Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Comrade Anklebiter's Fun-Timey Revolutionary Socialism Thread


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 852 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Revolutionary socialism is way cool!

If you don't like it, you're a stooge of the plutocracy!

[Leans back in chair and reads The Warlods of Mars while waiting for visitors to arrive.]


Go figure you'd go for a book about the RED planet.

Cheliax

For a good 5 years now I've thought about changing from being a registered Independent to a registered Socialist.
(I'm American.)

The best countries in the world toady are Socialist -- of course, the worst countries today are also Socialist.

We know Capitalism is a failure, a morally broken system.

I think another step, a much bigger one this time, toward Socialism is an answer for America that can begin to really solve some of our problems -- though Socialism by itself won't completely fix our rapidly crumbling nation.


Just going to be the first to say it: pinko bastard ;P

Qadira

1 person marked this as a favorite.
W E Ray wrote:

For a good 5 years now I've thought about changing from being a registered Independent to a registered Socialist.

(I'm American.)

The best countries in the world toady are Socialist -- of course, the worst countries today are also Socialist.

We know Capitalism is a failure, a morally broken system.

I think another step, a much bigger one this time, toward Socialism is an answer for America that can begin to really solve some of our problems -- though Socialism by itself won't completely fix our rapidly crumbling nation.

Morally broken system?? Capitalism has nothing to do with morals. It is an economic system, not a life style.

Rapidly crumbling nation? Yeah it needs some work I will agree, And we have some damn ignoramuses in Washington, but rapidly crumbling, did I blink?

Qadira

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
W E Ray wrote:

We know Capitalism is a failure, a morally broken system.

Uhhh. Ok. Sure. We know this. Right

Well, I can see this thread ain't going anywhere good. Dasvedanya
tovarisches!

backs right the fnck out of the thread


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

*pulls out a 12.5 foot pole*

Nope, not long enough.

*leaves thread*


Darth Knight wrote:
Just going to be the first to say it: pinko bastard ;P

I never doubted for a second that you'd be first, CJ!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Eat the rich!

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think capitalism is a key component of freedom and innovation.

But I also think that the ultra-wealthy and international corporations are bleeding the US dry. So, yeah, we need more of what the religious fundamentalists and fantasy-prone, misfit Libertarians call "socialism."

Qadira

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kortz wrote:
fantasy-prone, misfit Libertarians

Nice trolling for effect, dude. Here, lemme twist it about, see how you like it:

Bizarro Kortz wrote:

I think a social safety net is a key component of a compassionate government.

But I also think that the burgeoning entitlement class, massive inefficient government bureaucracies, and the corporate subsidies are bleeding the US dry. So, yeah, we need more of what the atheistic Communists and fantasy-prone, misfit Progressives call "Capitalism."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Patrick Curtin wrote:
Kortz wrote:
fantasy-prone, misfit Libertarians

Nice trolling for effect, dude. Here, lemme twist it about, see how you like it:

Bizarro Kortz wrote:

I think a social safety net is a key component of a compassionate government.

But I also think that the burgeoning entitlement class, massive inefficient government bureaucracies, and the corporate subsidies are bleeding the US dry. So, yeah, we need more of what the atheistic Communists and fantasy-prone, misfit Progressives call "Capitalism."

Hey, I thought you were leaving!

Anyway, I only started this thread to continue a discussion from Bitter Thorn's thread. (Btw, I don't know about misfit, but BT is proud of being a fantasy-prone Libertarian!) Well, that and I thought it would be a cool name for a thread and a good way to get CJ to call me a bastard, which always makes me smile.

Anyway, it appears that this thread has already outlived its use, so, have fun, guys, and knock yourselves out.

Qadira

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Patrick Curtin wrote:
Kortz wrote:
fantasy-prone, misfit Libertarians

Nice trolling for effect, dude. Here, lemme twist it about, see how you like it:

Bizarro Kortz wrote:

I think a social safety net is a key component of a compassionate government.

But I also think that the burgeoning entitlement class, massive inefficient government bureaucracies, and the corporate subsidies are bleeding the US dry. So, yeah, we need more of what the atheistic Communists and fantasy-prone, misfit Progressives call "Capitalism."

Hey, I thought you were leaving!

Anyway, I only started this thread to continue a discussion from Bitter Thorn's thread. (Btw, I don't know about misfit, but BT is proud of being a fantasy-prone Libertarian!) Well, that and I thought it would be a cool name for a thread and a good way to get CJ to call me a bastard, which always makes me smile.

