Topic: [It's not real communism] or why socialism can still be an answer - page 2. (Read 1098 times)

Let's say there isn't state, each person has the same rights, everyone is "equal" (I really don't believe in equality, as it smashes the individuality). Then I suppose there won't be any constitution, because who will rule the country are the citizens directly, right? What they want is the law.

So the majority starts going against others unfairly, creating a big syndicate that will rule (dictatorship) aiming their own interests. There won't be any laws to protect anyone, as what matters are the majority wishes. After this point, a civil war may happen.

This majority can also create big economical issues, as there is a chance they won't know what they will be doing.


Politicians should be more capable than the average Joe to get that position (probably the average Joe should be more capable to choose the right politician too). It's true in many countries it doesn't work well, here there was a preacher as Science and Technology minister. Nothing against preachers, but in this case the guy didn't know anything about science or technology... At least here now there is a promise it will change, I hope so.


I'm not a big fan of these studies, they are very convenient when they want. It may vary depending on how you interpret them. Maybe a law that benefits the wealthy people, benefits average people too. Especially taking in consideration investments wealthy people make on the countries, what is advantageous even for the miserable ones.

But if a representant isn't being coherent with his initial proposals, there are many others on the competition, waiting for a chance. With social medias the pression over them is much bigger nowadays.


That is true, that is how Democracy is fail, not a perfect system, but at least there are some guarantees that respect our individuality against a possible majority's abuse. And even if it was the Communism you say, these people would continue apathetic towards the politics, with the difference it would be a hostile unstable system.


Yes, changes are needed, 5 years is too much to accept quietly, especially if the political said one thing during the campaign and did the opposite or nothing after elected. I just don't think changes should be so extreme...


Between the two options, none was good for them, however their candidates weren't enough to please the majority too, otherwise they would be on the final round of the elections... The stronger group wins, with or without majority. It's really hard to find a candidate who is able to get votes from most people of a country.

I think if a politician lies new polls should be summoned.


Yes, because the ones who just press the buttons on the election's day and doesn't care anymore. Some people don't even know the difference between a president and a mayor... Again, it's not a perfect system, changes are constantly needed, but always preserving the conquests we made so far.

Capital would flee.  Your currency would collapse.  An iPhone would cost as much as a doctor's annual salary in your system.

Any more questions?

You are confusing social programs with socialism.

You are wrong on capitalism.  Capitalism is cruel, harsh but has more opportunities for people who want to work hard.

Socialism or communism will provide you with free education, free medical services, and will provide you with jobs after you graduate that will get you through the first week of the month, the rest will be up to you to figure out.  Socialism will offer you subsistence living, most of the time you will be literally starving.

In capitalism, even with a job on the production line, you can survive the whole month with two weeks pay.  You can save money even with a job at the McDonalds.

The hardest thing in capitalism is to control yourself and not to buy all the shit you don't really need.  That was the hardest part.  I could have retired sooner if I did not take expensive vacations, bought expensively jewelry or cars early in my career.  

Other than that, the hardest job I had was washing aluminum extruder dies in acid (with rubber gloves that had holes), but it paid very well.
Almost died there.   Do I think workers struggle in capitalism?  I think most do because they spend too much, are not educated and are destined for a life on the production lines.  Do I think their lives are better than the upper management in the socialist or communist countries, you bet yah.
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegative_democracy

You got any link to that? I've never heard of this so I'm pretty interested!

No to just direct democracy; liquid democracy is way better.

It has the benefits of representative democracy (for apathetic voters) and allows the freedom of direct democracy (for those that are interested in politics).

It's quite a revolutionary system that needs implemented in our House of Representatives. The sooner its implemented; the sooner Americans can have their interest represented.

I described your delusion a bit upper man ^^

I know that socialism is what allowed me to be where I am.

I wouldn't have the money to pay for my college without socialism. My dad's first company went bankrupt and by the time he made a more successfull attempt I already had my diploma. Do you suggest that it wasn't thanks to socialism?

There are good and bad sides to both systems and I'd say socialism outweigth capitalism on the good side, although it is again not the main point of this post but all the liberal economist of the forum are trying to argue that so I have to answer this off topic subject...

And I am yet to be presented any argument against socialism + direct democracy... mrcash02 is arguing this point right now but I haven't seen anything from you.

It seems even more people are confusing authoritarian implementations of communism and socialism with theological implements of libertarian communism/socialism.

To most people, in the West, not living under an authoritarian regime; they see socialism as "democracy in the workplace".

Tell me, what is the point of quoting if you are just going to delete the comment anyway? it seems to me your inability to respond to my arguments is leaving you feeling ineffectual so deleting my comments gives you a feeling of control and authority like most Communists crave in spite of their continual denials.

