So has there at least ever been a successful

[FreeMan]

communist/socialist society in all of history where the population doesn't live to what we consider poverty?

You communist always talk about how well your system will work for all the common good (Whoever the hell this greater good is) but can you at least point to one example to where it actually has worked?

[LeninBalls]

The USSR till the 80s.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

First of all, welcome to RevLeft my friend. I hope you come to enjoy the debate.

Second, please look around before posting threads. I wouldn't normally say this, but there are like 5 running threads at the moment posing the exact same question.

[Plagueround]

That's a rather loaded question. First, you would have to compare living standards all over the world during the time in which most of these places were communist.
You would then need to come up with what "we" consider poverty, and then demonstrate that at any given time the standards of living were empirically and drastically lower than their capitalist counterparts. Once you had done that, you would also have to look at any and all factors that could influence that standard (what the standard was like pre-revolution, what natural resources and allies they had to work with, what outside forces from capitalist nations interfered, was there a point when the revolution was betrayed by abuse of power, etc.)

Once you've done that and can safely assert that communism never resulted in a rise out of poverty or that it never attained a standard of living above what we consider poverty, then perhaps you can better ask this question.

[FreeMan]

The USSR till the 80s.

I disagree, the USSR never made it to first world country conditions.


First of all, welcome to RevLeft my friend. I hope you come to enjoy the debate.

Thanks, sure I'll read on a little more.

[Jack]

As much as I absolutely HATE to defend the USSR or Leninists in general I have to speak up (I just argued with them for like an hour).

Russia was basically a 3rd world country in 1917, 80% of the population were still peasants. In defense of the Leninists, they did industrialize and build Russia quickl. Though they were brutal and I wouldn't consider them Socialists.

[Bright Banana Beard]

You can check for social revolution in Spain during the Spanish Civil War in the 1930's. It been crushed due to their limited supplies and infighting political struggle while the Spanish Falange got support from Estado Novo Portugal, Nazi Germany, and Fascist Italy.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I disagree, the USSR never made it to first world country conditions.

Why does a socialist country have to be compared to "first world standards" before it can be called successful? As if the whole "first world" ran along the same standards anyway.

[FreeMan]

Why does a socialist country have to be compared to "first world standards" before it can be called successful? As if the whole "first world" ran along the same standards anyway.

The way we describe things is by comparing them to something else. For example: We say a mouse is small because most other animals are bigger. We say a pretty girl is very pretty because most other girls aren't as pretty. We say life in the USA is great because most other countries have lower living conditions.

And how else are you going to claim that communism is superior then capitalism without comparison? Another thing, aren't we suppose to pick the government system that's best for all of us as a whole and individually? Shouldn't we pick one that rewards men for being successful and punishes them for being unsuccessful?

[#FF0000]

To say that communism failed because places with it weren't as well off as the U.S. or other capitalist countries are sort of assumes that these socialist states would have done better under capitalism, which you really can't say for sure. In the case of Cuba, for example, I can't imagine that place doing better with capitalism than with socialism. Universal literacy, amazing healthcare, and people tripping over doctors wherever they go.


Another thing, aren't we suppose to pick the government system that's best for all of us as a whole and individually? Shouldn't we pick one that rewards men for being successful and punishes them for being unsuccessful?

Sure, but capitalism doesn't do that. In theory it's supposed to, but it certainly doesn't pan out that way.

I would say that we should have a system that ensures the people who do the work get control over the product of their labor. I think that's better than a system that puts people in the poorhouse for taking out the wrong kind of mortgage while the people who pushed it are living large.

[Plagueround]

The way we describe things is by comparing them to something else. For example: We say a mouse is small because most other animals are bigger.

Indeed, but this is not subjective.


We say a pretty girl is very pretty because most other girls aren't as pretty.This is highly subjective.


We say life in the USA is great because most other countries have lower living conditions.As is this.


And how else are you going to claim that communism is superior then capitalism without comparison?Well, most of us here are of mind that those countries never really followed what it was supposed to be about, so the comparison is not an entirely fair one. I don't know if it's logical to say one always needs a comparison if the idea has not yet existed. Certainly this would limit inventing new things quite a bit. "Hey, I've got this idea for an oven that uses microwaves to cook food really fast."
"But dude, how can we know that's better without a comparison?"


Another thing, aren't we suppose to pick the government system that's best for all of us as a whole and individually?I'd tend to agree. But that's also subjective.


Shouldn't we pick one that rewards men for being successful and punishes them for being unsuccessful?Just men? Sounds like your system sucks already. I don't see much of a reason to base an entire system on a sole punishment and reward principle. Certainly we've advanced to the point where we can do better.

[Tjis]

Shouldn't we pick one that rewards men for being successful and punishes them for being unsuccessful?
So what's succesful? What's unsuccesful?
The kid who was born in a bankers family, went to private school, inherited a big lot of money and used this to start an investment firm would be considered succesful in our society.
The kid who was born in a poor family, had to drop out of highschool to work in order to make ends meet for his family, dying early from exhaustion would be considered unsuccesful.

Only in rare cases does someone from a working class background manage to become upper class. Most of the upper class is upper class because their parents were so.

Is this fair? Is this truely the system you desire for the rest of your life?

[FreeMan]

So what's succesful? What's unsuccesful?

Its not so black and white. There are degrees.

The kid who was born in a bankers family, went to private school, inherited a big lot of money and used this to start an investment firm would be considered succesful in our society.

He wouldn't for that reason. It all depends on the success of his business.


The kid who was born in a poor family, had to drop out of highschool to work in order to make ends meet for his family, dying early from exhaustion would be considered unsuccesful.

This is rare in a successful capitlist (party capitalist) country like America.

Only in rare cases does someone from a working class background manage to become upper class. Most of the upper class is upper class because their parents were so.

Whatever the case in a capitlist country a rich person can become poor and a poor person can become rich. And its not rare for a poor person to become rich. I could name 5 of them of the top of my head.

I look at the poor and I see a lot of drunks, drug users and low lifes too. Aren't they getting what they deserve?

Is this fair? Is this truely the system you desire for the rest of your life?

Yes it is. Capitalism is the engine behind human development and technological advancement. I just don't want a system where we are force to take care of our fellow man. That's enslavement.

[Jack]

So what's succesful? What's unsuccesful?

Its not so black and white. There are degrees.

The kid who was born in a bankers family, went to private school, inherited a big lot of money and used this to start an investment firm would be considered succesful in our society.

He wouldn't for that reason. It all depends on the success of his business.


The kid who was born in a poor family, had to drop out of highschool to work in order to make ends meet for his family, dying early from exhaustion would be considered unsuccesful.

This is rare in a successful capitlist (party capitalist) country like America.

Only in rare cases does someone from a working class background manage to become upper class. Most of the upper class is upper class because their parents were so.

Whatever the case in a capitlist country a rich person can become poor and a poor person can become rich. And its not rare for a poor person to become rich. I could name 5 of them of the top of my head.

I look at the poor and I see a lot of drunks, drug users and low lifes too. Aren't they getting what they deserve?

Is this fair? Is this truely the system you desire for the rest of your life?

Yes it is. Capitalism is the engine behind human development and technological advancement. I just don't want a system where we are force to take care of our fellow man. That's enslavement.

What class are you for starters? What class were/are your parents?

When was the last time you had anything to do with the working class? My mother busted her ass in a factory 8 months pregnant and almost lost her job because of it. Thousands of working people die from accidents working for bourgeois interests every year, and is it okay that the US eports its labor to 2rd world nations where these things happen? They would still be happening here without the minimal welfare state.

What was there first, the drugs or the poverty?

You would rather be enslaved to a capitalist then do your part to improve society? How is Capitalism responsible for technological advacnement? Does that mean everything invented under the Taft administration is because of the policies of the Taft administration? Because that's what you're implying.

Take your bourgeois nonsense elsewhere.

[Tjis]

The kid who was born in a bankers family, went to private school, inherited a big lot of money and used this to start an investment firm would be considered succesful in our society.

He wouldn't for that reason. It all depends on the success of his business.
But he could start that business in the first place because he inherited money and had useful contacts through his family. This is a huge advantage over others.


The kid who was born in a poor family, had to drop out of highschool to work in order to make ends meet for his family, dying early from exhaustion would be considered unsuccesful.

This is rare in a successful capitlist (party capitalist) country like America.
This is not rare at all. Most people born in a poor family stay poor. How else can you explain that the upper class is so much smaller than the working class? If it was a rare thing and people were living the american dream all the time, the upper class would be huge. But it's not.


Only in rare cases does someone from a working class background manage to become upper class. Most of the upper class is upper class because their parents were so.

Whatever the case in a capitlist country a rich person can become poor and a poor person can become rich. And its not rare for a poor person to become rich. I could name 5 of them of the top of my head. And for every one you can name there are millions who were never as succesful. I'm not saying it doesn't happen in exceptional cases where someone is gifted with great skills and luck, but I'm saying it doesn't happen very often.

I look at the poor and I see a lot of drunks, drug users and low lifes too. Aren't they getting what they deserve?
May I ask what background you come from? You seem to think all poor people are hobo's or something. This is not true. The majority of the poor are hard working people, working for low wages for a boss who sells the products of their labor for big profits.


Is this fair? Is this truely the system you desire for the rest of your life?