Anyway, it appears that this thread has already outlived its use, so, have fun, guys, and knock yourselves out.

I didn't defocus in time. I am now *defocus*

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, "fantasy-prone misfit Libertarians" might not be entirely fair. There is a slight chance that the Earth gets hit by a meteor big enough to throw us back into the 18th Century, and when that happens all the Ron Paulists will be heroes.


Patrick Curtin wrote:


I didn't defocus in time. I am now *defocus*

Breathe in, breathe out.

Breathe in, hold it---breathe out.

I want you to picture your power animal in your special place...

Spoiler:
Fight Club joke.

Qadira

Bastard!!

Qadira

so lets see..

Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labor and private property in the means of production and real estate.

My opinion, works great on paper, poorly in society. As with most things.


Crimson Jester wrote:

so lets see..

Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labor and private property in the means of production and real estate.

My opinion, works great on paper, poorly in society. As with most things.

Don't forget that it would abolish the "right" of inheritance and eradicate the distinction between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" children.

Stop calling me a bastard, you reactionary stooge of the plutocracy!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Crimson Jester wrote:


Morally broken system?? Capitalism has nothing to do with morals. It is an economic system, not a life style.

And the way we organize our society has nothing to do with morals? Economic systems determine how we produce stuff and how we divide amongst ourselves. They determine how we access shelter and food and thus who lives and who dies. Are these questions not at the very root of morality?

I have a lot of trouble comprehending a viewpoint that sees economics as completely distinct from morality.


Ninja'd by CJ!

Dear pinko bastard, I thought the thread was going to be devoted to socialism vs communism and how each would theoretically mix with America.

Sincerely,
Misfit fantasy prone libertarian


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Revolutionary socialism is way cool!

If you don't like it, you're a stooge of the plutocracy!

[Leans back in chair and reads The Warlods of Mars while waiting for visitors to arrive.]

See, you almost had me 'til you used that word: socialism. That sounds entirely too people-oriented to me. When you decide to convert to the near utopia of hermit-ism, I'll pop over for the free literature.

{sees shadow, scampers back into abandoned missile silo}

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.

{stomps in with centurions} We got an anonymous call from the Judean People's Front that one goblin and one People's Front of Judea were creating a ruckus. Now knock it off, or we'll come back here and warn you again! {stomps out with centurions}


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Revolutionary socialism is way cool!

If you don't like it, you're a stooge of the plutocracy!

[Leans back in chair and reads The Warlods of Mars while waiting for visitors to arrive.]

See, you almost had me 'til you used that word: socialism. That sounds entirely too people-oriented to me. When you decide to convert to the near utopia of hermit-ism, I'll pop over for the free literature.

{sees shadow, scampers back into abandoned missile silo}

Hermitism is too mainstream. Forcing everyone else to live in solitude is much cooler.


off topic to Ambrosia Slaad:

I had to look up Judean People's Front. I cant believe Ive made it 32 years without ever seeing Life of Brian. Pretty good? How does it compare to Holy Grail?

Edit- added off topic spoiler


TheWhiteknife wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

Edit- added off topic spoiler

If you've never seen it, it's definitely worth watching. I don't know if it holds up to repeated viewings like The Holy Grail, but there's definitely enough hilarious jokes for one go round. If HG is a 10, LoB is around a 8.

And the Judaean People's Front are a bunch of no-good splitters!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:


Morally broken system?? Capitalism has nothing to do with morals. It is an economic system, not a life style.

And the way we organize our society has nothing to do with morals? Economic systems determine how we produce stuff and how we divide amongst ourselves. They determine how we access shelter and food and thus who lives and who dies. Are these questions not at the very root of morality?

I have a lot of trouble comprehending a viewpoint that sees economics as completely distinct from morality.

I mostly agree, but my grounding in ethical philosophy is pretty limited, so I tend to try to steer clear of words such as "moral", "good", "evil," etc.

What I would add is that what differentiates now from the past is that where starvation, poverty and their concomitant social ills were unavoidable in earlier civilizations, today with our much higher level of science and technology, especially as applied to production, these problems today are unnecessary and man-made. We can easily produce enough to meet everybody's basic needs and a whole lot more--there's just no profit in it.

Qadira

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:


Morally broken system?? Capitalism has nothing to do with morals. It is an economic system, not a life style.

