The Liberal Gun Club Forum

JayFromPA wrote:And let's take an honest stark look, every single national commie government to date has been a negative incarnation - because there is a certain amount of enforcement that has to happen and you just cannot achieve a harmonious commie society with anything more than a nominal token amount of unwilling participants acting as social poison.

Progurt wrote:

JayFromPA wrote:And let's take an honest stark look, every single national commie government to date has been a negative incarnation - because there is a certain amount of enforcement that has to happen and you just cannot achieve a harmonious commie society with anything more than a nominal token amount of unwilling participants acting as social poison.

The same being true of every single national capitalist government, of course.

Progurt wrote:In the US we don't have a lot of industrial workers anymore, and we don't have a massive agricultural peasantry. Which means whatever revolution we have whenever we have it would be a completely different class and type of workers (my bet is retail, and it'd take place along completely different lines....

gendoikari87 wrote:just listen to the lyrics.

Songs of the revolution time:

Teddy, Like a boss.

gendoikari87 wrote:

the comedian wrote:

FrontSight wrote: Socialism is a necessity that can be had after capitalism build a society.

FS nailed that one, but I took the liberty of changing one word.

Socialism can build a society just as well if not better than capitalism. Co-operatives work just as well as capitalist companies, the difference is that under socialism, the workers aren't getting exploited.

FrontSight wrote: So typically it will be capitalistic ventures that builds the society. Capitalism works very well on a very small scale, in a society that is very moralistic. The problem is, it doesn’t take long at all for the ugly part of capitalism to rear its head. This is why I strongly favor a graduated approach toward regulating markets as the capitalists continue to find ways to break the rules. And it should be noted that co-ops can be just as guilty at breaking market rules.

This is why I don’t subscribe to any ONE “ism” because they all have their flaws. The genius lies in picking the right amount of each to find a “just right” kind of system.

GuitarsandGuns wrote:

FrontSight wrote: So typically it will be capitalistic ventures that builds the society. Capitalism works very well on a very small scale, in a society that is very moralistic. The problem is, it doesn’t take long at all for the ugly part of capitalism to rear its head. This is why I strongly favor a graduated approach toward regulating markets as the capitalists continue to find ways to break the rules. And it should be noted that co-ops can be just as guilty at breaking market rules.

This is why I don’t subscribe to any ONE “ism” because they all have their flaws. The genius lies in picking the right amount of each to find a “just right” kind of system.

So In Vietnam we learned that communism worked very well on a small scale. i.e. a Village or Hamlet.
Funny how that is> Maybe we just don't do big so well.

gendoikari87 wrote:Individual co-ops can be just as guilty but what i envision as the perfect socialist society, the county level, will be an organizer of industry, essentially providing the exact same service as the financial industry today, with the minor difference of instead of returns being paramount, societies need or demand would be paramount. And any failing business that is deemed necessary, or desired, won't go under, they will simply have their management replaced. as wells as having management elected. So the CEO's and managers of any company would be required, by law to balanced both the equity of a company, it's competativeness, it's efficiency AND it's fairness to it's own employees.

FrontSight wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:Individual co-ops can be just as guilty but what i envision as the perfect socialist society, the county level, will be an organizer of industry, essentially providing the exact same service as the financial industry today, with the minor difference of instead of returns being paramount, societies need or demand would be paramount. And any failing business that is deemed necessary, or desired, won't go under, they will simply have their management replaced. as wells as having management elected. So the CEO's and managers of any company would be required, by law to balanced both the equity of a company, it's competativeness, it's efficiency AND it's fairness to it's own employees.

I love it, let's do it.

Setting the Record Straight

There’s a lot of talk about what Socialism is and is not, a lot of Socialists can’t even really explain it or don’t really know what exactly it is. Socialism by itself isn’t bad, in fact it’s something that everyone should be striving for, but unfortunately it makes certain people obsolete and that scares them. They will thus argue against it tooth and nail until they die and it no longer concerns them. It flips the Free Market currency based Capitalist economy on its head, eliminating the need for investors and the ability to accumulate wealth without having actually produced anything. Likewise the people who currently profit from the necessities of people by claiming ownership of natural resources would also become obsolete ending their tyranny over said resources.