Yes it is. Capitalism is the engine behind human development and technological advancement. I just don't want a system where we are force to take care of our fellow man. That's enslavement.
We are already a force to take care of others. The working class has to take care of a class who do little to no work: our bosses, the bankers, the investers. They force us to take care of them, the only reason being that they own the means of production.

[FreeMan]

I
Well, most of us here are of mind that those countries never really followed what it was supposed to be about, so the comparison is not an entirely fair one. I don't know if it's logical to say one always needs a comparison if the idea has not yet existed. Certainly this would limit inventing new things quite a bit. "Hey, I've got this idea for an oven that uses microwaves to cook food really fast."
"But dude, how can we know that's better without a comparison?"


I could also claim the same thing and say, my idea, capitalism on its purest form has never existed. However first world countries like the United States have practice something close to lazzie fariy capitalism and have obviously been quite successful as compared to other countries.

Societies have tried having socialism/communism on a national scale and have failed miserably. Then you go on and say "Well it wasn't really a communist/society because so and so and such and such..."




Just men? Sounds like your system sucks already. I don't see much of a reason to base an entire system on a sole punishment and reward principle. Certainly we've advanced to the point where we can do better.

You're system rewards failure and punishes successful. That in it of itself is preposterous.

[Jack]

[quote=FreeMan;1386567]I could also claim the same thing and say, my idea, capitalism on its purest form has never existed. However first world countries like the United States have practice something close to lazzie fariy capitalism and have obviously been quite successful as compared to other countries.

In 1879 Standard Oil had a near monopoly, controlling 90% of all oil.

But yeah, deregulation doesn't cause monopolies :laugh:

[mykittyhasaboner]

The way we describe things is by comparing them to something else. For example: We say a mouse is small because most other animals are bigger. We say a pretty girl is very pretty because most other girls aren't as pretty. We say life in the USA is great because most other countries have lower living conditions.
Wow, OK I'll try and roll with this. :rolleyes:

Your ignorant of the historical conditions of development which play a deterministic factor in the development of both the US and the CCCP respectively. The US is an advanced capitalist state that has far reaching colonialist/imperialist influence which has developed since the late 18th century. The vast amount of wealth that the US bourgeois holds comes from the exploitation of millions of workers in their own country as well as abroad. You say "life is great in America, as opposed to other countries", but you fail to understand that this comes at a terrible price. While life might be great in America for some, the overwhelming majority is either just making it by, or are in utter poverty and destitution.

As late as the early 20th century, Russia was largely backward by European standards, and was ruled by an archaic feudal empire. Following the October revolution, the new Russian workers state was faced with the task of rebuilding their infrastructure after WWI/Civil War. In the after math of war, the Soviet planned economy proved to be innovative and effective after economically revolutionizing the entire country while the rest of the world was stuck in the Great Depression. The same process followed after the devastation of WWII, and yet the Soviet economy was still "catching up" to the "west" at a phenomenal rate. Th SU was able to withstand the Civil War, and the Eastern Front of WWII (the largest most destructive conflict in history) and revolutionized the lives of people spanning almost an entire continent.

While we could compare the two, on simplistic black and white terms like you suggest, I feel that would be utterly inaccurate.


And how else are you going to claim that communism is superior then capitalism without comparison?Well I'm not saying we can't compare them, I just think its one sided to say that just because the SU didn't achieve the same amount of wealth that the US did, means that they arent successful. Former socialist countries have provided social programs that were unmatched by their capitalist counterparts (and are still in practice in Cuba). While western imperialists generated more wealth (by hyper-exploitation, war, expansionism/colonialsim etc), socialist countries focused on developing their economies and enhancing worker's power and control of the means of production.



Another thing, aren't we suppose to pick the government system that's best for all of us as a whole and individually?You strike me as naive. Sure lets just pick a system and see how it works? :lol:


Shouldn't we pick one that rewards men for being successful and punishes them for being unsuccessful?
This idea that capitalism is some expression of fairness, that it separates the "strong" from the "weak", the "successful" and "unsuccessful" is laughable.

[Plagueround]

I could also claim the same thing and say, my idea, capitalism on its purest form has never existed.

Actually, they have, and they've been disasters. When this is pointed out, people usually go on and say "Well it wasn't really capitalist/free market because so and so and such and such..."


However first world countries like the United States have practice something close to lazzie fariy capitalism and have obviously been quite successful as compared to other countries.

You do know how they got that advantage right? Do you know why many of the countries that we consider third world got that way?


You're system rewards failure and punishes successful. That in it of itself is preposterous.

And what is my system exactly? Have you been browsing my posts? Once you can tell me what the inherent flaws in my system are and how they don't reward hard work and reward those who don't work, perhaps we can better debate this subject. As it stands, the system you seem to admire is one that rewards exploitation of hard work and punishes people for doing that work.

[Jack]

Capitalism and Fascism both have their roots in the idea of Social Darwinism.

