user1991

Wait, you're an anarchist who believes in socialism? That's kind of opposite philosphy right there. No... It's pointless to argue for what I actually believe because people will just dismiss me as an "anarchist" (when they don't even know what it means) and will call me a terrorist or something. I want to try reform before revolution. With reform, you can't just change people from one end of the spectrum to the other overnight. It has to be gradual, and whilst I may not agree with a lot of what socialism is about, it is one of the political ideas out there that would actually be possible to achieve within the next 10 years that I also, in a lot of circumstances, agree with. So whilst I'm against government and despise authority to the core of my being, if there are going to be changes, I have to be pragmatic about things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism What you're saying is true to an extent, but corporate agribusiness does not serve the starving ONE BIT. It isn't as if they're trying to, but then they "need" money etc so they have to cut back on it - they have made no attempt to serve anything other than themselves, they exist for one purpose and one purpose only, which is PROFIT. Oh and why do you think that socialism exclusively means that the means production have to be owned by the state? I think I understand what you believe. I was confused for a bit (with the word anarchism being thrown around) because Anarchist socialism is communism (essentially). Well, I like to think of it that way, anyways. Unfortunately, profit, or more simply money, motivates people; it drives people. The job of the government, regarding starving people, is to take care of them and to prefably create an incentive for companies and even citizens to help those in need. In the US, those incentives are in the form of tax deductions. Summed up, greed is an unfortunate aspect of human nature, but it exists and it does best not to ignore it. Socialism is a centrally planned economy. Who plans it, if not the state? Assuming the state plans and controls the economy, they control the means of production and, therefore, control who receives what. The people. The state is unjustifiable yet inevitable with the current mentality of the people. And I keep saying this, but there are two ways in which we can change this system. 1. Reform. Look, this is what I see happening. Capitalism isn't going anywhere anytime soon, but if slowly the consensus shifts towards the left and starts to not place so much value and meaning into money, then in a couple hundred years when we have the technology to have everything done for us (oh and transhumanism will play a part, make everyone not selfish + not hate etc because personally I think the only way humanity can 100% rid itself of its problems if we cease to be human) then we can have a system in which everything belongs to everybody and no problems would arise. Now that may sound ridiculous, but it isn't even that far away. I can't remember who said it, but there is a quote and its something like "Future technology is indistinguishable from magic" - which is true. Imagine going back to the 1700s with a laptop and iphones and stuff. Now imagine 300 years into the future. But one thing that needs to be done is we need to rid the people of this neo-conservative, religious mentality. Deism I don't mind that much but theism coupled with neo-conservative values are some of the most troubling things that we face.. 2. Revolution. If reform doesn't happen and the state continues on its path toward fascism, there is no other choice. I think a mixture of capitalism and socialism is a good start to be honest. Maybe I'm going too extreme even with socialism at this point. But they are not ideal, and they are not the best we can do as a species. And you may say I'm looking too far into the future, but really, if the rich elites get a strangehold on the mentality of the people then it may take centuries to relieve it.

There should be no law that people are made to obey by force or coercion??? Surely, you jest. No.. The burden of proof is upon the state just as the burden of proof is upon the religious.. I deny people without a driver's license the ability to operate a motor vehicle. That's just as bad as stoning them??? Denying people the right to marry because of genetic differences is just as bad as stoning people. You don't understand the concept of freedom. You kill freedom and you kill the people. There's nothing to get, aside from the humor to be found in blatant melodrama We don't live in the same world. I love in the world that, beneath the glamour and glitz, IS. I know that our systems of politics do not represent that, but that does not mean that it is me that is wrong. You take shelter in the consensus but there will be a day when the people take back what is theirs. You're included in that, by the way. Nope. I'm African. We're one step ahead of black people. (Yes, I kid.) Do you really see a difference between not letting blacks and whites marry and not letting gays marry?

A theocracy? No. But a Christian nation? Kind of hard to argue otherwise. So why can't I run for POTUS? How come 15 year-olds can't marry? Why can't people with driver's lisences legally operate a vehicle? I thought everyone was created equal? -.- I'm not so sure whether or not people understand that not only is everyone not created equal, but that *everyone* is "discriminated" against in some way, shape or form because of the nature of laws. There should be no law that people are made to obey by force and coercion. People aren't "created" equal, (no creation, no created, quit adding Christian rhetoric to everything, it ruins it). People are not equal in terms of intelligence, but without the restrictions we have placed upon ourselves, we are born equal. Well, we could start stoning them. Then you could call us "non-peaceful". Stoning someone / denying them freedoms are just as bad as eachother. Melodrama ftw! You can laugh while you have the consensus Sly. People like you just don't get it. P.S. Are you black?

