>An arsenal of more than 300 guns, many of them illegal, has been seized from a Long Island home around the corner from a high school ...
>around the corner from a high school

Dat demagoguery.

NY is one of the really strict states when it comes to guns so most of the guns were probably illegal (which is BS),
but how they managed to get a warrant to raid the guy's home based on a tip is beyond me.

ah... undercover guy... nvm

First. Muslims are not a race. Secondly. Muslims, and Islam, is a plague that needs to be vanquished.

But how to stop racism. Stop multiculturalism. Achieve solidarity.

What is often mistaken for racism is actually hostility to another culture. Multiculturalism is inherently divisive.

Thought you communists were for this kind of shit. Oh well.

Anyway, yeah, Muslims aren't a race, yet, saying you want Muslims exterminated is just as bad as saying you want blacks exterminated.

I'm a racialist, but I'm not a racist. I recognise I have more in common with the Aboriginal down the street than I do with Gina Rinehart.

I don't want people to be exterminated. I want the concept of Muslims exterminated alongside that of Islam. Religion is contemptible. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, whatever. Utterly abject.

But as a socialist (hell, maybe I am a communist), why anyone on the Left would promote multiculturalism is beyond me.

In order to answer that question, we need to look at what causes racism. If you go on imageboards and forums where racists reside, you'll see that the stormweenies base their reactionary rhetoric on their culture and their past. In essence, your plea of avoiding, "hatred of Western culture" cannot be fulfilled if we are to eliminate the scourge of racism for good. Dancing around it with "hate" laws and anti-bullying campaigns, media influence, and so on will not solve the problem. If it would, America would be the most tolerant place on earth by now.

A good start into this endeavor was seen with the elimination of separate holidays for the revolutionaries, the founders of this country; limiting their memory to an annual date. The exception to this was Kasmir Pulaski; a racist Polak cavalier who hated Russians, and ended up emigrating to America to fight for the revolutionaries after he failed in an uprising against his fellow Slavic brethren in Poland-Lithuania. He was, in review, a bloodthirsty savage who thrived off of the death of war. These types of people are who stormweenies fantasize about alongside with imagery of the day of the rope and the second shoah.

If you have not come to the conclusion already, people like Pulaski are outdated and unknown to most of the citizenry. Purge him! Jumbling the presidents together on a single date made American much ignorant of the founders, setting the stage for a much larger purge.

Presidents' day was replaced to make room for a new historical leader, Martin Luther King Jr. He was a force against racism and hatred, and America loved it. He did a speech on Lincoln's memorial (ironically a racist president) and America bought it! The type of ignorance that is in the typical American had them lack the knowledge of Lincoln's true feelings against blacks. Who's to say that we can't purge as much as want, then? If we can bend history to make a racist look like a non-racist, who's to say that we cannot rewrite it all?

In the last paragraph, I was referring to the separate holidays which were dedicated the to separate founding fathers, not presidents' day.

to the*

In summary, racism will be eliminated via the elimination of the concept of it. We need to redo everything that happened and make it fit in the modern world. How exactly this will be implemented will be through the medias and public education, invariably. This will not be so-much an authoritarian prospect as it will be an evolutionary prospect. Look at far society has made progress since the 1960s, imagine 500 years from now. We will not have to burn stormweenie literature, the civilians, enlightened by years of education and the leisure of public media, will burn the lies themselves. As particular as it may seem to readers now, it is scientific non-fiction.

I could write a book on these goals, but I would request money. How can I count the "but-ifs" that arise with this philosophy that must be carefully explained in detail for the future politicians who will transform our society?

We already do voluntary slavery. Many of us go to work 8+ hours a day for shit wages and effectively make that corporation tons of money by doing their work. We often get horrible to no benefits and rarely get a decent raise. We are ridiculed, insulted and treated like scum by our bosses.

Slavery didn't die out in America with African Americans. It just evolved. We are now a slave to the 2%. We are slaves to society.

^Yup.

Pretty much sums it up. We are wage slaves. No matter how much shit you buy you are not truly living.

None of us partake in real-life activity. Maybe when we are younger. Cherish your youth, rebel, break shit. Never forget what it feels like to be alive.

This.

They had their reconcliation trials, if they're killing the Afrikaaners simply because of apartheid, then I condemn them.

The South African government is corrupt, from what I've read.

South Africa is the home of Afrikaaners. Whether or not you think they should leave or not, no one should fear for their lives in their home.

south africa and all africa (excluding north africa) belongs to the natives. the black guys. the same way scandinavia belongs to whites.

No one will care about "white genocide"

Blacks are just taking back their land

>No one will care about white genocide

That's because of racism. I hope you know that.

Nevermind. Rudd pulled out of it at the last minute, Gillard was unopposed, and retained party leadership.

