Magic-League.com Forum Index Magic-League.com
Forums of Magic-League: Free Online tcg playing; casual or tournament play.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The case for Globalization.


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> Other - Non-Magic
Author Message
ChuckNorris



Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There was no socialism in Russia after 1929. Not an ounce of it.

Furthermore, is the tragedy of Russia the fault of socialism? Or, perhaps, could it be that Russia was an already deeply-impoverished country which was further devastated by 4 years of war with the Central Powers and then by a brutal civil war, both of which served to cut her industrial and agricultural output to 1/3 of their already low pre-war levels?

Nah that couldn't be it.
Back to top
SuperDelfin



Joined: 24 Sep 2008
Posts: 24

PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't understand how anyone can endorse a system, such as socialism, that takes away the freedom of a human being for the greater good of everyone else. I'm all for charity and generosity, but it's the forced generosity I can't stand.
Back to top
Craze



Joined: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 5676
Location: Indiana, U

PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SuperDelfin wrote:
I don't understand how anyone can endorse a system, such as socialism, that takes away the freedom of a human being for the greater good of everyone else. I'm all for charity and generosity, but it's the forced generosity I can't stand.


Why not? We force equalization, safety, drug tolerance, and a load of other shit "for the good of the people." Forced generosity actually makes sense.

And for the record I am in favor of socialism.
Back to top
SuperDelfin



Joined: 24 Sep 2008
Posts: 24

PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craze wrote:
SuperDelfin wrote:
I don't understand how anyone can endorse a system, such as socialism, that takes away the freedom of a human being for the greater good of everyone else. I'm all for charity and generosity, but it's the forced generosity I can't stand.


Why not? We force equalization, safety, drug tolerance, and a load of other shit "for the good of the people." Forced generosity actually makes sense.

And for the record I am in favor of socialism.


Ah those things you listed are not forced generosity, they're natural rights we have. We have the right to be equal under the law, the right to be safe, etc. The ideal system is not anarchy, but rather a system where one can have the right to do what they please with their own person and property as long as it does not inflict upon others' right to do the same.
Back to top
GUnit



Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is no ideal system.
Back to top
OldBear



Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Posts: 1840

PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GUnit wrote:
There is no ideal system.


Agreed.

I do not like the way the world has settled on democracy and all countries living in one seem to think democracy is the solution to all other struggling countries problem. It's not its a far from perfect system, though Im not saying its not a vast improvement over other systems but there seems to be a great fear of discussing systems in an scientific matter where the strengths and weaknesses of all systems are evaluated with out bias. We should always be looking to better ourselves.
Back to top
coolcreep



Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChuckNorris wrote:
There was no socialism in Russia after 1929. Not an ounce of it.

Furthermore, is the tragedy of Russia the fault of socialism? Or, perhaps, could it be that Russia was an already deeply-impoverished country which was further devastated by 4 years of war with the Central Powers and then by a brutal civil war, both of which served to cut her industrial and agricultural output to 1/3 of their already low pre-war levels?

Nah that couldn't be it.


Considering it wasn't until the collectivizing of the farming system that famine became wide spread, you are right;that couldn't be it.

Also, your statement about no socialism after 1929 is right only in the semantics sense, they certainly did not embrace free markets in 1929, they just went into Stalinism, which is a form of communism/marxism. As for Russia between 1917 and 1929, ya what a great place to live :S
Back to top
Dr_Nico



Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Posts: 39

PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trotsky1 wrote:
GUnit wrote:
There is no ideal system.


Agreed.

I do not like the way the world has settled on democracy and all countries living in one seem to think democracy is the solution to all other struggling countries problem. It's not its a far from perfect system, though Im not saying its not a vast improvement over other systems but there seems to be a great fear of discussing systems in an scientific matter where the strengths and weaknesses of all systems are evaluated with out bias. We should always be looking to better ourselves.


What democracy? Republic != democracy for god's sake.
Back to top
ChuckNorris



Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coolcreep wrote:
ChuckNorris wrote:
There was no socialism in Russia after 1929. Not an ounce of it.

Furthermore, is the tragedy of Russia the fault of socialism? Or, perhaps, could it be that Russia was an already deeply-impoverished country which was further devastated by 4 years of war with the Central Powers and then by a brutal civil war, both of which served to cut her industrial and agricultural output to 1/3 of their already low pre-war levels?

