Yessssssssssssssssss Obamaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[Sh0ckwave]

I voted for Hillary

 

[T3h Albino]

i voted for Bob Barr

 

[SynikaL]

It's kinda hard to tell a Cuban that Socialism in practice does not becomes evil <_<;

Socialism is the ultimate idealistic view on society, but it also lends to problems of our humanity, namely it strips us of any individuality. You and I are complete equals under socialism. If you're a baker and I sell TV's, you just give me bread, and I'll just give you a TV, but I am not allowed to seek for anything better than that. I cannot simply have more bread, and you cannot simply get another TV, because that would mean you or I would be better off than everyone else. There is no incentive to better yourself in a socialist society, since your gains are exactly the same whether you study for 8 years to be a Doctor, or drop out of highschool and become a waiter.

And then of course the other big issue is the fact that socialists societies will always have one guy to ruin the entire thing and just take power like in Cuba.

You've got the moderate social-welfare state (Great Britain, Canada) mixed up with Fascism and Communism (which are often confused, but ultimately dissimilar concepts. The former is a form of authoritarian rule, the latter a form of economy which ideally puts the powers of industry directly into the hands of the people).

Capitalism is essentially the economic manifestation of American Individualism. The amount of value placed on the philosophy/perspective varies throughout Western culture, believe it or not. So you're no a humanitarian -- rational people won't judge you inimically based on that alone, but your comment in regards to a welfare-state's propensity to stymie individualism kinda flies in the face of Islam's current efforts to spread throughout Europe like wildfire.


-Kimo

 

[XIF]

You've got the moderate social-welfare state (Great Britain, Canada) mixed up with Fascism and Communism (which are often confused, but ultimately dissimilar concepts. The former is a form of authoritarian rule, the latter a form of economy which ideally puts the powers of industry directly into the hands of the people).

-Kimo

Either way you cut it, those ideals in practice ultimately slippery slope their way into Communism in the worst case, whereas capitalism has pretty much shown to be fairly successful. You can call it moderate, but it means the same thing. Putting the powers of industry into the hands of the people is called capitalism.

Moderate socialism still diminishes incentives to the people. There's a reason why people end up living off of welfare checks and can do it successfully.

 

[SynikaL]

, You can call it moderate, but it means the same thing. Putting the powers of industry into the hands of the people is called capitalism...capitalism has pretty much shown to be fairly successful.

No. Capitalism simply places power in the hands of an elite minority, a disequilibrium that is inevitable wherever it exists. Today, this elite class consists of banking institutions that control our money supply and value, as well as the international corporations that fund our limited options in "democratic" elections.

Ever wonder why candidates such as Bob Barr and Ron Paul are relatively unknown? There's part of your answer. Ron Paul only managed to become the relatively exceptional phenom he is today through an innovative grassroots internet campaign and moneybomb fundraising efforts.

So, you actually believe we exist in a true, free-market society? That's a laugh. The only reason this thought is even palatable to you is because you were socialized within a capitalist society to believe it. When Woodrow Wilson helped place the Federal Reserve into position and FDR abolished the Gold Standard, the American people where officially stripped of any real industry power.

The free-market exists only nominally today. Unregulated, with valued currency, yes, capitalism is one ideal form of economy, but this type of free-market does not exist (even if it did, it's still potentially subject to degenerate forms of government, such as plutocracy and even nepotism).

Theoretically, Communism can be seen as giving more absolute power to the people even relative to a pure capitalist society:


"True Communism gives ownership of all aspects of the economy, from labor to land to factories to stores, to the public. The public, in theory, controls these things democratically and spreads the benefits of these things equally among the population. From each according to their ability, to each according to their means. "

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_fascism_and_communism


Of course, it is a more absolute form of social welfare, making it more inclined to some of the problems you've mentioned as well as fascism.

Moderate socialism still diminishes incentives to the people. There's a reason why people end up living off of welfare checks and can do it successfully.

