Official Politics Thread!

[LordBerenger]

Which would you class me as derpenger?

Errrrr........ehmm....KKK member?

[polkafranzi]

Errrrr........ehmm....KKK member?

<----------------------

 

[BlindGuy]

You're talking about me being ignorant? And yet you're an anarchist. You believe in a society without a government. You honestly believe ''moral laws'' would keep the population calm and that they would actually behave rationally and think as well?

And you call yourself a ''realist''. You honestly believe in an anarchist society? And you don't think that without a government violence will escalate and gangs will eventually be in charge of your country?


You're the one thinking like a lunatic and have no understanding of the world and how it would act if there's no regulation at all. You're just a joke when it comes to your political views/beliefs.

Juvenile beliefs is what it is.

No...realistic beliefs. I keep what I can hold. A gang may not be nice, but it is an organisation, and yet even while you attempt to lecture me about anarchy you use the word country...you really havent understood the very basics of ANY system, yet feel you can discuss them. Go read a book, or go out and experience the world mate, you are living down a well.

[Kafein]

I'm always confused when people use the word "liberal" in english.

In french it means you support liberty. Of all forms. And that of course means supporting a free economy, free speech, free import/export/immigration/emigration, free social life (the government doesn't tell you what to do with your penis), free religion, church/state separatism (shame on you americans, SHAME ON YOU AND YOUR BACKWARD BIGOT COUNTRY).

So yeah I'm definetly all of the above. I think I'm more like a libertarian in american english words. But there's one big difference though. I do not believe in a strict non-interventionist government. There inevitably exist natural monopolies/oligopolies such as gaz, electricity, telecoms or postal service. Those sectors, even with the best goodwill, will never develop a healthy competitive market, and will also inevitably end up being semi-governmental monsters, with all the corruption you can think of since both are dependant of each other. Other sectors such as education or heathcare have to be somehow guaranteed because they form the basis of society, so they have to be at least partly linked to the government.




Communism is an utopy that proved not to work. And it doesn't work for a very simple reason. People are selfish. And you can't change that. Maybe they aren't selfish with their family and friends, but extremely few people will wholeheartedly accept to give what they earned through their work to such a distant being as "all the other people". Everybody cares about whom they know, but not about the others.

Capitalism doesn't really push society towards equality, but it does work. You can be any type of person, you cannot cheat a capitalist society into not working for the rest of the people.

Also, it is arguable that through working, a capitalist society will increase relative inequalities, but also increase the quality of life of the poor a lot more than that of the rich. Say, being a hobo in Swaziland, you die. Being a hobo in Las Vegas, you can have a decent life. In the 70's the crisis in europe resulted in some of the middle/low class having trouble to buy food. Now the same people are whining they can't buy a smartphone or go on vacation. It's because the prices of general consumption goods are falling that the economy gives numbers showing inequalities, not that "the poor become poorer" as I often hear.

[BlindGuy]

No kafein. Western capitalism only works as long as their is a 3rd world to produce all the consumer goods that are lowering in price. Once they have attained a level of wealth that they no longer feel the need to work for pennies a day, they must then find someone ELSE worse off to produce for them. This cannot be sustained. Only a 2 systems are sustainable: a socialist form, or an anarchistic one.

Im SO tired of reading ppl write about "Socialist state". By its very nature, you cannot have a socialist state. Socialism has NEVER been tested, all attemps to create a single state that is socialist are doomed to failure by a misunderstanding of the very basic element of socialism: EVERYONE has equal wealth BUT ONLY IF THEY ARE EQUALLY productive, there is no space for lazyness, a FUNDAMENTAL part of socialism is that EVERYONE means EVERYONE, not just the people of one state. Of course a single communist state surrounded by countries run by greed will be corrupt, noone can resist the temptation to screw the socialist machine over for personal gain, if they can use that gain in a neighboring country to live a life of indolence. For ANY test of the socialist ideal, it would require THE PLANET to become socialist, and reward for industry. Being industrious in ANY production is valuable. Consuming for the sake of expending is ridiculously unsustainable.


Here is an example of capitalism: In the '70s a washing machine was invented that was durable and well balanced enough that if would not feasibly break without misuse. Frigidaire bought the copyright and fucking buried it. Enough said.

[LordBerenger]

Sigh.....first of all i wasn't trying to lecture you. Purely trying to defend against what you tried to fire at me.


Secondly...ugh you know what? I'll make this a offical politics thread so you can discuss alongside any other leftists or far right how much you want about all your political ideologies and create a new Pro Capitalism thread and hope that it won't be filled by more leftist talk.

[LordBerenger]

Bump you commi scum can spread your propaganda here btw.

