Capitalist Pig
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
robbo203 wrote:Capitalist Pig wrote:well if a prerequesite for communism is the destruction of all national bounderies then I don't think the majority of the population will even consider it. You have to leave your ideological bubble and come to realize that is just not possible at the present time, espesially with the resergance of nationalistic and libertarian movements. The local people should have a say on who comes into their country and know what kind of people they are, if they hate the freedoms offered in the west and want to deminish them or if they want to embrace them. If they're was a global vote on every issue in the world who do you think would have the deciding vote? countries like China and India would out-weigh all the other countries thanks to their massive population. The local people should be the ones who are in control, it shouldn't be a dictatorship of the mob.
There are a number of serious misconceptions here which others have already touched on but I will focus on just one – the strange notion that there will be a "global vote on every issue in the world" in socialism. I dont know where you got that idea from – maybe from our regular contributor, LBird? LOL – but I for one strongly dissent. I imagine that democratic decision-making in a socialist society would be carried at out at several different scales organisation – local regional and global – depending very much on the issue to be resolved. I strongly suspect that very few decisions would need to be taken at the global level and that the great bulk of them would be taken at the local level in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Of course how you differentiate local from regional issues, say, is something that has to be resolved in practice, its not something that can be decided a apriori. But as a general rule of thumb local issues are those that tend to have some significant impact on the lives of individuals within a particular locality rather than outsiders so the criterion of who gets to decide what depends on the degree of impact it has for the people concerned. The citizens of a socialist Seattle, for example, are not going to be affected in any significant way by the decision of the citizens of socialist Singapore to re-site a new general hospital in downtown Singapore. So it is quite right that only Singaporeans should get to vote on this particular issue which is what would happen in practice anyway, in my view As for your point about China and India with their massive populations outweighing other countries should it come to a global vote on matters of global importance well, as has been mentioned, the nation state would cease to exist in a socialist society. The assumption behind your point seems to be that particular territorial units in a socialist society which you continue to see in national terns as having some kind of collective interests that separates each unit from every other in terms of competing interest. Meaning you are projecting into a future socialist society what happens under capitalism The whole point about socialism is that we living in a globally integrated and interdependent world in which the production of goods is a thoroughly socialised process spanning the entire globe. That is what lies behind the very concept of socialism itself. It is about bringing the social relations of production in line with the socialised character of modern prpduction which is global in scope
I hope that what your saying is true, I just don't want communism to become a complete democracy which is tyranny. Borders might not exist, but they might exist in communism but most likely not due to competing economic interests. I am just saying that the people should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to allow open borders. There should be no group of people with the 'best' understanding of communism that decides what laws are implemented, that would be a bureaucracy.my point is that open borders shouldn't be said to be a prerequisite to communism, because its not.
mcolome1 wrote:Capitalist Pig wrote:well if a prerequisite for communism is the destruction of all national bounderies then I don't think the majority of the population will even consider it. You have to leave your ideological bubble and come to realize that is just not possible at the present time, espesially with the resergance of nationalistic and libertarian movements. The local people should have a say on who comes into their country and know what kind of people they are, if they hate the freedoms offered in the west and want to deminish them or if they want to embrace them. If they're was a global vote on every issue in the world who do you think would have the deciding vote? countries like China and India would out-weigh all the other countries thanks to their massive population. The local people should be the ones who are in control, it shouldn't be a dictatorship of the mob.That is not a pre-requisite. First, we must understand what socialism-communism really is, and why capitalism is not beneficial to mankind, and then, the rest would be understood completely. Nobody can practice medicine without medical knowledge, therefore, we cannot understand socialism without studying and understanding its basic principlesTo remove nationalism, the bourgeois ideology, and all the garbage that we learn from this society, it is not impossible, if we had done it, others peoples can do it, even more, there are peoples within certain religion who do not support nationalism and patriotism, and they are not socialistsSocialism is not an ideology, and it is not a bubble, the real bubble is the capitalist society which keeps us dreaming and basing our thinking on myth and false promises, it is society based on false principles, and it is unstable. Its real bubble are all the periodical crisis that it produces, and affect us constantly, they want us to live in a bubble, and they are many peoples living in that bubbleThey are nationalists, but they are not libertarian, on the contrary, nationalism keep workers tailgating their own real enemies against their own real allied. The real libertarian are the Anarchists who promotes a society without the imposition of the state, and most nationalist worships the state apparatus, and trust that their ruling elites will resolve their own problems, that cannot be called freedom, that is pure slavery. The slaves adoring the masterThe real mob is the capitalist class, and they are the real minority, and they are the one who is provoking war and violence, do we own any army ? Do we have control over the war machinery and the weapon production ? The worst thing that is taking place around our world is that the majority of the workers are not thinking by themselves, they are echoes of the thinkings of their own class enemies. You are just repeating what the ruling class wants you to repeat.Through my whole life, I have never needed a leader to support myself, or to support my family. The only leader that I had when I was a child was my father my mother, and my grandfather, and I am grateful to them. We do not have to provide allegiance to any country, or to any flag
I didn't ask you to explain what nationalism and socialism is to me, or give me a weird metaphor, or tell me that i can't think for myself and my views are due to the evil capitalist brainwashing, I made the point that most people would not even consider communism if it meant open borders and you refuse to accept this or make the exuse that they are just brainwashed and don't know whats best for them. I don't need you to tell me how to think I can come to conclusions myself thankyouverymuch.