If I blew into the head of your penis, would your ass get bigger?

What? You said ask whatever the hell I wanted.

What are your opinions on the major banks? Do you believe that they have too much power? Do you think that the power that they have been given is being properly exercised?

Do you think that resources sectors should be nationalised?

What's your political position?

What would you do about the situation in Syria if you had control over US foreign policy?

How would you tackle education?

What is your stance on the drug war?

Even though you didn't ask me, for the sake of increasing discussion.

1. Because of the nature of the war, and neither side really being the 'good' side, I'd simply try to begin peacekeeping operations. Setting up refugee camps, and protecting them, whilst simultaneously encouraging peaceful resolutions.

2. I'm reviewing my opinion.

3. Treat usage as a medical issue, but come down hard on dealers. I used to be in favour of legalising softer drugs, but now I'm not sure. But as for hard drugs, like heroin, come down on the dealers hard.

i know you didnt ask me but ill just climb in there too.

>Same as Medew

>Do what asian countries are doing, fire teachers who do the bare minimum, raise pay a bit. it must be mandatory for children to attend at least one extra curricular activity, stronger education on computer science, give more money to primary schools, secondary schools, colleges and universities, remove the bullshit no child left behind, if a child is retarded enough to fail, it fails.

>War on drugs takes too much money. allow Class D/C and Cannabis drugs to be legal, regulated and taxed to high heavens. Class A drugs still illegal, Class B drugs only allowed in groups with a medical supervisor.

I do agree with his 2nd one as well.

*I'm just going to go ahead and jump in this don't mind me.*

1. Look I am deeply saddened of what is going on, half a million children having to flee Syria between the clash of President Al-Assad's Government forces and the rebels but as I see... America has gone and shoved its face into everyone's business for far too long. if it's not directly effecting us, then we should not bother.

2. How I would tackle education, look cutting teachers pay isn't going to solve anything. it's both sides kids not wanting to learn and go to school, and teachers who are just teaching the basic and not going further from there on. I want teachers who are going to push students to study further, question why this happened or why this didn't. now let's say your one of those kids "Too Cool for School" then alright! sweet, Leave go get a job and start working stop wasting the schools time, teachers time, and your time. you have life figured out! get a job, move out, don't complain about how your life sucks since you were too cool for school.

3. The War on Drugs is flawed, look I'm saying we legalize the drugs, apply restrictions such as you have to be over 20 to legally purchase it and have it so that no child would be able to gain access to it *which is still flawed because if there is a will there is a way*. It wouldn't be a crime to carry the drugs but what I am saying is if you get bad about it, it's a public health issue, you go to rehab and not jail.

I would probably vote for you, im no isolationist but you seem to have your head rooted in more pragmatic solutions. I believe that if the Syrian government is using chemical weapons its an obligation of the international community to unite and personally fuck Al-Assads metaphorical ass, the only problem being that the UN has little power.

I do agree being an isolationist isn't always the best answer but how can we go to other countries and such telling them how they should rule and live... when we can't even do that stably for ourselves , we need to fix ourselves first before we try and help others. And I do agree if he is using chemical weapons that it is necessary to step in then.

I would ask the Public

Cut teachers pay and spend it on things that will actually help the students
also fire the teachers that don't do shit and are only in it for the money

I would end it and legalize some drugs but have some restrictions on them

Bad move on cutting teacher's pay.

Teachers already have a shit pay as it is, and you end up having newer teachers who would have more experience with the newer generation and be more able to communicate with the students better, leave due to even worsened interest, or even straight up laid off.

It depends on the area that the teachers live in on how much they get paid
In States like Illinois teachers get paid 200% above average so it would be better to make it even for the whole country.

Well I wouldn't vote for you, nothing personal but the public is a bad reference for foreign policy. They are too easily misled and they have a reliably poor understanding of issues, especially considering the whole 'tyranny of the majority' thing that James Madison even feared way back when. I also don't understand the concept of cutting teachers pay, that seems very counter-productive. Teaching isn't an honorary obligation that people do as a passion, at least not reliably so. If I were to be paid more in my job I would have more of a reason to care about the quality of my work. But I do like your opinion on the drug war, as a civil libertarian I don't think that the banning of any drug should be a factor when dealing with the issue, but a healthy regulation is inevitably a good thing.

furthermore socialists who talk about 'ideology' bother me because they speak the same way as their enemies do.

I always thought these were silly.

Ideology is a tool of the ruling classes.

Please elaborate.

Ideology is really just a set of ideals. Communism is an ideology, so is socialism. Certain ideologies may be tools of the ruling class, but I don't see how ideologies as a concept are, especially as the Left are generally quite supportive of each other, even if we differ on the specifics. We recognise our common enemy well.

