Thread: Re-writing Communism

Originally Posted by Xei

Europe is still capitalist... :/

True, but Western Europe has inched closer to socialism over the past 50 years, and now it's closer to being socialist than it was 100 years ago. Health care, education, and utilities have been socialized in most Western European countries, at least to my knowledge.

The United States took the first step towards socialism in the 1820s when Horace Mann fought for socialized primary and secondary education, but there haven't been any significant improvements since then. Fire, police, and infrastructure are also socialized in the United States, but that's necessary for society to function.

I think what the poster was trying to say was that Western Europe is somehow worse now than it was 60 years ago, before certain socialistic aspects were implemented.

Personally, I'm a proud Pacifist Anarchist. But I also see how pure communism would really work.

Originally Posted by GMoney

True, but Western Europe has inched closer to socialism over the past 50 years, and now it's closer to being socialist than it was 100 years ago. Health care, education, and utilities have been socialized in most Western European countries, at least to my knowledge.

The United States took the first step towards socialism in the 1820s when Horace Mann fought for socialized primary and secondary education, but there haven't been any significant improvements since then. Fire, police, and infrastructure are also socialized in the United States, but that's necessary for society to function.

I think what the poster was trying to say was that Western Europe is somehow worse now than it was 60 years ago, before certain socialistic aspects were implemented.

Why?

Originally Posted by spockman

Why?

Because:

Originally Posted by cmind

"Excellence for some and misery for others" aptly describes Western civilization since the 1960s, when socialism took root.

He's saying that inequality has existed since the time when Western Europe started moving towards socialism. I would think that he's implying socialism is the cause of this inequality, or else he wouldn't have linked the two events. It's like someone saying, "There's been evil in the world ever since the Rockies traded Mike Hampton." This statement seems to imply that the trade of Mike Hampton caused evil. He doesn't mention that evil existed before the trade, just as cmind never mentioned that inequality existed before socialism gained ground in Western Europe. In fact, socialism has ameliorated inequalities and made Western Europe more equal, if anything.

There was inequality before socialism; thus, socialism is not the cause of inequality.

Originally Posted by cmind

Are you describing Europe or America? It sounds like you're describing Europe, which was never a free society.

Both, hell North America still had slavery in the 1800s. The dawn of the industrial revolution created ATROCIOUS living conditions for the average city dweller. Here are some socialist concepts that helped us out of that mess:

• Minimum wage
• Minimum rest periods
• Free compulsary basic education
• Mandatory safety codes and worker's compensation
• Minimum working age
• Equal pay regardless of sex and race
• Paid sick days and maternity leave

etc. etc.

Of course you must be opposed to all these horrible things, how dare the government tell you not to send your children to work in unsafe factories for half the wage of an adult!

And Europe never being a free society... are you one of those conspiracy theorist types? Europe has dozens of countries so I don't even see how you can count it as a singular society. They also invented democracy. Like thousands of years ago.

By the way, here's a tip: Those calling others stupid should probably learn that "stupidest" isn't a word. But you knew that, right?

stu·pid (stpd, sty-)
adj. stu·pid·er, stu·pid·est
1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
5. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.

But I do apologize, English is my second language, would you prefer we converse in my native tongue if I am so unintelligible?

Originally Posted by GMoney

Are you saying that Europe was in better condition before it began edging towards socialism? Western European life over the last 50 years has been better than it has been over any other 50 year span in history. You can't argue that life was better under feudalism or capitalism.

God no. I'm saying that Europe was shitty in feudalism, shitty in mercantilism, and is now shitty in socialism. At least America had a brief period of near-libertarianism.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Both, hell North America still had slavery in the 1800s. The dawn of the industrial revolution created ATROCIOUS living conditions for the average city dweller. Here are some socialist concepts that helped us out of that mess:

...

Obviously the conditions couldn't have been too atrocious compared to rural living, considering those people (ostensibly) chose to work in factories instead of work the fields. Now, in Europe in particular there was a problem with farmers having their land taken away from them by the state, but again that's the state doing that. I, of course, oppose the state.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Of course you must be opposed to all these horrible things, how dare the government tell you not to send your children to work in unsafe factories for half the wage of an adult!

