Armageddon MUD General Discussion Board

Non-Armageddon Discussion => Non-Armageddon Discussion => Topic started by: Melkor on April 15, 2017, 01:04:28 PM

Title: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 15, 2017, 01:04:28 PM
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/communism-kids

Jesus fucking christ. The former Soviet Union would only have DREAMED of publishing this level of propaganda on US soil a few decades back.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Marc on April 15, 2017, 01:37:10 PM
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Antony+c+sutton (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Antony+c+sutton)

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Reece+committee (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Reece+committee)
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Yam on April 15, 2017, 01:42:36 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhqUk28OwHs
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 15, 2017, 01:50:19 PM
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Antony+c+sutton (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Antony+c+sutton)

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Reece+committee (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Reece+committee)

Yeah, the US made a great deal of money off of the Soviet Union by funding/supporting many of their endeavors, your point?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhqUk28OwHs

I DONT LIKE THEM PUTTING CHEMICALS IN THE WATER AND TURNING THE FREAKIN' FROGS GAY!!!!111
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: MeTekillot on April 15, 2017, 04:59:22 PM
Seize the means of production.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: boog on April 15, 2017, 06:13:09 PM
Maybe the kids who read this will grow into adults who know the difference between socialism, Communism, and Marxism now.

Win win.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 15, 2017, 06:41:44 PM
Maybe the kids who read this will grow into adults who know the difference between socialism, Communism, and Marxism now.

Win win.

An encyclopedia could accomplish this, without the staggering bias.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Marauder Moe on April 15, 2017, 07:03:39 PM
Does this thing seriously offend you that much?  Like... it's just a book, man.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 15, 2017, 07:53:33 PM
Does this thing seriously offend you that much?  Like... it's just a book, man.

Think, for a moment, of the number of lives which have been snuffed out by nations with communist, socialist, and Marxist socioeconomic ideologies/policies. Then think whether or not you would like your children, or your neighbor's children, growing up with a positive outlook on these ideologies fed to them in school.

Now, think about the state our country is in, when one of the most prestigious technical universities in our nation is publishing this type of propaganda with the explicit intent of teaching children that failed ideologies and policies are a good thing when they are successfully implemented; think of your children being taught such ideologies in school, when a facet of Marxist ideology regards the breakdown of the family unit in favor of the collective.
I truly hope that my children's understanding of history, and the morals instilled in them are strong enough to be able to recognize such propaganda for what it is, though I am not so arrogant as to think I will be the perfect father.

I will firmly oppose any who seek/advocate to take possession of my body, or the fruit of my labor.

Regarding the fact that it is "just a book," as you put it. Yes, it is just a book, and I am not one in favor of censorship of any kind. However, I am in favor of media, art, and ideas being judged and analyzed by the court of public opinion, and I will readily give my opinion regarding any piece of writing, art, film, or music, as it is my right to do so.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: boog on April 15, 2017, 07:56:00 PM
We should also consider the deaths that capitalism has been directly or indirectly responsible for if we're going that route.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 15, 2017, 08:00:49 PM
We should also consider the deaths that capitalism has been directly or indirectly responsible for if we're going that route.

Go for it. Put the death-toll from Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and many others, in addition to all of the european deaths found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

next to the evil capitalist deaths.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Marauder Moe on April 15, 2017, 08:21:26 PM
I get it, man.  I'm no communist either.  (Though I do think we've gone too far on capitalism and need a bit more of a socialist balance to our country.)

It just seems silly to get worked up over a book.  You've done far more to expose me to it's existence than anything else.  It only seems to be a handful of right-wing news websites covering its publication.  It's got poor reviews on Amazon and is hardly flying off the shelves.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: boog on April 15, 2017, 09:23:50 PM
We should also consider the deaths that capitalism has been directly or indirectly responsible for if we're going that route.

Go for it. Put the death-toll from Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and many others, in addition to all of the european deaths found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

next to the evil capitalist deaths.

There are very few communists up there.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: whitt on April 15, 2017, 09:39:37 PM
Maybe the kids who read this will grow into adults who know the difference between socialism, Communism, and Marxism now.

Win win.

I'll be satisfied for a generation that recognizes communism as an economic system and democracy as a political system.  So Communism vs Democracy... just no.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Patuk on April 15, 2017, 09:43:16 PM
lol
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: HavokBlue on April 15, 2017, 09:47:35 PM
nobody tell melkor about rojava
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Is Friday on April 15, 2017, 11:17:56 PM
Flippin commies.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: MeTekillot on April 15, 2017, 11:30:45 PM
Is the genocide of native Americans a capitalist or imperialist thing?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Armaddict on April 16, 2017, 12:29:33 AM
You should probably actually read the ideas behind it before just spewing things out.  In communist -principle-, your labor is directed, not stolen.  You maintain professions and have it retooled to benefit the whole of society.  Supply and demand still exists, it's just monitored and tweaked by the state to maintain the highest standard of living for the maximum amount of people.  This has never been carried out successfully (though mormons in early Utah actually did a pretty damn good job of it).  The purpose is more to eliminate social castes/classes than equalize pay (edit:  To clarify, wealth redistribution shouldn't exist, because the purpose of wealth is supposed to be obsolete in a well-functioning system where everyone benefits from all production and trade).  Likewise, the idea is for the arts to flourish, since there's no such thing as 'the struggling artist'.

Capitalism itself has inherent flaws and proneness to corruption/manipulation.  If you believe we have a well-functioning capitalism in the United States, you should actually read The Wealth of Nations.  Ya know.  The book by Adam Smith that describes it.  We've actually deviated pretty far from it, and it's not due to regulation, it's due to incentives for resisting the open flow of currency.  A true capitalism depends on the same drive we have to push into the life of luxury, but makes the general assumption that most will fall short but not devastatingly so.  Our current state has shifted away from production and into services that have to provide for a lot of people, allowing for amenities but also allowing for vast exploitation of the working class.  We've enjoyed a lot of success due to government spending, i.e. the government directing production and research via grants and contracts.  That's not a capitalist behavior, but it's working to our benefit.

I think capitalism is probably the greatest innovation that humanity has come up with, to date, because it rewards incentives towards individual gain which resonates with people -as they were-.  If the majority of the populace becomes more in tune with thinking of the whole, then it becomes more and more dysfunctional, as there are less people engaging in the motivations it depends on.  Really, it comes down to whether or not you trust the private sector's (and common citizen's) desire for personal gain to be more trustworthy than the state's responsibility to provide for people, and those will vary drastically with people's experiences and perceptions. (edit here: I should note that I don't support 'pushes' for socialism/communism, but I do recognize that there will be a slide in that direction as more and more people inevitably 'fall off the bottom rung' of a dysfunctional capitalism; at some point or another, there will be a change in thought as efficiency becomes the determining factor of profit.  Automation makes sense.  So does cutting down the fat on the workforce.  Entrepreneurship, the arts, and cultural endeavors all spring out of this, as long as they are taken care of during that time, which falls on either the state, the populace, or wealthy patrons.  People need to realize that historically speaking, some of the biggest leaps in our capabilities were not born from monetary incentive, but idle hands that were allowed to pursue their interests rather than someone else's.)

So really, I'm kinda meh on your distaste for the book.  People being more aware of alternatives really ain't bothering me none.  I'm pro-education in all forms, so long as you can filter through the propoganda on both sides and learn how to investigate.


Side note:  You brought up Stalin, because he was an absolute travesty.  I'm not sure you're aware of how distasteful he was to the proponents of socialism/communism at the time, and how hard Lenin actually worked in his final years to try to prevent him from coming to power.  Using him as the poster child actually equivocates to using Mussolini as a poster child for capitalism, because you again seem to be mixed up: Fascist states are capitalist dictatorships.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 16, 2017, 04:14:21 AM
I get it, man.  I'm no communist either.  (Though I do think we've gone too far on capitalism and need a bit more of a socialist balance to our country.)

It just seems silly to get worked up over a book.  You've done far more to expose me to it's existence than anything else.  It only seems to be a handful of right-wing news websites covering its publication.  It's got poor reviews on Amazon and is hardly flying off the shelves.

Too capitalist? Our economy is more socialistic than ever. We have welfare, wic, food stamps, medicare, medicaid, subsidized EVERYTHING. We are taxed when we earn money. We are taxed when we spend money. We are taxed for land that WE OWN.
Not only that, we don't have a damned say on where this money is spent.

I understand your implication that sensationalism is providing more publicity than it would normally attract. I do not care if people buy the book. However, if this book is found in your child's school one day, I hope you take notice.

There are very few communists up there.

If you read the statement to which you replied with amassing death-tolls, I clearly stated:
Think, for a moment, of the number of lives which have been snuffed out by nations with communist, socialist, and Marxist socioeconomic ideologies/policies.

nobody tell melkor about rojava

Why? It is known that Communism and Socialism work well in homogeneous tribes. Shit, Socialism worked great for the Nazi Party. Have you ever seen Adolf Hitler's speeches on German Socialism? It sounds fucking beautiful. Good luck achieving that with a melting-pot of cultures, races, and ideologies. Also, good luck having a leader/senate/mob who's will is not to cause harm.

Is the genocide of native Americans a capitalist or imperialist thing?
Hmmmm. That is debatable. I mean, the initial explorers and conquistadors were acting under order of their respective Monarch... However, you know for damned sure they (the royals and the explorers/conquerers) knew they would get paaaaaid.

Let us say, for argument's sake, that the genocide of the Native American people was caused by Capitalism. After all, greed, amirite guise?

So, how many dead Natives were slaughtered by other (communist) Natives long before we arrived?


You should probably actually read the ideas behind it before just spewing things out.  In communist -principle-, your labor is directed, not stolen.  You maintain professions and have it retooled to benefit the whole of society.  Supply and demand still exists, it's just monitored and tweaked by the state to maintain the highest standard of living for the maximum amount of people.  This has never been carried out successfully (though mormons in early Utah actually did a pretty damn good job of it).  The purpose is more to eliminate social castes/classes than equalize pay (edit:  To clarify, wealth redistribution shouldn't exist, because the purpose of wealth is supposed to be obsolete in a well-functioning system where everyone benefits from all production and trade).  Likewise, the idea is for the arts to flourish, since there's no such thing as 'the struggling artist'.

Capitalism itself has inherent flaws and proneness to corruption/manipulation.  If you believe we have a well-functioning capitalism in the United States, you should actually read The Wealth of Nations.  Ya know.  The book by Adam Smith that describes it.  We've actually deviated pretty far from it, and it's not due to regulation, it's due to incentives for resisting the open flow of currency.  A true capitalism depends on the same drive we have to push into the life of luxury, but makes the general assumption that most will fall short but not devastatingly so.  Our current state has shifted away from production and into services that have to provide for a lot of people, allowing for amenities but also allowing for vast exploitation of the working class.  We've enjoyed a lot of success due to government spending, i.e. the government directing production and research via grants and contracts.  That's not a capitalist behavior, but it's working to our benefit.

I think capitalism is probably the greatest innovation that humanity has come up with, to date, because it rewards incentives towards individual gain which resonates with people -as they were-.  If the majority of the populace becomes more in tune with thinking of the whole, then it becomes more and more dysfunctional, as there are less people engaging in the motivations it depends on.  Really, it comes down to whether or not you trust the private sector's (and common citizen's) desire for personal gain to be more trustworthy than the state's responsibility to provide for people, and those will vary drastically with people's experiences and perceptions. (edit here: I should note that I don't support 'pushes' for socialism/communism, but I do recognize that there will be a slide in that direction as more and more people inevitably 'fall off the bottom rung' of a dysfunctional capitalism; at some point or another, there will be a change in thought as efficiency becomes the determining factor of profit.  Automation makes sense.  So does cutting down the fat on the workforce.  Entrepreneurship, the arts, and cultural endeavors all spring out of this, as long as they are taken care of during that time, which falls on either the state, the populace, or wealthy patrons.  People need to realize that historically speaking, some of the biggest leaps in our capabilities were not born from monetary incentive, but idle hands that were allowed to pursue their interests rather than someone else's.)

So really, I'm kinda meh on your distaste for the book.  People being more aware of alternatives really ain't bothering me none.  I'm pro-education in all forms, so long as you can filter through the propoganda on both sides and learn how to investigate.


Side note:  You brought up Stalin, because he was an absolute travesty.  I'm not sure you're aware of how distasteful he was to the proponents of socialism/communism at the time, and how hard Lenin actually worked in his final years to try to prevent him from coming to power.  Using him as the poster child actually equivocates to using Mussolini as a poster child for capitalism, because you again seem to be mixed up: Fascist states are capitalist dictatorships.


It will take a few moments, so I'll reply to you after work. I clock in at 5:00, I clock out at 18:00-19:00.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Synthesis on April 16, 2017, 04:27:55 AM
Quote from: John Rogers
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 16, 2017, 04:40:59 AM
Quote from: John Rogers
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

Lol.

You are only partially right, friend. The Lord of the Rings changed my life, but I read it in 4th and 5th grade. I could never bring myself to get far into Atlas Shrugged.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Armaddict on April 16, 2017, 05:46:42 AM
Quote
It will take a few moments, so I'll reply to you after work. I clock in at 5:00, I clock out at 18:00-19:00.

It should be noted that socialism/communism is kinda hard to really talk about because of how many versions there are of them.  They tend to be talked about more in philosophy than economics despite being economic platforms because they're more of a paradigm/perspective shift than something you're supposed to 'implement', due to their requiring everyone to have a mindset for it to work (much the same way capitalism depends on you to be self-interested over group-interested, something that's only been overcome in the past by group hardship and tribe mentalities).

Marx himself once said he was not a marxist, because the marxist movement was a political one and he wasn't into politics.  But Hegel's early work kind of started the flame of the idea, and can be summed up here with neato sound effects.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6V_YKn8i9k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6V_YKn8i9k)
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: boog on April 16, 2017, 09:13:41 AM

There are very few communists up there.

If you read the statement to which you replied with amassing death-tolls, I clearly stated:
Think, for a moment, of the number of lives which have been snuffed out by nations with communist, socialist, and Marxist socioeconomic ideologies/policies.

But... The Nazis were as socialist as North Korea is a Democratic Republic.

They weren't.

Facsism is on the other side of the political spectrum. Nazis hated communism.

Edit: Clearly, this is what I was replying to:

We should also consider the deaths that capitalism has been directly or indirectly responsible for if we're going that route.

Go for it. Put the death-toll from Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and many others, in addition to all of the european deaths found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

next to the evil capitalist deaths.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: 8bitgrandpa on April 16, 2017, 09:59:20 AM
This was very fun to read during my breakfast  ;D
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Sayyadina on April 16, 2017, 12:32:24 PM
Right wingers need more safe spaces from books that make them uncomfortable.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Patuk on April 16, 2017, 01:32:59 PM
I somewhat regret having removed my stalinist avatar now
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 16, 2017, 07:38:53 PM
Looong day at work. My body hurts, and I am irritable. Excuse me if I come off as rude in my reply.

You should probably actually read the ideas behind it before just spewing things out.  In communist -principle-, your labor is directed, not stolen.  You maintain professions and have it retooled to benefit the whole of society.  Supply and demand still exists, it's just monitored and tweaked by the state to maintain the highest standard of living for the maximum amount of people.  This has never been carried out successfully (though mormons in early Utah actually did a pretty damn good job of it).  The purpose is more to eliminate social castes/classes than equalize pay (edit:  To clarify, wealth redistribution shouldn't exist, because the purpose of wealth is supposed to be obsolete in a well-functioning system where everyone benefits from all production and trade).  Likewise, the idea is for the arts to flourish, since there's no such thing as 'the struggling artist'.

I call bullshit. Marx's Communist Manifesto advocated the abolition of all personal property and land for the good of the collective. THIS IS THEFT. THIS IS THE FRUIT OF MY LABOR. The fruit of my labor does not belong to anyone but me. I own my body and anything my body produces.
Yes, Mormons did it right. Communism works in homogeneous tribes, this is already established.
The United States of America is not a homogeneous nation. We have many different religions and cultures among us. They all think and behave differently. We are not all equal.
Regarding "the struggling artist" being a thing of the past.... NO. If you are a shit artist, you should struggle. If you produce art that other people are willing to pay for, you succeed, and do not struggle. This is capitalism.

Capitalism itself has inherent flaws and proneness to corruption/manipulation.  If you believe we have a well-functioning capitalism in the United States, you should actually read The Wealth of Nations.  Ya know.  The book by Adam Smith that describes it.  We've actually deviated pretty far from it, and it's not due to regulation, it's due to incentives for resisting the open flow of currency.  A true capitalism depends on the same drive we have to push into the life of luxury, but makes the general assumption that most will fall short but not devastatingly so.  Our current state has shifted away from production and into services that have to provide for a lot of people, allowing for amenities but also allowing for vast exploitation of the working class.  We've enjoyed a lot of success due to government spending, i.e. the government directing production and research via grants and contracts.  That's not a capitalist behavior, but it's working to our benefit.

Yes, our nation has shifted FAAR from the capitalist drive for success and happiness which pushes production and innovation forward. THIS IS A BAD THING. You wonder why college tuition is so expensive? The government started subsidizing it, so the colleges raised the price because they knew they could. Rinse, repeat. If the cost of tuition was NATURALLY too high, not enough people would pay for college, and the price would lower. Socialist policies have inflated college tuition. Despite this blatant progression, people are now begging the government to step in AGAIN, but this time, just make tuition free. Free shit for everyone. Free college. Free food. Free housing. Nobody wants to earn their way, they just want to suckle at the government's tit like a helpless babe.

THIS is the reason why I am so opposed to the book being directed at impressionable children. If our whole country turns into these "Gimme gimme gimme" bernie-bros and career welfare households, we are fucked.

I think capitalism is probably the greatest innovation that humanity has come up with, to date, because it rewards incentives towards individual gain which resonates with people -as they were-.  If the majority of the populace becomes more in tune with thinking of the whole, then it becomes more and more dysfunctional, as there are less people engaging in the motivations it depends on.  Really, it comes down to whether or not you trust the private sector's (and common citizen's) desire for personal gain to be more trustworthy than the state's responsibility to provide for people, and those will vary drastically with people's experiences and perceptions. (edit here: I should note that I don't support 'pushes' for socialism/communism, but I do recognize that there will be a slide in that direction as more and more people inevitably 'fall off the bottom rung' of a dysfunctional capitalism; at some point or another, there will be a change in thought as efficiency becomes the determining factor of profit.  Automation makes sense.  So does cutting down the fat on the workforce.  Entrepreneurship, the arts, and cultural endeavors all spring out of this, as long as they are taken care of during that time, which falls on either the state, the populace, or wealthy patrons.  People need to realize that historically speaking, some of the biggest leaps in our capabilities were not born from monetary incentive, but idle hands that were allowed to pursue their interests rather than someone else's.)
You contend that Americans are no longer driven by self-interest? Again, I call bullshit. Quite the opposite. Those fighting for socialism and communism are doing so ONLY for self-interest. They want free shit for less work. They have learned, from a lifetime of getting hand-outs, that if they scream hard enough, they get what they want. They know the government will feed them if they are hungry, so why not push for more? Why not free housing? Why not free college? Why not free everything?
This is not for the good of the collective. This is all about people being both lazy AND greedy. This cannot survive in a pure capitalist society.

So really, I'm kinda meh on your distaste for the book.  People being more aware of alternatives really ain't bothering me none.  I'm pro-education in all forms, so long as you can filter through the propoganda on both sides and learn how to investigate.

"SO LONG AS YOU CAN FILTER THROUGH THE PROPAGANDA ON BOTH SIDES AND LEARN HOW TO INVESTIGATE."
Children.... the people at which this book is directed... Can not filter propaganda from legitimate information.

Side note:  You brought up Stalin, because he was an absolute travesty.  I'm not sure you're aware of how distasteful he was to the proponents of socialism/communism at the time, and how hard Lenin actually worked in his final years to try to prevent him from coming to power.  Using him as the poster child actually equivocates to using Mussolini as a poster child for capitalism, because you again seem to be mixed up: Fascist states are capitalist dictatorships.

Yeah. Stalin was not a true communist. This is a fallacy, because he was a communist. The no true scotsman fallacy is the last refuge of those refusing to admit faults in their argument. I am not referring to you; I am referring to the proponents of socialism/communism who condemn "Stalin's version" of communism.

"fascist states are capitalist dictatorships"

This is bonkers, because Mussolini himself said his solution for "supercapitalism" was to fuse socialism and nationalism. Learned these ideals from a french marxist, iirc. 
edited to add: Didn't Mussolini also take control of all production in Italy?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 16, 2017, 07:56:07 PM
Quote
It will take a few moments, so I'll reply to you after work. I clock in at 5:00, I clock out at 18:00-19:00.

It should be noted that socialism/communism is kinda hard to really talk about because of how many versions there are of them.  They tend to be talked about more in philosophy than economics despite being economic platforms because they're more of a paradigm/perspective shift than something you're supposed to 'implement', due to their requiring everyone to have a mindset for it to work (much the same way capitalism depends on you to be self-interested over group-interested, something that's only been overcome in the past by group hardship and tribe mentalities).

Marx himself once said he was not a marxist, because the marxist movement was a political one and he wasn't into politics.  But Hegel's early work kind of started the flame of the idea, and can be summed up here with neato sound effects.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6V_YKn8i9k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6V_YKn8i9k)

I agree. It is nearly impossible to discuss the economics of socialism/communism without delving into discussions of Marxist ideologies; this is especially true because the main arguments for socialism/capitalism are pleas of feelings and compassion for the collective.



But... The Nazis were as socialist as North Korea is a Democratic Republic.

They weren't.

Facsism is on the other side of the political spectrum. Nazis hated communism.

Edit: Clearly, this is what I was replying to:

We should also consider the deaths that capitalism has been directly or indirectly responsible for if we're going that route.

Go for it. Put the death-toll from Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and many others, in addition to all of the european deaths found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

next to the evil capitalist deaths.

I know to which post you were referring. I was informing you that that post did not include only communists, nor did it intend to.

You contend that the Nazis were not socialist.... You could either mean by their own opinion or in practice.
Well, they clearly believed themselves to be, as they were called Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the National Socialist German Worker's Party.

Now.. In practice... Socialist economies are those in which the Government controls the means of production. This was the case in the Third Reich.

So... Why were they not socialist, again?

Or maybe you are saying they weren't -true- socialists.


Right wingers need more safe spaces from books that make them uncomfortable.
 
Right wingers, as a rule, do not need safe spaces, as they were invented by the literal antithesis of 'right-wingers.'

Now, if you are saying that I am right wing.... Eh. Not really. Libertarians used to stand along-side liberals on the majority of issues. Even Liberal and Libertarian share the root Liber, meaning free. I find it bizarre that because I want more freedom for myself and my family, I am suddenly a "right-winger."
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: HavokBlue on April 16, 2017, 08:04:19 PM
"Socialist economies are those in which the Government controls the means of production."

that's not really what socialism means, especially in the context of the 21st century
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 16, 2017, 08:10:39 PM
"Socialist economies are those in which the Government controls the means of production."

that's not really what socialism means, especially in the context of the 21st century

Aka your bernie-bros or professors told you how -real- socialism works.

Definition of socialism
1
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a :  a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
:  a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Sayyadina on April 16, 2017, 08:43:52 PM
I find it bizarre that because I want more freedom for myself and my family, I am suddenly a "right-winger."

Plenty of freedom for you and your family in Somalia where you can be rid of the crushing oppression that you feel because of taxes for:
...welfare, wic, food stamps, medicare, medicaid, subsidized EVERYTHING. We are taxed when we earn money. We are taxed when we spend money. We are taxed for land that WE OWN.
Not only that, we don't have a damned say on where this money is spent.

You can also Go Galt in wide swaths of Afghanistan or Yemen, or many other places. No "socialistic" strong central governments there to impede your freedom to be untaxed.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Armaddict on April 17, 2017, 03:29:32 AM
Quote
"Socialist economies are those in which the Government controls the means of production."

that's not really what socialism means, especially in the context of the 21st century

Quote
Definition of socialism
1
:  any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a :  a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
:  a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

I think what Havok is referring to is practical use of the word in modern day society, which is less rigid into the 'actual' definition of it and more about how people like socialized -policies- but not an all out socialism.  It's kinda what I was talking about with how hard it was to talk about the thing, because it's sprouted off in so many directions and interpretations by different people.

PM'd you the rest, cuz it's an essay. :P
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 17, 2017, 03:44:26 AM
I find it bizarre that because I want more freedom for myself and my family, I am suddenly a "right-winger."

Plenty of freedom for you and your family in Somalia where you can be rid of the crushing oppression that you feel because of taxes for:
...welfare, wic, food stamps, medicare, medicaid, subsidized EVERYTHING. We are taxed when we earn money. We are taxed when we spend money. We are taxed for land that WE OWN.
Not only that, we don't have a damned say on where this money is spent.

You can also Go Galt in wide swaths of Afghanistan or Yemen, or many other places. No "socialistic" strong central governments there to impede your freedom to be untaxed.


"You dont want Socialism?!? Go live in Africa or the Middle East, psycho!


Seriously? That is your best argument? Sad. ;)

I never said that I wish to be COMPLETELY untaxed, however, if you look at the federal budget... Jesus christ there is a lot of fat to trim, especially in entitlements and subsidies.



I think what Havok is referring to is practical use of the word in modern day society, which is less rigid into the 'actual' definition of it and more about how people like socialized -policies- but not an all out socialism.  It's kinda what I was talking about with how hard it was to talk about the thing, because it's sprouted off in so many directions and interpretations by different people.

PM'd you the rest, cuz it's an essay. :P



My inbox is empty? You might want to resend it.

Regarding how, nowadays, everyone has a different opinion on how Socialism and Communism SHOULD work.

This is the great arrogance and immaturity of leftists when it comes to Marxist policies. "It is a great idea, if only I were in charge, and they did it MY way."

"If I were the dictator in a marxist society, everything would be perfect.

This is the same pitfall that EVERY dictator falls into. The arrogance is staggering. Nobody learns from other's mistakes.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Synthesis on April 17, 2017, 03:54:14 AM
This is the same pitfall that every capitalist falls into.  The arrogance is staggering.  Nobody learns from other's mistakes.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 17, 2017, 03:55:19 AM
@armaddict

Just received your message. Again, I'll respond to you after my 14 hour shift.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Synthesis on April 17, 2017, 03:56:53 AM
ITT:  the dude who works a 14 hour shift swears his life is his own.  ::)
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 17, 2017, 03:57:21 AM
This is the same pitfall that every capitalist falls into.  The arrogance is staggering.  Nobody learns from other's mistakes.

What is? You should explain yourself more clearly, unless you are just throwing blind haymakers in your triggered state.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 17, 2017, 03:59:51 AM
ITT:  the dude who works a 14 hour shift swears his life is his own.  ::)

Leftist strategy 101: When losing an argument, attack opponent's character.

I have 4 days off every week, and make enough working 3 days a week to pay my mortgage, all my bills, and support myself, my woman, and 3 pets.

Fuck-yeah, capitalism.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Synthesis on April 17, 2017, 04:08:17 AM
petite bourgeoisie confirmed
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Armaddict on April 17, 2017, 04:10:56 AM
Quote
"If I were the dictator in a marxist society, everything would be perfect.

This is the same pitfall that EVERY dictator falls into. The arrogance is staggering. Nobody learns from other's mistakes.

To be fair, though, this is like the mantra of every political and economic movement and party that has ever existed.

Quote
If you are a shit artist, you should struggle. If you produce art that other people are willing to pay for, you succeed, and do not struggle. This is capitalism.

I forgot to address this in the essay.  The simple question is: Are you saying that only shit artists, writers, philosophers, poets, musicians, etc. have struggled under capitalist regimes?  That the free-market and the ability to be an entrepreneur is the single worthy metric of value within a well-functioning society?  As I said in the previous post, there has been a lot of innovation in all areas that were possible only because of a state of subsistence being reached at the whim of others even without a market demand on their work.  Isaac Newton only did his work because he inherited money, enabling him, and he was a very unlikely candidate to make the progress he did as an uneducated man; he found himself with sudden freedom to investigate things he was interested in, and learn them.

The relation between production and value is a great way to keep labor constant, but as a sole metric, is just as capable of stymieing talent as it is of fostering it.  I find the argument that if people had the choice to produce less for someone else and still survive, that they'd all turn into worthless couch potatoes, to be one based on a relatively small percentage of people who have no interests they'd like to pursue that don't turn a profit. 

Edit:   ::)  This topic never stays civil.  Everyone always insists everyone else must be malicious or stupid to have different approaches, even though they're all collectively trying to solve the same problem.  Also...it's kinda ironic that this is all based around a book from an MIT website.  Heh.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Synthesis on April 17, 2017, 04:22:13 AM
It's amusing that you think achieving the basics is #winning.

This is what you call false consciousness, bro.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 17, 2017, 04:25:56 AM
It's amusing that you think achieving the basics is #winning.

This is what you call false consciousness, bro.
Owning 2000sqft of home on 5 acres of land is a great start for me. I enjoy my hunting, and my gardening.
Do you mean to attack my standard of happiness? Are you really that devoid of any meritorious argument that you stoop to saying what makes a man happy is "False consciousness?"

To that, I say go fuck yourself.


petite bourgeoisie confirmed

I can taste your Jelly from here. Though, it is far saltier than I prefer.

You have the next 14 hours and 34 minutes to think of a cogent argument, like our good man Armaddict has; or exist knowing that you have no worthwhile thoughts to contribute to an adult conversation.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Synthesis on April 17, 2017, 04:37:10 AM
exhibit A
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Riev on April 17, 2017, 10:09:49 AM
In the words of a rival of IWillDominate on Twitch.TV

"Bitch I'm 6'3" and I row for UC Davis. I don't have to deal with your shit".
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: boog on April 17, 2017, 10:45:57 AM
I never said that I wish to be COMPLETELY untaxed, however, if you look at the federal budget... Jesus christ there is a lot of fat to trim, especially in entitlements and subsidies.

Yes. Corporations receive HUGE subsidies that need to be cut. They can either keep their corporations here, or they can fuck off. Capitalism has nothing to do with giving money to corporations who pay their workers shit and use them until they're dried up husks ... that is, until it does.

I'm far more inclined to give a struggling family food stamps than to be handing out corporate tax breaks to companies who do a lot of business overseas or, again, pay their workers shit/don't give decent benefits/abuse laws and loopholes to get a whole lot of moola:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Riev on April 17, 2017, 11:23:34 AM
Often I hear Republicans state that they want tax breaks for corporations, so these large wealthy entities can assist in caring for the rest of the country, trickle down, etc etc.

Isn't the purpose of a Federal Government to be that AS A GOVERNMENT it is able to care for and protect all of its legal citizens? Isn't a wealthy corporation doing well enough and doesn't NEED federal care to take care of themselves? In fact isn't that a huge rift between D and R these days? Republicans want independent citizens to take care of the working classes (instead of the states, which is how it USED to be), whereas the Democrats feel that the Federal Government should have large programs that use all our tax dollars to try and give EVERYONE a leg up?

Considering the OP... where is your vitriol coming from? The fact that its from MIT Press? They didn't write it, they translated it from someone else. Did you read the synopsis? It doesn't seem like its corrupting children, or Stalinist communist propaganda. It actually seems to describe that "true communism isn't as easy as it seems".

So I guess my question is, again: What got up your butt about how this is so terrible? Is it that the title says "for kids"? Are you anti-Communism regardless of the medium? What is it?


Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: whitt on April 17, 2017, 12:01:42 PM
Isn't the purpose of a Federal Government to be that AS A GOVERNMENT it is able to care for and protect all of its legal citizens?

I think, the basis for pushback against this thinking runs along these lines:
1) People should take care of their fellow people who can not take care of themselves because that is the good and right thing to do.
2) People will not do this because they are selfish and greedy.  So what we need to do is take money from People and put that in a pot of money specifically to care for the people that can't take care of themselves.
3) In charge of this pot of money, we will put... people.  Who will suddenly stop being selfish and greedy because they have been labeled "Government Employees".

Get folks over the hump of how taking money from them and piling it into a bureaucracy run by corrupt, self-serving, career politicians and you might have a start to a conversation where folks would accept the definition of government you've described.

Isn't a wealthy corporation doing well enough and doesn't NEED federal care to take care of themselves?

There is no "well enough" in the business world.  There is only, how can we do better.  I'm afraid the real rift between the Rs and Ds (as you put it) is emotion vs math.  Yes, it would be wonderful if everyone made enough money to "live comfortably" and magically inflation didn't rise to cover the sudden influx of new income courtesy of supply v. demand, but the math of economics doesn't work that way.

