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
Don Quixote said:
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
Click to expand...

I agree..I think that co-ops and employee owned businesses are what is going to save this country....the only obstacle is how entrenched the Conglomerate is in our political process and our society.
The Conglomerate doesn't care about country and it's people....they serve themselves and themselves alone.

I created a thread a little while back that got blown up by a couple of assholes....in it I used a hypothetical retail store....similar to Walmart. There would be a cap on salaries at $100k...maximum. For the owner and upper management. The regular employees would be paid an hourly rate similar to what they are now. The difference is what happens with the profits... they would get split evenly throughout the business from cashier to owner. Minus 10-15% to invest in new stores.
 
Steelplate said:
I agree..I think that co-ops and employee owned businesses are what is going to save this country....the only obstacle is how entrenched the Conglomerate is in our political process and our society.
The Conglomerate doesn't care about country and it's people....they serve themselves and themselves alone.

I created a thread a little while back that got blown up by a couple of assholes....in it I used a hypothetical retail store....similar to Walmart. There would be a cap on salaries at $100k...maximum. For the owner and upper management. The regular employees would be paid an hourly rate similar to what they are now. The difference is what happens with the profits... they would get split evenly throughout the business from cashier to owner. Minus 10-15% to invest in new stores.
Click to expand...
I agree. There must be a cap on high salaries, but more importantly on bonuses and 'directors remuneration'. No one wants to stop them earning money and providing services and employment but once a man has a few million anything over and above is simply greed and is removing cash from the society on which they depend.
In America there are more than 100 people whose personal fortune is over 2.6 BILLION!!! That is taking the piss and any government that sits idly by and allows this much cash to be taken out of society and put into the bulging pockets of the few is working AGAINST the people who voted it in.
 
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...

Don Quixote said:
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
Click to expand...

Okay, it's history time here...

Marx very specifically identified communism as the solution to the perils associated with rapid industrialization and the rise of capitalism. When you get past his retarded history of the world, you get his solution to a problem. He kind of sits back and predicts that violent revolution is inevitable in places such as Britain, Prussia, and even the US. Then the revolution occurred in Russia, instead.

In Russia, Lenin quickly realized, as Libertad alluded to, that strict Marxism wasn't working. We get a revisionism of communism, we get the New Economic Plan, and we get Leninism. Since the infrastructure wasn't there, courtesy of capitalism and the industrial revolution, Marxism couldn't work in his mind, and so he rebranded communism. This occurred again in China with Maoism, when Mao decided that Marx had been wrong about industrialised societies and communism, and focused more on agriculture, with predictably bad results, as he failed to learn from Stalin's model for collectivized agriculture.

Libertad appears to have admitted what Lenin and Mao admitted, which is that not only did Marx get it completely wrong, but that communism could only have a chance of working wherever capitalism has already been successful.

Also, for Don Quixote: REPUGS REPUGS REPUGS REPUGS REPUGS!!!
 
Threedee said:
Okay, it's history time here...

Marx very specifically identified communism as the solution to the perils associated with rapid industrialization and the rise of capitalism. When you get past his retarded history of the world, you get his solution to a problem. He kind of sits back and predicts that violent revolution is inevitable in places such as Britain, Prussia, and even the US. Then the revolution occurred in Russia, instead.

In Russia, Lenin quickly realized, as Libertad alluded to, that strict Marxism wasn't working. We get a revisionism of communism, we get the New Economic Plan, and we get Leninism. Since the infrastructure wasn't there, courtesy of capitalism and the industrial revolution, Marxism couldn't work in his mind, and so he rebranded communism. This occurred again in China with Maoism, when Mao decided that Marx had been wrong about industrialised societies and communism, and focused more on agriculture, with predictably bad results, as he failed to learn from Stalin's model for collectivized agriculture.

Libertad appears to have admitted what Lenin and Mao admitted, which is that not only did Marx get it completely wrong, but that communism could only have a chance of working wherever capitalism has already been successful.