And the way we organize our society has nothing to do with morals? Economic systems determine how we produce stuff and how we divide amongst ourselves. They determine how we access shelter and food and thus who lives and who dies. Are these questions not at the very root of morality?

I have a lot of trouble comprehending a viewpoint that sees economics as completely distinct from morality.

I mostly agree, but my grounding in ethical philosophy is pretty limited, so I tend to try to steer clear of words such as "moral", "good", "evil," etc.

What I would add is that what differentiates now from the past is that where starvation, poverty and their concomitant social ills were unavoidable in earlier civilizations, today with our much higher level of science and technology, especially as applied to production, these problems today are unnecessary and man-made. We can easily produce enough to meet everybody's basic needs and a whole lot more--there's just no profit in it.

Depends on what you term as profit. If it is economic profit, then you are correct it there is none and capitalism is a great evil. If however you do not use economics as a measure for moralism, but rather use your ethics to inform your business practices you come up with much different solutions to problems.


TheWhiteknife wrote:

Ninja'd by CJ!

Dear pinko bastard, I thought the thread was going to be devoted to socialism vs communism and how each would theoretically mix with America.

Sincerely,
Misfit fantasy prone libertarian

First, "Pinko Bastard" should be capitalized.

Second, I am sorry to disappoint. As I said above, I was just creating a forum to discuss things with Kryzbyn and not clutter up the Government Folly thread. Or, at least, not more so than I usually do.

And thirdly, this is my FUN-TIMEY Revolutionary Socialism Thread. Have fun!

Andoran

TheWhiteknife wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

Edit- added off topic spoiler

Cheliax Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

I am available to serve (and, by "serve", I mean "rule over you pathethic bastards with an iron fist") as the Chairman of the Socialist Committee that runs the country.

Viva Revolution!


Sebastian wrote:

I am available to serve (and, by "serve", I mean "rule over you pathethic bastards with an iron fist") as the Chairman of the Socialist Committee that runs the country.

Viva Revolution!

Um, sorry, but I already offered that position to Bitter Thorn. Still, there's plenty of work to be done in post-capitalist America.

For example, we are currently taking applications for Quality Control Inspector in the Narcotics and Prostitution division of the People's Glorious Planned Economy. Perhaps you would like to forward a resume?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Christianity – Historical Rebellion

Christianity is also indirectly to blame for the fallacies of Marxism, according to Camus. In his section dealing with
“State Terrorism and Rational Terror” Camus criticizes Marxist ideology on three fronts. First, he accuses Marx
of mixing methods to arrive at his conclusions—using scientific inquiry to examine capitalism, dialectical reasoning
to explain history, and prophecy to postulate the end of history. Second, Camus is critical of Marx’s economic
determinism. Third, he accuses Marx of using contradictory ethical principles. “On the one hand, Marx scorns
those who seek guidance from moral principles rather from economic realities. On the other hand, Marx treats
the classless society as an end that justifies whatever means are employed to hasten its coming” (Kamber, 84).
The use of dialectical reasoning as well as his notion of the end of history are aspects of Marxist thought that
Camus attributes to the influence of the Christian rationalist Hegel.

Camus looks at Hegel in depth in “The Deicides”, in which he accuses the philosopher of having “rationalized to
the point of being irrational” (Camus, Rebel, 133). Hegel tried to formulate history through a framework of
dialectical reasoning, using the categories of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis to explain the progress of mankind.
Because Hegel was a Christian, Christ and his divinity play a major role in the process. Although he finds it an
impressive endeavour of thought, Camus does not believe Hegel’s ideas have anything to do with reality, though
he acknowledges their major influence on European thought. One of Camus’ main criticisms of Hegel is also his
most forceful criticism against Marx.

Nevertheless, the basis of Hegel’s claims is what renders them intellectually and forever suspect. He
believed that history in 1807, with the advent of Napoleon and of himself, had come to an end, and
that affirmation was possible and nihilism conquered. The Phenomenology, the Bible that was to
have prophesied only the past, put a limit on time. In 1807 all sins were forgiven, and time had
stopped. But history has continued. (Camus, Rebel, 147)

The fallacy of imagining history as having a definitive end is the major flaw that Camus points to in both
Hegelianism and Marxism.

But the link between Christianity and Marxism goes even farther than that. Socialism, by placing the values men
seek at the end of a historical process which man will achieve, eliminates the need for God by replacing Him with
a Utopia.