Ideology is stagnant. The ruling classes use it to justify their actions. It has itself become counterrevolutionary.

Marx wrote a book about it called the German Ideology. Here is a quote from it. "Communism is "not a state of the future, but the real movement which destroys the existing state of being."

Communism as a goal is one thing. Communism as a goal of a political party is the work of ideology and allowed the bureaucracy to usurp power in Russia (and create a counterrevolutionary force of state capitalism from day one).

I don't see it arisaka. Ideology is just a set of ideals. Whether it be the overthrowing of a king for a republic, or the overthrowing of capitalism to begin the road to pure communism.

Communism as a goal of a political party is just the same as communism as a goal. The entity that has the goal is irrelevant.

You're not reading what I had quoted deep enough; It's how the concept has been fetishized - transformed into an image and recuperated over and over and over.

Ideology and Marx don't mix. "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."

Guy Debord and the other Situationists remind us that Marx hated ideology. Ideology is "the abstract will to universality and the illusion thereof," which is "legitimated in modern society by universal abstraction and by the effective dictatorship of illusion."

I'm afraid I still don't understand.

Ideology is, as a concept, a set of ideas. Marxism is an ideology, because it's a set of ideas and ideals.

Am I missing something completely? Would you suggest I simply read the German Ideology?

Marxism is NOT a set of ideals! "Ideologies are systems of abstract thought applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics."

Marxism is more of a methodology - a grand social critique.

And yes, I suggest reading some of it. You could simply look it up on the internet. It's not a long read and is pretty focused on few concepts (it's not like it's capital or anything).

We'll leave this topic until then, then.

I should point out, just while we're at it, that I'm not actually a Marxist. That might immediately resolve any future misunderstandings.

Yeah, I kind of see that now. But even still, he was a fantastic sociologist.

I agree. And I do agree with most of what I've read from Marx. But as you can see, I haven't read enough. I know what Marxism is, in a general sense, but I'm still unaware of a lot of the details. That's the main reason I won't call myself a Marxist.

I really just take bits and pieces from various ideologies (and by that, I think you know what I mean) depending on what I agree with most. That's why I don't call myself anything specific, just a socialist, or maybe even a communist.

When it comes to Marx though, it's really all or nothing, as Marx was a social scientist and came to conclusions based on sociological inquiry. I find people who make compatibility with Utopian and scientific socialism are like those who support the theory of evolution but take parts of intelligent design.

But yeah. You're still dabbling, which is understandable. I, at one point, was a Bolshevik supporter. That was a long time ago.

I wouldn't say Bolshevik supporter per se... Some things they did I would approve of more than others. Like I said in another thread, I don't think the USSR was perfect, but I do think it was a step in the right direction. And maybe Yugoslavia was a further step.

I don't really consider myself a utopian socialist either.

We must discuss this in further detail elsewhere. I got school tomorrow at like 8.

Ciao!

Ha, I'm in class.

Goodbye, friend.

The test were accurate all things considered. I consider myself a libertarian and I highly believe in personal and business freedom, but at the same time, without buisness regulation and intervention, we get the buyouts we did in 2008, and the workers getting screwed over. And at the same time, yet again, when unions get too much power, they can fuck over the cooperations like they did with hostess. It's complex.

Socialism: You have two cows, so you give one to your neighbor.
Communism: You have two cows, so the state takes both and gives you some milk.

And as I showed earlier, communism is an end goal in which there is no state. Neither of these sentences make much sense as descriptions of socialism and communism.

But regardless, why do you think so?

I don't know, it's 2:30 here. I'm just quoting this. Too late to think, or something.

Communism - works relatively well on a small scale (towns, small communities, perhaps even states but haven't seen reports on that regard), not so well on a large scale (nations; much of them have been forced to cave into changes that revert it into a different government format, and many of those same nations have been plagued with issues from their leaders as a result of the excessive control)
Seems it would function fairly well if it was separated or sectionalized so the powers are balance evenly across the nation, but I'm not quite sure how one would start constructing something like that.

Socialism - Not much knowledge on this exactly as I've heard multiple different definitions and variations of socialism, but the general consensus seems to be that the people are in control of the businesses democratically as they work for it as a whole, which seems like a plausible idea given that the people are educated on any possible issues.

Communism is a stateless, classless society, or the ideology advocating such a society.

Socialism is either a transitionary stage on the path to socialism, or an end goal itself. Regardless, it's similar.

Communism works perfectly fine in large nations, and it's important to remember that we've only really seen central planning in 'socialist' countries. Central planning is not a defining aspect of communism/socialism.

In conclusion, when communism is attempted under the conditions it was designed to be attempted in, it works perfectly well. When there's constant threats from capitalist forces (Paris Commune being violently crushed by the French Army, foreign intervention in the Russian Civil War, a US supported coup in Chile), authoritarian measures are often a result, but they don't characterise communism/socialism.

Socialism-Lets all work together
Communism- You have worked hard, made a name for yourself, made yourself money, become successful. Give us 99% of your money so we can give it to people who haven't worked a day of they're lives and who live off the state.

A very right wing view i know but communism just can't work economically

Since I've got time, I'll elaborate.

Communism is the ideology that works for a specific mode of production. The reality of communism, the stateless, classless society, is the ultimate goal of communists. They achieve this by first going through the transitionary stage of socialism. To say that socialism is good, but communism is bad, especially because in 'communism people live off the state', is foolish and naive.

Neither communism, nor socialism are about taking wealth earned through hardwork. They're not about equality at all costs. The Soviet Union retained wages in a range similar to that of the United States. Communism and socialism are, in the most basic sense, redirecting where surplus wealth is accumulated to.

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production for private profit. Thus, the surplus goes to private owners who had no actual role in creating the wealth they're receiving. In socialism/communism, the surplus is sent to the government, as the representative of the people, to improve the community, because in these two ideologies, the means of production are owned collectively. Communism does go one step further and removes the surplus entirely, but the end result is the same: communism and socialism redistributes wealth to those who generated it.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs does not mean everyone receives equal wages or compensation. No one has equal needs, so why would they receive equal compensation? Those who work hard, and in roles that are socially valued (such as doctors) have additional needs, because of the general stressful nature of their work, and thus are entitled to increased compensation.

Again, they're not about equality at all costs. They are, simply, the redirection of wealth to those who rightfully own it: those who produce it.

Jeez, that is a very right wing response, and just as inaccurate as one would expect.

To socialists and communists, work is an obligation just as much as a right. Those who are capable of work, but refuse the opportunity will not receive government support. Furthermore, the USSR had near 100% employment.

Capitalism will not sustain itself economically. It will collapse. Communism is a very sustainable ideology that, when not consistently under threat from counterrevolutionaries, will work.

Ha, go back a few pages and see my opinion on the New 'Left'.

Identity politics are the clearest form of false consciousness and serve only to divide the proletariat even more.

communism only works good in theory.

in the real world it requires total government control and the loss of freedoms of the people.
there is no case in history where communism has ever worked.

worked as in, people retain freedom and happiness.

what about them?
they never amounted to much, did they? failures.

Hey now, Spartacus was pretty successful. A slave stood against the might of Rome, defeated entire legions of trained, fully armored soldiers and managed to stay free with thousands of other slaves for a couple of years before meeting his end. And he only met his end because of problems within the leadership of his generals and he was betrayed by pirates, otherwise he could have escaped and been forever free.

Anyways, it was a embarrassment to the republic. And who knows how much of it they played down or left out entirely, there are quite a bit of contradictions in the history provided by 3 different authors.

oh boy here we go
communism has never worked because it was oppressed be evil capitalists.
spare me.

The authoritarian measures of the USSR were a direct response to capitalist counterrevolutionaries.

Socialism in China was hijacked by capitalistic factions within the Communist Party.

Furthermore, you must remember that in both the USSR and China, Marxist communism was attempted in countries that were not at the appropriate stage of communist revolutions. Russia and China were undeveloped, semi-feudal, semi-capitalist countreis. Marx expected revolutions to occur in developed nations, not these primarily agricultural nations.

Additionally, vanguardism, as promoted by Leninism, was not originally part of Marxist theory. Yes, Marxist-Leninism freed the people from the oppression of the bourgeoisie, but not from government oppression, as Marxism would have it.

The fact is the USSR was a highly developed world superpower. The negative aspects of the country - the authoritarianism - was a direct result of counterrevolutionary measures that weren't removed when they weren't necessary.

Communism was a stage reached evolutionary. There's no reason socialism cannot work, and thus is perfectly reasonable. If communism comes as a result, well that's just a bonus.

I'm still reluctant to call myself a communist, as I'm not sure if I actually am, but I do believe that communism is, as a final goal, commendable and the best we could hope for. Thus, if communism does eventually arise out of socialism, then I will have no concerns.

I basically gave an introduction to (state) socialism below. That might be a good start.

The biggest difference is that state socialists prefer the government to nationalise industry, whereas libertarian socialists would prefer a factory to be owned solely by those working in the factory, for example.

I try to avoid defining myself as either of the two, and just pick which one I think is appropriate for particular circumstances. As a resident of Australia, I think that mining should be nationalised completely, as should infrastructure, telecommunications, energy, and other resources.

The government tells you what you can and cannot do; they have massive control over the economy and the lives of the people.

The philosophy that says people should work for the benefit of the community as a whole instead of being driven solely by self-interest and profit.

What factors influenced those perceptions, in your opinion?

IMO people are by nature self-centered assholes; they will only suffer (work) if they get something out of it. This is why capitalism works so well, even if it has some flaws. Because people are like this, communism is a fantasy; people will not willingly share unless they get something out of it (such as a sense of pride). I see socialism as an attempt to transition into communism. However, in order to do this, the government has to have massive control over pretty much everything. Because governments are made up of self-centered people, it will eventually grow and abuse the power it is given. Socialism leaves the door wide open to become a statist society which they all eventually will. That's the way I see it.

Socialism (and communism) is actually about distributing wealth more appropriately. As in, giving a larger portion to those who actually deserve it, those who produce it. The main difference between capitalism and socialism is where the surplus value ends up. In capitalism, which is private ownership of the means of production for private property (as you know), it goes to undeserving parties. In socialism, which is common ownership (whether that be public - government - or directly owned by the workers) the profits are redirected into improving the community.

Communism and socialism aren't about equality at all costs, and are very realistic and rational ideologies. Especially with the great increases of literacy in the world, the tendency towards authoritarian measures are reduced, as vanguardism is becoming unnecessary.

surplus
communism

pick one

Communism. Which is why when I spoke about surplus, I only referred to socialism.

Have you seen these pics before? It's Dubai immediately after it was granted economic freedom and 10 years later.

The economic liberalisation that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union shrunk the economy by 50%. A poverty rate of approximately 1.5% in the late Soviet Union rose dramatically to nearly 50%.

You don't know how to interpret your own graph do you? You stated 50% economic decline, but you failed to mention that the economy rose to levels well beyond the prior 1.1 trillion. That 50% drop is what we call a correction. A sharp drop and then longer exponential growth is what usually follows a change from a government dominated economy to a market based economy. You're focusing on the correction, and not the trend.

The fact that the economy grew later on is irrelevant. The fact is that the economy shrunk significantly as a direct result of shock therapy. As anyone would expect, the economy later recovered, and I'm not disputing that. But the fact it recovered does not justify the dramatic increase in poverty and decrease in standard of living. A 1.5% poverty rate that rises to 50% (and for comparison, the current rate in Australia is slightly over 10%) does not justify economic growth.

The fact that the economy grew later is the most important part. Ever take a statisitics course? The slope of the post decline increase is greater than the slope of growth of the pre- decline growth. That means after the correction, the economic rate of growth was greater than under the USSR. If we look at the trend, that economic decline and rise in poverty is irrelevent because it was reversed and more. Again, the trend is what matters. The fluctuations about them is irrelevant.

The Soviet economy had been slowing, even as they continued to liberalise the economy. In fact, economic liberalisation in the late USSR, and the collapse of the planning system, was the direct cause of the breadlines that came to characterise the USSR.

The cause of the trend of a slowing economy (which is actually representated by the graph I used) is widely agreed to be the priority of military spending over other sectors of the economy. This further supports the notion that capitalist interference destroyed the USSR, but I'm getting off topic.

Now, even with the increase of economic growth in modern Russia, it's important to remember that there have been simultaneous rises in crime, corruption, and the overall influence of organised crime organisations. The rate of economic growth alone is not enough to determine the success of free markets, and even then, markets are still present in some socialist and communist variations.

I don't really care for central planning, myself, preferring something more similar to mixed economics, but free markets and deregulation are a poor alternative to central planning (which is indicated by my post containing parts of the introduction to Inequality by Design.

Centrally planned economies will never be as efficient as free markets, but I imagine you already understand that. You weigh the value of having no hunger/poverty as greater than being... up to date, shall we say... Right?

The graph on the right demonstrates that even though productivity and economic growth has increased, the wages of the workers producing the wealth have stagnated.

Furthermore, the assertion that capitalism is efficient is absurd. What's efficient about shifting factories from one country to another, and then sending the items produced from the new country to sell in the old country? You can argue that if there were less regulations, factories would remain in the original country, but then what about working conditions? As demonstrated by the previous graphic, people would have to work longer hours.

And besides, as demonstrated by the middle lower graph in pic related, America taxes corporations less than a lot of other countries anyway.

So you want corporations (and everyone else) to be heavily taxed and have that tax revenue be redistributed? Like you said, companies will relocate with extreme government intervention.

Which is why major industries (as I live in Australia, mining would be an example) should be nationalised, and then small and medium sized businesses receive tax breaks and further subsidisations.

what would motivate the people to work?

In nationalised industry? The same motivation they have to work in existing publicly owned companies. They're still paid their wages. However, with the necessity of profits reduced, or outright ridden of, they would earn more than any capitalist company.

Furthermore, work is not just a right for socialists, it's an obligation. He who does not work, neither shall he eat. Those who do not work, instead attempting to live purely on the labour of others through welfare, will not be aided by society.

