Poll: Which is worse?
Poll Options
View poll results: Which is worse?
Socialists are basically communists
19 45%
Capitalists are selfish bitches
23 55%
Voters: 42.
Page 1 of 3
#3
Come back if you want to
And remember who you are
‘Cause there's nothing here for you my dear
And everything must pass
#4
Socialism is usually a type of capitalism save for its "pure theory" form. It has some interesting ideas that I no longer subscribe to.

I prefer neither. Both seem a poor attempt at creating order where there is none, but capitalism is more conducive to progress/change that isn't boring
they're coming to take me away
ha-haaa
#6
Quote by Banjocal
Socialism is usually a type of capitalism save for its "pure theory" form. It has some interesting ideas that I no longer subscribe to.

I prefer neither. Both seem a poor attempt at creating order where there is none, but capitalism is more conducive to progress/change that isn't boring

I much prefer creating chaos where there is none
#7
is this a false dichotomy

I mean they aren't mutually exclusive
#8
Quote by smb
is this the real life

is this a false dichotomy

Updated for improvements.
Come back if you want to
And remember who you are
‘Cause there's nothing here for you my dear
And everything must pass
#12
Quote by captainsnazz
F U L L Y A U T O M A T E D L U X U R Y G A Y S P A C E C O M M U N I S M

Those aren't the words
Come back if you want to
And remember who you are
‘Cause there's nothing here for you my dear
And everything must pass
#13
Quote by ultimate-slash
Caught between two sides
No escape from this fallacy

I think I prefer this direction but I wanted to get in "I'm just a capitalist, I need no sympathy 'cause it's easy come, easy go" etc
#14
Quote by ultimate-slash
Caught between two sides
No escape from this fallacy
SUFFOCATION
NO BREATING
DON'T GIVE A FUCK IF MY DIALECTIC AIN'T FLEETING
they're coming to take me away
ha-haaa
#15
inb4 Fat Lard loses his shit itt
"Social correctness has traditionally had nothing whatever to do with reason, logic, or physics. In fact, in England it is generally considered socially incorrect to know stuff or think about things."
-Douglas Adams
#16
"Capitalists" are the type of shitheads that have taxpayers giving money to corporations. It's just socialist towards the corporations. Oklahoma is the perfect idea of a capitalist state....the governor there gave the oil companies $470 million taxpayer dollars. Literally. Then she asked those selfsame taxpayers to "pray for the oil companies. They aren't having a good year ". That's another one of those rightwing whackos I was telling endtherapture about. Meanwhile the state is running a $1.2 billion deficit because of the huge tax cuts they gave to the other corporations as well. And they wonder why they can't balance the budget, lol. Here's the funny thing....the people in Oklahoma overwhelmingly put the same assholes in charge, over and over, because they talk about the "important things", like guns, God, Abortion!! Of course, the average IQ in Oklahoma is 87. Good God that explains a WHOLE LOT OF THINGS!

Taxpayers in Las Vegas are being expected to foot the bill to the tune of $750 million, whether they give a damn or not, to BUY A STADIUM FOR A BILLIONAIRE NFL TEAM OWNER. Yeah, this type of shit happens in America. Fortunately one of the other people pushing for the stadium, Adelson, saw a better way to spend the $650 million he'd promised towards the construction of a new stadium.

That's capitalism to me..where billionaire assholes don't pay their way, expect everybody else to pay the way for them. Then bitch about not being "understood".
Last edited by TobusRex at Feb 1, 2017,
#17
All of the adults are talking politics, and i was just sitting here praying this would be turned into a fan fiction love story between Trump and Putin...
Too many motards...
#19
Quote by Kaseke
You should do it!

Im too busy with my Clinton and Fidel Castro fan fiction right now
Too many motards...
#20
Quote by SynysterGecko
All of the adults are talking politics, and i was just sitting here praying this would be turned into a fan fiction love story between Trump and Putin...


