Conquer Club, a free online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.
http://www.tools.conquerclub.com/forum/
http://www.tools.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=211810
I didn't make the claim, mets, Marx did. See-Metsfanmax wrote: If patches' claim is to have validity, then, he would have to show evidence that these nations are moving towards communism over time. Does he have any?
If you want to determine the validity of the statement then go ask Marx.patches70 wrote:He talked about the evolution or I suppose "progression" is the better term, of how economies go from capitalist-->socialist--->communist. Marx felt it was a natural progression, inevitable if you will.
patches70 wrote:Marx was full of shit
No, right after that you said that it was a fair statement to say that the end goal of a socialist is communism. So I am asking you to defend that claim.patches70 wrote:I didn't make the claim, mets, Marx did. See-Metsfanmax wrote: If patches' claim is to have validity, then, he would have to show evidence that these nations are moving towards communism over time. Does he have any?
If you want to determine the validity of the statement then go ask Marx.patches70 wrote:He talked about the evolution or I suppose "progression" is the better term, of how economies go from capitalist-->socialist--->communist. Marx felt it was a natural progression, inevitable if you will.
I don't buy into Marx, he's the one who says socialism ends up progressing to communism. You can check the validity of his claims yourself.
patches70 wrote:It's a fair comment to say that the end goal of a socialist is communism. Cradle to grave taken care of by the State. All the individual has to do is give up on their ambitions, liberty and freedom.
Tzor said that, I only say it's a fair statement, after all the biggest proponent of Communism said that exact thing. Just because you as a Socialist says "No way man!" doesn't change the inexorable march of Socialism to it's higher form, Communism. At least until enough people say "Hell no!" and put the Socialists in their place which always happens if the Socialist pushes too far. It is indisputable fact that modern Communism grew out of the Socialist movement of the 19th century. That alone is an indisputable link between the two.Metsfanmax wrote: No, right after that you said that it was a fair statement to say that the end goal of a socialist is communism. So I am asking you to defend that claim.
I didn't say you were wrong (nor for that matter did I say I was a socialist), I asked you to defend the statement.patches70 wrote:Tzor said that, I only say it's a fair statement, after all the biggest proponent of Communism said that exact thing. Just because you as a Socialist says "No way man!"Metsfanmax wrote: No, right after that you said that it was a fair statement to say that the end goal of a socialist is communism. So I am asking you to defend that claim.
Even if that was correct, it would not be particularly relevant to the state of modern socialism.It is indisputable fact that modern Communism grew out of the Socialist movement of the 19th century. That alone is an indisputable link between the two.
This sounds like the beginning of a (not very good) freshman essay in political philosophy class. Use of the state and its monopoly on legitimate force to enforce a particular way of living is by construction inherent to any system that isn't anarchic. This is true even in the case some libertarians would like where the main function of the state is limited to protection of private property. The view that men with guns should exist to protect your right to own whatever land you live on is not fundamentally different from the view that men with guns should exist to ensure that this land is the property of the collective. They are on the same continuum of ideas, even if they are different in many ways. So one has to do better than make vague hand-waving accusations that socialism and communism are the same because they both involve prodigious use of the state. As contemporaneously understood, they are different ideas and must be addressed separately.All socialists whether they wish to admit it or not are part of the international socialist movement, the very thing Marx expounded about. A socialist knows no bounds, once they reach one line they wished to achieve they crate another line to move to. Communism requires a tyranny to implement. There is no way around it. The socialist is the same way. They have no problem with using the power of the State to enforce their view of how society should run and that includes using force.
This particular distinction makes no sense. For example, most people would call basic income proposals to be socialist in nature, not communist. I am not very well schooled in political philosophy but I know enough to know that you need a better definition of these ideas if you want to be taken seriously. I understand that you seem to not care about the distinctions between these ideas but it makes you look uninformed when you don't acknowledge that serious scholarship has gone into developing various systems that are fundamentally different. And it makes you look like an idiot if you think that these systems can be summarized in one-sentence catchphrases. I know you are not an idiot, so please stop making arguments that an idiot would make.The socialist of today whether they realize it or not are publicly espousing Marx's ideas. Socialism is a lower form of Communism where socialism is "from each according to their ability to each according to their contribution" where as Communism, a higher form of Socialism is "from each according his ability to each according to his need".
Ignoring again the fact that I did not call myself a socialist, what if I say no? You'll just say "hush now sweety, patches knows best?"Every last avowed socialist does, will and will continue to espouse ever greater Communistic goals as their immediate goals are met. You included mets.
