Sir Paul
Senator / Director of the Pacific Press
This is PNN
Posts: 617
|
Post by Sir Paul on Apr 2, 2004 20:56:45 GMT -5
I am a fiscal libertarian, as I'm sure you can tell from my avitar (the American Libertarian Party symbol). Socialism and Communism always fail because humans are nautrally lazy and suffer from "social loafing." A study has been conducted where people are blindfolded and told to tug on a rope as hard as they can when told to do so. When they are told they are alone, they pull 40% harder than when they are told they are pulling as a group. Indeed, the parts are greater than the whole.
Another example is Ronald Reagan, a man who made movies. Although he could make many movies per year, he only made four per year. Why? Because the marginal tax rate of 90% went into effect on his fifth movie. He made virtually no money on the extra output, so why work? Socialism reduces the GDP per person of a nation, and squanders resources. But that's just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Tar A on Apr 2, 2004 22:50:54 GMT -5
Greetings to you, CFES. Any guest will be welcomed on our boards, no matter their political standing in NS (exceptions are made for flamers but we needn't get into that).
As for my politics, IC, Tar A strives to be an Anarchy - not because I'm anti-government but because I like to mess around with the mechanics of NS stats. OOC, in RL, I'm not fond of capitalism but I'm less fond of socialism. I would say I am against extreme capitalism, although you'd be hard-pressed to find anybody who isn't. I dispise Marxism, although I would not welcome any questioning of my opinion or debate on the subject. I'm not ill informed, but neither am I an expert. I'll leave it be at that.
|
|
EuroSoviets
Citizen
Founder of the Allied States of EuroIslanders.
Posts: 5
|
Post by EuroSoviets on Apr 3, 2004 3:34:10 GMT -5
My apologies...bladders.
Anyway, Sir Paul, even the capitalists realise that humans act out of self interest and that if everyone had a vested interest in the system then they would work to preserve that interest; hence companies give out free shares for long time employees for example.
Now, as for 'social loafing' that's a truism that isn't true. You cannot compare capitalist social democracy (see British welfare state, 1944 on, any of the Scandinavian countries etc) to actual socialism, because the welfare states are designed to molly coddle a population so as to deprive them of the will to gain political freedom - hence your social loafing sets in.
|
|
|
Post by Black Adder on Apr 3, 2004 3:39:03 GMT -5
LOL! Well done! Grubby Socialist knock kneed pillo.....*grumble grumble*
|
|
|
Post by Pierconium on Apr 3, 2004 9:57:55 GMT -5
We in Province V, the "V"ictory Region, would like to welcome CFES and the Allied States of EuroIslanders to The Pacific...
Hopefully this will be a new era in peaceful negotiations between our peoples and those of the ADN.
|
|
|
Post by mussolandia on Apr 3, 2004 10:44:05 GMT -5
First of all I should apologize if my message was envisaged by hostility, EuroSoviets.
Yet,
Marxism has failed. Period. Just like the ideology behind Absolutist monarchies has failed and fascist regimes have failed. The sole proof of this lies in the collapse of the USSR and the fact there are no more truly communist countries in the world (apart from Cuba of course, which is inexistent in a global scale).
The revolution did not happen, the capitalists have not been overthrown by the oppressed. Thus, as a Scientific theory, Marxism has been proved wrong.
Social democracies, which incorporate some Marxist principles, are still based on the idea that human beings have private objectives and can be owners of property. Capitalism, with its flaws, is the system which best represents the human mind.
|
|
EuroSoviets
Citizen
Founder of the Allied States of EuroIslanders.
Posts: 5
|
Post by EuroSoviets on Apr 3, 2004 13:04:08 GMT -5
I would completely disagree with you there Comrade.
Marxism has not failed. Allow me to explain...
Marxism demands that the revolution that will change the world occur in a developed capitalist nation where the communication network of such a nation would then immediately be used to link up with the proletarian class in the other nations of the world, when they were in struggle, to change the capitalist system worldwide.
Russia was not such a nation but it was there that the first socialist revolution occurred - thus up to a point the revolution followed to the letter Marxist theory; the Mensheviks became counter-revolutionaries (just as the social-democratic liberals of today would) and in their own petit-bourgeois liberal manner tried to derail the socialist revolution and where dealt with.