In short, if you could get twice the house (brand new and custom built) for half the money in city A vs city B and city A was willing to pay you to move and guarantee you employment... are you really going to stay in city B because that's where you grew up?  Probably not.

So I guess my question is, again: What got up your butt about how this is so terrible? Is it that the title says "for kids"? Are you anti-Communism regardless of the medium? What is it?

Suppose this was "Creationism for Kids"  and I think you'll immediately feel the level of revulsion that capitalist feel about target communist ideology at children.

To be fair, I agree that in small, homogenous groupings communism can work.  However, it doesn't scale.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Riev on April 17, 2017, 12:21:52 PM
Tongue in cheek, I think the Bible is Creationism for Kids, or at least Sunday School is.

I suppose if "Creationism for Kids" was put out by, I don't know, some legitimate non-religious publisher, it might be kind of irky? I think Creationism is foolish and requires too much faith, but I don't begrudge those who believe in it, nor someone writing a book aimed at kids to teach them it exists. Guess what? Don't buy the goddamned book, Capitalists! The market will correct and the book will fall out of print for not being business-savvy enough to make it in a strong market!

Everything else you said, Whitt, totally on point. Just putting this here to say thank you for responding and being informative about it. If I could upvote, I would.

Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Synthesis on April 17, 2017, 12:56:45 PM
Since we just -can't- control those terrible, terrible government employees, we should just skip the bureaucracy and put all wealth directly into the hands of the corrupt and self-serving.  That should fix things right up.   ::)
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Riev on April 17, 2017, 12:59:11 PM
Since we just -can't- control those terrible, terrible government employees, we should just skip the bureaucracy and put all wealth directly into the hands of the corrupt and self-serving.  That should fix things right up.   ::)

It'll trickle down to the masses in the same way my company ordered the Chief Officers and VPs to go on a managerial retreat to learn some new skills, because low and middle-management reported requiring extra training. By the time they got to it, problems got worse and it was a giant game of telephone.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: whitt on April 17, 2017, 01:26:21 PM
Since we just -can't- control those terrible, terrible government employees, we should just skip the bureaucracy and put all wealth directly into the hands of the corrupt and self-serving.  That should fix things right up.   ::)

You really have nothing to add but snark.  Do you?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Synthesis on April 17, 2017, 01:32:31 PM
Ridiculous things gonna get ridiculed.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: whitt on April 17, 2017, 02:25:06 PM
Ridiculous things gonna get ridiculed.

Empty can gonna echo.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 17, 2017, 02:29:06 PM
Communism doesn't need to be any more complicated than "Run down and murder people who make more money than you," guys.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Synthesis on April 17, 2017, 04:19:48 PM
murder everyone who makes more money than you

vs.

murder everyone who stands in the way of you making more money

(http://i.imgur.com/c7NJRa2.gif?noredirect)
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: HavokBlue on April 17, 2017, 05:46:02 PM
what if we eliminate systemic and institutional barriers preventing everyone from having an equal opportunity to make money and utilize our vast resources and collective knowledge to construct a sustainable social safety net so that nobody becomes mired in poverty and thusly may pursue free market success instead of scraping by at walmart on minimum wage
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: lordcooper on April 17, 2017, 06:50:20 PM
what a fucking retard
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Synthesis on April 17, 2017, 06:56:53 PM
what if we eliminate systemic and institutional barriers preventing everyone from having an equal opportunity to make money and utilize our vast resources and collective knowledge to construct a sustainable social safety net so that nobody becomes mired in poverty and thusly may pursue free market success instead of scraping by at walmart on minimum wage

That's what we already have, dontcha know?

The poors who are poor are poor because they made poor choices, and they deserve to suffer.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 17, 2017, 07:14:36 PM
Looong ass day. Now I have 5 days off, the 5th of which, I will be getting paid for. Tell me again, little troll, how my life is not my own. :)


Skimming through, I see lots of worthwhile counterpoints made, and a few supporting points made, as well.

I'll read and respond to everything tonight. I'm tired, and hungry.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: boog on April 17, 2017, 07:59:14 PM
what if we eliminate systemic and institutional barriers preventing everyone from having an equal opportunity to make money and utilize our vast resources and collective knowledge to construct a sustainable social safety net so that nobody becomes mired in poverty and thusly may pursue free market success instead of scraping by at walmart on minimum wage

That's what we already have, dontcha know?

The poors who are poor are poor because they made poor choices, and they deserve to suffer.

But they have big screen TVs. They aren't really poor.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 17, 2017, 08:41:41 PM
Quote from: Armaddict
Are you saying that only shit artists, writers, philosophers, poets, musicians, etc. have struggled under capitalist regimes?
Not at all, however, you said that "The Struggling Artist" would be a thing of the past. It shouldnt be, if there are still shit artists.

I never said that I wish to be COMPLETELY untaxed, however, if you look at the federal budget... Jesus christ there is a lot of fat to trim, especially in entitlements and subsidies.

Yes. Corporations receive HUGE subsidies that need to be cut. They can either keep their corporations here, or they can fuck off. Capitalism has nothing to do with giving money to corporations who pay their workers shit and use them until they're dried up husks ... that is, until it does.

I'm far more inclined to give a struggling family food stamps than to be handing out corporate tax breaks to companies who do a lot of business overseas or, again, pay their workers shit/don't give decent benefits/abuse laws and loopholes to get a whole lot of moola:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html

I am not a proponent of excessive taxes for the rich or for the poor. If you watch videos of the Congressional oversight committee, you'll see case after case of the US Govt abusing tax-dollars.
I do not find fault with companies using THE LAW to avoid paying taxes. What, you really think the US Govt needs more of our money?

I think food-stamps are good in purpose and theory, but bad in practice. Did you know you can buy steaks and lobster with EBT? When I was 18, I worked for wal-mart. It is disgustingly common.

Did you know that EBT is essentially a multi-billion dollar subsidy for Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, and Wal-Mart?

WIC is better, because there are approved items you can buy. Milk, Eggs, Bread, etc.

What would be even better than that is free rice for everybody who needs it. Hungry? Go pick up a 20lb sack of rice for you and your family. You won't starve. When I moved out of my home at 17, i was working two jobs that paid less than minimum wage, under the table. I was a laborer for a general contractor, and I worked as a clerk at a Valero owned by a couple of Indian guys. Hemant and Roy. Cheap fucks. During this time, I was living off of rice, ramen, eggs, water, and multivitamins. It wasnt that bad. I was still able to pay rent, feed myself, clothe myself, and save enough money for a POS 97 nissan sentra, which allowed me to widen my search and get a slightly better job. Then better. Then better. Then better.

These types of entitlements should be strictly TEMPORARY. There is no reason other than severe disability that a person should remain permanently poor.

Often I hear Republicans state that they want tax breaks for corporations, so these large wealthy entities can assist in caring for the rest of the country, trickle down, etc etc.

Isn't the purpose of a Federal Government to be that AS A GOVERNMENT it is able to care for and protect all of its legal citizens? Isn't a wealthy corporation doing well enough and doesn't NEED federal care to take care of themselves? In fact isn't that a huge rift between D and R these days? Republicans want independent citizens to take care of the working classes (instead of the states, which is how it USED to be), whereas the Democrats feel that the Federal Government should have large programs that use all our tax dollars to try and give EVERYONE a leg up?

Considering the OP... where is your vitriol coming from? The fact that its from MIT Press? They didn't write it, they translated it from someone else. Did you read the synopsis? It doesn't seem like its corrupting children, or Stalinist communist propaganda. It actually seems to describe that "true communism isn't as easy as it seems".

So I guess my question is, again: What got up your butt about how this is so terrible? Is it that the title says "for kids"? Are you anti-Communism regardless of the medium? What is it?

I think the government should stay out of people's business, literally and figuratively, as much as possible. They should not bail-out failing businesses with tax-dollars. They should not give "stimulus packages." They should not give grants or scholarships for students. They should absolutely not be in the health-insurance business. People should, and can, care for themselves, when left to their own devices. It is when they know they will be wrapped in the warm embrace of entitlements upon their failure that they stop fighting tooth-and-nail to succeed.

Regarding my feelings toward the book itself... One, I am anti-communist, for the United States of America. The rest of the world can do what they want, even if it does lead to their governments slaughtering their own people. Not my business. My priorities are, in descending order: My Family, My Community, My state, My country.
I never said that MIT wrote the book. I said they published it for US consumption. You are wrong in your assertion that it is an informational story about how communism is hard to achieve. It paints it in an honorific light, of the way to achieve true happiness for all. My issue is that it is directed toward children. I worry that this book may find a place in American schools, and may corrupt our youth with aspirations of leeching off the government, rather than fighting for their own success and greatness. Look at the majority of college-aged Americans today. Many want their student loan debt paid off by the government.... The debt they signed contracts agreeing to incur. This is the epitome of avoiding responsibility.

more to come.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: boog on April 17, 2017, 08:59:47 PM
I think using your lucky situation as evidence to how social welfare programs should be temporary is very ... Out of touch with a lot of different socioeconomic situations and the cycle of generational poverty that many people don't know how to ascend out of.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Synthesis on April 17, 2017, 09:01:45 PM
false consciousness

noun
1.  a Marxist theory that people are unable to see things, especially exploitation, oppression, and social relations, as they really are; the hypothesized inability of the human mind to develop a sophisticated awareness of how it is developed and shaped by circumstances.

2.  any belief or view that prevents a person from being able to understand the true nature of a situation.

bourgeoisie [(boor-zhwah- zee)]

In general, the middle class. Applied to the Middle Ages, it refers to townspeople, who were neither nobles nor peasants. In Marxism it refers to those who control the means of production and do not live directly by the sale of their labor. Karl Marx distinguished between the “haute” (high) bourgeoisie (industrialists and financiers) and the “petite” (small or “petty”) bourgeoisie (shopkeepers, self-employed artisans, lawyers). Marxism postulates a fundamental conflict between the interests of the bourgeoisie and those of the propertyless workers, the proletariat.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 17, 2017, 09:02:22 PM
Whitt, excellent post.



Tongue in cheek, I think the Bible is Creationism for Kids, or at least Sunday School is.

I suppose if "Creationism for Kids" was put out by, I don't know, some legitimate non-religious publisher, it might be kind of irky? I think Creationism is foolish and requires too much faith, but I don't begrudge those who believe in it, nor someone writing a book aimed at kids to teach them it exists. Guess what? Don't buy the goddamned book, Capitalists! The market will correct and the book will fall out of print for not being business-savvy enough to make it in a strong market!

Everything else you said, Whitt, totally on point. Just putting this here to say thank you for responding and being informative about it. If I could upvote, I would.

Yes! The Bible is creationism for kids, and I would be pissed if tenants of the bible, the torah, or the quran were being taught in any public school. Children should learn values from their parents, as they are the fruit of their parent's bodies.
This also applies to communism seeking to raise children without parental interference, and to eliminate the family unit. It is theft. If my wife and I create a human that is half of each of us, that child is the fruit of our bodies, and belongs to our family, so long as we are competent caregivers for this new life. It is our prerogative what ideologies, morals, and values to instill in this new human. If a government-funded school began instilling children with other values, whether religious, political, or ideological in nature, that is crossing the line. This is the exact place where my distaste for this book comes from. With all of the recent lunacy coming from the left (anti-fascists using violence to silence their political opponents; ignoring facts, logic, and science for feelings; silencing opposing points of view at universities), I do not think it is so unlikely to see a book advocating communism taught to children in school.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 17, 2017, 09:09:34 PM
I think using your lucky situation as evidence to how social welfare programs should be temporary is very ... Out of touch with a lot of different socioeconomic situations and the cycle of generational poverty that many people don't know how to ascend out of.
You saying me busting my ass working multiple sub-minimum wage full-time jobs in order to claw my way out of being a broke and homeless teenager is a "Lucky situation" is beyond disrespectful.
I could have gotten food-stamps for being broke. i didnt. I could have gotten disability for my epilepsy that ruined my life-long plans of joining the military. I didnt. I could have succumbed to drugs and alcohol like 90% of everyone I knew in my youth. I didnt.

How the fuck is that luck?

It isnt. Its called sacking-the-fuck-up and working for a better life.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Synthesis on April 17, 2017, 09:16:21 PM
Yes, the poors' only problem is that they aren't bootstrappy enough.

If those layabouts would just sack up, their problems would be solved.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: boog on April 17, 2017, 09:35:14 PM
If you were living in the inner city, had a nonexistent or subpar academic education, a child at a young age, were a minority (I'm assuming the last bit) ... etc, etc, etc, your LUCK in getting a JOB AT ALL wouldn't exist at all.

I respect that you busted your ass. But there are people who are passed over constantly with those sorts of mitigating factors. It's great you've had success. Many people do not. Saying that they don't deserve to be assisted for however long it takes for them to learn, grow, get a job (which oftentimes earns them LESS than if they were to be on the government teat in terms of having basic living expenses paid for), is very, personally biased.

Just because you didn't use government assistance doesn't mean that other people shouldn't also receive help. Some people don't know what's available for them. Some can't grow their own food. Some don't know how to cook food properly. Some don't know how to fill out a job application. Some don't know how to read.

And if they want to waste their money on steak and lobster, they should be allowed to. Because guess what? They won't have enough money for the rest of the month for their food.

Anyway, the steak and lobster thing is a myth, perpetuated most oftentimes by the right and other small-government political minds to defund, or reduce the amount of food stamps spending, which is a very small portion of our country's budget. Here's a cool article:

http://theplate.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/21/steak-lobster-and-other-myths-about-food-stamps/
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Sayyadina on April 17, 2017, 10:15:02 PM
Whitt, excellent post.



Tongue in cheek, I think the Bible is Creationism for Kids, or at least Sunday School is.

I suppose if "Creationism for Kids" was put out by, I don't know, some legitimate non-religious publisher, it might be kind of irky? I think Creationism is foolish and requires too much faith, but I don't begrudge those who believe in it, nor someone writing a book aimed at kids to teach them it exists. Guess what? Don't buy the goddamned book, Capitalists! The market will correct and the book will fall out of print for not being business-savvy enough to make it in a strong market!

Everything else you said, Whitt, totally on point. Just putting this here to say thank you for responding and being informative about it. If I could upvote, I would.

Yes! The Bible is creationism for kids, and I would be pissed if tenants of the bible, the torah, or the quran were being taught in any public school. Children should learn values from their parents, as they are the fruit of their parent's bodies.
This also applies to communism seeking to raise children without parental interference, and to eliminate the family unit. It is theft. If my wife and I create a human that is half of each of us, that child is the fruit of our bodies, and belongs to our family, so long as we are competent caregivers for this new life. It is our prerogative what ideologies, morals, and values to instill in this new human. If a government-funded school began instilling children with other values, whether religious, political, or ideological in nature, that is crossing the line. This is the exact place where my distaste for this book comes from. With all of the recent lunacy coming from the left (anti-fascists using violence to silence their political opponents; ignoring facts, logic, and science for feelings; silencing opposing points of view at universities), I do not think it is so unlikely to see a book advocating communism taught to children in school.

So wait, now we need to ban the Bible and the scary communism book from schools? Ayn Rand is surely smiling down from Atheist Heaven.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Molten Heart on April 17, 2017, 10:39:53 PM
Yes, the poors' only problem is that they aren't bootstrappy enough.

If those layabouts would just sack up, their problems would be solved.

This seems relevant: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judith-orloff-md/victim-mentality_b_1874579.html
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 17, 2017, 10:40:27 PM
Whitt, excellent post.



Tongue in cheek, I think the Bible is Creationism for Kids, or at least Sunday School is.

I suppose if "Creationism for Kids" was put out by, I don't know, some legitimate non-religious publisher, it might be kind of irky? I think Creationism is foolish and requires too much faith, but I don't begrudge those who believe in it, nor someone writing a book aimed at kids to teach them it exists. Guess what? Don't buy the goddamned book, Capitalists! The market will correct and the book will fall out of print for not being business-savvy enough to make it in a strong market!

Everything else you said, Whitt, totally on point. Just putting this here to say thank you for responding and being informative about it. If I could upvote, I would.

Yes! The Bible is creationism for kids, and I would be pissed if tenants of the bible, the torah, or the quran were being taught in any public school. Children should learn values from their parents, as they are the fruit of their parent's bodies.
This also applies to communism seeking to raise children without parental interference, and to eliminate the family unit. It is theft. If my wife and I create a human that is half of each of us, that child is the fruit of our bodies, and belongs to our family, so long as we are competent caregivers for this new life. It is our prerogative what ideologies, morals, and values to instill in this new human. If a government-funded school began instilling children with other values, whether religious, political, or ideological in nature, that is crossing the line. This is the exact place where my distaste for this book comes from. With all of the recent lunacy coming from the left (anti-fascists using violence to silence their political opponents; ignoring facts, logic, and science for feelings; silencing opposing points of view at universities), I do not think it is so unlikely to see a book advocating communism taught to children in school.

So wait, now we need to ban the Bible and the scary communism book from schools? Ayn Rand is surely smiling down from Atheist Heaven.

I am a Christian. But my bible has no place in public schools, other than from a historical, or artistic point of view.

I'll respond to the rest of y'all in a bit. Writing an essay for Armaddict.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Zoltan on April 17, 2017, 10:44:23 PM
For the self-hating working poor and the petite bourgeoisie, no-one's efforts but their own are valid. Their suffering is more precious to them than any piddling material wealth they've managed to hoard for themselves.

I hear a lot of talk about what the poor do and do not deserve. I haven't heard any convincing arguments about why the fantastically wealthy deserve what they get. Money is power, and I think liberty is a pretty flimsy thing when individuals can amass such enormous amounts of power. But I guess we all have the freedom to do exactly as the system dictates, pursue "useful" knowledge and skills, and somehow wriggle our way into the good life. Except when we don't.

Rewards for hard work are unfortunately not enforced. Capitalism demands losers, and the very real possibility of losing (at any time) is a useful coercive element.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: tanbiere on April 17, 2017, 11:17:14 PM
I'll just throw this out there, because people are doing it, and it is working. If you want a different reality, create it. I don't mean that in the sense of becoming a certifiable psychotic and get yourself locked up. There's a phrase floating around, and the phrase is, BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE. It's really that simple. I don't believe that I accept the reality of going to work and making a living and coming home to dinner and watching t.v. or doing puzzles or whatever until bed time.

Four years ago I had a strong desire to quit my job. After twenty years of working to make good money! I pursued the American dream using the recipe my parents left me. At the end, I just didn't see the point in it. I became disillusioned a few years before I left my job, and ended up having a heart attack. I managed to drag myself to work a very stressful job for a few more years, despite my personal opinion and personal advice that I wasn't doing what I wanted to do. I guess somewhere in my self-empowerment of moving out on my own when I was sixteen, traveling the world, having children, and just living by the seat of my pants and enjoying life, I had gotten lost in the rat race. (Boy does that sound cliche)

It took a severe situation to stop me from working. I became honestly and truthfully disabled. In a most painful and awful way. I lost the ability to walk, and endured pain that would send me spiraling into major depression, suicide ideation, PTSD,  and a reliance on prescription drugs. I would spend DAYS, literally, sleeping or screaming in pain.

In August of last year, something inside of me clicked, and I woke up from my life. What a nightmare I woke up from. I can't even say that I'm really awake right now and posting this, for all I know, I'm still taking 120mg of morphine and as much oxycodone, with the booster shot of dilautid to keep me from losing my mind.

I woke up and started paying attention to the world, and come November, I decided to refuse to participate in the voting process out of a very self-righteous decision to reject government that was not self-government. I conveniently overlooked the fact that I was on disability which is a government program. In January, I decided to be selfish and get myself off of drugs, and I felt that I was going to will myself better. I really have been told since I was a child that I was willful. I cold turkey'd the morphine, and let me tell you, morphine was my sanctuary, it made all of the pain stop. February to March I left off oxycodone and dilautid and ended up "finding" a method of re-balancing my brain with a frequency of sound including a binaural beat that literally recalibrated my pain receptors. The withdrawal sucked, but it mostly happened in my brain. I went on a three week (living in a forty year old RV) sabbatical to the deserts and mountains of Texas, N.M, and Arizona, and gave up the meds I was put on by a shrink. It's April something now, and no, I'm not cured, I do still have debilitating arthritis, lymphadema, and fibromyalgia. But I don't take pain meds, it is pain I can manage now. I don't despair my life and find the only answer is an end to it.

I'm now working on something new. I'm letting go and forgiving, and not judging. Boy is it hard. I don't know if I'd have gotten this far while I was doing my job, I doubt it, or I would have. I'm not sure what I'm planning on doing, but I do know that I will find a way to make a living that will be my own way of getting by. I don't really need money do I? No, I don't think so, I'm hoping to move away from money and towards a fundamental design of true necessity that is both sustainable and rewarding. I'm choosing to move into a more service-to-others versus a service-to-self modus of operandi. The reason? I strongly feel that by helping others, you help yourself. By fighting others, you fight yourself. By feeding others you feed yourself. It's a literal comprehension of the phrase, as you do unto others, so do you do unto your self.

So, to finish my thought.

Create the reality you want. Be the change. Find like minds to create what you want as part of a collective.

I can't make people quit going to work at Monsanto. I can't even convince my uncle to leave his job, he works at a factory in Texas that makes bombs that kill people. I am not young. I'm 55 now. I have a responsibility to become the best person I can be, to allow others to make those decisions for themselves, and to know the difference between the two.

Don't do things from a place of fear.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: montarion on April 17, 2017, 11:53:22 PM
We should just hurry up and push genetic manipulation as a society so we can get past the gene-wars and into post-scarcity utopia.

Automation going to destroy the economy as we know it anyway, assuming climate change doesn't make shit all mad max before that can happen.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 18, 2017, 12:08:15 AM
If you were living in the inner city, had a nonexistent or subpar academic education, a child at a young age, were a minority (I'm assuming the last bit) ... etc, etc, etc, your LUCK in getting a JOB AT ALL wouldn't exist at all.
I lived amongst poverty. My high-school was shit, so I graduated my junior year by taking extra classes online. I wore condoms. Being a minority is an ASSET when getting a job, as affirmative action gives minorities preference when qualifications are equal. This is why MCDONALDS would not hire me. This is why I, as a 17 year old white man, had to find work alongside illegal immigrants, as it was all that was available to me.
Finding a job is a full-time job. You should start at 5am and not come home until 5pm, every day, until you have a job.

Making good decisions like not creating human beings before I have the means to support them is not luck.

Quote
I respect that you busted your ass. But there are people who are passed over constantly with those sorts of mitigating factors. It's great you've had success. Many people do not. Saying that they don't deserve to be assisted for however long it takes for them to learn, grow, get a job (which oftentimes earns them LESS than if they were to be on the government teat in terms of having basic living expenses paid for), is very, personally biased.

Even in garbage schools plagued with crime, resources exist for students who wish to advance themselves. I am not talking about me. I skipped more school than I attended, but still got my diploma. My brother, on the other hand, busted his ass academically, worked himself through CC, got an academic scholarship to UF, Got a 100% PHD scholarship with stipend at Cambridge. My other brother Joined the Air Force.
If a person does not make the best of whatever hand they were dealt, they will have a shit life. If a person busts ass non-stop, they will succeed, period.

Quote
Just because you didn't use government assistance doesn't mean that other people shouldn't also receive help. Some people don't know what's available for them. Some can't grow their own food. Some don't know how to cook food properly. Some don't know how to fill out a job application. Some don't know how to read.
I went to middle school and high-school with many people who could not read. Most were more concerned with doing the stanky-leg or the chicken-noodle-soup during each lesson, or picking fights with the teacher. You reap what you sow.


Quote
And if they want to waste their money on steak and lobster, they should be allowed to. Because guess what? They won't have enough money for the rest of the month for their food.
The people who do this dont NEED food stamps. That is the point. They abuse the system.

Quote
Anyway, the steak and lobster thing is a myth, perpetuated most oftentimes by the right and other small-government political minds to defund, or reduce the amount of food stamps spending, which is a very small portion of our country's budget. Here's a cool article:

http://theplate.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/21/steak-lobster-and-other-myths-about-food-stamps/

Not a myth. I worked at Wal-mart for almost 2 years. I have SEEN it with my own eyes MANY times. This is what makes me hate EBT, because I would see welfare-queens buy more food, and brand-name foods, at that, in one day than I would buy for myself in months. Quote all the articles you want, you cannot disprove my first-hand accounts with instances numbering in the hundreds over my time working for wal-mart.
I am not deceiving you. If I saw modest people coming in on the 1st and 3rd week of  each month, buying large quantities of cheap food. Food like ramen, pasta, rice, potatoes, eggs, milk, canned veggies, dry beans, etc, I would not care. But that is NOT what I saw. I saw soda, steak, shrimp, crab, ribs, pop tarts, and more soda. not even sam's choice soda. they just had to get brand-name. always.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 18, 2017, 12:21:35 AM
Yes, the poors' only problem is that they aren't bootstrappy enough.

If those layabouts would just sack up, their problems would be solved.

Finally you say something worthwhile.

Have you ever seen "The Pursuit of Happyness" starring Will Smith? True story. Bust ass harder than anyone else and you succeed.


For the self-hating working poor and the petite bourgeoisie, no-one's efforts but their own are valid. Their suffering is more precious to them than any piddling material wealth they've managed to hoard for themselves.

I hear a lot of talk about what the poor do and do not deserve. I haven't heard any convincing arguments about why the fantastically wealthy deserve what they get. Money is power, and I think liberty is a pretty flimsy thing when individuals can amass such enormous amounts of power. But I guess we all have the freedom to do exactly as the system dictates, pursue "useful" knowledge and skills, and somehow wriggle our way into the good life. Except when we don't.

Rewards for hard work are unfortunately not enforced. Capitalism demands losers, and the very real possibility of losing (at any time) is a useful coercive element.

The wealthy are wealthy. That is awesome that people play the game well enough to make that type of money. Plenty of poor people have become wealthy in America. There is still tremendous income mobility in America as long as you dont make stupid decisions like not getting a HS Diploma/GED, having children out of wedlock, and not taking any job you could get.
As far as it being unfair how wealthy some people are... too bad. To take that wealth away is theft, period. Theft is not okay, whether it is from the rich or the poor.

Capitalism does not demand losers. Capitalism is forced altruism. You do something that someone else wants or you starve.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Zoltan on April 18, 2017, 03:23:52 AM
Being coerced via starvation to do something for someone else sounds like slavery to me.

And what do wealthy heirs and heiresses do, exactly, to deserve their wealth? It's ridiculous to correlate "hard work" with acquisition of wealth. Is the hedge fund manager really "working harder" than the farmer? How does one measure that sort of thing anyway?

The vague-but-venerated concept of "hard work" is a fucking curse upon humanity. Why should anyone at all be doomed to sacrifice their mind and body to work that barely let's them get by (in fact, often fails to adequately cover their needs)? The "why" of course is that the owner class needs surplus to increase their power.

One can make all of the "right" decisions throughout life and still lose in this system. Someone wasn't necessarily "stupid" to have contracted a disease or suffered a work-related injury. People aren't "stupid" to have been born with disabilities.

Why is it okay for people to suffer and starve to death if we have the technology and production capacity to provide for everyone?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: boog on April 18, 2017, 07:18:05 AM
Anecdotal evidence ('I saw THEM a couple of times buy steak and lobster so EVERYONE does it!') versus real life statistical research isn't a valid argument. But hey, I'm glad you brought up junk food because, guess what? A lot of poor people don't know how to cook, or keep, fresh food. So yeah, they're gonna buy Cheetos and soda because both don't expire as quickly as food. And saying people should just be buying dried goods is a little dictatorial of you. If they wanna waste their money on steak and lobster, again, that's fine - they are given a stipend per month, and it's blown as soon as 'they' buy that sort of expensive meal.

I guess we know where you stand if you think all 'certain people' care about was doing the stanky leg, though. Which is why none of these arguments, some very well presented, are getting through to you. Ah, well.

I think I'm done with this thread. I can't handle people who say they're Christians and want to shit all over people, especially 'certain' people, for being poor because of 'poor choices,' that any of us could make.

'Fuck the poor who make bad choices, they don't deserve dick!' 1 Corinthians 13:37
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: stark on April 18, 2017, 08:20:33 AM
Seriously. If I got a sheet of yellow paper legal pad, and at the top wrote in capital letters the word OFFENSIVE, and my intention was to list every single thing that offended me in every moment of every hour of every day of every year of this particular lifetime, I cannot for the life of me find that this particular book review/summary would ever make the list. I think that Marauder Joe and I experienced a similar level of disbelief that this could make any reasonable person's "this crap offended me" list. This isn't a judgment on my part. It's me, realizing that someone else that is not me, but that is repeatedly reminding the readers of his self-made worldly status, can arbitrarily come across a book review/summary, not even the book and its contents mind you, just the review/summary, and be offended. And not just offended, but OFFENDED and ready to defend that attitude of being offended, even if he has to do that with examples of other things that OFFEND him.

Life isn't that ugly Melkor. Sure ugly and unfair things happen. Great and beautiful things happen. Perspective is only helpful if you can use it from every angle, it's when you get stuck on only one way of seeing things that you begin to separate yourself from other people.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 18, 2017, 09:03:57 AM
Being coerced via starvation to do something for someone else sounds like slavery to me.

I see, so you dont want to work at all, do you?

Quote
And what do wealthy heirs and heiresses do, exactly, to deserve their wealth? It's ridiculous to correlate "hard work" with acquisition of wealth. Is the hedge fund manager really "working harder" than the farmer? How does one measure that sort of thing anyway?
Wealthy heirs and heiresses benefit from their parents' good decisions. I wish I had that luxury, but i dont. I dont cry about how unfair it is. It is not unfair. I hope I can amass some wealth to leave my children, to give them a leg-up that I did not have.
Physically? No, the hedge-fund manager is not working harder than the farmer. However, if he is making more money, he is performing a service which is valued more than the farmer, quantified by the number of dollars his patrons will give him in exchange for his services. It is not rocket science.

Quote
The vague-but-venerated concept of "hard work" is a fucking curse upon humanity. Why should anyone at all be doomed to sacrifice their mind and body to work that barely let's them get by (in fact, often fails to adequately cover their needs)? The "why" of course is that the owner class needs surplus to increase their power.
It is only a curse to the lazy. Period. I see clearly that you dont want to work at all. You'd be content suckling at Mama govt.'s tit and feeling good feels about humanity while you contribute nothing to posterity.

Quote
One can make all of the "right" decisions throughout life and still lose in this system. Someone wasn't necessarily "stupid" to have contracted a disease or suffered a work-related injury. People aren't "stupid" to have been born with disabilities.
Ohhhh, I see. You didnt read the whole thread. Go back and read. I clearly stated that severe disabilities are an exception to these rules. Barring disabilities, if you lose in this system, then you made the wrong choices.

Quote
Why is it okay for people to suffer and starve to death if we have the technology and production capacity to provide for everyone?

Nobody in American civilization dies from starvation.

Quote from: boog
Anecdotal evidence ('I saw THEM a couple of times buy steak and lobster so EVERYONE does it!') versus real life statistical research isn't a valid argument. But hey, I'm glad you brought up junk food because, guess what? A lot of poor people don't know how to cook, or keep, fresh food. So yeah, they're gonna buy Cheetos and soda because both don't expire as quickly as food. And saying people should just be buying dried goods is a little dictatorial of you. If they wanna waste their money on steak and lobster, again, that's fine - they are given a stipend per month, and it's blown as soon as 'they' buy that sort of expensive meal.

I am sorry that life experiences are, ultimately, anecdotal evidence. I was not able to to organize a controlled experiment to analyze exactly how many people use food stamps for superfluous purchases.
You saying that I saw this "A couple of times" is a bullshit argument that refutes hundreds of real-life experiences of mine, because you do not have any logic against it.
LOL people are not buying Soda and pop-tarts because of the long shelf life. That is absurd.
By the way, steaks do not have a long shelf-life.
So, buying logical provisions is dictatorial? Do you think WIC's approved foods are dictatorial? The foods you are allowed to purchase with WIC are all extremely reasonable: "Examples of WIC foods include milk, cereal, cheese, eggs, fruit juice, peanut butter, dried beans/peas, canned beans, whole grain bread, tortillas, brown rice, canned fish, infant formula, infant cereal, baby fruits and vegetables, baby meats, tofu, soy milk, and fruits & vegetables."
But no, poor people need soda, steak, shrip, and lobster.


