If a Cure for AIDS was Invented...

[Laura]

An once-time aids cure isn't finite?

 

I'm trying to say that their resources will be growing at a slower rate than births. Even then, if a cure was created, it would most likely need a booster shot, and possibly multiple shots. The organization, cost of the cure, transportation, people, cooperation, and shelter would cost over a trillion dollars to put together, not just the "100 billion" for the cure itself.

 

 

 

Last time I read about a rape in the newspaper, the rapist didn't care about his victim.

My point exactly. Women can, possibly be raped by many men in a lifetime, increasing the chance of her getting HIV, thus the next clean person to come along and do so now carries the virus. And if he strikes again, it gets passed along in the same way.

 

 

 

I think we should educate people about birth control instead of making more people die.

Of course we should. But do you think many of the people being raped and don't speak out have the money to afford birth control? Or even use it correctly? And again, education costs money, where is this money coming from?

[l0l0lpur32]

In any case, this debate over capitalism vs socialism about waste and production is neither here nor there. The fact is, there is enough food in the world being produced to sustain the world's population. It's just that, for capitalism to work, those at the lowest end of the social hierarchy must be exploited to pay for the lifestyle of those above. As a result, we throw away tonnes and tonnes of food while the poorest starve. Under socialism, in theory, everyone receives more or less the same quantity of food, so either everyone starves, or few do.

 

 

 

If you want to support a system that leaves millions to starve to death each year, then fine. It's a free country, it's widely accepted as the world's most popular economic model and it does produce the most - I'm not gonna stop you or try and change your mind. But at least understand what capitalism is before pledging your support for it.

 

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:

[user1991]

In any case, this debate over capitalism vs socialism about waste and production is neither here nor there. The fact is, there is enough food in the world being produced to sustain the world's population. It's just that, for capitalism to work, those at the lowest end of the social hierarchy must be exploited to pay for the lifestyle of those above. As a result, we throw away tonnes and tonnes of food while the poorest starve. Under socialism, in theory, everyone receives more or less the same quantity of food, so either everyone starves, or few do.

 

 

 

If you want to support a system that leaves millions to starve to death each year, then fine. It's a free country, it's widely accepted as the world's most popular economic model and it does produce the most - I'm not gonna stop you or try and change your mind. But at least understand what capitalism is before pledging your support for it.

 

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.

[l0l0lpur32]

In any case, this debate over capitalism vs socialism about waste and production is neither here nor there. The fact is, there is enough food in the world being produced to sustain the world's population. It's just that, for capitalism to work, those at the lowest end of the social hierarchy must be exploited to pay for the lifestyle of those above. As a result, we throw away tonnes and tonnes of food while the poorest starve. Under socialism, in theory, everyone receives more or less the same quantity of food, so either everyone starves, or few do.

 

 

 

If you want to support a system that leaves millions to starve to death each year, then fine. It's a free country, it's widely accepted as the world's most popular economic model and it does produce the most - I'm not gonna stop you or try and change your mind. But at least understand what capitalism is before pledging your support for it.

 

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.

 

That's a new one, usually people just reply with "oh they weren't really communist".

[Ginger_Warrior]

[hide=]

In any case, this debate over capitalism vs socialism about waste and production is neither here nor there. The fact is, there is enough food in the world being produced to sustain the world's population. It's just that, for capitalism to work, those at the lowest end of the social hierarchy must be exploited to pay for the lifestyle of those above. As a result, we throw away tonnes and tonnes of food while the poorest starve. Under socialism, in theory, everyone receives more or less the same quantity of food, so either everyone starves, or few do.

 

 

 

If you want to support a system that leaves millions to starve to death each year, then fine. It's a free country, it's widely accepted as the world's most popular economic model and it does produce the most - I'm not gonna stop you or try and change your mind. But at least understand what capitalism is before pledging your support for it.

 

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.

[/hide]

 

That's a new one, usually people just reply with "oh they weren't really communist".

 

Well, if you wanted to prove you're only using textbook rehearsed answers, then way to go.

 

 

 

Communism =/= socialism. I don't believe absolutely everything should be owned by the government. Such an idea is clearly unfair, complex and unnecessarily bureaucratic.

[brunokiller]

An once-time aids cure isn't finite?

 

I'm trying to say that their resources will be growing at a slower rate than births. Even then, if a cure was created, it would most likely need a booster shot, and possibly multiple shots. The organization, cost of the cure, transportation, people, cooperation, and shelter would cost over a trillion dollars to put together, not just the "100 billion" for the cure itself.

 

 

 

Last time I read about a rape in the newspaper, the rapist didn't care about his victim.

My point exactly. Women can, possibly be raped by many men in a lifetime, increasing the chance of her getting HIV, thus the next clean person to come along and do so now carries the virus. And if he strikes again, it gets passed along in the same way.