It is for this reason that Camus insists that to understand the history of Christianity is to understand
Marxism. The Marxist prophecy is nothing more than the perennial Christian-Judaic vision of God’s
plan moving toward an apocalypse; but the vision is now totally within history….Marxism shares
Christianity’s impatience with the ‘is’ of this world in the light of a ‘should’ which is beyond history.
The apocalypse of history in the classless society is no more justified than the coming Kingdom of
Heaven….It is the promise and the certainty of the ultimate justification of the cause which make it
possible for men to give themselves willingly as a sacrifice for the cause. (Hanna, CCE, 55)

It seems that Camus has the same problems with Marxism as he has had with Christianity from the beginning. Just
as Christians will subordinate the value of their lives to something that lies beyond it, a socialist will justify rebellion
and murder by appealing to a future state of affairs in which murder is no longer necessary. However, Camus
sees no more reason to believe in the Marxist Utopia than in the Christian Kingdom of Heaven. Just as a
Christian would be misguided in sacrificing himself for a reward in another life that may only be imaginary, a
socialist would be wrong to murder for the sake of a classless society which may never be realised.

This idea is what Camus calls Marx’s “bourgeois prophecy,” and he contrasts this way of thinking with that of the
ancient Greeks.

In contrast to the ancient world, the unity of the Christian and Marxist world is astonishing. The two
doctrines have in common a vision of the world which completely separates them from the Greek
attitude….The Christians were the first to consider human life and the course of events as a history
that is unfolding from a fixed beginning towards a definite end, in the course of which man achieves
his salvation or earns his punishment. The philosophy of history springs from a Christian
representation, which is surprising to a Greek mind….The Greeks imagined the history of the world
as cyclical. Aristotle, to give a definitive example, did not believe that the time in which he lived was
subsequent to the Trojan War. (Camus, Rebel, 189)

Camus wants to demonstrate that it is a distinctly Christian way of thinking to imagine history as a straight line with
a beginning and an ending. The ancient Greeks by contrast imagined history as cyclical. Modern science views
time as something of a spiral, with a question mark at the centre but no termination point. For the ideas of Marx
to have any merit, time would have to be linear, and Camus asserts (correctly, by today’s standards) that this is
not the case.

These criticisms, it should be noted, are not of the typical sort of attack levelled against Marxism. Camus does
not argue on socio-economic terms for why capitalism is ultimately the best economic system. He also does not
argue on ideological terms by asserting that free-market capitalism is the best protector of individual rights liberties. Camus merely highlights the errors of Marxist reasoning and asserts that trying to apply socialist
principles in reality usually leads to more harm than benefit, as was the case in Soviet Russia. Camus is not
unaware of the problems and injustices within capitalism, and he even offers Marx some praise for his essential
vision.

He rebelled against the degradation of work to the level of a commodity and of the worker to the
level of an object. He reminded the privileged that their privileges were not divine and that property
was not an eternal right. He gave a bad conscience to those who had no right to a clear conscience,
and denounced with unparalleled profundity a class whose crime is not so much having had power as
having used it to advance the ends of a mediocre society deprived of any real nobility….By
demanding for the worker real riches, which are not the riches of money but of leisure and creation,
he has reclaimed, despite all appearance to the contrary, the dignity of man. In doing so, and this
can be said with conviction, he never wanted the additional degradation that has been imposed on
man in his name. (Camus, Rebel, 209)

Like Christianity, it is not so much the basic ideals that Camus has a problem with, but the distortion and
corruption of these ideals when applied in society. The doctrines are to blame insofar as they lend themselves to
such distortions, and any doctrine which prophesies the end of the history leaves the door open to justifying all
kinds of atrocities.

In spite of Camus’ sympathetic sentiments towards Marxism, his critiques were enough to turn Sartre against him,......

(copied from here)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

There's no way I can take on Albert Camus tonight. Maybe tomorrow.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Crimson Jester wrote:

so lets see..

Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labor and private property in the means of production and real estate.

My opinion, works great on paper, poorly in society. As with most things.

This'll be the only post I bring in here, because all this talk of Camus has me running away before I flash back to four years of hardcore, two-papers-a-week philosophy courses in college, but...

Communism is not Socialism and never will be and my GODS, people, stop mixing the two up! Socialism is strictly an economic system. Communism seeks to be a mixture of both economic and political system. One is not incompatible with the Capitalist system, the other is viewed (rightly or not) as the eventual evolution of the Marxist ideal.