Quote
I guess we know where you stand if you think all 'certain people' care about was doing the stanky leg, though. Which is why none of these arguments, some very well presented, are getting through to you. Ah, well.
Ah, that is a subtle way of calling me racist. Great argument. You see it all the time with leftists. When all else fails, scream RACIST!
They were not of any one race, thank you. They were all just dumb, and made learning nearly impossible.
I, like Dr. King dreamed of, judge people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Their character was piss-poor.

So, gonna call me sexist, now? homophobe? transphobe? islamophobe? Bigot? Those are usually the death throes of a liberal's argument. (ironically, they are also often their first and only weapon)

Quote
I think I'm done with this thread. I can't handle people who say they're Christians and want to shit all over people, especially 'certain' people, for being poor because of 'poor choices,' that any of us could make.
'Fuck the poor who make bad choices, they don't deserve dick!' 1 Corinthians 13:37

"Certain people." Theres the 'RACIST!' cry again. Breathe, Boog.
By the way, there are more white people on food stamps than any other race.
BUT RAYCISSS!

Okay, cant refute my argument with sound opposition? Attack my religion. Okay, i'll bite.

I am not a perfect person. I am not Jesus Christ. I am not always a nice person. I try to be better, every day. I would go so far as to say, I have fed more hungry, needy people than you have. In the country, there is something many of us who own land do: We keep venison we hunted in our freezer, and give it to anyone who is hungry. I do this often, for co-workers and neighbors. Right now, my freezer is empty, because I feed my friend and neighbor through the woods on a regular basis. He is in his 70's, lives alone, and has only his SS checks to live off of. During the summer, I bring him a couple hundred mangos, and later in the summer, a couple hundred avocados, as well. Once my fruit trees on my land start producing, I hope to bring him much more.
As I said earlier, my priorities are, in descending order: My family, my community, my state, my country. Unfortunately, I only have the excess resources to help my community, at the moment. One day, I hope to be successful enough to do more.
There are many wealthy people who help WAY more people than I can.
Bill Gates is a perfect example of the super-wealthy who do AMAZING things for people.


The United States is a haven for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. If the opportunity is squandered, well, try again. Period. You reap what you sow.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 18, 2017, 09:19:48 AM
Seriously. If I got a sheet of yellow paper legal pad, and at the top wrote in capital letters the word OFFENSIVE, and my intention was to list every single thing that offended me in every moment of every hour of every day of every year of this particular lifetime, I cannot for the life of me find that this particular book review/summary would ever make the list. I think that Marauder Joe and I experienced a similar level of disbelief that this could make any reasonable person's "this crap offended me" list. This isn't a judgment on my part. It's me, realizing that someone else that is not me, but that is repeatedly reminding the readers of his self-made worldly status, can arbitrarily come across a book review/summary, not even the book and its contents mind you, just the review/summary, and be offended. And not just offended, but OFFENDED and ready to defend that attitude of being offended, even if he has to do that with examples of other things that OFFEND him.

Lol offended? Not everything a person expresses distaste for is offensive. As I stated many times, I am 100% fine that the book exists. Where my problem lies in the probability that it will end up being taught in schools.
I almost bought the book on Amazon. I read the "Look Inside" preview and changed my mind. It is pure propaganda, period.

Quote
Life isn't that ugly Melkor. Sure ugly and unfair things happen. Great and beautiful things happen. Perspective is only helpful if you can use it from every angle, it's when you get stuck on only one way of seeing things that you begin to separate yourself from other people.

I dont think you read my posts.

I am the one that says life is full of near limitless opportunities! People have argued non-stop that the system is corrupt, unfair, cruel, and I maintain that anything can be achieved with hard work!

Who is more optimistic, the hard worker who advances his standing in the world every day, with a smile on his face,

or

the socialist screaming at his government (which has afforded him and everyone he knows with unlimited opportunity to advance) to give him free stuff because of how unfair everything is.

You have it backwards, bud.

Life is awesome.

For example, I am going to drink a huge cup of tea I got at my small-town's farmer's market, sweetening it with cane-syrup I was given by a neighbor, who makes it from his sugar-canes, and walk with my dog around in the hundreds of acres of forest surrounding my 5 acres of forest.

Life is -AWESOME-
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: MeTekillot on April 18, 2017, 09:54:49 AM
There's several layers of self assurance we'd need to work through for us to come to common ground, Melkor.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: boog on April 18, 2017, 09:56:05 AM
You're really out of touch and it's very, very sad.

You also assume a whole lot of stuff about my argument against you. I never called you racist. I said certain people -- and certain people could be poor, black, female, live in urban sprawls, have lice in their hair. Whatever it is. You obviously have an issue with the poor, though, and again, that's sad. You judge them based upon what music they listen to, or what dances they want to dance, or how they bothered your learning experience, but you never cared to try to ascertain why they might be disruptive, or why they might be focused upon other things besides academics.

I think you have a lot of anger issues that cloud your perception and your judgment -- which is another thing Christ said not to do.

Christians claim that they're imperfect and that they're not perfect like Christ, but the basic, general principle of Christianity is to be -Christlike-. You're not being Christlike if you're going to have no chill when it comes to other people's poor decisions. You help them regardless.

There ARE people who starve in America. They might not die of literal starvation, but when one in six people in America suffers from food insecurity, there's a huge fucking issue and a disparity that needs to be addressed.

I also sincerely doubt you've fed more people than I have, but if it makes you feel like a winner, then go right ahead and think that. :) I'm not here to argue about who's fed more people: the libertarian or the Marxist. I'm here because you are screaming about a translated book for kids that's gonna teach them about something they'll probably learn in school anyway.

Lastly, as someone who's been on WIC and Foodstamps, WIC is far less useful to me because I have a child with a severe nut and a more mild dairy allergy. I don't have a god damn choice about buying things that cost more because when they cost more, they're usually produced in completely nut free facilities. But, you working at Walmart would judge me with my little EBT card because I have to purchase the more expensive things. The assistance I received from SNAP was a lifesaver in leaner months, and your derisive outlook upon the choices I had to make is completely unacceptable.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: MeTekillot on April 18, 2017, 10:01:33 AM
Mental illness is also a debilitation I think you're not considering on why some people don't bootstrap Melkor.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 18, 2017, 10:16:56 AM
Mental illness is also a debilitation I think you're not considering on why some people don't bootstrap Melkor.

For the third or fourth time, I have said that severe disabilities are an exception to my stance.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: MeTekillot on April 18, 2017, 10:28:29 AM
25-50% of Americans suffer from mental illness.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 18, 2017, 10:52:22 AM
You're really out of touch and it's very, very sad.
About what, exactly? Enumerate for me things with which I am out of touch.
It is not being poor. It is not starting with nothing. it is not having a sub-par public education. It is not having disabilities. It is not being discriminated against based on my race. So what is it?


Quote
You also assume a whole lot of stuff about my argument against you. I never called you racist. I said certain people -- and certain people could be poor, black, female, live in urban sprawls, have lice in their hair. Whatever it is. You obviously have an issue with the poor, though, and again, that's sad. You judge them based upon what music they listen to, or what dances they want to dance, or how they bothered your learning experience, but you never cared to try to ascertain why they might be disruptive, or why they might be focused upon other things besides academics.
You said stanky-leg and """""""""""certain people""""""""""".
I have no problem with the poor. I have a problem with people who want things for free.
LOL I dont give a fuck what music people listen to, or what dances they do. However, when 10 people ruin any educational value which could have been derived from a class by dancing, shouting, screaming, and what you conveniently ignored to reference, PICKING FIGHTS WITH THE TEACHER, this is utter bullshit. Ohhhh but I did not empathize with WHY they are being disruptive. It is because they have no consideration for those who would rather better themselves than hoot, holler, and laugh.

Quote
I think you have a lot of anger issues that cloud your perception and your judgment -- which is another thing Christ said not to do.

Christians claim that they're imperfect and that they're not perfect like Christ, but the basic, general principle of Christianity is to be -Christlike-. You're not being Christlike if you're going to have no chill when it comes to other people's poor decisions. You help them regardless.

In that aspect? Nope. I am not christlike when it comes to people making irresponsible decisions. I have very little sympathy for those who do, because one bad decision does not beget a lifetime of failure, period.

Quote
There ARE people who starve in America. They might not die of literal starvation, but when one in six people in America suffers from food insecurity, there's a huge fucking issue and a disparity that needs to be addressed.

................

Quote
Why is it okay for people to suffer and starve to death
So first, people starve to death in America, then I point out the fact that they dont, then they dont literally starve to death.
You arguments stem from very strong feelings, rather than facts. This poses an issue.

I agree that no American child should go hungry, period. In my town, any child can eat for free at our elementary school throughout the summer. At any given time of any given day, ANYONE can go to one of our churches and eat. Now, if you are an able-bodied/minded adult who is going hungry... Yes, bad decisions are being made.

Quote
I also sincerely doubt you've fed more people than I have, but if it makes you feel like a winner, then go right ahead and think that. :) I'm not here to argue about who's fed more people: the libertarian or the Marxist. I'm here because you are screaming about a translated book for kids that's gonna teach them about something they'll probably learn in school anyway.
Ive given away 4 bucks and more than 10 hogs in the last couple of years to friends, co-workers, neighbors, and churches. That is near a thousand pounds worth of meat. <Edited to remove me being rude. Sorry if you read it.>


Quote
Lastly, as someone who's been on WIC and Foodstamps, WIC is far less useful to me because I have a child with a severe nut and a more mild dairy allergy. I don't have a god damn choice about buying things that cost more because when they cost more, they're usually produced in completely nut free facilities. But, you working at Walmart would judge me with my little EBT card because I have to purchase the more expensive things. The assistance I received from SNAP was a lifesaver in leaner months, and your derisive outlook upon the choices I had to make is completely unacceptable.
I don't look down at you for feeding your children. I wouldn't care if you burned the whole world to feed your children. This is the job of a parent. I dont think YOU are abusing the system by buying things you NEED for them. I dont see an argument for people buying ribs, steak, shrimp, salmon, lobster with their government assistance.

I saw your picture on the OOC thread. It looks like you are raising two handsome, healthy young men who are spitting images of their mother. (The eyes, and the smiles, for sure).
If you lived in a community like mine, you would literally never run out of meat or eggs to feed your kids. They would go to an A+ school in a neighborhood with no crime. This is why I moved here with the woman I intend to make my wife and the mother of my children. It was a wise decision, on my part. I want to give my kids a great environment, a strong family unit with 2 parents, and a great school at which to learn the basics.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 18, 2017, 10:57:54 AM
25-50% of Americans suffer from mental illness.

I would be among that statistic, because of my epilepsy.
A fraction of that statistic are debilitating mental illnesses. People with anxiety can work. People with PTSD can work. People who are developmentally delayed, and mentally challenged can work. My favorite bagger at publix is a nice guy who is mentally handicapped. It warms my heart to see him working, and the giant smile on his face when I see him is evidence that he enjoys working, too.

So, of that 25-50% i wonder how many of them qualify for disability based on their mental illness. The ones that do, I have accounted for for the 4th or 5th time, saying people with disabilities are exempt. Not everybody with an illness is disabled.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Riev on April 18, 2017, 12:17:50 PM
So, of that 25-50% i wonder how many of them qualify for disability based on their mental illness. The ones that do, I have accounted for for the 4th or 5th time, saying people with disabilities are exempt. Not everybody with an illness is disabled.

There are many things I want to type to explain my point, but I understand that a nationalist pride is hard to break through. I don't fault you for being Super America Guy. We could use more of you, but I would hope that you aren't so pro-America that you don't see that there are faults outside of "people don't work as hard as I did" and "you don't deserve my taxes" (the latter which you've never said, but I feel its been intimated).

The purpose of a government is to care for and protect its citizens whether through military force or through community care. The rich taxes should help to let poor people get pulled up. Some poor people make poor decisions (think: That family of 6 whose father works 2 jobs but they own a 50inch plasma screen), but some are victims of circumstance. It seems you're not very forgiving for those of the former (bad decisions), and are taking what some have done, and applying it to the majority.

Saying "I understand SOME PEOPLE have handicaps" is just saying "Everyone that doesn't just can't hack it". I implore you to just take a few other variables into account than "poor people made poor decisions and that's why they're poor".
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Sayyadina on April 18, 2017, 12:29:49 PM
Anecdotal evidence ('I saw THEM a couple of times buy steak and lobster so EVERYONE does it!') versus real life statistical research isn't a valid argument. But hey, I'm glad you brought up junk food because, guess what? A lot of poor people don't know how to cook, or keep, fresh food. So yeah, they're gonna buy Cheetos and soda because both don't expire as quickly as food. And saying people should just be buying dried goods is a little dictatorial of you. If they wanna waste their money on steak and lobster, again, that's fine - they are given a stipend per month, and it's blown as soon as 'they' buy that sort of expensive meal.

I guess we know where you stand if you think all 'certain people' care about was doing the stanky leg, though. Which is why none of these arguments, some very well presented, are getting through to you. Ah, well.

I think I'm done with this thread. I can't handle people who say they're Christians and want to shit all over people, especially 'certain' people, for being poor because of 'poor choices,' that any of us could make.

'Fuck the poor who make bad choices, they don't deserve dick!' 1 Corinthians 13:37

I'm sorry Boog, but Jesus has Melkor's side on this one. It's why Jesus famously told the Parable of the Prodigal Son Who Can Eat Shit and Die Because of the Bad Choices He Made with His Inheritance. It's been the favorite of Jesus' parables among my brothers and me.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 18, 2017, 12:56:14 PM
So, of that 25-50% i wonder how many of them qualify for disability based on their mental illness. The ones that do, I have accounted for for the 4th or 5th time, saying people with disabilities are exempt. Not everybody with an illness is disabled.

There are many things I want to type to explain my point, but I understand that a nationalist pride is hard to break through. I don't fault you for being Super America Guy. We could use more of you, but I would hope that you aren't so pro-America that you don't see that there are faults outside of "people don't work as hard as I did" and "you don't deserve my taxes" (the latter which you've never said, but I feel its been intimated).

The purpose of a government is to care for and protect its citizens whether through military force or through community care. The rich taxes should help to let poor people get pulled up. Some poor people make poor decisions (think: That family of 6 whose father works 2 jobs but they own a 50inch plasma screen), but some are victims of circumstance. It seems you're not very forgiving for those of the former (bad decisions), and are taking what some have done, and applying it to the majority.

Saying "I understand SOME PEOPLE have handicaps" is just saying "Everyone that doesn't just can't hack it". I implore you to just take a few other variables into account than "poor people made poor decisions and that's why they're poor".

Actually, I would say that if a man has bred six children, he should have the means to support them without struggling. People who breed without the means to support their offspring are making mad decisions.

If you would, I would like to consider some of the variables you suggest I am missing.

I'm sorry Boog, but Jesus has Melkor's side on this one. It's why Jesus famously told the Parable of the Prodigal Son Who Can Eat Shit and Die Because of the Bad Choices He Made with His Inheritance. It's been the favorite of Jesus' parables among my brothers and me.

You seem keen on attacking me for being atheist. then for being christian. Try to articulate a rational argument, other than meaningless quips and poorly crafted attempts at satire.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Sayyadina on April 18, 2017, 12:59:58 PM
I'm sorry Boog, but Jesus has Melkor's side on this one. It's why Jesus famously told the Parable of the Prodigal Son Who Can Eat Shit and Die Because of the Bad Choices He Made with His Inheritance. It's been the favorite of Jesus' parables among my brothers and me.

You seem keen on attacking me for being atheist. then for being christian. Try to articulate a rational argument, other than meaningless quips and poorly crafted attempts at satire.

I'm not attacking you, I'm agreeing with you. Jesus clearly thought that all sinners and people that make bad decisions are trash who deserve to suffer. Similarly, Jesus said that he thought rich people are clearly just the best and will have zero problem getting into the kingdom of God.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 18, 2017, 01:13:41 PM
Sure, kid.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Riev on April 18, 2017, 01:13:59 PM
Actually, I would say that if a man has bred six children, he should have the means to support them without struggling. People who breed without the means to support their offspring are making mad decisions.


If you would, I would like to consider some of the variables you suggest I am missing.

I would agree that with six children and struggling, there were some poor decisions made. However, the variable I'm asking you to consider, is being one of those six children. 15 years old and you have to work hard to support your family, and you do. You work a lot of jobs, and almost every dime you make goes back to your family. But because of the situation you were born into, you don't really have a good selection of options. You can't move away, because Family. You can't get a better job, because you need particular hours so you can be around while your Father/Parents work. As you hit 25, you've been working hard for 10 years, but none of it was tradeskills or anything outside of manual labor. You couldn't get an education, you had obligations to family.

It seems the "right" choice is to abandon family for putting you in a bad situation, but for some that isn't an option. Are they to be relegated to the "foolish poor" for their situation?

Consider also, location. You're really good at, and work hard in, sciences. But you grew up in a mid-west city that has a mediocre tech school. You spend a lot of money on getting a certification, but you had to borrow money from people who now expect it back, but your tradeskill isn't in demand in your area. You didn't choose to be good at <x> skill, nor did you specifically choose to grow up in an area where its demand is low. Are they to be the foolish poor as well?



Obviously, these may even be exceptions, but they happen. Did they not work hard enough? Are there decisions that they should have made to better themselves? Can you expect every person going through these examples to have the proper upbringing and education to KNOW they had other options? If they graduated from a highschool that lost its accreditation through no fault of the person in the example, is it their fault for attending a school whose education has quite actually failed them?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 18, 2017, 01:29:24 PM
I would agree that with six children and struggling, there were some poor decisions made. However, the variable I'm asking you to consider, is being one of those six children. 15 years old and you have to work hard to support your family, and you do. You work a lot of jobs, and almost every dime you make goes back to your family. But because of the situation you were born into, you don't really have a good selection of options. You can't move away, because Family. You can't get a better job, because you need particular hours so you can be around while your Father/Parents work. As you hit 25, you've been working hard for 10 years, but none of it was tradeskills or anything outside of manual labor. You couldn't get an education, you had obligations to family.
I am the 5th of 5. and my parents divorced when I was 4, leaving myself and my siblings to live with my father. so does that count?
When I graduated my junior year, at 17, my father demanded that I start paying rent, so I moved out. Best thing that could have happened to me.
I know there are other situations that exist in large families, however, when families pool their resources, success becomes more likely, not less, unless extenuating circumstances like illness and disability occur. For instance, one person working minimum wage cannot sustain themselves without government assistance, unless they work two full time minimum wage jobs, or team up with another person making minimum wage.

Quote
It seems the "right" choice is to abandon family for putting you in a bad situation, but for some that isn't an option. Are they to be relegated to the "foolish poor" for their situation?
Right for whom? For the child? Absolutely. No parents should drag their children into poverty. Those would be called failures as parents.

Quote
Consider also, location. You're really good at, and work hard in, sciences. But you grew up in a mid-west city that has a mediocre tech school. You spend a lot of money on getting a certification, but you had to borrow money from people who now expect it back, but your tradeskill isn't in demand in your area. You didn't choose to be good at <x> skill, nor did you specifically choose to grow up in an area where its demand is low. Are they to be the foolish poor as well?
...Yes. My brother took a different route than I. He is a gifted intellectual and academic. He worked himself through CC, got an academic scholarship to UF, got a coveted academic scholarship to Cambridge, and is now working in a lab in Maryland while he pursues his doctorate in Neuroscience. If he had stayed in south florida, he would have been screwed.

Quote
Obviously, these may even be exceptions, but they happen. Did they not work hard enough? Are there decisions that they should have made to better themselves? Can you expect every person going through these examples to have the proper upbringing and education to KNOW they had other options? If they graduated from a highschool that lost its accreditation through no fault of the person in the example, is it their fault for attending a school whose education has quite actually failed them?
If a person's  high school lost accreditation, that seriously sucks, so the next step would be taking the GED and starting at a CC.

Not knowing is not a legitimate excuse. With proliferation of the internet, literally ALL information is available to EVERYBODY at ALL times.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Riev on April 18, 2017, 02:10:11 PM
All information is available, but not everyone knows enough about what information they need. There is a basic level of education in a subject that is required before you know how to ask, or what to ask. (Otherwise we would never need education at all).

So your responses to the situations are, as I see it, "Get out, abandon family if you have to, if you want to be better". See, that might be an IDEOLOGICAL difference, and not necessarily an issue with Government and Country. You see the path to success as leaving behind family, if that's what you need to do, to succeed. Others may have different philosophical and/or cultural upbringings where that isn't a possibility. It isn't reasonable to expect other people to behave as you or your family did.

I think the issue I, and perhaps some others, are taking is that you come across as arrogant for the work you've put in. You did it. You know people that did it. Clearly everyone can do it, and there are no reasons why they can't. When I say arrogant, I truly mean it, and not so much as a pejorative. You have an inflated sense of your capabilities, and due to your situation, it seems you expect the knowledge and expectations you personally have to be present in people you don't know.

Frankly speaking, you don't get to decide how hard someone else works, or how much effort they put into it, based on a personal code of conduct or set of experiences.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Synthesis on April 18, 2017, 02:53:36 PM
Technically, we are kind of deciding exactly that via politics.  The question really is whether you want to live in a society where your worth is measured by your work ethic--especially given that automation and globalization are rapidly devaluing the value of routine tasks and physical labor.

Ultimately, the question is:  what is the value of a human being, simply for being alive?  You should think very, very carefully about your answer to that question, because how you value others in large part determines how they will value you, when the shit hits the fan.

If your entire life was spent saying, "fuck all y'all, I got mine," "all y'all" might just decide that you ain't worth much at all--and certainly not more than that pile of loot you're sitting on.  It's all fine to be harsh on the poor when the prospect of them murdering you for your shit is pretty low, but I'll tell you what:  despite all your guns, it ain't gonna take more than about four or five desperate motherfuckers to render all your hard work and personal responsibility irrelevant.

Taxes are not spent to reward lazy motherfuckers for doing nothing.  Taxes are spent to pay those motherfuckers to keep them satisfied enough that the above scenario remains a far distant, purely theoretical concern.  Yes, taxes are a massive protection racket.  But listen, man...it's a far more civilized protection racket than anyone else has come up with, and you'd do well to calm down and appreciate that fact, because we're riding the crest of a wave of historic civility over here.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Zoltan on April 18, 2017, 03:10:46 PM
Being coerced via starvation to do something for someone else sounds like slavery to me.

I see, so you dont want to work at all, do you?

Nope, I don't want to contribute labor to something of no value to me in exploitative conditions. I work for myself now, and I'm LUCKY to be able to do so. I didn't bootstrap myself into this, the happiest period of my life. I did not get here alone. I'm certainly not maintaining this life alone. I would prefer to lower the role of circumstance and luck in peoples' life happiness if at all possible. We can do that by being smarter about production and distribution.

Quote
Wealthy heirs and heiresses benefit from their parents' good decisions. I wish I had that luxury, but i dont. I dont cry about how unfair it is. It is not unfair. I hope I can amass some wealth to leave my children, to give them a leg-up that I did not have.
Physically? No, the hedge-fund manager is not working harder than the farmer. However, if he is making more money, he is performing a service which is valued more than the farmer, quantified by the number of dollars his patrons will give him in exchange for his services. It is not rocket science.

At least you recognize that people aren't born into equal circumstances. So wealth is not an indicator of someone's character. After all, you can be born rich, poor, or whatever else. So why are you so gleeful about the punishment of the poor?

To the second point, if all the farmers stop working, we all get to become farmers or die. What is actually more valuable? There's a reason farming is so heavily subsidized.



Quote
Quote
The vague-but-venerated concept of "hard work" is a fucking curse upon humanity. Why should anyone at all be doomed to sacrifice their mind and body to work that barely let's them get by (in fact, often fails to adequately cover their needs)? The "why" of course is that the owner class needs surplus to increase their power.
It is only a curse to the lazy. Period. I see clearly that you dont want to work at all. You'd be content suckling at Mama govt.'s tit and feeling good feels about humanity while you contribute nothing to posterity.

I'm just puzzled on what contributing to posterity has to do with anything. Was I contributing to posterity by being a sysadmin? I was making the most money I ever had, but I don't think I was really contributing all that much to future generations.

In any case, you're just wrong. I like to do meaningful work, and I don't like to do meaningless work.


Quote
Ohhhh, I see. You didnt read the whole thread. Go back and read. I clearly stated that severe disabilities are an exception to these rules. Barring disabilities, if you lose in this system, then you made the wrong choices.

So people with disabilities can just rot. Got it.

Look, some of us want to work toward a world with less losers. Speaking for myself, I'm not concerned with splitting hairs on how they got there. It's a waste of resources to dole out punishment in that manner. Let's bring the bottom up to something humane. What is your argument against no-one starving, against no-one being homeless, against no-one being barred from education?

Quote
Quote
Why is it okay for people to suffer and starve to death if we have the technology and production capacity to provide for everyone?

Nobody in American civilization dies from starvation.

Even if this were true, my concern extends to the entire planet and not solely geographical America. I keep getting the impression that the suffering inherent in the system is agreeable to you solely because you believe that the wicked must be punished. The wicked, of course, being those unwilling or unable to eat shit for their masters.

And you fear going back to the struggle yourself. I think that's a reasonable fear to have and I really can't blame you for it. Wealth redistribution is concerned with billionaires and millionaires, and the owners of the means of production. So probably not you. I posit that we should reduce or eliminate the struggle if at all possible. That would be a valuable contribution to posterity.

And, hey, if resources aren't used in a blind pursuit of profit, we may even be able to maintain a survivable environment!
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 18, 2017, 03:16:29 PM
Technically, we are kind of deciding exactly that via politics.  The question really is whether you want to live in a society where your worth is measured by your work ethic--especially given that automation and globalization are rapidly devaluing the value of routine tasks and physical labor.

Ultimately, the question is:  what is the value of a human being, simply for being alive?  You should think very, very carefully about your answer to that question, because how you value others in large part determines how they will value you, when the shit hits the fan.

If your entire life was spent saying, "fuck all y'all, I got mine," "all y'all" might just decide that you ain't worth much at all--and certainly not more than that pile of loot you're sitting on.  It's all fine to be harsh on the poor when the prospect of them murdering you for your shit is pretty low, but I'll tell you what:  despite all your guns, it ain't gonna take more than about four or five desperate motherfuckers to render all your hard work and personal responsibility irrelevant.

Taxes are not spent to reward lazy motherfuckers for doing nothing.  Taxes are spent to pay those motherfuckers to keep them satisfied enough that the above scenario remains a far distant, purely theoretical concern.  Yes, taxes are a massive protection racket.  But listen, man...it's a far more civilized protection racket than anyone else has come up with, and you'd do well to calm down and appreciate that fact, because we're riding the crest of a wave of historic civility over here.

A stratified socio-political-economic system (i.e. every system above hunter gatherer level) works best when the Haves are sufficiently terrified of the Have-Nots rising up and destroying them that the Haves rein in their own greed and pay back in to supporting a stable society. Not necessarily the most personally-profitable to the Haves, but a stable one.

The elites of our (American) society have been without that fear for a long time. At least since the 80s, where the decay of the Soviet threat coincided with the rise of trickle-down economics, deregulation, and increasing bailout of Financial malfeasance like the Saving and Loans scandals. All of which has accelerated the consolidation of wealth in the upper echelons of society.

 I'd say the last real shock and subsequent correction was World War Two and its aftermath. Radical authoritarian ideologies rose in part out of the economic fallout of WW1 (Communism, Fascism, National Socialism etc.) and then proceeded to destroy large chunks of the West. The postwar economic initiatives and orders set up in the wake of WW2 were largely directed to keep the Soviets from sweeping up what was left, as well as forestall the return of rightest radical populism. Looking at the increasingly blatant greed in our political and economic elites (of either party stripe) suggests to me that they've forgotten why our system exists and that a destructive break might soon be coming. They seem too far gone in their greed to realize corrective actions are necessary, nor does anyone seem to have the backbone to enact them.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 18, 2017, 03:47:28 PM
All information is available, but not everyone knows enough about what information they need. There is a basic level of education in a subject that is required before you know how to ask, or what to ask. (Otherwise we would never need education at all).
Literally typing "How do I <blank> is all a person needs to know to learn things in the age of the internet."
Try it. Try typing "How do I go to college?" "How do I get a job?" "How do I get out of the ghetto?"

Quote
So your responses to the situations are, as I see it, "Get out, abandon family if you have to, if you want to be better". See, that might be an IDEOLOGICAL difference, and not necessarily an issue with Government and Country. You see the path to success as leaving behind family, if that's what you need to do, to succeed. Others may have different philosophical and/or cultural upbringings where that isn't a possibility. It isn't reasonable to expect other people to behave as you or your family did.
It is not uncommon that people sacrifice success or their well-being or ideological rigidity. Again, unless this rigidity and strict adherence to these ideologies result in a better spiritual/emotional well being in exchange for sacrificing their financial/economic well being, then they too, are bad decisions.

Quote
I think the issue I, and perhaps some others, are taking is that you come across as arrogant for the work you've put in. You did it. You know people that did it. Clearly everyone can do it, and there are no reasons why they can't. When I say arrogant, I truly mean it, and not so much as a pejorative. You have an inflated sense of your capabilities, and due to your situation, it seems you expect the knowledge and expectations you personally have to be present in people you don't know.

Frankly speaking, you don't get to decide how hard someone else works, or how much effort they put into it, based on a personal code of conduct or set of experiences.

I can see how I could come off as arrogant in the  presence of those who do not want to believe that the system is fair, and that their efforts were insufficient. I still contend that this is the case in many situations.

Actually... I do get to have an opinion based off of my experiences, and observations of others....
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Riev on April 18, 2017, 03:59:52 PM
You know, I wasn't even trying to change your opinion on the matter, but its clear that anything that might challenge you is so easily retorted. You're not discussing, you're preaching. You're holding court over your peers, except you don't believe them to be your peers, but rather your lessers.

You're not wrong, Melkor. Nothing you've said is WRONG, and I'm not being facetious. However, much of what you've said has been from a position of "I'm better than", and that makes you an arrogant person. Nothing we say will change it, and you're not in for a discussion. You don't like Communism. We get it. A book about it should be banned, or certainly not published by an AMERICAN company (that's right, I remember the OP). I guess that's on the few of us that keep responding, thinking your opinion over an objectively unknown book based on a foreign writer's essays could be swayed.

Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 18, 2017, 04:31:40 PM
Technically, we are kind of deciding exactly that via politics.  The question really is whether you want to live in a society where your worth is measured by your work ethic--especially given that automation and globalization are rapidly devaluing the value of routine tasks and physical labor.

Ultimately, the question is:  what is the value of a human being, simply for being alive?  You should think very, very carefully about your answer to that question, because how you value others in large part determines how they will value you, when the shit hits the fan.

If your entire life was spent saying, "fuck all y'all, I got mine," "all y'all" might just decide that you ain't worth much at all--and certainly not more than that pile of loot you're sitting on.  It's all fine to be harsh on the poor when the prospect of them murdering you for your shit is pretty low, but I'll tell you what:  despite all your guns, it ain't gonna take more than about four or five desperate motherfuckers to render all your hard work and personal responsibility irrelevant.

Taxes are not spent to reward lazy motherfuckers for doing nothing.  Taxes are spent to pay those motherfuckers to keep them satisfied enough that the above scenario remains a far distant, purely theoretical concern.  Yes, taxes are a massive protection racket.  But listen, man...it's a far more civilized protection racket than anyone else has come up with, and you'd do well to calm down and appreciate that fact, because we're riding the crest of a wave of historic civility over here.

Damn. That started off with immense potential, then devolved into "If you take away entitlements and welfare, we who are not self-sufficient will kill you for your personal property."
You want my wealth? My property? My weapons? Molon Labe, motherfucker.

Nope, I don't want to contribute labor to something of no value to me in exploitative conditions. I work for myself now, and I'm LUCKY to be able to do so. I didn't bootstrap myself into this, the happiest period of my life. I did not get here alone. I'm certainly not maintaining this life alone. I would prefer to lower the role of circumstance and luck in peoples' life happiness if at all possible. We can do that by being smarter about production and distribution.
Dude, that is awesome that you are able to work for yourself! I experienced this satisfaction as a carpenter, but I was 5 years away from achieving journeyman carpenter status, and being able to apply for a subcontractor's license. When work dried up one summer a few years back, I turned to a high-paying job in logistics. It pays well, gives great benefits, and I have 4 days off every week.
My only question about your circumstance is, do you mean to say it took no effort on your part to achieve your current means of employment?

