. That hardly seems fair.
September 05, 2011, 04:45:28 AM
Democracy is three people on an island and two of them vote to rob the third.
no, its rather more balanced than that. that one person can kick up such a fuss that its worth the other two making some effort to get the thirds cooperation.
In reality. there many issues that interest the different groups of society. And in the trading off of each others ideal directions and protected ideas and rights even minority factions can gain traction in a democracy.
Under libertarian society, the force of the state exists to protect the right and stature of the few. Democracy without teeth is a rubber stamp.
September 05, 2011, 04:42:00 AM
I don't expect that you will agree with this, but I assume that you are aware?
The idea that wealth belongs to all comes from a couple of directions:
1) it all really comes from the land, and the land existed before mankind and life on earth. It seems strange to carve it up into fiefdoms unless there is some overall organisational advantage - which is arbitrary decision.
2) because of criminality and less than moral but legal practices through history - when you look at the past few centuries, theres been some rotten regimes ruling our ancestors: Wealth has often built up in some individuals in the past, then effectively laundered by the elite to legally pass on that right of property from one generation to the next and beyond. As each generation passes, opacity in the origin of that wealth in some eyes, legitimises it!
3) fairness and meritocracy is a good thing.
The idea that wealth belongs to all comes from a couple of directions:
1) it all really comes from the land, and the land existed before mankind and life on earth. It seems strange to carve it up into fiefdoms unless there is some overall organisational advantage - which is arbitrary decision.
2) because of criminality and less than moral but legal practices through history - when you look at the past few centuries, theres been some rotten regimes ruling our ancestors: Wealth has often built up in some individuals in the past, then effectively laundered by the elite to legally pass on that right of property from one generation to the next and beyond. As each generation passes, opacity in the origin of that wealth in some eyes, legitimises it!
3) fairness and meritocracy is a good thing.
September 05, 2011, 04:35:06 AM
Thanks you've made your stance perfectly clear. That form of socialism I reject.
No, it doesn't.
Democracy is three people on an island and two of them vote to rob the third.
wealth belongs to all of society
No, it doesn't.
under the mandate of some sort of democracy
Democracy is three people on an island and two of them vote to rob the third.
September 05, 2011, 04:27:33 AM
why are you annoyed? I answered fully. Suggesting for example, that you could live on a remote island and hope that its future citizens do not advocate socialism.
coercion has its place if there is resistance: for example, their is a great, existential, need to tax the rich more in order that the rest of society need not suffer the Utility Penalty or a drain on GDP from the effect of dampened velocity of money - if that need is resisted, then the resistance must be pushed through.
remembering that ultimately wealth belongs to all of society, one should only really expect that fundamental human rights are respected, less so, arbitrarily framed ones around property.
All this takes place under the mandate of some sort of democracy.
coercion has its place if there is resistance: for example, their is a great, existential, need to tax the rich more in order that the rest of society need not suffer the Utility Penalty or a drain on GDP from the effect of dampened velocity of money - if that need is resisted, then the resistance must be pushed through.
remembering that ultimately wealth belongs to all of society, one should only really expect that fundamental human rights are respected, less so, arbitrarily framed ones around property.
All this takes place under the mandate of some sort of democracy.
September 05, 2011, 04:10:07 AM
I'm a socialist and im very interested in the emergence of bitcoin.
What kind of socialist? A peaceful and voluntary socialist or a coercive and mandatory socialist? In other words, in your world would myself and others be free to opt out of your socialist paradigm?
One might choose to live on an empty island? But remember, socialism knows no borders - wherever unfairness emerges, socialistic principles will gain popular support. You have to work with that, or suppress it. And if you are against suppression, then socialism will triumph - its fairly inevitable.
As marx said, "the definition of peace is the absence of resistance to socialism"
It's kind of annoying when you don't answer my questions. What kind of socialist are you? A peaceful and voluntary socialist or a coercive and mandatory socialist? In your world would myself and others be free to opt out of your socialist paradigm? These are direct questions which require direct answers.
September 05, 2011, 03:51:07 AM
Socialism is used to describe a broad range of ideas. I regard those that wish for redistribution of wealth to be socialists for examples, others would not.
Was the Nazi reference on purpose?
Quote
a 1000 years of socialism
Was the Nazi reference on purpose?
Nazis were socialists after all, so....
Sorry, but Adolf Hitler was certainly no Clement Atlee, who was a real socialist.
But there is convergence between conservative, libertarian political-economy and the fascist political economy - for example: class distinction is both supported and accepted by fascists and modern libertarianism alike. It is as though fascism has undergone a rebranding with the most overtly disgusting ideas filtered out. And yet, still social darwinism is well accepted by libertarians of the conservative sort thinking.
Nazi is short for National Socialist. Go watch Riefenstahls coverage of the Reichsparteitag 1936 in Nürnberg. Anything and everything said there is Socialism in it's purest form.
yeahp, and north korea call themselves the Democratic Republic of Korea - does their evil regime undermine the case for democracy? like bollocks. It is not about whatever is said, it is about what is done.
Libertarian conservatives have some very bizarre ideas which are exactly the same in some respects as the fascist political economy minus the racist garbage. Ideas of class that are supported as a good thing in the fascist political economy are upheld by interpretation of property rights of ultra capitalism.
September 05, 2011, 03:47:25 AM
One might choose to live on an empty island? But remember, socialism knows no borders - wherever unfairness emerges, socialistic principles will gain popular support. You have to work with that, or suppress it. And if you are against suppression, then socialism will triumph - its fairly inevitable.
