# Socialism as a solution for youth against controlling parents?



## bender477 (Aug 23, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> be honest though: how close are you to any one individual on this site?


a lot of them actually, even talked on the phone & know each other on a first name basis


----------



## aef8234 (Feb 18, 2012)

bender477 said:


> a lot of them actually, even talked on the phone & know each other on a first name basis


 If that's all it takes to be close to someone. I apparently haven't been complaining enough about knowing too many people.


----------



## bender477 (Aug 23, 2010)

aef8234 said:


> If that's all it takes to be close to someone.


sorry must have misread
I don't know ppl on this site
not yet! but I know a number of ppl thru twitter.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

SiFan said:


> Marx wished. US and allies crushing of the USSR and slave states was mainly an economy-based victory. Capitalism demolished socialism.
> 
> On the other hand, our current government is far left and pushing socialism. Cleaning up that mess could take a few years.
> 
> ...


Or ever heard of Allende's Chile, Tito's Yugoslavia and the Paris Commune of 1871(Where no "bosses" existed by the way?) As well as the French Revolution(1789-1790s) commune which was the basis for Marxism where power was highly decentralized and people were ruled by ideas instead of those with centralized power? Also nope, in Socialism instead of "bosses" there are these people who are technically the union leaders that are elected by the people of that said workplace. That person must serve the interests of those who work there instead of focusing on themselves(individual) and profit. Socialism also works best with Direct Democacy, Direct Democracy works alot better than a "republic"(plutocracy on practice). Nobody should have to give up their rights/freedom once they step inside the workplace, that is what socialism is especially about.

"Far Left"? Coming from a far-right conspiracy-theorist. "Far-Left"? HARDLY at all. Still a 100% capitalistic system that relies on cheap labour + sweatshops in countries like Africa, India or etc.

Also nope, not even DOCTORS and TEACHERS can afford to buy a house because it costs MILLIONS - TENS OF MILLIONS. You have never been in that position so you will never understand, even the ones with "jobs" who work like slaves can't afford to buy a home. Plus the fact they try to make youth work for little to nothing, you've NEVER been in that position like I said so you cannot understand. Many youth want equal pay so also do not find it particularly attractive, it shows the system is not for them. Hardcore Far-Right Capitalism(Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott) FAILED in Australia with unemployment + debt skyrocketing past U.S percentages, and the "get a good job remarks" only make people angry. You keep thinking its this flawless system where every single boss is some kind of "pure hearted angel": Joe Hockey pilloried for 'get a good job' remarks

Even "smaller houses" are expensive, many houses which were once a couple thousand many decades ago now all cost millions.

Plus you do know that Socialism can also be Libertarian - Egalitarian at the same time depending on the type? The Jacobins of the French Revolution followed a pre-marxist type which was a blending of Libertarian + Egalitarian values.

With the TPP just passing, its going to get a hell lot worse.


----------



## SiFan (Mar 10, 2015)

Dawn of the Light said:


> Or ever heard of Allende's Chile, Tito's Yugoslavia and the Paris Commune of 1871(Where no "bosses" existed by the way?) As well as the French Revolution(1789-1790s) commune which was the basis for Marxism where power was highly decentralized and people were ruled by ideas instead of those with centralized power?


And how long did such imagined utopias "where there are no 'bosses'" last? Maybe about as long as those 1960's flower child communes?



> Also nope, in Socialism instead of "bosses" there are these people who are technically the union leaders that are elected by the people of that said workplace. That person must serve the interests of those who work there instead of focusing on themselves(individual) and profit. Socialism also works best with Direct Democacy, Direct Democracy works alot better than a "republic"(plutocracy on practice). Nobody should have to give up their rights/freedom once they step inside the workplace, that is what socialism is especially about.


The only "socialist" thing about your model of a garden variety labor union is the odd claim that members "serve the interests of those who work there instead of focusing on themselves(individual) and profit". In real life, practically everyone who joins a union does so for job security, better working conditions, better pay, etc. so that he or she can make the most money for him/her self and family.



> "Far Left"? Coming from a far-right conspiracy-theorist. "Far-Left"? HARDLY at all. Still a 100% capitalistic system that relies on cheap labour + sweatshops in countries like Africa, India or etc.


Usually, people in such places are happy for the opportunity to make money working.



> Also nope, not even DOCTORS and TEACHERS can afford to buy a house because it costs MILLIONS - TENS OF MILLIONS.


Home prices have always been high on Mars. On Earth, they typically run way lower than millions.



> You have never been in that position so you will never understand, even the ones with "jobs" who work like slaves can't afford to buy a home. Plus the fact they try to make youth work for little to nothing, you've NEVER been in that position like I said so you cannot understand.


Really? Could have fooled me.



> Many youth want equal pay so also do not find it particularly attractive, it shows the system is not for them.


There was a time (about ten years ago) when actual unemployment was low and fast food, etc. pay was still fairly low. Adults weren't much interested in those jobs, which meant bunches of teens got hired at (for them) pretty nice pay for summer and after-school jobs.

But, now, with actual unemployment running around an estimated 15-20% and the ever-inflating minimum wage, fast food places and other traditional teen employers tend to hire 'responsible adults' for traditionally teenager jobs. Besides which a high minimum wage eliminates many extra-service/courtesy teen type jobs for which the minimum wage is simply too much to pay. And, it encourages more automation and outright elimination of many more jobs.

So, yes; when it comes to finding a job, teens are totally screwed in the current left-wing permanent recession economy.

....[/QUOTE]


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

SiFan said:


> And how long did such imagined utopias "where there are no 'bosses'" last? Maybe about as long as those 1960's flower child communes?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"Centrist" or "Centre-Right" is not "leftist" in any shape or form, especially if its backed by and serves the interest of massive private corporations(TPP and TTIP included). Go to Somalia if you want a regulation-free market, tax rate in Somalia is also 0. Also doubt so if the wages were insufficient for survival or medicine, etc. Most labouring jobs have been exported into third-world sweatshops that give them higher wages to be able to afford to give ANY of us higher minimum wages by losing less money.

