New China restrictions limit minors to three hours of gaming a week

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 86
    robabarobaba Posts: 168member
    sdw2001 said:
    sunman42 said:
    seankill said:

    It’s almost as though authoritarianism is communism isn’t it? Because you generally can’t have communism without authoritarianism. 

    Well, “generally” leaves out Dubcek’s government in Czechoslovakia, which was trying to establish “socialism with a human face” in 1968…. until the Soviet tanks rolled in.

    Most other cases, yes, authoritarianism (“the dictatorship of the proletariat,” usually run by an elite) was a central feature. As was state terror, an invention of Lenin and his cronies.

    I have to say, nothing about the current Chinese government resembles communism in any way. It’s a party of, by, and for the extremely wealthy, with dictatorial powers to enforce their will.

    You said:  "It’s almost as though authoritarianism is communism isn’t it? Because you generally can’t have communism without authoritarianism."

    Communism without authoritarianism is "socialism".

    But China, like the U.S. is now a mixture of socialism and capitalism -- with all the benefits and drawbacks of each.
    They are difference mixtures of each, but still, a mixture.
    And, since last November or so, China has been reining in its capitalist corporations -- essentially to assure that they are serving the greater good and also not abusing their power.


    Socialism is authoritarianism.  It's a must-have.  The U.S. is not a mixture of socialism and capitalism.  Socialism is the government controlling the means of production.  That is why those Democrats who claim to want "Scandinavian-style Democratic Socialism" are either ignorant or lying.  Maybe both.  Those countries are not socialist.  They have big social programs supported by high individual taxes.  But they are fundamentally capitalist, even pro-business (business taxes are lower than ours).  

    There are no benefits to actual Socialism.  It destroys liberty and prosperity wherever it's tried.  
    Communism is the workers controlling the means of production.  Socialism is any system which regulates capitalism for the benefit of the workers.  Yes, often this requires taxes to step in and create a social safety net outside of employers control.  
    FileMakerFeller
  • Reply 22 of 86
    entropysentropys Posts: 3,143member
    mknelson said:
    sdw2001 said:
    That’s harsh, I loved playing games as a kid, and I would go as far as saying that games are why, I’m so perceptive to my environment and my general hand/eye coordination. 

    Um, of course it's harsh.  It's Communism.  
    Authoritarianism.

    Fascists like this kind of controlling ߒ鬠too.

    It seems like generally unenforceable nonsense!
    Yes, 
    communism: the state owns the means of production
    fascism:  the state controls the means of production.

    Both favour a powerful collective state over the rights of the individual (motherland, fatherland, utopia, same, same.).

    also agree, what kind of surveillance State would be able to enforce this?
    edited August 30
  • Reply 23 of 86
    Communism goal is all people working together and share the products equally. There is no free lunch. Every one is required to work. There is no financial incentive for smart people to innovate. Unfortunately, it cannot abolish government. It needs government to insure everyone is working toward goal. As a result, there is no individual freedom. This completely contradicts US constitution which let every American to enjoy complete freedom. The government has no authority to order what people can do or not do unless it is passed by a law by elected people.
    Republicans emphasize individual freedom that everyone can grab maximum profit if possible according to capitalism. As a result there is uneven distribution of wealth. Democrats evolved to try to use government to put money into the hands of poor and low income people. This is socialism. Under socialism there is free lunch. Socialism is quite different from communism in this aspect.  LOL
  • Reply 24 of 86
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,741member
    lkrupp said:
    Raise your hand if you would like to see this kind of caring government here in the U.S. I know some of you do.
    I'm part way through this... looks like big pieces of the groundwork are being established:
    https://congressionaldish.com/cd-237-hunting-domestic-terrorists/

    sdw2001 said:
    Socialism is authoritarianism.
    You kind of beat me to it. It's the kind of thing that looks good (to some) on paper, but goes badly wrong in practice. The theoretical version doesn't account for human nature. That's also where Capitalism goes off the rails, though, but *should* be easier to keep in check via regulation (if you have a non-corporatocracy to make and enforce them).

    waveparticle said:
    China stole the ideas from US!  American universities are abandoning SAT scores. Rockwell High School in SF is admitting new students without the merit system. Some California legislatures try to pass laws ordering UC Universities admitting students based on racial quota not GPAs. LOL
    There has to be some method to better measure merit than SAT scores, while racial quotas are the polar opposite.

    GeorgeBMac said:
    That all sounds like ideology rather than reality that is likely (I think) based on two misconceptions:
    1)  That all government is autocratic.  Autocratic is when only a few have a say.  Here we elect -- and fire -- our government.
    2)  That socialism is 100% socialism where everything is controlled by government or nothing is. 

    But, in the end you come around when you admit that "they" are capitalist with socialist programs -- in other words, a mix of both -- which is pretty much where the whole world is headed.  That is, countries are realizing that neither pure capitalism works well just as pure socialism doesnt' work well either.   But, the right mix of both is the best.
    I get what you're saying (and probably agree to a good extent), but there is a huge difference between socialism and social programs. That misunderstanding and knee-jerk reaction to the latter is a big part of the USA's problem.