Nah that couldn't be it.


Considering it wasn't until the collectivizing of the farming system that famine became wide spread, you are right;that couldn't be it.

Also, your statement about no socialism after 1929 is right only in the semantics sense, they certainly did not embrace free markets in 1929, they just went into Stalinism, which is a form of communism/marxism. As for Russia between 1917 and 1929, ya what a great place to live :S


Stalinism is state-capitalism, not socialism or Marxism in any sense. Under Stalinism you have a stratified class society where elite state bureaucrats exploit the proletariat for surplus value in exactly the same way the bourgeoisie does so under a 'free-market' system. Class society and surplus value exploitation are both anathema to socialism and therefore a system that displays these characteristics cannot be considered socialist or Marxist in any sense.

Under Stalin and his ilk, the Soviet Union not only steered the global proletariat away from revolution, but they corrupted and in many cases actually helped to defeat revolutionary movements around the world. The Chinese Communist Party under Mao is a perfect example of Stalinist taint on what began as a genuine socialist and proletarian organization.

Stalin also advocated the creation of a massive national-defense industry inside the USSR in an effort to engage in outright and blatant imperialism against its neighbors. Imperialism, as Lenin argues, is the highest form of capitalism, and therefore also anathema to socialism and Marxism.

Stalin was behind the collectivization of the farms. Trotsky and the left-opposition (which included most of the 1917 Bolsheviks) all opposed Stalin's war against the Russian peasantry, which is what the collectivization efforts were.
Back to top
ChuckNorris



Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SuperDelfin wrote:
I don't understand how anyone can endorse a system, such as socialism, that takes away the freedom of a human being for the greater good of everyone else. I'm all for charity and generosity, but it's the forced generosity I can't stand.


I don't understand how anyone can endorse a system, such as capitalism, which necessitates endless international and internal warfare just to survive. A system that, by its very nature, robs workers of their their freedom by forcing them to work for (often significantly) less than their labor is worth or starve. Workers are the vast majority of the human population, and yet they control and hope to enjoy only meager portions of the world's wealth. Wealth that they and they alone create.

Owners take no part in the creation of wealth. They support the state, and the state justifies their daily thievery through force of law and arms. Owners are nothing without the people they viciously exploit.

Socialism is not "forced generosity." A welfare-state is not a socialist socialist society. Socialism is a system of society in which workers democratically control, produce, and distribute all of the wealth in society. Everyone who is able to works. Everyone enjoys the benefits of wealth created through this work. Its very simple really.
Back to top
coolcreep



Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChuckNorris wrote:
coolcreep wrote:
ChuckNorris wrote:
There was no socialism in Russia after 1929. Not an ounce of it.

Furthermore, is the tragedy of Russia the fault of socialism? Or, perhaps, could it be that Russia was an already deeply-impoverished country which was further devastated by 4 years of war with the Central Powers and then by a brutal civil war, both of which served to cut her industrial and agricultural output to 1/3 of their already low pre-war levels?

Nah that couldn't be it.


Considering it wasn't until the collectivizing of the farming system that famine became wide spread, you are right;that couldn't be it.

Also, your statement about no socialism after 1929 is right only in the semantics sense, they certainly did not embrace free markets in 1929, they just went into Stalinism, which is a form of communism/marxism. As for Russia between 1917 and 1929, ya what a great place to live :S


Stalinism is state-capitalism, not socialism or Marxism in any sense. Under Stalinism you have a stratified class society where elite state bureaucrats exploit the proletariat for surplus value in exactly the same way the bourgeoisie does so under a 'free-market' system. Class society and surplus value exploitation are both anathema to socialism and therefore a system that displays these characteristics cannot be considered socialist or Marxist in any sense.

Under Stalin and his ilk, the Soviet Union not only steered the global proletariat away from revolution, but they corrupted and in many cases actually helped to defeat revolutionary movements around the world. The Chinese Communist Party under Mao is a perfect example of Stalinist taint on what began as a genuine socialist and proletarian organization.

Stalin also advocated the creation of a massive national-defense industry inside the USSR in an effort to engage in outright and blatant imperialism against its neighbors. Imperialism, as Lenin argues, is the highest form of capitalism, and therefore also anathema to socialism and Marxism.