And how long does the regulation-free market last or go? Look at Somalia, 0 work regulations, 0 taxes, 0 public service. Also wasn't it once said that "Democracy" or non-autocracy is a utopia? Howcome people tried for over hundreds of years to establish a "republic" through various failures(eg. Augustus Caesar taking power in Rome during ancient times) that resulted in trial & error until they put together the best working parts to implement? 

To create a society with a collective based work environment "leadership" we can cultivate a nation of activists or "mob rule" as you call it where the people have this attitude of wanting to take more and more power from the government. Where anybody that owns a workplace requires a democratic election by the people who work there and can be impeached by the people there if he/her breaks the constitution such as a bill of rights and any publicly approved workplace regulations. 

Works well especially if you arm every single person with a gun/firearm as Marx said, they will form mobs/groups and attack those who try to coerce them. France already has this culture which is why protesting, rioting and strikes happen there more frequently than any other first world country. The cultural revolution in China also did this, the majority literally stomped on the faces of the minority. Robespierre spread his ideas into the masses and they lynched anybody suspected of counter-revolution during the french revolution. Well answer is next time we go for a society where the majority stomp so hard on the minority that their bones are broken(not literally). Atleast "mob rule" is better than plutocracy or "republics".

Australia is ruled by neocon capitalists again since they were recently elected after the so-called "left government" paranoia and they they did was mess up the economy more, as well as attacked regulations or trade unions making it worse than the U.S in 2-3 years only? Explain that? John Howard, an ultra neocon implemented gun bans and made it not valid to own a weapon of any kind for self defence + gun bans. Corporations love them but trade unions are worst enemies with them. Weaker trade union militancy than U.S, public service massive cuts and things aren't getting any better? How they ran also completely turned people around from the "government is leftist cause" claim and into the total opposite instead. Current system is still a form of capitalism also, not "left" in any shape or form.


----------



## Serak (Jul 26, 2012)

Saying Socialism is the solution to youth not being able to be entirely independent of their family is a massive disconnect in the scale of your problems.

If you want the youth to be more financially independent, educate for actual skills. Teach people how to build, make, and do. Wealth follows from making and doing things.

Changing the fundamental economic and legal organization of your society is a bit of an overreaction.

The value of a Marx-style socialist system vs. the social democracies of Scandinavian countries, Denmark, Germany, etc. vs. whatever you view as capitalist vs. whatever other versions and combinations thereof? That's probably best as its own thread.

None of it really strikes me as needing advice either, really.

If your parents are controlling you in ways you don't want to submit to, build your path to independence and never look back. It can be done.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Serak said:


> Saying Socialism is the solution to youth not being able to be entirely independent of their family is a massive disconnect in the scale of your problems.
> 
> If you want the youth to be more financially independent, educate for actual skills. Teach people how to build, make, and do. Wealth follows from making and doing things.
> 
> ...


Not if it takes 20-30 years. There are some youth who literally are very educated and can't get employed, even if they do as teachers or doctors they can't afford to buy a house because they cost millions-tens of millions now. Its not possible.

The problem exists because the system sucks obviously, its been like that for a long time and the problem only gets worse. Especially with the TPP and TTIP coming in which removes the option of peaceful negotiation by reducing the money they make for better conditions or treatment at work. Socialism is also a means of survival because of today's situations for youth especially. Access to welfare housing, welfare food and an employment for every single person where they can start off and work their way up. Much better system if its like that. Rents are also rising too and the financial crisis here is much severe. Either Socialism or end up starving on the streets or dying there in the future.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

<.< I'm honestly surprised how commies can walk around this day and age without ppl wanting to beat the ,living shit out of them... must have something to do with ppl not reading history books.

OP let me tell you what you should do with your state socialism. Shove it up your asshole, that's what!


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

Dawn of the Light said:


> Not if it takes 20-30 years. There are some youth who literally are very educated and can't get employed, even if they do as teachers or doctors they can't afford to buy a house because they cost millions-tens of millions now. Its not possible.
> 
> The problem exists because the system sucks obviously, its been like that for a long time and the problem only gets worse. Especially with the TPP and TTIP coming in which removes the option of peaceful negotiation by reducing the money they make for better conditions or treatment at work. Socialism is also a means of survival because of today's situations for youth especially. Access to welfare housing, welfare food and an employment for every single person where they can start off and work their way up. Much better system if its like that. Rents are also rising too and the financial crisis here is much severe. Either Socialism or end up starving on the streets or dying there in the future.


But I don't understand, how is obliging parents to contribute/help their kids in paying the millions for the house solving the issue? Not every family has saved money to be able to help, would the kids from these families not be able to live then?

An ideal system is one where people can earn their independence and has equal opportunity to at least earn the basics. Not one in which it endangers one of the basic needs and expect people to gather enough money to pay it while the greedy people gets all the resources.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

AriesLilith said:


> But I don't understand, how is obliging parents to contribute/help their kids in paying the millions for the house solving the issue? Not every family has saved money to be able to help, would the kids from these families not be able to live then?
> 
> An ideal system is one where people can earn their independence and has equal opportunity to at least earn the basics. Not one in which it endangers one of the basic needs and expect people to gather enough money to pay it while the greedy people gets all the resources.


But under Socialism though if you are somebody who cannot afford to buy a home you are provided a free welfare funded accommodation to start off with which is pretty sweet, as well as free food if you can't afford it and every person can find a job. If you worked hard you would probably be able to buy a better accommodation yourself if you don't like the one you were granted. With this nobody who is dependent has to fear the threat of being "disowned" by those they financially depend on.