well if a prerequesite for communism is the destruction of all national bounderies then I don't think the majority of the population will even consider it. You have to leave your ideological bubble and come to realize that is just not possible at the present time, espesially with the resergance of nationalistic and libertarian movements. The local people should have a say on who comes into their country and know what kind of people they are, if they hate the freedoms offered in the west and want to deminish them or if they want to embrace them. If they're was a global vote on every issue in the world who do you think would have the deciding vote? countries like China and India would out-weigh all the other countries thanks to their massive population. The local people should be the ones who are in control, it shouldn't be a dictatorship of the mob.
robbo203 wrote:Capitalist Pig wrote:vin- are you suggesting that a muslim theocracy has more civil liberties than a constitutional republic or a representative democracy? All I am saying is how can you advocate the mass influx of 'refuges' when many of them don't even want to assimilate into the country and oppose what I explained above? The morale signaling is getting old by the wayCP – I think you are projecting into a possible future socialist society the kinds of institutions and habits of thinking that pertain to capitalism It’s not that socialists "advocate a mass influx of immigrants". The expression is almost meaningless to a socialist way of looking at things since no one would be an immigrant or emigrant in a socialist world without states and therefore without boundaries. It’s like saying a person born and raised in Hampshire or Surrey who then moves to Berkshire is an immigrant. Socialists dont prescribe where people, let alone “masses” of people, should live or move to in a socialist world. It’s entirely up to them as free individuals in a free society In any event, the whole premiss of your argument is deeply flawed. Firstly, you make grotesque generalisations. What do you mean by "many of them dont want to assimilate into the country"? Assimilate to what degree? Do you favour some kind of insipid capitalist monoculture in which we all think and behave the same? Cultural clones. I cannot imagine anything more dreary. I get a great deal of pleasure from experiencing cultural diversity, It adds to the richness of life. Of course socialists do not accept or support some of the ideas of some of the " immigrants" such as theocratically-inspired homophobia or the treating of women as second class citizens. Of course socialists will oppose and criticise these kinds of negative attitudes. But you can’t reduce and stereotype immigrants and the culture of immigrants to this small segment of beliefs held by some. Actually I would argue that a MAJOR factor behind these kinds of negative attitudes and for the perpetuation of this attitudes, is precisely the xenophobia exhibited by many in the host country. Ghettoization is the natural corollary of domestic racism. Of course people are going to seek out mutual support with those of the same cultural background, are going to cling all the more firmly to their traditional beliefs, including some that are overtly hostile to western democratic liberal values, if they live in a western so called “democratic liberal society” that treats them like shit and subconsciously regards them as aliens opposed to the so called “western way of life”. Wouldn’t you do the same if you were in their shoes and your family has sought refuge in the West having had your home and your city bombed into oblivion by the West and then to find you are treated with utter contempt upon arriving in the West? This doesn’t excuse the behaviour of some “immigrants” but it does at least allow us to see where they are coming from and why they behave as they do I would go so far as to say that the main reason why some immigrants dont "integrate" into Western societies is precisely because of the xenophobic and outright hostile attitudes of some in the West that ,quite simply, does not allow these immigrants to "integrate". This is so ironic because so called western societies are themselves the end products of successive waves of immigrants from many different ethnic backgrounds over a long period of time.
I don't think that all muslims should be catoragized as radicals but alot of them that come into the country simply do not like the culture and instead of assimilating or wanting to embrace the western way of life, they distance themselves and seperate themselves from the rest of the population, not to mention ISIS most certainly has come in as refuges. I am just making the point that open borders might sound great but in reality it is destroying the country. We should have a screening program so we know who we are letting in, if we are letting in radical muslims or actual refugues. Open borders is not a good idea in my opinion
YMS- that is your idea of how it should be but what if a majority of people think otherwise? that they should control the flow of immigration and not allow open borders.
