Join the new world

Title is a bit misleading, I expected an article explaining how you were planning to better Canada.

Regardless of what DMV has said about Socialism we are having some new programs that help the newer players, strengthen our friendships with weak and powerful countries alike and have a tax plan that does the least harm to the poorest citizens.

I assume the UF plan to create govt ran communes is still the soup de jour. I'm not so much against this but am concerned because the communes are being planned to make a profit and paid for by high taxes. If the communes were planned to simply give back to the workers and the funding were coming from private sources then this would be fine. Pickle's Patriots have 4 Q7 communes that have been paid for with gold purchase and donations. These communes are ran for the betterment of the workers.

Sorry for not explaining much, it was just an article to invite people to present their candidacy for congress, some points of our programme were already explained by Prince Sheogorath, also if I finally run for CP i will explain my objectives and projects.Regards 🙂

No problem, was as much my mistake as any. Prince Sheogorath have talked and I understand the idea he has. While we do disagree on a couple points I still applaud UF for bringing an intelligent argument and having the ability to discuss without all the drama.

I am looking forward to seeing what you would have in mind for next month.

UF-created communes aren't intended to generate profit, they operate based on any surplus. We intend to encourage (and somewhat subside) other citizen's communes if we ever get in to power. We too run a commune system, though in a slightly different way to MU communes. We currently employ about 40 eCanadians and thus are already moving towards our goal.

A lot of the money we do intend to spend outside of a regular budget will be paid for by United Front should we ever get a government. Our sample budget listed it as a "bounty", we'll put 30,000cc in for every president we get to compensate for ~50% of eCanadians who won't agree with socialist methods. The aim is to create a balance between ideologies and assure adequate representation of all interests.

Hope this clears it up!

Something

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

-Sir Winston Churchill.

"That's what"

-She

That's too brilliant not to steal.

"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate (the) grave evils (of capitalism), namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals".
Albert Einstein.

With all due respect, Einstein was a brilliant scientist but perhaps the least qualified to discuss political matters. Churchill, however, was qualified.

But he lost against Clement Attlee, a labourist.An obvious sign that people prefered, even in that time, a better social situation.

No...he was defeated because, in British eyes, he'd done his duty to the nation and proved that he wasn't as useful a politician in peacetime as in wartime. Anyone could've defeated him at that point. Let's keep some things very important in min😛

- Churchill beat the Nazis when they had a stranglehold on Europe, with almost no help from the allies. The Americans greatly exaggerated their almost non-existent role in WWII

- The Soviet Union fell under its own weight after years of crippling socialist policies

- China only became a world power after it adopted elements of western-style capitalism

- Socialist nordic nations, while leading in happiness, are among the most anemic economies in the world

- Canada's diluted socialism only works because of its intensive capitalism, driven by resource development. This is something the Nordics don't have. Also, Canada's socialism is strategic, rather than endemic.

- Cuba, Vietnam, and other socialist nations as a majority are poor and corrupt

Of course people want a better social situation. That's what capitalism is all about. Socialism works best only when used to help those interested in helping themselves. However, in most cases, socialism only serves to feed the laziest and most parasitic of society. True, some people do work to better themselves by using socialist programs, and they do a damn fine job with that necessary - VERY necessary - help. BUT: most do not.

Of course communism is not the only way of the left(and certainly I consider communism as an utopic system),you mentioned social democracy as well referred to countries as Sweden,Norway or Denmark,those countries are among the top in the Human Development Index list thus social-democracy is not a failure.And personally I prefer to have a better social security projects than the continuos search of money,capitalism is not bad,but the economy of a country should be controled by the government and not by the financial markets .

It's widely accepted across Europe (Yes, including here in the UK) and most other places in the world that it was the Soviet Union who "beat" the Nazis. Allied forces were still being slaughtered in France even after the Soviets pushed back. 🙂

"Modern" socialism is a very large part of European society. Accessible benefits, universal healthcare, equality, secularism, the EU. All are values implemented by Socialists.