Obviously, this excludes the elderly, as they have already worked through their youth, and the disabled.

What about innovation? Better quality products would never be produced because people wouldn't even try because they would get nothing out of it.

The Soviet Union idolised scientists.

Aside from the general praise from the community, and a person's natural desire to improve themselves and their occupation, some other examples of incentive (some practiced by the Soviet Union) include medals, bonuses, and peer pressure.

If I recall correctly (I really need to read his essay) Einstein believed that socialism with an educational system that promoted working for the betterment of society as a whole, as opposed to working for one's own self-interest, was the best thing for humanity.

Remember that there are plenty of examples of people innovating without expectation of reward. Again, if I recall correctly, Telsa didn't care if he wasn't given royalties for people using his patents. There was also a scientist, whose name I have unfortunately forgotten, who wanted his vaccine to accessed freely.

Finally, I'd like to say that, as a species, we should be doing all we can to shift away from the cultural goal of working hard purely to get rich. Correct socialisation would negate many incentive issues entirely.

You're right about that, they even did some creepy morally questionable experiments during the late 50's, but the Soviet Union was communist in the same way that anarcho-capitalists are anarchists.

Morally questionable experiments happened under the direction of the CIA, too. They'll happen regardless of economic ideology.

Obviously the Soviet Union wasn't communist, but it was socialist, and provides perhaps the best model in my opinion. I know a lot of Leftists disagree, and I most definitely disagree with radical authoritarian measures (and Stalinism in general), but I still admire the Soviet Union. However, it wasn't perfect, and I acknowledge that, but it was a step in the right direction.

From memory, you're a leftist. I'm not sure what your exact ideology is, but I'd be happy to discuss the merits of the USSR with you regardless.

As a socialist, I believe in direct ownership of the factories by the workers, rather than state ownership, with the exception of few of the largest, most lucrative ones, but I don't know what kind of socialist that makes me.

About the experiments, I didn't really investigate them very much, but I found them a little disturbing, but consequently interesting. Most of them involved dogs, i think you can find them on youtube.

I believe in direct state ownership of major sectors and strategic sectors, like utilities and mining. Smaller businesses and medium businesses should be owned directly by the workers. That's why I prefer the NEP slightly more than Stalinist central planning, but I'll give central planning the credit it's due.

From what little I read about Yugoslavia's organisation, that's quite a good one, too.

Central planning allowed Russia to become a world superpower.

Free markets primarily benefit the rich. The overall condition of the vast majority of the population is far more important than the profits of the rich.

From Inequality by Design:

In the early 1980s, one explanation dominated public discussion and public policy: The cause of the middle-class crisis was government, and its solution was less government. Regulations, taxes, programs for the poor, preferences for minorities, spending on schools--indeed, the very size of government--had wrecked the economy ..."Unleash the market" and the result would be a "rising tide that will lift all boats, yachts and rowboats alike."

This explanation for the economic doldrums won enough public support to be enacted. Less regulation, less domestic spending, and more tax cuts for the wealthy followed. By the 1990s, however, the crisis of the middle class had not eased; it had just become more complicated. The richest families had soared to new heights of income, the poorest families had sunk after 1970, and the middle-income families had gained slightly. But this slight gain was bitterly misleading. The middle class managed to sustain modest income growth, only by mothers taking jobs and fathers working longer hours.

Another puzzle now called for explanation: The 1980s had been a boom decade; overall wealth had grown. But average Americans were working harder to stay even.

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s5877.html

It's fake. Narration is just for shits and gigs.

Dumb question, but why the fuck is the narrator speaking in english?

it's a voice-over; you can hear the Korean in the background

ah

Did you ever watch their documentary 'Propaganda'? The irony of it aside, it's quite an accurate assessment of the West.

Ya, I watched it right before the link I posted and I was thinking the same thing (more or less).

www.inforum.com/event/article/id/393526/
my state is REALLY anti-abortion and I think the legis is starting to go too far

>drive to another state
>abort
>go back home

whats the problem

You know that's not the original picture, right?

yes, i edited it

>what's wrong with fat
a lot of shit. you're unattractive, clogged arteries, obesity.

There are places where gun control works and places where it doesn't, and this is further confused by what you'd consider "working". If gun crime goes down, but other violent crime goes up, is it a true success? Personally, I don't like classifying crime as "gun crime" and "non-gun crime", as it shifts the blame away from the perpetrators and implies that guns are the cause of the crime. They make it easier for sure, but it still required someone to commit the crime.

Most European countries have had fairly successful gun control legislation, and I'll give them that. However, countries like Mexico have failed, with gun crime turning some regions into warzones. When you consider the surrounding areas and current proliferation of guns, I'd safely bet that if complete gun control were to be enacted, the U.S. would more likely go the route of Mexico than the route of most of Europe.