Stalin was behind the collectivization of the farms. Trotsky and the left-opposition (which included most of the 1917 Bolsheviks) all opposed Stalin's war against the Russian peasantry, which is what the collectivization efforts were.


Do you know understand what "collectiviziation" is? It is putting farms under public ownership, rather than private ownership. Public ownership of farms, which would exist under a socialist system, has lead to massive starvation both in Russia and China, during the Great Leap Forward. Meanwhile, even the very poorest in countries with economic freedom and private ownership, such as the United States, almost never starve. You talk about the value of labour of the workers, however workers in third world countries could not produce anything valuable without the corporations that provide the capital investment, as outlined in the third argument of my OP. Look at the plight of the Malai, who are not working for corporations, then look at sweatshop workers who are. You will see a massive difference in pay level, quality of life, and life expectancy. If you honestly care for the workers in thirld world countries, you should be arguing for more sweatshops, not less.


Your description of Stalinism as "state-capitalism" also shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what the system is. Stalin turned Russia away from the near-capitalist New Economic Policy created by Lenin, which saved Russia from being completely and utterly destitute after 7 years of war. Capitalism is all about putting the means of production in the hands of private citizens, rather than the government, which makes "state-capitalism" an utterly rediculous concept to begin with. Public ownership of capital leads to the tragedy of commons, whereas private ownership of capital leads to rapidly increasing wealth and quality of life.
Back to top
SuperDelfin



Joined: 24 Sep 2008
Posts: 24

PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChuckNorris wrote:
SuperDelfin wrote:
I don't understand how anyone can endorse a system, such as socialism, that takes away the freedom of a human being for the greater good of everyone else. I'm all for charity and generosity, but it's the forced generosity I can't stand.


I don't understand how anyone can endorse a system, such as capitalism, which necessitates endless international and internal warfare just to survive. A system that, by its very nature, robs workers of their their freedom by forcing them to work for (often significantly) less than their labor is worth or starve. Workers are the vast majority of the human population, and yet they control and hope to enjoy only meager portions of the world's wealth. Wealth that they and they alone create.

Owners take no part in the creation of wealth. They support the state, and the state justifies their daily thievery through force of law and arms. Owners are nothing without the people they viciously exploit.


What you are describing is a flawed system of capitalism created by more government intervention, not lack-there-of.

Source: http://philtforpontefract.blogspot.com/2007/05/socialism-doesnt-work.html

"Imperfect information Any plan requires abundant and accurate information. So if we consider the production possibilities of an economy, these are best known by non-planners, e.g. factory bosses. Factory bosses, because there is no personal profit motive or personal ownership in this new system, have no reason to be accurate. They will state targets easily achieved rather than real possibilities. That way the risk of failure is removed. This information problem then carries over to the produced product. Planners can only check a minority of the produce. They can't know if it is the quality or quantity ordered. Factory bosses are thus encouraged to evade both these targets to make their workload easier. In a market, customers by nature of consumption check every product for quality. However, the feedback from customers to producers disappears in a planned economy. And here lies the final crushing problem of information: the central planner can never actually know what the public wants and how much of it. He can only guess and produce.

Contrast this with a free-market. Here all transactions are, by definition, free, rather than forced and directed, so accurate information about desires and intentions are passed at every stage. Similarly, because producers are financially rewarded for successful production, and especially the bosses who oversee and own said production, then there are strong incentives to perform at full capacity. Profit is not an inefficiency, it is an incentive. Profit helps, it doesn't hinder.

Pricing Prices in a free-market are jointly determined between the ability of a producer to supply and the demand of the consumer. However, in a command economy, both these processes are removed from the individual players. Consequently, prices cease to relate to costs or value because they are centrally determined rather than epiphenomena of this market mechanism. In a free market, as a product becomes scarcer or more popular, then its price increases; if it becomes more available or less popular, its price decreases. If the market goes, so does this unconscious but crucial information as to a products' worth. Changes in prices tell both consumers and producers about changes in circumstances. Without market-driven prices, governments will struggle to know if circumstances have changed. When this lack of price applies at all stages in the economic chain, from raw material to finished product, we can easily see that even if a production plan was implemented, there is no way of knowing if it is increasing wealth or consuming it.