Guys, All eastern europe countries tried socialist... And they are now capitalist... IT DOESN'T WORK....Cuba and China are going toward capitalism slowly and the only country than I know who is hardly socialist, It is Vietnam...

If you still thinking than this ideology is great, you should pay yourself a trip to vietnam to see how good it is.

Do you know why socialism doesn't work? This ideology has been thinking for lazy people who don't want to study and who wanna work only a little bit.

If you wanna have an average to a high salary it is pretty simple, study then work. If you don't agreed, I'm sorry for you... It is so simple...

erep socialism is a bit different m8

Yeah there is a good chance of...

Most European countries still have large numbers (if not majorities) of Socialist MPs. You're thinking of traditional Communism which is a totally different beast.

You are confusing the very broad category of socialism with the very narrow application of communism. Furthermore, the communism that existed in Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. is not the communism of Marx and Engels.

If I invent a bicycle that uses square wheels and it's a failure as a vehicle, this does not warrant a dismissal of bicycles outright; this warrants a dismissal of the elements of the bicycle that failed. Similarly, the elements of applied communism that were a failure were not socialism outright. There are many reasons why communism failed. The reality is that pure capitalism also fails without some socialist elements. Look to things like the internet, roadways, education, etc. which exist due to government investment in development and infrastructure. This is socialism.

In sum: Finding one application of socialism and denouncing it as a failure is at best misleading (and a straw man). Communism is not the whole of socialism.

I see where this is going and feel I must say something.

I am a Capitalist. I believe it's fundamental reasoning, namely that you earn what you're worth, you sell what the market will bear and the chips fall where they may. On the other hand I'm also a Realist and believe that those who have should take on the responsibility for those who do not. All these fine ideals are for a test tube however because they do not work in the real world. Why? Greed.

It doesn't matter what system you operate economics (or political for that matter) greed destroys all.

Take the RL US for example. Years ago when most people had morals and were honest the "Fair days pay for a fair day work" ruled the day. Then the Carnegie's, Rockefeller's and Ford's show up. All of a sudden people were starving and couldn't afford health care. To prevent chaos and to keep people working for below par wage these guys became philanthropists. They built and funded hospitals, schools, museums.

Look at Soviet Union. Government took over all business, people were starving and couldn't get health care. To prevent chaos and to keep people working the party had 'organizations' which 'encouraged' the worker to participate. The honored worker was not allowed access to hospitals, schools, museums.

Back to the RL US and Russia. The US is more Socialist now then ever and going into debt faster than they can bail. Russia is more Capitalist than ever and ran by hoodlums and gangsters.

What's best? I dunno...

Agree,and I don't even consider Russia as as democracy even less a socialist country.Capitalism is the only economic system nowadays,the only difference is the way of capitalism that you prefer,on one side there is social-democracy that tries to control and regulate the economy to help the social development and on the other side we can found neoliberalism where the only thing that matters is money.

The old socialists helped people to prevent that situations where the rich abused over the poor,the labour unions were the key to get a decent salary and nowadays that socialism have progressed and it's intention (In my opinion)should be the control of the government to provide to all the citizens a decent conditions of life. You can't expect philanthropy to be the only way of helping people,that task should be carried by the governments and not just by people that tries to help.

I don't think that communism is a good economical project,I believe in a meritochratic social system,but we can't let other people die just because they are born in a poor country or in worse conditions.When we are born we are all equal and that only change becase of your family's wealth,only luck ,fate or chance allows you to be born in the USA,in Canada,in Sweden... and not in Niger,Ethiopia and like that.It's the same as the debate between what is better Republic or Monarchy,you can't have more rights just because you were born as a "king",the same happens with the "normal" people we can't be different because of our conditions,we should have the same rights and the same opportunities to succeed,and then you will only depend on you to achieve your goals and fulfill your dreams.

