"Nobody wants to work anymore."

[Carefree_Snake]

If you look at every nation that called itself 'socialism', 'communism', etc, you'd see a pattern. Mainly, they were mostly monarchies, specifcially those with cultural pillars that leaned toward a centralized authority. In a sense, they were all nations who already had autocratic tendencies and culturally, that was what they were used to:
> Tsarist Russia was a semi(ish)-absolute monarch with the Tsar who's cultural power was backed by the Eastern Orthodox Church via divine right of kings and ruled with a heavily centralized auhtority because it was a massive nation with a colossal amount of people.
> Qing China is similar to Russia, just replaced the Eastern Orthodox Church with the Confucian teachings and divine right of kings with Mandate of Heaven
> Yugoslavia, well, was a mix of Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholic based cultures, with both churches being patriarchal and authority-based, under Tito who held it together.
> Southeast Asia, many of them were monarchies prior to colonization though they also became 'socialist'/'communist' because it wasn't the capitalist systmes that screwed them over by the imperial Europeans.

So yeah, claiming it's socialism's fault kinda ignores the bigger hisotrical perspective just to try and prove a flimsy political point.

If I remember correctly, "communism" in Russia began after the Tzar's and his family's death.

In China, it started as WWII was tearing China into pieces, so the allies had to come and help. This brought the conflict of who should rebuild the country, Communism or Nationalism. I might be wrong but I think thay when Mao got in power a lot of the religion and older traditions just disappeared. SUPPOSEDLY (don't take my words as facts) Mao even wanted to eliminate chinese letters and replace them with the latin alphabet.

Again, take this with a grain of salt

 

[Light-Fox]

Capitalism is an awful system that happens to be better than every other system we’ve thought of.

This is the one point I disagree with you on Fando. Partially, at any rate. You have the first part correct. Capitalism is an awful system. It is cancer. Capitalism is the modern day version of an aristocracy. It is a system of class based warfare and exploitation of our natural and finite resources that is killing us both individually and as a species. The indoctrination we all receive as children is designed to make us think in a biased manner to defend capitalism. Capitalism is literally economic Darwinism. Only the wealthy ownership class flourishes. They are the ones who get to live lazy lives while the working class slaves away their health and youth. Communism functions under the ideal of 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need'. Yes, you might be required to work, but overall you would work less than under capitalism. Because everyone shares the load. We have not seen a properly working Communist or Socialist system because Capitalist governments like the US work to undermine them so people don't get to thinking about how much better things could be.

 

[Pepperjack]

While I feel like the topic of Popular Vote vs Electoral systems is an interesting topic, I think it's also a slight sidetrack.

Ultimately, I'd say that on of the biggest issues facing the 'western world' at the moment are essentially just monopolies again. Except instead of one company controlling all of a market it's a handful of them deciding to work together to jack up prices or gatekeep their sphere, mostly by buying out competition before they get big. After all, why suffer your whole life fighting an already established megacorp when you can just take enough money to set you and your foreseeable descendants up for your whole lives?

To clarify: Capitalism isn't perfect and my critique of socialism/communism isn't intended to make it sound as such.

But rather than banter blame and flaws back and forth I'm more interested in what you folks see as a potential solution?

I don't see socialism as it because, well, we worry about finding a job that's good enough for us to get the life we want. Folks in China.... have it worse.

So other suggestions are where my interests lie.

 

[Pepperjack]

Folks in Venezuela have it worse too. And in Cuba, and even in Russia still. And Russia still hasn't recovered on a population level from what WW2 did to them. There is a scar of imbalance that comes up every generation and it'll be a while before it smooths itself out.

Oh I agree and see your point, I was just trying to avoid harping on the point as I'm not wanting to drill into the 'faults of socialism' conversation.

 

[Pepperjack]

Like, people look at Russia and they think it'll be a nice place to move to because the girls outnumber the guys.

But actually most of those women who make up the difference are old and they outnumber the guys because the guys keep dying as meat shields in war.

I dunno Fando I've seen some of the Russian girls OnlyFans........ might not be so bad. xD

Joking.

 

[Pepperjack]

They CAN be, sure. But you've gotta at least have the work ethic to design the new system to replace the one you're not using.

 

[Light-Fox]

No, the load just fluctuates and changes. You ever notice how most jobs will just give you more work if you're finished your current assignment, instead of just letting you go home? A communist society would have different goals in terms of what it wants to build and achieve. The soviet union is a good example. For most years between 1922 and 1935 they had the world's biggest military. Meaning, the most conscripted soldiers in the world. And it's somewhat poetic how big a failure that was, when the soviet union formed in 1922, and one year later, in 1923, the lost generation of Russians were born. 80 percent of Russian males born that year died during the years of WW2. None of them got to consent to that. Their fate was determined while some of them were in their mother's bellies.

Anyway, lets put aside communism and capitalism and get down to the real problem here. And that is, majority rule. It's a huge problem. And sometimes it's even minority rule, when going by the popular vote. Like right now in Canada the conservatives won the popular vote and the liberals won the election. In any event, that's incredibly problematic.

Because it means that half, or just less than half of people in a nation are living under a system they don't agree with. So why can't we just have two systems? A system that one group wants and a system that another group wants.

if I'm born in a communist country why should I be subjected to those rules? Why can't I leave? Hell, why can't I stay, and ignore the communist way?

Russia and China are actually bad examples as they only demonstrate centralized authoritarian communism. But anyways.

What you are talking about is the Electoral college system, which is why we were saddled with Trump for 4 years. Even though Hillary won the popular vote. In America it amplifies the voting power of the less populated and conservative states, because the most populated states like New York and California would determine each election. And in America the popular vote is like a two thirds majority, so it's not a little under half.

Having two systems would mean splitting up the country, because you literally can't walk in two directions at the same time.

That's like asking why you can't can't ignore societies rules or laws in any country or system, Fando. Technically, you can. But there will be consequences.

 

[Light-Fox]

You're talking about 'Work smarter, not harder", Fando.

 

[Pepperjack]

You're talking about 'Work smarter, not harder", Fando.

This. ^

 

[Pepperjack]

Okay but in America if you don't like America you can leave. In most communist countries that hasn't historically been an option. Even worse, the relatively free countries like America actively try to stop or slow people from coming in.

Also this.

 

[Light-Fox]

Okay but in America if you don't like America you can leave. In most communist countries that hasn't historically been an option. Even worse, the relatively free countries like America actively try to stop or slow people from coming in.

America is Authoritarian Capitalism. The communist governments you speak of are Authoritarian Communism. Authoritarianism sucks long term. However, Libertarian or Anarcho Capitalism is worse than the Authoritarian version because then everything is privately owned and the government stops providing social safety nets. Libertarian or Anarcho Communism is the ideal form of communism.

 

[Light-Fox]

Also, you can only leave America if you have money.

 

[Pepperjack]

America isn't authoritarian. If it was, then states like Florida would have mandatory vaccine passports like we do up here in Canada. I would say canada is a better example of authoritarian capitalism than America. At least under Trudeau. In America, it's pretty much impossible to be authoritarian on a national level because every state has it's own personality and a fucktonne of privately owned firearms.

It's harder to pin down a country like the US than it is to pin down China, Russia, or other racially/culturally homogeneous large countries like Japan/India/Iran, etc.

No, America is still probably the most reasonable country in the world IF you're already inside it's borders and not in prison.

 

[Light-Fox]

America isn't authoritarian. If it was, then states like Florida would have mandatory vaccine passports like we do up here in Canada. I would say canada is a better example of authoritarian capitalism than America. At least under Trudeau. In America, it's pretty much impossible to be authoritarian on a national level because every state has it's own personality and a fucktonne of privately owned firearms.

It's harder to pin down a country like the US than it is to pin down China, Russia, or other racially/culturally homogeneous large countries like Japan/India/Iran, etc.

No, America is still probably the most reasonable country in the world IF you're already inside it's borders and not in prison.

Incorrect. Our government established the ability to force vaccination on its populace back during the Spanish Influenza epidemic. Just because they haven't doesn't mean they won't.

 

[Pepperjack]

Incorrect. Our government established the ability to force vaccination on its populace back during the Spanish Influenza epidemic. Just because they haven't doesn't mean they won't.

I feel like saying someone or something CAN do something therefore it is that thing is poor logic. Technically then every country is authoritarian and while that is a HOT take my guy, I think it's beyond the scope of what you're getting at.

 

[Light-Fox]

I'd say this is false because America is one of the most expensive countries to live in. Just today I was reading about a thing called Blaxit, which is exactly what it sounds like. African Americans leaving America and going back to Africa with their money and education. And that kind of black brain drain is going to cost America and boost African countries substantially if it happens in large enough numbers. 50,000 dollars isn't a lot in America. It's a fuck tonne in Africa. Enough to get started in Nairobi or Lagos and be on top in a country where (as a black person) you're now the dominant race.

Privilege, much? 50k is a lot of money.

 

[Light-Fox]

"Just because they haven't" means they aren't authoritasrian. They're being reasonable and patient. <.<

False assumption.

 

[Pepperjack]

Privilege, much? 50k is a lot of money.

I will throw you a bone (heh, bone, wolf) and agree with this. Minus the cringe privilege invocation. I ain't that kind of warlock, I don't have the levels to use it. But yeah 50k is a lot of money for working folks.

 

[Light-Fox]

Yeah I don't have a tenth of it myself. But a plain ticket to Africa is probably less than 1500 USD to most cities.

I don't have 100 USD to my name.

 

[Pepperjack]

And, again, I feel like this is getting off into the weeds......

 

[Light-Fox]

Then you have bigger problems then debating with me on a sexy times writing forum.

Who said debating with you was a problem?

 

[Light-Fox]

I will throw you a bone (heh, bone, wolf) and agree with this. Minus the cringe privilege invocation. I ain't that kind of warlock, I don't have the levels to use it. But yeah 50k is a lot of money for working folks.

What is cringe about it? I am poor and have always been poor. If you think that 50k USD isn't a lot of money, you are economically privileged. Recently I was homeless for four years and the only reason I was able to keep my service dogs fed and myself in clean clothes was a small amount of people's generosity and STRINGENT money management. So, where is the cringe?

 

[Pepperjack]

What is cringe about it? I am poor and have always been poor. If you think that 50k USD isn't a lot of money, you are economically privileged. Recently I was homeless for four years and the only reason I was able to keep my service dogs fed and myself in clean clothes was a small amount of people's generosity and stringent money management. So, where is the cringe?

Oh no you misunderstand. I was throwing you a bone and agreeing that 50k is a lot of money. I just meant that if Fando is someone who wouldn't be natively aware of that calling them privileged isn't a good way to bridge that gap of rapport. Like if you've never had to operate a certain machine and someone calls you stupid for not innately knowing.

 

[Light-Fox]

When I said 50,000 USD isn't a lot of money in America, I wasn't infering anything by that, I just picked it because it seemed like the average salary of someone with a skilled job. I don't think someone with 50k is rich. "Economically Privileged" is a subjective term. You're implying anyone with more money than you is economically privileged which kinda sounds like protagonist syndrome to me.

What about people who are in debt, or people with less money than you, or people in less wealthy/less powerful countries than you? Are you "economically privileged" with your less than 100 USD?

--

All I was getting at is that 50,000 USD goes way further starting a business in Africa than it does in America. You can probably live comfortably off of $50,000 for a few years in Africa, if not 5 or 10.

Yes. Someone who has less money than me is less privileged. That is how it works. But there are other factors that affect one's level of privilege. Economically speaking, there is no one less privileged than someone who is homeless. Even if they have 500 USD in their pockets.

 

[Light-Fox]

I think it's pointless to say someone with 49 dollars is less privileged than someone with 50 and prefer to create more wider spreading tiers of wealth so it doesn't get ridiculous.

I probably have more practical spending power than you do but I also have less money than you technically. I'm in the red. Gotta love debt. It's a toss up as to which of us is more privileged. If the Canadian government ever decides they really want their money right now I'd be kinda boned.

But yeah, someone with 50 dollars is pretty much in the same wealth tier as someone with 150, and someone with 75,000 is pretty much in the same wealth tier as someone with 100,000. And that wealth tier, while more privileged than you still isn't all that privileged.

Appeal to Absurdity? If you are going to take it to the dollar level, might as well take it to the cent level while you are down there.

Also, your 50k salary basis is a flawed example anyways. A salary is usually paid out monthly, and they have rent, insurance, food, phone, and fuel/transportation costs. So they will never be able to spend that much at once. They would have to save up to spend that much at once for quite some time. So it isn't something they can just up and do, going to Africa with 50k to invest in their future.