You'd have to work in Trump's old lady's plastic surgeries into the story somehow. Her eyes creep me the hell out.
#21
Trying to apply socialism as described by Marx to a modern republic without a care for nuance, patience, etc is very very likely to fail. Trying to apply Lenin's idea of socialims and his plans also very likely fails since the state stops at the "state capitalism" part of the equation and stays there, growing more and more authoritarian and allowing people to abuse it and hurt people and other systems (since the checks and balances that were carefully thought out for republics are suddenly gone in the name of "getting an intermediate socialist state before true socialism")

Capitalism historically leads to growth, technological advances, increase of quality of living, decreased mortality, and all the good things we like about humanity. It also is less called "capitalism" but more "default mode of economics". There is no "capitalist economy", there is only economy. The capitalist way is the default way humanity has dealt with economy and resources for most of humanity, it is economy, and where most of its concepts arise from (supply and demand, etc). However, some capitalist systems are not good and can be improved, specially the current "corporatist" one that happens in most of today's countries. I think there is no need to mention why this is (increased inequality, fucks other parts of the republic and its people because of it, when done in a large scale like in the US/China/etc it deals huge damage to the environment, it threatens the health of the people that consume its goods, and many more).

Our current republics are based on thousands of years of careful crafting of political systems, of experiments and cases of study and analysis. They are based on countless tests against it, where some times it failed (and we can know why it failed) and where some times it succeded (and we can know why). These republics are based on the "default mode of economics" which is capitalism (e.g places like ancient Athens where "capitalist", with people choosing their profession and working for profit, etc). You just can't dismantle this without a system that is so well-designed that it can address everything those thousands of years have taught us about how to govern people, how to manage republics, etc.
Sorry, but socialism or communism doesn't do that, it only tries to describe a small part of a possible future system showing its good properties current republics and capitalists systems don't possess, but it does nothing else. The historical examples we have of trying to apply them (albeit few attempts in a small time frame, compared to thousands of years of history we have from the other systems) failed, which IMO shows this flaw (the system is not well-designed at all).
Trying to substitute "capitalism" with "socialism" is like having a family of 20 living in a huge mansion made of wood, where the wood starts to rot. However, since you believe that "ideally" using concrete is better, you end up blowing up the house and creating a single-room made of concrete. Now you have wood and garbage all around the place, your family of 20 somehow have to live under a single room (that has no kitchen, has no bedrooms, no bathroom, nothing, just a single room with nothing in it), and not only that but since you are not a constructor the concrete crumbles after 2 days.

So yeah, Capitalism > Socialism, at least if you care about whether a system actually works and doesn't just make you feel good about yourself for following its ideology. But as everything that is a false dichotomy if you refer to what actions one should take and what the system you want to live in should be (ideas from socialism work in capitalism)
#22


Quote by jrcsgtpeppers
There shall be a stop to this madness. The battle is not over. My tasty licks aren't going anywhere.

Quote by The_Blode
^ I've just realised if you say Simple Plan's 2011 effort "Get Your Heart On!" really fast in a Southern American accent, it sounds gross. . .like sexual gross!

Quote by Necroheadbanger
Hello.
I'm looking for professional bongo-ists and triangle-ists to make a Progressive Technical Brutal Death Metal band
(will be called AxOxJxLxAxIxVxXxUxWxZxQxUxRxWxGxJxSxAxLxKxMxNxHxUxGxAxAxWxVxCxBxZxVx)
(Don't even ask what it means)


https://soundcloud.com/95dank



#23
Quote by gonzaw
Trying to apply socialism as described by Marx to a modern republic without a care for nuance, patience, etc is very very likely to fail. Trying to apply Lenin's idea of socialims and his plans also very likely fails since the state stops at the "state capitalism" part of the equation and stays there, growing more and more authoritarian and allowing people to abuse it and hurt people and other systems (since the checks and balances that were carefully thought out for republics are suddenly gone in the name of "getting an intermediate socialist state before true socialism")

Capitalism historically leads to growth, technological advances, increase of quality of living, decreased mortality, and all the good things we like about humanity. It also is less called "capitalism" but more "default mode of economics". There is no "capitalist economy", there is only economy. The capitalist way is the default way humanity has dealt with economy and resources for most of humanity, it is economy, and where most of its concepts arise from (supply and demand, etc). However, some capitalist systems are not good and can be improved, specially the current "corporatist" one that happens in most of today's countries. I think there is no need to mention why this is (increased inequality, fucks other parts of the republic and its people because of it, when done in a large scale like in the US/China/etc it deals huge damage to the environment, it threatens the health of the people that consume its goods, and many more).