And this sounds like an economics 101 argument that completely ignores the many, many simple ways in which markets can act irrationally due to the presence of externalities. I am honestly sympathetic to the argument that state action often distorts the market more than it corrects it but I'm not at all sympathetic to the argument that market-based price determination always produces an optimal social outcome. It is possible to believe that minimum wage laws are economically counterproductive without devolving into the feces-throwing argument that minimum wage advocates are communists.Minimum wage advocates are also communistic because they ignore the idea of market based price determination in favor of State declared prices (for labor or any other resource). It's fantasy land as Mises proved that if you don't have prices signaled in capital goods (i.e. market determined prices which includes labor) then you can't have a rational market.
It is too much of a tangent to get into for this thread, but Kantorovich didn't think so. I am not sure the Soviet Union would have done better if they had adopted more rigorous price planning system; I am certainly do not know that such a system can outperform a free market system. But many of the arguments made against communism, such as this one, are made against the systems that have been implemented until now and not the ones that in principle could exist. While that's quite fair, it also means that one should be careful when making the implication that non-capitalist systems cannot determine an accurate price. It's just that the price might come from a different place and means a slightly different thing.Socialism's biggest problem is that since the prices of things can't be determined accurately because public entities own all the means of production. In that case there is no "final sale" as every transaction is just an internal transfer. Without being able to determine an accurate price of things leads to misallocation of resources.
I just don't get where this is coming from. The socialist democratic countries that exist today base their entire economies on markets; for the most part they don't deny the power of markets. Even for the countries with state-run health or energy systems, most other industries are privatized. The strongest claim you could make in these cases is that for those particular industries the belief exists that market-based price discovery is not the best way to determine resource allocation. And that's not even fully true for many of the countries with public medical systems. Socialism (at least in a form I could defend) isn't about state control of the means of production of these goods or services, it is about ensuring that those who need to obtain important goods and services from the market can do so.That's what the socialist advocates, no more market based price discovery because apparently it's not the best way to determine what resources are needed where the most. Socialist advocate internal transfers, i.e. if someone has it (resource) to someone in need (of said resource) at the price determined by...whom? The State of course.
Read: "I am patches70, and I know the inner workings of the minds of every person who denotes themselves socialists -- and even the people who don't."The end goal of Socialism whether or not the Socialist admits or realizes is Communism.
This is quite directly a nonsense statement. My ideal society is its own logical conclusion. If you changed it, it would no longer be my ideal.If you want to disprove me, then lay out what in your mind is the "ideal" society and we'll take it to it's logical conclusion.
Yes, I understand that many or most people are not well educated enough to understand the differences between the two ideas. Sadly, there is not much I can do about that, although Bernie Sanders might be able to get some more funding for the public education system lined upThe reason Bernie Sanders will never be elected President is because he proudly calls himself a Socialist and in too many people's minds that means he's a Communist.
With all due respect, Communism and Socialism both have the same focus- equality.jgordon1111 wrote:Just because someone a long time ago said a thing they believed at the time was true, doesn't make it so today.
Look at Freud, Jung, niezchte, what a bunch of total douches, and people get actual doctorate degrees, based on the Bullshit personal hangups of these idiots,based on their hangups about mommy,homosexuals, and sexual perversion. A whole pseudo science was built and based on these pissant morons ideaology, so take socialists then and now and do a real comparison
Before anyone gets bent out of shape I used this comparison to make a point what was thought fact then isn't so now.
Lets look at this another way. They used lobotomies, moved on to electro shock, and on to drugs that don't actually cure, hence pseudo science
Look up the cure rate for this science.
Wrong then wrong now, get the idea?
And if Sanders loses 51% to 49%, presumably we should not adopt any ideas from socialism at all?patches70 wrote:Socialists like Bernie Sanders thinks that because the citizens of a State may vote to become Socialist that it means the State should embrace Socialism even if the votes was 51% to 49%.
Communism generally collapses. Socialism generally collapses before the onset of communism. It's like a boy and his rocket; sure, he may have his goal of his rocket hitting the moon, but it runs out of fuel long before it hits the edge of the atmosphere. Hybrid systems don't work. It's like driving with three tires and one flat tire, yes you can move along, but the flat tire drags everything down. But the biggest threat of socialism is not to the "free market." The biggest threat is to the morale of the people. In the end, the free market does squat; the people do everything. When you have the attitude that the government does everything, (which it can't) the people decide that they don't have to to anything. If you want to see the lowest rates of charitable giving, look towards socialist Europe.Dukasaur wrote:The great Democratic Socialist nations of Europe firmly reject communism. It's completely possible to have a hybrid economy, where a free market provides the great engine but there is reasonable agreement that those on the express train leave something behind for those less fortunate. Protestations that a free market and a system of social protection cannot co-exist are pure propaganda, and quite false. Free markets and social services can and have been co-existing perfectly well in many places and at many times.