Wait, you're an anarchist who believes in socialism? That's kind of opposite philosphy right there. No... It's pointless to argue for what I actually believe because people will just dismiss me as an "anarchist" (when they don't even know what it means) and will call me a terrorist or something. I want to try reform before revolution. With reform, you can't just change people from one end of the spectrum to the other overnight. It has to be gradual, and whilst I may not agree with a lot of what socialism is about, it is one of the political ideas out there that would actually be possible to achieve within the next 10 years that I also, in a lot of circumstances, agree with. So whilst I'm against government and despise authority to the core of my being, if there are going to be changes, I have to be pragmatic about things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism What you're saying is true to an extent, but corporate agribusiness does not serve the starving ONE BIT. It isn't as if they're trying to, but then they "need" money etc so they have to cut back on it - they have made no attempt to serve anything other than themselves, they exist for one purpose and one purpose only, which is PROFIT. Oh and why do you think that socialism exclusively means that the means production have to be owned by the state?

It saddens me that we still have to have these discussions.. Even with all our technological advances; the internet, iPhones, cures for millions of diseases - we're still social animals. We fight for territory, we let our instincts get in the way of what we know is right.. Socially, we're just as backward as we always have been. Don't be under the illusion that slavery doesn't exist.. If you're born poor you have to be a slave in order to be normal. It isn't at the point of a gun, but in a society where your "life" is measured by your acquisition of material goods, it might as well be. We don't have segregation anymore - but people obviously haven't understood the ideal behind why we changed it. EVERYBODY IS EQUAL and there is not one thing you religious fundamentalists can do to change that. People tried to pull this "separate but equal" bull**** back in those times and there is no difference between that and you saying "well civil unions offer the same rights.." And you claim that your religions are "peaceful"? Nevermind God - only when we rise as a people can we truly become immortal. And whilst the rich elites run the world, we the people, we sit around blaming eachother when we are the only thing they can never silence. Wake up and realise this. Human rights, equality, freedom - politicians do not know the meaning of these words. No army can stop an idea whose time has come. Do not lay back and accept what these tyrants tell you. Fight for freedom, fight for the people and fight to the death.

You know, I actually would if morons like you didn't make up and continue to fund the old fashioned, neo-conservative douche bag governments that we have in the West that continue to make good quality weed so GODDAMN hard to get.

And I'm the lazy and unproductive pothead. :lol: Talk about being owned. Now, GTFO lazy s-o-b oh, my reply didn't post? well, [cabbage]. ahahha definatly not retyping that. and oh wow, me not wanting to reply to you doesn't make you not worth my energy. ahahah I had already covered everything you would have said. so uhhh, keep outta mai bizniz. kai? BULL**** **** you dude, **** you. ahahha, so much anger to something that doesn't concearn you? relax, it's just the internet. You're just pathetic. You dismiss Venomai's arguments without providing any of your own, and then when he OWNS you, you try and pull a fast one with the old "Oh, my reply has miraculously vanished without a trace! Whatever must I do?" - when it is obvious that you knew you were wrong and tried to slime-ball your way out of it. **** you again.

I think a revolution is needed.

Just further proof that any one who says New Labour is still left-wing is quite clearly talking out their jacksie. Yet unfortunately, they are the only party out of the big three who would ever even consider down classifying drugs. In reply to your other thread by the way (I think it was you who asked), I've always voted Labour. Indeed, I'm actually a Youth member. Only costs a quid and they offer loads of volunteering work when they need it. :) I'm going to vote socialist this time, **** labour lol. They have no right to call themselves labour - they no longer stand for the workers. My constituency will still be labour I think, so I don't have to do the lesser of two evils vote, and thus can vote on principle. A vote for the socialists is a big **** YOU to the government. If labour go back to how they used to be, instead of the war-mongering, civil liberty crushing douche bags that they are now, I would probably vote for them. But I mean, after the war in Iraq (American conservatives just stfu, you're wrong and stupid), their support for ID cards, 42 day detention etc, I just can't bring myself to vote for them. How are the conservatives winning though..? They're like labour but they don't care about poor people.

