Alpha/Omega is a big ass POTATO - Templer s are no clan anymore...

[BlindGuy]

And we never will have "true" socialism, because it's an ideology that doesn't take into account human nature. You have the wrong sort of creature in humans if you think "socialism" is an achievable or even desirable thing. Which is why the first step in any of the countries that HAVE tried it has always been a so-called transition period that ends up stretching out and never reaching completion, because completion is simply impossible.
Humans are social creatures, true, but they are also independent individuals.

I re-read to make sure I hadn't typed something by accident, but I was right: WHERE did I say that socialism WAS achievable, or that I desire it? And as to "Countries that have [socialism]" statement you make, that sentence defeats itself, since a single cell within the global community can no more be socialist by itself than it can decree that its citizens will no longer be consuming air. I do agree, humans are not suited to socialism.

Talk about drivel.  That's like saying all the world must be capitalist for capitalism to work.  It's a non-sequitur.  The reason it has never worked is because it is unworkable by it's very nature, for the reasons stated.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
Winston Churchill

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
Winston Churchill

"Socialism is the same as Communism, only better English."
George Bernard Shaw

"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
Alexis de Tocqueville

Hardly purveyors of drivel, and with the exception of de Tocqueville, they are quite recent observers.  Even though de Tocqueville was writing in the 18th century, that does not invalidate his observations on the basic nature of socialism.

...Your quite foolish:

You seem to have misunderstood. Bernard Shaw was commending socialism in that quote you have, not attacking it.

Churchill (and his father before him) was CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, he was a conservative who believed in the superiority of some men over others by THEIR BIRTH. If you also believe that some people are born to rule others, you are despicable. Also don't forget Churchill was a failure as a military leader as well as a thinker (He masterminded a DISASTROUS campaign in WW1, and caused the British economy to almost collapse between the 2 wars), and the ONLY reason he is outstanding in people's view of historical figures is because he refused to broker peace with Germany, even after it obvious that Britain was going to loose the war. If Japan had not bombed Pearl Harbour, Britain would speak German today and Churchill would be long forgotten (This is not a Pro chocolate chip cookie Germany sentiment, I abhor all that was done by that Austrain freak and his "Nationalist Socialism" rascist ideology). Considering the fact that Churchill was a millionaire from birth, was born in Blenheim palace, was the son of a Duke, and grandson on the Viceroy of Ireland, OF COURSE HE WAS GOING TO VIEW A POLITICAL PHYLOSOFY THAT MEANT HIS INHERITED WEALTH WOULD NO LONGER BE HIS UNLESS HE WORKED FOR IT as a negative thing.

As for de Tocqueville: Remember that he wrote in French, and many arguments have ensued among greater minds than yours or mine as to which of the many translations really carries the meaning of his sentiments, not merely the meaning of the words. His main claim to fame was predicting the cold-war between the USA and the USSR. Democracy was a new practise in the modern world in his time, and socialism merely an ideal, but unfortunatly I cannot take anything he wrote seriously, since he was the worst of all hippocrites: He opposed slavery and racial segregation in North America, but was outspoken in his support of racial segragation in French occupied Algeria. The comment that you have quoted was one of the reason's those opposed to restructuring society along lines of effort=reward started using that rediculous argument (socialists wany to share everything) that sparked this debate, but since it is unfounded and he ment to praise the ideal of selfrestraint and servitude for the furtherance of societal goals, and it is misrepresentative to assume this was an attack on socialist ideals, I wont refute his claim. But EVEN if the true meaning of the quote is that he reguards socialism as a restraining bond on freedom, I would NOT take much heed of what he says: He believed Turks were inherintly EVIL because they were muslim...


So, all in all, Bernard Shaw supporting socialism, and the rest, yes, so much drivel. Educate yourself, fool.

[BlindGuy]

Turkhammer, don't confuse socialism that you see in western capitalistic countries today with big S Socialism, which is basically communism. Pure unbridled social darwinian Capitalism is just as unrealistic and unsuitable to humanity, and like Socialism never has and never will exist. They're abstract ideological constructs.
Capitalism as it is practiced now is the "fairest" way of wealth-distribution that we have. The most attractive thing about it is the meritocracy aspect. But I've seen way too many people who are huge capitalism proponents who think "fair" is a dirty word, which just goes to show they don't even understand what they support.