War effort Socialism was born in the crucible of Imperialism, arms races and global conflict. Countries were seen as vast companies where the populace worked together for success against others. This wartime economy cannot and should not be carried over into peacetime because once the need to protect the whole is gone, the desire to satisfy the individual returns. Because the latter is impossible in a command economy where production patterns are determined top-down rather than consumer-upwards, governments will seek to perpetuate conflict. Socialist states are thus likely to be permanently belligerent.

Isolationism Centrally-planned economies will attempt to be self-sufficient because foreign trade, by being produced by those outside their influence, will prove impossible to plan for. This, of course, means a massive reduction in all the thousands of ties that help hold the world in peace (its bad business policy to beat up clients and suppliers). It also means huge inefficiencies because some things are best produced elsewhere. However, total self-sufficiency is impossible regardless of commitment. When trade begrudgingly occurs, there is no way for the government to know what is most profitable to trade because it did away with the price structure and cost information that free-markets offer.

Innovation The single greatest provider for human welfare has been mans imagination. New inventions have allowed us to conquer disease, prevent food spoilage, travel the world and communicate to almost anyone anywhere. Inventions, like all aspects of human behaviour, require encouragement to appear. Competition between companies encourages innovation to capture larger market shares and increase profit. Competition is anathema to the socialist model because the winner is impossible to plan for. Innovation, being a new and unpredicted production possibility, is also impossible to plan for and thus is suppressed. The costs to human welfare would be astronomical if not for the fact that modern day Socialist states, e.g. Cuba, or pseudo-Communist states, e.g. China, can get by stealing the innovations of capitalist states."
Back to top
Dr_Nico



Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Posts: 39

PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coolcreep wrote:
ChuckNorris wrote:
coolcreep wrote:
ChuckNorris wrote:
There was no socialism in Russia after 1929. Not an ounce of it.

Furthermore, is the tragedy of Russia the fault of socialism? Or, perhaps, could it be that Russia was an already deeply-impoverished country which was further devastated by 4 years of war with the Central Powers and then by a brutal civil war, both of which served to cut her industrial and agricultural output to 1/3 of their already low pre-war levels?

Nah that couldn't be it.


Considering it wasn't until the collectivizing of the farming system that famine became wide spread, you are right;that couldn't be it.

Also, your statement about no socialism after 1929 is right only in the semantics sense, they certainly did not embrace free markets in 1929, they just went into Stalinism, which is a form of communism/marxism. As for Russia between 1917 and 1929, ya what a great place to live :S


Stalinism is state-capitalism, not socialism or Marxism in any sense. Under Stalinism you have a stratified class society where elite state bureaucrats exploit the proletariat for surplus value in exactly the same way the bourgeoisie does so under a 'free-market' system. Class society and surplus value exploitation are both anathema to socialism and therefore a system that displays these characteristics cannot be considered socialist or Marxist in any sense.

Under Stalin and his ilk, the Soviet Union not only steered the global proletariat away from revolution, but they corrupted and in many cases actually helped to defeat revolutionary movements around the world. The Chinese Communist Party under Mao is a perfect example of Stalinist taint on what began as a genuine socialist and proletarian organization.

Stalin also advocated the creation of a massive national-defense industry inside the USSR in an effort to engage in outright and blatant imperialism against its neighbors. Imperialism, as Lenin argues, is the highest form of capitalism, and therefore also anathema to socialism and Marxism.

Stalin was behind the collectivization of the farms. Trotsky and the left-opposition (which included most of the 1917 Bolsheviks) all opposed Stalin's war against the Russian peasantry, which is what the collectivization efforts were.


Do you know understand what "collectiviziation" is? It is putting farms under public ownership, rather than private ownership. Public ownership of farms, which would exist under a socialist system, has lead to massive starvation both in Russia and China, during the Great Leap Forward. Meanwhile, even the very poorest in countries with economic freedom and private ownership, such as the United States, almost never starve. You talk about the value of labour of the workers, however workers in third world countries could not produce anything valuable without the corporations that provide the capital investment, as outlined in the third argument of my OP. Look at the plight of the Malai, who are not working for corporations, then look at sweatshop workers who are. You will see a massive difference in pay level, quality of life, and life expectancy. If you honestly care for the workers in thirld world countries, you should be arguing for more sweatshops, not less.