You are correct to a point. I disagree that philanthropy or better word may be charity (which in another day was synonymous with love) has no place. The RL US government (which I am quite familiar) has over grown it bounds. It has overstepped it's original charter of protecting foreign trade (which is why the US Navy was originally conceived) and to provide for the common defense. Originally the Federal government was meant to organize individual States to work together for the better of all States, not to dictate to individuals. Heck, the original 20 or so States constitutions were set up to deal with affairs similar to the US constitution and left it up to individual communities such things as education, law enactment and social well being.

You cannot legislate morals, greed will win every time. The social ills we now have are what we, as a (now mostly global society) wish to inflict on ourselves. Everyone that sits in a house (no matter how fine or dilapidated), that has more than one change of clothes and has enough food for them and their family are to blame. If it is truly Socialism we want then even the poor should give half of what they have to those who are poorer. Personal responsibility says to take care of you and your own and then you are free to help others. I don't feel it's governments place to take what I have and give 10% to the needy and use 90% to pay for government.

Quick thought: A man complains because he has no shoes. Then he sees a man with no feet.
Moral: Don't bitch about what you don't have, do something about it.

Consider great civilizations of the past. Where are they now? First comes organization, then victory over foes, then prosperity, then neglect (let the government do it), then complacency, then indifference, then entitlement (I want mine, screw you), then collapse. Guess where the world is at? Hint: How many more times can EU prop up countries? US is going down the debt drain.

Sorry to write such a wall but this topic is near and dear to my heart.

The last part, about being born in the wrong country is close to the mark. However (in the US at least, not sure about Canada or Sweden) there are many hungry children (and adults) who sleep under bridges and have no health care or school. How can that happen? The government system is broken and people fall through the cracks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tent_cities_in_the_United_States
Evidently if you don't meet the criteria you do not have the "right" to be the sponsored poor in the US. Speaking of the sponsored poor, when (with the occasional exception) do you ever here of these groups becoming prosperous?

To those in Niger, Ethiopia and others I can only fear the worst. Their own governments seek to destroy them by withholding food and water that is sent to them by the plane load. When they do get anything they are forced into camps with little more than a tarp for shelter and no sanitary facilities. The lucky poorest of the poor are the ones where private organizations (funded by donations of moral people) come into a village, drill a water well, provide food and medical care, build schools and teach people how to take care of themselves.

One interesting note. The Australian Aborigine, still an independent people group and having there own culture have also found there way into 'modern' Australia. Some seek to be in the modern world, some prefer the old ways. Point is we can't expect every culture to look and act like ours. There are people in the US that live "off the grid" and prefer it that way. They live off the land (which they own), grow their own food, hunt, fish, cut wood for fire, dig wells for drinking and irrigation, practice herbal medicine as a preference.

After rereading your post above...
"You can't expect philanthropy to be the only way..."
Sorry, I got to writing and mistook what you said. To amend my thought I would say that philanthropy is preferential to letting inept and cost inefficient government provide for peoples needs.

Didn't mean to make it sound like you said something different. 🙂

I will continue my argument as I still want to share our point of view.I will try to be brief.I think at that point we are leaving the political or economical views and we are talking more about philosophical ideas.The Greed value can be determined by a moral relativism and the importance of each community to the social status and your ambition to get more,for example as you can see,in Africa people don't have money and they are happy anyway (probably because they don't knowa better way of living),so if we continue with that arguments we will found ourselves in the debate of Hobbes,Rousseau and Socrates about who is guilty,the society or the people.

I think the actual socialism is not an utopian socialism,the ideas of Phalanstères and similar communities are far away,and now the governments should focus on helping people without resources,and personally if somebody is poor I don't think that he or she should give money to another poorest people but that task should be also regulated by the governments in a determined scale or rate.

That's why I started with the moral relativism,as you can think that you are poor but if you are not under a determined rate you should pay to the state to protect your rights as the health care,the building of roads,hospitals..

I don't think we should take absolute values to talk about the poor and the rich,as Nietzsche explained in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra",and with his master-slave theory we should help people but not for charity or compassion,we should give the others just if we have enough to live our life as we want.

I like all these RL references to socialism 😛

(cough) Canada is already a socialist state (cough)