And to be against socialized medicine is to be against medicine, to be against the military is to be against defense, to be against the Department of Uneducation is to be against education, so on and so forth. I see that you're not interested in hearing my point of view, if you think that I'm an evil person for disagreeing with you.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

And Europe never being a free society... are you one of those conspiracy theorist types?

No.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Europe has dozens of countries so I don't even see how you can count it as a singular society.

Tell that to the EU. They certainly seem to think that Europe is singular enough to be ruled under one, massive state.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

They also invented democracy. Like thousands of years ago.

Democracy is barbaric. It's mob rule. You know, there's a reason the Greeks had lots of philosophers and artists but very few scientists, engineers, and inventors.

Originally Posted by Xei

Europe is still capitalist... :/

By your apparent definition of capitalism, Stalin's Russia was also capitalist.

Right, Europe is as left wing as Soviet Russia. Come back when you want a conversation about reality.

Originally Posted by Xei

Right, Europe is as left wing as Soviet Russia. Come back when you want a conversation about reality.

Why don't you take a break and come back when you want to have a discussion without being childish?

Originally Posted by cmind

God no. I'm saying that Europe was shitty in feudalism, shitty in mercantilism, and is now shitty in socialism. At least America had a brief period of near-libertarianism.

Feudalism in Europe was a direct result of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. Without a solid governmental framework, the Roman lands collapsed into anarchy and peasants would gather around powerful warlords for protection in exchange for their wealth and labour. It took more than a millennium for the peasants to regain any sort of control of their lives.

Do you think that the United States in its current state anyway resembles socialism?

Obviously the conditions couldn't have been too atrocious compared to rural living, considering those people (ostensibly) chose to work in factories instead of work the fields. Now, in Europe in particular there was a problem with farmers having their land taken away from them by the state, but again that's the state doing that. I, of course, oppose the state.

There was more money to be made in the city, you could send all your kids to work and make five wages instead of selling the odd vegetable between subsistence living. After the first wave moved to the cities, it's not like any of their descendants had the option to move back to the country, they became wage slaves.

And to be against socialized medicine is to be against medicine, to be against the military is to be against defense, to be against the Department of Uneducation is to be against education, so on and so forth. I see that you're not interested in hearing my point of view, if you think that I'm an evil person for disagreeing with you.

This is not my first socialism/libertarianism debate on this forum, and I get a little more pissed off every time at people that want to repeal over a hundred years of legislation and throw us back into the dark ages. Please go to Somalia and start from scratch instead of ruining my country.

Tell that to the EU. They certainly seem to think that Europe is singular enough to be ruled under one, massive state.

That's not at all what the EU does. The EU provides a framework for a common market, free trade, open borders, common currency, etc. The EU doesn't dictate foreign policy to its constituent nations and has little say in day to day national affairs. The EU has also only been around for 10 years or so.

Democracy is barbaric. It's mob rule. You know, there's a reason the Greeks had lots of philosophers and artists but very few scientists, engineers, and inventors.

The Greeks were known for plenty of scientific and engineering feats. The greatest inventor and scientific mind of Antiquity, Archimedes, was a Greek. Also only the city-state of Athens briefly observed democracy, all the other greek nations were kingdoms or tyrannies.

Plato's Akademia and Aristotle's Lyceum were both located in Athens. The Parthenon, probably the most iconic structure in Ancient Greece was built in Athens. Athens also had the world's most powerful navy built around the then advanced trireme. Athens did pretty well.

You have the choice between a single ruler, oligarchy and mob rule, so pick one.

Originally Posted by GMoney

Because:



He's saying that inequality has existed since the time when Western Europe started moving towards socialism. I would think that he's implying socialism is the cause of this inequality, or else he wouldn't have linked the two events. It's like someone saying, "There's been evil in the world ever since the Rockies traded Mike Hampton." This statement seems to imply that the trade of Mike Hampton caused evil. He doesn't mention that evil existed before the trade, just as cmind never mentioned that inequality existed before socialism gained ground in Western Europe. In fact, socialism has ameliorated inequalities and made Western Europe more equal, if anything.

There was inequality before socialism; thus, socialism is not the cause of inequality.

No, I am asking why fire departments and police departments have to be publicly mantained to function.

Say you have a small town with one private fire department. The owner dies unexpectedly and the company folds. Your town now has no fire department.

You can't guarantee services in the private sector.