And I'm the lazy and unproductive pothead. :lol: Talk about being owned. Now, GTFO lazy s-o-b oh, my reply didn't post? well, [cabbage]. ahahha definatly not retyping that. and oh wow, me not wanting to reply to you doesn't make you not worth my energy. ahahah I had already covered everything you would have said. so uhhh, keep outta mai bizniz. kai? BULL**** **** you dude, **** you.

I gave up on that thread long ago. All it is is certain people arguing semantics and trying to mislead people with ambiguous, pompous wording (Sly_Wizard) and then the extremist appeasing vague-God worshipping claim-to-be-theists (who are really deists actually - Lenticular J) whose belief, even by their own admission, are in a God which is unknowable, and then the crazy fundamentalists (Saruman) who have listened to everything in the Old Testament and simultaneously rejected everything that Jesus (allegedly) said. There really isn't any point debating these type of people UNLESS there are people on the fence listening in.

I think it would produce less actually, BUT the amount of waste would be cut drastically. Even with socialism we would have enough food to feed the world. The food industry serves one purpose, and that is to make profit. They do not care about feeding the hungry. The power of these corporations allows them to pretty much entirely control what they pay for raw materials and at the same time keep the prices of food quite high for the general public, (for the sole reason of making profit.) The richer countries have forced the poorer countries to open their markets, subsequently flooding said markets with subsidised food, which in turn pretty much kills third world farming. We have taken advantage of poorer countries and have pretty much tricked them into adopting agricultural policies that favour large scale industrial agriculture which requires single crop production.. as well as adopting policies which promote export crops (instead of food for consumption on a domestic level.) On top of this, the way the production is now it requires extremely high use of water (as well as pesticides, fertilisers etc etc).. This focus on exportation is one of the main causes of the problems, (countries with HUGE food export have high levels of starvation and poverty.) Basically, the greed of corporate agribusiness has made it so that countries now almost exclusively grow for rich countries and at the same time grow nothing for domestic consumption. This shift into growing solely for exportation has forced millions of people into poverty and unemployment. What used to be farms that grew for domestic purposes have now been taken over by factories that produce simply for exportation. Despite what you say about there not being enough, the evidence points to the fact that the smaller, mid-sized farms using sustainable methods are not only more productive, but also less damaging to the environment than huge industrial farms. (http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1778). These industrial farms exist for one purpose; the profit of corporate agribusiness. Capitalism has made it so that instead of focusing on the starving as agribusiness should, they focus solely on profits and therefore they exploit the people who produce the food. Socialism (or a system wherein socialist philosophies are used in regards to food) can help because we give the people who do the farming the control and ownership of the land that they work (and we return territories to indigenous people) and try to ensure the care of natural resources (water etc) that they use to produce instead of depending on industrialised production, which in turn exploits the desperate in order to make profit. With our present system food is used as a weapon that results in the displacement, repression, and forced urbanisation of the poor producers in foreign countries. Instead we give them direct input into the making of the actual agricultural policies - this way they aren't held at gunpoint by the profit driven corporations that force them to work in an endless cycle of poverty and starvation. One thing we can do? Cancel third world debts.

Yeh, but I never denied that.. Plus calling myself an "anarchist" does nothing but make people disagree with me automatically. They have visions of chaos and nothing else.. (and this isn't what anarchism is actually about..) - thus I use the term "libertarian socialist"

I would say I'm more of a libertarian socialist but just because that has the term "socialist" in don't assume it's the same. But at the same time, If I'm going to be pragmatic about things I might as well choose a political philosophy which I think is both better than the one we have today and at the same time, actually possible to achieve with the mentality of the people. I said that I would take reform over revolution. All I was saying is that if there IS a revolution, certain things would have to be in place to cause it, and those things would also mean that the only way of making it work would be if it was a violent revolution. The state has way too much power and it isn't justified.

It's funny how must of our cabinet has done it and all of them claimed not to have disliked it. It would be great to get them hooked up to a polygraph test on this, hypocrites. I'm sure there's a bit about this on Mock the Week but I can't find the clip. They bs so much about this sort of the stuff that you can tell they're actually starting to believe it themselves. Also, if a party like labour suggested decriminalisation, it would be political suicide in our current climate. Did you see her speech? Everytime she mentioned "protecting the children" I just wanted to stand up and smash my TV. They know very well that it isn't about children, and in fact probably the sole reason behind their decision was to gain support from middle England. Their own board of scientists told them not to upgrade it, and they still went ahead and did it. It would be great if our drug laws reflected actual danger rather than old fashioned prejudice.

