Originally posted by smw6869The minimum requirement for a socialism is a system by which the workers control the means of production. You can call yourself whatever you want, or build as many statues to Lenin as you want, but if the workers do not control the means of production, then you are not socialist. Merely redistributing wealth is not socialism. Putting tighter controls on capitalism is not socialism. England is not socialist. Sweden is not socialist. The Soviet Union, despite all the outward trappings of socialism was never really socialist at its heart either. You seem to want to use 'socialist' as a blanket term for everyone to the left of you, but it just isn't so.
I sure would like to know the difference between Pure socialism and pure communism. Always thought that socialism was basically the redistribution of wealth. Could never figure out how a communist state could function. No yelling, Sie Gupster!
Originally posted by shavixmirSo if my views on communism are so wrong, then why don't you report to the thread in which I stated them and attempt to refute them, rather than just balling them down illogically from a distance?
I know your views on communism, you're just wrong.
You have no idea what-so-ever of what communism/socialism is and stick to an absurd reasoning which is neither here nor there.
Originally posted by princeoforangeTo step aside from the tangent on socialism for a moment and look at the first statement that rephrasing the treaty to remove the necessity of referenda is a step away from democracy. The only way to rephrase the treaty in such a way is to ensure that it does not conflict with the constitutions of any of the member states.
"not need to be put to voters in a referendum". Why was that then? They knew that any such referendum would kill off the idea of having such a treaty - ... - because the voters simply do not want this! We are now entering the days of the Fourth Reich.
(I'm Irish and we similarly would have had to have a constitutional referendum on the treaty if it hadn't been defeated in France and Holland)
Given that the new treaty does not impose any constitutional conflicts with any member states suggests to me that it is in a way more democratic as it maintains a degree of member state sovereignty.
How does a new treaty which meshes more effectively with the constitutions already in place represent a reduction in democracy?
Originally posted by Rajk999First of all: Socialism = communism. Just two different words, meaning the same.
So Shav, I dont like communism and I may have some wrong views as well of communism, so please set me straight. Communism
1. has historical come into power via a bloody revolution and not through free and fare elections.
2. removes the right of the population to vote and therefore the initial ruling party remains inpower indefinitely
3. restricts the r ...[text shortened]... le are not able to move freely.
5. removes religious freedom.
Let me know what is incorrect.
The basics of communism are:
- The person who produces has control over production and distribution.
- All races, genders, etc. are equal
And that's basically it.
Historically some people have come into power by revolution (this is a possibility), but generally these regimes have failed to live up to the above mentioned basics of a communist society.
Take the Soviet Union for example. The State had the role of the multi-nationals and businesses in the West. The producing classes there had no say what-so-ever in what was being produced or how it was distributed. And one hour of one's man's life wasn't equal to that of another.
So, it was much more like capitalism than communism. One could, and generally does, refer to this as state-capitalism.
Not all revolutions are bloody. Like not all coups are bloody.
Taking, for example, the Cuban revolution. It wasn't any more bloody than the regime it displaced. So, violence is only voilent in comparison.
Communism does not take away any form of vote. If anything a form of perpetual referenda could be installed without too much problem (considering the internet possibilities).
Communism (which is basically the internationalist word for socialism) entails that it's "global" in essence and the freedom of movement is inherent in it. For example, in communism...there are no borders.
🙂
Communism doesn't remove religious freedom. It just stops state spondered religion. Obviously if a majority of people in a communist setting wanted the State to co-finance churches, the State would (as executive to the population), but would do so to all churches equally, per percentage of the population.
Originally posted by agrysonThe normative effect over time of having a tier of government above your national government, to which you as a member state will be allied to. As consensus will be sought on issues and as the organs of identity formation in the shape of all the various establishment media outlets start to massage the popular consciousness it will mean over time as funding arrangements and tariff perks get negotiated and renegotiated little by little each member state will be subsumed by the whole. It will be like the process of globalization, but just over a smaller geographical boundary.
How does a new treaty which meshes more effectively with the constitutions already in place represent a reduction in democracy?
Originally posted by kmax87Is that a reduction in democratic rights? It's an extension of representative government, locally important issues are governed by the local government, while issues concerning the Union are governed by the Union.
The normative effect over time of having a tier of government above your national government, to which you as a member state will be allied to. As consensus will be sought on issues and as the organs of identity formation in the shape of all the various establishment media outlets start to massage the popular consciousness it will mean over time as funding a ...[text shortened]... le. It will be like the process of globalization, but just over a smaller geographical boundary.
Also, the inference was that this rephrased treaty was in some way less democratic than the draft constitution, which I've already pointed out is a simplistic reading of the situation which proves false when you look at what has changed in the treaty.
It is unworkable to govern a Union as large as Europe by consensus, you end up with a lot of debate and no action, whether a majority supports it or not. Also, the draft constitution and the new treaty, give each member state a representative vote as opposed to a one member one vote system.
If the treaty does not conflict with member states constitutions, as well as providing a greater level of representation to larger population groups, how is it less democratic than the draft constitution?
Originally posted by shavixmirYou are referring to commnism in theory. Communism in practice does not allow voting, international travel, freedom of the press and religious freedom.
First of all: Socialism = communism. Just two different words, meaning the same.
The basics of communism are:
- The person who produces has control over production and distribution.
- All races, genders, etc. are equal
And that's basically it.
Historically some people have come into power by revolution (this is a possibility), but generally these ...[text shortened]... population), but would do so to all churches equally, per percentage of the population.
Originally posted by agrysonI'm not quite sure how to explain this to you, you really don't seem to understand! Whether or not this treaty alters the constitutions of member states is entirely irrelevant. The point is that this treaty is not being put to the voters in a referendum. Why, one may ask, are our politicians anxious to avoid a referendum? Well obviously, because the treaty would be soundly defeated (certainly in the UK). Besides all this, the treaty represents a significant transfer of sovereignty away from member states and towards the EU. It also involves closer integration within the EU, which is disasterous; perhaps not for the Irish, who are net beneficiaries, but certainly for us here in Britain who are the biggest contributors per capita and second most contributing nation overall after Germany.
To step aside from the tangent on socialism for a moment and look at the first statement that rephrasing the treaty to remove the necessity of referenda is a step away from democracy. The only way to rephrase the treaty in such a way is to ensure that it [b]does not conflict with the constitutions of any of the member states.
(I'm Irish and we similarl ...[text shortened]... s more effectively with the constitutions already in place represent a reduction in democracy?[/b]
Originally posted by Rajk999But Shav did make the point that there is a difference and that just because people call it communism shouldn't confuse the issue.
You are referring to commnism in theory. Communism in practice does not allow voting, international travel, freedom of the press and religious freedom.
From the post that you replied to -"Take the Soviet Union for example. The State had the role of the multi-nationals and businesses in the West. The producing classes there had no say what-so-ever in what was being produced or how it was distributed. And one hour of one's man's life wasn't equal to that of another.
So, it was much more like capitalism than communism. One could, and generally does, refer to this as state-capitalism."
Originally posted by kmax87Understood. So there is no such system in the world as communism. In my initial post asking Shav to set me straight I was clearly referring to what I prefer to call practical communism, ie what existed in the former USSR, and Cuba now for example.
But Shav did make the point that there is a difference and that just because people call it communism shouldn't confuse the issue.
From the post that you replied to -"Take the Soviet Union for example. The State had the role of the multi-nationals and businesses in the West. The producing classes there had no say what-so-ever in what was being produced or ...[text shortened]... italism than communism. One could, and generally does, refer to this as state-capitalism."
Originally posted by shavixmirSo the communism you champion has never been tested in government. It is simply an unrealistic view of how you believe the world should be.
First of all: Socialism = communism. Just two different words, meaning the same.
The basics of communism are:
- The person who produces has control over production and distribution.
- All races, genders, etc. are equal
And that's basically it.
Historically some people have come into power by revolution (this is a possibility), but generally these ...[text shortened]... population), but would do so to all churches equally, per percentage of the population.
Originally posted by princeoforangeYou really are one of the most blinkered posters on here.
EU leaders have agreed a deal which forms a treaty, including most of the main points of the constitution which was rejected by voters in France and Holland 2 years ago and certainly would be in the UK too if we were given a vote on it. These leaders laboured particularly hard to present the treaty in a form which would "not need to be put to voters ...[text shortened]... because the voters simply do not want this! We are now entering the days of the Fourth Reich.
Disregarding completely your hysterical reference to a "fourth Reich", the title of your post suggest less democracy not more and yet, one of the most important features to come from the summit is a reduction in power of the Commission and an increase in power for the Parliament.
Is this another one of your "giant dwarf" moments or do you simply not understand the issues. I know which one I'm guessing!
Originally posted by princeoforangeThese armchair, pie-in-the-sky, communists like shav would not last two minutes under a communist regime in the real world.
So the communism you champion has never been tested in government. It is simply an unrealistic view of how you believe the world should be.
Shav would soon have been consigned to the Gulag by Stalin, or eradicated by Pol Pot, for example, had he had the misfortune to have been around at the time and place.