Hey Sweden! New York called and she said ... "YOU SUCK!"Since Sweden is held up as a sort of promised land by American socialists, let's compare it first. We find that, if it were to join the US as a state, Sweden would be poorer than all but 12 states, with a median income of $27,167.
Median residents in states like Colorado ($35,830), Massachusetts ($37,626), Virginia ($39,291), Washington ($36,343), and Utah ($36,036) have considerably higher incomes than Sweden.
With the exception of Luxembourg ($38,502), Norway ($35,528), and Switzerland ($35,083), all countries shown would fail to rank as high-income states were they to become part of the United States. In fact, most would fare worse than Mississippi, the poorest state.
Hmm,tzor wrote:Communism generally collapses. Socialism generally collapses before the onset of communism. It's like a boy and his rocket; sure, he may have his goal of his rocket hitting the moon, but it runs out of fuel long before it hits the edge of the atmosphere. Hybrid systems don't work. It's like driving with three tires and one flat tire, yes you can move along, but the flat tire drags everything down. But the biggest threat of socialism is not to the "free market." The biggest threat is to the morale of the people. In the end, the free market does squat; the people do everything. When you have the attitude that the government does everything, (which it can't) the people decide that they don't have to to anything. If you want to see the lowest rates of charitable giving, look towards socialist Europe.Dukasaur wrote:The great Democratic Socialist nations of Europe firmly reject communism. It's completely possible to have a hybrid economy, where a free market provides the great engine but there is reasonable agreement that those on the express train leave something behind for those less fortunate. Protestations that a free market and a system of social protection cannot co-exist are pure propaganda, and quite false. Free markets and social services can and have been co-existing perfectly well in many places and at many times.
The opposite of socialism is actually subsidiarity, the notion that government belongs to the lowest level possible, not the highest. The question is not whether "social protection" but where. The closer it belongs to the people, the more people are motivated to maintain it. Charity gladdens the heart; taxes burdens the heart. Socialist Europe, which came from the dustpile of Secular Europe (which also game us secular capitalism which loves to exploit workers wherever they can find them) is a result of the moral collective guilt of striping the corporate works of mercy from the collective mind; a result that resulted in such wonderful things as the Holocaust and the culture of abortion / euthanasia.
And by the way, the "great Democratic Socialist nations of Europe" generally suck; just saying. If they were considered with the "states" of the United States, they would rank near the bottom of the list, economically speaking. If Sweden and Germany Became US States, They Would be Among the Poorest States
Hey Sweden! New York called and she said ... "YOU SUCK!"Since Sweden is held up as a sort of promised land by American socialists, let's compare it first. We find that, if it were to join the US as a state, Sweden would be poorer than all but 12 states, with a median income of $27,167.
Median residents in states like Colorado ($35,830), Massachusetts ($37,626), Virginia ($39,291), Washington ($36,343), and Utah ($36,036) have considerably higher incomes than Sweden.
With the exception of Luxembourg ($38,502), Norway ($35,528), and Switzerland ($35,083), all countries shown would fail to rank as high-income states were they to become part of the United States. In fact, most would fare worse than Mississippi, the poorest state.
Hey Sweden! New Jersey called and she said ... "YOU SUCK!"
Hey Sweden! Colorado called and she said ... "YOU SUCK!"
You have absolutely not proof THAT ALL SOCIALIST NATIONS turn into COMMUNISM. In europe both socialists AND liberals(european meaning of the word) agree that the continent needs a hybrid system. Communist parties are tiny in most countries. They're despised by both left AND right wing. In my own country, Belgium, they hold a negligeable 2 seats out of 150 in federal parliament.tzor wrote:Communism generally collapses. Socialism generally collapses before the onset of communism. It's like a boy and his rocket; sure, he may have his goal of his rocket hitting the moon, but it runs out of fuel long before it hits the edge of the atmosphere. Hybrid systems don't work. It's like driving with three tires and one flat tire, yes you can move along, but the flat tire drags everything down.
Europe doesn't need high rates of charitable giving. Our Gini-coefficients are much better than that in the US, meaning our social security system is more effective than the charity in the US. Our poor are much better off than their counter-parts in the US. And as mentioned in another topic there is a correlation between happiness and the Gini-coefficient.tzor wrote:But the biggest threat of socialism is not to the "free market." The biggest threat is to the morale of the people. In the end, the free market does squat; the people do everything. When you have the attitude that the government does everything, (which it can't) the people decide that they don't have to to anything. If you want to see the lowest rates of charitable giving, look towards socialist Europe. The opposite of socialism is actually subsidiarity, the notion that government belongs to the lowest level possible, not the highest. The question is not whether "social protection" but where. The closer it belongs to the people, the more people are motivated to maintain it. Charity gladdens the heart; taxes burdens the heart.