It is rather convenient you just get to unilaterally declare all of my arguments invalid, and also simultaneously state you have appropriately refuted each position even when I have repeatedly pointed out your failures in logic and critical thought. Usually people with valid arguments don't need to resort to those kind of tactics.

Just because my ideas upset you does not mean it is trolling. All it means is you are making a public confession that you are too weak to form an argument, and even considering an opposing opinion upsets you. Also this makes a convenient out for you so you don't ever have to engage any criticism of any argument you make because you can simply label your opposition a troll and wash your hands of it. Again, people with good ideas don't need to do this.

You don't see how it can't be better? Well it is a good thing the world doesn't rely on your shortsightedness isn't it? Clearly since you can't see, there must not exist any ideas in refutation of your conclusions! You created a thread to argue why Communism will work, and I am telling you why it will not only NOT WORK, it will result in horrible societal collapse. However you can't see how it can't be better, so I guess that is that eh? You have fun convincing yourself you aren't censoring, everyone else taking note of how you operate.

+1

The privileged (probably white, middle-class kids) arguing about socialism.  They have no fucking idea what socialism or communism is.

If you lived under both socialist/communist and capitalist systems you would understand the fundamental flaws and benefits of each system.

They should interview people who lived in socialist and communist regimes. 

Instead, they think they "got it", and their interpretation of socialism will work (no matter the evidence to contrary) if they would only get a chance to implement it "properly".  LOL.

These guys are a joke.  Comedians really.

LOL 
I am very curious. Two people not from the communist countries(I guess) are arguing over communism. Well, let me tell you the true thoughts of the people living in the communist countries. In fact, They don’t care what communism is at all. For most of them, they only have one idea: make money--->migrate to the West.
This is the truest idea of ​​the people in the communist countries. They do not oppose the Communist Party. At present, the rule of the Communist Party can make the country more stable, but they also yearn for democracy in the West, so quietly make money and then quietly change their nationality to be the ultimate thing for the richers.

Oh no, don't put me on ignore! I don't need you to reply to me to counter your senseless arguments. All ignoring me is going to do is make it harder for you to support your position (not that you are managing to do that to begin with).

I am reading everything, and you must attribute some kind of non-specific logical error to me because you have no good reply to my arguments. You don't understand that your intend has very little to do with the end result. Quite convenient you can just write anyone who doesn't agree with you off as a troll isn't it? Maybe in the future you can have me sent off to the gulags so you never have to hear any opinions you don't like ever again.

A pure democracy means individuals have no rights. Minority groups will always be outvoted, and therefore never represented. That is why the US is a Constitutional Republic. The Republic protects the rights of individuals via rule of law. Also it is actually pretty easy to corrupt the masses, it is called propaganda or brainwashing. These are some of the least informed and least educated individuals, they are the easiest to lie to.

Quoting you for the people who might read this thread later.

All of what you said is in previous answers because I answered each and every claim you made one by one. If there is a single argument missing please notify me I'll edit this post.

I'm deleting your comments because I consider that your aggressive behaviour without any logic (you're not being logic, you talk as if everyone should know the strange hypotethises you have in your mind...) is just trolling. You're being circular and ignoring that the point of this OP is NOT that communism is the answer, but that socialism should be studied deeply to see if the combination of socialism and direct democracy could produce an interesting result. I'm not even saying it WILL I'm saying I don't see how it can't be better than what we have currently.

If you want to discuss how stupid communists are create your own thread. And deleting your aggressive comments while keeping all the arguments in previous quotes is NOT censoring in any way...

EDIT: Since TECSHARE and I have don't have the same definition of trolling I removed his posts from the thread but he ahd the good idea to post them on another one. You can find our arguments there https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/reee-its-not-real-communism-or-why-socialism-can-still-be-an-answer-5076948 if you're interestedEDIT: Since TECSHARE and I have don't have the same definition of trolling I removed his posts from the thread but he ahd the good idea to post them on another one. You can find our arguments there https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/reee-its-not-real-communism-or-why-socialism-can-still-be-an-answer-5076948 if you're interested

It's like communist countries managed to make even dictatorship innefficient 

Of course you agree with the OP. He removes any dissenting opinions, then justifies eliminating arguments he has no reply to by calling those that challenge his ideas trolls. So much for Communism not being totalitarian right? Communists seem to have a fetish about censoring ideas that call their precious lord and savior Communism into question.

I totally agree with what you said, and now they call themselves communist countries. They are not real communism. They are closer to the political power of the party state. The so-called party state means that the "party" is higher than the government, so their biggest problem is their governments, military, and large enterprises are all controlled by the party.