 

 

 

I think neither of us understands what the other one is trying to say.

 

 

 

 

 

I think we should educate people about birth control instead of making more people die.

Of course we should. But do you think many of the people being raped and don't speak out have the money to afford birth control?

 

What does raping have to do with birth control?

 

 

 

Or even use it correctly? And again, education costs money, where is this money coming from?

 

Where did the 700 bn bailout money come from?

[Satenza]

In any case, this debate over capitalism vs socialism about waste and production is neither here nor there. The fact is, there is enough food in the world being produced to sustain the world's population. It's just that, for capitalism to work, those at the lowest end of the social hierarchy must be exploited to pay for the lifestyle of those above. As a result, we throw away tonnes and tonnes of food while the poorest starve. Under socialism, in theory, everyone receives more or less the same quantity of food, so either everyone starves, or few do.

 

 

 

If you want to support a system that leaves millions to starve to death each year, then fine. It's a free country, it's widely accepted as the world's most popular economic model and it does produce the most - I'm not gonna stop you or try and change your mind. But at least understand what capitalism is before pledging your support for it.

 

 

 

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.

[Laura]

I think neither of us understands what the other one is trying to say.

 

 

HIV/AIDS is transmitted past two people by people who do not care who they sleep with, or sleep with multiple people, ie, a large portion are rapist.

 

 

 

What does raping have to do with birth control?

 

I'm sure a portion of women there do not want to have a child when they do not know they're father.

 

 

 

Where did the 700 bn bailout money come from?

 

That's a really bad argument. The bailout came from tax payers money to aid our own country. Again, there's no way we're giving a trillion dollars to a country when we are trillions in debt.

[brunokiller]

I think neither of us understands what the other one is trying to say.

 

 

HIV/AIDS is transmitted past two people by people who do not care who they sleep with, or sleep with multiple people, ie, a large portion are rapist.

 

The absence or existance of AIDS will have little impact on those people.

 

What does raping have to do with birth control?

 

I'm sure a portion of women there do not want to have a child when they do not know their father.

 

Quick solution: morning-after pills, most women do not have access to those though.

 

Absolutely no woman wants to get a kid from a rapist. The kids have a hard time growing up too because society will not accept them.

 

Pointless argument as it's hard for a woman to say to her raper 'i do not want to get pregnant'.

 

 

 

Where did the 700 bn bailout money come from?

 

That's a really bad argument. The bailout came from tax payers money to aid our own country. Again, there's no way we're giving a trillion dollars to a country when we are trillions in debt.

 

i never said you should pay their aids medicine.

 

They have taxpayers too so they can do it themselves.

[user1991]

In any case, this debate over capitalism vs socialism about waste and production is neither here nor there. The fact is, there is enough food in the world being produced to sustain the world's population. It's just that, for capitalism to work, those at the lowest end of the social hierarchy must be exploited to pay for the lifestyle of those above. As a result, we throw away tonnes and tonnes of food while the poorest starve. Under socialism, in theory, everyone receives more or less the same quantity of food, so either everyone starves, or few do.

 

 

 

If you want to support a system that leaves millions to starve to death each year, then fine. It's a free country, it's widely accepted as the world's most popular economic model and it does produce the most - I'm not gonna stop you or try and change your mind. But at least understand what capitalism is before pledging your support for it.

 

 

 

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.

[Ginger_Warrior]

In any case, this debate over capitalism vs socialism about waste and production is neither here nor there. The fact is, there is enough food in the world being produced to sustain the world's population. It's just that, for capitalism to work, those at the lowest end of the social hierarchy must be exploited to pay for the lifestyle of those above. As a result, we throw away tonnes and tonnes of food while the poorest starve. Under socialism, in theory, everyone receives more or less the same quantity of food, so either everyone starves, or few do.

 

 

 

If you want to support a system that leaves millions to starve to death each year, then fine. It's a free country, it's widely accepted as the world's most popular economic model and it does produce the most - I'm not gonna stop you or try and change your mind. But at least understand what capitalism is before pledging your support for it.

 

 

 

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.

 

You regard the UK a social democracy (even though that in itself is as much an umbrella term as capitalism)? Who are the banks owned by? Who are the vital factories owned by? The electricity suppliers? The waterworks? The trains? The buses? All of them are privatised.

 

 

 

Do we have a major left-wing party in this country any more? No.

 

 

 

OK. You have the NHS. Except we have a privatised drugs industry and health insurance. And the BBC at a push. Oh no wait. ITV, BSkyB...

 

 

 

Score two for you... maybe.

 

 

 

In any case, I don't see what this has to do about food in Africa, or how capitalism has in part caused the situation there.

[Rebdragon]

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.

 

Don't take it out on him just because it seemed to me that you were taking your ideas out of the Communinst Manefesto.