But they're not the same. Many great, First World nations, are Socialist.

Great Britain? Socialist.

Australia? Socialist.

Japan? Socialist.

France, Germany, Canada? All Socialist.

Not a one of those nations is Communist. The automatic assumption that anyone talking about Socialism is automatically discussing Communism makes my head explode.

Seriously. I've been picking the pieces up for minutes now. It's an ugly, ugly sight.

Of course, because my brain is currently wiggling around the floor in tiny little independent and autonomous bits of squoogie matter, I may have completely missed CJ's point in bringing the DREADED C WORD up, and if I did, I apologize.

Now has anyone seen my amygdala?


jemstone wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:

so lets see..

Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labor and private property in the means of production and real estate.

My opinion, works great on paper, poorly in society. As with most things.

This'll be the only post I bring in here, because all this talk of Camus has me running away before I flash back to four years of hardcore, two-papers-a-week philosophy courses in college, but...

Communism is not Socialism and never will be and my GODS, people, stop mixing the two up! Socialism is strictly an economic system. Communism seeks to be a mixture of both economic and political system. One is not incompatible with the Capitalist system, the other is viewed (rightly or not) as the eventual evolution of the Marxist ideal.

But they're not the same. Many great, First World nations, are Socialist.

Great Britain? Socialist.

Australia? Socialist.

Japan? Socialist.

France, Germany, Canada? All Socialist.

Not a one of those nations is Communist. The automatic assumption that anyone talking about Socialism is automatically discussing Communism makes my head explode.

Seriously. I've been picking the pieces up for minutes now. It's an ugly, ugly sight.

Of course, because my brain is currently wiggling around the floor in tiny little independent and autonomous bits of squoogie matter, I may have completely missed CJ's point in bringing the DREADED C WORD up, and if I did, I apologize.

Now has anyone seen my amygdala?

You are both correct and hilariously un-american in being correct.

I'll tots add more to the thread later :B


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:

Ninja'd by CJ!

Dear pinko bastard, I thought the thread was going to be devoted to socialism vs communism and how each would theoretically mix with America.

Sincerely,
Misfit fantasy prone libertarian

First, "Pinko Bastard" should be capitalized.

Second, I am sorry to disappoint. As I said above, I was just creating a forum to discuss things with Kryzbyn and not clutter up the Government Folly thread. Or, at least, not more so than I usually do.

And thirdly, this is my FUN-TIMEY Revolutionary Socialism Thread. Have fun!

I thought you were against capitalization? Oh, capitalism. My bad.

On a serious note, I was really hoping that you were going to do that stuff that was being thrown around in the folly thread. You got me checking counterpunch.com every day. ( after reason.com, of course)

Edit: Do I have to bring my own drugs and porn or are they provided?


jemstone wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:

so lets see..

Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labor and private property in the means of production and real estate.

My opinion, works great on paper, poorly in society. As with most things.

This'll be the only post I bring in here, because all this talk of Camus has me running away before I flash back to four years of hardcore, two-papers-a-week philosophy courses in college, but...

Communism is not Socialism and never will be and my GODS, people, stop mixing the two up! Socialism is strictly an economic system. Communism seeks to be a mixture of both economic and political system. One is not incompatible with the Capitalist system, the other is viewed (rightly or not) as the eventual evolution of the Marxist ideal.

But they're not the same. Many great, First World nations, are Socialist.

Great Britain? Socialist.

Australia? Socialist.

Japan? Socialist.

France, Germany, Canada? All Socialist.

Not a one of those nations is Communist. The automatic assumption that anyone talking about Socialism is automatically discussing Communism makes my head explode.

Seriously. I've been picking the pieces up for minutes now. It's an ugly, ugly sight.

Of course, because my brain is currently wiggling around the floor in tiny little independent and autonomous bits of squoogie matter, I may have completely missed CJ's point in bringing the DREADED C WORD up, and if I did, I apologize.

Now has anyone seen my amygdala?

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I thought it was:

Great Britain: mixed (neither socialist nor capitalist, but a mix of the two)
Japan: mixed
Germany, France, Canada: mixed
Austraila: I know next to nothing about their economy, so I dont know. But I do know that their animals will kill you.
USA: mixed

Qadira

ProfessorCirno wrote:
jemstone wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:

so lets see..

Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labor and private property in the means of production and real estate.

My opinion, works great on paper, poorly in society. As with most things.