However, where things changed was inherent in the nature of Russia in 1917; the proletarian class was not in the majority as Russia was only then emerging from her feudal system - which France (the first capitalist nation) had done a hundred and fifty years earlier. Thus, the trade unions could not viably form a majority government and Lenin and the Bolsheviks took power for the Party in order to steward Russia through her industrial revolution that would change the country into something like Britain, France, Germany or the USA. He died before this could happen and the proletarian class were still too small to overthrow Stalin - thus Marxism was corrupted and became Stalinism.
That said however, the Stalinist achievements in Russia were phenomenal; from the most backward of the former imperial powers, Russia became an industrial giant, with a vast welfate state in place - and would still be around today had the Cold War not sucked 45% of her GDP into the vast military she simultaneously maintained out of paranoia (justifiable given the German slaughter of 30 million Russians and the NATO Pact which was decidedly anti-communist).
Now this does not justify Stalin; his regime killed many innocents for no reason other than to maintain personal power - but by the time Russia reached her peak in the 1950's, the working class could have overthrown the dictatorship and established a Marxist state. It was the Stalinist "One Country Socialism" combined with the Cold War that prevented this.
Thus in the late 1950's we had the beginnings of the stagnation of the Soviet economy - and the reason for this is itself explained in Marxist terms. As the proletarian class had no vested interest in their state (ie they did not control it as they would have), they felt less need to work for it and so production slowed, quality dropped and so on - and thus the little Marxism operating began to decrease - until things reached critical and the genuine mood of the workers was hijacked by the growing middle class and a section of the former Soviet elite in order to create a new capitalist state with a continuing elite.
Since Russia was the first communist nation, it was followed by many honest communists and dictator-wannabes alike, which was blind and stupid - China, Cuba, Vietnam etc are all Stalinist or Maoist (the agricultural version of Stalinism) states - not Marxist.
Actually, today we see the working class of developed Europe move back in to struggle with the ruling elite, continuing the tradition that was largely frozen by the welfare state and the jingoism surrounding communists being Stalinists, which they aren't. We are seeing the gradual re-radicalisation of the working class and we will see socialist revolutions - Marxism works. Believe it.
|
|
EuroSoviets
Citizen
Founder of the Allied States of EuroIslanders.
Posts: 5
|
Post by EuroSoviets on Apr 3, 2004 18:14:23 GMT -5
And by the way...social democracies do not include Marxist principles - they are explained by Marxist principles as something with which to buy off the masses in times of possible revolution; they are unsustainable by capitalist governments (because spongers will develop due to the apathy and lack of political freedom in the capitalist state) and thus we have the erosion of the welfare state by free market capitalist governments.
|
|
|
Post by mussolandia on Apr 3, 2004 20:57:17 GMT -5
You do nothing but describe, Eurosoviets. You fail to provide arguments to sustain your point.
I have read Marx and he calls for the "dictatorship of the proletariat", effectively the regime which was imposed in the USSR under Stalin. When the communists had elections in 1918, they lost them to the Social Revolutionaries (an agrarian party) and seized power by force. Stalin killed 9 million people in his purges, as his communist dictatorship did not allow the expression of opposition. A system which works on these terms does not benefit anybody. Not even the working class, but the bureaucratic state established to control them. And don't tell me that the USSR was not a "true" representation of communism. Ideals exist only in practice. Theories only work when set in motion. In the real world, communism indefectibly leads to dictatorship, oppression and poverty.
I fail to see the advance of communism in the world. If anything, it is the advance of terrorism which we see. Social democracies are merely the expression of what people want, which is exactly what communism fails to see. There is no collective will, because the human being is by nature independent and capable of free thought. The collective will is the summation of all individual initiave and objectives. The private goals exceed those which the dictatorial government claims to hold in the worker's behalf.
Marxism does not represent the human mind. Freedom does.
|
|
EuroSoviets
Citizen
Founder of the Allied States of EuroIslanders.
Posts: 5
|
Post by EuroSoviets on Apr 3, 2004 21:21:44 GMT -5
You may have read Marx, but the dictatorship of the proletariat was never established; this was what Lenin was working towards and what Stalin corrupted. A Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat does not include the party retaining the control of government.
