«12. . .1,5391,5401,5411,5421,5431,5441,545. . .2,7852,786»
To be honest I don't know. I'm going to take it one step at a time. If an error occurs I will try and get support (or ask ST here, he seems to know a lot). THe plan is to upgrade one thing at a time and see what happens.
The upgrade itself won't take very long, maybe half an hour a day over 2 weeks and the forum would be usable between uploads. But putting a skin back on would take a LONG time because I am not free to do graphic work nowadays. So expect a basic skin forum for at least 3 months.
I would help if I knew about forums.. my sister has all that knowledge.
Also I am sleepy.. *splat*
*hold arms out for a hug*
*Hugs Ice bears* hi ice bears how are you
Good but slightly sad
You completely missed the point, Tam.
To help you better understand:
Democratic Socialists ...
Believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.
Believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.
Believe publicly owned enterprises should be managed by workers and consumer representatives. (Not the Government, if it were Government control, THAT would be Communism, aka the Soviet Union.
Believe the whole economy should NOT be centrally planned. (Again, a centrally planned Economy is Communism, E.G., North Korea
Believe common ownership is the right of disposal by the workers themselves; the working class itself NOT THE GOVERNMENT.
Believe under public ownership, as well as private ownership, the working class shall not be exploited for the work they do.
If the business men are people and greedy as you make them out to be then what is going to stop the workers from being greedy pigs once they rule everything. How is merely replacing one tyrant with a tyranny of the majority going to solve anything? How is taking away any incentive to succeed in the business world going to make your nation economical successful? How is punishing success going to make people desire to remain successful?
Well, technically the Soviet Union was state capitalist, as workers didn't own the means of production, nor did they democratically manage their workplaces, and North Korea is simply an autocratic dictatorship following their ideology of Juche. For both to be considered "communist," at least in Marxian terms, they'd have to've gone through capitalism and fully industrialise, become socialist thereafter, and then reach a A. Classless, B. Stateless society that has C. abolished private ownership of the means of production. Communism is just a very advanced form of socialism.
Permission to use aphrodisiac bombs in the next war?
Communism is a fictional utopia created and supported by people who dislike the modern system and create their own world where everything is okay. Communism is against human nature and can not happen. It also revolves around violence but people somehow claim it an ideology of peace, how laughable.
You aren't looking at it correctly.
First, I'd like to say that I don't think business people are explicitly greedy, per se. The problem lies with capitalist exploitation of labour, whereby the capitalist reaps the product of other's labour, then pays the workers a wage. Wage labour is exploitive because those who produce a good or service largely do not see the fruits of their labour go to them, instead they are soaked up by a capitalist, and the rest just filters down the corporate hierarchy. I oppose this exploitation, and thus oppose capitalists, not because they are greedy, but because the system necessitates exploitation in order to accumulate wealth, and this leads to a society driven by petty self-interest and a mindless drive for profit at any cost. The model is quite simply unsustainable, and if left to its own devices, will devour itself.
Why wouldn't they be greedy once they become self-managed?? [satire]Well, why wouldn't they just subvert the whole democratic process and claim the enterprise for themselves? Obviously it's human nature to be a greedy arse, so clearly it wouldn't work.[/satire] This line of thinking also seems to imply that the workers would switch roles with the capitalist and start exploiting.... Someone? The management structure isn't hierarchical, it's less a pyramid and more of a narrow, horizontal oval. Tyranny by majority wouldn't occur. Anyway, for starters, they would have democratic management. No one employee could make exorbitant amounts of money whilst other workers make next to nothing. The wealth generated from an enterprise would be distributed based on fair compensation for labour, to each according to ability. This doesn't mean everyone will be paid the same amount, it means that the workers would democratically agree on a pay scheme that is to the benefit of everyone. Secondly, their drives and motives under a democratic workplace are now different. The atmosphere of their workplace is no longer one of competition and man-eat-man, but one of solidarity and cooperation. By working there, one is not only working for the benefit of themselves, but for the benefit of all the people who work there. And since they themselves are getting fairly compensated for their labour, there exists no drive to collect more than his fellow workers.