Your description of Stalinism as "state-capitalism" also shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what the system is. Stalin turned Russia away from the near-capitalist New Economic Policy created by Lenin, which saved Russia from being completely and utterly destitute after 7 years of war. Capitalism is all about putting the means of production in the hands of private citizens, rather than the government, which makes "state-capitalism" an utterly rediculous concept to begin with. Public ownership of capital leads to the tragedy of commons, whereas private ownership of capital leads to rapidly increasing wealth and quality of life.


I can't believe you are so full of shit.
Back to top
coolcreep



Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dr_Nico wrote:
coolcreep wrote:
ChuckNorris wrote:
coolcreep wrote:
ChuckNorris wrote:
There was no socialism in Russia after 1929. Not an ounce of it.

Furthermore, is the tragedy of Russia the fault of socialism? Or, perhaps, could it be that Russia was an already deeply-impoverished country which was further devastated by 4 years of war with the Central Powers and then by a brutal civil war, both of which served to cut her industrial and agricultural output to 1/3 of their already low pre-war levels?

Nah that couldn't be it.


Considering it wasn't until the collectivizing of the farming system that famine became wide spread, you are right;that couldn't be it.

Also, your statement about no socialism after 1929 is right only in the semantics sense, they certainly did not embrace free markets in 1929, they just went into Stalinism, which is a form of communism/marxism. As for Russia between 1917 and 1929, ya what a great place to live :S


Stalinism is state-capitalism, not socialism or Marxism in any sense. Under Stalinism you have a stratified class society where elite state bureaucrats exploit the proletariat for surplus value in exactly the same way the bourgeoisie does so under a 'free-market' system. Class society and surplus value exploitation are both anathema to socialism and therefore a system that displays these characteristics cannot be considered socialist or Marxist in any sense.

Under Stalin and his ilk, the Soviet Union not only steered the global proletariat away from revolution, but they corrupted and in many cases actually helped to defeat revolutionary movements around the world. The Chinese Communist Party under Mao is a perfect example of Stalinist taint on what began as a genuine socialist and proletarian organization.

Stalin also advocated the creation of a massive national-defense industry inside the USSR in an effort to engage in outright and blatant imperialism against its neighbors. Imperialism, as Lenin argues, is the highest form of capitalism, and therefore also anathema to socialism and Marxism.

Stalin was behind the collectivization of the farms. Trotsky and the left-opposition (which included most of the 1917 Bolsheviks) all opposed Stalin's war against the Russian peasantry, which is what the collectivization efforts were.


Do you know understand what "collectiviziation" is? It is putting farms under public ownership, rather than private ownership. Public ownership of farms, which would exist under a socialist system, has lead to massive starvation both in Russia and China, during the Great Leap Forward. Meanwhile, even the very poorest in countries with economic freedom and private ownership, such as the United States, almost never starve. You talk about the value of labour of the workers, however workers in third world countries could not produce anything valuable without the corporations that provide the capital investment, as outlined in the third argument of my OP. Look at the plight of the Malai, who are not working for corporations, then look at sweatshop workers who are. You will see a massive difference in pay level, quality of life, and life expectancy. If you honestly care for the workers in thirld world countries, you should be arguing for more sweatshops, not less.


Your description of Stalinism as "state-capitalism" also shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what the system is. Stalin turned Russia away from the near-capitalist New Economic Policy created by Lenin, which saved Russia from being completely and utterly destitute after 7 years of war. Capitalism is all about putting the means of production in the hands of private citizens, rather than the government, which makes "state-capitalism" an utterly rediculous concept to begin with. Public ownership of capital leads to the tragedy of commons, whereas private ownership of capital leads to rapidly increasing wealth and quality of life.


I can't believe you are so full of shit.


Umm, how many people starve to death in the US? In Canada?
Back to top
Dr_Nico



Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Posts: 39

PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Doesn't make any sense to argue with you, you are so full of it you even believe your own words.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> Other - Non-Magic All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

All content on this page may not be reproduced without consent of Magic-League Directors.
Magic the Gathering is TM and copyright Wizards of the Coast, Inc, a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. All rights reserved.


About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy