Which Political Group Are You?

Printable View

Show 200 post(s) from this thread on one page

10-24-2005, 10:19 PM
Madame Adequate

Capitalism does not have any interest in disallowing independence. Indeed, competition usually works better for everyone concerned. Moreover a properly capitalist system allows anyone with the resources to start their own businesses, allowing more diverse industries and thus increasing the choice individuals have. Socialist measures such as those in Britain are forcing many small business out of business and entirely dissuading countless entrepreneurs. Thereby those are reducing individuality and freedom. So you see the fallacy in your claim, I presume.

'War is wrong. Unless you're a socialist guerilla.' That's pretty accurate when it comes to El Che, yes?
10-24-2005, 10:36 PM
War Angel

Quote:

Socialism is all about freedom.

Socialism reduces the freedom of the individual, for the better of society as a whole (like, taxing higher, limiting how much money a person can make\have, to strengthen the weak and poor, etc), while Capitalism focuses on the advancement of the individual, sometimes and often at the expense of society as a whole, or rather, the weaker, poorer members of society.

That's the general idea. Neither Communism nor Socialism hold personal freedom at a high regard - they want equality more. They oppress the individuality (to a limit, it's not meant to be facsism) of people, to prevent them from exploiting each other.

Capitalism thinks that by letting everyone advance, and having as much freedom as possible, the strong and rich members of society will make it advance.

In the end, neither one is good. Socialism creates a system that enforces mediocrity, making it very difficult for the stronger members of a group to grow beyond conventionality, while Capitalism makes a lot of people unhappy, and weakens society by creating large gaps between the rich and the poor, among other things.

Anyway, as for the poll.... it looks rather American-aligned, and as a result, I don't really fit in with any of those options.
10-24-2005, 10:43 PM
Venom

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMKA

Political groups suck and are dumb. I'm not any of them and never will be.

spoken like a true non communist:(
10-25-2005, 03:45 AM
Teek

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traitorfish

Socialism is all about freedom. Hence the Guevara sig. Would you say El Che was anti-freedom?

Uh...

YEAH JUST KINDA

You'd love Cloud No. 9. He's a [wonderful human being], as well.
10-25-2005, 04:30 AM
MAS82587

im a commie (jk)
10-25-2005, 06:19 PM
FFGuevara

Good to know i'm not the only Communist here.
10-25-2005, 06:34 PM
FFGuevara

Quote:

Originally Posted by War Angel

Socialism reduces the freedom of the individual, for the better of society as a whole (like, taxing higher, limiting how much money a person can make\have, to strengthen the weak and poor, etc

How is the anti freedom? Everyone makes a good salary that they can live a good life with. Unlike Capitalism where you need a diploma and alot of luck to get a job that you might not get.

Quote:

, while Capitalism focuses on the advancement of the individual, sometimes and often at the expense of society as a whole, or rather, the weaker, poorer members of society.

Thats bad, how is that in anyway good? What if it was you that was exploted? I loved to see what you would say if you were working in a Taiwanese sweat shop :rolleyes2 .

Quote:

That's the general idea. Neither Communism nor Socialism hold personal freedom at a high regard - they want equality more. They oppress the individuality (to a limit, it's not meant to be facsism) of people, to prevent them from exploiting each other.

You obviouslly dont know how Communism works i'd recommend you read Communist Manifeasco or even better yet for people who still dont understand Communism for dummies :tongue: .

Quote:

Capitalism thinks that by letting everyone advance, and having as much freedom as possible, the strong and rich members of society will make it advance.

And thats why it sucks. Only a small percentage advance at the cost of everyone else.

Quote:

In the end, neither one is good. Socialism creates a system that enforces mediocrity, making it very difficult for the stronger members of a group to grow beyond conventionality, while Capitalism makes a lot of people unhappy, and weakens society by creating large gaps between the rich and the poor, among other things.

Why should the "stronger" get more then what they need?
10-25-2005, 07:23 PM
Madame Adequate

Quote:

Originally Posted by FFGuevara

How is the anti freedom? Everyone makes a good salary that they can live a good life with. Unlike Capitalism where you need a diploma and alot of luck to get a job that you might not get.

They don't get to choose what to do with their income. That is the polar opposite of economic freedom. You can debate whether people should have that freedom or not, but there's no way to deny that said action is a breach of freedom. And are you saying that in communism you'd be able to go into a job without the necessary skills?

Quote:

Thats bad, how is that in anyway good? What if it was you that was exploted? I loved to see what you would say if you were working in a Taiwanese sweat shop :rolleyes2 .

I'd say I'm glad of a job where I make more money than almost everyone else in the land.

Quote:

You obviouslly dont know how Communism works i'd recommend you read Communist Manifeasco or even better yet for people who still dont understand Communism for dummies :tongue: .

How communism works? Evidence so far suggests it works like 'Revolution -> new government -> dictatorship'. Come back when every attempt at the system hasn't led to cataclysmic failure and we'll talk.

Quote:

And thats why it sucks. Only a small percentage advance at the cost of everyone else.

Most of the people I see in Britain and America are very well off. They've a house, a car or two, a tv or three, some videogame systems, a PC, clothes, food, yadda yadda yadda. The same is true of Australia, Japan, and Europe (Though socialist measures are putting us on course to be a second-world entity within two decades.). If you measure wealth only as a comparison against the wealthiest, of course it will look bad. If you're talking on an international level, well the fact is that not everyone started capitalism at the same time. See how India and China a decade ago were all about the sweatshops? Now they are among the fastest-growing economies on Earth. Why? Because you can't just click your fingers and solve your poblems, it takes work. They've put the work in; now they're up a level, able to talk about jobs better than manufacturing and resource harvesting.

Edit: And it's largely socialist measures (such as protectionism) which are causing the harm to the third world anyway.

Quote:

Why should the "stronger" get more then what they need?

Why should the weaker benefit from the work of the stronger?
10-25-2005, 08:30 PM
Lindy

Political stance -> Pointless Arguments -> Time Wasted

No Political Stance = Time Saved

I guess I win.
10-25-2005, 08:31 PM
Rye

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lindy

Political stance -> Pointless Arguments -> Time Wasted

No Political Stance = Time Saved

I guess I win.

I agree. I don't really have a political stance at all.
10-25-2005, 08:59 PM
Venom

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAS82587

im a commie (jk)

Best group there ever was!:D
10-25-2005, 09:51 PM
War Angel

Quote:

I guess I win.

I'd say you lose. Not having a political stance equals not knowing what's going on, or at least not caring much - and letting those who do vote for the government\prime-minister\president for YOU. Would you really put your fate in the hands of people you've never met?

Open your eyes, make up your mind, and make a difference. That's what I say.
10-25-2005, 10:00 PM
raskerino

I think what he was saying was that this thread is pretty clearly (I think, at least to the people posting) not changing people's minds on anything and by not taking part in a debate that won't go anywhere he wins... somewhat a joke is how I took it (though I think it is worth argueing this kind of debate) but meh, that's just me.

Edit: I think it's worth being in a debate if you're not gonna change your mind and neither are they for the purpose of understanding and thinking out your own opinion.
10-25-2005, 10:21 PM
Lindy

Quote:

Originally Posted by War Angel

I'd say you lose. Not having a political stance equals not knowing what's going on, or at least not caring much - and letting those who do vote for the government\prime-minister\president for YOU. Would you really put your fate in the hands of people you've never met?

Open your eyes, make up your mind, and make a difference. That's what I say.

Not really. I see what's going on, but I realise that I can't make a difference, and no matter what or who I vote for, the same things will happen anyway. Why bother if nothing changes if you do anything, and if you don't, nothing changes either.

As far as I know, the whole idea of government IS putting your fate in the hands of people you've never met. I doubt you've met everyone who governs you, have you?

My eyes are open and I've made up my mind, in fact I think I've thought this through more than any thoughts I've had over politics, and what I've decided is that there's no point to any of it any more.

But yeah, this thread, like every other politics thread, turns into an argument between liberals and conservatives, capitalists and socialists, and nothing ever changes like that either.

The best we can do is just give up.
10-25-2005, 11:14 PM
War Angel

Quote:

The best we can do is just give up.

Yes, Defeatism should be on that poll. :)

Show 200 post(s) from this thread on one page