Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Parliament XXIV political tests Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    :rofl::rofl::rofl:
    It's true, he's bashing Stalin for owning portions of the means of production, then says he'd do the same (albeit to a lesser extent.)

    This is why absolutism is a load of ****, when you say "the only real socialism is where all the means of production is owned by the workers!" Then the only way that can be achieved is with an anarchist society, which Des himself calls naïve and unsustainable.

    He's a state capitalist by his own definition.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    It's true, he's bashing Stalin for owning portions of the means of production, then says he'd do the same (albeit to a lesser extent.)

    This is why absolutism is a load of ****, when you says "the only real socialism is where all the means of production is owned by the workers!" Then the only way that can be achieved is with an anarchist society, which Des himself calls naïve and unsustainable.

    He's a state capitalist by his own definition.
    PRSOM
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    I am copying and pasting fact , would you like me to type it out with poor grammar.
    What I copied and pasted basically says Friedman went there and things got better.
    I don't see the issue.
    All your going it "you copy and paste" instead of dismantling the points themselves
    If you wanted to make a good impression, then you should've been mindful of your terrible
    SPaG when copying and pasting content of the internet.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Every capitalist sucess is a 'miracle' or an 'exception' to you , its quite farcical.
    You claim nothing is real socialism, I am not going to repeat the points and the debate jammy and Connor have made.
    No future geniuses lost here.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    I am copying and pasting fact , would you like me to type it out with poor grammar.
    What I copied and pasted basically says Friedman went there and things got better.
    I don't see the issue.
    All your going it "you copy and paste" instead of dismantling the points themselves
    Communism will never, I hope, be implemented properly. Capitalism is a guilty pleasure.

    Let the left wing hate commence.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    fleky6910 Fyi, I - and probably pretty much everyone else - can tell when you've copied and pasted something because those are the sections of your posts with consistently accurate spelling and grammar.
    PRSOM!
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    I am copying and pasting fact , would you like me to type it out with poor grammar.
    What I copied and pasted basically says Friedman went there and things got better.
    I don't see the issue.
    All your going it "you copy and paste" instead of dismantling the points themselves
    It would not be an enriching debate for me. My brand of 'socialism' does not model itself on the failures underdeveloped and underprepared economies, tyrants and revolutionaries and I feel no need to defend them. I am however disappointed that your opinions seem to come in neat pre-packaged, pre-transcribed formats.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Can't decide between Pinochet or Diane Abbott for next avatar. Which side of the spectrum shall I troll?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gladstone1885)
    Can't decide between Pinochet or Diane Abbott for next avatar. Which side of the spectrum shall I troll?
    What's wrong with your current avatar?
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    It would not be an enriching debate for me. My brand of 'socialism' does not model itself on the failures underdeveloped and underprepared economies, tyrants and revolutionaries and I feel no need to defend them. I am however disappointed that your opinions seem to come in neat pre-packaged, pre-transcribed formats.
    PRSOM!
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I have not read all the thread and so expect that some people no doubt made stupid claims but the reason for Venezuela being on its knees is similar to Cuba in that having previously tied itself to the US and thrived as wealthy innovative oil firms invested, anti-US sentiment and Soviet sympathies meant that the government took command and a decade or later when the price collapsed and they had no foreign investment (why would anybody if the government is going to steal your firm) so did the economy. This coupled with the lack of innovation in the sector (the Venezuelan government is extremely corrupt and inefficient) means that they can't cut production costs enough to survive in the way that others can ride out the low prices.

    Like Cuba (pre Casttro) and Argentina (pre WW1), Venezuela was actually in per capita terms a pretty rich country (infact, one of the richest in the 50's) but as we have seen countless times there is a difference between a social democrat/neoliberal government that may interfere at times but broadly wants firms to do well and a government which believes in a command economy and drives out innovation and investment from abroad.

    In short, Venezuela is a victim of the Cold War (the country was won by the Soviets) and because of its electoral decisions, it is still paying the price.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    No future geniuses lost here.
    Explain to me how you're not a state capitalist by your definition?

    You admitted that infrastructal capital is a portion of the means of production, you advocate for the continued existence of the state, therefore you do not support full social ownership and are a state capitalist.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gladstone1885)
    Can't decide between Pinochet or Diane Abbott for next avatar. Which side of the spectrum shall I troll?
    Go for our lord and saviour, the well-doer himself, and the libertarian party's very own party mascot.

    General Augusto Pinobae.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    It's true, he's bashing Stalin for owning portions of the means of production, then says he'd do the same (albeit to a lesser extent.)

    This is why absolutism is a load of ****, when you say "the only real socialism is where all the means of production is owned by the workers!" Then the only way that can be achieved is with an anarchist society, which Des himself calls naïve and unsustainable.

    He's a state capitalist by his own definition.
    If you have such a great argument, why didn't you reply to my last post?

    I am 'bashing' Stalin because he ran a dictatorship with a complete lack of any semblance of democracy - and therefore not socialism. I did not say I would do the same.

    Socialism is a transitional system, it requires a state. An anarchist society envisioned by anarchists with the state abolished overnight is naive and unsustainable.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    It would not be an enriching debate for me. My brand of 'socialism' does not model itself on the failures underdeveloped and underprepared economies, tyrants and revolutionaries and I feel no need to defend them. I am however disappointed that your opinions seem to come in neat pre-packaged, pre-transcribed formats.
    I thought you were a social democrat.

    Come to think of it, do you even want to nationalise anything? As i recall most of your 'socialism' comes from supporting higher taxes, wage caps and other mildly offensive things.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    If you have such a great argument, why didn't you reply to my last post?

    I am 'bashing' Stalin because he ran a dictatorship with a complete lack of any semblance of democracy - and therefore not socialism. I did not say I would do the same.

    Socialism is a transitional system, it requires a state. An anarchist society envisioned by anarchists with the state abolished overnight is naive and unsustainable.
    You mean the last point where you admitted that true socialism cannot exist without a state, and then proceeded to make a totally irrelevant point about nationalisation? (which I wasn't even talking about)

    That wasn't worth a reply.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    It's true, he's bashing Stalin for owning portions of the means of production, then says he'd do the same (albeit to a lesser extent.)

    This is why absolutism is a load of ****, when you say "the only real socialism is where all the means of production is owned by the workers!" Then the only way that can be achieved is with an anarchist society, which Des himself calls naïve and unsustainable.

    He's a state capitalist by his own definition.
    I disagree with you for once

    If the means of production are distributed evenly amongst the workers, who enforces this? The 51%? That is mob rule and the worst form of democracy. If so, then isn't that authority? How is this anarchy if the collective have authority over the individual?
    Planned economies need a state, otherwise it can't be planned.
    As a result, workers never actually own the means of production, the state does thus collectivist ideologies are redundant.
    Even anarcho capitalism is more viable than anarcho communism
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    You mean the last point where you admitted that true socialism cannot exist without a state, and then proceeded to make a totally irrelevant point about nationalisation? (which I wasn't even talking about)
    Except I didn't say that. Explain how true socialism cannot exist without a state.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (-9,88,-6.92) on PC

    IMG_0205.PNG
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Explain to me how you're not a state capitalist by your definition?

    You admitted that infrastructal capital is a portion of the means of production, you advocate for the continued existence of the state, therefore you do not support full social ownership and are a state capitalist.
    I support the social ownership and control of the means of production by the people through elected workers councils.

    I do not advocate the continued existence of the state. I advocate the abolition of the bourgeois state and setting up of a proletarian semi-state, which would wither away.

    You still haven't explained how the acceptance of the state means you cannot have complete social ownership and control.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 3, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.