So what is Socialism and why do certain people fear it? Socialism is the elimination of currency based capitalism through advancement in technology. Specifically it seeks to put research and development into machines which handle production of the necessities of life for people to survive making a fully automated system which negates the need to work to survive. This is what Communists and Capitalists fail to understand when Marx said Socialism is the death of Capitalism. It’s not a sudden shock to the system, it’s a gradual evolution between Capitalism and Communism, the latter of which can not happen without the success of Socialism as the several forced attempts in the Eastern World can attest to. The best example of the ultimate Socialist technology would be a replicator from Star Trek, a device which uses the most basic building blocks around it to create something of value, like food and water.

The Communists will say this isn’t true, but it is, the problem for them is that they co-opted Socialism so long ago that they’ve forgotten the difference between Socialism and Communism which has only made it easier for the Capitalists to resist the evolution of our economy and society further blurring the line between the two and improperly defining what Socialism is. This ill conceived definition is then adopted by “Socialists” who really aren’t, but are rather “Economic Tyrants” deciding what can and can’t be done economically. Granted, their form of tyranny tends to be beneficial because it doesn’t allow productive entities to conduct themselves in ways which harm the overall economy or the people. It basically takes Communist ideals and applies them to the Capitalist system with varying success. Generally this hybrid system ensures competition by not allowing monopolies to form and assisting the lower classes to elevate their station in life by artificially leveling the playing field.

Socialism is the actual leveling of the playing field eliminating the need to do so artificially. Socialism is a process, nothing more, it allows for the existence of Communism. Here are some examples of Socialism:

Nano bots which perform micro surgery eliminating the need for doctors providing free healthcare.
Fully automated hydroponic farms eliminating the need for farmers and providing free food.
Fully automated water processing plants providing free water.
Fully automated mines and pumps providing free resources to continue building as needed.
Fully automated systems of renewable sources of energy.
And of course the maintenance bots necessary to keep the system together.

Sounds like science fiction, but much of it is becoming science fact which is why many industries are fighting against the intrinsic evolution of technology. The oil industry for instance bought all of the patents for electric and solar based cars back in the 1970s and 1980s and sat on the technology to continue our dependence on their product. Also much like how the film studios and record labels are attempting to fight the digital evolution of media which eliminates the need for them to produce and distribute artists’ creativity. Take a look at any business entity which profits from the labor of someone else and I guarantee they are chaired by those who fund the mouth pieces which scream about the evils of “Socialism” and a trail of litigation attempting to stop the systems which would provide their service for free or allowing individuals to by pass them entirely and distribute their production themselves.

That is Socialism, it is the Arbiter between Freedom and Tyranny, allowing the productive to reap wholly the rewards of their labor, and the unproductive and untalented to simply survive. If you don’t like welfare, corporate or individual, then Socialism is for you.

FrontSight wrote:

GuitarsandGuns wrote: So In Vietnam we learned that communism worked very well on a small scale. i.e. a Village or Hamlet.
Funny how that is> Maybe we just don't do big so well.

The key word in my statement is “Typically”, Vietnam is an exception, and it was really ugly how they got there; basically slaughtering anyone who disagreed with their politics. But once they got there, you’re right, it did work pretty well. But again, Vietnam is very a-typical of how a society is built. It does prove that it can be done from the ground up, but my point was mostly around the fact that Capitalism is pretty much a default human behavior, and as such, that’s how societies are typically built. We will never rid ourselves of capitalistic behavior in any society (Except perhaps Star Trek).

GuitarsandGuns wrote:I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I'm not talking about the government version of communism that was imposed as you say by brutal methods.
That was too long a story but it was mostly who supplied the guns to Uncle Ho. If we had supplied the guns then I think Vietnam would be a democracy.