Quote
At least you recognize that people aren't born into equal circumstances. So wealth is not an indicator of someone's character. After all, you can be born rich, poor, or whatever else. So why are you so gleeful about the punishment of the poor?
Of course people are not born equal. Most people born with a silver spoon up their ass are complete shitheads. I do not revel in punishment of the poor. I DO revel in the misery of the lazy. This IS a chip on my shoulder from all of the sweat and blood I have shed working to achieve a comfortable life from nothing. For instance, when I see bernie-bros crying about their student loan debt which they agreed to incur... Oh god, the schadenfreude is so great.
I dont, however, derive any pleasure from people who are hungry, especially children, who have no say in their circumstances until their mid teens. I would feed any hungry child at my doorstep, period.

Quote
To the second point, if all the farmers stop working, we all get to become farmers or die. What is actually more valuable? There's a reason farming is so heavily subsidized.
Wrong. These subsidies should not exist. the true value of farming would be apparent without subsidies.

If it was not profitable to farm/ranch, farmers and ranchers woulds top producing, and there would be a temporary food shortage, at which time the price of food would skyrocket. local farmers, ranchers, and hunters would make a fuckton of money feeding their local communities, and the cities would be in crisis because of their unnatural environment. Once the value of food shot up, BOOM. It is suddenly profitable to be a farmer, again, and a true balance between supply and demand would be found.

The real question is.... How many people would be harmed undoing the damage caused by all of these subsidies in the first place, to realize a natural market, once more? I dont think it is worth it, unfortunately. But I CERTAINLY dont think the answer is more subsidies.


Quote
I'm just puzzled on what contributing to posterity has to do with anything. Was I contributing to posterity by being a sysadmin? I was making the most money I ever had, but I don't think I was really contributing all that much to future generations.
In any case, you're just wrong. I like to do meaningful work, and I don't like to do meaningless work.
In a nation of hundreds of millions of people, there is value in simply keeping the wheels turning. Though I can understand what you mean by the difference between "meaningful" work and "meaningless" work... Though I think a more accurate term would be "Satisfying" and "Unsatisfying."
I loved building houses, decks, rooms, remodels, etc. It was extremely satisfying... But what was best for my family is that I go for the money, benefits, and schedule which was superior.

Quote
So people with disabilities can just rot. Got it.
What? Hey, I think we have a misunderstanding. What I was saying is that /only/ people with debilitating disabilities should be cared/provided for, indefinitely. Not sure how that was mixed up. Maybe it was my fault. If the conversation does not continue, I'd at least appreciate for you to touch-base on this one point, because this was a genuine miscommunication between us.

Quote
Look, some of us want to work toward a world with less losers. Speaking for myself, I'm not concerned with splitting hairs on how they got there. It's a waste of resources to dole out punishment in that manner. Let's bring the bottom up to something humane. What is your argument against no-one starving, against no-one being homeless, against no-one being barred from education?
What resources are wasted in "Doling out punishment?" I am not familiar with such a practice, except for regarding the prison system, which is in need of a massive reform.
You know a drowning man can kill someone trying to pull him to safety? It is wiser to throw them the means to save themselves.
I think the best thing to naturally raise the lower-class to a comfortable life is to remove certain taxes and regulations, allowing companies to bring production and industry back to the lower-class. Working people commit less crime, especially when their job is sufficient to provide for their families. Period.
That, and we need to encourage nuclear families. There are countless studies which prove the #1 factor in determining a child's success in life is whether they have one parent or two. By the way, no, I dont care if they have two fathers, two mothers, or one of each.

Quote
Even if this were true, my concern extends to the entire planet and not solely geographical America. I keep getting the impression that the suffering inherent in the system is agreeable to you solely because you believe that the wicked must be punished. The wicked, of course, being those unwilling or unable to eat shit for their masters.
This is part of the marxist mentality that I find so detrimental to a successful life, allowing someone to climb from poverty. The idea that to be employed is to be a slave. How can a person be expected to work hard and succeed when they think their employer is evil?
It is true. Use the googles. Nobody dies from starvation within civilization of America. (Of course, I am sure some stranded campers/hikers/etc. may have succumbed to starvation or the elements in recent years.)
I will focus on Earth once America has its shit together. I will focus on America once Florida has its shit together. I will focus on Florida once my County has its shit together. I will focus on my county Once my city, my neighborhood, my family, and I have my shit together. it starts with me. I have not reached the point where I can ignore myself and my family in pursuit of saving the world.

Quote
And you fear going back to the struggle yourself. I think that's a reasonable fear to have and I really can't blame you for it. Wealth redistribution is concerned with billionaires and millionaires, and the owners of the means of production. So probably not you. I posit that we should reduce or eliminate the struggle if at all possible. That would be a valuable contribution to posterity.

Struggle and hardship fosters strength; much like the incredible pressure and heat within the earth which turns masses of carbon into diamonds. To eliminate struggle is to foster a great weakness of the body and the spirit.
If for any reason I fell upon hard times and went back to square one (a shitty thought, for sure)... I know I would be out of it in a manner of a couple years, no question.

Quote
And, hey, if resources aren't used in a blind pursuit of profit, we may even be able to maintain a survivable environment!

Nothing wrong with this, but people go about it in the wrong way (Marxism)
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 18, 2017, 04:55:24 PM
You know, I wasn't even trying to change your opinion on the matter, but its clear that anything that might challenge you is so easily retorted. You're not discussing, you're preaching. You're holding court over your peers, except you don't believe them to be your peers, but rather your lessers.

You're not wrong, Melkor. Nothing you've said is WRONG, and I'm not being facetious. However, much of what you've said has been from a position of "I'm better than", and that makes you an arrogant person. Nothing we say will change it, and you're not in for a discussion. You don't like Communism. We get it. A book about it should be banned, or certainly not published by an AMERICAN company (that's right, I remember the OP). I guess that's on the few of us that keep responding, thinking your opinion over an objectively unknown book based on a foreign writer's essays could be swayed.

So, I read your post a few times, trying to let it sink in. I apologize for coming off as arrogant, first. I also apologize to anyone who I distressed with my opinions. In my defense, this is the way I speak with my friends, and family. Heated, opinionated discussions are something that I greatly enjoy. I especially enjoy speaking with people with whom I disagree. I am not down for the pure echo-chamber environment.

I guess my rigid stance comes from my clear life experiences. I am reminded of an argument I had with an acquaintance at work who lives by me about hunting. (lol... it is far less complicated a discussion) It went something like this:
Gator: (yes, his nickname is Gator.) Man, I am trying to get some bucks to come though my yard with doe estrus.
Me: I've never had luck with piss. I just mix a few pounds of salt and a few gallons of corn-syrup and pour it on the ground.
Gator: That doesn't work.
Me: Yes, it does. 90% of the deer I have bagged were lured with salt/sugar lure.
Gator: You're wrong.
Me: ................No. I am right. I am speaking from experience.

He didn't believe me, despite not trying it, for whatever reason.


Now, it does wound me to hear you say I do not consider you all my peers. I do.
I do not attack the individual. I attack ideas. (Synth is an exception.... But I think he/she had it coming).
I do not think I attacked any of those who spoke with me, I only vigorously defended my own ideas formed through my life experiences, and criticized those ideas I believed to be harmful to myself, my family, my community, you get it.
I guess my confidence in my own ideas and opinions is offensive to some. Sucks.

Regarding my OP... I did not advocate banning the book. Not once. my post was:
Quote
Jesus fucking christ. The former Soviet Union would only have DREAMED of publishing this level of propaganda on US soil a few decades back.

Which I think is 100% true. Can you imagine if the soviets got MIT to publish this book in the 70's? Would they not be thrilled? After all, the cold-war was largely a culture war, on top of a war of deterrence.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 18, 2017, 04:57:11 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2_dhUv_CrI
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Armaddict on April 18, 2017, 05:00:12 PM
Quote
Quote
By this argument, they shouldn't be taught America fuck yeah, religion, or any other thing at a young age either.  Exposure to information at a young age is a given.  Presenting it without a negative pretext allows for that generation to gauge it based off their development and exposure as equally as anything else they're exposed to, rather than only hearing about it in terms of a cold-war of ideologies where if they think it makes sense they're part of the evil of the world.

I agree! Children of young ages shouldn't be taught ANY ideologies... by anyone save for their parents. This is the right of a parent. You created a life, so long as you keep this life safe and healthy, it is your decision what values to instill in this person which is half you and half your spouse.

From our PM conversation.  Your distaste for the book is fine.  But you've just stated that parents are allowed to teach whatever they want, and in our market-oriented society, this book is also fine because it's appealing to the market of those parents who want to use it as a resource.  If it flunks, it fails, and if it is successful, then all your argument about how 'That's not how things are' in reply to my 'The requirement for it is a perspective shift' is a moot point.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 18, 2017, 05:04:42 PM
@armaddict

Yes. Some parents will buy this for their children, and I wont lie, this distresses me. But it is their right.

However, my main issue, from the beginning, is that this book winds up in elementary schools.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: MeTekillot on April 18, 2017, 05:06:43 PM
Teach critical thinking skills and present multiple arguments.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Armaddict on April 18, 2017, 05:08:36 PM
@armaddict

Yes. Some parents will buy this for their children, and I wont lie, this distresses me. But it is their right.

However, my main issue, from the beginning, is that this book winds up in elementary schools.

Sounds like the average literature problem that parents will bring up and have the book removed from the curriculum, which they've done with numerous books all over, over the ages.  It has not been added to any federal or state-wide required curriculum.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 18, 2017, 05:09:45 PM
Teach critical thinking skills and present multiple arguments.

wut r u gay?

In all honestly here's some real talk:

1) If your awesome economic system can be brought down by a children's book, it's probably not that awesome. If it is, then you got nothing to fear.

2) If the book isn't going to sell in Texas it isn't going to appear anywhere. Texan public schools order such a large share of the nation's textbooks (and presumably other School Library inclusions) that they have undue influence on what actually gets in to those text books. So as long as we have fat white God-ordained-to-be-well-off Christians protecting us on the school board I don't think you have anything to worry about.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 18, 2017, 05:14:38 PM
Teach critical thinking skills and present multiple arguments.

wut r u gay?

In all honestly here's some real talk:

1) If your awesome economic system can be brought down by a children's book, it's probably not that awesome. If it is, then you got nothing to fear.

2) If the book isn't going to sell in Texas it isn't going to appear anywhere. Texan public schools order such a large share of the nation's textbooks (and presumably other School Library inclusions) that they have undue influence on what actually gets in to those text books. So as long as we have fat white God-ordained-to-be-well-off Christians protecting us on the school board I don't think you have anything to worry about.

Skeels, you make great points which ease my mind. Seriously.

Quote
Jesus fucking christ. The former Soviet Union would only have DREAMED of publishing this level of propaganda on US soil a few decades back.

Which I think is 100% true. Can you imagine if the soviets got MIT to publish this book in the 70's? Would they not be thrilled? After all, the cold-war was largely a culture war, on top of a war of deterrence.
Back to my OP...
Is this contention wrong?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 18, 2017, 05:15:32 PM
https://youtu.be/jd5x2wKYILo (https://youtu.be/jd5x2wKYILo)
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Sayyadina on April 18, 2017, 05:33:25 PM
Damn. That started off with immense potential, then devolved into "If you take away entitlements and welfare, we who are not self-sufficient will kill you for your personal property."
You want my wealth? My property? My weapons? Molon Labe, motherfucker.

This reminds me of my favorite part of the Sermon on the Mount when Jesus said that if someone smacks you on the cheek that you should brandish your firearm and tell them to come and get the other cheek, motherfucker.

It also reminds me of another influential writing of Western Civilization, namely the Cracked.com article I frequently cite on the GDB (http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/) (italics in the original):

Quote from: Cracked.com
If you live in my part of the country, you'll hear hard-working, rural farmer types say, "I got my own piece of land, I grow my own food, all I want is to be left alone." All right, well tell me this, cowboy:

Let's say some mean, even richer guy, like a wealthy gangsta rapper, hired a bunch of armed thugs to come take your farm. What would you do? Your shotgun won't fend them off -- they have a hundred bigger shotguns. What will you do, call the cops? That is, other people, who will risk their lives while being paid with still other people's tax money, who will try these bad guys in a court funded by yet other people's tax money, under laws passed by legislators paid with other people's tax money? Whoa, slow down there, welfare queen!

But if none of that stuff existed, there would be nothing stopping Jay-Z from taking your farm. In other words, you don't "own" shit. The entire concept of owning anything, be it a hunk of land or a house or a fucking sandwich, exists purely because other people pay other armed men to protect it. Without society, all of your brave, individual talents and efforts won't buy you a bucket of farts.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 18, 2017, 05:56:02 PM
Quote from: Cracked.com
If you live in my part of the country, you'll hear hard-working, rural farmer types say, "I got my own piece of land, I grow my own food, all I want is to be left alone." All right, well tell me this, cowboy:

Let's say some mean, even richer guy, like a wealthy gangsta rapper, hired a bunch of armed thugs to come take your farm. What would you do? Your shotgun won't fend them off -- they have a hundred bigger shotguns. What will you do, call the cops? That is, other people, who will risk their lives while being paid with still other people's tax money, who will try these bad guys in a court funded by yet other people's tax money, under laws passed by legislators paid with other people's tax money? Whoa, slow down there, welfare queen!

But if none of that stuff existed, there would be nothing stopping Jay-Z from taking your farm. In other words, you don't "own" shit. The entire concept of owning anything, be it a hunk of land or a house or a fucking sandwich, exists purely because other people pay other armed men to protect it. Without society, all of your brave, individual talents and efforts won't buy you a bucket of farts.

I used this exact argument against Adam Kokesh in an argument several months back. I am not a staunch libertarian, who often border on being anarchists. I am a moderate who believes in having a smaller government.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 18, 2017, 05:57:23 PM
I just want to point out that Jesus was killed by immigrants.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 18, 2017, 06:03:34 PM
LOL.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Synthesis on April 18, 2017, 06:15:07 PM
"moderate"

lol

ok

Please, tell us more about your moderate positions.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 18, 2017, 06:38:52 PM
"moderate"

lol

ok

Please, tell us more about your moderate positions.


Liberal positions: Pro choice. Pro Gay Marriage. Pro Legalization of Marijuana. Pro decriminalization of all drugs, favoring medical treatment for addicts. Pro government transparency. Pro embryonic stem-cell research. pro alternative energy sources + less fossil fuels. Aware of anthropogenic global warming. pro legalized euthanasia. Pro separation of church and state. Pro Legal immigration. Pro Prison reform.

Conservative positions: Oppose long-term welfare. Staunch protectionist global stance,. Anti illegal immigration. Pro securing the border. Anti UN. Anti EU. Lower taxes. Shrink Govt. Cut entitlements and subsidies. Respect Private Property at  all costs. I favor a competitive, free-market healthcare system. Pro Second Amendment. Pro Capitalism, Pro Charter Schools, Pro Death Penalty. Anti Affirmative action.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Feco on April 18, 2017, 07:20:58 PM
Let's just say your positions did fall on a simple left-right axis, and that you your views were balanced along that axis.  I'm not certain that would make you a moderate.

Then again, "moderate" is a buzzword, and I'm not sure it has a really good meaning to begin with.  If it means something like "not radical," well, you're still not a moderate.  Typical, maybe.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 18, 2017, 07:25:46 PM
some people argue that a true moderate has stances on each issue between both extremes, like a compromise between left and right.

To me, that just seems like indecisiveness.

I believe a moderate is one who does not strictly adhere to the mantra of any political party, and instead, when they balance their positions with their lifestyle, they are equally left and right. Authoritarian and libertarian. etc.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Feco on April 18, 2017, 07:29:03 PM
It doesn't seem like a particularly useful label for conversation.  Who cares what one calls themselves if it isn't clear what you mean?

I'm not sure how you can escape the label "libertarian" given your positions.  That seems to generally sum up what you believe, and most people would be able to guess your positions given the label.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 18, 2017, 07:31:42 PM
I suppose, with everything except foreign policy.

That being said, I am often annoyed with libertarians, who go too far to the point of anarchy.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Feco on April 18, 2017, 07:39:24 PM
Back on topic:

Quote
Jesus fucking christ. The former Soviet Union would only have DREAMED of publishing this level of propaganda on US soil a few decades back.

Which I think is 100% true. Can you imagine if the soviets got MIT to publish this book in the 70's? Would they not be thrilled? After all, the cold-war was largely a culture war, on top of a war of deterrence.
Back to my OP...
Is this contention wrong?

Who cares what they would have thought?  My understanding is that most modern socialists and communists don't hold the USSR up as a shining example of the political ideology.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 18, 2017, 07:49:20 PM
Who cares what they would have thought?  My understanding is that most modern socialists and communists don't hold the USSR up as a shining example of the political ideology.
Modern socialists and communists do not hold ANY purely socialist or communist nation as a shining example of the political ideology, because whenever a nation truly implements socialism or communism, it fails.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 18, 2017, 07:55:52 PM
Fascism though works fairly well. Just look at PRC.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Feco on April 18, 2017, 08:04:17 PM
Who cares what they would have thought?  My understanding is that most modern socialists and communists don't hold the USSR up as a shining example of the political ideology.
Modern socialists and communists do not hold ANY purely socialist or communist nation as a shining example of the political ideology, because whenever a nation truly implements socialism or communism, it fails.

That's a grossly oversimplified and fundamentally flawed statement, but I refuse to boil the socialist ideology down to bulleted talking points.  Given the extent to which I think you misunderstand socialism and communism, I can't put together a truly informative response in a reasonable amount of space.

That said, I think I can point out why you're misrepresenting what I said:

Your point assumes that a socialist (or a communist) wouldn't defend the USSR because they think (1) that the USSR was a good example of their political ideology and (2) that they simply don't want to make themselves or their ideology look bad by defending a collapsed state.

I was suggesting that they do not think the USSR was not a good example of their political ideology.  They would not hold (1) to be true.

Even if they did hold (1), your point seems to imply that the collapse of the state signals a failure of the political ideology.  That is not necessarily true, seeing as the political ideology wasn't the only thing acting on the state.  If a group of vandals burns down a store, that doesn't necessarily signal bad business practices.

That reeks of the 90s-era neoliberal argument that the "fall of communism," or something like that, signaled that liberal capitalism was the one true government, or something like that.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 18, 2017, 08:13:20 PM
That's a grossly oversimplified and fundamentally flawed statement, but I refuse to boil the socialist ideology down to bulleted talking points.  Given the extent to which I think you misunderstand socialism and communism, I can't put together a truly informative response in a reasonable amount of space.

Can you name a single purely socialist or communist nation that has succeeded?

Hey, dont send bullet-points if you dont want to. Shoot me a PM with an essay. I would be happy to take the time to read and respond in kind.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 18, 2017, 08:18:36 PM
Can you name a purely capitalist (no welfare or government structure of any sort) nation that has succeeded?

They're both dumb questions. Even the USSR never claimed to be a "Communist nation" because a Communist society as laid in Marx is a utopian fantasy. Officially they were "working towards Communism".
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Feco on April 18, 2017, 08:19:26 PM
No, but again, that has no bearing on the point.  Even if a "purely socialist socialist or communist nation" has existed, it hasn't existed in a vacuum.  Its failure would not necessarily reflect a problem with socialism or communism.

Furthermore, I'm not certain what you mean by "succeeded."  Do you mean "still existing?"  Do you mean something else?

I'm not a political philosopher, so I won't be writing an essay.  There's plenty of literature available online.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 18, 2017, 08:57:15 PM
Though the US used to be pretty close, yeah, pure capitalism has never really existed, either. Nor would I advocate for 100% LF capitalism.

@feco... So you wont wouldnt respond because it would not do the subject justice to boil it down to the substance, but you also wont write it out. Okay.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Synthesis on April 18, 2017, 09:28:32 PM
"moderate"

lol

ok

Please, tell us more about your moderate positions.


Liberal positions: Pro choice. Pro Gay Marriage. Pro Legalization of Marijuana. Pro decriminalization of all drugs, favoring medical treatment for addicts. Pro government transparency. Pro embryonic stem-cell research. pro alternative energy sources + less fossil fuels. Aware of anthropogenic global warming. pro legalized euthanasia. Pro separation of church and state. Pro Legal immigration. Pro Prison reform.

Conservative positions: Oppose long-term welfare. Staunch protectionist global stance,. Anti illegal immigration. Pro securing the border. Anti UN. Anti EU. Lower taxes. Shrink Govt. Cut entitlements and subsidies. Respect Private Property at  all costs. I favor a competitive, free-market healthcare system. Pro Second Amendment. Pro Capitalism, Pro Charter Schools, Pro Death Penalty. Anti Affirmative action.

Sooooo...libertarian, except for trade protectionism.

Using your stances (with a bit of guesstimating):
http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/3073072218

94% Gary Johnson.  Imagine that.

That doesn't make you a "moderate."  It makes you a pretty hardcore libertarian.  Saying you don't like the kooks who call themselves libertarians, so therefore you're not a libertarian is like me saying I don't like neo-nazis, so obviously I'm not a socialist.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Feco on April 18, 2017, 09:47:02 PM
Though the US used to be pretty close, yeah, pure capitalism has never really existed, either. Nor would I advocate for 100% LF capitalism.

@feco... So you wont wouldnt respond because it would not do the subject justice to boil it down to the substance, but you also wont write it out. Okay.

I don't really need to give a crash course on socialism to address your argument, because you have a bad argument.

Consider a store.  Let's say that store is being run with some particular set of business practices, practice X.  Imagine that vandals come to the store and burn it down, or that a meteor smashes into it, or that neighboring businesses go in with an organized crime group in order to force that store out of business.

Suppose it's the only store to ever use practice X.

Would asking "Has there ever been a successful business that has used practice X?" be a good argument against practice X?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 18, 2017, 09:58:50 PM
Though the US used to be pretty close, yeah, pure capitalism has never really existed, either. Nor would I advocate for 100% LF capitalism.

@feco... So you wont wouldnt respond because it would not do the subject justice to boil it down to the substance, but you also wont write it out. Okay.

I don't really need to give a crash course on socialism to address your argument, because you have a bad argument.

Consider a store.  Let's say that store is being run with some particular set of business practices, practice X.  Imagine that vandals come to the store and burn it down, or that a meteor smashes into it, or that neighboring businesses go in with an organized crime group in order to force that store out of business.

Suppose it's the only store to ever use practice X.

Would asking "Has there ever been a successful business that has used practice X?" be a good argument against practice X?

I understand the difference between causation and correlation.

That being said, using your example, if every single store that used Practice X fails, despite other differences in location, services, time, etc. it is REASONABLE to say that Practice X might not be a great idea.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Feco on April 18, 2017, 10:19:34 PM
The issue isn't correlation/causation.

I can lay this out more formally.  Your argument is something like this:

[1] If socialism is a good system, socialist states would be successful.
[2] Socialist states have existed.
[3] No socialist states were successful.
[4] Therefore, socialism is not a good system.

Premises [1], [2], and [3] are problematic.

[1] -- The political and economic theories which underlie a state's government are not the only things that determine whether or not that government/state will succeed.

[2] -- Many would argue that their understanding of socialism has not been implemented.

[1] and [3] -- It isn't clear what is meant by "successful."  That's very vague.  Does it mean continues to exist?  Something else?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: stark on April 19, 2017, 12:36:12 AM
"Lol offended? Not everything a person expresses distaste for is offensive. As I stated many times, I am 100% fine that the book exists. Where my problem lies in the probability that it will end up being taught in schools.
I almost bought the book on Amazon. I read the "Look Inside" preview and changed my mind. It is pure propaganda, period."-Melkor

An offense is just a perception. We can diddle about the difference between distaste and offense, but they are both perceptions that are taken personally by the individual experiencing them. The point is, it's a perception. And as such, it's a matter of who you are, where you are, (and all of the other stuff that goes into making an individual) that determine whether or not you perceive a book review/summary as offensive enough to chase your tail in circles for six pages of trying to engage people in a discussion.  I don't think you are 100% fine that the book exists, but I do think that you can't do shit about it and that's why you attack the idea of someone else reading it. You don't have to like communism. You don't even have to like labels that people have given to ideas (like communism, socialism, feudalism, etc). You don't have to dislike them either. If your argument is against propaganda, you must suffer every day of your entire life, because our society actively propagandizes us, uses social engineering on us, brainwashes us, lies to us, and then makes you feel like a puppy getting a treat when you do what it wants you to do.

Quote
Life isn't that ugly Melkor. Sure ugly and unfair things happen. Great and beautiful things happen. Perspective is only helpful if you can use it from every angle, it's when you get stuck on only one way of seeing things that you begin to separate yourself from other people.

"I dont think you read my posts." -Melkor

I did read them.

"I am the one that says life is full of near limitless opportunities! People have argued non-stop that the system is corrupt, unfair, cruel, and I maintain that anything can be achieved with hard work!"-Melkor

I don't think you have to work at anything to achieve something. I think you can be born into money and have it all. I think you can lazily pull up to a bank and take out a few weapons, kill everyone, and take the money. I think you can murder a drug dealer and take his stash and sell it yourself. I think you can pretend to be very sick and find a doctor that will help put you on disability so that you have an income and don't have to work. I think you can be swimming in a lake and find a huge diamond ring worth a few hundred thousand dollars and then sell it and live happily ever after. Life IS full of limitless opportunities, that is true. But you don't have to actually work to win at life. I know a guy who wrote a book, and he just did it in his free time, posting his story on Wattpad as he went along, and people helped him do the corrects and even gave him ideas, and in the end, he published it on his own and made enough money he was able to quit his job and buy a little place and he's not even forty yet. No, I think the ONLY thing you can say with any kind of absolute surety, is that for YOU, life has a lot of opportunities that you can experience and you can only experience it by working hard. Other people don't have to. It doesn't make them any less valuable to society, it doesn't make them better or lesser than you. I think it would be helpful if you stop comparing yourself to other people. You are trying to create a reality whereby the ONLY way to happiness and financial security is through hard work. You are absolutely not the first person to believe or to do this. It's not a novel idea. In fact, people generally graduate from that point of view, to the point of view that "there must be an easier way". It's called evolution.

I don't want to tip your boat Melkor, but why can't you take a photo that is so amazing, that you are offered a ton of coins for it. Don't list all the reasons. Just think about it. Why can't that happen to you? Is it because your belief system is so narrow and tight that the ONLY way you can have a fulfilled life or a acceptable standard of living is to just smile and work? I think once you actually accept that there are OTHER possibilities (that you claim exist) that can lead to the same ending you want, which is standard of living, that do NOT include either smiling or hard work, I think you will begin to grow upwards and not just outwards.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: ExtraPlanar on April 19, 2017, 09:37:41 AM
as a person doing a master's degree in international political economy id just like to say this
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 19, 2017, 10:01:32 AM
@ feco

Your points are solid. I can see the issues with that line of my criticism.

However, regarding external influences, wouldn't how the world reacts to one nation's policies be an important factor when considering a certain policy?
To ignore that would kinda be like saying "I am not wrong.... The WORLD is wrong." Yeah?


An offense is just a perception. We can diddle about the difference between distaste and offense, but they are both perceptions that are taken personally by the individual experiencing them. The point is, it's a perception. And as such, it's a matter of who you are, where you are, (and all of the other stuff that goes into making an individual) that determine whether or not you perceive a book review/summary as offensive enough to chase your tail in circles for six pages of trying to engage people in a discussion.  I don't think you are 100% fine that the book exists, but I do think that you can't do shit about it and that's why you attack the idea of someone else reading it. You don't have to like communism. You don't even have to like labels that people have given to ideas (like communism, socialism, feudalism, etc). You don't have to dislike them either. If your argument is against propaganda, you must suffer every day of your entire life, because our society actively propagandizes us, uses social engineering on us, brainwashes us, lies to us, and then makes you feel like a puppy getting a treat when you do what it wants you to do.
I suppose the semantics do not matter, really, except for the light in which they portray a person's ideas.
I would not say that I suffer. I am opposed to state propaganda efforts, though. The people should tell our representatives how to feel in our stead, not the other way around.


Quote
I don't think you have to work at anything to achieve something. I think you can be born into money and have it all. I think you can lazily pull up to a bank and take out a few weapons, kill everyone, and take the money. I think you can murder a drug dealer and take his stash and sell it yourself. I think you can pretend to be very sick and find a doctor that will help put you on disability so that you have an income and don't have to work. I think you can be swimming in a lake and find a huge diamond ring worth a few hundred thousand dollars and then sell it and live happily ever after. Life IS full of limitless opportunities, that is true. But you don't have to actually work to win at life. I know a guy who wrote a book, and he just did it in his free time, posting his story on Wattpad as he went along, and people helped him do the corrects and even gave him ideas, and in the end, he published it on his own and made enough money he was able to quit his job and buy a little place and he's not even forty yet. No, I think the ONLY thing you can say with any kind of absolute surety, is that for YOU, life has a lot of opportunities that you can experience and you can only experience it by working hard. Other people don't have to. It doesn't make them any less valuable to society, it doesn't make them better or lesser than you. I think it would be helpful if you stop comparing yourself to other people. You are trying to create a reality whereby the ONLY way to happiness and financial security is through hard work. You are absolutely not the first person to believe or to do this. It's not a novel idea. In fact, people generally graduate from that point of view, to the point of view that "there must be an easier way". It's called evolution.
Being called unevolved is not appreciated, bud, though I have been called worse.
I would not consider being born into money an accomplishment. Leaving money for your children is, but simply inheriting money is not. Lol, but I WOULD consider a successful bank-heist in the 21st century to be an accomplishment. Immoral? Yes. But definitely an accomplishment, especially if the person was able to get away with it.

As far as your writer friend.. That is DEFINITELY an accomplishment. That is awesome he was able to do that! He is an inspiration.

I feel like you assume I have no other aspirations other than to work and live. I actually have a few separate endeavors in the works, that I work towards in my free time. They vary, but each has the main goal of working for myself, so I do think it is pretty unfair that you tell me the only way that I can achieve happiness and financial security is by working for someone else forever. That is selling me a little short, don't you think? Maybe you dont think so, but I am happy with what I have been able to achieve in my circumstances through all of that hard work, and I am continuing to press forward to bigger and better things. HOWEVER, none of those better things include being sedentary and leeching off of tax dollars.

Quote
I don't want to tip your boat Melkor, but why can't you take a photo that is so amazing, that you are offered a ton of coins for it. Don't list all the reasons. Just think about it. Why can't that happen to you? Is it because your belief system is so narrow and tight that the ONLY way you can have a fulfilled life or a acceptable standard of living is to just smile and work? I think once you actually accept that there are OTHER possibilities (that you claim exist) that can lead to the same ending you want, which is standard of living, that do NOT include either smiling or hard work, I think you will begin to grow upwards and not just outwards.

How is being a photographer not work? This is not rhetorical. Answer this question. If you say it IS work, then the last paragraph makes no sense. I would consider taking a photo and being paid for it to be work, work which should be done with satisfaction and fulfillment.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 19, 2017, 10:02:43 AM
as a person doing a master's degree in international political economy id just like to say this

"I have a degree so you guys should not talk."

Pretty lame, dude.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: ExtraPlanar on April 19, 2017, 11:51:35 AM
as a person doing a master's degree in international political economy id just like to say this

"I have a degree so you guys should not talk."

Pretty lame, dude.
it was a joke cus I didnt say anything

sorry
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 19, 2017, 12:10:21 PM
Ahh my fault, man. Hard to discern sarcasm through text.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Feco on April 19, 2017, 12:21:43 PM
@ feco

Your points are solid. I can see the issues with that line of my criticism.

However, regarding external influences, wouldn't how the world reacts to one nation's policies be an important factor when considering a certain policy?
To ignore that would kinda be like saying "I am not wrong.... The WORLD is wrong." Yeah?


Well, I think that's a large part of the issue.  The global political environment has made it incredibly difficult for any socialist states to develop.  As a consequence, states which would have ideally become socialist have been forced to take on specific policies that have been ultimately damaging to those states and to their socialist ideals.  "Forced" is a strong word -- there have been some intentional and misguided bad policy decisions too -- but I think it gets the point across.

If capitalists have been successful in stomping out socialists, that doesn't necessarily mean that socialism is bad.  It may just mean that the capitalists have been more powerful.

If you think global political power is indicative of the success of a system, or that it's indicative of that system's quality, or its status as "right," I guess liberal democratic capitalism is kicking ass.  I'm not certain that's the right way to go about choosing a political ideology to support, though.

Furthermore, it's worth noting that socialists don't necessarily agree with one another with regards to military and foreign policy.  You can't say "socialist state" and immediately infer every policy that state may have -- you can only infer that such a state would ideally advance worker control over the means of production.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 19, 2017, 01:14:11 PM
Furthermore, it's worth noting that socialists don't necessarily agree with one another with regards to military and foreign policy.  You can't say "socialist state" and immediately infer every policy that state may have -- you can only infer that such a state would ideally advance worker control over the means of production.