Typical american christian bullshit. I don't know if you realize it but the prosecution of jews was not a result of secularism. It's a christian tradition dating back more than a thousand years. Back in the middle-ages there was no such thing as secularism. I advise you to read some history books.tzor wrote:Socialist Europe, which came from the dustpile of Secular Europe (which also game us secular capitalism which loves to exploit workers wherever they can find them) is a result of the moral collective guilt of striping the corporate works of mercy from the collective mind; a result that resulted in such wonderful things as the Holocaust and the culture of abortion / euthanasia.
A bunch of half-thruths. Without even spending much time on this multiple things already jump to mind:tzor wrote:And by the way, the "great Democratic Socialist nations of Europe" generally suck; just saying. If they were considered with the "states" of the United States, they would rank near the bottom of the list, economically speaking. If Sweden and Germany Became US States, They Would be Among the Poorest States
Hahahaha what an idiotic excuse for ignoring my postjgordon1111 wrote:Actually Goran, you have no idea of what I want, just for clarification I have no idea of what is in the image you provided, I disabled that on my CC account.
That aside I firmly believe the ability we have to speak, read, and write is the prime ability that sets us apart from every species on this planet.
And the use of gifs, pictures and drawings of any kind or form,shows, either laziness or inability on the users behalf to effectively communicate with others, and therefore has no standing or capacity in any rational discourse or dialog of any fashion.
So try again GORAN, and keep in mind what I have said about you or implied, was brought on by yourself alone,no one else just your firm belief that a non real rank on a gamesite has somehow overinflated your personal view of yourself.
You make this way to easy!GoranZ wrote:Hahahaha what an idiotic excuse for ignoring my postjgordon1111 wrote:Actually Goran, you have no idea of what I want, just for clarification I have no idea of what is in the image you provided, I disabled that on my CC account.
That aside I firmly believe the ability we have to speak, read, and write is the prime ability that sets us apart from every species on this planet.
And the use of gifs, pictures and drawings of any kind or form,shows, either laziness or inability on the users behalf to effectively communicate with others, and therefore has no standing or capacity in any rational discourse or dialog of any fashion.
So try again GORAN, and keep in mind what I have said about you or implied, was brought on by yourself alone,no one else just your firm belief that a non real rank on a gamesite has somehow overinflated your personal view of yourself.
Dude if you want you can put your fingers where the sun don't shine, but the consequences of your actions are your problem, not mine.
Unlike you some people have real lifejgordon1111 wrote:You make this way to easy!GoranZ wrote:Hahahaha what an idiotic excuse for ignoring my postjgordon1111 wrote:Actually Goran, you have no idea of what I want, just for clarification I have no idea of what is in the image you provided, I disabled that on my CC account.
That aside I firmly believe the ability we have to speak, read, and write is the prime ability that sets us apart from every species on this planet.
And the use of gifs, pictures and drawings of any kind or form,shows, either laziness or inability on the users behalf to effectively communicate with others, and therefore has no standing or capacity in any rational discourse or dialog of any fashion.
So try again GORAN, and keep in mind what I have said about you or implied, was brought on by yourself alone,no one else just your firm belief that a non real rank on a gamesite has somehow overinflated your personal view of yourself.
Dude if you want you can put your fingers where the sun don't shine, but the consequences of your actions are your problem, not mine.
First point of fact, I in fact did not ignore your post as my response to it indicates
Second at this point I am thinking you really do not have a good grasp on English or whatever translation device your using sucks and I say that because it took you several days to line up this brilliant, flawless response, really top notch, So in short put up or shut up boy
GoranZ Rank: General > jgordon1111 Rank: Sergeant 1st Classjgordon1111 wrote:And Alexander is spinning in his grave knowing your ilk is his legacy.
Why thank you, you should change your user name to, to easy,GoranZ wrote:Unlike you some people have real lifejgordon1111 wrote:You make this way to easy!GoranZ wrote:Hahahaha what an idiotic excuse for ignoring my postjgordon1111 wrote:Actually Goran, you have no idea of what I want, just for clarification I have no idea of what is in the image you provided, I disabled that on my CC account.
That aside I firmly believe the ability we have to speak, read, and write is the prime ability that sets us apart from every species on this planet.
