Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Political/economic/religious systems are all intertwined, and a pure example of any of the ideologies has probably never been tried, anywhere, for more than a few years. Over time, all systems collapse. Northman83 is correct, though, that the Scandinavian mixed capitalist/democratic socialist model looks good at this time, though certainly imperfect. Time will tell (it may well outlive all of us); maybe it's the best one the world has yet seen, or maybe it, too, won't last.
It apparently works for population control so it really isn't that bad What Winterfall can't acknowledge is every time someone starts promoting Marxism in any large country it fails miserably, and it fails to be implemented in the way the Marxist say it will. Apparently, it exist in some Idealistic world that has no basis in reality.
Capitalism doesn’t work. I said the Paris communes showed that Marx’s model wasn’t based off of authoritarianism.
Work places that aren’t privatized , de-centralized federations rather than de-centralized authoritarianism.
A capitalistic economy, with a strong safety net, is the superior one!
Also known as the Scandinavian model.
Privatization of means of production only ever leads to less freedoms for the working class.
Every system on earth that is in place at the time is assumed to be the superior one and any discussion for alternatives is shut down.
Anarch-syndicalism takes a system of economy that has worked and is already working across the world to combat the idea that we need profit driven capitalism where the output of the worker goes into the hands of the owner.
Who in their right mind would use Paris Commune as a model?
Your ideas have been tried in Russia, China and NK. Each caused tens of millions death.
Like I said to Juan, the Paris communes showed that Marx wasn’t interested in authoritarian ideas as the few you mentioned are.
Anarcho-syndicalism (unlike the Paris communes) has and is working to this day.
Read about the Zapatistas and why they still exist if capitalism equates to freedom.
Catalonia during the Spanish civil war gave real left-libertarian freedom to its people and they were crushed by both the communist and the fascists AND the Republicans. Not all forms of Marxism are the same.
Political/economic/religious systems are all intertwined, and a pure example of any of the ideologies has probably never been tried, anywhere, for more than a few years. Over time, all systems collapse. Northman83 is correct, though, that the Scandinavian mixed capitalist/democratic socialist model looks good at this time, though certainly imperfect. Time will tell (it may well outlive all of us); maybe it's the best one the world has yet seen, or maybe it, too, won't last.
It won’t, leaving power in the hands of the state and the corporation will on (like always) lead to abuse of labor as all of it is already owned.
Privatization of means of production only ever leads to less freedoms for the working class.
Every system on earth that is in place at the time is assumed to be the superior one and any discussion for alternatives is shut down.
Anarch-syndicalism takes a system of economy that has worked and is already working across the world to combat the idea that we need profit driven capitalism where the output of the worker goes into the hands of the owner.
You have zero evidence. I assume you knew that you had no evidence. Why are you making this argument then?
One excellent example for privatization is China. Before 1980s, China was as socialist as it can be but it was a bleephole. Starting from 1980s, China privatize a large portion of its economy and now it’s the second largest economy in the world.
Before bashing progressivism, or any -ism, it would be helpful to define what you are talking about.
"Progressivism is the support for or advocacy of improvement of society by reform. As a philosophy, it is based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition." (Wikipedia)
From the same source, we can contrast the definitions of liberalism and conservatism:
"Liberalism is a political view based on liberty and equality. Liberals generally support civil rights, democracy, secularism, gender equality, internationalism and the freedoms of speech, the press, religion and markets"
"Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. The central tenets of conservatism include tradition, human imperfection, organic society, hierarchy and authority and property rights"
Based on these definitions, I would say that progressivism is doing quite well, liberalism is on shaky ground and conservatism is definitely on the ropes.
Before bashing progressivism, or any -ism, it would be helpful to define what you are talking about.
"Progressivism is the support for or advocacy of improvement of society by reform. As a philosophy, it is based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition." (Wikipedia)
From the same source, we can contrast the definitions of liberalism and conservatism:
"Liberalism is a political view based on liberty and equality. Liberals generally support civil rights, democracy, secularism, gender equality, internationalism and the freedoms of speech, the press, religion and markets"
"Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. The central tenets of conservatism include tradition, human imperfection, organic society, hierarchy and authority and property rights"
Based on these definitions, I would say that progressivism is doing quite well, liberalism is on shaky ground and conservatism is definitely on the ropes.
Where do you think Obama's Fundamental Transformation fit in?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What Winterfall can't acknowledge is every time someone starts promoting Marxism in any large country it fails miserably, and it fails to be implemented in the way the Marxist say it will. Apparently, it exist in some Idealistic world that has no basis in reality.