Don't take it out on him just because it seemed to me that you were taking your ideas out of the Communinst Manefesto. Have you ever actually read the Communist Manifesto?

I think EMA is hilarious. Every single person that I know who gets EMA (my cousin's friends) are spending it all on drugs. (Personally I don't think that's a bad thing. Sure they could be using it for more beneficial things but I mean, drugs is better than prostitutes, so at least that's a bonus. :D ) But at least they're going/trying hard at school, which is good. Oh and I work in a record shop.

Not going to lie, I had a bad trip and it was the scariest thing I've ever experienced and it took me a while to be able to build myself back up to trying acid again, but honestly, in my opinion the risk is worth it just because when you have a good trip (which is the majority of the time providing you're sound mentally) it is just the most amazing thing ever. Well, not as amazing as DMT, but you get the idea. Oh and mods, no, I'm not "encouraging" drug use, I'm giving balanced information, good and bad, and I'm saying that personally I think it is worth it, but ultimately it should be the person taking it who makes the decision whether they are of the right mentality and whether the benefits outweigh the potential risks. For me, this was the case, and I'm just telling people that if they DO do it, then they should also make sure of this. So don't delete my post like before with any of that "encouraging drug use" bs.

You ever dropped LSD? Not only should it be legal, but we should also have HUGE statues of Albert Hoffman. That guy is a REAL hero.

Chart of drug dangers.. The class system is the UK one. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5230006.stm (Oh and to those who don't know, cannabis is being upgraded to a Class B again, after being downgraded to class C a few years ago. I watched the speech by Jacqui Smith, and as usual, she mentioned "protecting the children" about 9 times. When a politician mentions children in a subject that has nothing to do with them, you pretty much know they have a different agenda.)

Stop talking such rubbish, the problem you face is that there are many types of economic systems within the umbrella name of capitalism and for some reason think you have to explain the concepts of socialism to us. We understand what both socialism and capitalism is, we pledge our support for capitalism. Not because it causes millions to starve to death, but because we understand that when we are talking about capitalism we don't exclude it from the sphere of socialism, the majority of us live in social democracies for gods sake. By "understanding socialism" do you mean, "calling anyone who doesn't believe in free market capitalism a communist"? I'm aware that YOU know what these things mean, yes. But, as shown by various people in this thread, if you come out with anything that is even slightly to the left of free market capitalism you WILL be called a "communist" or "marxist". If Barack Obama can be called a "socialist" by people who are being serious, then it is obvious that they have no clue what they're on about. If their definition of "socialism" is wide enough to include Barack Obama then it should also include John McCain. These are not the words of people who understand what they're talking about.

How many people have being killed in communist states around the world in engineered famines, forced labour camps, gulags, mass-deportations etc? 100m in total is it (around 65m of that in China, 20m in the USSR then a few more million in other places)? But yeah, communism is really nice and helps the poor :roll: Who is arguing for communism here? Just because we're anti capitalist doesn't mean we're communist.

Since when am I a communist? In fact, I'm done reasoning with people like you. You're far too absorbed into your culture to understand anything other than the status quo. So whatever. There is no way I'm going to change your mind. One day you'll get a taste of what it's like.

Holy jesus I barely even made it to the end of that sentence. I'm scared to read the rest of the post. Laugh while you have the consensus. There are two ways this can work out. 1. You guys realise how [bleep]ing stupid you are and the general consensus starts shifting to the left and we go from there. 2. You continue your little game, and people get tired of it. Eventually, the people who have had everything taken from them will TAKE IT BACK FROM YOU. All of it. By force. Such is the nature of a class war. The choice is yours.

Socialism = Monopoly Invisible hand = Monopoly That's where you're wrong. The invisible hand allows companies to spring forth in face of potential monopolies while with socialism, the government is the monopoly. Of course, this is all thinking in black and white when the ideal solution is grey. What about worker's ownership of the means of production/distribution of goods? And no, socialism isn't ideal (it's better than capitalism) but with the abundance of right wing d-bags that there are in this world we can't just argue for what we want 500 years in the future. If we're going to be pragmatic about it then we have to actually try and solve the problem. There are two ways of going about this: 1. Reform 2. Revolution If it's a choice between them, I'll take reform. It's been said over and over and over, "there is no war but the class war" and it's true.