Also, for Don Quixote: REPUGS REPUGS REPUGS REPUGS REPUGS!!!
Click to expand...

Your history is fully accurate. Russia and China paint a tragic history of ideologues' decent and their recognition of the limits of Marxism.

But what you didn't get right was the part about capitalism needing to be successful. All Marxism needs is for it to be substantially industrialized.
 
Threedee said:
Okay, it's history time here...

Marx very specifically identified communism as the solution to the perils associated with rapid industrialization and the rise of capitalism. When you get past his retarded history of the world, you get his solution to a problem. He kind of sits back and predicts that violent revolution is inevitable in places such as Britain, Prussia, and even the US. Then the revolution occurred in Russia, instead.

In Russia, Lenin quickly realized, as Libertad alluded to, that strict Marxism wasn't working. We get a revisionism of communism, we get the New Economic Plan, and we get Leninism. Since the infrastructure wasn't there, courtesy of capitalism and the industrial revolution, Marxism couldn't work in his mind, and so he rebranded communism. This occurred again in China with Maoism, when Mao decided that Marx had been wrong about industrialised societies and communism, and focused more on agriculture, with predictably bad results, as he failed to learn from Stalin's model for collectivized agriculture.

Libertad appears to have admitted what Lenin and Mao admitted, which is that not only did Marx get it completely wrong, but that communism could only have a chance of working wherever capitalism has already been successful.

Also, for Don Quixote: REPUGS REPUGS REPUGS REPUGS REPUGS!!!
Click to expand...

my question for the marxist is why his theory did not work in the industrialized nations

as for 3d, repugs suck repugs suck repugs suck...:)
 
Then we'll all wake up. Some in gulags, some on communes, many in squalor, a few in power, and the rest fresh from the killing fields for their final judgment.
 
No Face said:
Click to expand...
I rate it 69 'cause it sucks and it's hard to dance to. Here is a translation of the soviet national anthem, if anyone is interested:


And this one will give you an idea of the brutality of the communist system, and the ineptitude and inefficiency at the core of the system which inevitably leads to it's downfall:

 
callinectes said:
I rate it 69 'cause it sucks and it's hard to dance to. Here is a translation of the soviet national anthem, if anyone is interested:


And this one will give you an idea of the brutality of the communist system, and the ineptitude and inefficiency at the core of the system which inevitably leads to it's downfall:

Click to expand...

why do people still refer to the union of soviet socialist republics (CCCP) as a communistic nation? it was a totalitarian nation that may have started as communistic but certainly did not stay one.

also, marx had a big hole in his manifesto/theory and that was he forgot about needing to more goods from one place to another.
 
Don Quixote said:
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
Click to expand...

The Republican model today is unchecked capitalism? What do you point to to back up that statement?
 
cawacko said:
Like what? What was the last major thing the Republicans deregulated? In fact I remember them passing the massive new regulations of the Sarbenes-Oxley act
Click to expand...

i forget the name of the act that regulated banks that repugs initiated the repeal of and clinton signed that led to our most recent financial downturn

the sarbenes/oxley act was only a watered down version of the original act and that for political reasons the repugs had to back and that they did their best (assisted by the dims) to gut and are still resisting any further regulation of wall street

when money talks, congress critters listen
 
Don Quixote said:
i forget the name of the act that regulated banks that repugs initiated the repeal of and clinton signed that led to our most recent financial downturn

the sarbenes/oxley act was only a watered down version of the original act and that for political reasons the repugs had to back and that they did their best (assisted by the dims) to gut and are still resisting any further regulation of wall street

when money talks, congress critters listen
Click to expand...

Actually Sarbanes/Oxley made the meltdown even worse. Google "mark to market and financial meltdown". It will be a good education for you.

But someone told you the whole thing was because of Glass/Steagall and being a loyal low information voter you dutifully fall in line
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top