As the financial crisis gets worse, TPP and TTIP already here I expect starvation, death from preventable disease and etc to occur on a scale never seen before since the 1930s great depressions within the near future. We are probably all going to die the sooner, this or another World War breaks out as its a common pattern. Either way many people are probably going to die, probably a 50% chance of mortality or more. We are all "####ed" as they say.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

FreeBeer said:


> <.< I'm honestly surprised how commies can walk around this day and age without ppl wanting to beat the ,living shit out of them... must have something to do with ppl not reading history books.
> 
> OP let me tell you what you should do with your state socialism. Shove it up your asshole, that's what!


The black & white thinking title says you want to be murderous and oppressive yourself then? Titles like that and angry emotional statements/ad hominems are what is causing a decline in opinion of anti-communists/anti-marxists and damaging their reputation along with the fact people have never seen them win an intellectual debate against the concept. Plus the fact they communists are always seen to be more civil/emotionally tame than haters in debates. Also I follow my OWN type of Socialism but will side with ANY(WINNING MATTERS MORE) because socialism is survival. WINNING, requires big numbers.

Are ALL muslims "murderous" and "evil" because of some bad people who used the name? The one = all is a very narrow way of thinking. Btw go ahead and tell that to the communists protecting Europe from entry by I.S.I.S, the only obstacle in the way. The ones who were mass murdered by Nazi Germany and helped stop them.

Mix of non-state and state socialism French Revolution style is what I'm looking for, ANY type pretty much will do. State or Non-State. We will not use the name "communism" but something else with the exact same definition if emotions are an obstacle, since people who blindly hate it's weakness are they do not know the concept. Also can't the same be said for capitalists in Africa who are causing massive famines or preventable disease deaths with a 10 mils + death rate? 

You will soon see people beat the living shit out of anarcho-capitalists/die-hard capitalists or whatever they're called when TTIP passes next. A CEO in france already got his clothes ripped off by angry mobs of workers/masses. TPP will already cause massive repression soon.

I would rather mob rule than corporate fascism. Also anybody who wants anarcho-capitalism can just move to Somalia, its already being practised there.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Dawn of the Light said:


> The black & white thinking title says you want to be murderous and oppressive yourself then? Titles like that and angry emotional statements/ad hominems are what is causing a decline in opinion of anti-communists/anti-marxists and damaging their reputation along with the fact people have never seen them win an intellectual debate against the concept. Plus the fact they communists are always seen to be more civil/emotionally tame than haters in debates. Also I follow my OWN type of Socialism but will side with ANY(WINNING MATTERS MORE) because socialism is survival. WINNING, requires big numbers.
> 
> Are ALL muslims "murderous" and "evil" because of some bad people who used the name? The one = all is a very narrow way of thinking. Btw go ahead and tell that to the communists protecting Europe from entry by I.S.I.S, the only obstacle in the way. The ones who were mass murdered by Nazi Germany and helped stop them.
> 
> ...


<.< fuck Nazis, Communists AND Muslim theocracies! I don't care, ideologies which generated that kind of suffering and death on such a large scale are not to be tolerated NO MATTER WHAT. Next thing you know we are tolerating murderers or some bs like that, because they are "in pain" and "only expressing themselves". Ha!

I'm sick of this walking around on eggshells while you people preach your shit. State socialism belongs in the garbage. If not then I'll make sure to drag it's stinking carcass to it.

If you have the freedom to preach your bs ideology, I have the freedom to call you out on it.










State capitalism, mega corporations and the banks can suck it as well! There is no either-or, the landscape is not black and white. *Its not right or left, anyone who thinks like that lives in a box.*


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

FreeBeer said:


> <.< fuck Nazis, and Communists, I don't care, ideologies which generated that kind of suffering and death on such a large scale are not to be tolerated NO MATTER WHAT. Next thing you know we are tolerating murderers or some bs like that, because they are "in pain and "only expressing themselves". Ha!
> 
> I'm sick of this walking around on eggshells while you people preach your shit. State socialism belongs in the garbage.
> 
> If you have the freedom to preach your bs ideology, I have the freedom to call you out on it.


Is Islam "pure evil" because a couple of branch-offs used the name "Muslim" then? The catholic church with inquisitions in the past during a time with lower world population ratio? And didn't capitalism cause suffering and death on a huge scale(1.6 billion in total)? Near-total extinction of Australia's native Aboriginal population and America's native Americans in the genocides? Anarcho-Capitalism in Somalia included? Nazis are a type of capitalist you do know right? But racial capitalism, still all privatized and government-private corporation combined.

Howcome "state socialism" was not so bad in Tito's Yugoslavia or Allende's Chile? Also it wouldn't be so bad if direct democracy was applied to it and all power was decentralized like in the French Revolution. I'm for a mix of BOTH state and non-state socialism, the same type of society that the French Revolution of the 1790s operated on. People being warned about counter-revolutionaries that try to hijack it into an oppressive system and to lynch any they can find. State socialists of any kind are needed as allies during any revolutionary situation for the sake of winning.

Now that the TPP is passed and the TTIP is coming you can expect the masses to get more violent against capitalists(bosses):






And how are Ad Hominems gonna help in "calling" out something for a nametag you are ignorant of? Irony/Sarcasm page on the typical Ad Hominem bash, bash and bash tactic used, the "400 billion" and outright bashing is getting old: http://drunken-peasants-podcast.wikia.com/wiki/Communism

People have used "Islam/Muslim" to do bad things and that doesn't mean its all bad. When it is a religion and ideology of peace originally before corrupt splinters were made.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@Dawn of the Light Here is what i think about capitalism, I still don't resort to becoming a socialist:






The state however is not the answer.





















