This thread just took a very wrong turn...

Quote:O.O

(October 23, 2011 at 9:03 pm)edk141 Wrote: Insulting people doesn't further your argument, by the way.

Which is why I made a general insult. If you're feeling insulted, then you've obviously figured out I'm insulting you precisely because you are offering garbage ideology and penis measuring contests.

That or you're a dainty little flower with as much staying power to the flames of this forum as a snowball in hell.

I'm willing to enter a penis measuring contest.

Quote:as communism obviously doesn't work.

But was communism ever tried?

Marx envisioned the industrial proletariat rising up to seize the means of production from the bourgeois. What happened was a rising of agricultural peasants in Russia which led to immediate civil war and instead of the state withering away a massive bureaucracy developed.

Lenin argued the Theory of Imperialism which held: In Lenin’s developing Marxism for Russian application, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916) explains a development which Marx predicted: capitalism’s becoming a global system wherein advanced capitalist industrial nations export financial capital to colonial countries to exploit their resources and labour.

Marx may have simply been ahead of his time. The republicolibertarianeo-conazis may ultimately be the best thing that ever happened to communism. Marx may make a comeback.

(October 24, 2011 at 2:45 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:as communism obviously doesn't work.

But was communism ever tried?

Marx envisioned the industrial proletariat rising up to seize the means of production from the bourgeois. What happened was a rising of agricultural peasants in Russia which led to immediate civil war and instead of the state withering away a massive bureaucracy developed.

Lenin argued the Theory of Imperialism which held: In Lenin’s developing Marxism for Russian application, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916) explains a development which Marx predicted: capitalism’s becoming a global system wherein advanced capitalist industrial nations export financial capital to colonial countries to exploit their resources and labour.

Marx may have simply been ahead of his time. The republicolibertarianeo-conazis may ultimately be the best thing that ever happened to communism. Marx may make a comeback.

Truly, what good is a dictatorship of workers?
If not all classes of a country cooperate by simply seeing through the "class mechanism" and realize that they are a single nation under a single banner, what can really cure the jealousy and distress?

(October 23, 2011 at 1:05 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: So last night in chat (or early this morning, depending on what hemisphere you're in) edk asked some of us "what do you think would have to be sacrificed in order to eliminate poverty?" He and I_Blas and I had a fairly interesting discussion about it, so I thought I'd pose the question to you all.

Personally, I think eliminating poverty would only come with the price of freedom. I think you'd have to have someone at the top distributing everything in order to make sure everyone had a certain amount - and enforcing it. Even in our system where people have the option of welfare, people still live in poverty. Of course, I'm not socio-economic expert by any means - feel free to rip this apart as you choose, I'd just like to hear everyone's answers about it.

Meantime, I'm already late for kick off between the Skins and Panthers. Cheerio! Time for lunch and a good brew!

Eliminating povery can be archived by instilling a sense of charity within the people. Not like giving money to organisations and etc. Of course, public welfare systems can also be used, but these are only good when the political system is run by a single party.
A multi-party democracy will see to it that the ruling party will always use welfare as a means to get more votes, as the voters know that the free foodstuff/money they get from the current government will cease to come with the opposition stepping in.
As you see, welfare is a massive tool of the politicians that dare to use people's distress, hopelessness and hunger to gather more votes for themselves. This is the case in my country, and in other countries aswell.
But if there was but a single party that handled these affairs, welfare could be distributed fairly, each according to their own need. But this does not mean that people should take from the rich and give it to the poor.
This would be theft, and nothing more.

Quote:Communism was considered as an answer, and we know how that turned out. There may be means by which poverty may be eliminated, but human nature suggests it would be transient at best,

Communism was never meant to solve poverty.

Quote:Is poverty being unable to eat? Is poverty not owning a microwave? Etc...

Yes, being unable to attain the generic lifestandards of that particular country.
Not being able to send your children to school due to a lack of funds.
And etc.
In Turkey, there is no "homeless" population like there is one in America.
It's really rare that I see a homeless person, except for the street kids, who are runaways from orphanages anyways.

Quote:Because there are many people who benefit directly from others being poor. To force without their consent some redistributing of their ill gotten gain would be forsaking freedom, their freedom (and potentially yours if you rise to the top).

Who benefits from poverty?

Quote:Capitalism doesn't work (how do you know?), therefore communism must!

From the fact it essentially destroys itself, just like communism.
I think a middle way should be archived, while protecting private property, you have to secure social welfare, free healthcare and free education.

Quote:I love ideals like this, but I cannot even fathom them. There is always something that will leave at least some living without basic means to survive in a healthy manner. I will say this, though. If you're going to try, start with the slums of South America and basically everywhere in Africa. That's fucking poverty! I think the chances of me starving to death in the United States, with or without a job, are infinitesimally slim.

Well, starving to death in the USA is not really a chance...Even though you will still live like a dog on the streets.
However, eliminating poverty in south africa does not demand on the amount of food that is available to them. They simply have no buying power...This is actually due to the worldwide banking and currency system that is applied today.

Personally, I'm going to go all Robin Hood to do my bit

(October 24, 2011 at 4:30 am)frankiej Wrote: Personally, I'm going to go all Robin Hood to do my bit

The last time someone suggested that in Turkey, Istanbul fell into an anarchy when people began to loot the businesses and banks of the richer upper class people of Istanbul(who were generally non-turks).
Not that I'm a fan of minorities and all, but lawlessness should not be tolerated!

(October 24, 2011 at 4:33 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote:

(October 24, 2011 at 4:30 am)frankiej Wrote: Personally, I'm going to go all Robin Hood to do my bit

Istanbul fell into an anarchy when people began to loot the businesses and banks of the richer upper class people of Istanbul(who were generally non-turks).
Not that I'm a fan of minorities and all, but lawlessness should not be tolerated!

Pfft, sounds like a fucking plan boys!

(October 24, 2011 at 4:36 am)frankiej Wrote:

(October 24, 2011 at 4:33 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote:

(October 24, 2011 at 4:30 am)frankiej Wrote: Personally, I'm going to go all Robin Hood to do my bit

Istanbul fell into an anarchy when people began to loot the businesses and banks of the richer upper class people of Istanbul(who were generally non-turks).
Not that I'm a fan of minorities and all, but lawlessness should not be tolerated!

Pfft, sounds like a fucking plan boys!

I don't know if it was a plan, but it did drive those bastards out for good.
Even though in a manner that defies any kind of law and order.