I agree that there is very little agreement on ideology that is not tried, true, and set in stone.

It is also hard to criticize a shapeshifting target. Its like trying to nail jell-o to the wall.

Hrmmm. I cant say I agree with saying "the government controls the means of production" equates to "The people control the means of production." I know the government supposedly IS the people.... But its really not, imo, except in homogeneous civilizations. This is one good argument for American Nationalism in general, is that it values American lives, values, and traditions before all else. Doesnt matter what color you are; you're American, so you are my brother. Doesnt matter what Religion you are; you're American, so you're my sister. If we were all American before all else, maybe our government would be more in-touch with the people. Buuuut that can be taken too far, as we have seen in history.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Feco on April 19, 2017, 01:17:53 PM

It is also hard to criticize a shapeshifting target. Its like trying to nail jell-o to the wall.

Hrmmm. I cant say I agree with saying "the government controls the means of production" equates to "The people control the means of production." I know the government supposedly IS the people.... But its really not, imo, except in homogeneous civilizations. This is one good argument for American Nationalism in general, is that it values American lives, values, and traditions before all else. Doesnt matter what color you are; you're American, so you are my brother. Doesnt matter what Religion you are; you're American, so you're my sister. If we were all American before all else, maybe our government would be more in-touch with the people. Buuuut that can be taken too far, as we have seen in history.

If you want to criticize socialism, you don't have to criticize a shapeshifting target.  You can criticize worker control over the means of production, or how a specific flavor of socialism interprets that.

But this would require that one has a working understanding of socialism.  (this is a general statement, and not specifically targeted at you)

Hrmmm. I cant say I agree with saying "the government controls the means of production" equates to "The people control the means of production." I know the government supposedly IS the people.... But its really not, imo, except in homogeneous civilizations.

To be clear, I didn't say those two statement were necessarily equivalent.

This would be an important place to say that not all states that call themselves "socialist" were or are in much of any sense.  Think of all the states that call themselves "democratic" and are nothing of the sort.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 19, 2017, 01:27:06 PM
All fair. For those reasons, I tend to criticize an aspect inseparable from any variation of Marxist ideology:

I am breathing, therefore I deserve things.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Feco on April 19, 2017, 04:01:05 PM
That's oversimplification to the point that it's incorrect.

I can easily envision a socialist state that withholds supplies from, or punishes, people who don't work.  I think this would be unnecessary, horrible, and against the general spirit of socialism, but it has and could happen.

I can also imagine a capitalist state that provides a good many things to everyone, without regard to their capacity or willingness to work.  Some take on welfare capitalist states.  These would be some version of states envisioned by social democrats like Bernie Sanders.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Synthesis on April 19, 2017, 04:50:38 PM
All fair. For those reasons, I tend to criticize an aspect inseparable from any variation of Marxist ideology:

I am breathing, therefore I deserve things.

Pretty much the entire civilized world has declared that people do deserve certain things just because they are breathing.

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/


Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people
Article 23.
 

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.
 

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.
 

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.
 

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 29.
 

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

P.S. The United States was a signatory to this, so I guess that makes you unamerican

Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 19, 2017, 05:27:21 PM

P.S. The United States was a signatory to this, so I guess that makes you unamerican


Lol trollin to the bitter end.

Disagreeing with decisions people made during my grandfather's lifetime hardly qualifies me as "UnAmerican."

As far as FDR goes (His wife was the chairwoman of the UN board who wrote those articles), He did good things, and he did things I disagree with; for instance, power-feeding the government tax-dollars and increasing entitlements.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Synthesis on April 19, 2017, 05:44:00 PM
rrrrrrriiiiiiiiight

You're not going to get away with pretending your radical views are mainstream American, dude.

You can protest otherwise all you want, but we're just going to keep calling shenanigans.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 19, 2017, 06:05:00 PM
If you call marxists in black masks who silence their political opponents with physical violence and destruction of property "mainstream American," then nope. Not me.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Synthesis on April 19, 2017, 06:51:59 PM
Deflection.  Sad.  Low energy.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Yam on April 19, 2017, 09:30:15 PM
Melkor is a pretty good case for the need to teach critical thinking skills to kids while they're young, before the stupid solidifies.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 19, 2017, 10:39:23 PM
Melkor is a pretty good case for the need to teach critical thinking skills to kids while they're young, before the stupid solidifies.

Hurrr i dont like what he says so hes stupid hurrrr.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 20, 2017, 04:13:36 AM
Hate to break it to you Melkor but the Communists have been brainwashing our kids through the much more effective medium of television for years

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zbeIMQuVxY
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Lutagar on April 20, 2017, 04:21:08 AM
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/03c748dfd296fb71b5fd20382b301a41/tumblr_odvf4lhDmd1ugt2xio1_1280.jpg)
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Rathustra on April 20, 2017, 06:35:10 AM
Hate to break it to you Melkor but the Communists have been brainwashing our kids through the much more effective medium of television for years

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zbeIMQuVxY
(http://i.imgur.com/5kadH27.jpg)
Confirmed
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 20, 2017, 09:22:33 AM
Lmao.

I pose a question to all of you parents out there. What is your policy with media and your children? I know several families who limit screen-time their children have to 1-2 hours per day until they are in their teens. I also know families who dont give a fuck and let their toddlers play on cell-phones and tablets all day. I can think of pros and cons for both. Just curious about people in this community's stances.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: nauta on April 20, 2017, 09:44:18 AM
Lmao.

I pose a question to all of you parents out there. What is your policy with media and your children? I know several families who limit screen-time their children have to 1-2 hours per day until they are in their teens. I also know families who dont give a fuck and let their toddlers play on cell-phones and tablets all day. I can think of pros and cons for both. Just curious about people in this community's stances.

I just point them to index librorum prohibitorum.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Dan on April 20, 2017, 10:01:25 AM
Lmao.

I pose a question to all of you parents out there. What is your policy with media and your children? I know several families who limit screen-time their children have to 1-2 hours per day until they are in their teens. I also know families who dont give a fuck and let their toddlers play on cell-phones and tablets all day. I can think of pros and cons for both. Just curious about people in this community's stances.

Our toddler loves to watch Micky Mouse Clubhouse in the car.  Otherwise, the TV is on educational children's TV during breakfast while she eats in her highchair so mom can get ready for the day.  Sometimes she will sit on my lap and we'll go over alphabet, colors and shapes with Youtube videos for about an hour when I get home from work so my wife can make dinner.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Refugee on April 20, 2017, 12:21:39 PM
When I was raising my daughter, once schoolwork was done, she had free use of the PC and the VCR.  I hope never to hear another singing princess as long as I live, lol.  But she also played Star Wars and Star Trek tapes over and over, so it worked out ok. 

Actual television was something we were very strict with.  But she rarely chose to watch it anyway when she was small, she had every Disney movie and lots of other tapes she liked.  She liked a PBS show named Wishbone an awful lot, I remember that.

She didn't have access to the internet unsupervised until she was in 7th grade.  Even then she was informed that at any time I could and would check out what she had been looking at.  By then she was so busy with her job and her karate and everything else she got into that it just never was a problem. 

I would not let her MUD though.  Even in high school.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Riev on April 20, 2017, 12:56:57 PM
Kids that CAN watch 2 or more hours of TV in a night clearly need more to do. Granted, if you're in the car or something, there is a certain expectation of entertainment, and I indulge in MORE than enough screen time myself, but the kids should be engaged in something otherwise. (If it can be afforded, I find that often times when afterschool activities aren't available or feasible with parental work schedules, screen time goes up)
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 20, 2017, 01:21:52 PM
Very reasonable parenting policies. Keep em coming!

I ask, because most of my childhood was spent reading, playing in the woods, or playing Legend of Zelda. I learned how to read while simultaneously playing LoZ, so that was pretty awesome.
I see a lot of children nowadays, and I pray I can make children that are not like them. Among other things, I hope limiting screen-time, and encouraging reading can help with this endeavor.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 20, 2017, 03:55:49 PM
I'm pretty sure I only really learned how to tell time because I didn't want to miss Robotech.

I can't say I'm comfortable with the idea of young kids on tablets or watching television. They need socialization and interaction from other people and I don't think electronics are a worthy substitute. Especially because I spend so much time on them myself.

I also think kids are basically dogs until 2-3 years of age.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 20, 2017, 05:05:50 PM
An old friend of mind had a 2 year old baby brother who could have full-blown conversations with you. It was almost creepy how well he could speak and articulate thoughts, daresay better than some I have encountered in this thread! *harharhar*

But seriously, a 2 year old who could have in-depth conversations with me about anything.. If it was something he did not understand, he would ask, comprehend, and continue.
Their family was SUUUUUPER ginger, and suuuuuper Christian. No TV at all, except for a movie the whole family would watch on weekends.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Yam on April 20, 2017, 05:12:20 PM
But seriously, a 2 year old who could have in-depth conversations with me about anything..

Go figure.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 20, 2017, 05:21:56 PM
Hey man, put some of that effort into the conversation we are having in which you afford no facts, sources, or reasoning in your argument.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Yam on April 20, 2017, 05:42:10 PM
No. You literally do not understand the concept of burden of proof.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 20, 2017, 05:47:28 PM
No. You literally do not understand the concept of burden of proof.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1d/Giles_Corey_restored.jpg)
?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: manipura on April 20, 2017, 05:54:42 PM
Two year olds are absolutely capable of having conversations.  Young children aren't just dumb lumps of tissue and cells who don't understand things.  It's always irritated me when people think that about children.
Anyhow, don't let me distract from the conversation at hand...communism or...whatever you all are going on about.  ;)
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 20, 2017, 05:58:45 PM
For the record I've had plenty of conversations with dogs too.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 20, 2017, 08:07:00 PM
No. You literally do not understand the concept of burden of proof.

Quote from: Yam
Most things. You tend to knee jerk to a position that fits your viewpoint regardless of available information. For instance, the premise of your communism for kids thread is that the book "Communism for Kids" is communist propaganda in the style of Soviet propaganda and that it rivals what the Soviet Union was able to push, which are both simply incorrect. It's actually kind of brilliant in how wrong the premise is because it makes it hard to argue against. It's Alex Jonesian.

Quote
the premise of your communism for kids thread is that the book "Communism for Kids" is communist propaganda in the style of Soviet propaganda and that it rivals what the Soviet Union was able to push, which are both simply incorrect.

Okay. Now back up your claims with facts.

By the way, saying "Alex Jones" is not a valid argument. I don't listen to him.

You made the first unsubstantiated claims. You need to provide evidence for those claims before you can demand facts from any counterargument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof

I said that you're like Alex Jones because you take a baseless position which you then demand other people prove wrong. You and Alex Jones have the same argument tactics, not the same viewpoints. You don't need to listen to him to behave like him.

Okay. My OP claim was that the Soviets would have loved to publish this type of pro-communist propaganda in the US during the Cold war.

I spent the last 30 minutes looking, and I cannot find anything near equivalent to it, published within the united states, during the cold war.

. . . . Maybe I am not searching for the right terms. Maybe I am not looking hard enough. I do not know. Maybe you could help me mend this shortcoming in my research, if there is one?

I'd start with looking up the author of the book, what her views and political affiliations are, and whether or not they even fit with Soviet politics. From what I found they do not at all match with Soviet or even Marxist ideals. She'd fit in more at a 60's hippy commune and probably be executed in the Soviet Union while Stalin was still in charge. In that sense her book is about as close to Soviet propaganda as it is to Sesame Street.

If you want to look at actual Soviet propaganda in the US look at the 1920s and 30s and/or the actual US communist party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA


Dude, read some of her articles. She is a straight Communist. She is anti western culture. She was born eastern-bloc Berlin. She praises the Arab Spring as a positive step towards communism realized and the end of history. This is not a flower-child. You saying she is is a lie.

I am still not finding any pro-communist propaganda published in the US disseminated to more than a few thousand people, man.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/17485-the-end-of-the-end-of-history-and-why-the-era-of-revolutions-is-upon-us
https://thenewinquiry.com/advance-fragments-communism-for-children/

This one isnt communism related, but she basically says that "Circlusion," or something encircling something else, like "a vagina around a dildo" is more powerful than penetration.
Lol feminist drivel.
http://www.maskmagazine.com/the-mommy-issue/sex/circlusion

I found her facebook, but I dont have social media, so I can't look into it.


The Hippie movement in large part pushed communist politics/economics and anti-western culture. She isn't saying anything new or exclusively "Communist" with a capital C, whatever you mean by that.

Melkor, I get that you're trying, but it just isn't enough and I'm not willing to be your sensei.

-____- Now I am convinced that you are just trolling.

if you showed me a SHRED of evidence that there was stronger communist propaganda published in the united states during the cold war, I would post on that thread that you proved my OP wrong.

If you showed me a SHRED of evidence that Bini Adamczak was not a blatant communist, I would give you that.

I am not looking for a sensei, I am looking for a rational human being with which to have a rational conversation. I sent you links to Adamczak's publications. So that wrecked your "Dude shes not even a communist" narrative.

I told you I cant seem to find any evidence against my original claims, despite you sending me that incredible wiki-source with almost no mention of propaganda efforts within the US.

It really looks like you just came to troll, and are now bailing before your seat gets too hot.

Please prove any of this wrong, if you are remotely able to.

I'm both trolling you and exasperated with your inability to understand what I'm saying or argue in a rational manner. You say you're looking for a rational human being, but I don't think you have the mental capacity to recognize one and are in fact just looking for people who will agree with and validate you.

My narrative was never "dude she's not even a communist" it was "dude her line of communism isn't anything like the Soviet's".

Your inability to find evidence against your claims is not the same thing as finding evidence for them. You're making a logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance. My seat isn't hot. I'm not even in the seat - you are and you don't even know how to work the seatbelt.

There's just some fundamental disconnect between what you think a rational, logical argument is and what it's actually defined as.

"Her line of communism..."

You honestly think the cold-war-era Soviets would not be happy about her book being published?

I get it, you are good at making insulting metaphors, but that is just a masturbatory effort on your part.


Yes they'd probably put her in gulag since the "Communism for Kids" book heavily criticizes them and they tended to murder/imprison their political critics.

Only because she has the chronological knowledge to know that they DID fail, yet she still defends marxist policies and ideologies. With the historical knowledge we have today, a pro-marxist is FORCED to condemn the USSR, because they have to say "But that was the bad way to do it, not MY way."

What is your point?

I was just outside, carving a bow, and I realized I phrased the question poorly in my haste.

Do you think cold-war-era Soviets would not be thrilled that a pro-communist piece of literature, directed at children, was published within the USA?

The distinction is important, because being pro-soviet union is damaging to the marxist cause in the 21st century.

Communism for Kids isn't really directed toward children. It's written at the same level as Animal Farm. Probably a little higher. You can preview part of it on Amazon. I guess you could probably read it to kids but I doubt they'd get anything out of it. Ferdinand is an actual children's book with some communist undertones that was probably far more effective as propaganda.

I'm not sure what cold war era Soviets would think. Probably a mix of things ranging from "great maybe this will bankrupt the US in a few generations so we can catch up" to "that book has communism all wrong and criticizes us - let's polonium her".


Ferdinand is close to a legitimate point, but it never overtly tries to encourage any ideology.

Your second paragraph ignored my question completely, so I will post it again. Please try to address it.

Do you think cold-war-era Soviets would not be thrilled that a pro-communist piece of literature, directed at children, was published within the USA?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Large Hero on April 21, 2017, 12:29:13 AM
Melkor, I'm curious. Did you read the 112 pages of Communism for Kids?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 21, 2017, 01:41:14 AM
Melkor, I'm curious. Did you read the 112 pages of Communism for Kids?

No I did not. I almost bought it off amazon, until I read the "look inside" preview feature Amazon offers, and found the reviews on it I read elsewhere seemed accurate. I decided it was not worth 10 bucks. Yes, this limits the amount of precise, detailed criticism I may offer against the book, but the theme, purpose, and premise of the book are widely known.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Large Hero on April 21, 2017, 02:13:59 AM
I try to avoid criticizing books I haven't read. I feel there is a high chance I will look foolish doing so.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: John on April 21, 2017, 04:04:13 AM
Think, for a moment, of the number of lives which have been snuffed out by nations with communist, socialist, and Marxist socioeconomic ideologies/policies.
Australia, Canada, Sweeden. These are all countries many americans would say have socialist ideologies/policies. Besides the aboriginals which Australia worked to systematically wipe out (how did Canada treat it's indigenous?) we haven't snuffed out that many lives compared to America. Furthermore, Australia was America's ally against those dictatorships that you allude to in your post. Note that communism and democracy are not opposed. Communism is opposed to capitalism and democracy is opposed to dictatorships.

Is there a book that you could possibly read to tell the difference?

Yes, it is just a book, and I am not one in favor of censorship of any kind. However, I am in favor of media, art, and ideas being judged and analyzed by the court of public opinion, and I will readily give my opinion regarding any piece of writing, art, film, or music, as it is my right to do so.
Go for it!
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 21, 2017, 07:24:21 AM
I try to avoid criticizing books I haven't read. I feel there is a high chance I will look foolish doing so.

I would tend to agree. I just couldnt bring myself to pay even 10 dollars for this book, even for the purpose of criticizing it.

Australia, Canada, Sweeden. These are all countries many americans would say have socialist ideologies/policies. Besides the aboriginals which Australia worked to systematically wipe out (how did Canada treat it's indigenous?) we haven't snuffed out that many lives compared to America. Furthermore, Australia was America's ally against those dictatorships that you allude to in your post. Note that communism and democracy are not opposed. Communism is opposed to capitalism and democracy is opposed to dictatorships.

Yes, you all do have some socialist policies, but you still have capitalist economies. I do believe these socialist policies will be to your great detriment.
First off, until very recently, Sweden was a homogeneous population, rather isolated in northern Europe. I guarantee you, that with the influx of new cultures into their population, their socialist policies go down the drain. Give it a year or two.
Now, as far as lives killed... I suppose not, but these nations are not pushing strict, staunch marxist policies across the board, which they would force their people to adhere to at the barrel of a firearm.


I dont remember comparing communism and democracy. Did I?

If I did, I would point out how many marxist dictatorships have existed, vs how many capitalist dictatorships have existed... <_<

<edited to add> It stands to mention, that with every push to the left, Australia and Canada both are losing their personal freedoms. Rights regarding free speech and bearing arms come to mind, first.

Quote
Is there a book that you could possibly read to tell the difference?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Synthesis on April 21, 2017, 01:28:10 PM
There is nothing inherently "socialist" about gun control.

Quote from: Karl Marx
To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party, whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard

Quote from: Lenin
The minimum programme of the Social-Democrats calls for the replacement of the standing army by a universal arming of the people. Most of the official Social-Democrats in Europe and most of our own Menshevik leaders, however, have “forgotten” or put aside the Party’s programme, substituting chauvinism (“defencism”) for internationalism, reformism for revolutionary tactics.

Yet now of all times, at the present revolutionary moment, it is most urgent and essential that there be a universal arming of the people. To assert that, while we have a revolutionary army, there is no need to arm the proletariat, or that there would “not be enough” arms to go round, is mere deception and trickery. The thing is to begin organising a universal militia straight away, so that everyone should learn the use of arms even if there is “not enough” to go round, for it is not at all necessary that the people have enough weapons to arm everybody. The people must learn, one and all, how to use arms, they must belong, one and all, to the militia which is to replace the police and the standing army.

Quote from: Mao
Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

The question is more pertinent to democratic vs. anti-democratic tendency.  However, in the modern era, even democratic tendency is leaning toward gun control, because the vast majority of people are so far removed from the utility of firearms that they can be made to believe that they aren't of much use to them personally, or that the risks of -other- people owning firearms is greater than the benefit to themselves.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 21, 2017, 01:34:09 PM
I agree that there is no socialist policy regarding an unarmed populace, however, does it not always turn out that way?

I think firearm prohibition is insane, because if the law forbids ownership of firearms, only criminals who disobey laws will have firearms...

I think this is one subject where you and I may have common ground, synth.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Synthesis on April 21, 2017, 01:54:41 PM
Gun control has "turned out that way" for virtually every modern society, irrespective of the general theoretical political or economic framework it tends to operate within.  Eventually, the United States will get around to it.  Note that the fairly strict gun control regimes in CA and NY have not been ruled to be unconstitutional.  The 2nd Amendment has certainly stalled things quite a bit, but ultimately it will be rendered toothless.

The reason is pretty simple, politically.  A firearm gives you--personally, individually--power.  It can be the power to do good or to do evil, but ultimately the state apparatus wants that power.  And this, again, is irrespective of capitalism vs. socialism or democracy vs. authoritarianism.  Capitalists will do it to protect themselves from the masses.  Socialists will do it to protect the masses from each other.  Democracies will do it to protect themselves from each other.  Authoritarians will do it to protect themselves from the masses.

Using gun control as a plank in your anti-communist or pro-capitalist or anti-authoritarian platform is silly.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 21, 2017, 02:27:53 PM
Read what I said, buddy.

Quote
It stands to mention, that with every push to the left, Australia and Canada both are losing their personal freedoms. Rights regarding free speech and bearing arms come to mind, first.

That was the whole thought. You attributed it to anti-communist, pro-capitalist platforms.

However, it would absolutely be relevant to an anti-authoritarian platform.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Synthesis on April 21, 2017, 02:35:04 PM
You don't seem to understand how implication works.

"Push to the left" means "toward socialism."

Saying X happens with a push to the left, and x is bad, is an anti-socialist argument.

Your quoted sentence is, in fact, an anti-socialist sentiment, and it clearly is a plank in your overall anti-socialist argument.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 21, 2017, 02:44:14 PM
I see what you are saying. I was thinking more along the lines of  sociological leftism, which would denote socialist  policies, but not necessarily a socialist economy. This was where I misunderstood you. I was thinking you were speaking of socialist economics, exclusively.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: whitt on April 21, 2017, 02:56:40 PM
I agree that there is no socialist policy regarding an unarmed populace, however, does it not always turn out that way?

I'd vote that a move towards an unarmed populace is more the hallmark of a dictatorship and despotism than indicative of an economic system.

Do dictators almost without exception move towards governmental control of resources?  Certainly.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Sayyadina on April 21, 2017, 04:52:46 PM
<edited to add> It stands to mention, that with every push to the left, Australia and Canada both are losing their personal freedoms. Rights regarding free speech and bearing arms come to mind, first.

Jim Jeffries has a pretty funny (and very very NSFW) take on freedom in Australia and Canada versus the US.

Enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjeq3NYUw2M
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 21, 2017, 06:24:17 PM
I'd like to propose a corollary to the "Governments trying to take your rights and guns (but especially guns) are on a dictatorial path" argument:

If you declare something while holding a gun in front of a flag, you're probably kind of nuts. Case in point: ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Sheri Few (http://www.live5news.com/story/35190716/clutching-ar-15-sheri-few-blasts-politicians-who-voted-to-remove-confederate-flag)
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 21, 2017, 07:09:01 PM
Funny video. I am in agreement with the comedian on everything. It should be mentioned, though, that Canada and Straya are steadily losing their freedom of speech in recent years, which is a shame. The US does need to stop imprisoning drug users, for sure, legalize and regulate cannabis and prostitution, etc.

I'd like to propose a corollary to the "Governments trying to take your rights and guns (but especially guns) are on a dictatorial path" argument:

If you declare something while holding a gun in front of a flag, you're probably kind of nuts. Case in point: ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Sheri Few (http://www.live5news.com/story/35190716/clutching-ar-15-sheri-few-blasts-politicians-who-voted-to-remove-confederate-flag)

Lol yeah, Sheri Few is nuts, but I think it is unfair to list her as a third example of wackos after ISIS and Al-Qaeda, yeah?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 21, 2017, 07:12:08 PM
I didn't give her a gun and a flag to stand in front of.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 21, 2017, 07:16:20 PM
Being a little nuts, posing in front of a flag with a rifle to pander to 'Mericans doesnt equate to fighting to exterminate millions of people.


So, it seems right-wing news outlets are reporting that Maduro is arming loyalist citizens with rifles, so in his unarmed populace, the only people with firearms are those which support his regime. Waiting for other news outlets to corroborate this info before taking it as fact.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Yam on April 21, 2017, 08:48:04 PM
I'd like to propose a corollary to the "Governments trying to take your rights and guns (but especially guns) are on a dictatorial path" argument:

If you declare something while holding a gun in front of a flag, you're probably kind of nuts. Case in point: ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Sheri Few (http://www.live5news.com/story/35190716/clutching-ar-15-sheri-few-blasts-politicians-who-voted-to-remove-confederate-flag)

You better not be talking shit about George C. Scott
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 21, 2017, 08:49:58 PM
I don't think you can argue that Patton (either the person or the character Mr. Scott was portraying) wasn't "kind of nuts."

Also I find ISIS policy platform a lot more coherent within its own philosophical framework than the GOP's, so I don't mind including Sheri and ISIS (and Paton) in the same set.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 22, 2017, 04:13:27 AM
I was asked by Jingo to post this in the "most relevant thread" and this seems to be the place

(https://media.giphy.com/media/3og0IMSCQ6gT75AlaM/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 22, 2017, 08:53:28 AM
The true irony is that the train goes in circles, forever.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Feco on April 24, 2017, 09:30:51 AM
I try to avoid criticizing books I haven't read. I feel there is a high chance I will look foolish doing so.

I would tend to agree. I just couldnt bring myself to pay even 10 dollars for this book, even for the purpose of criticizing it.

Australia, Canada, Sweeden. These are all countries many americans would say have socialist ideologies/policies. Besides the aboriginals which Australia worked to systematically wipe out (how did Canada treat it's indigenous?) we haven't snuffed out that many lives compared to America. Furthermore, Australia was America's ally against those dictatorships that you allude to in your post. Note that communism and democracy are not opposed. Communism is opposed to capitalism and democracy is opposed to dictatorships.

Yes, you all do have some socialist policies, but you still have capitalist economies. I do believe these socialist policies will be to your great detriment.
First off, until very recently, Sweden was a homogeneous population, rather isolated in northern Europe. I guarantee you, that with the influx of new cultures into their population, their socialist policies go down the drain. Give it a year or two.
Now, as far as lives killed... I suppose not, but these nations are not pushing strict, staunch marxist policies across the board, which they would force their people to adhere to at the barrel of a firearm.


I dont remember comparing communism and democracy. Did I?

If I did, I would point out how many marxist dictatorships have existed, vs how many capitalist dictatorships have existed... <_<

<edited to add> It stands to mention, that with every push to the left, Australia and Canada both are losing their personal freedoms. Rights regarding free speech and bearing arms come to mind, first.

Quote
Is there a book that you could possibly read to tell the difference?

I see what you are saying. I was thinking more along the lines of  sociological leftism, which would denote socialist  policies, but not necessarily a socialist economy. This was where I misunderstood you. I was thinking you were speaking of socialist economics, exclusively.

I think you're deeply confused about terms like "marxism," "communism," and "socialism."  That said, I have no idea what you think they mean, so I don't even know where to start.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Riev on April 24, 2017, 04:27:25 PM
As a self-described Capitalist, I think Melkor's intention in naming those political ideologies is in their effect on the markets and economy. As stated in numerous points in this "lets all battle Melkor's contentions" thread, his issues with things like Marxism and Communism is that they are not Capitalism, are anti-American, and that their effect on the economy is one that emphasizes group value for group work.

Not so much "all commies are fascists" but more "Communism shouldn't work because I believe in Individualism, and what I earn should be mine and mine alone". Not necessarily a NEGATIVE view, just different from some, who are as extremely individualist.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 24, 2017, 07:29:19 PM
@ feco I have addressed literal dictionary-definitions of the subjects in question... And am told thats not real <insert subject here>. I have addressed strictly economic principals of socialism and communism, then have been criticized on the social aspects. I have criticized social marxism, then been criticized on economics, and that "Thats not real <X>.

Doesn't seem like I'm the one who is confused, bud.


@ Riev. Thanks for being reasonable, and understanding. I'd buy you a beer.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Riev on April 25, 2017, 11:03:24 AM
haha thanks, Melkor. I just know that you have your ideologies, are hard stuck in them, and there are just fundamental differences that you aren't likely to budge on.

I kind of boil it down to the individualism. Its certainly part of what America was built on, that an individuals work is more important than the groups work. It isn't the only way to be, and other cultures actually specifically focus more on what your contribution brings to the group without delving into Communism. I totally understand WHERE you're coming from, my argument is just that a government has certain responsibilities and that, unfortunately, results in an individual's gains being appropriated to those who aren't as capable.

Fiscally, I'm pretty conservative. I think there are a LOT of programs the government oversees that it really doesn't need to, and adds a lot of bloat that could (and should) be reduced. However, that doesn't mean I don't believe in the appropriation of a portion of wealth to support the lower class. Communism doesn't work, but in small groups it may be able to. Barter system, job for job, maybe among departments of small organizations?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Zoltan on April 25, 2017, 01:36:23 PM
I don't have time to delve deeply into this now, but consider this sort of idea. Less time participating in soul-crushing labor simply for survival means more time developing individuality. Many jobs, prestigious or not, strongly enforce conformity. A more rational allocation of production and resources could reduce the pressure on individuals to conform.

I don't consider the desire for individualism to be an argument in favor of capitalism (at least not in the past century or so). We're all pressured to readily accept authority first in school and then in the work place.

My support for progressive causes is because I want people to be individuals, all over the world. Individual thought is bad for business and discouraged. There are exceptions in capitalism (but-but I'm paid to develop innovative apps!!!), but those rare exceptions distract from the majority of humanity's toil to "keep the lights on".

I want more freedom for more people to pursue their interests because it will ultimately make my life better in various ways.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 25, 2017, 02:49:16 PM
haha thanks, Melkor. I just know that you have your ideologies, are hard stuck in them, and there are just fundamental differences that you aren't likely to budge on.

I kind of boil it down to the individualism. Its certainly part of what America was built on, that an individuals work is more important than the groups work. It isn't the only way to be, and other cultures actually specifically focus more on what your contribution brings to the group without delving into Communism. I totally understand WHERE you're coming from, my argument is just that a government has certain responsibilities and that, unfortunately, results in an individual's gains being appropriated to those who aren't as capable.

Fiscally, I'm pretty conservative. I think there are a LOT of programs the government oversees that it really doesn't need to, and adds a lot of bloat that could (and should) be reduced. However, that doesn't mean I don't believe in the appropriation of a portion of wealth to support the lower class. Communism doesn't work, but in small groups it may be able to. Barter system, job for job, maybe among departments of small organizations?

I understand using tax-dollars to care for severely disabled Americans, as I have said many times. I understand using tax-dollars to open job-centers who helped people who are not as capable as others find employment.
I am not okay with rewarding single-motherhood while penalizing nuclear families. I am not okay with people who make a career out of exploiting unemployment and disability benefits.  You get it. I love and care for Americans who need help... not those who just want help so they can have an easier life.
I have also repeatedly stated that marxist policies can work in homogeneous nations or small groups; almost every church will help out their own with pooled resources if they have fallen on hard times. The barter system is alive an well today. In september or october, I will bring a few bags of avocados from my old property down south and trade them for a few bags of persimmons to my friend who owns a persimmon orchard. You can trade stuff at flea-markets quite easily. People in the trades exchange jobs for jobs all the time. I used to do home-repairs for a mechanic friend of mine to fix shit on my POS car. I consider the barter system to be the most basic entity of capitalism, I give you this in exchange for that. That being said, how can a person who works in data processing, human resources, asset protection, etc. be of any value to a mechanic, a plumber, a carpenter... lol. These are abstract jobs with no use except to a corporation, offering services to tangible jobs with service applicable to everybody. This is why we have money. Not everybody's goods or services are desired by everybody.

I don't have time to delve deeply into this now, but consider this sort of idea. Less time participating in soul-crushing labor simply for survival means more time developing individuality. Many jobs, prestigious or not, strongly enforce conformity. A more rational allocation of production and resources could reduce the pressure on individuals to conform.

I don't consider the desire for individualism to be an argument in favor of capitalism (at least not in the past century or so). We're all pressured to readily accept authority first in school and then in the work place.

My support for progressive causes is because I want people to be individuals, all over the world. Individual thought is bad for business and discouraged. There are exceptions in capitalism (but-but I'm paid to develop innovative apps!!!), but those rare exceptions distract from the majority of humanity's toil to "keep the lights on".

I want more freedom for more people to pursue their interests because it will ultimately make my life better in various ways.