Dawn of the Light said:


> Is Islam "pure evil" because a couple of branch-offs used the name "Muslim" then? The catholic church with inquisitions in the past during a time with lower world population ratio? And didn't capitalism cause suffering and death on a huge scale(1.6 billion in total)? Near-total extinction of Australia's native Aboriginal population and America's native Americans in the genocides? Anarcho-Capitalism in Somalia included? Nazis are a type of capitalist you do know right? But racial capitalism, still all privatized and government-private corporation combined.


1. The Nazis were state capitalists which were born from the national socialist party. They called themselves socialists for your information.

2. All religions are bad. Spirituality and religion is not that same thing. 

3. Look above for my opinion on capitalism

4. Your worldview is outdated, evolve or perish.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

FreeBeer said:


> <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->
> @<span class="highlight"><i><a href="http://personalitycafe.com/member.php?u=185746" target="_blank">Dawn of the Light</a></i></span>
> <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> Here is what i think about capitalism, I still don't resort to becoming a socialist:


Well whats the system you support called? I support socialism because its better off than capitalism in the CURRENT situation we are in and I also support my own version. It should be a mix of both non-state and state socialism. Similar to the Jacobin French Revolution society that was a mixture/blending of both libertarian and egalitarian values. It was literally ruled by workers. Socialism as an idea existed long BEFORE Marxism did, also predominantly confined to France. 1789-1790s French Revolution, 1834 June Rebellion and 1871 Paris Commune. Origins from France. What other system can solve all of the problems we have today that are getting worse including the rising prices of homes or rents and plutocracy?

Marxism/Communism is a social theory of how human civilization progresses that some socialists have CHOSEN to follow or subscribe to. Based on the theory that people are made up of all experiences and memories they gained from living life, a product of their conditions and emotions. Behaving based on that. You can see how it was written in a more of "this is how it would be done" or "this is how I think socialism should be done" fashion, while predicting "And after socialism, people will socially evolve enough to a point where they do not need a state to live together in a civilized manner. The peak achievement of human civilization, Communism(Civilized "Anarchy" basically). But the name was also used to several movements that subscribed to it to say that they subscribe to Marxism and that Communism will come after their Socialism passes.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

FreeBeer said:


> <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->
> @<span class="highlight"><i><a href="http://personalitycafe.com/member.php?u=185746" target="_blank">Dawn of the Light</a></i></span>
> <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> Here is what i think about capitalism, I still don't resort to becoming a socialist:
> 
> ...


What is your ideology/viewpoint then? Socialism/Anti-Elitism evolves, the concept of anti-elitism and rule by the workers/bottom class has always existed. Its a basic concept. Only being more visible and resurfacing during the enlightenment age, leading to the French Revolution. The 21st century model will likely be quite different. What I am proposing is a re-use of the French Revolution model of power decentralization and people willingly following ideas/idealists without formal power or Direct Democracy. The French revolution was a blend of egalitarian and libertarian ideals. 

As for Direct Democracy doesn't it technically make it impossible for the state to lie if the power is all decentralized and not one person holds more power than ANYONE else? Cause how can a massive population of people all fuse together and lie or keep secrets? In the French revolution the population willingly lynched those they suspected of plotting counter-revolution to seize power for themselves.






And I am trying to theorize ways to develop a better type of socialism, maybe re-using Jacobinism could do well. Use the examples that worked best too like some of Tito's Yugoslavia or Allende's Chile. Recycle, reassemble. Early attempts at republics "failed" or didn't go well and they eventually fixed it up by using the examples that did work well.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Dawn of the Light said:


> What is your ideology/viewpoint then? Socialism/Anti-Elitism evolves, the concept of anti-elitism and rule by the workers/bottom class has always existed. Its a basic concept. Only being more visible and resurfacing during the enlightenment age, leading to the French Revolution. The 21st century model will likely be quite different. What I am proposing is a re-use of the French Revolution model of power decentralization and people willingly following ideas/idealists without formal power or Direct Democracy. The French revolution was a blend of egalitarian and libertarian ideals.
> 
> As for Direct Democracy doesn't it technically make it impossible for the state to lie if the power is all decentralized and not one person holds more power than ANYONE else? Cause how can a massive population of people all fuse together and lie or keep secrets? In the French revolution the population willingly lynched those they suspected of plotting counter-revolution to seize power for themselves.
> 
> ...



>.> my worldview is summed up neatly by a tv show and this song (not to be taken literally), I'm pretty sure most ppl prefer it to whatever garbage political system is out there:





*
I do what I want, think what I think and go where I want to go even if others stand in my way, as long as I don't hurt nobody, unless I need to defend myself from harm its ok. <=== what is worth fighting for imo.*

*If you must call it something, then I'm a fucking anarchist. *


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

FreeBeer said:


> *I do what I want, think what I think and go where I want to go even if others stand in my way, as long as I don't hurt nobody, unless I need to defend myself from harm its ok. <=== what is worth fighting for imo.*


I kind of believe in that bottom statement yes, but sometimes you have to consider that not all obstacles are entirely 1 or 2 people/physical, the strongest ones you can't bypass are not physical often. It could be a system or a system run by a multitude of people at the top holding it in place who you can't reach. What happens if the obstacle is financial and behind that obstacle another one(A mutating flawed system)? The "you will be covered if anything bad happens so don't worry" ensures your freedom from financial/"down on luck" obstacles. 

In the current financial situation socialism can also be seen for example as a ticket past/away from or bails you out of the current many obstacles that will stop you from living how you like without worry. The obstacles to people right now are financial and bureaucratic.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

Dawn of the Light said:


> But under Socialism though if you are somebody who cannot afford to buy a home you are provided a free welfare funded accommodation to start off with which is pretty sweet, as well as free food if you can't afford it and every person can find a job. If you worked hard you would probably be able to buy a better accommodation yourself if you don't like the one you were granted. With this nobody who is dependent has to fear the threat of being "disowned" by those they financially depend on.
> 
> As the financial crisis gets worse, TPP and TTIP already here I expect starvation, death from preventable disease and etc to occur on a scale never seen before since the 1930s great depressions within the near future. We are probably all going to die the sooner, this or another World War breaks out as its a common pattern. Either way many people are probably going to die, probably a 50% chance of mortality or more. We are all "####ed" as they say.


It's not getting support or not that I find weird, it's rather forcing someone else to help affording a basic need while not addressing how a basic need is not even affordable to the average population that I find weird.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Dawn of the Light said:


> I kind of believe in that bottom statement yes, but sometimes you have to consider that not all obstacles are entirely 1 or 2 people/physical, the strongest ones you can't bypass are not physical often. It could be a system or a system run by a multitude of people at the top holding it in place who you can't reach. What happens if the obstacle is financial and behind that obstacle another one(A mutating flawed system)? The "you will be covered if anything bad happens so don't worry" ensures your freedom from financial/"down on luck" obstacles.
> 
> In the current financial situation socialism can also be seen for example as a ticket past/away from or bails you out of the current many obstacles that will stop you from living how you like without worry. The obstacles to people right now are financial and bureaucratic.


It doesn't matter which side is in power, the left or the right, Nazis or Communists, the neoliberal left or the neoliberal right... as long as they have the power.

The whole point would be to decentralize power to such a degree that nobody can gain the upper hand anymore. Its doable, we have the technology, the manpower and the know how.

^^ cus song>text


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

AriesLilith said:


> It's not getting support or not that I find weird, it's rather forcing someone else to help affording a basic need while not addressing how a basic need is not even affordable to the average population that I find weird.


Isn't the average population around that age mostly like that though?


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

There's a fairly old Russian joke that goes something like this in English...


A teacher asks his student: "Your father is a communist, right?"

Boy: "That's right."

Teacher: "And your mother is a capitalist?"

Boy: "True."

Teacher: "So what do you wish to be when you grow up?"

Boy: "An orphan."


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

Dawn of the Light said:


> Isn't the average population around that age mostly like that though?


I'm not sure if I understood what you meant in this sentence, are you pointing out that the "average population" I was mentioning is around the same age (generation?)? If so, I still can't see why the actual crazy price of a basic resource is not being addressed. A group of people/authority/??? is owning the resources and selling them at crazy prices, and instead of addressing that we are forcing someone else (in this case the parents) to pay for that flaw. If we really do that, it only contributes to the group to hold even more resources, draining them from everyone else (parents, younger generations), holding even more power.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

AriesLilith said:


> I'm not sure if I understood what you meant in this sentence, are you pointing out that the "average population" I was mentioning is around the same age (generation?)? If so, I still can't see why the actual crazy price of a basic resource is not being addressed. A group of people/authority/??? is owning the resources and selling them at crazy prices, and instead of addressing that we are forcing someone else (in this case the parents) to pay for that flaw. If we really do that, it only contributes to the group to hold even more resources, draining them from everyone else (parents, younger generations), holding even more power.


I mean the people who are in their 16-18s(like me) and those in their 20s now. The housing prices essentially became higher than in history: https://aifs.gov.au/publications/family-matters/issue-36/young-adults-living-home


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

Dawn of the Light said:


> I mean the people who are in their 16-18s(like me) and those in their 20s now. The housing prices essentially became higher than in history: https://aifs.gov.au/publications/family-matters/issue-36/young-adults-living-home


The price being too high is already obvious, the average population simply can't pay millions for a home of course.

But to address the issue of the current generation not being able to afford this basic need of a home, why would we opt for forcing parents to help them with buying houses, instead of addressing the crazy price itself? The later option is only allowing those who hold the resources to become "fatter" and more powerful.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

AriesLilith said:


> The price being too high is already obvious, the average population simply can't pay millions for a home of course.
> 
> But to address the issue of the current generation not being able to afford this basic need of a home, why would we opt for forcing parents to help them with buying houses, instead of addressing the crazy price itself? The later option is only allowing those who hold the resources to become "fatter" and more powerful.


I never talked about finding a way to force them to buy houses for them. But if they disobey their wishes and they do NOT have a home and adequate income yet then they shouldn't be allowed to get booted/disowned. 

Should they decide to move out though and can't afford to buy a house, then they would apply for the welfare accommodation(It would be quite simple and needs-focused shelter) then have the opportunity to work their way up, once they have enough money they could then buy their own. 

A mix of both state and non-state socialism is best, provide aid to those who need it then help them grow out of it to their full potential. You gotta provide people a secure environment when they are at their weakest then once they are ready they can go for something better if they like as much as they want. Should something bad/unfortunate happen to them in life they would still get to have a welfare or community funded accommodation. Whatever it would be, live life like how they wish without worry or major financial obstacles.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

FreeBeer said:


> The whole point would be to decentralize power to such a degree that nobody can gain the upper hand anymore. Its doable, we have the technology, the manpower and the know how.
> 
> ^^ cus song>text


I heard bitcoin would allow people to fund a resistance effectively against any unjust/repressive government also? Which could mean that if a revolutionary war broke out it would not be so hard for the participants to acquire weapons.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

Dawn of the Light said:


> I never talked about finding a way to force them to buy houses for them. But if they disobey their wishes and they do NOT have a home and adequate income yet then they shouldn't be allowed to get booted/disowned.
> 
> Should they decide to move out though and can't afford to buy a house, then they would apply for the welfare accommodation(It would be quite simple and needs-focused shelter) then have the opportunity to work their way up, once they have enough money they could then buy their own.
> 
> A mix of both state and non-state socialism is best, provide aid to those who need it then help them grow out of it to their full potential. You gotta provide people a secure environment when they are at their weakest then once they are ready they can go for something better if they like as much as they want. Should something bad/unfortunate happen to them in life they would still get to have a welfare or community funded accommodation. Whatever it would be, live life like how they wish without worry or major financial obstacles.


Isn't disowning prohibed by law already? (or maybe not over there)
Idk if I agree or disagree with parents not being able to disown their kids thought, there are cases where it might also be "unfair" for the parent to not have freedom of choice. For example, what about cases in which the child simply abandoned the parent just to later demand his/her "fair" share of inheritance? Not all parents are evil and not all kids are saints.
Also, if we demand parents to pass their money, shouldn't we also be obliged to take care of them if they need? Like when they are old and in need of assistence/money, specially those who are poor and if their children has money.

I'd prefer the idea of a system where people have affordable and more equal opportunities. Assistance and help for those in need (for example if family is being abusive and children has nowhere to go - thought isn't there some sort of support for abused victims already?). Thought one thing is being abused, another is simply wanting to move out, in the later scenario unless there is abundant resource, IMO society's resource are needed in other more urgent places.

In any ways, it's still more important to actually fix the issue than getting bandaids. Which means fixing the crazy price and impossibility to get basic resources instead of figuring out n ways to amend the situation.


(personally I prefer independence and freedom of choice. inheritance or not, people being able to be independent and build and get their own resources. I'm glad that even thought Portugal is in bad economic crisis, being independent is still possible for average people.)


----------



## Serak (Jul 26, 2012)

Dawn of the Light said:


> Not if it takes 20-30 years. There are some youth who literally are very educated and can't get employed, even if they do as teachers or doctors they can't afford to buy a house because they cost millions-tens of millions now. Its not possible.
> 
> The problem exists because the system sucks obviously, its been like that for a long time and the problem only gets worse. Especially with the TPP and TTIP coming in which removes the option of peaceful negotiation by reducing the money they make for better conditions or treatment at work. Socialism is also a means of survival because of today's situations for youth especially. Access to welfare housing, welfare food and an employment for every single person where they can start off and work their way up. Much better system if its like that. Rents are also rising too and the financial crisis here is much severe. Either Socialism or end up starving on the streets or dying there in the future.


You seem to be making wild assumptions here, Light. I'm seeing two: The prices of housing in Australia and the TPP.

First, regarding the TPP: We don't know what's in it. The text of the deal must be made fully available to the public 60 days before it can become law. I'm wary of it too but let's read it first, yeah?

Next, housing costs and independent living: Based on this data you're off with your "millions and tens of millions" mark considerably. Even in Sydney the average price does not hit $900,000 all measured in USD. I'm sure there are million dollar and tens of millions of dollar houses in Australia, but those exist in a lot of places. In America, we call it Beverly Hills.

Next, you're jumping to further conclusions: Socialism or starvation?

I'm 23 years old working a single income at the bottom of my field's pay range (Information Technology) and I completely support an as-of-yet unemployed girlfriend. You might be having problems, Light, and I'm sorry to hear that. However, your proposition still does not fit the problem you describe.

Since we've established three core issues with your argument: a TPP we haven't read, housing prices way below your assertions, and a ridiculous "Socialism or starvation" jump in logic? No one here can really buy what you're selling.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, Light. You've provided the claim but not the evidence.

Now don't get me wrong. With the rise of mass-automation I agree that our economy will change. I'm also a strong proponent of Scandinavian-style, German-style, etc. Social Democracy.

Outright Marx-style Socialism in response to the situation you described? Yes, Australia has a housing bubble. No, the only answer to that is not Socialism.

Sorry pal, you don't really have a lot of ground to stand on.

Perhaps a topic about the inevitability of Marx-style Socialism in the future is what you're after? Don't attach it to any particular Australian problem and you'll have more of an argument.


----------



## SiFan (Mar 10, 2015)

Dawn of the Light said:


> "Centrist" or "Centre-Right" is not "leftist" in any shape or form, especially if its backed by and serves the interest of massive private corporations(TPP and TTIP included). Go to Somalia if you want a regulation-free market, tax rate in Somalia is also 0. Also doubt so if the wages were insufficient for survival or medicine, etc..


Somalia appears to have little real government of any kind. Agree that it probably would not be especially socialist. It seems, basically, to be a grouping of somewhat criminal enterprises-- e.g. kidnappers, piracy, etc.-- run by assorted warlords and bosses. Still, people live there and work, have some doctors and medicines, and manage to survive. 



> Most labouring jobs have been exported into third-world sweatshops that give them higher wages to be able to afford to give ANY of us higher minimum wages by losing less money.


Probably best to drop expectations that corporations will compensate people in advanced countries for jobs lost to workers in underdeveloped countries. Most corporations may back politicians (mostly left-wing) pushing for a higher and higher minimum wage because it doesn't cost most corporations anything and it's so often pictured as "humane".

In fact, the minimum wage is easily the #1 job killer for teenagers (and, to some degree, for everyone else). Especially when actual unemployment is so high as it is now, adults will be attracted to traditionally teenager jobs and be favored for hiring.



> ....
> 
> To create a society with a collective based work environment "leadership" we can cultivate a nation of activists or "mob rule" as you call it where the people have this attitude of wanting to take more and more power from the government. Where anybody that owns a workplace requires a democratic election by the people who work there and can be impeached by the people there if he/her breaks the constitution such as a bill of rights and any publicly approved workplace regulations.


Snag there should be obvious. No one is going to set up a store or bakery or any other business where the workers can simply vote to steal everything from the owner.



> Works well especially if you arm every single person with a gun/firearm as Marx said, they will form mobs/groups and attack those who try to coerce them. France already has this culture which is why protesting, rioting and strikes happen there more frequently than any other first world country. The cultural revolution in China also did this, the majority literally stomped on the faces of the minority. Robespierre spread his ideas into the masses and they lynched anybody suspected of counter-revolution during the french revolution. Well answer is next time we go for a society where the majority stomp so hard on the minority that their bones are broken(not literally). Atleast "mob rule" is better than plutocracy or "republics".


Come to think, maybe, after all, Somalia is your ideal destination!



> Australia is ruled by neocon capitalists again since they were recently elected after the so-called "left government" paranoia and they they did was mess up the economy more, as well as attacked regulations or trade unions making it worse than the U.S in 2-3 years only? Explain that? John Howard, an ultra neocon implemented gun bans and made it not valid to own a weapon of any kind for self defence + gun bans. Corporations love them but trade unions are worst enemies with them. Weaker trade union militancy than U.S, public service massive cuts and things aren't getting any better? How they ran also completely turned people around from the "government is leftist cause" claim and into the total opposite instead. Current system is still a form of capitalism also, not "left" in any shape or form.


Doubt Australia has had a conservative government in the last two or three decades, whether some twit politician is labeled 'NeoCon" or not. No genuinely conservative government would approve such rabid efforts to disarm the people the way Australia has on the goofy premise of cutting 'gun deaths' from 4-per-100,000 to 2.7-per-100,000. So, what you have is center-left vs. farther-left governments.

Looking on the bright side, maybe some day Australians will have a communist government and everyone will be equally happy.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@Dawn of the Light
this is a bit semantic, but you keep misusing the word "private corporation". a cooperation is a _publicly_ traded entity which is granted the legal rights of a person. private companies are owned primarily by business owners, with smaller percentages of ownership sometimes allocated to private investors, managers and/or employees. private companies are, in general, less corrupt, less monopolizing and less likely to contribute to/benefit from the corporate/government orgy which has the world economy in a stranglehold.


----------



## Serak (Jul 26, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> @Dawn of the Light
> this is a bit semantic, but you keep misusing the word "private corporation". a cooperation is a _publicly_ traded entity which is granted the legal rights of a person. private companies are owned primarily by business owners, with smaller percentages of ownership sometimes allocated to private investors, managers and/or employees. private companies are, in general, less corrupt, less monopolizing and less likely to contribute to/benefit from the corporate/government orgy which has the world economy in a stranglehold.


Literally read my mind.

It wasn't enough of a pet peeve to mention, but since you did!

I own a private business and call all of the shots. I've worked for Corporations in the past, which is publicly traded _and_ run by a council: the Board of Directors. Similar to a public organization such as a Library or School, which are run by a Board of Trustees or something similar.

These bodies are meant to ensure that the organization serves the interest of those that contribute. In the Board of Director's case, this is typically shareholders and investors because the Corporation is beholden to make good on their investments at risk of losing them and losing future ones. A Board of Trustees is beholden to the tax paying public and works to make sure the public entity and its individual leadership work for the interests of said public.

They're actually pretty similar in that regard.

It's just that shareholders are rightfully interested in profit from their investment whereas the taxpaying public wants a service they approve of.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Dawn of the Light said:


> I heard bitcoin would allow people to fund a resistance effectively against any unjust/repressive government also? Which could mean that if a revolutionary war broke out it would not be so hard for the participants to acquire weapons.


*sigh* there is no need for violence and fighting with weapons. The technology itself means the end of banking as we know it, the end of government as we know it (direct democracy is now possible). The digital open ledger makes a lot of third parties obsolete and will displace a lot of ppl in the market. Bitcoin is just one thing the blaockchain makes possible. Since its open source anyone can make use of it, improve it, fork it etc.. for practically anything, the only limits are creativity, its logical structure and learning to code.

*This thing is as BIG as the internet was, back when it was invented. It will change the world.*

Politics does almost nothing for bringing about change. Its ALWAYS the technology. Without the industrial revolution you wouldn't have socialism and today we are going beyond the industrial revolution towards something equally big and new. This means the old ideas socialists had are becoming obsolete as we are shifting the economy.

Ask yourself. Where is the working class in the age of automation? Exactly, automation is phasing it out, it has been phasing it out for the latter part of the industrial age. Ppl need to shift what they are doing as more intellectually challenging opportunities become available in the market. There will also be a political shift as ppl discover that the blockchain makes direct democracy possible.

The real revolution now is ppl discovering that they don't need the banking system, they don't need fiat money, they don't need the bloated government and that they can start their own enterprise rather easily, so if they are capable, they do not need to work for a corporation if they dislike it's top down autocratic structure. 






Being a musician nowadays is much easier. You don't need to be discovered in a bar by some record label for example. You just record your art, build a website and share it. Through this you generate a reasonable income and what is more important ppl discover you and becomes fans. Its that easy now and a musician doesn't have to go through the record label which limits his or her creativity.

Just look at RA the rugged man, the guy is one of the best rappers and makes his living without the record lables:





*
<.< the way forward is by evolving decentralization and government plays a big part in that, because they are and will continue to try and fight this, but by doing so the network of individuals learns and evolves countermeasures to the point where the centralized entities such as banks, corporations and government are no longer capable of doing anything against it.

At hat point, we the people  have won. Look at what happened to The Piratebay. They tried to kill it and in doing so they made it more resilient and and they inevitably ended up creating more pirate bays then there were before. This means that by fighting it they continually need to invest more and more resources, which at one point they will not have anymore all the while the network just keeps on adapting to the attacks.*

The problem of socialism imo was, that it relied on centralization in order to achieve eventual decentralization (which was the goal). That was a mistake. *The solution to that mistake is the blockchain.*


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

FreeBeer said:


> *sigh* there is no need for violence and fighting with weapons. The technology itself means the end of banking as we know it, the end of government as we know it (direct democracy is now possible). The digital open ledger makes a lot of third parties obsolete and will displace a lot of ppl in the market. Bitcoin is just one thing the blaockchain makes possible. Since its open source anyone can make use of it, improve it, fork it etc.. for practically anything, the only limits are creativity, its logical structure and learning to code.
> 
> *This thing is as BIG as the internet was, back when it was invented. It will change the world.*
> 
> ...


