I'm confused, USA is now a communist country?

[bubblegum]

29 minutes ago, JoseThailand said:

 

Can you elaborate

No

[TedG]

11 hours ago, TheFishman1 said:

If Trump gets elected essentially essentially, it will be a total disaster now when he loses legitimately, I’m just curious where will he start his first he’s a liar. He’s a thief. He’s a crook.

Name a Democrat who does not lie. 

[TedG]

3 hours ago, WDSmart said:

I don't entirely understand your post. I don't understand what law enforcement has to do with socialism.

In pure socialism, there would be no unemployment because there would be no employment. Employment is a capitalistic feature. Maternity benefits are also a possible feature of employment under capitalism. In pure socialism, if someone is unable to work, they don't, but they still have access to all the state's resources they need. All citizens of Thailand have access to free (or very low-cost) medical benefits. That's what all the government hospitals are for.  

 

I judge Thaland's economy to be a mix of capitalism and socialism, a mix which is much farther left than the USA's economy.

I do agree that Thailand's government is more right-wing than the USA's, but that could change next year if You-Know-Who gets elected. If that happens, I fear we (the USA) are headed towards an autocratic plutocracy (rule of the rich).  

 

You're conflating socialism with the welfare state.    Socialism is where the government (the people) owns the means of production. 

[Alidiver]

This is ASIAN NOW.

Go and discuss America elsewhere.

[Middle Aged Grouch]

Communist ? I would not go to that extent.

 

But definately the Biden cronies are applying the worst from both worlds, communist and capitalist liberal.

 

 

[TedG]

2 hours ago, Alidiver said:

This is ASIAN NOW.

Go and discuss America elsewhere.

 

This section is   News ->Worldnews -> Political Soapbox. 

[JoseThailand]

12 hours ago, bubblegum said:

No

 

You are a commie!

[JoseThailand]

11 hours ago, TedG said:

Name a Democrat who does not lie. 

 

Name a Republican who does not lie

[JustMyOpinion]

7 hours ago, TedG said:

 

This section is   News ->Worldnews -> Political Soapbox. 

I guess Alidiver doesn't have the necessary personal restraint to NOT click on an OP... he would rather censor

[Mbaki]

On 8/8/2024 at 9:28 AM, TheFishman1 said:

If Trump gets elected essentially essentially, it will be a total disaster now when he loses legitimately, I’m just curious where will he start his first he’s a liar. He’s a thief. He’s a crook.

Sounds like all the qualifications of most politicians 😂

[susanlea]

12 hours ago, JoseThailand said:

 

Name a Republican who does not lie

Vance

[Cameroni]

On 8/8/2024 at 10:05 AM, WDSmart said:

There are no rich and no poor. Everyone contributes the best they can. Some can contribute much more than others. Some cannot contribute anything, but all receive what they need as long as society has the means to provide that.

Think of it like how a family works. 

 

So dad will leave and find a younger model elsewhere and mom will be bitter and stuck with doing everything including looking after grandma when she gets sick? 

[WDSmart]

On 8/8/2024 at 6:29 PM, TedG said:

On 8/8/2024 at 2:49 PM, WDSmart said:

In pure socialism, there would be no unemployment because there would be no employment. Employment is a capitalistic feature. Maternity benefits are also a possible feature of employment under capitalism. In pure socialism, if someone is unable to work, they don't, but they still have access to all the state's resources they need. All citizens of Thailand have access to free (or very low-cost) medical benefits. That's what all the government hospitals are for.  

 

I judge Thaland's economy to be a mix of capitalism and socialism, a mix which is much farther left than the USA's economy.

I do agree that Thailand's government is more right-wing than the USA's, but that could change next year if You-Know-Who gets elected. If that happens, I fear we (the USA) are headed towards an autocratic plutocracy (rule of the rich).  

Expand  

 

You're conflating socialism with the welfare state.    Socialism is where the government (the people) owns the means of production. 

I agree with you. In pure socialism, the government owns all means of production, and the government, as best as possible, provides for the needs of all people. Perhaps our disagreement is based on our interpretation of the word "employment." I interpret that as an activity that is done for a wage, which is usually money. I don't consider working, as is done in socialism, as a task to benefit the society as a whole without the expectation of a special wage, but only the expectation that the government will provide for your needs as best as it can. 