Adding to what Spartiate said, what if fire charges high rates to make a profit? Does that mean poor people should let their house burn because they can't afford it?

Say someone shoots you, but you've been saving money for something for a long time and are close to getting it. Are you not going to report the shooting because you're afraid of your police bill?

Originally Posted by cmind

Why don't you take a break and come back when you want to have a discussion without being childish?

Ad hominem, cool beans.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Say you have a small town with one private fire department. The owner dies unexpectedly and the company folds. Your town now has no fire department.

You can't guarantee services in the private sector.

I am not against governments, (a different kind of government then the traditional model but still a government,) watching out for the needs of it's taxpayers. But you don't have to have 'public run services' and 'anarchy based services.' Governments don't need to manage, (and usually mismanage,) public services directly. They can contract out. To GMoney, if someone shoots me, and I have willingly been paying taxes to a goverment or insurance company that guarentees I will be taken care of, they owe me health service. But if I choose to save up for something else, or not pay for that service for whatever reason, then the doctor certainly doesn't owe me his time and money. As far as reporting the shooting, a police department wouldn't charge people for just reporting things in a capitalist model. If a police company did such a thing, they would be inneficient and stupid and would quickly go under allowing for better police models to win government subsidized contracts.

A true libertarian would not be OK with a government handing out contracts to private fire fighting companies and such.

When the crappy police department goes under, who's doing the policing into a new one pops up?

Originally Posted by Xei

Ad hominem, cool beans.

Oh, I'm sorry...Was

Originally Posted by Xei

Come back when you want a conversation about reality.

supposed to sound like a reasoned argument?

Was saying that Europe is as left wing as Soviet Russia supposed to sound like a reasoned assertion?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

A true libertarian would not be OK with a government handing out contracts to private fire fighting companies and such.

When the crappy police department goes under, who's doing the policing into a new one pops up?

I could give two pesos about whether or not I am a true libertarian or a true conservative or a true liberal or whatever. Anyway, if governments gave contracts out to police companies and fire companies, etc., at any one time there would be multiple national police companies, each expanding and surviving based on how well managed it is/how well it provides a service. It would work just like any other corporation. So let's say Police Service A is not doing it's job very well at all. So the local government(s) sets it up so that when Police Service A's contract runs out, another police company is ready to take it's place.

^ It's funny when people come up with arguments like "what would happen if the private company failed ARGUMENT WIN!".

Well, what happens when a meat packing company goes out of business? Do we all starve?

Originally Posted by spockman

I could give two pesos about whether or not I am a true libertarian or a true conservative or a true liberal or whatever. Anyway, if governments gave contracts out to police companies and fire companies, etc., at any one time there would be multiple national police companies, each expanding and surviving based on how well managed it is/how well it provides a service. It would work just like any other corporation. So let's say Police Service A is not doing it's job very well at all. So the local government(s) sets it up so that when Police Service A's contract runs out, another police company is ready to take it's place.

I believe there needs to be more direct oversight from the government for something as important as police services.

Originally Posted by cmind

^ It's funny when people come up with arguments like "what would happen if the private company failed ARGUMENT WIN!".

Well, what happens when a meat packing company goes out of business? Do we all starve?

We would if there was only one meat factory.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I believe there needs to be more direct oversight from the government for something as important as police services.




We would if there was only one meat factory.

Whether or not a given government can handle that management is pretty arbitrary, though. The virtue most governments have to rule by is force theory.

Force Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ??

On the industrial revolution creating atrocious working conditions (since everything else in this thread has been argued ad nauseum over the past two years, with very little profit):

In the beginning you have limited technology created in the wake of an industrial revolution, where people are moving into cities in order to make a better life for themselves (as in, to end the vicious cycle of sustenance farming and grinding poverty). Everyone before this revolution assumed the role of either a farmer, or a person lucky enough to be born into a financially-comfortable family.

Yet this revolution, which has brought the majority of people out of a pathetic existence, is seen as bad. I would wager such thoughts are due to the more apparent gap between the rich and the poor, which occurred after the revolution. The gap between a bunch of impoverished people relative to the wealthiest, put together in closer proximity to each other, is more apparent than having all the impoverished people spread out over many miles.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Force Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ??

I'm sure you see the problem. I would rather have no government then one run by soul inspired techno.