[Vibe]

Capitalism is a death trap. In communism, world is just!

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[LordBerenger]

Commi scum

[Kafein]

No kafein. Western capitalism only works as long as their is a 3rd world to produce all the consumer goods that are lowering in price. Once they have attained a level of wealth that they no longer feel the need to work for pennies a day, they must then find someone ELSE worse off to produce for them. This cannot be sustained. Only a 2 systems are sustainable: a socialist form, or an anarchistic one.

Im SO tired of reading ppl write about "Socialist state". By its very nature, you cannot have a socialist state. Socialism has NEVER been tested, all attemps to create a single state that is socialist are doomed to failure by a misunderstanding of the very basic element of socialism: EVERYONE has equal wealth BUT ONLY IF THEY ARE EQUALLY productive, there is no space for lazyness, a FUNDAMENTAL part of socialism is that EVERYONE means EVERYONE, not just the people of one state. Of course a single communist state surrounded by countries run by greed will be corrupt, noone can resist the temptation to screw the socialist machine over for personal gain, if they can use that gain in a neighboring country to live a life of indolence. For ANY test of the socialist ideal, it would require THE PLANET to become socialist, and reward for industry. Being industrious in ANY production is valuable. Consuming for the sake of expending is ridiculously unsustainable.


Here is an example of capitalism: In the '70s a washing machine was invented that was durable and well balanced enough that if would not feasibly break without misuse. Frigidaire bought the copyright and fucking buried it. Enough said.

I don't see the connection between a failure of communism and the existence of other countries or entities. Humans are lazy, if they don't want to work (because they need it usually), they won't. The core problems do not arise at the head of a communist society, but in the population.

But that, even though being what communism actually means in dictionaries and such, is apparently not what you are talking about. States that applied actual communist principles failed because of that very simple lazyness and selfishness problem, not because people could flee the country or because the party members could steal the money (even though they did).

EVERYONE has equal wealth BUT ONLY IF THEY ARE EQUALLY productive

That's capitalism for you. Nobody, and not even a collection of people can decide what "productive" is. A planned economy leads to shortages and excess, as well as severe injustices since prices are fixed. Goods are sold in a first come first served way, instead of prioritizing who is willing to spend more. Ignoring the rules of supply and demand doesn't come without it's price.

What you suggest is more like some sort of fascism. The possibility of freedom doesn't exist in a society where other people decide what you do. People are forced to work in designated factories to produce fixed goods and get fixed money with which they can buy the fixed goods the population produced. A bit like my dwarves in dwarf fortress. And when I mess up and forget to assign some of them to produce wood barrels to stock the food, they die of hunger just like cubans until very recently.


Freedom. A system in which people are not free is not acceptable and not sustainable because everybody seeks freedom.

[Arathian]

I am a socially conservative, fiscally conservative libertarian.

I am pretty sure you don't want to debate with me.

and reading a bit of the thread, I am pretty sure I don't want to debate with you.

[Kafein]

I am a socially conservative

What does that mean ? Every sperm is sacred ?

[Christo]

Interesting views at some people, I must say. Especially the anarchy thing, how would that work?
Anway, to my point.

I never liked the whole left to right bullcrap, especially that now in my country one political party holds more than 75% of the Parliament, therefore they are unstoppable and can vote-in anything they want, more and more taxes on the people, making new laws that make their regime stronger while the people get screwed.

Democracy my arse.

I despise the party-system, and would prefer a system where people aren't installed by political parties, but because of their performance and reliability, you know, as independent people.
People who are actually useful for something. So they are serving the interests of the country, and not their political party while ruining the country.

Is there a name for such a political view? (Besides Utopism, of course.)

[[ptx]]

I despise the party-system, and would prefer a system where people aren't installed by political parties...

Is there a name for such a political view? (Besides Utopism, of course.)

Demarchy is what you want.

[LordBerenger]

Interesting views at some people, I must say. Especially the anarchy thing, how would that work?
Anway, to my point.

I never liked the whole left to right bullcrap, especially that now in my country one political party holds more than 75% of the Parliament, therefore they are unstoppable and can vote-in anything they want, more and more taxes on the people, making new laws that make their regime stronger while the people get screwed.

Democracy my arse.

I despise the party-system, and would prefer a system where people aren't installed by political parties, but because of their performance and reliability, you know, as independent people.
People who are actually useful for something. So they are serving the interests of the country, and not their political party while ruining the country.

Is there a name for such a political view? (Besides Utopism, of course.)

Well, you can hope a New World Order would come out publically and gather all countries together in the world into 1 big empire/land and 1 flag, 1 currency, 1 language and hope it's completely FULLY democratic to the core.

Derp