First, I'd like to remind you how insanely fragile the civilization we take for granted is. You rest easy, knowing if you take the day off, take the week off, hell, take the year off, the wheels keep turning. If 50% of the workforce in America called out for 1 week straight... Holy fuck. There would be chaos.

The private sector ALREADY has an insane maximization of efficiency and resources in order to maximize profits. What you are saying, is for owners of businesses, and their shareholders, to cut their profits so people can have more days off. Not to be rude, but this is silly, and childish.

Literally every job in the trades encourages individuality, in style, creativity, personality, and ethic.

Why does nearly every millennial think hard work is "soul-crushing?"
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Riev on April 25, 2017, 03:25:44 PM
Why does nearly every millennial think hard work is "soul-crushing?"

First off, I'd warn you to not lump "every" millennial, and also not to make assumptions about a tag that spans like 30 years. Somehow, I'M a millennial even though I wanted to be in the Pepsi Generation. :3

However, to answer your question, this is something coming up a lot more lately. Its not about it being "soul crushing", but millennials have it good. Honestly. Our parents made sure we never got hurt, or felt like we lost, and always made sure we won some sort of trophy. So, when it comes to work, we want to feel like our work matters.

Not in "I work for a non-profit company growing vertical gardens" matters, but more and more the younger workforce wants assurance that the job they are performing is useful to the organization they've chosen to join. Nobody wants to do work that someone else is already doing, and millennials especially don't want to feel like if they took off for a week, nobody would notice.

I also disagree that company owners should cut their profits specifically for days off. However, that's because I personally believe they can take those "cut profits" to examine how to make their company better to work for. Upgrade processes, allow creative time while at work, find ways to make working "better". If you need days off from work, and its not for appointments or for kid dance rehearsals, then your job SUCKS.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Marc on April 25, 2017, 03:27:06 PM
Since everyone is friends now, a conversation about listening to those you fundamentally don't agree with. https://onbeing.org/programs/heather-mcghee-and-matt-kibbe-repairing-the-breach/ (https://onbeing.org/programs/heather-mcghee-and-matt-kibbe-repairing-the-breach/)

When is using force okay?  When someone refuses to pay taxes to fund abortion?  To fund welfare?  To fund schools?  To fund wars?  To fund Tuskegee experiments or terminator seeds?  To fund prisons?

If something is legal, is it morally right?  Is following the law justification enough?  Is Trump not releasing his tax returns unethical?  Is killing civilians with missiles unethical?  If someone can't afford a lawyer do they not deserve legal defense?  Is it okay to take Peter's money to pay for Paul's lawyer?

Are there universal ethics?  Are there things that are always right or always wrong?

When does coercion trump conversion?  When did we decide forcing people to change was better than showing them a better way?

If we all are subject to a social contract, whom decides what is written, who is subject or how the contract will be enforced?

Who watches the watchers?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: boog on April 25, 2017, 03:38:51 PM
When I visit your farm someday, Marc, I'm gonna punch you in the arm for these questions. ;)

I took a Philosophy class in school and I hated it because of questions like those! <3

(I STILL LOVE YOU.)
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 25, 2017, 03:56:18 PM
Why does nearly every millennial think hard work is "soul-crushing?"

First off, I'd warn you to not lump "every" millennial, and also not to make assumptions about a tag that spans like 30 years. Somehow, I'M a millennial even though I wanted to be in the Pepsi Generation. :3
Haay now, I said /nearly/ every. After all, I am technically a millennial, too. 1991.
Quote
However, to answer your question, this is something coming up a lot more lately. Its not about it being "soul crushing", but millennials have it good. Honestly. Our parents made sure we never got hurt, or felt like we lost, and always made sure we won some sort of trophy. So, when it comes to work, we want to feel like our work matters.
You were almost there. Teddy Roosevelt had a belief that a strenuous life fosters strength and character. i would agree. Therefore, most millennials who had soft, easy lives never had an opportunity to foster strength or character.

Quote
Not in "I work for a non-profit company growing vertical gardens" matters, but more and more the younger workforce wants assurance that the job they are performing is useful to the organization they've chosen to join. Nobody wants to do work that someone else is already doing, and millennials especially don't want to feel like if they took off for a week, nobody would notice.
I think that is because they want to think they are significant despite doing insignificant work. If you are a minimum-wage stocker at a wal-mart... Sorry, you're not significant, yet. Keep building your skills, your ethic, and your stature until you are significant. If everyone is significant, then nobody is. Not everybody is a loser>MMA Prodigy>Humanitarian by age 24 like Justin Wren (Awesome guy. Look him up)
Quote
I also disagree that company owners should cut their profits specifically for days off. However, that's because I personally believe they can take those "cut profits" to examine how to make their company better to work for. Upgrade processes, allow creative time while at work, find ways to make working "better". If you need days off from work, and its not for appointments or for kid dance rehearsals, then your job SUCKS.
Dude, if you are paid anything over minimum wage, every drop of productivity is squeezed out of you. I work in a logistics warehouse, making good money with benefits. My actions are measured by the second. Hard workers are fired around me left and right because their bodies are not able to meet productivity standards; maybe they are too short. maybe they dont have the heart to push when their body is screaming STOP! During my interview, I had to take a Physical Assessment Test along with a room of 10 other dudes. Like 2 of them were hired, one quit after 3 weeks. one was fired after 4 months.
As far as "better to work for..." When every other option pays shit... the one paying the most is the best to work for, period. My company does a cook-out every few weeks... fish fry, wings, burgers and hot dogs, christmas meal, thanksgiving meal, etc.. but I would prefer no food and a couple hundred bucks on a check. It's all about the money.

@ marc
I'm gonna watch your video and respond in a little. I wanna get some carving done today.

I will hit up your questions, though.

When is using force okay?  When someone refuses to pay taxes to fund abortion?  To fund welfare?  To fund schools?  To fund wars?  To fund Tuskegee experiments or terminator seeds?  To fund prisons?
In self defense of one's person, family, friends, or community. The small government people like myself envision would have very few of those things funded.

Quote
If something is legal, is it morally right?  Is following the law justification enough?  Is Trump not releasing his tax returns unethical?  Is killing civilians with missiles unethical?  If someone can't afford a lawyer do they not deserve legal defense?  Is it okay to take Peter's money to pay for Paul's lawyer?
Laws, OR SCIENCE, for that matter, do not denote morality. Many of the most horrific atrocities in history have been grounded in law or science. Morality is also not always logical, i.e. forgiving a murderer despite the growing hatred and rage inside of you.

Quote
Are there universal ethics?  Are there things that are always right or always wrong?
No.

Quote
When does coercion trump conversion?  When did we decide forcing people to change was better than showing them a better way?
When their actions are a threat to your life, your family's lives, your friend's lives, etc.
If there are a people who's sole mission is to kill you and all those you care for.... Time to coerce with that big stick you hope to never swing.

Quote
If we all are subject to a social contract, whom decides what is written, who is subject or how the contract will be enforced?
Shared morals. There are sects of Jews in the diamond trade who have deals worth millions of dollars with no written contracts, because their shared morals denote trust and respect.

Quote
Who watches the watchers?
Those the watchers watch watch the watchers while they watch the watchers of the watched.
heh.
Seriously. We do. This is why we have 3 branches of govt with checks and balances. I love watching the congressional oversight committee tear new assholes.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Zoltan on April 25, 2017, 03:59:23 PM
First, I'd like to remind you how insanely fragile the civilization we take for granted is. You rest easy, knowing if you take the day off, take the week off, hell, take the year off, the wheels keep turning. If 50% of the workforce in America called out for 1 week straight... Holy fuck. There would be chaos.

The private sector ALREADY has an insane maximization of efficiency and resources in order to maximize profits. What you are saying, is for owners of businesses, and their shareholders, to cut their profits so people can have more days off. Not to be rude, but this is silly, and childish.

Literally every job in the trades encourages individuality, in style, creativity, personality, and ethic.

Why does nearly every millennial think hard work is "soul-crushing?"

The classic authoritarian argument rears its head, as expected, in your very first statement. If we don't obey, if we don't do as directed, we will all suffer. Best not to question the status quo. As Riev pointed out, your opposition (and many other people's, you're certainly not the only one) to alternatives to capitalism are more visceral than anything. In any case, the gains we've made in labor rights have been due to exactly those sort of strikes.

Also, I'm not saying cut profits. The goal is to eliminate the concept and reality of personal profit entirely. But why would anyone do anything then? Sounds like a good question to earnestly research.

So people in the trades are allegedly able to unreservedly express themselves in their labor. I'll just grant you that for the sake of argument. How is the trade able to exist at all? The tradesman doesn't necessarily grow and process all of his own food. There is a literal world of labor underlying and holding up these trades. Someone is being exploited to create commodities at a profit so the tradesman can use those commodities. We will always need food, power, and tools. We can obtain these necessities in a more ethical and efficient way.

And it's important to understand that we HAVE made progress along these lines. Capitalism was good for a larger amount of people than manorialism was. Should we have just stopped at manorialism? After all, adopting capitalism meant the potential for less wealth among the nobility and warlords, who earned it via violence or birth. We can and should further refine capitalism and new economic models to reflect new production techniques and the needs of civilization.

I'm not satisfied with the fact that people everywhere are suffering under our current economic systems. People should be free to inquire into new methods and have serious discussions about implementing them. The defense of the status quo is all-too-often less concerned with material reality (well, how WOULD equitable distribution work, really?) and instead half-baked moral judgments on the poor and the fetishization of the exploitation most of us have experienced to some degree. And beyond a question of right and wrong, there's the simple reality that increased automation for improved productivity and profit is at odds with the need for a moneyed consumer base for our economy to keep running. Reform is going to be necessary, one way or the other.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Dan on April 25, 2017, 05:38:34 PM
If you've ever worked for or with the government you'd know they can find a way to fuck up just about anything and it doesn't just get fixed in a day.  I've waited months for money owed to me for travel expenses I have incurred.  Imagine that being work assignments and whatever else needs to be doled out in this ridiculous system.  The less I need to rely on something outside of my control for success of my family the better.

Quote
I'm not satisfied with the fact that people everywhere are suffering under our current economic systems.

I don't think people everywhere are suffering under our current economic system.  Quite the opposite compared to the rest of the world, and definitely true when compared against every attempt at communism and socialism ever.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 25, 2017, 06:06:47 PM
Zoltan:

Authoritarian? You sure? Read what I wrote and think on that, again.

Quote
How is the trade able to exist at all? The tradesman doesn't necessarily grow and process all of his own food. There is a literal world of labor underlying and holding up these trades. Someone is being exploited to create commodities at a profit so the tradesman can use those commodities. We will always need food, power, and tools. We can obtain these necessities in a more ethical and efficient way.

It is called the division of labor. And guess what? It is consensual.

Quote
how WOULD equitable distribution work, really?

In a few words... It wont, without taking property from some. For example: I own a modest 5 acres of earth. It is impossible to give every American 5 acres of land to live on, end of story.

Dan. Spot-on.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 25, 2017, 06:16:34 PM
Government doesn't have a monopoly on fucking up. I've seen plenty of it in the private sector, especially at larger firms. An organization's ability to trundle on despite its own ineptitude grows exponentially with its own increasing size. Perhaps not indefinitely, but far longer than a small business or small society could.


I don't think people everywhere are suffering under our current economic system.  Quite the opposite compared to the rest of the world, and definitely true when compared against every attempt at communism and socialism ever.

What are we defining "people" and "Everywhere" as? Americans are almost universally better off than, say, Nigerians, especially in material wealth. But a lot of the wealth that underpins the high standard of living in the Developed world is sourced, whole or in part, out of the developing world. The fact that capitalism does require someone somewhere to make less so that others can make more is a fair critique of it. Personally I've made peace with the fact that if I want chocolate, cheap gasoline, and high quality electronics, I'm subsidizing a lot of bad and dirty behavior elsewhere in the world to get it. As has always been the case historically.

Western Europe's also implemented "socialism" to varying degrees and generally enjoys equal or higher standards of living than Americans. Their homes might not be as large, but they live longer and have happier citizens. Some of them even somehow manage to achieve this nightmare state with lower corporate tax rates than America has.

I'd say the key difference between Socialism and "Communism" (i.e. Soviet Union, not the theoretically utopian state) is that Communists believe in a Command Economy. That has irrefutably been proven to be completely ineffectual. A free economy can exist in socialism, and indeed is required for socialism to exist so that private incentives remain and wealth is generated to be redistributed.

A lot of what people rail against as Socialist in the West or America is regulation. If you don't think regulation is necessary, please read The Jungle. America went with a deregulated economy in the late 19th century and while it generated wealth, it also had periodic and serious market crashes and abysmally low quality standards of products.

Interestingly, regulations are more burdensome on small businesses than large, as a large business can better shoulder the costs of meeting those regulations. I wonder if things would be better if instead of prescribing behavior ("You must conform to Code X.Y.Z of the Clean Water and Happy Fishes Act in your operations") we just legislated "Do not allow toxins from your production to enter the water supply." And then if toxins are found and traced back to a company, we randomly execute 20% of the stockholders and their immediate family.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Sayyadina on April 25, 2017, 06:23:15 PM
For example: I own a modest 5 acres of earth. It is impossible to give every American 5 acres of land to live on, end of story.

Actually, there's more than enough land in the continental US to give every American 5 acres of land.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 25, 2017, 06:26:51 PM
640 acres a piece, by my calculations. The natural rebuttal is that those might not be 640 acres capable of living on... but I wonder.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 25, 2017, 07:13:05 PM
Okay. Now I KNOW I am dealing with trolls who just spout shit out without looking anything up.

Quote
The numbers do not change appreciably from year to year. Overview of Land Use in the United States-The U.S. has 2.3 billion acres of land. However, 375 million acres are in Alaska and not suitable for agricultural production. The land area of the lower 48 states is approximately 1.9 billion acres.

Quote
...changed little, declining from 922 million acres in 2007 to 915 million acres in 2012 (or 40.8 percent of U.S. land to 40.5 percent). The average size of U.S. farms in 2012 was 434 acres, 4 percent larger than five years earlier.

Quote
The total land area of the contiguous 48 states is 2,959,067 square miles. (This excludes Alaska and Hawaii. Alaska has 17 percent of the land area of the U.S., but few roads. Adding Alaska would significantly reduce the percentage of land covered by roads.)
There are currently 8,614,790 lane miles of road in the lower 48 states. The average width of a highway lane is 11 feet. This means roads cover 17,947 square miles of land, or just six-tenths of 1 percent of the total land area of the contiguous 48 states.
17,947 sq-miles is 11,486,080 acres.

321.4 million people in the united states.

5 acres each for 321,400,000 is 1,607,000,000 or 1.6 billion acres needed.

Now to subtract farm-land and roads which are uninhabitable from the total US land..

2,300,000,000-915,000,000-11,486,080= 1,373,513,920.

Looks like, even if you portioned off every uninhabitable mountain range, every uninhabitable island in alaska. every inch of City. Every NATIONAL PARK, you would still be 226,486,080 acres short.

Learn to research.

Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 25, 2017, 07:19:56 PM
Okay. Now I KNOW I am dealing with trolls who just spout shit out without looking anything up.

Quote
The numbers do not change appreciably from year to year. Overview of Land Use in the United States-The U.S. has 2.3 billion acres of land. However, 375 million acres are in Alaska and not suitable for agricultural production. The land area of the lower 48 states is approximately 1.9 billion acres.

Quote
...changed little, declining from 922 million acres in 2007 to 915 million acres in 2012 (or 40.8 percent of U.S. land to 40.5 percent). The average size of U.S. farms in 2012 was 434 acres, 4 percent larger than five years earlier.

Quote
The total land area of the contiguous 48 states is 2,959,067 square miles. (This excludes Alaska and Hawaii. Alaska has 17 percent of the land area of the U.S., but few roads. Adding Alaska would significantly reduce the percentage of land covered by roads.)
There are currently 8,614,790 lane miles of road in the lower 48 states. The average width of a highway lane is 11 feet. This means roads cover 17,947 square miles of land, or just six-tenths of 1 percent of the total land area of the contiguous 48 states.
17,947 sq-miles is 11,486,080 acres.

321.4 million people in the united states.

5 acres each for 321,400,000 is 1,607,000,000 or 1.6 billion acres needed.

Now to subtract farm-land and roads which are uninhabitable from the total US land..

2,300,000,000-922,000,000-11,486,080= 1,366,513,920.

Looks like, even if you portioned off every uninhabitable mountain range, every uninhabitable island in alaska. every inch of City. Every NATIONAL PARK, you would still be 233,486,080 acres short.

Learn to research.

Um, isnt that 17,947 square miles of land you start your math with 17,947 square miles of roads?

Surely we could tear up the interstate, along with a lot of the land currently occupied by buildings in the urban cores (high density residential, wareshouses, business, etc) and reclaim that arabale land.

I think we could give people "five acres of land that they could live on." We'd just have to completely restructure our current way of life to do it.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 25, 2017, 07:23:07 PM
I mean, from Farmlandinfo.com in 1997-2002 there were 937,815,600 acres of agricultural land. God knows how much we'd already converted before then. Just by that number we could get up to 2.89 acres, easy.

http://www.farmlandinfo.org/statistics

Worth pointing out that "live on" is not the same as "live off of," as well. Words matter!
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 25, 2017, 07:25:06 PM
So, do I give up my 5 acres so everybody can have some?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 25, 2017, 07:26:19 PM
It'd probably be more efficient to give it to a big corporate farm who could get better food yields out of it. That's what happened to most of the open land in the United States.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 25, 2017, 07:27:22 PM
Um, isnt that 17,947 square miles of land you start your math with 17,947 square miles of roads?
Yes. What is your point?

Quote
Surely we could tear up the interstate, along with a lot of the land currently occupied by buildings in the urban cores (high density residential, wareshouses, business, etc) and reclaim that arabale land.

Stop trolling.

Quote
I think we could give people "five acres of land that they could live on." We'd just have to completely restructure our current way of life to do it.
And people would inevitably wind up starving. Yay, socialism!
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 25, 2017, 07:42:29 PM
Quote
I think we could give people "five acres of land that they could live on." We'd just have to completely restructure our current way of life to do it.
And people would inevitably wind up starving. Yay, socialism!

*Communism. Which as we both can agree doesn't work. You saw some agrarian-Communist movements in east Asia (Democratic Kampuchea [also known as the Cambodian Genocide], the Great Leap Forward) and they were pretty much unmitigated disasters. The Soviets didn't do too well in their collectivization (really forced industrialization) pushes of agriculture either. I think Khrushchev also tried to force Soviet adoption of corn after a trip to the US, despite it not really growing well at all anywhere he wanted to grow it. They all highlight the bad decision making that seems to be compounded in command economies.

Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism are all philosophies designed for industrial societies that are able to get better land yields thanks to technology, while also concentrating populations in cities for non-farming work.

It's a whole other social philosophy entirely that thinks we (as a species) all need to go back to subsistence levels of living and thereby be able to support a much larger population - at a much lower standard of living- indefinitely. The name escapes me. It's not one I subscribe too because I like having internet and supermarkets.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 25, 2017, 07:57:21 PM
*Communism.

Before communism can occur, the restructure of the current way of life's first stage is into socialism, where people would die. Take your smug asterisk away. :)

I like internet and supermarkets too. Wal-mart is the shit. Where else can I buy a Flat-screen tv, pineapples, socks, an electric fence, carbon-fiber arrows, power-steering fluid, AND RETURN IT ALL THE NEXT DAY EVEN IF I USED THE SHIT???

I also like working toward being self-sufficient. So I work hard, acquire land, work hard to grow an orchard, hunt, etc.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 25, 2017, 08:18:22 PM
Soviet Socialism (what most Americans would call Communism) is still a world apart from the socialism you see in Western Europe. As I've said, the real distinguishing trait is the Command Economy. Communist states tended to make practical decisions based on political ideology, and that never works out whoever tries it. Believing "the market will correct for everything" is no practically different than "running agriculture on Marxist principles will keep us from starving."

I think it's cool you have your little acreage out there. Part of the reason you can enjoy it is because society made a decision a couple centuries ago to clear out the natives and centralize power in the State, so you don't have much to worry about on security but the odd outlaw. You've found a relatively harmless bubble within the larger American capitalist civilization.

I just hope the people who live in even better bubbles - the political and economic elites, the 1-5% that's accumulating 95% of the wealth in society - become cognizant of it too. That's where the "Capitalism is the best and can do no wrong" gospel is not only irritating to hear, but truly dangerous if believed. Like any socio-economic system, Capitalism is voluntary. If enough people decide they're not getting what they want out of it and decide to just take, we're all in trouble. Even if I think it could be fun to run with a revolutionary death squad.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 25, 2017, 08:28:45 PM
I am in the middle of nowhere, so if a revolution does rise up, I'm going to sit tight on my land, coordinate with my honest neighbors on the other side of the woods, bring my family and my woman's family to my home with all weapons and ammunition they have, and protect our lives from anybody who thinks what is ours is theirs.

That is the true danger in the type of rebellion/revolution you speak of. Once people start killing to take what they feel they deserve, where will they stop? Billionaires? Multi-millionaires? What about people who have a nice house and cars, but only make 500k? What about 300k? 100k? It will never stop. If you have what someone wants, in that type of climate, you are fair game.

You'll see farmhouses surrounded by heads on pikes, man.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 25, 2017, 08:31:02 PM
Yeah, I'm sure the Kulaks and Chinese Landlords and Junkers all thought they could ride out their revolutions too. It's just a matter of bringing enough firepower to bear, and there's always more firepower to be raised out of the urban and industrial centers than the farmsteads. Holding out in such places is a fantasy not borne out historically.

Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 25, 2017, 08:43:13 PM
Yeah, I should just follow the murderers and kill rich people.

Thats fucking retarded.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 25, 2017, 08:46:58 PM
I'd prefer you apply electoral pressure to try and divert us away from the cliff, myself. I like talking about social upheaval and chaos much more than being in it.

Sadly neither party really has viable solutions so we're all kind of boned.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 25, 2017, 08:56:39 PM
I prefer this snapshot in time, however hard, however unfair, than a revolution which would destabilize our nation and potentially allow foreign nations to take over in land ownership/influence/etc.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 25, 2017, 09:23:59 PM
Of course you do, so do I.

But I don't think this snapshot is sustainable. Pretending it is will, in fact, hasten its own destruction. Everything is getting more expensive and, unless you're on a company board, we're all making less money. Wealth's getting more and more concentrated at the very top of society. For those of us in the middle, maybe we can deal. But when the majority of the country has nothing to lose but abstract notions of "liberty" and "sovereignty" and decides to tear the rest down? What happens then?

In a way it would be the capitalist ideal - all against all, owning only what you can secure by the strength of your own arm. Except historically that state of nature doesn't last very long, as people tend to rally together for mutual protection which soon becomes force projection. Even Somali, the joke example of perfect anarchism, actually has a lot of local structure provided by tribal courts. God knows what form of warlordism would take hold in America. I'd prefer not to see it. If that means some people have to make a few millions less so we can have productive schools and infrastructure and a job market that isn't divided between "CEO" and "burgerflipper" so be it.

I think that might be the fundamental difference between "Capitalist" and "Socialist" - a Capitalist would want to maximize profit, while a Socialist wants to maximize social stability.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 25, 2017, 10:04:12 PM
Quote
If that means some people have to make a few millions less so we can have productive schools and infrastructure and a job market that isn't divided between "CEO" and "burgerflipper" so be it.

You mean our massively-funded public schools that provide shit educations to students who dont want it to the detriment of the students who do?

More money will not fix our schools. The free market will. This has been seen through charter-schools in Harlem.

Let us say we harvested one trillion dollars in liquid assets from the top 1 percent. To put that in perspective, that is 1,000,000 million dollars. Congratulations, each American gets 3 thousand dollars. Whoopty-fuckin-do. Give a man a fish.

I know you are being facetious when you say "A job market divided between CEO and Burgerflipper," but it does not help the conversation. 

Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: boog on April 25, 2017, 10:34:40 PM
I dunno. I just don't see the need for some fancy pants bigwig to get a $30 mil bonus to then immediately quit his job and send everyone else in his corporation scrambling because he took a payday. One might even say he took the easy way out and screwed people who ... funded him. ;)
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 25, 2017, 10:41:11 PM
Oh for sure it is a shitty situation for everyone involved, though I do not think it is immoral to do so, or should be illegal.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: boog on April 25, 2017, 10:43:42 PM
It's kinda the same concept as government handouts, though, except on a more finely tuned, corporate level.

I didn't get the same raises I had in years past to make up for the money sink this doucher left behind. I didn't get the same benefits. I had to work harder to pay for his $30 mil break.

I would've much rather had that funneled to people in actual need.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 25, 2017, 10:46:53 PM
Ah, but you see, in your situation, every interaction and effect was consensual. Yours. Your co-workers. The company. The Doucher.

Everything done by the government is done at gun-point.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Large Hero on April 25, 2017, 11:48:48 PM
Quote
If that means some people have to make a few millions less so we can have productive schools and infrastructure and a job market that isn't divided between "CEO" and "burgerflipper" so be it.

You mean our massively-funded public schools that provide shit educations to students who dont want it to the detriment of the students who do?

More money will not fix our schools. The free market will. This has been seen through charter-schools in Harlem.


As a person who taught for several years in diverse environments, including: public school in low-income, heavy crime areas / very wealthy private schools / special education of severely disabled students / one-on-one tutoring of the children of wealthy CEOs, who has advanced training as a teacher, and who has read the research and many books/articles on the topic:

The intelligent use of public money will fix our schools. The free market will not, and the current push towards "free market education" in the form of vouchers, etc. will be catastrophic. It will lead to greater inequality in quality of education and opportunity, it will lead to (ironically) fewer choices for families, and unless the compensation paradigm turns out to be drastically different from every other business (it won't - watch as the owners take home vastly more money than the educators they employ, who will be paid as little as possible), it won't create better teachers.

I could launch into a very long and in-depth discussion about this, but take the word of someone who's been in the trenches: running our schools as businesses is going to be radically harmful for our country. Parents and students are not clients. Teachers are not managers. There is no appropriate business analogue.

"This has been seen through charter-schools in Harlem" is a very gross simplification of the debate. One reason why those examples don't prove the efficacy of charter schools: charter schools that are attempting to prove themselves are very well-known for accepting only certain students and also for quickly expelling problem students.

There have been some cute tricks. One? You can't enroll your child at our charter school unless you come to our information session. We're holding the information session on one certain weekday, and it's during business hours. You're a single mother who works and can't get the day off? You can't come, so you can't enroll your child. Or maybe your kid is motivated, but you as the parent simply don't give a shit? You won't come, so your motivated child can't be enrolled.

Another cute trick: cash deposit if you want to enroll your child. Can't pay the deposit? No enrollment.

The end result of these clever tricks is a student body that is more likely to come from families that have resources, that have time, and that value education. This student pool is vastly more likely to succeed - regardless of their teachers and learning environment - than a group of randomly selected students from the same population. The charter school can then point to their high graduation rates and test scores and say "aren't we great," when they were playing the game with a stacked deck.

But it's easy to teach students who are intrinsically motivated to come to school every day, apply themselves, and succeed. Anyone can do it. The real skill and challenge of teaching, and the measure of a good teacher, is in reaching the students who are at risk of failing to learn the academic, cognitive and emotional lessons they need to continue their development toward being successful, contributing members of society.

Here's something a lot of people don't seem to understand: the kids who "don't want to be there"? You aren't rid of them once you kick them out of school. They're going to make you pay, one way or the other. You can pay extra now (yes, your taxes), and fund the resources that will see them through school - or you can pay later, when they become criminals or chronically unemployed later in life.

Capitalists and those on the right (I hate the generalizations of "right" and "left" but here I go) don't get this. Every member in a society is connected to each other member, whether you like it or not. Even if you end all public benefits and leave those dependent on them to starve in the street, they're going to come through your windows at night with bricks in hand to take what they think they need. And if you leave it to the army or the police to arrest and/or kill them all? You're going to pay for that. You'll pay somehow, and the bill will be larger the longer it's due.

Socialism is not "let's give people handouts because we're nice" (though it is nice, and people opposed to it sure do often seem to be dickheads). Socialism is "it's cheaper and better for us all, to pay now, in order to change a person's course, away from the downward spiral of inequality that will make them cost society more later." Socialism is a pragmatic response, not an emotional one. I'd argue that "I don't want to pay for these people, because they didn't earn it, not like me, who earned what I have through my own sweat. If I don't pay for them, they'll either learn to earn it, or they can get fucked" is the more emotional response.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: whitt on April 26, 2017, 09:25:16 AM
Socialism is a pragmatic response, not an emotional one. I'd argue that "I don't want to pay for these people, because they didn't earn it, not like me, who earned what I have through my own sweat. If I don't pay for them, they'll either learn to earn it, or they can get fucked" is the more emotional response.

Socialism requires students to accept a grade of B for work that should be rewarded with an A so students that deserve a D or an F can be given a C.  Sure some folks are Ok with that, generally those who don't achieve A's, but not for so long.

The students who should receive A's?  They quickly figure out one of two things:
 (1) There is no need to continue to work above B or C level, since working harder earns them nothing.  They can coast for the same reward.
 (2) They can go somewhere else and get a greater reward for their work.

The students who should receive B's?  They soon learn there is no need to try harder.  They can never achieve an A.  Their additional effort would only be given to someone else.  So they become complacent.  After all, the worst that can happen is they get a C.

Those who should receive D's and F's.  They have no motivation to try harder.  After all, no matter how little they do?  They get a C.

And then those who should receive C's?  Well, they're surrounded by D's and F's, doing nothing and getting the same grade.  So, how long before they figure they don't have to work at all either?  They'll still get a C.

Eventually the system collapses.  Almost everyone is being given a C.  Even those few who are still driven to perform regardless of the reward for their work, because there aren't enough A's to take from any more, so they need to start taking from the B's too.  Then there aren't enough B's.  And who gets blamed anyhow?  The A's and B's.  How dare they only think of themselves, aka expect their higher quality work be rewarded accordingly?

None of the above is a defense of capitalism.  Wherein some folks manage to work their way into the position of Class president, and are rewarded with full-ride scholarships, free lunches, and a clothing allowance paid for by selling off the textbooks of their classmates.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Riev on April 26, 2017, 10:42:19 AM
Whitt, while what you say SOUNDS correct, do you have ANY basis in that? Any bit of scholarly truth to "people who are given a handout will not try as hard the next time"?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that you're generalizing something that seems like common sense, but without proof, is just you spouting unfounded information.

It also doesn't take into account the intrinsic motivation of DOING the work, over the extrinsic motivation of the grade you receive for it. Its a very Theory X way of classifying all 'students' in this case. Studies show that a balance between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation leads to more engaged workers who report higher job satisfaction.

If your thought is that people only work for the money, will only ever work for the money, you're wrong. If that were the case, non-profits would be decimated and never do good works. People would work at McDonalds and WalMart because they offer better benefits than your local food pantry or school for children with autism. Most people DO want the money, but if the difference between Job A and Job B is $1000 a year more at Job B, that doesn't mean everyone chooses Job B. There are other factors than straight pay.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 26, 2017, 11:15:23 AM
Large Sandwich-man

Problem students should be expelled. If they are not there to learn, they should go elsewhere. If they resort to stealing and hurting people afterwards, okay, now they are in prison, where they should be utilized for manual/factory-labor.

Whitt

Spot-on, as usual.

Riev

Following information to a logical conclusion is not only valid if a double-blind study has been done to confirm it. Come on. I dont have to conduct a study to know that people who get shit on will be mad after.

So, let us say that true economic equality has been achieved. Everyone has the same possessions and wealth. How long is it before people become jealous of people who were born smart? Strong? Beautiful? Will we then penalize the genetically gifted to make them more average? Lol we would be living in Harrison Bergeron.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: whitt on April 26, 2017, 11:30:34 AM
If your thought is that people only work for the money, will only ever work for the money, you're wrong.

Close, my thought is that people only work for the reward that motivates them.  To your point below

If that were the case, non-profits would be decimated and never do good works.

Some folks are willing to take less for more otherwise-rewarding work.  These are the folks that I noted as "Even those few who are still driven to perform regardless of the reward for their work, because there aren't enough A's to take from any more, so they need to start taking from the B's too.  Then there aren't enough B's."
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: boog on April 26, 2017, 12:08:16 PM
Um.

So... I consented to having my future earnings shat upon, my benefits shat upon, because I agreed to work for this company?