I'm talking about the communism of the Montagnards. I'm talking about what I saw when I was there during the war.
The Montagnards were our supporters. I'm talking about the practice of communism by people who had been doing it before Lenin or Marx were even born. Everyone in the village shared everything. They were not the society of the Vietnamese who actually hated the Yards. The Yards were like the Native Americans they were considered animals by the Vietnamese.

ABNinfantryman wrote:What I find hilarious is that all of you principled intellectual folk are still thinking of Socialism and Communism in Capitalist terms. Money, in Communism? For Communism to exist Socialism has to succeed in eliminating the need for currency by removing the necessity to work to survive.

Setting the Record Straight

There’s a lot of talk about what Socialism is and is not, a lot of Socialists can’t even really explain it or don’t really know what exactly it is. Socialism by itself isn’t bad, in fact it’s something that everyone should be striving for, but unfortunately it makes certain people obsolete and that scares them. They will thus argue against it tooth and nail until they die and it no longer concerns them. It flips the Free Market currency based Capitalist economy on its head, eliminating the need for investors and the ability to accumulate wealth without having actually produced anything. Likewise the people who currently profit from the necessities of people by claiming ownership of natural resources would also become obsolete ending their tyranny over said resources.

So what is Socialism and why do certain people fear it? Socialism is the elimination of currency based capitalism through advancement in technology. Specifically it seeks to put research and development into machines which handle production of the necessities of life for people to survive making a fully automated system which negates the need to work to survive. This is what Communists and Capitalists fail to understand when Marx said Socialism is the death of Capitalism. It’s not a sudden shock to the system, it’s a gradual evolution between Capitalism and Communism, the latter of which can not happen without the success of Socialism as the several forced attempts in the Eastern World can attest to. The best example of the ultimate Socialist technology would be a replicator from Star Trek, a device which uses the most basic building blocks around it to create something of value, like food and water.

The Communists will say this isn’t true, but it is, the problem for them is that they co-opted Socialism so long ago that they’ve forgotten the difference between Socialism and Communism which has only made it easier for the Capitalists to resist the evolution of our economy and society further blurring the line between the two and improperly defining what Socialism is. This ill conceived definition is then adopted by “Socialists” who really aren’t, but are rather “Economic Tyrants” deciding what can and can’t be done economically. Granted, their form of tyranny tends to be beneficial because it doesn’t allow productive entities to conduct themselves in ways which harm the overall economy or the people. It basically takes Communist ideals and applies them to the Capitalist system with varying success. Generally this hybrid system ensures competition by not allowing monopolies to form and assisting the lower classes to elevate their station in life by artificially leveling the playing field.

Socialism is the actual leveling of the playing field eliminating the need to do so artificially. Socialism is a process, nothing more, it allows for the existence of Communism. Here are some examples of Socialism:

Nano bots which perform micro surgery eliminating the need for doctors providing free healthcare.
Fully automated hydroponic farms eliminating the need for farmers and providing free food.
Fully automated water processing plants providing free water.
Fully automated mines and pumps providing free resources to continue building as needed.
Fully automated systems of renewable sources of energy.
And of course the maintenance bots necessary to keep the system together.

Sounds like science fiction, but much of it is becoming science fact which is why many industries are fighting against the intrinsic evolution of technology. The oil industry for instance bought all of the patents for electric and solar based cars back in the 1970s and 1980s and sat on the technology to continue our dependence on their product. Also much like how the film studios and record labels are attempting to fight the digital evolution of media which eliminates the need for them to produce and distribute artists’ creativity. Take a look at any business entity which profits from the labor of someone else and I guarantee they are chaired by those who fund the mouth pieces which scream about the evils of “Socialism” and a trail of litigation attempting to stop the systems which would provide their service for free or allowing individuals to by pass them entirely and distribute their production themselves.

That is Socialism, it is the Arbiter between Freedom and Tyranny, allowing the productive to reap wholly the rewards of their labor, and the unproductive and untalented to simply survive. If you don’t like welfare, corporate or individual, then Socialism is for you.