If you have been to any communist country, you will find that the actual top leaders in these countries are not the president/prime minister, but the general secretary of the party. The highest commander of their army is not the commander but the political commissar. The highest decision-making level of the company is not the board of directors but the party committee of the company.

This is a little different from dictatorship, they are usually not personal dictatorships, but a collective dictatorship. That is to say, there will still be struggles for power in their interiors. If most party members oppose their general secretary, then it is very likely that the general secretary will be overthrown and a new general secretary will be produced, but personal dictatorships are usually not overthrown from within.

How coul communism in a direct democracy lead to dictatorship? I really don't see how it's possible would you mind enlightening me here? 
Three main ideas you have here:
-First, politicians are more capable that the averag Joe that's why it's good they make the decision. I think you're extremely wrong here, I don't know how it's done in your country but in mine one guy can be minister of education one day (without having even worked in this sector before) then minister of the environment another day (without having worked or studied in this sector before). Most of our politicians are DEEPLY incapable. Maybe your country managed to assure your leaders have some skills if show I'd love to hear how they're doing this!

-Second, that representants are somehow on the same line as their voters. Here again it's completely false in my country and an Harvard studies on American democracy showed how false it was in USA. Representants in USA vote laws at 70% on the line with the 1% most wealthy people in the country and 30% on the line with their voters. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B The representants represent mainly (if not only) the wealthy people, not the people who voted for them.

-Third, people need representants because they don't have time or knowledge or the will to take the matters in their own hands. Well I'd say that's a huge problem because a citizen who doesn't care about politics is not a citizen. I mean it in no offensive way, citizen means duties, the first of these duties being taking part of the city and the country life. If you don't want to care about politics no problem, but that means you're just an inhabitants of the country, not a citizen. So you shouldn't vote at all. Problem being that today, as people vote only every 3 to 5 years, people who don't care AT ALL about politics have as much weigth in political decisions as people actually caring.

You're completely right here! They are indeed responsible at least in part for the corrupt politicians. But why? Well again I don't know where you're from but in my country, it's not a democracy. We call it a democracy because we're used to calling it that way, but that's more an elective monarchy. You elect a king and then you can't do ANYTHING for 5 years as he has all the power and accounts to no one.

People are powerless. Hence they're no longer involved in political life. To give you an example, our previous president was elected by only 40% of the population, the 60% either didn't vote for him, or didn't vote at all. Why should they even vote? Whatever politicians say there is no way they'll be true to their words.

We have choice but without responsability. We have vote but we have no power. We're not complete hence we're not trying to become real citizens. We're just a small part of a big machine working without us...

Oh how cute and refractory. Are you even capable of coming up with your own analogies or do you require some one else state one first before you can use it?

OOOH NO! HOW COULD I DENY THE POLITICAL COMPASS! THE POLITICAL COMPASS IS OUR GOD AND IS LAW!

So what if I do deny your dumb fucking compass. It is a theory and a visual aid, not a law or evidence of anything other than the fact you like pretty pictures and think they give you authority. All of your arguments come from an appeal to authority, either that or you have to redefine words until you can avoid addressing direct criticism, or literally claim I say things I never said.

What I am saying is what I am saying. You don't get to speak for me. How about I start speaking for you since you insist on constantly speaking for me?

You are saying "oh we live in the 21st century, it can't happen again!"
You are saying "oh we can just print all the money we need!"
You are saying "oh that wasn't real Socialism, this time it will be different!"
You are saying "printing money doesn't cause inflation!"
You are saying "you deny the political compass therefore all your arguments are strawmen!"
You are saying "I get to say what your argument is then demand you refute that!"

What you are saying is you want to sell poorly informed people that they can some how magically be entitled to free shit and keep all their rights while you systematically eat out the substance of the host nation enriching those at the top while lying to the poorly educated masses.

You are saying when your ideology inevitably fails yet again as it always has, you will then strip regular people of everything they own as the former "Capitalist" or job creating class is destroyed, and the only remaining resources left to steal are from the average people themselves.

Not at all.

First thing I'm proposing is a direct democracy, which would get rid of corruption and cooperation between governments and big corporations.

Second thing I would propose is more of a nation-owned company concerning the basic needs (health, food, education, real estate...). Which doesn't mean that those companies shouldn't exist without private competition. I'm all in for private companies if they want to compete with national companies no problem with that.

But the most important thing here is that I say we need the first thing and... We might try the second. But once the first thing is done then who am I to decide on the second one?

I don't see how anyone could refuse the direct democracy with any kind of logical argument. But the social economy system I have in mind is just an idea of how organising our society. We might go in a totally different direction if that's what is wanted.

The important thing is the direct democracy, which would already make our CURRENT situation so much better... Reducing the power of big corporation in an incredible way.