Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Criptfeind]

No Montague, the game is to say something even more erroneous then the person above you, not less.

[Taricus]

Nono, his statement is just as erroneous as the last one.

[Nikov]

Communism sees a rich man in his nice house and says no man should have so much.

Capitalism sees a rich man in his nice house and says every man should have so much.

Socialism sees a rich man in his nice house and says every man has a right to so much, regulates banks to expand their sub-prime lending, causes a huge economic crisis, blames it on capitalism and turns everyone into communists.

Edit: Fix'd.

[Taricus]

Socialism sees a rich man in his nice house and says every man has a right to so much, leans on banks to expand their sub-prime lending, causes a huge economic crisis, blames it on capitalism and turns everyone into communists.

Socialism regulates their banks.

[RedKing]

Socialism sees a rich man in his nice house and says every man has a right to so much, leans on banks to expand their sub-prime lending, causes a huge economic crisis, blames it on capitalism and turns everyone into communists.

Socialism regulates their banks.

BURN!

[Criptfeind]

I really don't think that contradicts him at all.

[Montague]

No Montague, the game is to say something even more erroneous then the person above you, not less.

Oh, ok.

Communists assert that since wealth is a zero-sum game, if we only killed and brainwashed enough people, everybody else could live in (identical) 200 story tall palaces made out of gold without capitalist parasites stealing all the profit monies.

Capitalists rightly know that if we'd just get off our asses and start laying bricks we'd all live in 200 story tall palaces due to the sweat of our brow and the mighty intellect we all possess.

Anyways, how about discussing other alternatives to capitalist/mixed systems besides communism which has been such a failure?

Whats up with Syndicalism anyways? As far as I understand its like a free-market society with free enterprise except everyone in the country is in a massive union/ temp agency or are basically government workers. You can open any business you like but you must hire from the syndicate and wages are decided by the government, is that correct? Would that shit ever work?

Or geo-libertarianism where all land and resources are owned and leased out by the government, which is the only source of income where it only uses it for the basic functions of government...

Or maybe a neo-con society where everyone who fails at capitalist-christian society can live in collectivist welfare-state like comfort in a prison, where all their needs are taken care of by the lowest bidder, efficiently providing for the losers of society?

[Criptfeind]

Eh. Syndicalism does not sounds so great. I would not like it.

And neo-con sounds horrible for the reason right here:

their needs are taken care of by the lowest bidder

I could live with geo-lib, at least the geo part, I do not think I would like the lib part.

[Taricus]

Well, Syndicalism does mean trade unionism. And I wouldn't try anarcho-syndicalism, that usually gets you kick by british royalty.

[breadbocks]

Um... No. This topic is for discussing the issue of Comm Vs Cap. Quit trying to derail.

Also, I think that description of your "erroneous" thoughts more than describe exactly what you think, which is dead wrong. That isn't communism.

Communism is not leninism, which is a government form. Communism is the idea that "Sharing is caring" in a sense. Everybody pitches in, and everybody gets a share out. Think DF. That's a commune. (Well, except for Nobles) Everybody does what they have skills in, or get retrained in something useful, and everybody gets food and booze.

[Criptfeind]

Here is the thing breadbocks, no one has ever made a Communistic society and all go though what you are calling lenisnism before they manage to crumble to dust.

If you want us to talk about your crazy ideals, then make a thread for it, but real communism, as in communism in the real world is what we are talking about.

[RedKing]

Yeah, what Cript said. If us non-Christian parasites are going to be taken care of by the lowest bidder, I don't think that's going to qualify as "collective welfare-state like comfort". More like a scheme to harvest our organs for beer money. Or to build marble statues to our Lord, Rich Jesus.


There's always the alternative system of despotism, wherein one guy says "Build me a 200 story tall gold palace, NOW". It's a tried and tested system, and it works out pretty well for the guy at the top of the system, and his nearest cronies and soldiers. Not so much for everyone else.

[G-Flex]

Here is the thing breadbocks, no one has ever made a Communistic society and all go though what you are calling lenisnism before they manage to crumble to dust.

If you want us to talk about your crazy ideals, then make a thread for it, but real communism, as in communism in the real world is what we are talking about.

I don't think calling someone's political ideology "crazy ideals" is very conducive to productive discussion. Can we at least try not to insult each other?

And if you're going to argue that we have to talk about "real-world communism", then why are people talking about hypothetical laissez-faire capitalism? That's just as pie-in-the-sky as "pure" communism is.

[Criptfeind]

I don't think calling someone's political ideology "crazy ideals" is very conducive to productive discussion.

Well first, I don't think breadbocks really does believe in that, I assume he is smarter then that. But yes, if someone believes in crazy ideals I will call what they believe in crazy ideals.

And if you're going to argue that we have to talk about "real-world communism", then why are people talking about hypothetical laissez-faire capitalism? That's just as pie-in-the-sky as "pure" communism is.

Huh. Go point out where I ever said I was in favor of it? Huh? Whats that? You can't? Well that's cause I am not. (Seriously, I posted what I believe in on the first page.) Montague was crazy as shit a couple pages back, he is still pretty crazy I think. I will argue against him when I wish to, but I see no point in rehashing what like 15 people already said to him. Or would you rather if I went and responded to no longer relevant day old posts?

[nenjin]

Yeah, I was under the impression that we were talking about them as ideals, not practical realities. Because in reality, every system fails to live up to its own principles at the bottom level.

I think the take way lesson from reality is that Imperialism fails pretty much without exception, it's only the duration that differs. Regardless of the political system that backed it up, Imperialism is what killed Rome, Britain and eventually the USSR, who happened to be the last one to get the message that empires are expensive to run and even harder to coordinate effectively.

Or would you rather if I went and responded to no longer relevant day old posts?

I think he's just asking for a lot less sass:

I assume he is smarter then that.

Which isn't that hard to achieve on your end, whether you agree with the people you're debating or not.