This'll be the only post I bring in here, because all this talk of Camus has me running away before I flash back to four years of hardcore, two-papers-a-week philosophy courses in college, but...

Communism is not Socialism and never will be and my GODS, people, stop mixing the two up! Socialism is strictly an economic system. Communism seeks to be a mixture of both economic and political system. One is not incompatible with the Capitalist system, the other is viewed (rightly or not) as the eventual evolution of the Marxist ideal.

But they're not the same. Many great, First World nations, are Socialist.

Great Britain? Socialist.

Australia? Socialist.

Japan? Socialist.

France, Germany, Canada? All Socialist.

Not a one of those nations is Communist. The automatic assumption that anyone talking about Socialism is automatically discussing Communism makes my head explode.

Seriously. I've been picking the pieces up for minutes now. It's an ugly, ugly sight.

Of course, because my brain is currently wiggling around the floor in tiny little independent and autonomous bits of squoogie matter, I may have completely missed CJ's point in bringing the DREADED C WORD up, and if I did, I apologize.

Now has anyone seen my amygdala?

You are both correct and hilariously un-american in being correct.

I'll tots add more to the thread later :B

Yes I raided wikipedia, sue me.

A parliament is a legislature, especially in those countries whose system of government is based on the Westminster system modelled after that of the United Kingdom. The name is derived from the French parlement, the action of parler (to speak): a parlement is a discussion. The term came to mean a meeting at which such a discussion took place. It acquired its modern meaning as it came to be used for the body of people (in an institutional sense) who would meet to discuss matters of state.

The UK which includes Great Britain has a parliamentary government based on the Westminster system that has been emulated around the world—a legacy of the British Empire.

Australia is a constitutional monarchy with a federal division of powers. It uses a parliamentary system of government with Queen Elizabeth II at its apex as the Queen of Australia, a role that is distinct from her position as monarch of the other Commonwealth realms.

Constitutional monarchy (or limited monarchy) is a form of government in which a monarch acts as head of state within the parameters of a constitution, whether it be a written, uncodified or blended constitution. This form of government differs from absolute monarchy in which an absolute monarch serves as the sole source of political power in the state and is not legally bound by any constitution.

Japan is a constitutional monarchy where the power of the Emperor is very limited. As a ceremonial figurehead, he is defined by the constitution as "the symbol of the state and of the unity of the people". Power is held chiefly by the Prime Minister of Japan and other elected members of the Diet, while sovereignty is vested in the Japanese people.

Socialism (ˈsoʊ̯ʃəɫɪzm̩) is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled co-operatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system. As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs.

Current
Main article: List of current communist states

People's Republic of China - (Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó) (since October 1, 1949)
Cuba - Republic of Cuba (República de Cuba) (since January 1, 1959)
Laos - Lao People's Democratic Republic. (Sathalanalat Paxathipatai Paxaxon Lao) (since December 2, 1975)
Vietnam - Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Cộng hòa Xã hội Chủ nghĩa Việt Nam) (officially in reunified Vietnam since July 2, 1976, but in the north since 1954)
North Korea - Democratic People's Republic of Korea (Chosŏn Minjujuŭi Inmin Konghwaguk) (since September 9, 1948). In 1992, all references to Marxism-Leninism were removed from the constitution and Juche became the official philosophy. But Juche was defined as a creative application of Marxism-Leninism.

Qadira

These are countries whose constitutions make references to socialism, but do not subscribe to Marxist-Leninist ideology. As such, they represent a wide variety of different interpretations of the term socialism. Countries such as Egypt and Libya, for example, have adopted different versions of Arab socialism as their ideology at some point in their history. The Republic of China, ruled by the Kuomintang party adopted Chinese socialism. Tanzania, on the other hand, adopted African socialism as its official doctrine.