    I also don't think the reality is that we elect and fire our government anymore. That has become more an 'in theory' thing which doesn't match the reality. We have (or at least used to) have that ability, but in reality it hasn't worked out well. Most of Congress have been there election after election after election, doing the same self-interested (and not representing the people) stuff, over and over again.

    GeorgeBMac said:
    But, giving kids one test a semester has the same basic weakness as the SATs:  
    --  If the kid has a bad day it can impact the rest of his life.
    It isn't even about having a bad day, necessarily. Certain types of testing highly favor certain types of people, and aren't a very good indicator of capability.
    It is kind of a conundrum. If you don't have an exam of some kind, it is really hard to motivate people to work hard and prepare, but if you base too much off the results, you rule out a lot of highly qualified people.
    firelockGG1
  • Reply 25 of 86
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,452member
    entropys said:
    mknelson said:
    sdw2001 said:
    That’s harsh, I loved playing games as a kid, and I would go as far as saying that games are why, I’m so perceptive to my environment and my general hand/eye coordination. 

    Um, of course it's harsh.  It's Communism.  
    Authoritarianism.

    Fascists like this kind of controlling ߒ鬠too.

    It seems like generally unenforceable nonsense!
    Yes, 
    communism: the state owns the means of production
    fascism:  the state controls the means of production.

    Both favour a powerful collective state over the rights of the individual (motherland, fatherland, utopia, same, same.).

    also agree, what kind of surveillance State would be able to enforce this?

    I would think it would be something like:  the gaming company identifies the user as a student (by their age) and only opens up their gaming platform to them between 8:00-9:00pm Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

    Apple already does similar with controls on things like Apple Cash that can only be used by a child under a parent's Family Plan.
  • Reply 26 of 86
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,714member
    sdw2001 said:
    sunman42 said:
    seankill said:

    It’s almost as though authoritarianism is communism isn’t it? Because you generally can’t have communism without authoritarianism. 

    Well, “generally” leaves out Dubcek’s government in Czechoslovakia, which was trying to establish “socialism with a human face” in 1968…. until the Soviet tanks rolled in.

    Most other cases, yes, authoritarianism (“the dictatorship of the proletariat,” usually run by an elite) was a central feature. As was state terror, an invention of Lenin and his cronies.

    I have to say, nothing about the current Chinese government resembles communism in any way. It’s a party of, by, and for the extremely wealthy, with dictatorial powers to enforce their will.

    You said:  "It’s almost as though authoritarianism is communism isn’t it? Because you generally can’t have communism without authoritarianism."

    Communism without authoritarianism is "socialism".

    But China, like the U.S. is now a mixture of socialism and capitalism -- with all the benefits and drawbacks of each.
    They are difference mixtures of each, but still, a mixture.
    And, since last November or so, China has been reining in its capitalist corporations -- essentially to assure that they are serving the greater good and also not abusing their power.


    Socialism is authoritarianism.  It's a must-have.  The U.S. is not a mixture of socialism and capitalism.  Socialism is the government controlling the means of production.  That is why those Democrats who claim to want "Scandinavian-style Democratic Socialism" are either ignorant or lying.  Maybe both.  Those countries are not socialist.  They have big social programs supported by high individual taxes.  But they are fundamentally capitalist, even pro-business (business taxes are lower than ours).  

    There are no benefits to actual Socialism.  It destroys liberty and prosperity wherever it's tried.  

    That all sounds like ideology rather than reality that is likely (I think) based on two misconceptions:
    1)  That all government is autocratic.  Autocratic is when only a few have a say.  Here we elect -- and fire -- our government.
    2)  That socialism is 100% socialism where everything is controlled by government or nothing is. 

    But, in the end you come around when you admit that "they" are capitalist with socialist programs -- in other words, a mix of both -- which is pretty much where the whole world is headed.  That is, countries are realizing that neither pure capitalism works well just as pure socialism doesnt' work well either.   But, the right mix of both is the best.
    1.  I didn't say that.  
    2  That's what socialism is.  You can't pretend otherwise.  
    3.  No. "They" are capitalist systems with large social safety nets.  This has nothing to do with the means of production.  
  • Reply 27 of 86
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,714member
    crowley said:

    No government has ever held 100% of the means of production, so your distinction is pretty facile.  

    The Soviet Union did, at least until near its collapse.  

    There are certainly examples where government running certain industries for social benefits rather than profit has proven to be very effective at their goals.  

    Which industries? And what goals? There are only two ways to distribute scarce resources: 1) Pricing model and 2) Rationing.  That's it.  One might argue that healthcare could be an exception in certain countries, or perhaps education.  However, I don't know that those are industries as much as they are services.  There are also major downsides to government running them in terms of efficacy.  

    So while you might argue that the large nationalised energy, transport and public broadcasting companies of northern Europe may have destroyed some freedom and prosperity, they've given back so much more, and extreme positions like yours are pretty laughable in those countries, which are still very free and prosperous, and perhaps more importantly, happy.

    LOL! How is it an "extreme position" to state what socialism is?  And why are you trying to redefine it?  I'm not arguing against all public spending or social programs.  I'm arguing against socialism.  The countries you point to as success stories are not socialist.  Many have much larger safety nets and public service sectors which are supported by very high individual taxes and made partially possible by the fact that the United States has been the free world's armed forces for 75 years.  And freedom?  Despite the very concerning trend in the United States, these nations don't have anything approaching freedom as compared to us.  There is no real freedom of speech in the U.K., Germany or Canada for that matter.  There are virtually no rights to self-defense/firearms.  Do I really need to provide examples, or are you well-versed enough to read the news on a daily basis?  