And the use of gifs, pictures and drawings of any kind or form,shows, either laziness or inability on the users behalf to effectively communicate with others, and therefore has no standing or capacity in any rational discourse or dialog of any fashion.
So try again GORAN, and keep in mind what I have said about you or implied, was brought on by yourself alone,no one else just your firm belief that a non real rank on a gamesite has somehow overinflated your personal view of yourself.
Dude if you want you can put your fingers where the sun don't shine, but the consequences of your actions are your problem, not mine.
First point of fact, I in fact did not ignore your post as my response to it indicates
Second at this point I am thinking you really do not have a good grasp on English or whatever translation device your using sucks and I say that because it took you several days to line up this brilliant, flawless response, really top notch, So in short put up or shut up boy
GoranZ Rank: General > jgordon1111 Rank: Sergeant 1st Classjgordon1111 wrote:And Alexander is spinning in his grave knowing your ilk is his legacy.
He's living in an eastern block fantasy land. It's not his fault he is fed lies.jgordon1111 wrote:One hole in your argument GORAN he actually went to jail for fighting for others RIGHTS which calls into question your whole argument against him, are you just anti democracy in general or against him because he is Jewish or just because the pigment of his skin? EXPLAIN PLEASE GORANGoranZ wrote:Stop lying to the people, Bernie Sanders is greedy socialist politician who wants to take money from others. He has never fought for someone's rights, he is only fighting for his own greedy ideas. But American democrats saw this and they are punishing him severely.Bernie Sanders wrote:Bernie worked hard all his life. Of course a conservative like yourself does not believe fighting for the rights of minorities, women, gay rights, the poor and other injustices is a not a job. Nope, you would call that racism and bigotry against the good old white boy network.tzor wrote:Why he never got a job until he was in his 40's.Bernie Sanders wrote:What does Bernie needs to explain?
So whats gonna be next GREEDY MAN? Will you QUIT or you will continue to CRY?
What the hell does this have to do with "American politics?"waauw wrote:ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS RIGHT NOW? What a load of bullshit and insults to social-capitalism and secular states. This is precisely what europeans despise about american politics: propagating state religion; and a load of half-truths and lies about socialism.
You're living the past. Contemporary socialism is nothing like the communist ideals of the 20th century. Socialism has moved on from that for several decades already.tzor wrote:What the hell does this have to do with "American politics?"waauw wrote:ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS RIGHT NOW? What a load of bullshit and insults to social-capitalism and secular states. This is precisely what europeans despise about american politics: propagating state religion; and a load of half-truths and lies about socialism.
Yes, I have absolutely do not have any proof that the sun will eventually expand and destroy the earth. I mean I can't cite one example of our sun doing that, right? I just read you the quotes of the people who designed these systems in the first place. The goal of socialism is communism, just without the short term violent revolution. The fact that socialist Europe will probably become an Islamic Caliphate before that happens isn't any proof that I am wrong.
American politics has always been the history of European wannabes. From the people who worshiped the age of Enlightenment to the people who worshiped the murdering socialists (and I'm not talking Nazi's here ... I'm talking about the great socialist writers and thinkers who were proposing eliminating poverty by killing the poor because obviously they were poor because they were inferior and were only a drag on the society at large).
The rich fats cats in Amerika are scared shitless of Socialism. They would hate to contribute to the welfare of ordinary Americans. Plus the Republicans and corporate Democrats would not receive their bribes [political contributions] from them. The fat cats want us to continue to coddle them with more lax EPA regulations, more free trade agreements, tax cuts, subsidies and to destroy any type of collective bargaining that may cut into their profit margins.waauw wrote:You're living the past. Contemporary socialism is nothing like the communist ideals of the 20th century. Socialism has moved on from that for several decades already.tzor wrote:What the hell does this have to do with "American politics?"waauw wrote:ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS RIGHT NOW? What a load of bullshit and insults to social-capitalism and secular states. This is precisely what europeans despise about american politics: propagating state religion; and a load of half-truths and lies about socialism.
Yes, I have absolutely do not have any proof that the sun will eventually expand and destroy the earth. I mean I can't cite one example of our sun doing that, right? I just read you the quotes of the people who designed these systems in the first place. The goal of socialism is communism, just without the short term violent revolution. The fact that socialist Europe will probably become an Islamic Caliphate before that happens isn't any proof that I am wrong.
American politics has always been the history of European wannabes. From the people who worshiped the age of Enlightenment to the people who worshiped the murdering socialists (and I'm not talking Nazi's here ... I'm talking about the great socialist writers and thinkers who were proposing eliminating poverty by killing the poor because obviously they were poor because they were inferior and were only a drag on the society at large).