I guess you could say you consent to paying taxes and welfare handouts when you're born into this country, then. I didn't have many options for employment. You didn't have an option for your country of birth. So be it.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Riev on April 26, 2017, 12:09:14 PM
I'm not saying I specifically disagree with either of you, I'm just stating that "I don't need a study to prove..." is a very dangerous statement.

I don't need a study to prove that black people are lazy.
I don't need a study to prove Mexican immigrants are drug mules.
I don't need a study to prove Jews own the banks.
I don't need a study to prove that people resent appropriation and taxes.

Again, I'm not disagreeing. But you're throwing out assumptions on human behavior. At least have something to back it up, in that case.

Especially considering both the arguments are "eventually you run out of As, and Bs, and everyone becomes Cs" which seems to be more the fear, than the reality. We currently DO apply taxes to people, and give handouts to those who need them. We aren't all Cs, and honestly despite your inborn fears, our culture shows very few signs of getting to that point of homogeny that you so fear.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Large Hero on April 26, 2017, 12:14:31 PM
Large Sandwich-man

Problem students should be expelled. If they are not there to learn, they should go elsewhere.

There is no "elsewhere" for them to go to. Another, "tougher" school? I've worked in them. Those environments don't work. You get the occasional success story, but for the most part, grouping all the "troubled" students together only worsens outcomes. We'll eventually pay for that. The solution that works is improving the child's original school, neighborhood, and family life - through appropriate social programs.

Another solution is vocational school. Those are remarkably successful. We should have more of those. But why would a private enterprise set up a vocational school in some inner city? Only doable with that darned public money.

If we let failed students just hang out on the streets? That's not elsewhere. That's here. And like I said, we'll pay for it.

Quote
If they resort to stealing and hurting people afterwards, okay,

It's not okay. The people they stole from were still stolen from, and the people they hurt or killed were still hurt or killed. That isn't an okay result. "The victim harmed, and the perpetrator in prison" is not something to shrug at. It's a failure.

Quote
now they are in prison, where they should be utilized for manual/factory-labor.

Ignoring all the problems surrounding forced prison labor, the value of the prisoner's labor isn't going to cover their cost (unless we're running the prison for-profit, and including it in our business plan!). Keeping a person humanely imprisoned is expensive. Especially when that cost is compared to the value the person may have brought to society, had their life turned out differently. This is a loss.


Quote
So, let us say that true economic equality has been achieved. Everyone has the same possessions and wealth. How long is it before people become jealous of people who were born smart? Strong? Beautiful? Will we then penalize the genetically gifted to make them more average? Lol we would be living in Harrison Bergeron.

You're either trolling your own thread with crazy strawmen, or you don't realize you're making crazy strawmen.

If you think socialist advocates are advocating for Harrison Bergeron or even for Whitt's made-up ideas about socialism, you're way off base.

Part of the problem with this type of argument is that people don't educate themselves about the positions they're arguing against. They just assume they know; they don't read the book, but condemn it anyway. They hodgepodge together their own ideas about a position, prop it up, knock it down, and then think they've defeated it.

Like other posters in this thread have stated, a lot of posters (like most Americans) are confused about what communism and socialism actually are and call for. They think they understand, but they don't, and it makes debate impossible.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Large Hero on April 26, 2017, 12:27:20 PM
I'm not saying I specifically disagree with either of you, I'm just stating that "I don't need a study to prove..." is a very dangerous statement.

I don't need a study to prove that black people are lazy.
I don't need a study to prove Mexican immigrants are drug mules.
I don't need a study to prove Jews own the banks.
I don't need a study to prove that people resent appropriation and taxes.

Again, I'm not disagreeing. But you're throwing out assumptions on human behavior. At least have something to back it up, in that case.

Especially considering both the arguments are "eventually you run out of As, and Bs, and everyone becomes Cs" which seems to be more the fear, than the reality. We currently DO apply taxes to people, and give handouts to those who need them. We aren't all Cs, and honestly despite your inborn fears, our culture shows very few signs of getting to that point of homogeny that you so fear.

Riev with some wisdom. Thanks.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 26, 2017, 01:16:48 PM
Um.

So... I consented to having my future earnings shat upon, my benefits shat upon, because I agreed to work for this company?

I guess you could say you consent to paying taxes and welfare handouts when you're born into this country, then. I didn't have many options for employment. You didn't have an option for your country of birth. So be it.

Yes. Unless you signed your job-offer under duress, you willingly and consensually agreed to work for that company without contingencies for such shitty events. I realize that such things are not practically available to people earning less than 6 figures, but the facts remain. When I worked for my remodeling and restoration company, I consented to the 2 months of no work because they were not competitively bidding on jobs. So I quit, and found other employment. Did it suck? Yeah. But I brought it on myself by agreeing to work for them.

Of course I consent to paying taxes. I live here, dont I? If I wanted to, I could live on my father's farm in rural philippines and not deal with exorbitant taxes; I would only have to bribe public officials every now and then.

Sandwich-man

Regarding Harrison Bergeron... Come on, dude. Relax. I was making an argument using reductio ad absurdum.

Regarding the people who dont want to learn: Offer them work. Simple, mindless work. Assembly lines. Laboring, etc. Off the streets and building a better life for themselves and others.  As it is, they ruin  the education for others, as well as themselves.

You act like vocational school is the place to send neanderthals who are too dumb to cut it in public school. Carpenters are not dumb. Welders are not dumb. Mechanics are not dumb.
People who rob gas stations and get caught buying jewelry one block over are. It is the former who need vocational school... AFTER primary school, and the latter who need to learn to do mindless labor.

Quote
Like other posters in this thread have stated, a lot of posters (like most Americans) are confused about what communism and socialism actually are and call for. They think they understand, but they don't, and it makes debate impossible.

You are the millionth person to say that, and yet noone has offered ANY explanation. The answer why is simple: if a concrete explanation or definition of a failed ideology is offered, it can be quickly struck down. Better to just keep saying "Thats not even REAL socialism" and let people swing at smoke.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Feco on April 26, 2017, 02:40:11 PM
A lot of these arguments are legitimate criticisms of what socialists often call "state capitalism" -- what the USSR became relatively quickly after its formation.  They might also be criticisms of "social democracy," often conflated with "democratic socialism."  Social democrats more-or-less think that capitalism can be made humane and wonderful -- they generally push for the establishment of a welfare state.  These are generally your American liberals and progressives.

Socialism can be oversimplified and thereby understood as democratic control over the workplace.  It a system wherein the workers themselves have collective ownership and control over the means of production (thereby abolishing "private property").

Socialism is not taking everyone's stuff, or what you might call "wealth," (money, housing, what have you) and dividing it up equally.  At least, it is not necessarily that.

In a socialist society, individuals can still own things ("personal property,").  In a socialist society, individuals cannot own the means of production ("private property").  Personal property is essentially all the stuff you use.  Private property is made up of things like factories, infrastructure, mines etc -- it's sort of a relationship between those that own, and those that don't.  According to socialists, that relationship is exploitative.

Communism, essentially, is the "next step" after socialism.  It's the destruction of the state and markets, generally post-scarcity.  It's basically a Utopian form of socialism.

European countries with strong social welfare systems are not socialist.  Advocating single-payer healthcare is not necessary socialist.  The politicians doing this might be socialists in that they think these democratic changes can lead to a socialist state (hence, they are "democratic socialists"), but that doesn't mean they're necessarily pushing socialist policies.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Marc on April 26, 2017, 02:49:41 PM
Where should we ultimately place authority?  In individuals?  In towns and counties?  In nation states?  In a global governing body (U.N. or similar)?

Do groups of people have the ability to give others rights they themselves do not process?  If neither Peter or Paul have the right to take your stuff, can they give that right to Mary?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Feco on April 26, 2017, 02:53:25 PM
Where should we ultimately place authority?  In individuals?  In towns and counties?  In nation states?  In a global governing body (U.N. or similar)?

That's an excellent question -- one that has fractured the political left substantially.

Example:  Socialists like Lenin thought that a vanguard party, which would act in the best interests of the exploited, should occupy the state and seize control of the means of production -- that this was the only way to eventually transition to a stateless communist society.  (This is another oversimplification, but I think it basically covers it)

Do groups of people have the ability to give others rights they themselves do not process?  If neither Peter or Paul have the right to take your stuff, can they give that right to Mary?

I'm afraid I don't follow.  You talk about rights, and then stuff.  Not sure what you mean.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Molten Heart on April 26, 2017, 03:10:15 PM
Do groups of people have the ability to give others rights they themselves do not process?  If neither Peter or Paul have the right to take your stuff, can they give that right to Mary?

I'm afraid I don't follow.  You talk about rights, and then stuff.  Not sure what you mean.

I think Marc is getting at the point that the governments get their power from the people. Can the people give the government the power or the authority to do something (through legislation) that the people don't have the authority to do themselves?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Feco on April 26, 2017, 03:14:19 PM
I'm not sure that's a question that specifically applies to socialism.  That question concerns government in general, be it in a capitalist or a socialist society.

I may be misunderstanding the question.  Sorry about that.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Synthesis on April 26, 2017, 03:24:08 PM
A lot of these arguments are legitimate criticisms of what socialists often call "state capitalism" -- what the USSR became relatively quickly after its formation.  They might also be criticisms of "social democracy," often conflated with "democratic socialism."  Social democrats more-or-less think that capitalism can be made humane and wonderful -- they generally push for the establishment of a welfare state.  These are generally your American liberals and progressives.

Socialism can be oversimplified and thereby understood as democratic control over the workplace.  It a system wherein the workers themselves have collective ownership and control over the means of production (thereby abolishing "private property").

Socialism is not taking everyone's stuff, or what you might call "wealth," (money, housing, what have you) and dividing it up equally.  At least, it is not necessarily that.

In a socialist society, individuals can still own things ("personal property,").  In a socialist society, individuals cannot own the means of production ("private property").  Personal property is essentially all the stuff you use.  Private property is made up of things like factories, infrastructure, mines etc -- it's sort of a relationship between those that own, and those that don't.  According to socialists, that relationship is exploitative.

Communism, essentially, is the "next step" after socialism.  It's the destruction of the state and markets, generally post-scarcity.  It's basically a Utopian form of socialism.

European countries with strong social welfare systems are not socialist.  Advocating single-payer healthcare is not necessary socialist.  The politicians doing this might be socialists in that they think these democratic changes can lead to a socialist state (hence, they are "democratic socialists"), but that doesn't mean they're necessarily pushing socialist policies.

I don't buy the socialist vs. state capitalist dichotomy.

There is little practical difference between "owning the means of production" and "regulating the use of the means of production and the distribution of its output."  This is theoretical wordplay.  The only real questions are the extent of regulation and the extent of redistribution.  I.e. how much independent activity and extra compensation do we allow?

"Capitalists" in your "state capitalist" system are essentially well-paid bureaucrats who are allowed the illusion of control...which is probably beneficial within constraints, given the ubiquity of narcissism.  The problem arises when they get too big for their britches, so to speak.  (That is--when they write their own rules.) But this is equally true of bureaucrats qua bureaucrats.

(What I mean by "theoretical wordplay" is:  the discussion hinges on the bounds of what it means "to own."  Assuming a continuum of activities granted/allowed under the penumbra of "ownership,"   eventually you will come to a point where the distinction between "own" and "manage" is one that is difficult to make.)
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Feco on April 26, 2017, 03:36:43 PM
(side note -- let's agree for the moment to ignore the anarchists?)

A socialist state is one where the workers have sufficient political input regarding the means of production.

A state called "state capitalist" is one where the workers have insufficient political input regarding the means of production.  The USSR turned into what was essentially an autocratic, authoritarian state.  The state was exploiting the working class like a factory owner exploits the people that work there.

In both such instances there is a state.  In the most "ideal" formation of state socialism, that state is entirely democratic.  In the most "ideal" formation of state capitalism, the state is entirely autocratic.

It's a pejorative, mostly.  Obviously what is a "sufficient" amount of input will vary depending on who you ask.  As such, I don't mean it to be a term that is equivalent in its theoretical content to terms like "socialism," "capitalism," "democratic socialism," etc.  It depends who's saying it, I guess.

That said, I'd say there's definitely a "state capitalism sniff test" whereby you could roughly sort states.  The USSR ultimately was not the socialist ideal.  Not by a long shot.  I think that's obvious to most people.

That's not to say there's no theoretical distinction, though.  Under a completely autocratic planned economy, the workers necessarily don't control the means of production.  As such, it's simply incorrect to call an autocratic planned economy "socialist," because private property definitely exists.  It exists as a relationship between the state and its people.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 26, 2017, 04:05:32 PM
Marc, I believe authority should be placed first into the constitution, then into the hands of our three branches of govt, each with the power to check the others.
That being said, there is a great amount of value to be derived from natural law; basic things such as the right for a man to provide for himself, to work, to defend himself and his family are crucial for any free society.

Synth,
Regarding corporations/private bureaucrats getting "too big for their britches," if you are referring to their influence on the state, essentially bribing laws and regulations into and out of existence, I agree completely.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Case on April 26, 2017, 04:31:06 PM
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/communism-kids

Jesus fucking christ. The former Soviet Union would only have DREAMED of publishing this level of propaganda on US soil a few decades back.

Hey thanks for the tip! I've been looking for a good reads for my young daughter like this and I'll let you know how I get on. I've been a marxist since I was a teen but the normal reading materials can be a bit too dense for kids so I'm glad to see something more light that introduces the concepts in a cool way! :D
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Feco on April 26, 2017, 04:34:14 PM
Just to be clear -- since I feel like this was never addressed -- I'm not certain this book is actually for kids.  My impression was that it was entertainment, and is just a less dense introduction to Marxist thought.  It's just cute and silly.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 26, 2017, 04:50:53 PM
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/communism-kids

Jesus fucking christ. The former Soviet Union would only have DREAMED of publishing this level of propaganda on US soil a few decades back.

Hey thanks for the tip! I've been looking for a good reads for my young daughter like this and I'll let you know how I get on. I've been a marxist since I was a teen but the normal reading materials can be a bit too dense for kids so I'm glad to see something more light that introduces the concepts in a cool way! :D

No worries. It is your prerogative as a parent what your children learn!
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Marc on April 26, 2017, 05:17:24 PM
(side note -- let's agree for the moment to ignore the anarchists?)

Just like the Green Russians; ignored.  Lesigh
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: MeTekillot on April 26, 2017, 05:48:44 PM
Ah, but you see, in your situation, every interaction and effect was consensual. Yours. Your co-workers. The company. The Doucher.

Everything done by the government is done at gun-point.
What is the appreciable difference between something done at "gun-point" and something done under the threat of starvation and homelessness?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Case on April 26, 2017, 06:08:14 PM
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/communism-kids

Jesus fucking christ. The former Soviet Union would only have DREAMED of publishing this level of propaganda on US soil a few decades back.

Hey thanks for the tip! I've been looking for a good reads for my young daughter like this and I'll let you know how I get on. I've been a marxist since I was a teen but the normal reading materials can be a bit too dense for kids so I'm glad to see something more light that introduces the concepts in a cool way! :D

No worries. It is your prerogative as a parent what your children learn!
I wouldn't go that far. I think it is far more important for the state to educate its citizens. There's too many crazies like anti vaxxers or survival nuts or fundie homeschoolers who really don't know what's best for their children.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 26, 2017, 06:13:51 PM
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/communism-kids

Jesus fucking christ. The former Soviet Union would only have DREAMED of publishing this level of propaganda on US soil a few decades back.

Hey thanks for the tip! I've been looking for a good reads for my young daughter like this and I'll let you know how I get on. I've been a marxist since I was a teen but the normal reading materials can be a bit too dense for kids so I'm glad to see something more light that introduces the concepts in a cool way! :D

No worries. It is your prerogative as a parent what your children learn!
I wouldn't go that far. I think it is far more important for the state to educate its citizens. There's too many crazies like anti vaxxers or survival nuts or fundie homeschoolers who really don't know what's best for their children.

Eh, natural selection will sort 'em out eventually.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Marc on April 26, 2017, 06:28:43 PM
If only we all had quality public education the likes of which created Leonardo di Vinci, Ben Franklin, Mother Jones or Thomas Edison.

One size fits all education is the key.

Outcome based common core.

No, there are no Fine arts and the traditional liberal arts won't be included.  Not everyone benefits from music or gym class so don't need them.

https://www.amazon.com/Leipzig-Connection-Basics-Education/dp/0897390016 (https://www.amazon.com/Leipzig-Connection-Basics-Education/dp/0897390016)

https://www.amazon.com/Underground-History-American-Education-Investigation/dp/0945700040 (https://www.amazon.com/Underground-History-American-Education-Investigation/dp/0945700040).

https://youtube.com/watch?v=gz-ouH2MRfQ (https://youtube.com/watch?v=gz-ouH2MRfQ). Norman Dodd on tax exempt foundations.  All about the edumacation of dem yuts.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 26, 2017, 06:57:47 PM
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/communism-kids

Jesus fucking christ. The former Soviet Union would only have DREAMED of publishing this level of propaganda on US soil a few decades back.

Hey thanks for the tip! I've been looking for a good reads for my young daughter like this and I'll let you know how I get on. I've been a marxist since I was a teen but the normal reading materials can be a bit too dense for kids so I'm glad to see something more light that introduces the concepts in a cool way! :D

No worries. It is your prerogative as a parent what your children learn!
I wouldn't go that far. I think it is far more important for the state to educate its citizens. There's too many crazies like anti vaxxers or survival nuts or fundie homeschoolers who really don't know what's best for their children.

If the child is safe, healthy, and happy, the state needs to butt out. None of their business.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Synthesis on April 26, 2017, 07:01:16 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D9vAItORgE
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 26, 2017, 07:05:23 PM
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/communism-kids

Jesus fucking christ. The former Soviet Union would only have DREAMED of publishing this level of propaganda on US soil a few decades back.

Hey thanks for the tip! I've been looking for a good reads for my young daughter like this and I'll let you know how I get on. I've been a marxist since I was a teen but the normal reading materials can be a bit too dense for kids so I'm glad to see something more light that introduces the concepts in a cool way! :D

No worries. It is your prerogative as a parent what your children learn!
I wouldn't go that far. I think it is far more important for the state to educate its citizens. There's too many crazies like anti vaxxers or survival nuts or fundie homeschoolers who really don't know what's best for their children.

If the child is safe, healthy, and happy, the state needs to butt out. None of their business.

And if the child stops being safe, health, or happy, the state needs to stand back and let the child and its family face the consequences of their choices.

(https://img.memesuper.com/81f4d9f62a305a0dd1d02feeb209351b_if-he-dies-he-dies-if-he-dies-he-dies-memes_600-431.jpeg)


Even communists agree!
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 26, 2017, 07:14:17 PM
Ah, but you see, in your situation, every interaction and effect was consensual. Yours. Your co-workers. The company. The Doucher.

Everything done by the government is done at gun-point.
What is the appreciable difference between something done at "gun-point" and something done under the threat of starvation and homelessness?

Death vs possibility of life.
or
The government is an entity, starvation and homelessness are not, so you cannot be threatened by them. They are states of being which can be changed. In America, quite easily.

When the government tells you to do something, and you say no, eventually people with guns come to harm you. Period.
If you are hungry, you can work for money with which to buy food, you can hunt, fish, forage.
If you are homeless, you can find a homeless shelter, build a shelter in the woods (But Melkor, what about cities? Cities are pits of death; walk to a better place.), buy a shelter, ya know, by working?

Marc +1

Skeels +1

Ehhh normally, if a community saw a child in bad shape, they would step in. Nowadays, the state has to, if only to get them out of an unfit home. After that.... ehhh mixed results.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 26, 2017, 07:16:18 PM
Nah, fuck that kid. They probably deserve it.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 26, 2017, 07:17:27 PM
Did you know orphans were historically ostracized or victimized because they were a drag on community resources with no guarantee they would support non-relatives in old age?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 26, 2017, 07:21:09 PM
I would say -where- is a crucial factor in those instances.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: boog on April 26, 2017, 07:37:48 PM
Probably England.

And I think the government needs to get involved when people don't vaccinate their kids and have the potential to fuck with herd immunity for my immunosuppressed child.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 26, 2017, 07:51:54 PM
Eh, society could use a reminder that the only thing keeping War, Famine, and Plague at bay are large state-sponsored initiatives and going it alone is a dangerous gambit. We're overdue for a die-off anyway.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Marc on April 26, 2017, 07:59:32 PM
Not for nothing but with all of these different ideas on "what's right" does no one see the benefits of voluntary community as opposed to forced society?

What's right for you is not necessarily right for me.

No one is better situated to know what is right for me than me.

If you don't think I am doing it right, educate me.

Non-aggression.  Self-defense.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 26, 2017, 08:08:10 PM
No one is better situated to know what is right for me than me.

If you don't think I am doing it right, educate me.

The problem is that these are demonstratively false statements or impossible goals.

Most people have no idea what's actually best for them, only what they believe is best. Presenting people with facts counter to their beliefs actually deepens their belief in the falsehood.

People are too stubborn, greedy, and just plain dumb to form any large society (10-20+ members) without some degree of coercive force.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Marc on April 26, 2017, 08:14:39 PM
BadSkeelz, you're wrong.  You don't understand the bigger forces at play.  If you were smarter you'd get it, but you should just leave the organization and societal planning to Melkor and Boog.  Oh, and God.

See what I did there?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 26, 2017, 08:17:56 PM
I think they'd do alright, until the Chinese overrun us.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Marc on April 26, 2017, 08:20:10 PM
And once the Chinese over run us?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 26, 2017, 08:24:12 PM
Oh we'd probably all get purged or sent to the rice mines. But survival of the fittest and all so no hard feelings.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Synthesis on April 26, 2017, 08:31:32 PM
And once the Chinese over run us?

Quote from: Mao Zedong
Every Communist must grasp the truth; "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

Quote from: Mao Zedong
The seizure of power by armed force, the settlement of the issue by war, is the central task and the highest form of revolution. This Marxist-Leninist principle of revolution holds well universally, for China and for all other countries.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 26, 2017, 08:33:48 PM
Wtf I am insulted. One of the few things I am down with tax-funding is military spending. Fuckin tanks and shit. 'Merica. Suck a dick China. Flamethrowers. Fuck.

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▄██▄██▄██▄██▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▄██▄██▄██▄██▄██▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▄██▄██▄██▄██▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▄██▄██▄██▄██▄██▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▄██▄██▄██▄██▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▄██▄██▄██▄██▄██▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 26, 2017, 08:35:40 PM
I was actually curious Melkor, do you pay any taxes towards your local firefighting apparatus? I remember an amusing story from a couple years back of some guy who refused to pay the firefighting tax, then when his house caught fire the local department had to watch it burn down.

Edit: ah hah, found it. Seems pertinent because I take it you live in a rural area and wondered if you need to make similar choices.

https://usnews.newsvine.com/_news/2011/12/07/9272989-firefighters-let-home-burn-over-75-fee-again
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 26, 2017, 09:07:16 PM
LOL!

Nah. I've never even heard of a 'subscription fee.' Even when I lived in the mountains in california, the volunteer firefighters took care of everything.

That being said, my property taxes are pretty rough, mainly because UF is technically in the same county as me, even though it is close to an hour away, with the traffic.

Nah, I pay my taxes, because thats the law. They are not unreasonable. And I don't want dudes with guns coming onto my property.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Case on April 26, 2017, 10:09:31 PM
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/communism-kids

Jesus fucking christ. The former Soviet Union would only have DREAMED of publishing this level of propaganda on US soil a few decades back.

Hey thanks for the tip! I've been looking for a good reads for my young daughter like this and I'll let you know how I get on. I've been a marxist since I was a teen but the normal reading materials can be a bit too dense for kids so I'm glad to see something more light that introduces the concepts in a cool way! :D

No worries. It is your prerogative as a parent what your children learn!
I wouldn't go that far. I think it is far more important for the state to educate its citizens. There's too many crazies like anti vaxxers or survival nuts or fundie homeschoolers who really don't know what's best for their children.

If the child is safe, healthy, and happy, the state needs to butt out. None of their business.

It is the state's business. We work for the state, and the state works for us. We rely on the state for protection, so that means giving up some freedoms, especially freedoms to be stupid... eg. bad parents, non contributors etc.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Marc on April 26, 2017, 10:14:43 PM
Hubris
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 26, 2017, 10:37:28 PM
Too right, Marc.

So Case, you would consider "fundie homeschoolers" and "Survival Nuts" to be bad parents from whom the state should remove parental rights?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Case on April 26, 2017, 10:39:10 PM
Too right, Marc.

So Case, you would consider "fundie homeschoolers" and "Survival Nuts" to be bad parents from whom the state should remove parental rights?

It's not parental rights they're taking, it'd be the state protecting the child's right to a good upbringing.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 26, 2017, 10:47:05 PM
What qualifies as a "Good" upbringing?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Case on April 26, 2017, 10:52:06 PM
What qualifies as a "Good" upbringing?

A good upbringing is one where you have the best opportunities in life. A safe home where the child is cared for, a chance to socialize at school, a chance to go to college and a good shot at being well integrated and part of society. Being a puppet for the parents' stupid beliefs is not part of a good upbringing.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 26, 2017, 10:54:18 PM
Guess the state should take your kids too, as you are grooming puppets for your stupid communist beliefs. right?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Case on April 26, 2017, 10:56:15 PM
Guess the state should take your kids too, as you are grooming puppets for your stupid communist beliefs. right?
Lol, I'm a socialist and a marxist, not a communist.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 26, 2017, 10:57:55 PM
Guess the state should take your kids too, as you are grooming puppets for your stupid marxist beliefs, right?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Yam on April 26, 2017, 10:58:02 PM
Guess the state should take your kids too, as you are grooming puppets for your stupid communist beliefs. right?
Lol, I'm a socialist and a marxist, not a communist.

He literally does not know the difference between the words you are using.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 26, 2017, 11:00:32 PM
Lol yam. At least not "real" communism, right?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 26, 2017, 11:01:57 PM
The point is, leftists are so quick to use the government as a club to beat their political and ideological opponents with. People like me want to live and let live.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Case on April 26, 2017, 11:02:27 PM
Lol yam. At least not "real" communism, right?
I read through some more of the thread... I didn't know how anti you were. What is a real communist then? You sound like you've been brainwashed by wall street or something.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Case on April 26, 2017, 11:03:27 PM
The point is, leftists are so quick to use the government as a club to beat their political and ideological opponents with. People like me want to live and let live.
As opposed to the right who literally beat their political and ideological opponents with clubs? I'm a centrist anyway. You seem really angry about all of this and it's clear you don't understand any of it.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 26, 2017, 11:11:54 PM
Your assumption that I am angry is wildly off-base. I like having these types of discussions.

"The right, who literally beat people with clubs..."
You sure you got that straight? The right... who want smaller govt with less power...who welcome libertarians in their midst.... You suuuuure you got that straight?

A real communist/socialist/marxist is a shadow, because none of you conform to literal definitions of ideologies, exact philosophies written by Marx, or any example laid out by a communist/socialist/marxist nation; none of you will take a firm stance on your beliefs, because it makes it far too easy to cut your position to shreds. You prefer to stay vague and amorphous, avoiding any potential criticism. Yam would not get into anything concrete, either. When it bordered on concrete, he decided to retreat to "Guh, im not ur sensei."

Define yourself and your ideology, then we can have a serious conversation.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Case on April 26, 2017, 11:19:02 PM
Your assumption that I am angry is wildly off-base. I like having these types of discussions.

A real communist/socialist/marxist is a shadow, because none of you conform to literal definitions of ideologies, exact philosophies written by Marx, or any example laid out by a communist/socialist/marxist nation; none of you will take a firm stance on your beliefs, because it makes it far too easy to cut your position to shreds. You prefer to stay vague and amorphous, avoiding any potential criticism. Yam would not get into anything concrete, either. When it bordered on concrete, he decided to retreat to "Guh, im not ur sensei."

Define yourself and your ideology, then we can have a serious conversation.

I'm willing to stand up for what I believe in, and I'm not a shadow. It's not like socialism is a single set of beliefs, and you'll be a socialist too. All of the West are, that's how the west was formed - capitalistic socialism to create security and quality of life. Marxism has adapted since the original writings of Marx. I doubt Marx would consider Marxism to be his ideology, because Marx didn't really write about hows, but instead describe behaviors. Both of those simple phrases already contradict what you think socialists and marxists are, but I guess it's easy for you to create strawmen (or shadowmen?) of these various people you envisage and cut them down. It doesn't require any rigor on your part.

Capitalism's an economic system, not a social model. How do you think your society operates Melkor?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 26, 2017, 11:23:29 PM
You realize you just said that you will stand up for your beliefs... and then proceeded to say none of them.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Case on April 26, 2017, 11:37:30 PM
You realize you just said that you will stand up for your beliefs... and then proceeded to say none of them.
Like I said, what's the point of listing them if you already think you understand them? It's not like you're offering anything up. Show me how it's done?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Yam on April 26, 2017, 11:41:53 PM
Your assumption that I am angry is wildly off-base. I like having these types of discussions.

A real communist/socialist/marxist is a shadow, because none of you conform to literal definitions of ideologies, exact philosophies written by Marx, or any example laid out by a communist/socialist/marxist nation; none of you will take a firm stance on your beliefs, because it makes it far too easy to cut your position to shreds. You prefer to stay vague and amorphous, avoiding any potential criticism. Yam would not get into anything concrete, either. When it bordered on concrete, he decided to retreat to "Guh, im not ur sensei."

Define yourself and your ideology, then we can have a serious conversation.

If you're confused it doesn't necessarily mean that other people are being vague and amorphous. At no point were we talking about my personal political ideologies anyway. We were talking about a specific book and it's relation to Soviet propaganda.

Let me be clear: I think you are too stupid to have a serious conversation with. This is you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_hNt2OssY
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 26, 2017, 11:47:31 PM
This entire thread, every communist, socialist, marxist in here has stated "You dont even know what REAL <x> is" and have NEVER elaborated on it.

You made the bold assertion that you will stand up for your beliefs.... yet never say what your beliefs are.

You are all a joke. Walking parodies of failed ideologies.

You want to know what I believe in? Leave my family and I alone and I will do the same. Do not trespass on my land. Do not infringe upon my rights granted by the US Constitution and all amendments to it. Nobody owes anybody anything for simply existing, except a parent to their child, and when the roles are reversed with old age, a child to their parent. Follow the laws. If you disagree with the law, work to get it changed. Contribute to your family, community, and country. Dont needlessly harm others.

Your turn, if you can.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Yam on April 26, 2017, 11:51:52 PM
Go find that 3 year old and ask them to read through the thread and explain it to you.

Also probably the US constitution too. And history.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 26, 2017, 11:52:22 PM
Actually, We were speaking about my initial assertion that the USSR never published propaganda as prevalent as Communism for Kids during the cold war. You said Prove it. I said Well, I've been looking for 30 minutes and havent found anything, maybe you can? And you said No, I'm not your sensei; burden of proof is on you..... to prove that something did not happen..... Total cop out.

Oh, so you are willing to define your ideology, Yam? Go for it. Betcha dont. I bet you cop out, again.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Case on April 26, 2017, 11:59:35 PM
This entire thread, every communist, socialist, marxist in here has stated "You dont even know what REAL <x> is" and have NEVER elaborated on it.

You made the bold assertion that you will stand up for your beliefs.... yet never say what your beliefs are.

You are all a joke. Walking parodies of failed ideologies.

You want to know what I believe in? Leave my family and I alone and I will do the same. Do not trespass on my land. Do not infringe upon my rights granted by the US Constitution and all amendments to it. Nobody owes anybody anything for simply existing, except a parent to their child, and when the roles are reversed with old age, a child to their parent. Follow the laws. If you disagree with the law, work to get it changed. Contribute to your family, community, and country. Dont needlessly harm others.

Your turn, if you can.

I believe in the laws of the land, contribution to family, community and country and in not harming others needlessly too.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 27, 2017, 12:04:14 AM
Cherry-pick my paragraph, contribute nothing of your own. Sad.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: boog on April 27, 2017, 12:04:55 AM
Where ideologies begin to diverge is when we come to who deserves what. Most people generally agree with the similarities listed above, because most people are like, sane.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Case on April 27, 2017, 12:08:11 AM
Cherry-pick my paragraph, contribute nothing of your own. Sad.
How did I cherry pick? Your entire paragraph fits into my one line. I just felt no need to differentiate a law like the constitution or make a comment on standard western parental dynamics. This is because nothing you listed is a belief relevant to any discussion on communism, marxism, socialism or capitalism.