    Let's stick to the issue:  Socialism.  Socialism is tyranny.  Period.   

    cgWerks
  • Reply 28 of 86
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,714member
    sdw2001 said:
    sunman42 said:
    seankill said:

    It’s almost as though authoritarianism is communism isn’t it? Because you generally can’t have communism without authoritarianism. 

    Well, “generally” leaves out Dubcek’s government in Czechoslovakia, which was trying to establish “socialism with a human face” in 1968…. until the Soviet tanks rolled in.

    Most other cases, yes, authoritarianism (“the dictatorship of the proletariat,” usually run by an elite) was a central feature. As was state terror, an invention of Lenin and his cronies.

    I have to say, nothing about the current Chinese government resembles communism in any way. It’s a party of, by, and for the extremely wealthy, with dictatorial powers to enforce their will.

    You said:  "It’s almost as though authoritarianism is communism isn’t it? Because you generally can’t have communism without authoritarianism."

    Communism without authoritarianism is "socialism".

    But China, like the U.S. is now a mixture of socialism and capitalism -- with all the benefits and drawbacks of each.
    They are difference mixtures of each, but still, a mixture.
    And, since last November or so, China has been reining in its capitalist corporations -- essentially to assure that they are serving the greater good and also not abusing their power.


    Socialism is authoritarianism.  It's a must-have.  The U.S. is not a mixture of socialism and capitalism.  Socialism is the government controlling the means of production.  That is why those Democrats who claim to want "Scandinavian-style Democratic Socialism" are either ignorant or lying.  Maybe both.  Those countries are not socialist.  They have big social programs supported by high individual taxes.  But they are fundamentally capitalist, even pro-business (business taxes are lower than ours).  

    There are no benefits to actual Socialism.  It destroys liberty and prosperity wherever it's tried.  
    Yes, it’s impossible to separate the desire for universal healthcare and education and lifting people out of poverty with outright authoritarianism. Clearly.

    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
    Pardon me, but did you actually read what I wrote? Universal healthcare and education are not socialism.  I don't know what you mean by "lifting people out of poverty," but I do know that no system on earth is worse at it than socialism (other than communism).  
    cgWerks
  • Reply 29 of 86
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,714member
    robaba said:
    sdw2001 said:
    sunman42 said:
    seankill said:

    It’s almost as though authoritarianism is communism isn’t it? Because you generally can’t have communism without authoritarianism. 

    Well, “generally” leaves out Dubcek’s government in Czechoslovakia, which was trying to establish “socialism with a human face” in 1968…. until the Soviet tanks rolled in.

    Most other cases, yes, authoritarianism (“the dictatorship of the proletariat,” usually run by an elite) was a central feature. As was state terror, an invention of Lenin and his cronies.

    I have to say, nothing about the current Chinese government resembles communism in any way. It’s a party of, by, and for the extremely wealthy, with dictatorial powers to enforce their will.

    You said:  "It’s almost as though authoritarianism is communism isn’t it? Because you generally can’t have communism without authoritarianism."

    Communism without authoritarianism is "socialism".

    But China, like the U.S. is now a mixture of socialism and capitalism -- with all the benefits and drawbacks of each.
    They are difference mixtures of each, but still, a mixture.
    And, since last November or so, China has been reining in its capitalist corporations -- essentially to assure that they are serving the greater good and also not abusing their power.


    Socialism is authoritarianism.  It's a must-have.  The U.S. is not a mixture of socialism and capitalism.  Socialism is the government controlling the means of production.  That is why those Democrats who claim to want "Scandinavian-style Democratic Socialism" are either ignorant or lying.  Maybe both.  Those countries are not socialist.  They have big social programs supported by high individual taxes.  But they are fundamentally capitalist, even pro-business (business taxes are lower than ours).  

    There are no benefits to actual Socialism.  It destroys liberty and prosperity wherever it's tried.  
    Communism is the workers controlling the means of production.  Socialism is any system which regulates capitalism for the benefit of the workers.  Yes, often this requires taxes to step in and create a social safety net outside of employers control.  

    First, the workers don't actually control anything in Communism.  Secondly, no. That's not what socialism is.  Please read something.  
    cgWerks
  • Reply 30 of 86
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,714member
    Communism goal is all people working together and share the products equally. There is no free lunch. Every one is required to work. There is no financial incentive for smart people to innovate. Unfortunately, it cannot abolish government. It needs government to insure everyone is working toward goal. As a result, there is no individual freedom. This completely contradicts US constitution which let every American to enjoy complete freedom. The government has no authority to order what people can do or not do unless it is passed by a law by elected people.


    Basically correct.  Of course, Communism is also a disaster from an economic standpoint.  

    Republicans emphasize individual freedom that everyone can grab maximum profit if possible according to capitalism.


    Democrats used to do the same.  


    As a result there is uneven distribution of wealth.
    There is always uneven distribution of wealth.  Always.  It's not a result of capitalism.  


    Democrats evolved to try to use government to put money into the hands of poor and low income people. This is socialism. Under socialism there is free lunch. Socialism is quite different from communism in this aspect.  LOL

    No, it's not socialism.  It's terrible policy for the most part, but it's not socialism.  And true socialism and communism cannot exist with authoritarianism and even totalitarianism.  

    cgWerks
  • Reply 31 of 86
    crowleycrowley Posts: 8,819member
    sdw2001 said:
    crowley said:

    No government has ever held 100% of the means of production, so your distinction is pretty facile.  

    The Soviet Union did, at least until near its collapse.  
    Not entirely sure I'd agree with that, but fine, ok, if you're going to say that the Soviet Union is the only true socialist country that has ever existed, then let's go with that. Who is arguing that the USA, or any other Western country should turn into the Soviet Union? Practically no one. So who are you arguing with and making such a big stink over the definition of socialism?
    There are certainly examples where government running certain industries for social benefits rather than profit has proven to be very effective at their goals.  
    Which industries? And what goals? There are only two ways to distribute scarce resources: 1) Pricing model and 2) Rationing.  That's it.  One might argue that healthcare could be an exception in certain countries, or perhaps education.  However, I don't know that those are industries as much as they are services.  There are also major downsides to government running them in terms of efficacy.  


    The industries that I went on to name: transport, energy, broadcasting, and I could also add in communications, education, social care, many others. And the goals of each should be pretty clear, giving people what they need to live their lives fruitfully and happily; the ultimate aim of socialist policies. That goal is often not best delivered with a profit mindset, and actually it can be the profit focus that undermines the efficacy of the capitalist system.

    Industries largely become services when they are run by the government, so that distinction you're trying to make doesn't really cut mustard.
    So while you might argue that the large nationalised energy, transport and public broadcasting companies of northern Europe may have destroyed some freedom and prosperity, they've given back so much more, and extreme positions like yours are pretty laughable in those countries, which are still very free and prosperous, and perhaps more importantly, happy.

    LOL! How is it an "extreme position" to state what socialism is?  And why are you trying to redefine it?  I'm not arguing against all public spending or social programs.  I'm arguing against socialism.  The countries you point to as success stories are not socialist.  Many have much larger safety nets and public service sectors which are supported by very high individual taxes and made partially possible by the fact that the United States has been the free world's armed forces for 75 years.  And freedom?  Despite the very concerning trend in the United States, these nations don't have anything approaching freedom as compared to us.  There is no real freedom of speech in the U.K., Germany or Canada for that matter.  There are virtually no rights to self-defense/firearms.  Do I really need to provide examples, or are you well-versed enough to read the news on a daily basis?  

    Let's stick to the issue:  Socialism.  Socialism is tyranny.  Period.   

    And that's the extreme position, that socialism is tyranny, period.  It may be freedom limiting in some capitalist senses, but that's not the same as tyranny, it's just a different way to organise industry, and it often affords different kinds of freedoms.  And as we can see from the examples I gave, industries can very much operate in that model and can deliver efficiently, and often with a better mind to the core purpose of the industry (health: healing people, education: teaching people) that counterpart industries with a profit motive.

    The countries that I point to have developed models of social corporatism, which take from capitalism and socialism.  But according to you socialism is tyranny, period.  You seem to be fixated on "socialism" as only ever meaning a particular brand of Stalinist or Maoist fascism, when it has always been a wide body of thought encompassing many different approaches, from the aforementioned social corporatism, ethical socialism, liberal socialism, and the more modern mixed economy approaches which try to use socialist methods in certain targeted areas of social impact, while keeping broader market industries in place elsewhere.

    There is freedom of speech in every meaningful way in the UK, Germany and Canada.  Maybe not in the hysterical sense that it is interpreted in the USA, but no one has ever told me I can't say anything I've wanted to say when I've been in any of those places, even when it's been critical of the government or authority.  Down with the Queen, and the Church, and the Parliament.  In any case, aren't you arguing that these aren't socialist countries?  What point are you even trying to make other than flexing some nationalist muscles?

    Also, gun ownership is not at all uncommon in the Scandinavian socialist countries.  And I don't think anywhere has laws against self defence.
    muthuk_vanalingamfastasleepFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 32 of 86
    crowleycrowley Posts: 8,819member
    sdw2001 said:
    sdw2001 said:
    sunman42 said:
    seankill said:

    It’s almost as though authoritarianism is communism isn’t it? Because you generally can’t have communism without authoritarianism. 

    Well, “generally” leaves out Dubcek’s government in Czechoslovakia, which was trying to establish “socialism with a human face” in 1968…. until the Soviet tanks rolled in.

    Most other cases, yes, authoritarianism (“the dictatorship of the proletariat,” usually run by an elite) was a central feature. As was state terror, an invention of Lenin and his cronies.

    I have to say, nothing about the current Chinese government resembles communism in any way. It’s a party of, by, and for the extremely wealthy, with dictatorial powers to enforce their will.

    You said:  "It’s almost as though authoritarianism is communism isn’t it? Because you generally can’t have communism without authoritarianism."

    Communism without authoritarianism is "socialism".

    But China, like the U.S. is now a mixture of socialism and capitalism -- with all the benefits and drawbacks of each.
    They are difference mixtures of each, but still, a mixture.
    And, since last November or so, China has been reining in its capitalist corporations -- essentially to assure that they are serving the greater good and also not abusing their power.


    Socialism is authoritarianism.  It's a must-have.  The U.S. is not a mixture of socialism and capitalism.  Socialism is the government controlling the means of production.  That is why those Democrats who claim to want "Scandinavian-style Democratic Socialism" are either ignorant or lying.  Maybe both.  Those countries are not socialist.  They have big social programs supported by high individual taxes.  But they are fundamentally capitalist, even pro-business (business taxes are lower than ours).  

    There are no benefits to actual Socialism.  It destroys liberty and prosperity wherever it's tried.  
    Yes, it’s impossible to separate the desire for universal healthcare and education and lifting people out of poverty with outright authoritarianism. Clearly.

    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
    Pardon me, but did you actually read what I wrote? Universal healthcare and education are not socialism.  I don't know what you mean by "lifting people out of poverty," but I do know that no system on earth is worse at it than socialism (other than communism).  
    Russia and China were both subsistence economies before their respective revolutions massively industrialised them and brought millions out of poverty.  Russia went from the dog end of Europe to a world superpower in a generation.  The economies weren't the problem, the rivers of blood that paid for it are the problem.
    fastasleep
  • Reply 33 of 86
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,714member
    crowley said:
    sdw2001 said:
    sdw2001 said:
    sunman42 said:
    seankill said:

    It’s almost as though authoritarianism is communism isn’t it? Because you generally can’t have communism without authoritarianism. 

    Well, “generally” leaves out Dubcek’s government in Czechoslovakia, which was trying to establish “socialism with a human face” in 1968…. until the Soviet tanks rolled in.

    Most other cases, yes, authoritarianism (“the dictatorship of the proletariat,” usually run by an elite) was a central feature. As was state terror, an invention of Lenin and his cronies.

    I have to say, nothing about the current Chinese government resembles communism in any way. It’s a party of, by, and for the extremely wealthy, with dictatorial powers to enforce their will.

    You said:  "It’s almost as though authoritarianism is communism isn’t it? Because you generally can’t have communism without authoritarianism."

    Communism without authoritarianism is "socialism".

    But China, like the U.S. is now a mixture of socialism and capitalism -- with all the benefits and drawbacks of each.
    They are difference mixtures of each, but still, a mixture.
    And, since last November or so, China has been reining in its capitalist corporations -- essentially to assure that they are serving the greater good and also not abusing their power.


    Socialism is authoritarianism.  It's a must-have.  The U.S. is not a mixture of socialism and capitalism.  Socialism is the government controlling the means of production.  That is why those Democrats who claim to want "Scandinavian-style Democratic Socialism" are either ignorant or lying.  Maybe both.  Those countries are not socialist.  They have big social programs supported by high individual taxes.  But they are fundamentally capitalist, even pro-business (business taxes are lower than ours).  

    There are no benefits to actual Socialism.  It destroys liberty and prosperity wherever it's tried.  
    Yes, it’s impossible to separate the desire for universal healthcare and education and lifting people out of poverty with outright authoritarianism. Clearly.

    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
    Pardon me, but did you actually read what I wrote? Universal healthcare and education are not socialism.  I don't know what you mean by "lifting people out of poverty," but I do know that no system on earth is worse at it than socialism (other than communism).  
    Russia and China were both subsistence economies before their respective revolutions massively industrialised them and brought millions out of poverty.  Russia went from the dog end of Europe to a world superpower in a generation.  The economies weren't the problem, the rivers of blood that paid for it are the problem.
    Jesus Christ.  Are you for real? Their systems didn't lift millions out of poverty.  The industrial revolution and technology, such as it was in both countries, helped do that to a degree.  That's what happens when economies go from agrarian to industrial.  Their economies were a total disaster for the average citizen until both opened up to some degree. The Soviets couldn't feed their own people.  China couldn't until recently, and their claims are questionable.  China isn't even really Communist any longer...its just a one party, fascist state.  They have private property rights and practice an authoritarian form of capitalism.   
  • Reply 34 of 86
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,714member
    crowley said:
    sdw2001 said:
    crowley said:

    No government has ever held 100% of the means of production, so your distinction is pretty facile.  

    The Soviet Union did, at least until near its collapse.  
    Not entirely sure I'd agree with that, but fine, ok, if you're going to say that the Soviet Union is the only true socialist country that has ever existed, then let's go with that. Who is arguing that the USA, or any other Western country should turn into the Soviet Union? Practically no one. So who are you arguing with and making such a big stink over the definition of socialism?
    Because words mean stuff.  We have a bunch of idiots running around telling the American people that socialism is good.  Socialism kills.  




    The industries that I went on to name: transport, energy, broadcasting, and I could also add in communications, education, social care, many others. And the goals of each should be pretty clear, giving people what they need to live their lives fruitfully and happily; the ultimate aim of socialist policies. That goal is often not best delivered with a profit mindset, and actually it can be the profit focus that undermines the efficacy of the capitalist system. 
    Obviously you think all of these functions should be in the public sector.  I disagree.  Outside of defense, law enforcement and public infrastructure, the government generally cannot do anything as well as the private sector can.  


    Industries largely become services when they are run by the government, so that distinction you're trying to make doesn't really cut mustard. 
    OK, that's fair.  

    And that's the extreme position, that socialism is tyranny, period.  It may be freedom limiting in some capitalist senses, but that's not the same as tyranny, it's just a different way to organise industry, and it often affords different kinds of freedoms.  And as we can see from the examples I gave, industries can very much operate in that model and can deliver efficiently, and often with a better mind to the core purpose of the industry (health: healing people, education: teaching people) that counterpart industries with a profit motive.
    LOL. It may be "freedom-limiting."  Am I talking to a WH spokesman right now?  Socialism. Is. Tyranny.  Call me an extremist all you want.  It's always been tyranny, is tyranny now, and forever shall be.  

    The countries that I point to have developed models of social corporatism, which take from capitalism and socialism.  But according to you socialism is tyranny, period.  You seem to be fixated on "socialism" as only ever meaning a particular brand of Stalinist or Maoist fascism, when it has always been a wide body of thought encompassing many different approaches, from the aforementioned social corporatism, ethical socialism, liberal socialism, and the more modern mixed economy approaches which try to use socialist methods in certain targeted areas of social impact, while keeping broader market industries in place elsewhere.
    Socialism is the government controlling the means of production.  Anything else is not Socialism.  That's reality, as opposed to academic newspeak you're spouting.  


    There is freedom of speech in every meaningful way in the UK, Germany and Canada.  Maybe not in the hysterical sense that it is interpreted in the USA, but no one has ever told me I can't say anything I've wanted to say when I've been in any of those places, even when it's been critical of the government or authority.  Down with the Queen, and the Church, and the Parliament.  In any case, aren't you arguing that these aren't socialist countries?  What point are you even trying to make other than flexing some nationalist muscles?
    Also, gun ownership is not at all uncommon in the Scandinavian socialist countries.  And I don't think anywhere has laws against self defence.

    Can you call a trans female a "guy in a dress?"  Can you hold worship services during Covid? Does your country throw people in jail for posting memes and protesting?  

    Also, go try to buy a gun in the U.K.  Good luck with that.  

  • Reply 35 of 86
    crowleycrowley Posts: 8,819member
    sdw2001 said:

    Socialism is the government controlling the means of production.  Anything else is not Socialism.  That's reality, as opposed to academic newspeak you're spouting.  

    Socialism and the study off it has always been an academic pursuit, and little that I've said is particularly new.  If all socialisms were equal and tyrannical then there wouldn't have been so many schisms.

    But bringing this back to somewhere recognisable what even is the point of your argument here?  Democrats are going around saying ("ignorant or lying.  Maybe both") that the USA would be better off with a system more like Scandinavian Democratic-Socialism, and you're simultaneously screaming that socialism is tyranny, but also that Scandinavia doesn't have socialism.  Why scream at all?  The Democrats aren't suggesting that the USA have the socialism that you hate, they're suggesting something more like the Scandinavian model, which in your view isn't socialism.  You seem very angry about a relatively minor misuse (in your eyes) of a word.  Just call it the Nordic model then.
    There is freedom of speech in every meaningful way in the UK, Germany and Canada.  Maybe not in the hysterical sense that it is interpreted in the USA, but no one has ever told me I can't say anything I've wanted to say when I've been in any of those places, even when it's been critical of the government or authority.  Down with the Queen, and the Church, and the Parliament.  In any case, aren't you arguing that these aren't socialist countries?  What point are you even trying to make other than flexing some nationalist muscles?
    Also, gun ownership is not at all uncommon in the Scandinavian socialist countries.  And I don't think anywhere has laws against self defence.

    Can you call a trans female a "guy in a dress?"  Can you hold worship services during Covid? Does your country throw people in jail for posting memes and protesting?  

    Also, go try to buy a gun in the U.K.  Good luck with that. 

    Yes you can call a trans female a guy in a dress.  If you do it in certain professional circumstances or in a particularly abusive way then you might get in trouble for it.  And rightly so because it's unprofessional and/or abusive.  I have no desire to call any trans female (I know a couple) a "guy in a dress", so I don't consider that a meaningful freedom, it's an insane, sociopathic one, and I think it's a much greater freedom for transgender people to be able to go about their day without being abused.

    Yes you can hold worship services, you just might be limited to location and attendance, because of course, that's what a pandemic lockdown is for, and it would be insane to have anything different.  Not a meaningful freedom, an insane, sociopathic one, and I think it's a much greater freedom to have a country free from highly contagious, killer viruses.

    You can post memes and protest pretty freely.  There are some limits that might get you put in jail if you break a specific law of course, which is pretty standard. I don't even know what you're referring to here, so I'm not sure what the counter freedom is, but I'm, sure there will be one.

    It's not terribly difficult to get a gun in the UK, I know people with shotguns.  You can apply for a license online.  But you don't see so many of them, and usage and calibre of weapon are restricted, because we prefer the freedom of not worrying about assault weapons on the street.