Maybe these individuals are busy creating fresh incentives beyond the wage slavery paradigm?

-Kimosabae

 

[spider_sense]

Kye, can you expound on "Elite minorities"? Because I don't think the term exists on a socialist standpoint.

 

[Anonymous.]

Kye, can you expound on "Elite minorities"? Because I don't think the term exists on a socialist standpoint.

hes got a good point

 

[SynikaL]

Kye, can you expound on "Elite minorities"? Because I don't think the term exists on a socialist standpoint.

I was referring to capitalist societies.

When a totalitarian or fascist dictatorship emerges within a country with claims to move towards implementing a communistic economic system on behalf of the proletariat (Nazi Germany), how are they not a constituent of an elite minority? Even if wealth is not somehow manipulated (not likely), legislation power is still centralized in one person/party. That's a power elite and they are a minority.


-Kye

 

[Raistlin]

No. Capitalism simply places power in the hands of an elite minority, a disequilibrium that is inevitable wherever it exists. Today, this elite class consists of banking institutions that control our money supply and value, as well as the international corporations that fund our limited options in "democratic" elections.

Ever wonder why candidates such as Bob Barr and Ron Paul are relatively unknown? There's part of your answer. Ron Paul only managed to become the relatively exceptional phenom he is today through an innovative grassroots internet campaign and moneybomb fundraising efforts.

So, you actually believe we exist in a true, free-market society? That's a laugh. The only reason this thought is even palatable to you is because you were socialized to believe it. When Woodrow Wilson helped place the Federal Reserve into position and FDR abolished the Gold Standard, the American people where officially stripped of any real industry power.

The free-market exists only nominally today. Unregulated, with valued currency, yes, capitalism is one ideal form of economy, but this type of free-market does not exist (even if it did, it's still potentially subject to degenerate forms of government, such as plutocracy and even nepotism).

Theoretically, Communism can be seen as giving more absolute power to the people even relative to a pure capitalist society:


"True Communism gives ownership of all aspects of the economy, from labor to land to factories to stores, to the public. The public, in theory, controls these things democratically and spreads the benefits of these things equally among the population. From each according to their ability, to each according to their means. "

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_fascism_and_communism


Of course, it is a more absolute form of social welfare, making it more inclined to some of the problems you've mentioned as well as fascism.




Maybe these individuals are busy creating fresh incentives beyond the wage slavery paradigm?

-Kimosabae

I'm going to protect my sanity and assume this whole post was a joke.

You can't honestly think that about capitalism. You are completely misrepresenting the system if that's what you actually believe.

 

[SynikaL]

I'm going to protect my sanity and assume this whole post was a joke.

You can't honestly think that about capitalism. You are completely misrepresenting the system if that's what you actually believe.

Thanks for playing!


I'm going to assume this post was a joke until you give me a substantive response!


-Kimo

 

[spider_sense]

I was referring to capitalist societies.

When a totalitarian or fascist dictatorship emerges within a country with claims to move towards implementing a communistic economic system on behalf of the proletariat (Nazi Germany), how are they not a constituent of an elite minority? Even if wealth is not somehow manipulated (not likely), legislation power is still centralized in one person/party. That's a power elite and they are a minority.


-Kye

I think the societal form of Nazi Germany was a matter of totalitarianism. Hitler have a vision which strongly followed the ideals of Marx. Calling it communistic in a sense sort of contradicts dictatorship. I don't think the wealthy is at all manipulated per se, however I do believe they follow each others rules in order to maintain dominance. Mostly conservative (not bashing for the sake of liberalism) throw out the idea of a anarchic society; because it would instantly disarm and dismay the general public. Hitler believe that Germans were the supreme race, and in essence so do most elites. (minus the race and more in the wealth aspect)

 

[Orfn]

this thread makes me happy

 

[orfn1]

this thread makes me happy

QFT

 

[UltimateRazer]

Kye 101 stocked everyone on this thread (he made it possible) But seriously he has to extremely good posts and he has like countered everyone that tried to counter him. Good stuff.

