Politics & Stuff

[bushman 2,043]

Completely agree with the last sentence which is why I said I'm not 100% with it. But you need balance in a society. Everywhere in the world capitalism has had to make changes because you can't expect people to accept 95% of society to do all the work and the other 5% to own all the money. You''' certainly have a civil war on your hands. I think capitalism needs to make more changes and in some cases socialism still does seem to help societies more.

I admire your wishful thinking though. This world & its wealth distribution might not be fair, I agree.

However, did we find, implemented any better system than the capitalist one ? No, we did not.

Are the wealthy nations willing to share with the poorer ones ? Perhaps, several tons of wheat, flour are sent but that´s all she wrote.

As for your notion of socialism seems to help. May I point out Soviet Union, Eastern block countries under Soviet dominance, just about every one of them are 20 years behind.

Socialism is a myth based on equality. It does not work. People can not get the same money. An eye surgeon can not make the same as a street sweeper.

Times are not changing. There are two kinds of people. Those that have plenty & those that have very little.

[bushman 2,043]

Both Capitalism and Socialism (this is so vague because there are so many forms, but I will guess we are talking about the scientific one discribed by Marx and Engels) can thrive, they just need the right conditions to do so!

Do you know that Marx & Engels were from very rich families ?

Their book is an utopia & nothing else. I never worked, anywhere.

[SinineUltra 1,170]

Both Capitalism and Socialism (this is so vague because there are so many forms, but I will guess we are talking about the scientific one discribed by Marx and Engels) can thrive, they just need the right conditions to do so!

Soviet Union was 100% socialism. I read a good example of its 'productivity' a while back: let's say you start to grade tests in a way socialism works. It would mean that every person gets the same grade, regardless if he or she has worked enough for it. People who study a lot will get a lesser grade of which they'd deserve and the ones who don't put in the work will reap the rewards. Eventually the smart ones will not give a fuck and will not study, the rest will obviously expect the latter to carry them. All in all they will all get an F, because that's where this kind of not caring will take you.

One more thing about Soviet Union and its way of ruling. In Estonia we had to live in poverty unless you openly asslicked the ruling(and only) party. There was nothing on the shelves to buy and even the slightest of luxuries you can think today were in deficit. Plus the distortion of history and world views. Nothing came in, nothing came out. It was a brainwash.

[Rmpr 8,977]

Do you know that Marx & Engels were from very rich families ?

Their book is an utopia & nothing else. I never worked, anywhere.

So? Rich people cant have good intentions?

I always find it very stupid from poor people to judge whoever has money or was born in a wealthy family and vice-versa!

Also, it was never really tried, but I agree it is an utopia. I am a capitalist person, but I dont blind defend it.

Soviet Union was 100% socialism. I read a good example of its 'productivity' a while back: let's say you start to grade tests in a way socialism works. It would mean that every person gets the same grade, regardless if he or she has worked enough for it. People who study a lot will get a lesser grade of which they'd deserve and the ones who don't put in the work will reap the rewards. Eventually the smart ones will not give a fuck and will not study, the rest will obviously expect the latter to carry them. All in all they will all get an F, because that's where this kind of not caring will take you.

One more thing about Soviet Union and its way of ruling. In Estonia we had to live in poverty unless you openly asslicked the ruling(and only) party. There was nothing on the shelves to buy and even the slightest of luxuries you can think today were in deficit. Plus the distortion of history and world views. Nothing came in, nothing came out. It was a brainwash.

I agree with the outcomes of USSR economic system, but they werent 100% Socialists. Stalin broke almost all the basic rules of Scientific Socialism that Lenin was trying to implement!

Soviet Union and China had some fucked up Socialism Goverments...

[bushman 2,043]

So? Rich people cant good intentions?

I always find it very stupid from poor people to judge whoever has money or was born in a wealthy family!

I agree with the outcomes of USSR economic system, but they werent 100% Socialists. Stalin broke almost all the basic rules of Scientific Socialism that Lenin was trying to implement!

Soviet Union and China had some fucked up Socialism Goverments...

When one is born into a wealthy family, he/she does not know much about poor people.

Many of these spoiled brats, were not with it. M&E were dreamers.

Lenin was told what to do in Switzerland. Came back to Russia full of uneducated peasants who had no clue. Consequently he brainwashed them all & killed the Tsar.

Stalin was just a mass murderer.

[Rmpr 8,977]

When one is born into a wealthy family, he/she does not know much about poor people.

This is not true, typical stereotype!

[Kieran. 6,317]

People discrediting socialism by bringing up the USSR should reconsider. Socialism is the proletariat owning/controlling the means of production and "state socialism" is the complete opposite of that...it was controlled by an appointed State apparatus, one which received benefits and privileges that weren't readily available to the working man. Some socialists even go as far to say that the USSR was state capitalist, but I personally think that's not the case. Workers had some control via workers' councils.

Socialism isn't about a rise in living standards, it's about a society democratically run by the people who live in it, worker control, etc. As far as I'm concerned, that wasn't the case with the USSR.

[Rmpr 8,977]

People discrediting socialism by bringing up the USSR should reconsider. Socialism is the proletariat owning/controlling the means of production and "state socialism" is the complete opposite of that...it was controlled by an appointed State apparatus, one which received benefits and privileges that weren't readily available to the working man. Some socialists even go as far to say that the USSR was state capitalist, but I personally think that's not the case. Workers had some control via workers' councils.

Socialism isn't about a rise in living standards, it's about a society democratically run by the people who live in it, worker control, etc. As far as I'm concerned, that wasn't the USSR.

Thank you! (I am in the middle of a class to do such a classy post)

Like I said, USSR had some fucked up Socialism and it had nothing to do with what it was initially planed. It wasnt a dictatorship of the proletariat!