Are you capable of defining your beliefs which relate to the things you asked me to define?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 27, 2017, 12:12:12 AM
 Leave my family and I alone and I will do the same. Do not trespass on my land. Do not infringe upon my rights granted by the US Constitution and all amendments to it. Nobody owes anybody anything for simply existing, except a parent to their child, and when the roles are reversed with old age, a child to their parent. Follow the laws. If you disagree with the law, work to get it changed. Contribute to your family, community, and country. Dont needlessly harm others.

Bold show clear libertarian and capitalist positions.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Yam on April 27, 2017, 12:12:56 AM
Your claim: The USSR never published propaganda as prevalent as Communism for Kids during the Cold War.

Assumption 1: Communism for Kids is propaganda.

Assumption 2: Communism for Kids is more prevalent than any piece of Soviet propaganda published in the Cold War.

I'm not asking you to prove a negative (that there are no prevalent pieces of Soviet propaganda published during the Cold War). I'm asking you to provide evidence for your positive assertion that Communism for Kids is more prevalent than any of it.

Again, this doesn't require you to know anything about my political ideologies (though you could probably pick it up from my post history, which includes at least one political alignment quiz).
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: boog on April 27, 2017, 12:14:21 AM
I guess I'm just surprised in this day and age, with the vast majority of wealth and surplus we have as a global community, that some people would still shit on others and say they don't deserve to be fed, clothed, housed, or have their medical needs seen to.

It's not like they're asking for a jet.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Case on April 27, 2017, 12:17:12 AM
Leave my family and I alone and I will do the same. Do not trespass on my land. Do not infringe upon my rights granted by the US Constitution and all amendments to it. Nobody owes anybody anything for simply existing, except a parent to their child, and when the roles are reversed with old age, a child to their parent. Follow the laws. If you disagree with the law, work to get it changed. Contribute to your family, community, and country. Dont needlessly harm others.

Bold show clear libertarian and capitalist positions.
Again, neither of these related to socialism, marxism, communism or capitalism. You could argue the concept of 'my land' is contrary to communism maybe but under state capitalism, your land is only leased from the government and can be seized in some circumstances, so it's not really your land anyway.

What was the other thing? Nobody is owed anything for simply existing? Shared across all four of the ideologies also.

Are you sure you understand what capitalist beliefs are, or what marxism, socialism or communism are? :)
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 27, 2017, 12:27:45 AM
Your claim: The USSR never published propaganda as prevalent as Communism for Kids during the Cold War.

Assumption 1: Communism for Kids is propaganda.

Assumption 2: Communism for Kids is more prevalent than any piece of Soviet propaganda published in the Cold War.

I'm not asking you to prove a negative (that there are no prevalent pieces of Soviet propaganda published during the Cold War). I'm asking you to provide evidence for your positive assertion that Communism for Kids is more prevalent than any of it.

Again, this doesn't require you to know anything about my political ideologies (though you could probably pick it up from my post history, which includes at least one political alignment quiz).

The mere fact that it is available on the internet makes it more prevalent than any cold-war propaganda effort. Millions of people know about it. Thousands will buy it all over the world, and share it.

Boog. For doing nothing in exchange? No, they dont, save for children. If the world will give me everything I need for free... why do I need to do anything other than hedonistic pursuits?

Again, neither of these related to socialism, marxism, communism or capitalism. You could argue the concept of 'my land' is contrary to communism maybe but under state capitalism, your land is only leased from the government and can be seized in some circumstances, so it's not really your land anyway.

What was the other thing? Nobody is owed anything for simply existing? Shared across all four of the ideologies also.

Are you sure you understand what capitalist beliefs are, or what marxism, socialism or communism are? :)

Ah, so now you are playing the "marxist/socialist/communist economic policies vs marxist/socialist/communist ideologies" swap game. This is why I asked you to define your ideology, so I wouldnt be swinging at smoke.

I own land, and yeah, I pay taxes on it. Better than not owning land at all. I earned this land by working hard and earning money for myself. The land I own is more than the vast majority of Americans own. This is in direct conflict with leftist ideologies.

As Boog just said
I guess I'm just surprised in this day and age, with the vast majority of wealth and surplus we have as a global community, that some people would still shit on others and say they don't deserve to be fed, clothed, housed, or have their medical needs seen to.
In response to me saying people are not entitled to stuff for merely breathing. This is because that is precisely the leftist position.

You are wrong, Case. My assertions were clear, and accurate.


One last time, Case. Define your leftist ideologies specifically, if you can.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: boog on April 27, 2017, 12:33:09 AM
But then children grow into adults and cyclical poverty, racism, classism, elitism, et. al, factor into success, as much as I know you want to claim the opposite, Melkor.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Case on April 27, 2017, 12:47:33 AM
Again, neither of these related to socialism, marxism, communism or capitalism. You could argue the concept of 'my land' is contrary to communism maybe but under state capitalism, your land is only leased from the government and can be seized in some circumstances, so it's not really your land anyway.

What was the other thing? Nobody is owed anything for simply existing? Shared across all four of the ideologies also.

Are you sure you understand what capitalist beliefs are, or what marxism, socialism or communism are? :)

Ah, so now you are playing the "marxist/socialist/communist economic policies vs marxist/socialist/communist ideologies" swap game. This is why I asked you to define your ideology, so I wouldnt be swinging at smoke.

I own land, and yeah, I pay taxes on it. Better than not owning land at all. I earned this land by working hard and earning money for myself. The land I own is more than the vast majority of Americans own. This is in direct conflict with leftist ideologies.

As Boog just said
I guess I'm just surprised in this day and age, with the vast majority of wealth and surplus we have as a global community, that some people would still shit on others and say they don't deserve to be fed, clothed, housed, or have their medical needs seen to.
In response to me saying people are not entitled to stuff for merely breathing. This is because that is precisely the leftist position.

You are wrong, Case. My assertions were clear, and accurate.


One last time, Case. Define your leftist ideologies specifically, if you can.

What swap game? Marxism and socialism are not economic systems and are more or less ideologies, capitalism and communism comment on economics. I can more rightly use the word ideology for all four than I can say "economic policies".

You still haven't defined any capitalist beliefs, so I don't see any need to discuss mine yet, but keep trying slugger. You'll grow up to be a philosophy student one day.

I, however, do not own land. I do have the ability to buy land, I just invest my money differently. I earned this money after receiving an education. I do not understand how the basic concept of work -> resources is somehow not supported by 'the left', whatever 'the left' is, because it appears in both communism and capitalism. Your inability to define why the methods or philosophies differ is not my failure; it's yours.

I assume if you do not believe in any form of state support for those who breathe but do not earn, we should let orphans and abandoned children die? They are highly useless beings. I just need to know where you draw the line on this whole human existence thing.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 27, 2017, 12:49:46 AM
Children are innocent, and incapable of helping themselves.

Adults have the capability to overcome these obstacles, period.

Cyclical poverty is bullshit, and can be defeated by getting a GED, a job, and not having kids until you are OUT of poverty. Right now, there is only one LAW that is truly racist, and that is affirmative action. Racist PEOPLE will exist everywhere, amongst all races, against all races. Classism and Elitism are legit, but there is so much income mobility in the US that is barely matters.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Yam on April 27, 2017, 12:50:17 AM
Your claim: The USSR never published propaganda as prevalent as Communism for Kids during the Cold War.

Assumption 1: Communism for Kids is propaganda.

Assumption 2: Communism for Kids is more prevalent than any piece of Soviet propaganda published in the Cold War.

I'm not asking you to prove a negative (that there are no prevalent pieces of Soviet propaganda published during the Cold War). I'm asking you to provide evidence for your positive assertion that Communism for Kids is more prevalent than any of it.

Again, this doesn't require you to know anything about my political ideologies (though you could probably pick it up from my post history, which includes at least one political alignment quiz).

The mere fact that it is available on the internet makes it more prevalent than any cold-war propaganda effort. Millions of people know about it. Thousands will buy it all over the world, and share it.

Do you really think this makes sense? ArmageddonMUD is available on the internet but it isn't as prevalent as baseball.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Case on April 27, 2017, 12:51:52 AM
Children are innocent, and incapable of helping themselves.

Adults have the capability to overcome these obstacles, period.

Cyclical poverty is bullshit, and can be defeated by getting a GED, a job, and not having kids until you are OUT of poverty. Right now, there is only one LAW that is truly racist, and that is affirmative action. Racist PEOPLE will exist everywhere, amongst all races, against all races. Classism and Elitism are legit, but there is so much income mobility in the US that is barely matters.
Children and old people are useless and deserve no support ever, I agree. There's no such thing as a lack of opportunities, just a lack of capitalism.

Do you have medical insurance, Melkor? Do you utilise medicare or medicaid?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 27, 2017, 12:55:26 AM
Who needs economics when you have a gun?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO48mtNd4jo
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 27, 2017, 12:58:14 AM

Do you really think this makes sense? ArmageddonMUD is available on the internet but it isn't as prevalent as baseball.


It would be if there were advertising efforts being made. Zing!.

No, but you know that Communism for Kids has gotten publicity on internet, tv, and radio, so comparing it to our game is silly.


What swap game? Marxism and socialism are not economic systems and are more or less ideologies, capitalism and communism comment on economics. I can more rightly use the word ideology for all four than I can say "economic policies".
Socialism is the transition of an economy from its current state to Communism, as denoted by Marx... So yes, it is economic in nature, as well as ideological.

Capitalism thrives on the basis that anybody can work and profit to great success and wealth, so it is ideological in nature, as well as economic.

Quote
You still haven't defined any capitalist beliefs, so I don't see any need to discuss mine yet, but keep trying slugger. You'll grow up to be a philosophy student one day.
I have. You ignoring them is a weak ploy. You really have nothing to say for the ideology you are so proud of, do you?

Quote
I, however, do not own land. I do have the ability to buy land, I just invest my money differently. I earned this money after receiving an education. I do not understand how the basic concept of work -> resources is somehow not supported by 'the left', whatever 'the left' is, because it appears in both communism and capitalism. Your inability to define why the methods or philosophies differ is not my failure; it's yours.
The left in America? Of course it is. However marxist ideologies dictate abandoning personal property to the state for redistribution or state use.

Quote
I assume if you do not believe in any form of state support for those who breathe but do not earn, we should let orphans and abandoned children die? They are highly useless beings. I just need to know where you draw the line on this whole human existence thing.

If you read my thread, you would see I advocate for supporting children and disabled many times. Do you willfully ignore this, or do you just not read?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 27, 2017, 12:59:55 AM
LOL SKEELS WTF.

Case, of course I am insured, both through my employer and through private insurance. No, I do not use medicare or medicaid.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Yam on April 27, 2017, 01:17:58 AM

Do you really think this makes sense? ArmageddonMUD is available on the internet but it isn't as prevalent as baseball.


It would be if there were advertising efforts being made. Zing!.

No, but you know that Communism for Kids has gotten publicity on internet, tv, and radio, so comparing it to our game is silly.

Mostly negative publicity. Do you have any evidence that it's popular in the US?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Case on April 27, 2017, 01:22:11 AM
What swap game? Marxism and socialism are not economic systems and are more or less ideologies, capitalism and communism comment on economics. I can more rightly use the word ideology for all four than I can say "economic policies".
Socialism is the transition of an economy from its current state to Communism, as denoted by Marx... So yes, it is economic in nature, as well as ideological.

Capitalism thrives on the basis that anybody can work and profit to great success and wealth, so it is ideological in nature, as well as economic.
Yeah I guess, if I was talking about Marxist Socialism, a separate concept with the same name. But I'm talking about Socialism, which is not that thing, but that's ok. Socialism refers to a focus on state programs and organisation that benefits or empowers the people of a society or combats problems in that society. Public schooling, police, firemen, roads, democratic government are all socialist institutions. For the most part, all use of 'socialism' relates to that form of socialism, not Marx, not your inability to grasp what National Socialism means. It's a relatively generic term that matters in context.

You are wrong though. Capitalism only means an economy focused on privately controlled businesses (and how capital is invested). It makes no comment on open work, success or wealth.

Socialism and Capitalism have nothing to do with each other in common political usage! In fact, they are totally compatible! We call it Western Society. 

You still haven't defined any capitalist beliefs, so I don't see any need to discuss mine yet, but keep trying slugger. You'll grow up to be a philosophy student one day.
I have. You ignoring them is a weak ploy. You really have nothing to say for the ideology you are so proud of, do you?
You haven't posted any. Post some :) You've said some things you -feel- are capitalism and american or whatever, but are mostly just feelgood vague comments on how you think people should behave and have no economic bearing.

I, however, do not own land. I do have the ability to buy land, I just invest my money differently. I earned this money after receiving an education. I do not understand how the basic concept of work -> resources is somehow not supported by 'the left', whatever 'the left' is, because it appears in both communism and capitalism. Your inability to define why the methods or philosophies differ is not my failure; it's yours.
The left in America? Of course it is. However marxist ideologies dictate abandoning personal property to the state for redistribution or state use.
The left in America are often work friendly because they too enjoy eating food and paying rent and mortgages. Wasn't there just a wave of rejection of Hillary Clinton for being TOO business friendly? You'll need to show some proof of this idea 'the left' are anti work, because lol. The states with the most right wing voting also claim the most in state and federal benefits - clearly 'the right' love them some socialism.

Marxism makes no such demand, communism might. Again, you seem very confused - 'the left' are not all marxists or communists. Very few are.

I assume if you do not believe in any form of state support for those who breathe but do not earn, we should let orphans and abandoned children die? They are highly useless beings. I just need to know where you draw the line on this whole human existence thing.
If you read my thread, you would see I advocate for supporting children and disabled many times. Do you willfully ignore this, or do you just not read?

I know you advocate for them, but you also say nobody deserves anything for breathing, and these are contradictions.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Case on April 27, 2017, 01:22:50 AM
Case, of course I am insured, both through my employer and through private insurance. No, I do not use medicare or medicaid.
You socialist motherf*cker
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Marc on April 27, 2017, 06:41:08 AM
Hostility rising!  Chillax until the jackboots go on!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies)

Logical fallacies lead to ignorance, fear, anger and misunderstandings.

Learning is the answer.  What's the question?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: John on April 27, 2017, 07:57:39 AM
If they resort to stealing and hurting people afterwards, okay, now they are in prison, where they should be utilized for manual/factory-labor.
The only way this makes sense is if the labour they do generates more money then:

You could always pass a law that would see people's sentences extended until such time as the debt incurred above is actually paid back. Then you could reinstitutionalise slavery again!

[EDITED out snarky comments. I really need to minimise this forum again, I can't help but contribute to it with my own inane ramblings]
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Feco on April 27, 2017, 09:00:50 AM
This entire thread, every communist, socialist, marxist in here has stated "You dont even know what REAL <x> is" and have NEVER elaborated on it. .

Page 10.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Molten Heart on April 27, 2017, 09:10:28 AM
It is the state's business. We work for the state, and the state works for us. We rely on the state for protection, so that means giving up some freedoms, especially freedoms to be stupid... eg. bad parents, non contributors etc.

What assurances are there that the state isn't also stupid? Who's to decide who is right?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: boog on April 27, 2017, 10:11:35 AM
Cyclical poverty isn't bullshit. GEDs are cool, and you'll say university isn't a requirement to have a good life (maybe in America, but almost everywhere else in the world, if you ever wanna move abroad, you HAVE to HAVE a four year degree), but university's won't accept you if you have a GED -- they require you, at least in NC, to get an Associate's Degree before you attend uni.

I was at a dead end job at CVS. There was literally no advancement available to me in the pharmacy department. But somehow, that job should be enough to keep me afloat, right? You're aware that absolutely nowhere in the US can you rent an apartment with 40 hours of a minimum wage job, right? I wasn't minimum wage, but close to, it, and I still couldn't have afforded a place on my own.

Also, saying people shouldn't procreate is well and good, if you fucking educate them about why they shouldn't and don't tell them to just abstain, because biology. But because we don't have good funding (!) for sex education, and Planned Parenthood is constantly being defunded (please don't make the abortion argument) and the fundamentalist Christians want to push their agenda in schools, we get taught not to fuck before marrying, even though there's an absurd percentage of people doing just the opposite of that, especially Christians.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 27, 2017, 10:38:37 AM
Yam. All right-wing negative publicity is left-wing positive publicity. You can see that phenomena in this very thread.

What swap game? Marxism and socialism are not economic systems and are more or less ideologies, capitalism and communism comment on economics. I can more rightly use the word ideology for all four than I can say "economic policies".
Socialism is the transition of an economy from its current state to Communism, as denoted by Marx... So yes, it is economic in nature, as well as ideological.

Capitalism thrives on the basis that anybody can work and profit to great success and wealth, so it is ideological in nature, as well as economic.
Yeah I guess, if I was talking about Marxist Socialism, a separate concept with the same name. But I'm talking about Socialism, which is not that thing, but that's ok.

Which is exactly why I called it the swap game. You never SAID what you were talking about. See how this is an issue?

Quote
Socialism refers to a focus on state programs and organisation that benefits or empowers the people of a society or combats problems in that society. Public schooling, police, firemen, roads, democratic government are all socialist institutions. For the most part, all use of 'socialism' relates to that form of socialism, not Marx, not your inability to grasp what National Socialism means. It's a relatively generic term that matters in context.
Social institutions are not socialism. Conflating the two is disingenuous.

Quote
You are wrong though. Capitalism only means an economy focused on privately controlled businesses (and how capital is invested). It makes no comment on open work, success or wealth.
Wrong. You are speaking strictly of the economic definition of capitalism, and not the Manifest Destiny mindset many Americans have, thanks to capitalism. It can be seen as a relatively generic term that matters in context. :)

Quote
Socialism and Capitalism have nothing to do with each other in common political usage! In fact, they are totally compatible! We call it Western Society.
----social programs and socialism are not the same thing.----- 

You still haven't defined any capitalist beliefs, so I don't see any need to discuss mine yet, but keep trying slugger. You'll grow up to be a philosophy student one day.
I have. You ignoring them is a weak ploy. You really have nothing to say for the ideology you are so proud of, do you?
You haven't posted any. Post some :) You've said some things you -feel- are capitalism and american or whatever, but are mostly just feelgood vague comments on how you think people should behave and have no economic bearing.[/quote]
I am not speaking strictly of economic principals, I am speaking of self-reliance, and reaping what you sow. Again, you are strictly adhering to the economic policy of capitalism and not the ideology. To say capitalism does not have an inherent ideology, just as socialism does, it a flat-out lie.



I, however, do not own land. I do have the ability to buy land, I just invest my money differently. I earned this money after receiving an education. I do not understand how the basic concept of work -> resources is somehow not supported by 'the left', whatever 'the left' is, because it appears in both communism and capitalism. Your inability to define why the methods or philosophies differ is not my failure; it's yours.
The left in America? Of course it is. However marxist ideologies dictate abandoning personal property to the state for redistribution or state use.
The left in America are often work friendly because they too enjoy eating food and paying rent and mortgages. Wasn't there just a wave of rejection of Hillary Clinton for being TOO business friendly? You'll need to show some proof of this idea 'the left' are anti work, because lol. The states with the most right wing voting also claim the most in state and federal benefits - clearly 'the right' love them some socialism.[/quote]
Selling your political position to the highest bidder to big business is not being "pro-business."

It is funny, In American history, the poor were always democrats. Now, republicans are bagged on for being poor. Needing  to take advantage of federal assistance in a shitty economy is not the same as wanting it. That being said, I would say that those same poor people who would have been democrats 50 years ago, and are now voting right, are still democrats, just voting to keep certain rights.

Quote
Marxism makes no such demand, communism might. Again, you seem very confused - 'the left' are not all marxists or communists. Very few are.
Marx stated that during the transition from current state to communism, the transition known as socialism, private property would have to be abolished.


I assume if you do not believe in any form of state support for those who breathe but do not earn, we should let orphans and abandoned children die? They are highly useless beings. I just need to know where you draw the line on this whole human existence thing.
If you read my thread, you would see I advocate for supporting children and disabled many times. Do you willfully ignore this, or do you just not read?
I know you advocate for them, but you also say nobody deserves anything for breathing, and these are contradictions.
[/quote]
Exceptions are not contradictions. Saying they are is disingenuous. I get that a lot from you.



Feco, regarding you defining the ideologies.
A lot of these arguments are legitimate criticisms of what socialists often call "state capitalism" -- what the USSR became relatively quickly after its formation.  They might also be criticisms of "social democracy," often conflated with "democratic socialism."  Social democrats more-or-less think that capitalism can be made humane and wonderful -- they generally push for the establishment of a welfare state.  These are generally your American liberals and progressives.

Socialism can be oversimplified and thereby understood as democratic control over the workplace.  It a system wherein the workers themselves have collective ownership and control over the means of production (thereby abolishing "private property").

Socialism is not taking everyone's stuff, or what you might call "wealth," (money, housing, what have you) and dividing it up equally.  At least, it is not necessarily that.

In a socialist society, individuals can still own things ("personal property,").  In a socialist society, individuals cannot own the means of production ("private property").  Personal property is essentially all the stuff you use.  Private property is made up of things like factories, infrastructure, mines etc -- it's sort of a relationship between those that own, and those that don't.  According to socialists, that relationship is exploitative.
Okay, you're starting to get off into the weeds. The state can consider ANYTHING used to produce goods or services "Private Property." Many of these THINGS you conflated as personal property which people could still own. Things like cars, tools, appliances, instruments, and, what you failed to mention, homes, and land.

Quote
Communism, essentially, is the "next step" after socialism.  It's the destruction of the state and markets, generally post-scarcity.  It's basically a Utopian form of socialism.
The final step. but whatever.

Quote
European countries with strong social welfare systems are not socialist.  Advocating single-payer healthcare is not necessary socialist.  The politicians doing this might be socialists in that they think these democratic changes can lead to a socialist state (hence, they are "democratic socialists"), but that doesn't mean they're necessarily pushing socialist policies.
This is exactly what I just said to case. Social programs are not necessarily socialist.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: boog on April 27, 2017, 10:42:05 AM
They're by definition socialist.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 27, 2017, 10:43:58 AM
The fact that there is still choice whether to partake in them is antithetical to a socialist government, where it would be mandatory.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 27, 2017, 10:53:38 AM
Case, of course I am insured, both through my employer and through private insurance. No, I do not use medicare or medicaid.
You socialist motherf*cker

Social programs are not socialist. By the way, I voluntarily got this private health insurance, and was not forced to by the state, even though the last Administration did start fining people for not insuring themselves and others. THAT is socialist.


Cyclical poverty isn't bullshit. GEDs are cool, and you'll say university isn't a requirement to have a good life (maybe in America, but almost everywhere else in the world, if you ever wanna move abroad, you HAVE to HAVE a four year degree), but university's won't accept you if you have a GED -- they require you, at least in NC, to get an Associate's Degree before you attend uni.
Well, that is dishonest. People with NO education come to America every day.
What is bad about having an AA before going to UNI for your BA/MA/PHD? My brother did that, and he is studying at Cambridge now.

Quote
I was at a dead end job at CVS. There was literally no advancement available to me in the pharmacy department. But somehow, that job should be enough to keep me afloat, right? You're aware that absolutely nowhere in the US can you rent an apartment with 40 hours of a minimum wage job, right? I wasn't minimum wage, but close to, it, and I still couldn't have afforded a place on my own.
Where I live, if you want to live alone and work minimum wage, you have to work minimum 70 hours a week. I figured that out on my own. OR, you team up with a friend/partner and make it work.

Quote
Also, saying people shouldn't procreate is well and good, if you fucking educate them about why they shouldn't and don't tell them to just abstain, because biology. But because we don't have good funding (!) for sex education, and Planned Parenthood is constantly being defunded (please don't make the abortion argument) and the fundamentalist Christians want to push their agenda in schools, we get taught not to fuck before marrying, even though there's an absurd percentage of people doing just the opposite of that, especially Christians.
Just the opposite. In my High School, our girls were told that when they get pregnant to make full use of WIC, tax credits, and the like. Assuming they would get pregnant out of wedlock, before they could independently afford the life they created.

America's schools are SO well funded. The issue is the funding is squandered on students who dont want the education, and ruin it for others.

It is the state's business. We work for the state, and the state works for us. We rely on the state for protection, so that means giving up some freedoms, especially freedoms to be stupid... eg. bad parents, non contributors etc.

What assurances are there that the state isn't also stupid? Who's to decide who is right?

Too right.

If they resort to stealing and hurting people afterwards, okay, now they are in prison, where they should be utilized for manual/factory-labor.
The only way this makes sense is if the labour they do generates more money then:
  • the public defender lawyer who represents them
  • the judge (they're highly paid by the way)
  • the police
  • all other staff required for a court case.
  • security for the court
  • cleaners for the court
  • supplies used for the court case and by all of the above people.
  • electricity used for the courthouse.
  • all of the above but for the police department and the jails.
  • all other administrative staff that must be hired in order to provide the required support for the above people.

You could always pass a law that would see people's sentences extended until such time as the debt incurred above is actually paid back. Then you could reinstitutionalise slavery again!

[EDITED out snarky comments. I really need to minimise this forum again, I can't help but contribute to it with my own inane ramblings]

I like it, John. You make lucid, rational points. In that case, I would say that while adhering to human rights and the constitution, if not profit, than the most money to mitigate state costs should be produced by prisoners during their internment.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Large Hero on April 27, 2017, 12:09:05 PM
Social programs are not socialist.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Feco on April 27, 2017, 12:26:22 PM
Melkor is right.  Police, fire departments, etc. are not socialist.  Welfare programs are not socialist.  Taxes and the programs they fund are not socialist.

It is possible to have a free-market capitalist state (meaning neither the state nor the workers control the means of production), wherein the government provides welfare for everyone (this could even go so far as a universal basic income).  This is called a welfare state.  It's the goal of social democracy.

Also, what's this talk about National Socialism?  National Socialism is typically used to refer to Nazism.  Nazism is not socialism, despite the use of the word.

Feco, regarding you defining the ideologies.
A lot of these arguments are legitimate criticisms of what socialists often call "state capitalism" -- what the USSR became relatively quickly after its formation.  They might also be criticisms of "social democracy," often conflated with "democratic socialism."  Social democrats more-or-less think that capitalism can be made humane and wonderful -- they generally push for the establishment of a welfare state.  These are generally your American liberals and progressives.

Socialism can be oversimplified and thereby understood as democratic control over the workplace.  It a system wherein the workers themselves have collective ownership and control over the means of production (thereby abolishing "private property").

Socialism is not taking everyone's stuff, or what you might call "wealth," (money, housing, what have you) and dividing it up equally.  At least, it is not necessarily that.

In a socialist society, individuals can still own things ("personal property,").  In a socialist society, individuals cannot own the means of production ("private property").  Personal property is essentially all the stuff you use.  Private property is made up of things like factories, infrastructure, mines etc -- it's sort of a relationship between those that own, and those that don't.  According to socialists, that relationship is exploitative.

Okay, you're starting to get off into the weeds. The state can consider ANYTHING used to produce goods or services "Private Property." Many of these THINGS you conflated as personal property which people could still own. Things like cars, tools, appliances, instruments, and, what you failed to mention, homes, and land.

Generally, "private property" is going to refer to things like factories, farms, mines, and any other place of business that can be privately owned.  Yes, it will generally refer to things like tools, but I think it's unlikely anyone is going to start a "RECLAIM ALL THE HAMMERS FOR THE WORKERS" program, especially given our relative abundance of resources.

If this were happening in a resource-poor economy, though, yeah, I guess your hammers and shit would be put under worker control, too.  In order to avoid this, socialism and communism would be best implemented via a global (or more realistically, at first, a multi-national, resource rich) movement.

Generally, it's not going to apply to your house.  Your home probably isn't an instrument by which you exploit labor.

How it applies to land is going to vary.  A farm would be put under control of the workers.  Gigantic pieces of land that would be necessary for farming would likely be put under worker control.  The few acres your house sits on are unlikely to be bothered, especially in the US where we have an abundance of land.

But the reality is that, yes, your land could be taken for something.  This isn't really any different than now, though, given that eminent domain exists.  It is real, and it happens.

Quote
Quote
Communism, essentially, is the "next step" after socialism.  It's the destruction of the state and markets, generally post-scarcity.  It's basically a Utopian form of socialism.
The final step. but whatever.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to "correct" this.  The final step in a series is, in fact, the next step with regard to the penultimate one.

I also would prefer to avoid calling it any sort of final government.  I think it would be shortsighted to think with absolute certainty that we've come up with the final and/or best form of organizing ourselves.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Large Hero on April 27, 2017, 12:44:03 PM
They're not "socialist" in the sense of "socialism" referring to the ownership of the means of production by government. But I'm pretty sure that isn't the context Case was using. Anyway, silly thread.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Feco on April 27, 2017, 01:01:22 PM
Using "socialist" to mean "welfare in a capitalist society" just makes it difficult to talk about this sort of thing, so I'm very okay saying that it's the wrong way to use the word.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Large Hero on April 27, 2017, 01:12:03 PM
I agree with you. It's part of why this kind of discussion is confusing. It's very important to agree first on vocabulary definitions. Academically, "welfare in a capitalist society" is the wrong way to use the word "socialism." But it's arguable that the word has taken on other meanings. It's very common to say that certain European countries are "socialist," for example. And the meaning there is "welfare in a capitalist society."
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 27, 2017, 01:57:25 PM
Silly sandwich. My thread is fun.

Feco, but communism is seen as the end of history, and the end of advancement.... So how is it not the final step?

Regarding property. The moment I use my house to produce revenue, a socialist state would claim it. Period.

Regarding eminent domain, the 5th amendment to the constitution states that with eminent domain, there has to be just compensation for your property taken by the state.

Now, as far as definitions go. I have said this from the beginning, as one of my issues with marxists, socialists, communists, that they will not concretely define their positions or ideologies, and each person has their own idea, and none adhere to definitions.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: nauta on April 27, 2017, 03:50:16 PM
Now, as far as definitions go. I have said this from the beginning, as one of my issues with marxists, socialists, communists, that they will not concretely define their positions or ideologies, and each person has their own idea, and none adhere to definitions.

I can't speak for 'marxists' or 'socialists', but I found this book really helpful in defining 'communism' for me.  It says it is for kids, but really it is for everyone.

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/communism-kids
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Molten Heart on April 27, 2017, 03:55:24 PM
Now, as far as definitions go. I have said this from the beginning, as one of my issues with marxists, socialists, communists, that they will not concretely define their positions or ideologies, and each person has their own idea, and none adhere to definitions.

I can't speak for 'marxists' or 'socialists', but I found this book really helpful in defining 'communism' for me.  It says it is for kids, but really it is for everyone.

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/communism-kids

Lol! You've got my vote for "Troll of the year".
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: boog on April 27, 2017, 04:15:41 PM
NAUTA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 27, 2017, 04:37:02 PM
@Nauta.

https://youtu.be/8X_Ot0k4XJc
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Feco on April 27, 2017, 06:22:24 PM
Now, as far as definitions go. I have said this from the beginning, as one of my issues with marxists, socialists, communists, that they will not concretely define their positions or ideologies, and each person has their own idea, and none adhere to definitions.

I can't speak for 'marxists' or 'socialists', but I found this book really helpful in defining 'communism' for me.  It says it is for kids, but really it is for everyone.

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/communism-kids


Lock the thread!

It's over!
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: BadSkeelz on April 27, 2017, 06:29:30 PM
Now, as far as definitions go. I have said this from the beginning, as one of my issues with marxists, socialists, communists, that they will not concretely define their positions or ideologies, and each person has their own idea, and none adhere to definitions.

I can't speak for 'marxists' or 'socialists', but I found this book really helpful in defining 'communism' for me.  It says it is for kids, but really it is for everyone.

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/communism-kids


Lock the thread!

It's over!
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 27, 2017, 06:32:37 PM
Yeah, censorship!

If y'all want it over, stop posting.

I feel this thread was extremely satisfying, and revealing.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Dan on April 28, 2017, 03:54:23 PM
Yeah, censorship!

If y'all want it over, stop posting.

I feel this thread was extremely satisfying, and revealing.

Have some of your posts purged? Had just about all of mine disappear from a thread where I showed evidence of thought crime.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 28, 2017, 04:07:50 PM
I dont think so? I was just responding to the "Lock the thread that I disagree with!" Sentiment.

What were your thought crimes, Dan?
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: HavokBlue on April 28, 2017, 05:38:34 PM
"Lock the thread, it's over" isn't about disagreeing. It's a common internet thing. It's the equivalent of a mic drop.
Title: Re: Communism for Kids
Post by: Melkor on April 28, 2017, 05:47:21 PM
Lol it was funny, but it wasnt that funny.