[WDSmart]

14 hours ago, Cameroni said:

On 8/8/2024 at 3:05 PM, WDSmart said:

There are no rich and no poor. Everyone contributes the best they can. Some can contribute much more than others. Some cannot contribute anything, but all receive what they need as long as society has the means to provide that.

Think of it like how a family works. 

 

So dad will leave and find a younger model elsewhere and mom will be bitter and stuck with doing everything including looking after grandma when she gets sick? 

Well, that would be an undesirable and hopefully very rare example.

The family I described is one in which the adults (man and wife?) do whatever they can to provide for their children. The children also might do some things to contribute, like cleaning around the house, but there also could be a child who is retarded or physically unable to work. Those types of people would be cared for just as the others are.

In a family like this, and in socialism, all people are cared for as best they can, regardless of their ability to contribute to the family or society.

[Cameroni]

3 hours ago, WDSmart said:

Well, that would be an undesirable and hopefully very rare example.

The family I described is one in which the adults (man and wife?) do whatever they can to provide for their children. The children also might do some things to contribute, like cleaning around the house, but there also could be a child who is retarded or physically unable to work. Those types of people would be cared for just as the others are.

In a family like this, and in socialism, all people are cared for as best they can, regardless of their ability to contribute to the family or society.

 

Hopefully.

 

Yes, man and wife do everything for the children and they would look after an autistic child, quite true. It is not so rare though that children then have to look after their own frail and sick parents, or indeed that the spouses, husband or wife, stray and leave for another partner which is now the case in 50 per cent or so cases.

 

The point is that the family can exist because it is a short lived and transient organism. When we speak of "family" there is no such thing really, but instead a chain of constant never ending families that are  brought into existence beause of the sexual urge and the urge to procreate.

 

The family affects to be an altruistic model, but in essence it is based on the most selfish, egotistical and fleeting urges, the urge to have sex and to procreate.

 

Socialism may be altruistic but it seems to lack the same biological rationale and survival of the species imperative which the family relies on. Maybe that is why socialism has poven considerably less successful than the family?

[WDSmart]

25 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Hopefully.

 

Yes, man and wife do everything for the children and they would look after an autistic child, quite true. It is not so rare though that children then have to look after their own frail and sick parents, or indeed that the spouses, husband or wife, stray and leave for another partner which is now the case in 50 per cent or so cases.

 

The point is that the family can exist because it is a short lived and transient organism. When we speak of "family" there is no such thing really, but instead a chain of constant never ending families that are  brought into existence beause of the sexual urge and the urge to procreate.

 

The family affects to be an altruistic model, but in essence it is based on the most selfish, egotistical and fleeting urges, the urge to have sex and to procreate.

 

Socialism may be altruistic but it seems to lack the same biological rationale and survival of the species imperative which the family relies on. Maybe that is why socialism has poven considerably less successful than the family?

You make a lot of good points here, but I am using the concept of "family" and how its interactions and responsibilities are thought to work on a theoretical level to exemplify the social relationships in the theoretical definition of "socialism."

 

In other words, socialism is supposed to work like a family—everyone does their best to provide for the individual needs of a group in a way that is not based on what each individual contributes. A good family and pure socialism require a lack of selfishness regarding the family or the entire society.

In contrast, and in the same theoretical way, capitalism is supposed to work like a business—everyone gets rewarded based on what they contribute, and those who contribute less get less, and those who contribute nothing get nothing. A good business and pure capitalism require complete selfishness. 

To take this just one step further, in the same theoretical way, communism works like the fable-based description of Jesus' disciples—no distinction (judgment) is made on what an individual contributes, and everyone shares everything. The fabled disciples and communism require a complete lack of selfishness.

So, those are the theoretical examples of the three major types of economies: socialistic, capitalistic, and communistic. Most countries today, including the USA and Thailand, have a mix of socialism and capitalism (Keynesism). It's the strength of each in the mix that is usually what is under debate. 

[Cameroni]

11 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

You make a lot of good points here, but I am using the concept of "family" and how its interactions and responsibilities are thought to work on a theoretical level to exemplify the social relationships in the theoretical definition of "socialism."

 

In other words, socialism is supposed to work like a family—everyone does their best to provide for the individual needs of a group in a way that is not based on what each individual contributes. A good family and pure socialism require a lack of selfishness regarding the family or the entire society.