>Austrasia

Do you mean Australasia? Or perhaps Oceania?

yeah

America was built on the idea that the people are supreme and that the government exists to serve the people. I'm sorry where you live it's the opposite.

>government serving the people
>freedom
>america.

Jesus motherfucking christ you are blind. The slimy Jewish rats control everything

removing the gun bans in the UK would not cause crime.
gun crime went up in the UK after the handgun ban.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

I don't get what you're trying to say. Your sources may be true, but the difference here is that we can deal with it, but the USA can't. Change.

2001 content is fucking irrelevent 10 years later.

www.politics.co.uk/reference/gun-crime

>no one here is making a fuss over something as trivial as guns
>no here is a big mouthed american taking things over the top
>we are good. guns arent needed unless for sport.
>"PROTECT MUH HOME"
> Most peple live in flats,
> cricket bats, BIG LOUD ALARMS.
> People knowing the layout of their homes.

and yet, you still have more assault and rape.
www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

when seconds count, the police are only minutes away, right?

im sorry, since when did rape and assault count as gun crime?

i'm only alluding to the fact that there is less self defense in the UK.

people who aquire illegal guns here say they carry it for self defense yet they go on offense.

you're caught with a gun
what are you going to say?
that you got it to commit crimes? don't be daft.
people don't buy guns legally to commit crimes.

Most guns used in crimes in the U.S. are attained illegally, be it by theft (illegal) or straw-purchases (illegal; also bypasses background checks).

We dont need guns, we are fine. No one is shooting up schools.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

America has chain killing spree's

Batman
Sandy
back to back NY spree

all within a short amount of time

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

where do you want me to look

everywhere.

20-fucking-10

be relevent please

Source, please.

what's to doubt?
do the research yourself.

I'm interested in your source. Searching the title of the graph provides nothing credible.

And besides, you're making the assertion. Without credible source, I can dismiss it as I please.

I'm actually pro-gun, but that doesn't mean I should mindlessly accept any graph that supports my point of view.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy

also assuming the numbers on the left are in thousands of people or so, whats wrong with trying to get it a bit lower? who says that gun control laws are what caused fluctuations?

it's the rate per 100,000
not thousands
the graph shows clearly that gun control doesn't do anything.

the graph doesn't show what it would have been like without gun control so it does not show that it doesn't do anything, it just shows that it cannot prevent all homicides

Wild West: Everyone from farmers to bartenders to cattlehands to sheriffs to outlaws had guns. They were a necessary part of life. Without one, you would starve.

Prohibition: Ban on alcohol sales started the movement to modern gang crime.
Ending Prohibition: Gang-crime no longer profitable as people can now safely buy alcohol.

War on Drugs: Drug trade no longer "safe". Dealing with drugs makes you a criminal, and are forced to "defend" your trade in a criminal manner. Relatively harmless people are weeded out of the drug trade, leaving only the ones you really have to worry about.

There are more factors at play than gun control. There are social, economic, and political factors you have to think about.

thats why i claimed this was a texas sharpshooter fallacy

But the gun control movement follows the same logic. These laws assume that fewer guns = less crime, but they completely overlook the fact that people commit crimes for reasons outside of "I have a gun".

its not the crime, its the ability to use great amounts of unnecessary deadly force to commit one

So you don't want to stop crime, just change the nature of the crimes?

if you now a way to stop crime id love to hear it, i think its a worthy endeavor to try and have less death though

Get rid of poverty for one. Gang violence is one of the leading causes of gun crime in the States. Kids turn to gangs because that's the only way they see to survive. The idiot's solution would be to dump money into the troubled neighborhoods, but you'd have better luck by changing their available options for education (since the current ones are obviously failing them) and opening up more employment opportunities for at-risk youth. Fund it federally, I don't care. If you can guarantee that these kids and their families can eat, then they'll work, especially if it's less dangerous than dealing with the guns and the drugs.

On a related note, end this "war on drugs", as it ironically encourages criminal activity on the part of the drug dealers and the junkies and clogs up the prison system with otherwise harmless individuals rather than violent criminals and repeat offenders.

Rehabilitate rather than punish criminals. I'm growing fond of the Norwegian prison system, as it apparently has a very low re-incarceration rate. I still think it's too cushy for a prison, but I get the logic. Some people will never change, and I think there should be a separate system for them. But for petty criminals, they just need to be set straight more than they need to be punished.