Well if you take every single thing in Karl Marx's Socialism "literally" you would get Libertarian-Socialism. A decentralized socialism that is not run by any government but by literally the public if you do not include "the government will act as the representative of the public" in your interpretation. 

Karl Marx apparently never made it clear how he believes this "Socialism" which is gonna lead to abolition of the government/state will run eventually but just labelled(wrote it as) "Free education, free healthcare" but things can also be made "free" through non-state means so when he died it had to rely on interpretation. Because in capitalism/pre-socialism "public" services are run by the government and called that since the government we have now or they had before socialism "made it for the people/public" and thus represent them in that sector.

Full blown "State Socialism"(Marxism-Leninism is the official name for it) was based off of Vladimir Lenin's interpretation and later on all of this successors, in belief of a centralized government who will be labelled/supposed to act as a representative of the population thus supposed to know what they want or like.

The "free education", "free healthcare" and other goals mentioned by Marx can also be accomplished through optional participatory "taxation"(subscription) instead of a government like I said. Which is why its confusing and socialists are split into two main sides on the idea. In full blown Libertarian-Socialism if you take "public service" as literally a service run collectively together by the people/general populace, then to start it enough people in the community of the nation would have to agree to willingly sign up to pay a certain amount of money which will prove to be beneficial to the entire community. How it would run would be through optional or recurring donations, idk which is more likely. Its all down to interpretation how this predicted/preferred "Socialism" will run after capitalism since he did not exactly make it clear on how. What we do know is that whatever way he wanted/predicted to do it is:

1. No existence of plutocracy.

2.Will eventually lead to permanent abolition of the state/government where people can live in a civilized manner(Labelled stage of "communism" by Marx).

If it turns out he wanted it to be done directly by literally public interest and not by any government that is supposed to be wired to represent the public or half-represents, then you and any full libertarian-socialists would be technically way more "Marxist" than any "State-Socialists" will ever be + it would mean that state-socialism was a huge mistake of misinterpretation of the word "public". And I do not mean it in a bad way. People think "government" everytime the word "public service" is mentioned because that is currently how its run by capitalism and also by Marxist-Leninists in the 20th century. I'm in the middle but lean slightly more towards libertarian-socialist according to my political compass. If you take the term "public service" in its 100% literal form then it means a service that is willingly maintaied + in-demand by the public/general population for non-profit. Bitcoin would make nation-wide LITERAL "public service" an even bigger possibility since anybody would be able to participate by donating or make recurring donations easily nation-wide to those team of people with the said skills who want to run it for them.

Its a pretty big debate whether he meant 100% literal "public/free" or not. What we do know is that if the said form of "Socialism"(Whether libertarian, hybrid or state) is the correct one it will lead to the state/government becoming obsolete to the people. And there are some clues from the Paris Commune(1871) which Marxism is based on and they were "socialist" with no government/state or limited + also the fact that its based on the idea that humans are social animals who will eventually all voluntarily work together for survival once they see it beneficial. He also STRONGLY supported gun ownership in public hands and he meant literal public hands(the working population), the guy who would say technically what would be his day's equivalent of the statement "(BEEP) gun control! Defend them with your life if they try to take your guns away workers/people!" The 19th century(1800s) and renaissance time left-wing were also a lot more "Libertarian" in how they acted.

Because in Feudalism/Medieval economy system and Monarchy, everything was owned by the government + royalty. To avoid confusion next time they/we should re-name "public service" run by the government into "government"-run services and population-run services without executives trying to make money as "public". The reason the government is able to make the claim their services are "public" now is because they also claim they serve the public/people("Democratic government"). Pirate bay and TOR would be a "public service"(If phrase is taken in literal form) since its in demand by the people, being run for non-profit.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

@FreeBeer

*So incase you didn't read the boast when edited. Here's how the interpretation "public services"(Taken Literally)/Libertarian-Socialist "public services" would run?:*

**No rich guy being the boss and hiring the people to work for him while taking most of what they earn.

*In demand by and maintained by the public.

*Started by a team of people who do not have more or less power over one another running the service.

*Probably non-profit or non-profit in that it focuses on its workers' + users' safety over making money(Bitcoin, Epic Privacy Browser, Pirate Bay, Tor etc). Would it be optional to pay/donate for the service or not though for it to be classified "public"? Since a literal public service would be something that is run, maintained and started literally by interests of us/the public?*

Before any type of "Socialism"(Including "state-socialism") was implemented with the exception of the Paris Commune(1871) which was relatively no-state or had none at all. The government had and still has now the ability to claim the services it pays for through taxation are "public services" because they also make the claim they are "democratic" and "serve our interests". "State-Socialism"(Marxism-Leninism) took this definition and interpreted "free (service name)" as something run by a centralized government that "represents" its people just like in the current system we have except "truly" do it while removing "private(individual boss owned) enterprise".

So indeed if Karl Marx meant "free (needs based service) name" was truly decentralized, run, created and maintained by public interest solely then, this means full blown "State-Socialism" is or would be one big fatal misinterpretation and a mistake/accident which resulted from the misinterpretation. State-Socialism("Marxism-Leninism") used the current system(Representative "Democracy")'s interpretation of the word "public" and "free" in its creation.

Literal "free-education", "free healthcare" would probably be something that is maintained by a team of people who anyone can join or leave freely with the skills. Dictated by its own workers/employees who are serving the people. The public willingly paying for it to be maintained somehow because they see the importance/benefit in it + working together to voluntarily pay for it. That would want to be free from the coercion/control and loss of freedom + wage reduction by a boss in a "private" place. The core principle of Marxism is "human's are social animals who will see benefit in cooperating/working together" for each other's survival, this might give a clue to how he believed it should/would run?


----------