You pretty smart guy.

[Turkhammer]

Blind Guy, you sure like to toss around  insults, as if that reinforces your arguments.  Typical of small minded people. 

That is your interpretation of what Shaw meant.  Anything that equates socialism with communism damns socialism.
Churchill may have been conservative but that does not mean he was wrong about socialism. 

My basic point at the beginning of this discussion was that socialism as proposed by Marx is bound to fail because it does not take account of human nature.  That is because it advocates state ownership of the means of production and REDISTRIBUTION of wealth.  The only way to achieve that is to tax the productive and support the non-productive.

If you wish to continue with the ad hominem attacks and insults you can kindly go fuck yourself.


Oberyn:  Thank you.  I fully recognize that socialism as advocated by Marx and Lenin is different from what is practiced in much of Western Europe and Scandanavia.  By the same token it seems to me that a "nanny state" with cradle to grave care can only be supported for so long.  Especially with an aging population.  I also agree that unbridled capitalism can be as pernicious as any other form of economic behavior.

[BlindGuy]

Blind Guy, you sure like to toss around  insults, as if that reinforces your arguments.  Typical of small minded people. 

That is your interpretation of what Shaw meant.  Anything that equates socialism with communism damns socialism.
Churchill may have been conservative but that does not mean he was wrong about socialism. 

My basic point at the beginning of this discussion was that socialism as proposed by Marx is bound to fail because it does not take account of human nature.  That is because it advocates state ownership of the means of production and REDISTRIBUTION of wealth.  The only way to achieve that is to tax the productive and support the non-productive.

If you wish to continue with the ad hominem attacks and insults you can kindly go fuck yourself.

I didnt make ANY ad hominem attack on you: and once again I call you a fool: You did not state before that you wanted us to limit the word SOCIALISM to be only the philosofy of Marx, and also you have not grasped: Communism is also a great ideal THAT WE HAVE NEVER SEEN IN PRACTISE because a SINGLE STATE cannot be communist, just as we established that a SINGLE state cannot be socialist. So dont use failed nationstates's attempts at communism as reasoning that communism is "bad" and damns socialism. Shaw was a fervent socialist btw. And that means he wanted those who work to be rewarded, not merely those who claim to work to be rewarded. The banking crisis of the last few years nicely supports that I think: Even when they had totally failed at a game that THEY wrote the rules for, the bankers still gave themselves the biggest annual bonus to date. I bet they are having a VERY hearty Xmas laugh because of THAT feat.

Now: You need to set yourself a definition of "Productive" because currently 99% of the world's wealth is in the hands of the "unproductive" and it certainly did not get there by "redistribution" as you put it: You honestly make me laugh, you cannot seem to seperate yourself from some rightwing textbook you have been reading it seems: Socialism does NOT support the unproductive, NOT IN ANY WAY: It is commonly held in socialist philosofy that on the day when FINALLY we manage to make the majority of the population SEE that we have destroyed our planet, we need to ALL cooperate in a single effort to save our species, that competition for finite resources has altered a VERY fragile balance our existance is based on; on that day, a purge of the unproductive is unfortunate but nescesary. But realistically, its that or we all die: We are finishing the oil wars now, we have 10-15 years before the water wars start, soon after that the artificial lines we have drawn on the map will be melted, and the alignment of the continents in competition WILL beguin, just as Orwell said it would, only instead of perpetual war for civic traquility, there will collosal industrial war over the only resource we REALLY need, the water. Realistically, unless we find a way to travel in space, that war WILL happen, and it WILL purge between 1/3 and 1/5th of the population of the planet, at least. Thats the population, not the HUMAN population. Then will be the moment when HOPEFULLY, we abandon the ideal of "fight for life" where we compete, and we will begin to cooperate to survive as a species, rather than shorttermed individual advancement. THAT is what current Socialists believe, that competition must be left to die its natural death worldwide so the mentality that creates it can die too. So Im sorry if you base your definition on philosofy from 100 years ago, or on what you were taught at school, or on the statement of any political group, I base my thinking on what the minds of OUR era are thinking, using history as a guide and psychology as a template for human reaction.