 

 

 

You regard the UK a social democracy (even though that in itself is as much an umbrella term as capitalism)? Who are the banks owned by? Who are the vital factories owned by? The electricity suppliers? The waterworks? The trains? The buses? All of them are privatised.

 

Regardless, true free markets don't really exist in developed countries. Everythin's a lil' grey.

 

 

 

In any case, I don't see what this has to do about food in Africa, or how capitalism has in part caused the situation there.

 

It all simply comes down to the still unanswered question: can socialism produce as much as capitalism, and how?

[Rebdragon]

Damnit.

[user1991]

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.

 

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?

[Rebdragon]

Ages ago. I might have been referring to another communist (some Russian mebe), but essentially your talk of revolution, class war, having the weak take everything back from the rich, by [bleep]ing force if necessary, it all seemed a little extreme for socialism mate.

[user1991]

Ages ago. I might have been referring to another communist (some Russian mebe), but essentially your talk of revolution, class war, having the weak take everything back from the rich, by [bleep]ing force if necessary, it all seemed a little extreme for socialism mate.

 

 

 

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.

[Rebdragon]

So calling you an anarchist before wasn't too far off?

[user1991]

So calling you an anarchist before wasn't too far off?

 

 

 

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"

[Rebdragon]

Just checking. So I didn't read you as bad as you thought :P .

 

 

 

Okay, back to the question, for anyone, so as to stay on topic. How does socialism produce as much as capitalism, and from that help people in developing countries who are dying of starvation and disease?

[user1991]

Just checking. So I didn't read you as bad as you thought :P .

 

 

 

Okay, back to the question, for anyone, so as to stay on topic. How does socialism produce as much as capitalism, and from that help people in developing countries who are dying of starvation and disease?

 

 

 

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.

[Rebdragon]

Disregarding the fact that an idea like that is politically insane, the main problem with canceling debt in the third world is that it would motivate countries to default on their debt and/or borrow even more since they know that they're would be no consequences for them for doing so. Knowing how the governments of underdeveloped countries are, the odds of such a problem occuring are gigantic.

 

 

 

As has been said in many a thread on the third world, you can't solve the problems there by just throwing money at them and expecting everything to be fine. Infrastructure needs to be built in order for the country to stand up on it's own. Poor countries that are extremely agricultural (in a non-industrial way) have no infrastucture, and if they were to go with your idea -simply using all the crops they have to feed themselves-, they never will. Tack on rapid population growth occuring in developing countries thanks to the instillment of basic ideas of sanitation as well as the offering of antibiotics and basic medicine, and all you're left with is a group of people stuck in the stone age and getting more and more crowded as the decades go by.

 

 

 

Making agriculture purely domestic and non-industrial may sound like a great idea in the short term, but in the end all it really does is make the situation worse.

[Quoi_Tu]

In any case, this debate over capitalism vs socialism about waste and production is neither here nor there. The fact is, there is enough food in the world being produced to sustain the world's population. It's just that, for capitalism to work, those at the lowest end of the social hierarchy must be exploited to pay for the lifestyle of those above. As a result, we throw away tonnes and tonnes of food while the poorest starve. Under socialism, in theory, everyone receives more or less the same quantity of food, so either everyone starves, or few do.

 

 

 

If you want to support a system that leaves millions to starve to death each year, then fine. It's a free country, it's widely accepted as the world's most popular economic model and it does produce the most - I'm not gonna stop you or try and change your mind. But at least understand what capitalism is before pledging your support for it.

 

 

 

Besides the fact there are no free markert countries, you're assuming that ethics change depending on the economic model a country adheres to. So a question to ask, what ethics do we lose moving from capitalism to socialism? What ethics do we gain?

 

 

 

As for the bold, capitalism brought jobs from around the world to China and many parts of underdeveloped Asia. Those jobs helped the countries improve their living standards and feed people who had little to eat.

 

 

 

 

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"

 

 

 

Wait, you're an anarchist who believes in socialism? That's kind of opposite philosphy right there.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Agriculture business can only focus on the starving so much. They still have to make money and be able to sustain themselves and their workers before they worry about others. A way to get them to help the starving is to make an incentive to do so. This incentive would be no more greater than one socialism can offer and in fact would be a socialist method of feeding the starving. Welfare, food stamps, social security, national healthcare. Socialist systems exist in capitalist nations. Many nations take care of their poor, more than you think.

 

 

 

Where we see a lack of social programs are places that are politically unstable. We need to help stabilize third world countries before we can do anything about how they run themselves.

[user1991]

 

 

 

 

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"

 

 

 

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?

[Quoi_Tu]

 

 

 

 

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"

 

 

 

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.

[user1991]

 

 

 

 

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"

 

 

 

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.