 

[Smilez]

Obama in the White House.

That's one small step for man... one giant leap for the status quo.

While Obama's election is a milestone for race relations (which could arguably be the most important factor), the "Change" candidate is likely to change little, if anything. I know most of you are very young, but as part of the growing internet consciousness, you all should know better than to be naive enough to think that there's any real, fundamental difference between McCain and Obama outside cosmetic and ideological differences. At least, you should be a bit more critical.

Presidents don't run this country -- international corporations and bankers do.

Regardless, cheers to the potential progression of humanity. Hopefully, his actions in office won't have a debilitating and adverse effect on that potential.


-Kimosabae
(Ron Paul for 2012)

LMAO! Even his posts are technical. Too Good Kye.

 

[SynikaL]

I think the societal form of Nazi Germany was a matter of totalitarianism.

Nazi Germany had totalitarian aspects, but was first and foremost a fascist regime.

Fascism is an authoritarian form of government that creates and defines an outgroup or "other" -- in this case mostly Jews -- and discriminates against them with constitutionalized and systemized force.

Hitler have a vision which strongly followed the ideals of Marx.

Well, that's what he told people to get in power.

Calling it communistic in a sense sort of contradicts dictatorship.

I made a mistake in referring to Nazi Germany in that example, as Hitler was strongly anti-communist. So, I guess you got me there.

The thing is, pure Communism has never truly existed anywhere, and is what social scientists would call an "ideal type". Hitler wanted to reconcile concepts of the free-market and communism. He despised Western Individualism but advocated government intervention on behalf of Marxist principles (despite ideal Marxism being that of no state).

Mostly conservative (not bashing for the sake of liberalism) throw out the idea of a anarchic society; because it would instantly disarm and dismay the general public. Hitler believe that Germans were the supreme race, and in essence so do most elites. (minus the race and more in the wealth aspect)

Not sure what you're going for here, but you can't paint conservatives in such broad strokes. I've never heard any conservative invoke anarchism when talking authoritarian regimes.

Interestingly, Neo-Conservatives ran strong anti-socialist campaigns partly based on the idea that Socialism was pure evil. This logic derived from the belief that Christian salvation was primarily an individual pursuit, as a result, communism was the epitome of deviltry. They used this ideology to put themselves into power in the face of the Soviet Union (just part of the "Red Scare" tactics).


-Kye

 

[spider_sense]

Quote:
Mostly conservative (not bashing for the sake of liberalism) throw out the idea of a anarchic society; because it would instantly disarm and dismay the general public. Hitler believe that Germans were the supreme race, and in essence so do most elites. (minus the race and more in the wealth aspect)
Not sure what you're going for here, but you can't paint conservatives in such broad strokes. I've never heard any conservative invoke anarchism when talking authoritarian regimes.

Interestingly, Neo-Conservatives ran strong anti-socialist campaigns partly based on the idea that Socialism was pure evil. This logic derived from the belief that Christian salvation was primarily an individual pursuit, as a result, communism was the epitome of deviltry. They used this ideology to put themselves into power in the face of the Soviet Union (just part of the "Red Scare" tactics).

My fault. I kind of drifted a bit from the subject matter. lol Anyways, I just needed a bit more clarification on the "Elite minority" issue.

The thing is, pure Communism has never truly existed anywhere, and is what social scientists would call an "ideal type". Hitler wanted to reconcile concepts of the free-market and communism. He despised Western Individualism but advocated government intervention on behalf of Marxist principles (despite ideal Marxism being that of no state).

I find a small loop hole in that argument. Sorry Kye. :/

He despised western individualism, yet advocated government intervention? To what extent? Remember we're talking about a man who wanted absolute and utter dominance because he felt he could exercise control over Germany. I think he wanted to keep reign just in his region. Yeah, he was growing in power, but he was still a child compare to the united nations. Russia and the U.S were always flexing political muscle, and they were the top dogs. So there was no way he would stand a chance at government ascendancy just given the status of disposition. Most people support humanitarianism, thus the idea of people accepting massive genocide would have been instantly discarded.

