Would you vote for a socialist presidential candidate?

Would you vote for a socialist presidential candidate?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 38.5%

  • No

    Votes: 8 61.5%
  • Total voters
    13
Steelplate said:
I agree with you for the most part..especially your thoughts on this crazy, fucked up version of Capitalism.... it's like the robber/baron days all over again.....perhaps you're right though about the perception thing.....I'm old enough to remember the Cold War and still have an association in my mind of Communism and the Iron Curtain and lately...North Korea.
Click to expand...

i too remember the cold war and the evolution of the russian revolution into a totalitarian government and the maoist government into a totalitarian government

oh well...you know what they say about good intentions and the road to hell
 
Lowaicue said:
All political parties, indeed all organisations that seek to change and influence populations use MadAve tactics. Language has always been used to change minds and always will. Like most things these tactics may be used for good and bad.
I find your over simplification of the discussion disappointing.
Click to expand...

I was just extrapolating from your own words, has Pavlovianism become a political doctrine?
 
Libertad! said:
Counter-hegemony. We've seen that humans are predisposed to collectivism - the guilds, village communities, various religious and secular communes, the success of anarchism and co-ops -, so all that's left is to foster that part of our nature, and provide a means of putting it into public decisions. So, I'd say the best way forward is to have a party - using the NRA's current strategy, which is reminiscent of Trotsky - as a means of organizing a popular movement against the government.
Click to expand...
"the success of anarchism and co-ops"? Please cite examples of these things being successful.
 
Steelplate said:
Well, explain to me how you get an entire population to buy into it without forcing them to give up the old ways?
Click to expand...

Just look at the United States for your answer. Marx gave the answer

1) Eliminate religion - there has been an all out assault on religion for years
2) Eliminate the traditional family - there has been an all out assault on the traditional family for years; queer marriage is the latest battle in that war
3) Eliminate private property rights - Kelo anyone?

Do these three things and you move the country toward collectivism which has been the goal of the left for 100 years. They smartly knew that they couldn't do it overnight. So they took over the media and the educational system. And here we are with a dipshit President that shouldn't even be a trash collector let along President and dipshit low information voters who swoon over it.
 
Lowaicue said:
Mao started as simply a revolutionary. It was while on the long march (which he did not start incidentally) that he started to formulate his philosophy. He was fighting the corruption of Chiang Kai Shek and the invasion of the Japanese. it was but a small step to the realisation that something about China was very very sick. The Russians were setting up soviets in China and promoting their particular brand of government which they called communism. Mao learned of true communism and when he was, by acclaim, given the job of 'leader' he believed in communism. He brought millions out of slavery, he made sure the state could feed and house the peasants, but then he completely lost his way. the great leap forward was a disaster, the first and second five year plans failed miserably and he realised that if he was to really help China he had to develop an authoritarian system of government. His policies, by that time had caused the deaths of millions and had he not been totally ruthless he would have been taken away and shot. Communism in China had ultimately failed as had Mao and we in the west watched in horror the cultural revolution and the way power bent the minds of ordinary people.
Click to expand...
And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is how communism(and socialism) works! Always, wherever it is tried.
 
callinectes said:
And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is how communism(and socialism) works! Always, wherever it is tried.
Click to expand...

But don't automatically assume that the only alternative is pure capitalism or god or guns. How many different democracies are their? How many different autocracies are there?
You are are in danger of huge over simplification and what I call binary thought.
 
callinectes said:
And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is how communism(and socialism) works! Always, wherever it is tried.
Click to expand...

Wrong. China and Russia were economically backwards countries where communism was then unrealizable - Lenin actually admitted that. That's why Stalinism and the great leap occurred. To produce economic conditions under which it would be able to be put in place.

Kautsky made it very clear that the conditions for communism didn't exist. That they would present themselves - which they have. Thus came the "passive revolutionists". Communism isn't wrong on principal, but it was tried at the wrong times, in the wrong places.

And what do you mean by "and socialism"? You know what that word means, right?

Absolutists are annoying...
 
callinectes said:
"the success of anarchism and co-ops"? Please cite examples of these things being successful.
Click to expand...

Spain(pre-Franco/communism), Israel, and Argentina(pre-IMF) are the best examples of anarchism in play.

As for co-ops, Spain and Italy have had a lot of success with them. Places like Canada and the USA have seen some as well. Plus, there's a decent body of research to say that, along with the other benefits, co-ops, done right, are more productive than top-downs.

Kropotkin did a good job showing some of these communitarian models throughout history, if you're interested.
 
Libertad! said:
Wrong. China and Russia were economically backwards countries where communism was then unrealizable - Lenin actually admitted that. That's why Stalinism and the great leap occurred. To produce economic conditions under which it would be able to be put in place.

Kautsky made it very clear that the conditions for communism didn't exist. That they would present themselves - which they have. Thus came the "passive revolutionists". Communism isn't wrong on principal, but it was tried at the wrong times, in the wrong places.

And what do you mean by "and socialism"? You know what that word means, right?

Absolutists are annoying...
Click to expand...

So, communism requires a strong, successful, capitalist system and infrastructure in order to be successful? Can you say, 'parasitic?'
 
Threedee said:
So, communism requires a strong, successful, capitalist system and infrastructure in order to be successful? Can you say, 'parasitic?'
Click to expand...

I think co-ops were more what he had in mind. A classless business where profits are spread across the workforce.... I happen to agree with the idea... or at least think it's worth a try.
 
Threedee said:
So, communism requires a strong, successful, capitalist system and infrastructure in order to be successful? Can you say, 'parasitic?'
Click to expand...

I'd just say that, as a system designed to resolve the flaws posed by capitalism, communism needs those flaws to be present. It was never mean to industrialize nations - that was to be left up to socialism and capitalism -, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. There's also the internationalist idea that existing socialisms and communisms would help industrialize these nations, so they could be highly decentralized (Essentially skipping capitalism and the earlier parts of socialism.)

An aside: the most important thing to remember about communism, especially the Marxian kind, is that it was a process ideology.
 
Libertad! said:
I'd just say that, as a system designed to resolve the flaws posed by capitalism, communism needs those flaws to be present. It was never mean to industrialize nations - that was to be left up to socialism and capitalism -, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. There's also the internationalist idea that existing socialisms and communisms would help industrialize these nations, so they could be highly decentralized (Essentially skipping capitalism and the earlier parts of socialism.)

An aside: the most important thing to remember about communism, especially the Marxian kind, is that it was a process ideology.
Click to expand...

A process ideology..:rofl2:

Obama 's parents were leftists and you think he is a Capitalist! :lolup:
 
Threedee said:
So, communism requires a strong, successful, capitalist system and infrastructure in order to be successful? Can you say, 'parasitic?'
Click to expand...

i am curious as to how you reached that conclusion form the post, besides, we tried unchecked capitalism and it nearly destroyed the nation to the benefit of a few, sort of like the repug model for today, but with a large touch of theocracy added in...neither unalloyed communism nor capitalism work
 
Steelplate said:
I think co-ops were more what he had in mind. A classless business where profits are spread across the workforce.... I happen to agree with the idea... or at least think it's worth a try.
Click to expand...

local co-ops are a form of communism and a good form, we need more co-ops, however, it always necessary to beware of those that run them. credit unions are also a form of co-ops and once more a good form...until they get too big

during the savings and loan failures, the government wanted to merge the credit union equivalent of the s&l fdic to steal their money to prop up the s&ls

we did not learn during that crisis just how bad irresponsible lending could mess up our financial system...and the repugs still want deregulation of our financial system!

credit unions are strictly regulated and require their leadership to be elected members of the credit union and are not for profit and they work
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top