    But again, the UK isn't even socialist by your definition, so what are you arguing against?  This is a thread about China!
    edited August 31 fastasleepFileMakerFellermuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 36 of 86
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,452member
    sdw2001 said:
    sdw2001 said:
    sunman42 said:
    seankill said:

    It’s almost as though authoritarianism is communism isn’t it? Because you generally can’t have communism without authoritarianism. 

    Well, “generally” leaves out Dubcek’s government in Czechoslovakia, which was trying to establish “socialism with a human face” in 1968…. until the Soviet tanks rolled in.

    Most other cases, yes, authoritarianism (“the dictatorship of the proletariat,” usually run by an elite) was a central feature. As was state terror, an invention of Lenin and his cronies.

    I have to say, nothing about the current Chinese government resembles communism in any way. It’s a party of, by, and for the extremely wealthy, with dictatorial powers to enforce their will.

    You said:  "It’s almost as though authoritarianism is communism isn’t it? Because you generally can’t have communism without authoritarianism."

    Communism without authoritarianism is "socialism".

    But China, like the U.S. is now a mixture of socialism and capitalism -- with all the benefits and drawbacks of each.
    They are difference mixtures of each, but still, a mixture.
    And, since last November or so, China has been reining in its capitalist corporations -- essentially to assure that they are serving the greater good and also not abusing their power.


    Socialism is authoritarianism.  It's a must-have.  The U.S. is not a mixture of socialism and capitalism.  Socialism is the government controlling the means of production.  That is why those Democrats who claim to want "Scandinavian-style Democratic Socialism" are either ignorant or lying.  Maybe both.  Those countries are not socialist.  They have big social programs supported by high individual taxes.  But they are fundamentally capitalist, even pro-business (business taxes are lower than ours).  

    There are no benefits to actual Socialism.  It destroys liberty and prosperity wherever it's tried.  
    Yes, it’s impossible to separate the desire for universal healthcare and education and lifting people out of poverty with outright authoritarianism. Clearly.

    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
    Pardon me, but did you actually read what I wrote? Universal healthcare and education are not socialism.  I don't know what you mean by "lifting people out of poverty," but I do know that no system on earth is worse at it than socialism (other than communism).  

    When I was young we were locked in an ideologic battle with the Soviet Union where they were trying to propagate their system and we were trying to propagate ours.   And we were inundated with pro-democracy/capitalist propaganda -- and a ton of anti-communist propaganda.

    And I believed every word of it.

    But, what confused me was why so many countries (especially poor ones) chose Communism -- Cuba is the most obvious example but far from the only one.

    Later, it dawned on me that Communism simply met their particular needs better.
    Many had been abused by colonialists and unscrupulous capitalists taking advantage of a poor people with a corrupt government.   Eventually, we even passed laws (like anti-bribery) against our own corporations while operating overseas.
    edited August 31 cgWerks
  • Reply 37 of 86
    crowleycrowley Posts: 8,819member
    sdw2001 said:

    The industries that I went on to name: transport, energy, broadcasting, and I could also add in communications, education, social care, many others. And the goals of each should be pretty clear, giving people what they need to live their lives fruitfully and happily; the ultimate aim of socialist policies. That goal is often not best delivered with a profit mindset, and actually it can be the profit focus that undermines the efficacy of the capitalist system. 
    Obviously you think all of these functions should be in the public sector.  I disagree.  Outside of defense, law enforcement and public infrastructure, the government generally cannot do anything as well as the private sector can.  
    I actually don't think that at all.  I think it entirely depends on the government and the implementation, and also on the private sector implementation that you're comparing against. 
    fastasleep
  • Reply 38 of 86
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 5,774member
    sdw2001 said:
    sdw2001 said:
    sunman42 said:
    seankill said:

    It’s almost as though authoritarianism is communism isn’t it? Because you generally can’t have communism without authoritarianism. 

    Well, “generally” leaves out Dubcek’s government in Czechoslovakia, which was trying to establish “socialism with a human face” in 1968…. until the Soviet tanks rolled in.

    Most other cases, yes, authoritarianism (“the dictatorship of the proletariat,” usually run by an elite) was a central feature. As was state terror, an invention of Lenin and his cronies.

    I have to say, nothing about the current Chinese government resembles communism in any way. It’s a party of, by, and for the extremely wealthy, with dictatorial powers to enforce their will.

    You said:  "It’s almost as though authoritarianism is communism isn’t it? Because you generally can’t have communism without authoritarianism."

    Communism without authoritarianism is "socialism".

    But China, like the U.S. is now a mixture of socialism and capitalism -- with all the benefits and drawbacks of each.
    They are difference mixtures of each, but still, a mixture.
    And, since last November or so, China has been reining in its capitalist corporations -- essentially to assure that they are serving the greater good and also not abusing their power.


    Socialism is authoritarianism.  It's a must-have.  The U.S. is not a mixture of socialism and capitalism.  Socialism is the government controlling the means of production.  That is why those Democrats who claim to want "Scandinavian-style Democratic Socialism" are either ignorant or lying.  Maybe both.  Those countries are not socialist.  They have big social programs supported by high individual taxes.  But they are fundamentally capitalist, even pro-business (business taxes are lower than ours).  