Algeria - People's Democratic Republic of Algeria (Al-Jumhūrīyah al-Jazā’irīyah ad-Dīmuqrāṭīyah ash-Sha’bīyah) (since 15 September 1963)
Bangladesh - People's Republic of Bangladesh (since 16 December 1971) (Gônoprojatontri Bangladesh)
Egypt - Arab Republic of Egypt[citation needed] (Jumhūriyyah Miṣr al-ʿArabiyyah) (since 11 September 1971)But this may change soon.
Guyana - Cooperative Republic of Guyana
India - Republic of India (since 15 August 1947)
Libya - Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (Al-Jamāhīriyyah al-ʿArabiyyah al-Lībiyyah aš-Šaʿbiyyah al-Ištirākiyyah al-ʿUẓmā) (since 1 September 1969)
Portugal - Portuguese Republic[citation needed] (since 1974)
Sri Lanka Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (since 7 September 1978)
Syria - Syrian Arab Republic (Al-Jumhūriyyah al-ʿArabiyyah as-Sūriyyah) (9 March 1963)
Tanzania - United Republic of Tanzania (since 26 April 1964)
Israel- Statement of independence describes Israel as an independent democratic socialist Jewish state

Qadira

You know I had never thought of Israel as a "Diet Communist" country. Thank you so much Heath I may never get that thought out of my mind.


We're not communists..... we're.....uh.....democratic worker....dudes.....who work....
we got nuttn to do with them U.S.S.R. dingbats!
this is "NEW." We blieve "NEW" stuff.

I frankly uh.....am insulted. Yeah. By da inference.

Oh, this uh......Che Guevara shirt? This is ME mocking YOU for thinking I'm some kinda commie.

Get off my back, McCarthy!!!

Qadira

J. McCarthy = F. Phelps

They make the other side look acceptable.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Crimson Jester wrote:

J. McCarthy = F. Phelps

They make the other side look acceptable.

Was it your intention to imply that gay rights activists are after things so horrible that it requires Fred Phelps to make them seem halfway decent?


I swore I'd stay out of this thread because I'm still suffering PTSD from Hume, Kant, Camus, and their cronies... but...

CJ (and TheWhiteknife, by vague association) - It feels to me as though you're still mistaking Socialism for a form of Government, and not seeing it as a form of Economics. You're absolutely correct - those wikipedia entries are accurate representations of the forms of Government of each of the countries listed. However, completely independent of their form of government, those nations use a socialist model to handle the higher levels of their economies and governmental services. I need point you no further than the Great Horned Devil of the current political climate of the United States as proof: Universal, Socialized, Health Care.

Every last nation I mentioned has it, along with state pensions (I'd have to check on Canada for that one), universal welfare, and many other things that the extremists (I speak of both sides) in the US consider either "Nation Killers" or "Nation Builders."

Socialism and Capitalism are not mutually exclusive - Japan is the prime example of this. The Diet is a Parliamentary Democracy (with a CRAZY amount of fisticuffs!), the various ministers and representatives do the duties they're elected to, and the income of the government is managed in a manner consistent with the economic theory of Socialism. That money is gained through aggressive (Some would say "pure") consumerist Capitalism.

I'd go so far as to say that the flowchart breakdown would look like this:

Japanese Production (Mercantile Capitalist) -> Japanese Public (Consumerist Capitalist) -> Japanese Tax Structure (Socialist Distribution)

That's just a quick and dirty, because, seriously, I really didn't want to get into this, but it helps illustrate my point... I hope.

TheWhiteknife - Yeah, you're on to what I was after - It's not a matter of government that I'm attempting to clarify, it's a matter of economic practice. Socialism has long been incorrectly branded as a form of Government - even by its advocates. While it has been espoused and attempted as a form of Government (I am not so naive nor insane as to suggest that it hasn't), it shouldn't be one, as it works best (and provably so) as an economic practice.

Oh, and it's not the wildlife of Australia that's out to kill us. It's the entire freakin' continent!

I'm going to go back to hiding from Camus, now. I may come back after ProfessorCirno sounds off. Dunno yet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
W E Ray wrote:

.

We know Capitalism is a failure, a morally broken system.

I think another step, a much bigger one this time, toward Socialism is an answer for America that can begin to really solve some of our problems -- though Socialism by itself won't completely fix our rapidly crumbling nation.

Don't listen to those stooges of the plutocracy, Comrade Ray. You're right: You know capitalism is a failure and I know it, too, so, "We" do know it.

I think the name of that bigger step is "workers revolution" and I think it'll solve ALL of the world's problems--poverty, hunger, racism, war, getting Firefly back on the air, all of them.

I do have to disagree on one point, though. Socialism would quickly fix our crumbling nation--with union labor!


Kortz wrote:

Well, "fantasy-prone misfit Libertarians" might not be entirely fair. There is a slight chance that the Earth gets hit by a meteor big enough to throw us back into the 18th Century, and when that happens all the Ron Paulists will be heroes.