Our current republics are based on thousands of years of careful crafting of political systems, of experiments and cases of study and analysis. They are based on countless tests against it, where some times it failed (and we can know why it failed) and where some times it succeded (and we can know why). These republics are based on the "default mode of economics" which is capitalism (e.g places like ancient Athens where "capitalist", with people choosing their profession and working for profit, etc). You just can't dismantle this without a system that is so well-designed that it can address everything those thousands of years have taught us about how to govern people, how to manage republics, etc.
Sorry, but socialism or communism doesn't do that, it only tries to describe a small part of a possible future system showing its good properties current republics and capitalists systems don't possess, but it does nothing else. The historical examples we have of trying to apply them (albeit few attempts in a small time frame, compared to thousands of years of history we have from the other systems) failed, which IMO shows this flaw (the system is not well-designed at all).
Trying to substitute "capitalism" with "socialism" is like having a family of 20 living in a huge mansion made of wood, where the wood starts to rot. However, since you believe that "ideally" using concrete is better, you end up blowing up the house and creating a single-room made of concrete. Now you have wood and garbage all around the place, your family of 20 somehow have to live under a single room (that has no kitchen, has no bedrooms, no bathroom, nothing, just a single room with nothing in it), and not only that but since you are not a constructor the concrete crumbles after 2 days.

So yeah, Capitalism > Socialism, at least if you care about whether a system actually works and doesn't just make you feel good about yourself for following its ideology. But as everything that is a false dichotomy if you refer to what actions one should take and what the system you want to live in should be (ideas from socialism work in capitalism)
Living in a socialist country, I beg to disagree. I don't have the time to weite a coherent statement atm, but I'll come back to this later...
#24
I prefer anarchy TBH.
"A well-wound coil is a well-wound coil regardless if it's wound with professional equipment, or if somebody's great-grandmother winds it to an old French recipe with Napoleon's modified coffee grinder and chops off the wire after a mile with an antique guillotine!"
- Bill Lawrence

Come and be with me
Live my twisted dream
Pro devoted pledge
Time for primal concrete sledge

#25
Quote by Evilnine
I prefer anarchy TBH.


imma steal ur stuff nd kill u
Check out my band Disturbed
#27
Living in a socialist country, I beg to disagree. I don't have the time to weite a coherent statement atm, but I'll come back to this later.../QUOTE]

I was under the impression all "socialist" countries were in fact state capistalists. I presume the closest one to actual socialism is Cuba, but it still seems to me to be state capitalist, since it still lives in a capitalistic society (citizens have to buy goods), but the means of production are controlled by the state, companies are controlled by the state, prices are controlled by the state.
I don't know exactly how those countries work at the utmost detail, so I might be wrong, but that was the impression I got (i.e there was never a truly socialist country)

Quote by Evilnine
I prefer anarchy TBH.


We've had anarchy when were were just cavemen back in the day. I don't think it really worked out for us. Eventually you need a system with some sort of power structure, at the very least inside "groups". If that's so, at what point does it stop being anarchy and is just another system? If it is not truly anarchy, why not just ditch the label and try to figure out the optimal system and power structure to make everybody's life better?
Last edited by gonzaw at Feb 1, 2017,
#28
Even folks like Lenin essentially created state capitalist systems. Calling them socialism is dubious. Calling them communism is categorically false. They will argue that the goal is to dissolve the state and move towards a stateless society but



Quote by gonzaw
We've had anarchy when were were just cavemen back in the day. I don't think it really worked out for us. Eventually you need a system with some sort of power structure, at the very least inside "groups". If that's so, at what point does it stop being anarchy and is just another system? If it is not truly anarchy, why not just ditch the label and try to figure out the optimal system and power structure to make everybody's life better?
You need to go and research anarchy because it's not just what you see in Call of Duty type shooters when the dude with the balaclava and the molotov

For example, go look at syndicalism. Or mutualism. All you are doing is positing anarcho-primitivism as the only form of anarchy, which is, if I may be so bold, fucking stupid
they're coming to take me away
ha-haaa
Last edited by Banjocal at Feb 1, 2017,
#29
I think it should be our number one priority to just get separate planets for everyone - all problems solved
#30
Post-economic society when you nerds finally get to inventing consciousness uploading.