I have inumerous issues with Socialism, but I can recognise that it was never even tried and that it is not a "devil" as your country likes to make...

[bushman 2,043]

This is not true, typical stereotype!

No, it is not. It´s common knowledge.

As for Soviet socialism.

It never existed. It was nothing but an oppressive regime for the chosen ones.

[Rmpr 8,977]

No, it is not. It´s common knowledge.

As for Soviet socialism.

It never existed. It was nothing but an oppressive regime for the chosen ones.

No it isnt. Being rich is just an economic state, it tells absolutely nothing about the person. Maybe only that he has a fat bank account, lives in a shit awesome apartment and drives a Porsche. What this has to do with his intelligence or his ability to perceive his surrondings and try to improve what is wrong?

As for Soviet Socialism, I agree.

[bushman 2,043]

No it isnt. Being rich is just an economic state, it tells absolutely nothing about the person. Maybe only that he has a fat bank account, lives in a shit awesome apartment and drives a Porsche. What this has to do with his intelligence or his ability to perceive his surrondings and try to improve what is wrong?

As for Soviet Socialism, I agree.

Those with money do not live in the world of common folks. Their perception of poverty just might be distorted.

[Rmpr 8,977]

Those with money do not live in the world of common folks. Their perception of poverty just might be distorted.

Another stereotype at its best. A lot of rich people have a way better perception of poverty than middle class people...

Rich fellows are not snob as TV shows, many are well educated and have a sense of social problems. A lot do volunteers works (and I dont mean, write a check), going to favelas and spending the day helping children learn how to read or do basic math operations so they can have at least hope. I have also seen people doing big purchases of fish (because it is a rather expensive product in Sao Paulo) and spending the whole fucking Sunday cooking for the children. I know this may seem all superficial, but what do you want them to do? Donate all their fucking money so people can feel pitty about them and call them humble? Actually, when they spend money buying products, they are helping the economy in all sorts of ways.

There are all sorts of people and they can all be found in all classes. Mark was a fucking stupid intelligent dude that happened to be rich. This cant be used as an argument in a smart debate, it has no value. I am not defending rich people in a broader sense, I am only defending their right to give their opinion about what they think is best for the workforce!

Of course only who lives in shit conditions knows how it is like, but it is pretty stupid to say rich people have a distorced sense of reality. Maybe those dumb old ladies that pass the whole day in the spa, but they dont count for nothing!

EDIT: I am against billionaires who have way more money than one can imagine and live out of this world, doing nothing good. However, they are not even classified as rich people...

[SinineUltra 1,170]

There are exceptions but rule of the thumb is that rich people do live in a different world to others, there's no denying.

[Rmpr 8,977]

There are exceptions but rule of the thumb is that rich people do live in a different world to others, there's no denying.

No, they live a much better life, but they do know what happens around them!

It is ridiculous to say rich people cant write about what it is best for the people because they are clueless little boys driving expensive cars. That is why this conversation started in the first place. Nobody is denying they live in a different life.

At least in Brazil, rich people in Europe might be dumb I dont know...

[bushman 2,043]

No, they live a much better life, but they do know what happens around them!

It is ridiculous to say rich people cant write about what it is best for the people because they are clueless little boys driving expensive cars. That is why this conversation started in the first place. Nobody is denying they live in a different life.

At least in Brazil, rich people in Europe might be dumb I dont know...

Funny but now you´re posting here rich people in Europe might be dumb. How stupid is that ?

Meanwhile, you twisted everything I said.

There are those who do help. Some help because they need to reduce their taxes. Then, there are those who do not help poor folks at all. Take your pick.

[SinineUltra 1,170]

No, they live a much better life, but they do know what happens around them!

It is ridiculous to say rich people cant write about what it is best for the people because they are clueless little boys driving expensive cars. That is why this conversation started in the first place. Nobody is denying they live in a different life.

At least in Brazil, rich people in Europe might be dumb I dont know...

You get agitated very fast and need to spit out something venomous, does it really have to be this way? Maybe there's a reason you might take this the way you are?

[bushman 2,043]

You get agitated very fast and need to spit out something venomous, does it really have to be this way? Maybe there's a reason you might take this the way you are?

Shall we say, the main man in Brazil where the most generous rich people live ?

[MetsajCFC 1,255]

Though I must say, Rmpr don't take it so personally

[Peppen 934]

Regarding "Socialism" in the USSR, it was never truly socialism. It was a dictatorship like so many other regimes, claiming to be socialist.

Think about it. It is SO easy to abuse the ideals of socialism, the mere beautiful thought of equality and prosper for everyone, of course poor people would contribute to a revolution to end their sufferings.

"Since 1930 I had seen little evidence that the USSR was progressing towards anything that one could truly call Socialism. On the contrary, I was struck by clear signs of its transformation into a hierarchical society, in which the rulers have no more reason to give up their power than any other ruling class. Moreover, the workers and intelligentsia in a country like England cannot understand that the USSR of today is altogether different from what it was in 1917. It is partly that they do not want to understand (i.e. they want to believe that, somewhere, a really Socialist country does actually exist), and partly that, being accustomed to comparative freedom and moderation in public life, totalitarianism is completely incomprehensible to them."

"In my opinion, nothing has contributed so much to the corruption of the original idea of socialism as the belief that Russia is a socialist country and that every act of its rulers must be excused, if not imitated."

- George Orwell. Although being a self proclaimed socialist/communist he had some very interesting views regarding ideology. Granted, I'm a huge fan of his works, but I still find my self agreeing to most of his observations and specially the notion of social class structures.

[bushman 2,043]

In Soviet Union at that time.

The most cruel era this world had ever known.

Killings, Gulags, all under the pretense of socialism. The biggest dog of all Stalin was getting rid of opposition at will.