In contrast, and in the same theoretical way, capitalism is supposed to work like a business—everyone gets rewarded based on what they contribute, and those who contribute less get less, and those who contribute nothing get nothing. A good business and pure capitalism require complete selfishness. 

To take this just one step further, in the same theoretical way, communism works like the fable-based description of Jesus' disciples—no distinction (judgment) is made on what an individual contributes, and everyone shares everything. The fabled disciples and communism require a complete lack of selfishness.

So, those are the theoretical examples of the three major types of economies: socialistic, capitalistic, and communistic. Most countries today, including the USA and Thailand, have a mix of socialism and capitalism (Keynesism). It's the strength of each in the mix that is usually what is under debate. 

 

I understand what you are trying to do and it is a good analogy for your purpose. When you look at it in more detail though I see the family as the most selfish of entities. Yes, parents provide for their children, but really not due to a lack of selfishness, but rather the opposite....for the selfish reason that these are THEIR children,with THEIR genes. By providing for the children the parents procreate their genes. It is really a most selfish reason.

 

Whether the desciples shared everything equally I dare to question, and indeed the selfishness of the entire God narrative has been well established by Nietzsche.

 

Perhaps this monstrously powerful trait of selfishnes is why capitalism works so well, as it is able to harness selfishness for its own needs, whereas communism seems to blank out selfishness in its own blueprint and has no use for it at all.

 

[WDSmart]

31 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

I understand what you are trying to do and it is a good analogy for your purpose. When you look at it in more detail though I see the family as the most selfish of entities. Yes, parents provide for their children, but really not due to a lack of selfishness, but rather the opposite....for the selfish reason that these are THEIR children,with THEIR genes. By providing for the children the parents procreate their genes. It is really a most selfish reason.

 

Whether the desciples shared everything equally I dare to question, and indeed the selfishness of the entire God narrative has been well established by Nietzsche.

 

Perhaps this monstrously powerful trait of selfishnes is why capitalism works so well, as it is able to harness selfishness for its own needs, whereas communism seems to blank out selfishness in its own blueprint and has no use for it at all.

 

Parents provide for their children through a mixture of love and acts they feel obligated to do because of the society in which they live.  You can then extend that family-like activity to the neighborhood, the village, and finally, the state. The latter would be socialism.

The Bible (New Testament) has many references to complete sharing (communism). Here is just one:

"3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility, value others above yourselves,

4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others." Philippines 2: 3-4.
Like Nietzsche, I, too, believe that the fables in the Bible are based on selfishness in the long run. Good acts are promised to be rewarded in Heaven, and bad acts in Hell. However, the "teachings" are a good example of the essence of relationships on which communism would be based.

Capitalism is based on pure selfishness. I disagree that it's been proven to "work so well." I think, in fact, capitalism is the cause of most of the world's (humanity's) problems. 

[Cameroni]

13 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Parents provide for their children through a mixture of love and acts they feel obligated to do because of the society in which they live.  You can then extend that family-like activity to the neighborhood, the village, and finally, the state. The latter would be socialism.

The Bible (New Testament) has many references to complete sharing (communism). Here is just one:

"3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility, value others above yourselves,

4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others." Philippines 2: 3-4.
Like Nietzsche, I, too, believe that the fables in the Bible are based on selfishness in the long run. Good acts are promised to be rewarded in Heaven, and bad acts in Hell. However, the "teachings" are a good example of the essence of relationships on which communism would be based.

Capitalism is based on pure selfishness. I disagree that it's been proven to "work so well." I think, in fact, capitalism is the cause of most of the world's (humanity's) problems. 

 

Undoubtedly capitalism is the cause of many of the world's problems. It does work to a certain degree though. And nobody has come up with a viable alternative. Though as you rightly pointed out, socialism has greatly muzzled the capitalist beast in most countries.

 

The sense of obligation you raise is most interesting. In the end children taking care of their parents out of obligation and social expectation, is there no selfishness here?

 

For beautiful words we can look at the bible and enjoy the wisdom. Like love, religion is a fantasy of the soul. We now know, looking at economics, history and philology that the western religions too are not devoid of selfishness.

 

Do you think capitalism will end and communism still has a chance?

Edited August 10 by Cameroni

[WDSmart]

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

Undoubtedly capitalism is the cause of many of the world's problems. It does work to a certain degree though. And nobody has come up with a viable alternative. Though as you rightly pointed out, socialism has greatly muzzled the capitalist beast in most countries.