Like in Thundarr the Barbarian!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Crimson Jester wrote:


Depends on what you term as profit. If it is economic profit, then you are correct it there is none and capitalism is a great evil. If however you do not use economics as a measure for moralism, but rather use your ethics to inform your business practices you come up with much different solutions to problems.

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at, so if I put words in your mouth, feel free to correct:

It is, of course, possible to run a business in what we could all agree is a "moral" fashion and with the highest ethical standards. But it doesn't seem to much matter, for two reasons that I can think of.

First, in the wilds of the mythical free market, each capitalist is in constant competition with all the other capitalists, like trees growing in the forest. If a competitor finds a way, say a new invention (or, more likely, squeezing labor), to cut costs and maximize profits, our capitalist is going to have to find a way to retain a competitive edge or go under. Of course, these mythical free markets don't exist and have never done so, but, still, as the recent history of our automobile industry indicates, no amount of government intervention has ever been able to neutralize this effect of the markets.

Now, maybe that's all fine for major conglomerates, but, surely, that doesn't apply to specialty niches in local markets, and, yeah, you can run a perfectly ethical comic book store or importation company of coffee grown by aboriginals in Peru for "Fair Trade" wages, and you could even donate something like 30% of all your profits to adopting African children or bringing clean water to Bengali villages and you're NEVER going to fix the problems of the world.

Spoiler:
And I don't in any way mean to belittle doing charitable needs, just so we're clear.

C'est la vie, right? Well, imho, no, wrong. The wealth is there, the resources are there, we could provide for the material needs of the whole world's population (and I tend to think that there might be too many people on the planet) we just don't.

Because of the way the world is economically organized. Which I think is dumb.


Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
stuff about Albert fricking Camus

Man, what a bunch of nonsense and nonesuch, hogwash and horsefeathers. It's hooey, I tell you.

"Millenarianism"..."prophecy"..."end of history"...what crap.

[Looks back over posts. Sees phrases "proletarian revolution will solve everything", "socialism will get everybody laid" and "communism is everyone gets to live in paradise, here, now, on earth."]

<<
>>

Get out of here you petty-bourgeois leprechaun!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

By the way, socialism WILL get everybody laid.

I don't know, it's been about five years since I've read The Rebel and probably even further back when I was into hardcore Marxist philosophy, but here's what I've got:

Everybody, Marxists and non-, makes a big deal of Marx's Hegelian roots. I've never subjected myself to the horrors of The Phenemology of Mind, but what I've always been led to believe that what Marx took from the Hegelian system was the dialectical method of not looking at static, lifeless things but rather as a series of processes. I'm not terribly scientifically-minded, but that jives with most of what I understand about how the world works.

I'm not sure what the whole thing about the end of history means. Marx did argue that main mechanism of all previous societies had been the class struggle and he further argued that by overthrowing capitalism and building socialism, the proletariat would dissolve all humanity into one class and, therefore, do away with class division and hence class struggle. I guess that sounds a lot like a secular Millenarianism, but I don't care.

All the stuff about the ends justifying the means and whatnot and the crudities of economic determinism, I suspect, would stem from Camus's interactions with the membership of the Algerian and then French Communist Parties during the thirties and forties. The intellectual and "moral" climate of these parties was often suspect at best. The degeneration of the Soviet workers state under Stalin led to some pretty horrendous betrayals of the principles of Marxist socialism and it poisoned the sycophantic parties of the west. There wasn't a single field of intellectual endeavor that the Stalinists didn't poison (Lysenko, anyone?), and that most certainly included Marxist philosophy.

Because most Marxists wouldn't agree that the ends justify the means. Trotsky argues against this in an article published in America under the title Their Morals and Ours. Basically, he argues that the ends of socialism don't justify all means because all means don't lead to socialism.

As for economic determinism, I've read a million arguments back and forth about this over the years, and what they boil down to is everyone agreeing that, yes, of course, the economic structure of a society has some role in determining the culture, but what about all of these other factors? And then the Marxists say, well, yes, of course those other factors have some role in determining the culture and Marx never said they didn't.

Here Ends Part One of Comrade Anklebiter Vs. Albert Camus

Qadira

Samnell wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:

J. McCarthy = F. Phelps

They make the other side look acceptable.

Was it your intention to imply that gay rights activists are after things so horrible that it requires Fred Phelps to make them seem halfway decent?

I am not that much of an extremist.

1 to 50 of 852 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Comrade Anklebiter's Fun-Timey Revolutionary Socialism Thread All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.