    There are no benefits to actual Socialism.  It destroys liberty and prosperity wherever it's tried.  
    Yes, it’s impossible to separate the desire for universal healthcare and education and lifting people out of poverty with outright authoritarianism. Clearly.

    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
    Pardon me, but did you actually read what I wrote? Universal healthcare and education are not socialism.  I don't know what you mean by "lifting people out of poverty," but I do know that no system on earth is worse at it than socialism (other than communism).  
    I was referring to your “That is why those Democrats who claim to want "Scandinavian-style Democratic Socialism" are either ignorant or lying.  Maybe both.” comment. 

    Social democracy is not socialism. Everyone who is pushing for it knows this. The second sentence on the Wikipedia entry even includes the word “capitalism”. Maybe you should read it. 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

    It’s pretty clear what people are shooting for and it’s you who’s muddying the definitions to fit your worldview, not them.
    tht
  • Reply 39 of 86
    "Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man. Communism is the opposite."
    cgWerks
  • Reply 40 of 86
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,714member
    crowley said:

    Socialism and the study off it has always been an academic pursuit, and little that I've said is particularly new.  If all socialisms were equal and tyrannical then there wouldn't have been so many schisms.
    I know you've said nothing new.  It is just that you are looking at it from a purely or mostly academic perspective, and I am looking at socialism as it actually exists.  


    But bringing this back to somewhere recognisable what even is the point of your argument here?  Democrats are going around saying ("ignorant or lying.  Maybe both") that the USA would be better off with a system more like Scandinavian Democratic-Socialism, and you're simultaneously screaming that socialism is tyranny, but also that Scandinavia doesn't have socialism.  Why scream at all?  The Democrats aren't suggesting that the USA have the socialism that you hate, they're suggesting something more like the Scandinavian model, which in your view isn't socialism.  You seem very angry about a relatively minor misuse (in your eyes) of a word.  Just call it the Nordic model then.
    First, I'm not "screaming" anything, nor am I angry.  When I state that "Democrats are ignorant or lying," I'm referring to the labeling of Scandinavian-style social programs and structures as "Democratic Socialism."  Either they don't know what their systems really are, or they are lying.  I suspect a little of both.  As for the policies themselves, that's a separate and complicated issue.  I tend to be more of a small-government conservative/libertarian, so I'm skeptical.  On the other hand, there are obvious benefits to what some nations do, though I have my doubts many of the policies would work in the U.S.   

    Yes you can call a trans female a guy in a dress.  If you do it in certain professional circumstances or in a particularly abusive way then you might get in trouble for it.  And rightly so because it's unprofessional and/or abusive.  I have no desire to call any trans female (I know a couple) a "guy in a dress", so I don't consider that a meaningful freedom, it's an insane, sociopathic one, and I think it's a much greater freedom for transgender people to be able to go about their day without being abused.
    The question is not appropriate conduct in the workplace, but with whom one would get in trouble.  In Canada, you can't use the wrong pronoun...under the law.  And to be clear, I'm not advocating abusing anyone.  The question is whether the government can punish someone for being an a$$hole, beyond obvious harassment statutes.  

    Yes you can hold worship services, you just might be limited to location and attendance, because of course, that's what a pandemic lockdown is for, and it would be insane to have anything different.  Not a meaningful freedom, an insane, sociopathic one, and I think it's a much greater freedom to have a country free from highly contagious, killer viruses.
    There it is.  You'd rather have the government tell you where and when you can have a religious service because they tell you there is a threat, and they will keep you safe. Liberty be damned. Freedom of movement, of association, of worship, of protest be damned.  Unless you're holding a Black Lives Matter sign, right?  Either you think people can make their own decisions, or you think government needs to decide.  Obviously you're chosen the latter.  I choose the former.  Give me the data on the virus and I will decide whether or not I gather with others.  I, as a free person, will decide whether to wear a mask, subject to any rules in government buildings or from private business owners.  


    You can post memes and protest pretty freely.  There are some limits that might get you put in jail if you break a specific law of course, which is pretty standard. I don't even know what you're referring to here, so I'm not sure what the counter freedom is, but I'm, sure there will be one.
    Laws like those against...recording a video of defendants entering a court, and posting it on Facebook?  

    It's not terribly difficult to get a gun in the UK, I know people with shotguns.  You can apply for a license online.  But you don't see so many of them, and usage and calibre of weapon are restricted, because we prefer the freedom of not worrying about assault weapons on the street.
    Can you buy a hand gun?  No.  They are essentially banned in the U.K., other than muzzle-loaded guns.  Now, as to assault weapons:  Could you please define the term means?  Can you tell me what a non-assault weapon is?  

    But again, the UK isn't even socialist by your definition, so what are you arguing against?  This is a thread about China!

    It's not socialist, though many of its policies are not ones I'd like to see here.  As for the thread, there was little to no concern shown about government power.  At the same time, government power and scope is growing rapidly in the U.S., as are calls for Socialism.   When the political Left in this country makes socialism into a harmless, warm-and-fuzzy term that means "more free stuff," that worries me.  Those political figures who really do want authoritarian government control ("the liars") take advantage of those who just don't know any better ("the ignorant").  It's a surefire way to lose our nation.  What am I arguing against?  Tyranny.  


    edited September 1 cgWerks
Sign In or Register to comment.