 

The sense of obligation you raise is most interesting. In the end children taking care of their parents out of obligation and social expectation, is there no selfishness here?

 

For beautiful words we can look at the bible and enjoy the wisdom. Like love, religion is a fantasy of the soul. We now know, looking at economics, history and philology that the western religions too are not devoid of selfishness.

 

Do you think capitalism will end and communism still as a chance?

No, I don't think so. I think capitalism will continue in some form because that is most compatible with humanity's essence—selfishness. However, I think socialism should be interwoven into it to lessen its effects, and communism should always be our final goal—even though we (humans) will never be able to achieve that.

[Cameroni]

2 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

No, I don't think so. I think capitalism will continue in some form because that is most compatible with humanity's essence—selfishness. However, I think socialism should be interwoven into it to lessen its effects, and communism should always be our final goal—even though we (humans) will never be able to achieve that.

 

I used to think unfettered capitalism was the way to go. But I realise now that some socialist watering down of capitalist excess is desirable.

 

It looks like in some countries they are evolving in the direction you desire, as Germany and Finland have seriously tested "civic money", paying everyone a salary for nothing. Maybe that will come.

[WDSmart]

14 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

I used to think unfettered capitalism was the way to go. But I realise now that some socialist watering down of capitalist excess is desirable.

 

It looks like in some countries they are evolving in the direction you desire, as Germany and Finland have seriously tested "civic money", paying everyone a salary for nothing. Maybe that will come.

I would also make the same comments on governmental systems as I have on capitalism, socialism, and communism.

Because of our selfishness, a plutocracy (the rule of the rich) will always be the government that tends to thrive.

A representative republic would be the middle path, like socialism.

I don't think we'll ever be able to have a pure democracy, which IMO is the governmental equivalent of communism.
 

[Cameroni]

8 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I would also make the same comments on governmental systems as I have on capitalism, socialism, and communism.

Because of our selfishness, a plutocracy (the rule of the rich) will always be the government that tends to thrive.

A representative republic would be the middle path, like socialism.

I don't think we'll ever be able to have a pure democracy, which IMO is the governmental equivalent of communism.
 

 

What always disappointed me about democracy is that it did no put the most able in power. Instead of the greatest economic expert in country, some lawyer becomes chanceller or finance minister. It does not seem sensible.

 

 

[WDSmart]

23 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

What always disappointed me about democracy is that it did no put the most able in power. Instead of the greatest economic expert in country, some lawyer becomes chanceller or finance minister. It does not seem sensible.

 

 

This leads to plutocracy because, in my opinion, it is the same problem as we have with economics - selfishness is a fundamental trait of humans and forces its way into almost all of our activities.

[Cameroni]

57 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

This leads to plutocracy because, in my opinion, it is the same problem as we have with economics - selfishness is a fundamental trait of humans and forces its way into almost all of our activities.

 

Your analysis is correct. Still, at least we don't eat our babies, like the chimps.

[WDSmart]

12 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Your analysis is correct. Still, at least we don't eat our babies, like the chimps.

I want to commend you on your commenting style. Although we disagree on some things, you have never used insulting, derogatory language in our exchanges like most people on these forums. Thanks for that. 

[Danderman123]

On 8/8/2024 at 9:03 AM, susanlea said:

She supports 6yos having sex changes.

Is that a Communist thing?

[Danderman123]

3 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

I used to think unfettered capitalism was the way to go. But I realise now that some socialist watering down of capitalist excess is desirable.

 

It looks like in some countries they are evolving in the direction you desire, as Germany and Finland have seriously tested "civic money", paying everyone a salary for nothing. Maybe that will come.

I sometimes agree with Libertarians - except then I wonder what is their solution to the inevitable emergence of monopolies (which eliminate competition).

[gamb00ler]

On 8/8/2024 at 2:49 PM, WDSmart said:

In pure socialism, there would be no unemployment because there would be no employment.

 

On 8/8/2024 at 3:01 PM, susanlea said:

Nobody works? 

@susanlea It's really astounding how resistant you are to trying to learn something you don't know.  That's probably because somehow you've convinced yourself you know almost everything.  AN is so unlucky to be saddled with a Dunning-Kruger poster child.

[FruitPudding]

It's Saturday night guys. What the hell are you doing?

 

Go out and chase some tail or something. 

 

We're in Thailand.