As marx said, "the definition of peace is the absence of resistance to socialism"
As marx said, "the definition of peace is the absence of resistance to socialism"
Marx was a bourgeois. You are a traitor to the cause by citing a bourgeois.
ha - thats a laugh.
if you are of the working class and advocate a return to socialism or communism - then you will be merely seeking personal advantage through the apparently unholy, politics of jealousy.
alternatively, if you are not of the dirt poor classes, then you are a hypocrite.
I don't buy it sorry.
Fact is, human nature could be described as communist, because for for most of its existence, human societies could be described as communist. Perhaps socialism is an attempt to marry human nature to the industry and technological age.
September 05, 2011, 02:16:15 AM
One might choose to live on an empty island? But remember, socialism knows no borders - wherever unfairness emerges, socialistic principles will gain popular support. You have to work with that, or suppress it. And if you are against suppression, then socialism will triumph - its fairly inevitable.
As marx said, "the definition of peace is the absence of resistance to socialism"
As marx said, "the definition of peace is the absence of resistance to socialism"
Marx was a bourgeois. You are a traitor to the cause by citing a bourgeois.
September 05, 2011, 02:04:45 AM
socialism or communism works well in communities a good example of this is the zapatistas. a large state can't be trusted with any form of ism. people should be able to live how they please; trade, share or form a collective as they please. if a community wants to band together to form a commune and the state prevents that then it is not a free society. a free society is more important than any ideology. you cannot have a socialist utopia without at first a free society or else you will have a dystopia.
i see the benefits of socialism but i am not a socialist and neither am i an ideologue. i do, however, uncompromisingly believe that people should live as they want and any state that prevents that or tries to is illegitimate.
i see the benefits of socialism but i am not a socialist and neither am i an ideologue. i do, however, uncompromisingly believe that people should live as they want and any state that prevents that or tries to is illegitimate.
September 04, 2011, 09:23:09 PM
The latter is not a socialist, though he may still think of himself as such.
If that is the case 90+% of socialists are not socialists.
Meant to say "former" here.
September 04, 2011, 08:14:53 PM
Socialism is used to describe a broad range of ideas. I regard those that wish for redistribution of wealth to be socialists for examples, others would not.
Was the Nazi reference on purpose?
Quote
a 1000 years of socialism
Was the Nazi reference on purpose?
Nazis were socialists after all, so....
Sorry, but Adolf Hitler was certainly no Clement Atlee, who was a real socialist.
But there is convergence between conservative, libertarian political-economy and the fascist political economy - for example: class distinction is both supported and accepted by fascists and modern libertarianism alike. It is as though fascism has undergone a rebranding with the most overtly disgusting ideas filtered out. And yet, still social darwinism is well accepted by libertarians of the conservative sort thinking.
Nazi is short for National Socialist. Go watch Riefenstahls coverage of the Reichsparteitag 1936 in Nürnberg. Anything and everything said there is Socialism in it's purest form.
September 04, 2011, 05:30:48 PM
I'm a socialist and im very interested in the emergence of bitcoin.
What kind of socialist? A peaceful and voluntary socialist or a coercive and mandatory socialist? In other words, in your world would myself and others be free to opt out of your socialist paradigm?
One might choose to live on an empty island? But remember, socialism knows no borders - wherever unfairness emerges, socialistic principles will gain popular support. You have to work with that, or suppress it. And if you are against suppression, then socialism will triumph - its fairly inevitable.
As marx said, "the definition of peace is the absence of resistance to socialism"
September 04, 2011, 05:25:53 PM
Socialism is used to describe a broad range of ideas. I regard those that wish for redistribution of wealth to be socialists for examples, others would not.
Was the Nazi reference on purpose?
Quote
a 1000 years of socialism
Was the Nazi reference on purpose?
Nazis were socialists after all, so....
Sorry, but Adolf Hitler was certainly no Clement Atlee, who was a real socialist.
But there is convergence between conservative, libertarian political-economy and the fascist political economy - for example: class distinction is both supported and accepted by fascists and modern libertarianism alike. It is as though fascism has undergone a rebranding with the most overtly disgusting ideas filtered out. And yet, still social darwinism is well accepted by libertarians of the conservative sort thinking.
September 04, 2011, 02:30:31 PM
Socialism is used to describe a broad range of ideas. I regard those that wish for redistribution of wealth to be socialists for examples, others would not.
Was the Nazi reference on purpose?
Quote
a 1000 years of socialism
Was the Nazi reference on purpose?
Nazis were socialists after all, so....
September 04, 2011, 02:25:25 PM
Socialism is used to describe a broad range of ideas. I regard those that wish for redistribution of wealth to be socialists for examples, others would not.
Was the Nazi reference on purpose?
Quote
a 1000 years of socialism
Was the Nazi reference on purpose?
September 04, 2011, 12:23:11 PM
The latter is not a socialist, though he may still think of himself as such.
If that is the case 90+% of socialists are not socialists.
Many people reject socialism in error: If they could forget the soviet propaganda of what socialism is all about, and the covergent fearsome propaganda of the ultracapitalists which agreed with stalins convenient definitions - then most people would probably be intensely relaxed about socialism.
Socialism could mean state control of industry, or it could mean pushing worker owned cooperatives. The latter is a libertarian-socialist position, the former requires a really healthy democracy in order to be valid and safe.
State socialism can exist without democracy, but will be pretty damn evil. Democracy without socialism is dangerous polar opposite. And only animals that live on both poles are what? penguins and polar bears, walruses and stuff like that?
My only question is, does your definition of socialism permit an individual to own the product of his labor and that which is voluntarily traded to her?
If not, then how do you justify using force and coercion on peaceful people?
Jump to: