[BU] - Bundschuh

[Gryph]

Socialism (in this context) requires collective ownership of means of production and the instruments of power. In order to truly own something, one must have authority to control it: the collective therefore wields control over the instruments of power, e.g. the State. This is a democracy by definition.

You're confusing socialism (in this context) with communism, which specifies the abolition of private property and the government control of means of production, including labor.

It's an understandable error, since socialism and communism are often used as synonyms, despite the vast differences between them. But in stead of drawing conclusions based on a word, why don't you look at our stated goals? "The Bundschuh of today fights for such socialist reforms as workers' rights, free and fair elections (with the Bundschuh as a legal party), collective ownership of the means of production, and drastic reform of the legal system."

EDIT: note that socialism, like today's so-called market capitalism, is really a diminished form of market capitalism, in which people (are supposed to) use rational self-interest when making purchases, but collectives, rather than individuals, (are supposed to) use "rational group-interest" in making business decisions. The Invisible Hand still gets to work.

[Cawdor]

aye - just read the wikipedia article too.

but can u name ONE socialistic state (on earth;)) that has more then one party and/or free elections of the head-executive? i cant.

and beeing an academic doesnt necessarily mean to be democratic. on the other hand, you cant say someone who wasnt in college is a non-democrat.

€dit: so what i want to say is: "no gryph! bundschuh is evil! i fear you! " ;D

---

.

.

[Gryph]

I can't name one socialist state, period. Socialism didn't get far enough to stand on its own before communism became a world power, and socialists split, either towards communism (where they had the backing of the Soviet-backed world revolution) or towards reforming the capitalist states.

If one removes the requirement for collective ownership of the means of production, however, practically every EU country plus Canada fits the definition of a socialist country. Graduated income tax? Government healthcare? Democratic government? Legislation protecting workers & labor unions? From the point of view of the Bundschuh, which lives in a world designed to be reminiscent of 1800s Germany (where socialism and communism were born) we live in a world just shy of paradise.

EDIT: since I've demonstrated that, whether they are practically possible or not, our stated goals are at least internally consistent with our stated political philosophy, could we split this discussion to somewhere else? Possibly at von Gotteshand's 4:15 post? I feel bad cluttering up Sabas' thread with politics.

[beander2]

since I've demonstrated that, whether they are practically possible or not, our stated goals are at least internally consistent with our stated political philosophy, could we split this discussion to somewhere else?

Speaking for myself, I'm questioning whether they in fact are consistent. My issue is with Bundschuh-as-proposed, its tactics delineated in the original post, and its overall attitude toward power as indicated in your own. I'm not concerned with socialism, but rather with the regime that BU seeks to put into power. Please see my second-to-last post - I would be interested in BU's response.

Thanks much.

---

Sir Alisdair Buchanan, KBE ~ Gateway)Trafalgar

[Dopamino]

What about Sweden?

---

I mostly lurk around Media Center these days.

[Cawdor]

er... if you take the collective ownership out of it, its not called socialism anymore but social marked economy (in a democracy)

however, my point is that it never worked and poberbly will never work. and the fact that academics are trying to push something like that through here makes it sad in a way.

and dont get me wrong, im not blaming anyone here for something that you didnt make up (and that in the end really isnt that important) you did a really gread presentation and all.
but well ... aw screw it! ... this aint reality - and a bit of idealism wont hurt. but watch out you keep it democratic if you have the job done, or i will be sitting on those rocks to tax you traders!:D

damn - a socialistic star-nation reminds me off startrek in a way =/

Edit: naaa, dont split - i think we said about everything, did we? :unsure:

Edit2: sweden is a EU-member. it just doesnt use the €uro

---

.

.

[Gryph]

Speaking for myself, I'm questioning whether they in fact are consistent. My issue is with Bundschuh-as-proposed, its tactics delineated in the original post, and its overall attitude toward power as indicated in your own. I'm not concerned with socialism, but rather with the regime that BU seeks to put into power. Please see my second-to-last post - I would be interested in BU's response.

Thanks much.

Sure. Remember that I'm just a member, so I can't officially speak for the faction, but I'll do my best.

Will BU step aside? If it is a legal party and loses elections, what then?

If it were up to me, yes - and whatever provisional constitution we drew up would demand that we step down after a certain time or event, and, ideally, whatever final constitution was approved by a duly-elected government would also require fair and frequent elections. Obviously, politics are fickle, and power corrupts - but this is a risk no matter what.

Gryph states "If we get far enough to be a legal party, people will be inclined to do as we ask, because in order to get that far, people will have to be inclined to do as we ask." A new dictatorship in place of the current one? I thought, even in socialist democracy (which this advocates) they would be doing what the people asked...

I think I may have been unclear. A revolution succeeds because the revolutionaries and the people, who have been politically mobilized and are aware of the issues at stake, are in concert, working towards the same purpose. If the revolution succeeds, it succeeds because the people agree with the revolutionaries. Therefore, what the revolutionaries want and what the people want are the same (in the short term), and if the revolutionaries set up a provisional system, then throw their support behind (or transform into) a political party, the people are almost guaranteed (in the short term) to support that party. It's not a question of obedience, one way or the other, but of unanimity.

[Warbird]

Just wanted to post here and let everyone know that we're doing our job. We gave two [RM] a pretty good time today just off of New Berlin. Ran one off, and the other one got me while I was typing. Dunno what happened after that, but I knew he was in poor shape.

Activity has been good, and everyone is starting to get set up pretty well. I'm personally looking into investing in a Falcata bomber for a little more artillery. I'm pretty excited about the way things are looking for the Bundschuh. I hope we wind up as an official faction!

---

[mwerte]

Ok a couple of things.

1) I was chatting with one of your members learning your RP and he said "We're going to stop the Diamond Niobium run, we're not going to ask for tax, just blow traders up."

NO!! You have no idea how badly the admins will sanction you.

2) Don't yell at me because you don't like my style of fighting, even though it's not against server rules.

---

[Warbird]

Ok a couple of things.

1) I was chatting with one of your members learning your RP and he said "We're going to stop the Diamond Niobium run, we're not going to ask for tax, just blow traders up."

NO!! You have no idea how badly the admins will sanction you.

What in the world are you talking about?

Firstly, stopping the diamond niobium run will be great... but by server rules we can't just blow people up, unless they're Rheinland IDed. Dunno who you got that from.

2) Don't yell at me because you don't like my style of fighting, even though it's not against server rules.

Eh?

---