[Palmyrene]

@Palmyrene

You kidding right?
Each according to their ability.

To each according to their need.

As stated above, the concept of Islamic republic is a merger of the caliphate and western republicinism.

It doesn't resemble the Caliphate at all.

And Saudi Arabia only descended into absolute monarchy in the early 20th century, primarily after Ataturk abolished the Caliphate.

It was always a monarchy.

Look up what a warlord means.

I have.

Because they are ethnically cleansing Arabs in general.
Unless "ties to ISIS" means the Arabs in general.

Kicking out people with ties to Islamists isn't ethnic cleansing.

You kidding right?
Ethnically cleansing a part of the population on ethnic lines in pursuit of establishing an ethno-state, and the perception of all foreigners as threats and must be kicked out is not extreme?
Really?

I'm asking you why it's extreme.

Establishing a movement to take power in your own country and to purge that country of all things perceived by your ideology as corrupt, and destroying the country's social and political structures in its entirety to re-establish it on your own ideological frame is radical.

That just seems like regular modern state building. How is this radical?

[anasawad]

@Palmyrene

To each according to their need.

Yes, and?

Communism arranges people based on their contribution and rewards them in accordance.
Both statements fulfill each other.

This contradicts your claim that Communism is about classless society in general, it's about classless society in terms of material wealth not merit.

It doesn't resemble the Caliphate at all.

It does if you bothered reading the details.

It was always a monarchy.

The Saud movement is 300 years old and no it wasn't always a kingdom nor an absolute monarchy.

I have.

Then you know Islamist movements are not made up of warlords.

Kicking out people with ties to Islamists isn't ethnic cleansing.

Kicking out people of an ethnic minority in general is ethnic cleansing. They're just using ISIS as an excuse which is why even the US is looking into it.

I'm asking you why it's extreme.

Because it goes as far as using violence and ethnic cleansing to achieve a narrow view of nationalism in the form of an ethnostate.
That is extreme.

That just seems like regular modern state building. How is this radical?

No it's not.
Modern states evolved and are still evolving over prolonged periods of time.

It is radical to uproot an entire political and social system by force and build a new one from scratch by the very definition of radicalism.

[Palmyrene]

@Palmyrene

Yes, and?

Communism arranges people based on their contribution and rewards them in accordance.

No. From each according to their need means that you'll be given what you need and people will give based on the best of their ability.

It's a simple concept.

It does if you bothered reading the details.

I have.

The Saud movement is 300 years old and no it wasn't always a kingdom nor an absolute monarchy.

It was.

Then you know Islamist movements are not made up of warlords.

They are.

Kicking out people of an ethnic minority in general is ethnic cleansing. They're just using ISIS as an excuse which is why even the US is looking into it.

How do you know it's an excuse? And kicking out people of an ethnic minority in general isn't ethnic cleansing.

Because it goes as far as using violence and ethnic cleansing to achieve a narrow view of nationalism in the form of an ethnostate.
That is extreme.

How is that extreme?

No it's not.
Modern states evolved and are still evolving over prolonged periods of time.

No. Nation states are a very recent idea and concept.

It is radical to uproot an entire political and social system by force and build a new one from scratch by the very definition of radicalism.

They aren't though. Their entire idea is preserving existing social structure and reinforcing them not tearing them down.

[ingliz]

To each according to their need.

Wrong!

Socialism:

“He who does not work, neither shall he eat”... In this simple, elementary and perfectly obvious truth lies the basis of socialism, the indefeasible source of its strength.

V.I. Lenin, A Letter To The Workers Of Petrograd 22 May, 1918



‎

[Palmyrene]

Wrong!

Socialism:

“He who does not work, neither shall he eat”... In this simple, elementary and perfectly obvious truth lies the basis of socialism, the indefeasible source of its strength.

V.I. Lenin, A Letter To The Workers Of Petrograd 22 May, 1918



‎

Yeah I'm trusting Marx over Lenin.

Seems to me that there's some anarchism in there but even anarchism has a failsafe for collective needs.

[ingliz]

Yeah I'm trusting Marx over Lenin.

Socialism...

The principle: He who does not work, neither shall he eat.

The principle applied: From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.

[Palmyrene]

Socialism...

The principle: He who does not work, neither shall he eat.

The principle applied: From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.

You forgot "to each according to his need".

[ingliz]

You forgot "to each according to his need".

I haven't.

"To each according to his need" is not applicable in scarcity.

In the real world everything costs something and every resource is to some degree scarce.

Socialism is not communism.

[Palmyrene]

I haven't.

"To each according to his need" is not applicable in scarcity. In the real world everything costs something and every resource is to some degree scarce.

Socialism is not communism.

The point is that "to each according to their needs" is the ideal. It's what we should strive for and it's a good one at that.

What will happen to those who can't work? What will happen to the disabled, injured, or inable?

Humans and other intelligent species (like elephants for instance) put in the effort to take care of those who cannot keep up. They are capable of that sympathy.

If fucking elephants can do it then so can we.

[ingliz]

What will happen to those who can't work?

These groups would have a right to society's products because they were not at fault for their condition.

the ideal... what we should strive for

You cannot build castles in the air.

In the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) "bourgeois law" is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained, i.e., only in respect of the means of production. "Bourgeois law" recognizes them as the private property of individuals. Socialism converts them into common property. To that extent--and to that extent alone--"bourgeois law" disappears.

V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution

[Palmyrene]

These groups would have a right to society's products because they were not at fault for their condition.

Then how about essentials such as housing, food, water, electricity, etc. shared needs which concern everyone?

[ingliz]

how about essentials...

USSR (1937):

"The lowest paid Soviet worker – the entirely unskilled labourer – receives about 125 roubles a month. Rent, at two or three roubles a month, is a negligible part of his budget."

"the wife in such a Russian family would almost certainly be at work, earning not less than 125 roubles a month herself. Her children, if young, would be in a crêche all day where they would be looked after and well fed for a nominal payment. Russia does not allow under-nourished children."

“both husband and wife would probably be attached to some club where all kinds of amusements would be available virtually free of charge. They might obtain cheap meals at their place of work."

“The whole family would have a good chance of spending a week or more at some rest place in the country during the summer free of charge. Husband and wife would have complete security in their job. Every facility for education, the best of care during sickness without charge, and modest provision for old age would be their right."

“electricity, water and gas were… very cheap. One man I met was earning 225 roubles a month and paying only seven-tenths of a rouble for his electric light.”


* Paul Winterton, Russia – with open eyes, Lawrence & Wishart, London, 1937

[Palmyrene]

USSR (1937):

"The lowest paid Soviet worker – the entirely unskilled labourer – receives about 125 roubles a month. Rent, at two or three roubles a month, is a negligible part of his budget."

"the wife in such a Russian family would almost certainly be at work, earning not less than 125 roubles a month herself. Her children, if young, would be in a crêche all day where they would be looked after and well fed for a nominal payment. Russia does not allow under-nourished children."

“both husband and wife would probably be attached to some club where all kinds of amusements would be available virtually free of charge. They might obtain cheap meals at their place of work."

“The whole family would have a good chance of spending a week or more at some rest place in the country during the summer free of charge. Husband and wife would have complete security in their job. Every facility for education, the best of care during sickness without charge, and modest provision for old age would be their right."

“electricity, water and gas were… very cheap. One man I met was earning 225 roubles a month and paying only seven-tenths of a rouble for his electric light.”


* Paul Winterton, Russia – with open eyes, Lawrence & Wishart, London, 1937

They shouldn't be paying for that stuff at all but that's good. Alot better than I was expecting.