 

[SynikaL]

I find a small loop hole in that argument. Sorry Kye. :/

The loophole exists in Hitler's logic, not my own. Obviously, there's going to be conflict between Marxist/Engel's utopian concept of zero state and any form of regime, period. Hitler was impressed with FDR's progressive working class efforts regarding the New Deal in America at the time, and was simply using Marxist principles to rally the working class and put the ideas into effect in a practical fashion. Obviously he could not adhere to Marxism absolutely, as it wouldn't have allowed him to subjugate and exterminate Jews.



I'm definitely no WWII expert (as much as I wish I was, I find Hitler and the entire conflict fascinating), but even the most uninitiated would find your characterization of Hitler to be broad and largely inaccurate.

Hitler wanted more than Germany and his actions and racist ideology dictate that he wanted nothing less than global hegemony. The Treaty of Versailles was a large blemish on the German volkgeist as well as ego and was essentially the springboard Hitler used for his racist justifications regarding Jews (Germany's WWI loss was seen as the fault of the Jewish population). He invaded Poland and France and bombed London. You mentioned Hitler wanting to face the UN? The organization did not exist prior to WWII and was actually engendered in response to the conflict.

Okay, I'm bored of this thread.


Everyone should watch this video:


http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=money+is+debt&emb=0&aq=f#


-Kye

 

[spider_sense]

Kye we need to smash more often and discuss politics! You're too fun bro. =D

 

[SynikaL]

Yup, yup.

I live less than 5 mins. away from the Nexus. Let me know when you're up.


-Kimo

 

[Vonzar the Soulrender]

there are some things I want to say here and I'll just sum them up quickly

1. Federal Reserve > all presidents

2. I totally agree with Kye

3. Just wait till we get a hispanic president, no one will ever want another non-hispanic in office again :D

 

[PolMex23]

=(...

Im 2 days late to argue about who really runs this country.

And it's 2 30 in the morning so im sorta tired.

Mr Synikal sir I wish you are able to go to Linguinis Melee Tourney next saturday. Id love to speak to you. It's hard to find people that are actually capable of having a intellectual, Philosophical, (I prefer "deep" xD) conversation about important or intriguing matters at hand.

Same with Equi an Spider sense.

I just wanna post this.
To support Kye an Equi on how the government doesnt really run ...the government, in short...

Why hasn't gas been regulated as every other necessity (ex. Water, Electricity)?

It's an obvious answer yet most can't comprehend, don't care, or don't come across the thought as they moan about the prices of gas.

Sad those with money want more. Now a days money = power. Those with unlimited power wish to sustain their threshold...

It's for some odd reason unfathomable to believe such are capable of such desires. I really thought man in general were past there primal and instinctive emotions.

But then I woke up...

 

[PolMex23]

Ha just going through this topic is

SUCCESS xD

 

[SynikaL]

Not 100% I'll be able to make it to Guini's tourney anymore. Too much going that weekend school wise, though I'm definitely going to try and make it.


Another video people need to see:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw&eurl=http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

Further proof that shackled news pundits and politicians that make decision for us really aren't as knowledgable as the average person tends to think they are.

-Kye

 

[Orfn]

I'll just leave this here as a form of congratulations to Kye.

 

[PolMex23]

lol


xD too good

 

[SynikaL]

Is that Obama picture real? If so, where is it from?


-Kye

 

[Orfn]

You'd have to ask the guy who made the comic. He has a lot of strange images.

he's a genius

 

[Masky]

You'd have to ask the guy who made the comic. He has a lot of strange images.

he's a genius

TFD was much better around 3 years ago...

 

[Orfn]

TFD was great, but it's been a little mediocre lately. Married to the Sea was awesome too

MttS

 

[Renth]

So out of all of the spam threads you leave this one open. Obama is definately Smash Related.