Quote by ultimate-slash
I think it should be our number one priority to just get separate planets for everyone - all problems solved

That's actually not a bad idea until people start giving birth on those planets, then we're back at square one cuz half those babies got into Choamsky and the other half got into Rand.
#32
Quote by Banjocal
You need to go and research anarchy because it's not just what you see in Call of Duty type shooters when the dude with the balaclava and the molotov

For example, go look at syndicalism. Or mutualism. All you are doing is positing anarcho-primitivism as the only form of anarchy, which is, if I may be so bold, fucking stupid


I know those exist, they come under "systems with power structure". Anarchy can be stated as "anti-statism", where you just don't want a state that holds absolute power. IMO I think that view is a little narrow if you just consider the state as another system. For instance, under some anarchy system you can still have a separate small society that behaves under monarchy, or democracy, etc, yet it still lives in an overall anarchy (when relating to other individuals and groups).
For me anarchy is less of a political system, and more of an qualifier based on the absolutism of the system you are proposing and how much power it holds. I don't think you'll ever have any "true" anarchy, in the sense that you'll always have some sort of system, with more power or less power, more people belonging to it or less, etc, and in such society power plays will happen and new systems will be put in place, others will dissolve, etc.
For example, if you take countries as "individuals", you could say the world is an anarchy, there is no inherent system these "individuals" belong to that has power over them, it's a free for all. However, you do get countries that form certain alliances, form organizations, etc. The EU for instance, would be a "small system" that has power over lots of "individuals" (European countries). Would it stop being an anarchy because of it? Or does it just mean that there are just different systems? What if the EU expanded to not just include countries from Europe but from other continents? What if every country eventually joined it? Where would the "anarchy" stop and the "state" start?

I think we've grown very used to specific systems and set of systems that we just assume everything belongs to one of them and we must call them a name. IMO the reality is that the label we give them does not matter when it comes down to the realm of all possible systems there can be, both for individuals, for organizations, for countries, etc.
#33
Quote by ultimate-slash
Yeah, but I can easily take one baby in a fight

But you cannot fight that baby's ideas. They are larger than the baby.
#34
gonzaw

It really doesn't matter what anarchy means to you though. That's like when people say that China is a communist country (likewise, the sky is green). You can feel it to be the case all you like but it categorically is not.

An anarchist society requires a non-hierarchical institution if it has one at all. It instead is based on a voluntarily self-governing society. That in itself is a form of system. Monarchy cannot be anarchy because it is hierarchical. You might have a nation that has no centralised government but the societies that build within such a nation are individually other things. If you feel the need to define anarchy as a relative inversion of statism and not a set of political positions far more nuanced than just "anti-statism" then you are free to, but there is a term for that: category error.

As I noted before, what you call anarchy is but one highly biased conception of the absolute extreme end of anarchy, and by virtue of such a primitivist example what you really describe is primitivism: that it is anarchic in nature is merely incidental.
they're coming to take me away
ha-haaa
Last edited by Banjocal at Feb 1, 2017,
#35
Quote by gonzaw
We've had anarchy when were were just cavemen back in the day. I don't think it really worked out for us. Eventually you need a system with some sort of power structure, at the very least inside "groups". If that's so, at what point does it stop being anarchy and is just another system? If it is not truly anarchy, why not just ditch the label and try to figure out the optimal system and power structure to make everybody's life better?



Well I was just joking You my freind put alot more thought into that than I did
"A well-wound coil is a well-wound coil regardless if it's wound with professional equipment, or if somebody's great-grandmother winds it to an old French recipe with Napoleon's modified coffee grinder and chops off the wire after a mile with an antique guillotine!"
- Bill Lawrence

Come and be with me
Live my twisted dream
Pro devoted pledge
Time for primal concrete sledge

#36
Quote by StewieSwan
imma steal ur stuff nd kill u


Holy shit I actually LOL at that one.

Bring it on if you dare

Stewie attempting to rob an kill me

Stewie before

Me beating his ass

Stewie after:

Comic violence intended!
"A well-wound coil is a well-wound coil regardless if it's wound with professional equipment, or if somebody's great-grandmother winds it to an old French recipe with Napoleon's modified coffee grinder and chops off the wire after a mile with an antique guillotine!"
- Bill Lawrence

Come and be with me
Live my twisted dream
Pro devoted pledge
Time for primal concrete sledge

#37
Quote by ali.guitarkid7
But you cannot fight that baby's ideas. They are larger than the baby.

Why do you have to shatter my dreams?
#39
Quote by ali.guitarkid7
Don't be a baby about it.

Don't underestimate me. My ideas are a lot bigger than my tiny feetsies.
#40
you two should release a "Political Theory Made Cute" book
they're coming to take me away
ha-haaa
Page 1 of 3