vin- are you suggesting that a muslim theocracy has more civil liberties than a constitutional republic or a representative democracy? All I am saying is how can you advocate the mass influx of 'refuges' when many of them don't even want to assimilate into the country and oppose what I explained above? The morale signaling is getting old by the way
Capitalist Pig wrote: Donald Trump has laid out his policies that include a strong border, fair trade deals, and national soveriengty. The allegations of the democrats that trump is a russian agent is based on nothing and is a false flag. We do have a problem with illigel immigrents coming in in droves, Trump proposes the strengthening of our border so criminals won't be able to smuggle drugs into our country and come over to claim numerious benifets our veterens don't even receive. Clinton wants OPEN BORDERS. so basically anyone can come and go as they please which would destroy our economy and put alot of people in America out of the job. Trump isn't trying to scapegoat immigrents, illegal immigration is a huge problem in our country and we need to deal with it not ignore it. How is wanting fair trade deals evil?? How is wanting to bring business back to the U.S. and put people to work evil? Capitalism in inherently inhumane but Trump does actually care for the american people or else he would just be living his former live-style without being bombarded with personal attacks by the media daily. If you can lay out 3 policies trump has proposed that would hurt the working class I would love it hear it but don't go and say that he is a 'demon' because he is a capitalist. Engels was a capitalist but do you call him a devil? Have you noticed that only birds and workers migrate? A capitalist "takes up residence", but doesn't do any useful work.rodmanlewis…………………….ok?
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/12431-illegal-aliens-a-drain-on-us-taxpayers-report-saysaccording to the CIS, 47 percent of illegals use welfare; 39 percent use food assistance and 35 percent use Medicaid. remind me again how illegals are getting nothing and stregthening our economy? I'm not demonizing immigrants I just don't want someone to walk into our country, illegally vote in our elections, and collect goverment benefits that our veterans don't even recieve. Is that too much too ask for?
Our president just encouraged illegal immigrants to vote in our election. What part of illegal immigrant don't you understand? I have no problem with LEGAL immigration but allowing illegal immigrants to ammesty will only increase our debt, increase the time for the people who want to legally immigrate and allow those who smuggle narcatics and criminals to easily come across our borders. Yea in the dream communist society open borders would be a thing but its not a thing now because there would be economic and social consequences. I'm not in the least bit 'entrenched' in my views btw I am just realistic, open borders would not be a good thing for America and its people.
America more prosperious? I'd settle for them having better standards of spelling.With regard to the cover, am I the only one who thinks Trump looks better on our cover than he does in real life. certainly looks more human and the hair is less preposterous.Comments like these are why I have distanced myself from this organization over the years.
The front cover depiction of Hilarity Clinton is scarcely flattering, CP Populists are … popular. They say things what people want to hear and propose things that people seek to see. I don't view Trump as very different from any other politician, except perhaps in a matter of degree of his rhetoric and even then it is a debatable difference. Trump's anti-immigration posture can be seen as little different from Clinton's anti-Russianism – both are equally nationalistic and full of patriotic sloganising. Both brought out the generals for their convention endorsements. We have had our own versions of Trumps in Europe…Farage in the UK and across Europe others such as Hungary's Orban and i could offer a long list of both left and right-wingers who scapegoat others for the real and genuine problems that people are suffering from. Trump can promise all he wants but it is simply not in his power to deliver. But we are world socialists. If Trump wishes to have America "prosperous" on the backs of non-Americans then we will indeed treat him as a demon. Donald Trump has laid out his policies that include a strong border, fair trade deals, and national soveriengty. The allegations of the democrats that trump is a russian agent is based on nothing and is a false flag. We do have a problem with illigel immigrents coming in in droves, Trump proposes the strengthening of our border so criminals won't be able to smuggle drugs into our country and come over to claim numerious benifets our veterens don't even receive. Clinton wants OPEN BORDERS. so basically anyone can come and go as they please which would destroy our economy and put alot of people in America out of the job. Trump isn't trying to scapegoat immigrents, illegal immigration is a huge problem in our country and we need to deal with it not ignore it. How is wanting fair trade deals evil?? How is wanting to bring business back to the U.S. and put people to work evil? Capitalism in inherently inhumane but Trump does actually care for the american people or else he would just be living his former live-style without being bombarded with personal attacks by the media daily. If you can lay out 3 policies trump has proposed that would hurt the working class I would love it hear it but don't go and say that he is a 'demon' because he is a capitalist. Engels was a capitalist but do you call him a devil?
I am from the us and I don't really appreciate the new cover for the spgb. What do you find so offensive about him other than the phrases taken out of context by the media? He wants to bring jobs back to the us, get fair and profitable trade deals, rebuild our infrastructure, and eliminate policies that cripple the economy. I feel like you guys are isolating yourselves from the rest of the world and its people by saying "everyone is evil but us". It is just really hard to call myself a communist and see the socialist standard demonize Donald Trump just because he wants to see America prosperious.
I think I understand it now. materialism is saying that there are absolute truths in the world and that people are capable of being completly objective in forming their hypothesis. Idealism-materialism is the idea that we are not capable of being completly objective and we are the ones who actually create 'absolute truth' which can change accordingly with our ideas.aaaaaahh my head hurts