Normalize gun laws and lighten gun legislation. Strange as it may sound, the States with the highest rates of gun violence are the ones with the strictest gun laws. Why? Because tight laws don't mean shit if they can cross the State line and buy whatever's illegal in their hometown. At the same time, many interviews with convicts and thugs will tell you that they're less scared of cops than they are of the thought that whoever they're going to rob/rape/whatever might have a gun. Many areas with laws that *require* every home to have a firearm have some of the lowest crime rates in the country, even though these laws are never enforced and not everyone even bothers to follow them, but it does deter criminals.

i think your first point is a bit idealistic, but its probably true. easier said than done though.

i recently was persuaded to side with decriminalizing drugs.

sounds good to me

i dont think banning guns is a good idea, but cracking down on illegal gun ownership is.

It is, I'll give you that. Poverty's pretty damn hard to eliminate. It it was easy, we wouldn't be dealing with these problems. The least we can do is see what we can change in their current education options and open up more employment opportunities, even if they're "fake" jobs funded by the gov't.

I say crack down more on public intoxication than funding SWAT raids on Lucky Brother Dooby Dooby's pot stash.

Resolved

But the problem is that you can't stop illegal gun ownership without hamstringing legal gun ownership. Universal background checks/licensing don't really mean much without a total gun registry, which would be impossible to instate with the current level of firearms proliferation (what is it? Almost a gun for every person now?). Even with a complete registry, you'd need periodic checks to make sure that someone hasn't given away their firearms illegally, which is an ASTRONOMICAL amount of manpower. No labor force alive would be able to accomplish that. Besides, most guns used in crime (this ties to the gang violence issue I mentioned before) are obtained illegally anyways. They're often stolen (which is illegal in itself) or obtained through a straw purchase (which bypasses any gun legislation in effect).

true, true.

well put lol

i dont mean keep an eye on every gun in the country, i just mean be more careful who is being sold guns, be more careful about the people selling guns (many are corrupt and sell guns to people who normally cant get them), and keep guns off the streets besides police officers. i think responsible gun owners having to be more careful with their firearms (some of the more faulty legislation that can criminalize people for simple mistakes should be fixed though) is a small price to pay for a way to make people feel safer.

But there are already restrictions in place. The problem is that they aren't properly enforced. Why implement further legislation if you can't enforce what's already on the books?

Legal concealed carriers (who get licenses to carry their firearms in public) really don't cause much trouble. If anything, they prevent far, far more crimes than they commit. People face the same dangers as police officers. Dangerous encounters are measured in seconds while police response times are measured in minutes.

I agree with responsible gun ownership. No sane person disagrees with it. The problem is education. There should be more PSAs encouraging gun owners to properly lock and store the firearms that they aren't actively using/carrying. It's common sense objectively, but it's easily overlooked.

well i think some of the new legislation allocates a lot of funding to the cops to try and solve that problem.

fair enough, as long as it doesn't become vigilantism

i dont think anyone would object to that.

If it works, great. Doesn't mean I support the other propositions.

It hasn't already, and I doubt it will in 99.9% of cases. You'd be surprised at how many people concealed carry already.

they definitely need fine tuning

well then i guess thats fine and dandy

Agreed. Fix the current my big black daddyistration. Start by reducing politician's wages across the board. That'll bank some good payroll and weed out the ones in it for the money.

yes, definitely. they get paid way too damn much

And apparently a.dmin is now changed to my big black daddy. Joy.

get the research and make it your fucking self

sure thing, chip.

handgun ban in the UK happened in 1997

www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/

and here are the most accurate stats. from the met office themselves. Sure its London, but London is a city with almost half of englad inside it. its also very urban so you would expect more crime/gun crime being held here when compared to suburbs.

watch yr edginess

"didn't effect me, why should i care?"
that is pretty edgy my friend.

It's not that's it isn't my problem I was born and still live like half a kilometre away from the KZ Dachau, so don't tell me it doesn't effect me.

so why don't you care?

Because a million deaths is a statistic; a single death is a tragedy.

It's hard to personally relate with millions of people. We can't comprehend numbers that large.

I don't really know what to discuss..... I guess it was unfair but necessary..

oh boy
that's really furthering mankind isn't it?

It's a crazy process.

what if no
i don't give a fuck about religion.

And why should it only matter what you want?

well i could say the same to you, dipshit.

why the fuck would you combine the two?

You can just decide to only discuss the politics and not join religious threads. Is that so hard?

the religion board gets more traffic
religious debates would push other things out.

There's a lot more discussing going on in politics than in religion. People from /politics/ would feel more compelled to join the board and it nicely balances each other out.

www.funnyjunk.com/religion/16381#16381
they don't want it
we don't want it
your idea is terrible, get over it.

I like it...

i notice beatmasterz is a friend of yours.

you noticed that right

you don't post on either board, your opinion is meaningless.

how dare you talk to someone with a higher level, peasant.

pathetic.

relax, bro. I was being sarcastic.

You visited my thread, I'm so happy.