You know, people aren't always motivated solely by monetary incentives, see this:
http://youtu.be/dgKKPQiRRag
What is your definition of success? Climbing the corporate ladder to the top? "Success" is seen differently in a socialist society (we are successful when we all own the products of our labour, and work to improve ourselves, our work, and contribute to a greater society), and not fetishised as it is in capitalist society, where one "succeeds" by outpacing and tearing down everyone in order to achieve your goal. Divide and conquer tactics that capitalism quite likes to use to turn workers on each other. Allow me to reiterate that in a democratically managed workers' self-directed enterprise, people aren't all paid the same, it's based on fair compensation for labour difficulty/skill/(whatever standard or criteria the firm democratically decides upon). Basically, workers would know how much money the organisation in which they work is making, and then decide on a reasonable system of dividing it up based on the work being done by each of them. Workers who are lazy would still make less, workers who work hard would still make more. There are still incentives to work hard. No one is being punished for "success", despite being in conflict with capitalism's hierarchical, toxically self-interested idea of "success."
Yknow, the funny thing is that the story was true. I can never prove it to you of course, but it's up to you to take it as you will (and based on your response, I can see you aren't exactly on the same page as I am, fair enough). Some people can't help themselves, it's not like this guy could just have pulled himself up by the proverbial libertine bootstraps.
To say communism is purely fictional and conceived as a fantasy world to hide insecurities is rather crass and ignorant. Cursory understanding of the theory of the base and superstructure is enough to disspell the human nature myth. Essentially, "human nature" is only natural insofar as the socio-economic climate influences culture. This becomes apparent even in the differences between individual capitalist countries. Communism is not something we can achieve today, nor anytime in the near future. However, it is achievable to some degree. Imagine what an autocratic King in ancient times would have thought of a concept like democracy or capitalism. Surely they are just impossible fantasies!
I know that I am fairly new here and that I have never put anything on the board before but I personally feel that Socialism in concept works for a while but it will not be sustainable. There is only one major reason why it will not and that is personal goals. Some call this greed others call it success but I just believe that if you as an individual have a goal that can not be gained while still helping than you should not be forced to help others and give up your goal by force. This is the underlying idea behind communism and socialism. No one person can be ahead of another which eliminates the ideas behind a financial and personal goal. when you lose goals you then lose individuality because no one is competing for anything and developing relations. It also becomes a problem when someone stops helping because they are still gaining income while not putting into the pool.
I do however agree with some socialism ideas such as a retirement fund and a medicaid and those can be implemented in a society without a major issue. the problem is still what happens with a wholly communistic or socialistic country.
There is a legend about a nail factory in the USSR. The nail factory was tasked with making 100 tons of nails. So the factory made 100 nails at one ton each in protest of food rations.
Hey all, just wanted to say that i'm super excited about the forum being updated and want to say my B for not being around for a long while on the forum, only in spirit as I just haven't found a good time to say anything, and i'm always afraid of riling people up with my opinions so I generally stay out of discussions unless someone for whatever reason wants my opinion. Hope all of you are doing good, and i'll probably see more of everyone come the forum update
Aa megami-sama, Skothafjordur, and Shardar Logoth
Such a nice sunny day.. A nice day for a march!
Seconds ago: Following new legislation in Thembria SSR, citizens live in superstitious fear of the mysterious glowing clouds that float over Thembria SSR.
Seconds ago: Following new legislation in Thembria SSR, military spending is on the increase.
Velkomen! Do feel free to pop in on the message board anytime.