Communism does not invariably lead to dictatorship, and speaking as someone who has been involved in communist politics, trade union disputes with the capitalist system and general politics the communist movement, especially in Great Britain (under the auspices of the Socialist Party of England, Ireland and the Socialist Alternative IIRC in Scotland) operates on democratic centralist principles.
As for communism not representing individual though, the communist system was not designed to suppress free thought and so on; it gives new motivation to the proletarian class and remember, the ideas of an age are the ideas of the ruling class, and the postmodern ideas of liberality and freedom are but masks of control for the capitalist class.
If I describe alone, it is nothing different from what you do; you make an assertion regarding the Stalinist USSR without being able to support it while I understand and have described the societal dynamic which led to the corruption of Marxism.
|
|
|
Post by mussolandia on Apr 4, 2004 9:59:18 GMT -5
I do not feel "controlled by the ruling class". I can cast my vote and choose any government I wish. I am naturally free.
In 2001, in my country, Argentina, an unpopular government backed by the International Monetary Fund and the United States collapsed overnight. It was what people wanted. They only sensed that they were jobless, hungry or had been deprived of their savings. On their own accord, they claimed the streets and deposed the president. The country had a smooth democratic transition after that, and our current president (to whom I am opposed by the way) enjoys the backing of 70% of our population. No dictatorship arose and the summation of the wills of individuals (best represented by the ballot box) decided what was best to do with the country.
Believe me, Argentina was up for grabs. There was no invisible hand which "oppressed" the minds of the masses and told them what to do.
With regards to dictatorship, Marx said, and correct me if I am mistaken, that once the revolution were established, the party would no longer be necessary since the collective will of the proletariat would be the system of control. The only way the collective will is expressed is by public property, which is protected by the State. This indirectly means that once the revolution establishes itself, an omnipresent State emerges, with unlimited power. 1984 is the best representation of such a scenario.
I remind you again, comrade, that theories only work in practice. So far, Marxism has evolved into Stalinism or Maoism or "Castrism". If these dictatorships misrepresent Marx, then Marx was mistaken in his predictions. The theory had its chance to prove itself right and it failed.
|
|
EuroSoviets
Citizen
Founder of the Allied States of EuroIslanders.
Posts: 5
|
Post by EuroSoviets on Apr 4, 2004 10:17:51 GMT -5
I will not reply because I have not the time to give a history lesson nor a politics lesson...but with regards your first paragraph. You are not naturally free. This society is called a liberal bourgeois democracy for a reason.
|
|
|
Post by mussolandia on Apr 4, 2004 12:09:24 GMT -5
Ohh, please indulge me with knowledge, great master, for I fail to see what "liberal burgeois democracy" or some other of those fancy terms have to do with my freedom. I must be enlightened.
Our freedom is what distinguishes us from animals. Our freedom to think, to change the world around us. I only see Marxism as a system of control devised to deprive us of our human characteristics.
I have heard Marxist philosophy for far too long and it has not convinced me and it seems it has not convinced the rest of humanity either.
|
|
|
Post by Ceaser on Apr 4, 2004 13:08:40 GMT -5
most forms of government are formed from one's ideals. some beleive marxism as an ideal when it is anything but. true democracy is an ideal. but we can never truly have true democracy, it would take too long and would cause confussion. A republic seems to have served The United States and Rome (for the time that it was the ruling group)
the world is not an ideal place, we all must learn to accept the half perfects and things they way they are.
Hitler had a dream where the aryans would control the world. the rest of the world did not share his dreams or ideals, and he was stopped.
Stalin had his ideals as well, the ideal of communism, which raveged eastern Europe.
Ideals turn out to be anything but to the rest of the world. people are too different to share the same ideals.
|
|
|
Post by Black Adder on Apr 4, 2004 14:15:12 GMT -5
If I may NPO comrades, EuroSoviets is a guest to our forums and speaking of political thought and not of the NPO. I would ask we enact the rules of protocol and give him the respect deserving of a guest.
This is the overriding principle of the revolution Comrades, respect and discourse in a civil enviroment. It is why I choose to be here, why I am proud to be part of the ongoing revolution and why I call you my brothers and sisters.
EuroSoviets thank you for your thoughts.
|
|