Your homework for today is to look up a definition for ad hominem. Because I refute your argument, with my argument. I merely call you a fool for not forming your own ideas. Dropping quotes you havent understood from historic figures who werent great minds even at their time does not an argument make. Next you'll quote the bible I guess...its about as relevant to intelligent debate as Churchill, who let's be honest, while a dogged leader, was a fucking idiot.

[Vibe]

Dear god this thread started out as semi good drama but then you guys ruin it with boring shit.

[MrShovelFace]

Only crpg could breed these kinds of people
let us pray that no more than 20 crpg players meet irl at one time or my god the fabric of the universe would fall apart

[Tears of Destiny]

Bad news, due to Fallen Finish meet-ups, the universe has torn itself apart.

[bredeus]

Please move this thing to spam or historical discussion.
I remember quite good a real socialism it worked as "good" as in North Korea now....

[Goretooth]

I stole a bunch of kittens

[Warpeasant]

All Hail The Mighty Council! All Hail The Pope!

He who has an ear let him hear my words.

The Peasants have been beaten down in the fareaway deserts, only few of many have seen the wisdom of the words of the almighty and have surrenderd to the almighty Potato... Acre, Jerusalem, the Temple Mount and the mighty Dome of Rock are save Once more. Spread the news around all the civilized european world, what has begun as an uprising of the peasant has been dealt with, the mighty Knights of the Templar s rule once more and are ready to protect there land from the heretic indians with the hilarious ping we have heard of in a fareaway land...

He who has an eye let him see what was written.

As it turned out the peasants we nothing more than illiterate, mentally handicaped, children bewteen 12-15 (oh boy i wish) who were never taught blocking a blade but only relied on thier dirty peasant clothes to protect them. Strong you say they might have been, but they moved like rocks and didn t stand a chance against our battle hardned, quick and agile warriors. Who made short work with them.

The allmighty has graced us with a shipment of fresh ware s, that can soon be sold and turned into arrows to rain down on our ferocious foes, bringing nothing but weeping woman that are left behind. We dare not look at them, because our hearts are broken from all we have witnessed, our spirit's nevertheless stay high because we fight a reighous war.

He who has a mouth let him Form the words.

For the better, for the united, for the strong leadership they stand!
Mighty Templar s roam the land,
Unforgiving blade s they swing,
in hundred years thier song s we sing.

A Templar Knight is truly a fearless knight,
and secure on every side,
for his soul is protected by the armor of faith,
just as his body is protected by the armor of steel.
He is thus doubly-armed, and need fear neither demons nor men.

The evil Peasant was captured, charged with heresy, blasphemy and all other emy's and esy's known to foul mankind. Never again shall he see the light of the Temple of Salomon, never again shall he hear the words of the mighty potato in the Temple of nditions. Farewell my brother s, farewell...

To all the people comenting here, i asked for a public decision and i got what i asked for. It seems i was wrong, but nevertheless i don t think i like the way strategus  is played now a days. Why do i pay a couple of 100k upkeep to get my crafting skill in lordly equipment over 20 and than i m not allowed to craft anything with my own money. So let a humble peasant declare that alpha seemed right and i was wrong, i take my hat and leave to land that seems more appealing to me...

Oh and to the derailed people, i don t think that communism nor socialism is evil... i just belive it doesn t work with people who destroy the only habitat they can live in "earth" and are as selfish as myself. So as long as you can t smack some sence into them, or put them into a cage like most of the leaders in these systems did you are bound to fail. And even then you only have a few good years.

With best regards to all my Templar friends and Angry Commentators, I love the world the mighty chadz has created with his band of brothers...

Banned_Warpeasant

Any misspelled words you can keep, i am no native engish writer...

[Overdriven]

Wtf happened in this thread? Have only read the last post by blindguy 

Christ some of you people 

[ShinySpoons]

Wtf happened in this thread?

[FRANK_THE_TANK]

Sounds like a royal king cnut.

[Rubicon]

 

[Elmetiacos]

Hardly purveyors of drivel, and with the exception of de Tocqueville, they are quite recent observers.  Even though de Tocqueville was writing in the 18th century, that does not invalidate his observations on the basic nature of socialism.

Although, as leader of the Conservative Party, Churchill can't really be expected to be an unbiased source on the subject...