The idea that socialism stifles individual goal-setting and achievement is debatable. I think it all depends on what "kind" of goal you wish to achieve. If it is a work related or financial goal, obviously other people would have to be taken into account. A personal goal, however, is just as achievable if not more achievable in a socialist society. It's also not that people can't be ahead of each other, it's more about a fairer and more egalitarian society based on solidarity and cooperation. "To each according to ability, to each according to need." It's not like we socialists cling to a crude conception of equality and that your utmost duty is to the collective. It's more of a "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" sort of thing. That's not to say you can't own yourself and pursue leisure, hobbies, etc, it's just that we must consider everyone else in matters that could impact others.
I must disagree that competition is as key of a driver of individuality as you make it out to be, and whatever you mean by "developing relations," which is incredibly vague. Cooperation empowers individuals, and being able to own the fruits of your labour is not only gratifying, but freeing.
Another thing to note: Production for use. It's a huge concept in socialism and communism. Say your goal is to have yourself a nice boat (I use this example only because owning a boat is a big deal in Minnesota :p), you as a worker own the means of production. Go and build yerself a boat or what have you.
One final thing, since I'm at work and in a rush, Soviet Russia was not socialist, nor was it communist by the Marxian definition. It was merely state capitalist, as unlike in socialism, the workers didn't democratically own and manage the means of production, and unlike in communism, there yet existed stark class division, as opposed to classlessness in communism. ALSO ALSO: Socialism and communism don't necessarily mean central planning á la Leninism or Stalinism. Socialism itself can have a wide variety of distributing mechanisms, be it the market, decentralised planning, economic democracy, etc etc.
That was a mess, lol. No longer am I on my break. Lots of points to cover, so little time.
That's the big problem with communism. We already have a functioning(though not perfect) system. Why violently tear that down(Most communists I know are that type) and replace it with something completely foreign, theoretical, untested? Another thing is that most communists view communism as the final step in human development, the end point and goal where we should all strive for. They view human development as linear. Who's to say that in the future they'll come up with a completely perfect fascist system or a system we can't even comprehend yet? Lastly communism promotes this idea that humans are good and equal. Humans are animals and strive for a hierarchy. Animals want to survive and if that means killing off other animal groups then they will. This is evident by prides of lions killing all males in other prides, colonies of ants killing and enslaving other colonies, troops of monkeys raiding others. They do these things without the concept of capital. Humans naturally enforce hierarchy be it social, political, resourceful, and love the "us vs them" mentality. This is a lay back to all other primate species(which we are descended from) that have hierarchies. another thing is that saying humans are equal removes that which makes us human. Would you take the opinion of some stranger over your doctor? Is your life equal to that of Obama? Is a social outcast equal to the most popular kid in school? If we are equal then what about people in wheelchairs? Do they not get special privileges or should use the stairs because we are equal. Or what about groups of people with a interesting historical reputation. Like you can't be white and make a joke about a black guy or how in Germany you can't do the hitler salute. Both of these are due to understandable cultural sensitivities. But once you start treating people differently the concept of equality is no more. Strife, inequality, competition, warfare, extinction is inherent to all life, humans are no exception. Communists disillusioned themselves to thinking that once communism(which varies greatly from communist to communist) happens everything will be perfect. No I believe that is too idealistic, humanity will never reach utopia. It simply can not exist.
Thembria SSR, SteamPunkFishToo, Tamanian, Skothafjordur, and 1 otherFisxol
Well, I must say the fact that simply stating "socialism is not sustainable since it gets in the way of personal goals" is very misleading, due to the heterogeneity of different forms, versions, and iterations of "socialism", and many do not comply with the statement.
My nation is a smooth blend of regulated capitalism and democratic socialism, so it allows me to not negate the compensation of people's hard work(that is, money), and still retain a reasonable wealth curve. It is simply unfair to say that "socialism" and every single one of its interpretations are unsustainable. The form of socialism that Reynoldstovia speaks of is a more Marxist, communist-centred ideology.
«12. . .1,5391,5401,5411,5421,5431,5441,545. . .2,7852,786»
Advertisement
