Pure Socialism Is Feudalism

[nature of reality]

I can't understand why everyone puts Capitalism and Feudalism together, but Socialism apart.


Feudalism; The State (embodied in King) owns everything. Gives people want they NEED to subsist, takes what they produce via FORCE. Doen'st even need to have CAPITAL (ie money).

Socialism; The State (embodied in the faceless objectiveless Common Good) owns everything. Give people based on NEED to subsist, takes what they produce via FORCE.

Capitalism: The State is a arbiter for counter acting the use of force. Men individually own things. Give people what they deserve by CONSENT rather then by FORCE.


Pure Socialism and Feudalism are interchangable. Its hardly curious that the socialistic doctrine of the Christian Church caused the collapse of human civilization.

[RebelWithanAK]

Err...

People work under Feudalism because they are 'indebted,' via their birthright, to their lord in an hierarchical system based on force. There is no education. There is no equimenical distribution based on one's effort or product. The aristocracy control lives and production in their king-ordained fiefdoms. The 'people' are largely serfs.

People work under Capitalism because they are paid, based on their educational level, to do so. Their wages are based on the 'accepted industry standard,' controlled by self-serving plutocrats and defended by the bourgeoisie, who seek to become part of the plutocratic aristocracy. Their education is largely based on their birthright, which becomes a self-serving prophecy as entry into a higher class is unattainable because it is unaffordable. The 'people' are largely wage slaves and salarymen.

People work under Socialism because they are paid, based their educational level, to do so. Their wages are based on the 'accepted living standard,' controlled by a government of elected representatives. Their education is largely based on their ability, as it is free and universal, and through social welfare class distinctions are blurred. The 'people' are as free as they ever were and more.

Capitalism is closest to Feudalism.

[nature of reality]

"There is no equimenical distribution based on one's effort or product."

Yes there is, haven't you taken European History? The harvest/agrian culture that permeated Europe was highly collective and distributed everything based on need, which is the same driving force in Socialism.


"Their wages are based on the 'accepted industry standard"

which they themselves CONSENT to earn. If they disagree, they can try their own hand at business, or get a new job. They AGREE that they deserve that much.


"controlled by self-serving plutocrats and defended by the bourgeoisie, who seek to become part of the plutocratic aristocracy."


The Benefit reaped by the poor from the rich cannot be understated. I doubt i can't explain it better than this so here goes. I highly suggest you read the entire book:

[Section 8]

Oh yeah I'm sure that the workers are saying "Yes I would like to starve to death." The system indirectly forces workers to work.

What book are you talking about. You say you're quoting something yet I don't see anything.

[nature of reality]

I accidentally posted early. This is the second half

The Benefit reaped by the poor from the rich cannot be understated. I doubt i can't explain it better than this so here goes. I highly suggest you read the entire book:

The machine, the frozen form of a living intelligence, is the power that expands the potential of your life by raising the productivity of your time... every man is free to rise as far as he's able or willing, but its only teh degree to which he thinks that determines the degree to which he'll rise. Physical labor as such can extend no further than the range of the momment. the man who does no more than physical labor, consumes the material value-equivalent of his own contribution to the process of production, and leaves no further value, neither for himself nor others. But the man who produces an idea in a ny field of rational endeavor--- the man who discoevers new knowledge-- is teh permanent benefactor of humanity... It is only the value of an idea tha can be shared with unlimited numbers of men, making all shareers richer at no one's sacrifice or loss, raising the productive capacity of whateve labor they perform.

in proportion to the mental enrgy he spent, the man who creates a new invention recieves but a small percentage of his value in terms of material payment, no matter what forutne he makes no matter what millions he earns. But the man who works as a janitor in a the factory producing that invention, recieves an enormous paymetn in proportion to the mental effor his job require of HIM. And the same is true of all between, on all levels of ambition and ability. The man at the top fo theintellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below hm, but gets nothing except his material payment, recieving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receieves the bonus of all their brains. Such is the nature of the 'competition" between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of "exploitation" for which you have damned the strong. (atlas shrugged).



And their is your fault. You see material wealth as something you have to club someone for, not something that can be created.

"Their education is largely based on their birthright, which becomes a self-serving prophecy as entry into a higher class is unattainable because it is unaffordable"


The period of which there was the most class fluidity was also the time of the most laissez faire economics (early 19th america)


"People work under Socialism because they are paid, based their educational level, to do so"


And because if they don't, the government can use the moral blank check of Alturism to point a gun at them.


"Their wages are based on the 'accepted living standard,"


The minimal to survive and still produce. How you treat farm animals.



"Their education is largely based on their ability, as it is free and universal,"


LOL! How can education be discriminating (ie largely based on their ability) and still be universal?

"and through social welfare class distinctions are blurred"

The ignorant thought that you can steal the wealth of the rich and give to the poor and that will make them more productive memberrs of society is reminsicent of savages eating the bodies of their superiors to gain their strength. It works about as well too.


"The 'people' are as free as they ever were and more."

Free to be robbed by a beggar known as Common Good. Free to have no property rights. Free to die in the interest of the State.

[Section 8]

People are forced to work under capitalism. Current education is discriminating against the poor, as the rich are more likely to stay rich, while the poor are more likely to stay poor. Property?! Ah you mean the things stolen by the rich. Property just creates inequality. Die in the interest of the state?! Please offer something to back this up as this came right out of left field.

[RebelWithanAK]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (nature of reality,)
Yes there is, haven&#39;t you taken European History? The harvest/agrian culture that permeated Europe was highly collective and distributed everything based on need, which is the same driving force in Socialism.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>No, it merely kept them alive. It was hierarchical and ordained by people who had absolutely no sense of equality. After all, the &#39;people&#39; were their unwilling, unchangeable subordinates (hell, they avoided them so much they might as well have been a different freakin&#39; species) who could not move away, could not change their station, and had absolutely no liberties whatsoever.</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (nature of reality,)
which they themselves CONSENT to earn. If they disagree, they can try their own hand at business, or get a new job. They AGREE that they deserve that much.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Obviously you don&#39;t understand the concept of &#39;Industry Standard.&#39; Plutocrats want new people to join their class about as much as aristocrats before them - which is never. Now, by their very definition they control all industry, so where is the "new job" going to come from? And considering that the vast majority of the population is still living via wages from these few plutocrats, what chances do they ALL have of forming their own businesses? That&#39;s not really a universal solution, now is it?</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (nature of reality,)
The Benefit reaped by the poor from the rich cannot be understated. I doubt i can&#39;t explain it better than this so here goes. I highly suggest you read the entire book:<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Understated? You&#39;re DAMNED RIGHT it can&#39;t be understated. There IS NO BENEFIT. There is no state under that&#33;

Oh and, pray tell, what book?

[nature of reality]

Forced? Tell me, if I were in soviet russia and i said " I don&#39;t want to work anymore. I want to move to Canada" What would the response be?


Now if I tell my boss in America (even though we aren&#39;t as captilistic as we should be) " I don&#39;t want to work anymore. I want to move to Canada" What is his response gonna be?


If you think the power of the whip and the power of the dollar are interchangable, you should feel a whip across your back and see if you still agree.


Die in the interest of the state. The filthy code of death known as Altruism creates teh false creation of the Society as a Unit, which allows for "sacrifices". That is why wars are started by statist nations (various brands of communism, frankly there is not too much differnce between them) and not by capitalist countries. Its hard to make money when bombs blow up your buildings daily. But it sure is easy to loot.

[nature of reality]

Look up Rebel

[RebelWithanAK]

Like I&#39;m going to accept the word of Ayn Rand.</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (nature of reality,)
The period of which there was the most class fluidity was also the time of the most laissez faire economics (early 19th america)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Actually, you&#39;re wrong. The period is now.</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (nature of reality,)
And because if they don&#39;t, the government can use the moral blank check of Alturism to point a gun at them.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>The more you say that, the less I believe you understand what Altruism means.</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (nature of reality,)
The minimal to survive and still produce. How you treat farm animals.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>As compared to capitalism, where there is no minimum. How you treat slaves. Besides, this merely proves your inexperience with the concept of "minimum living standard."</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
LOL&#33; How can education be discriminating (ie largely based on their ability) and still be universal?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>It is universally available. Not everyone is up to being a doctor, but they&#39;re always welcome to try. This is the true meritocracy. This is not the case in Capitalism.

You still have yet to form a cohesive argument beyond your stated position: "socialism is theft."

[RebelWithanAK]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (nature of reality,)
Forced? Tell me, if I were in soviet russia and i said " I don&#39;t want to work anymore. I want to move to Canada" What would the response be?

Now if I tell my boss in America (even though we aren&#39;t as captilistic as we should be) " I don&#39;t want to work anymore. I want to move to Canada" What is his response gonna be?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>"Bye bye." You wouldn&#39;t even be able to afford a bus ticket over the border. Your only method of survival would be *gasp* socialist policies like Social Security and Welfare.</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (nature of reality,)
If you think the power of the whip and the power of the dollar are interchangable, you should feel a whip across your back and see if you still agree.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>You speak as one who has felt it. Not. The power is interchangeable, because the results are the same. Why whip you when he can simply withhold backpay? That&#39;s punishment enough.

Simply put, your concept of Socialism has very little relationship to what it is.

[nature of reality]

"Like I&#39;m going to accept the word of Ayn Rand"

blank-out. How typical of a irratinalist.



"The more you say that, the less I believe you understand what Altruism means."

Let me break it down for you. The government thinks its for the common good (crack babies, whatever) they take my money via taxes. Should i disagree, they will use force against me. A hidden gun, in the name of alturism. Did i break it down enough for ya?



"How you treat slaves"

yes because you treat a slave by allowing them to run away if they feel like it, or choose what they what to do, or just give them complete freedom to live their lives how they like. ???


"Plutocrats want new people to join their class about as much as aristocrats before them - which is never"

unlike filthy beucrats, the other members of the "industrial aristocracy (LOL&#33;)" have no say in how much i make. If i make a item for less with higher quality people will buy it. Then i can start other ventures. And each one makes EVERYONE RICHER. Because the people who i trade with gain the items, and i gainthe capital. That is why capitalism is soo foregin to you people, you can only see gain by stealing, rather then by creation.

Also, you view the same way a bout the "industrial aristocracy". You view that only 20 people can be rich, and the competition is between them. Tell me, are we richer then we were 200 years ago? and is that because a bunch of drunken savages spun wool, or because a few smart men discovered the spinning jenny, etc?