[FreeMan]

But he could start that business in the first place because he inherited money and had useful contacts through his family. This is a huge advantage over others.

Life is not fair and people aren't equal. Yes the person from the rich family probably has a better education and all the advantages in the world.

However it is possible for the person at the bottom to start of his own business. There have been many examples of this happening.


This is not rare at all. Most people born in a poor family stay poor. How else can you explain that the upper class is so much smaller than the working class? If it was a rare thing and people were living the american dream all the time, the upper class would be huge. But it's not.

Look at poor Americans. Many if not most of them are fat, own a cell phone, have their own car, have a TV/DVD, have internet access and they could get at least a 6 dollar an hour job if they tried hard enough.

Billions of people all over the world making 2 dollars a day would wish to have this things. They don't even have clean water and enough food to eat.

And for every one you can name there are millions who were never as succesful. I'm not saying it doesn't happen in exceptional cases where someone is gifted with great skills and luck, but I'm saying it doesn't happen very often.

Not everyone is meant to be a billionaire. However this are the people that give you jobs, a means to earn money and make a living, and inexpensive products you use everyday. Everything you own right now was made possible though them. They are the brains behind making it possible.

May I ask what background you come from? You seem to think all poor people are hobo's or something. This is not true. The majority of the poor are hard working people, working for low wages for a boss who sells the products of their labor for big profits.

Sure, I come from a poor family and a poor neighborhood. A lot of the people I see are drunks who litter their front lawns with beers and I see a lot of mothers with many kids who live of the government. A lot of this people are also driving around in big shiny SUVs with shiny chrom 20 inch rims.

We are already a force to take care of others. The working class has to take care of a class who do little to no work: our bosses, the bankers, the investers. They force us to take care of them, the only reason being that they own the means of production.

No they are not forcing us. We can quite their jobs whenever we want to. There are other options. Most people that are not poor actually do quite a bit of work themselves. I don't knwo the working hapbits of rich people but to say they got on there by not working is very inaccurate. Furthermore I don't believe you get rich by just being lucky.

[#FF0000]

Capitalism and Fascism both have their roots in the idea of Social Darwinism.

No they don't. Not capitalism at least. Social Darwinism came much, much later.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I could also claim the same thing and say, my idea, capitalism on its purest form has never existed.
Capitalism "in its purest form" doesn't exist. Capital is influenced by the material conditions of society, just like everything else. So the "purity" of capitalism varies from country to country.


However first world countries like the United States have practice something close to lazzie fariy capitalism and have obviously been quite successful as compared to other countries. The US practices something close to laissez faire? Now I'm sure that you have absolutely no idea what your talking about.


Societies have tried having socialism/communism on a national scale and have failed miserably. Then you go on and say "Well it wasn't really a communist/society because so and so and such and such..."I would like for you to prove why you think "they failed miserably". Is providing health care, guaranteed employment, free education etc failures? There were many achievements made by socialist revolutions, you just choose to see one side of the story. For example, did you know that women gained suffrage in the Russian SFR in 1918, 2 years before women in the US had the right to vote?




You're system rewards failure and punishes successful. That in it of itself is preposterous.Your delusional, what evidence do you have to suggest this?

[Jack]

You're right, i should have said they both are kinds of it.

Don't judge me, it's 11:30 and I have work in the morning.

[FreeMan]

[quote=FreeMan;1386567]I could also claim the same thing and say, my idea, capitalism on its purest form has never existed. However first world countries like the United States have practice something close to lazzie fariy capitalism and have obviously been quite successful as compared to other countries.

In 1879 Standard Oil had a near monopoly, controlling 90% of all oil.

But yeah, deregulation doesn't cause monopolies :laugh:

Whats wrong with monopolies? WalMart and Microsoft I am sure have huge monopolies on their field. Have they over all caused us more harm then good? Are they an inconvenience to all of us?

[Jack]

I smell alot of bullshit coming from FreeMan.

Anti working class rhetoric coming from working class people only ever comes from fascists and racists.

[Jack]

[quote=Jack;1386569]

Whats wrong with monopolies? WalMart and Microsoft I am sure have huge monopolies on their field. Have they over all caused us more harm then good? Are they an inconvenience to all of us?

They run small businesses out for one thing. They reduce competition which then lets them raise prices.

Watch: Wal-Mart The High Cost of Low Prices.

[FreeMan]

The US practices something close to laissez faire? Now I'm sure that you have absolutely no idea what your talking about.

I believe the US has practice something that is the closes to Capitalism. Capitalism I believe was born in the United States on a national level. Our forefathers knew that the smaller the government we had the better of we would be and they were right! Thus they gave us a government whoch regulates like IE FREE MARKET/CAPITLISM/FREEDOM!!

I would like for you to prove why you think "they failed miserably". Is providing health care, guaranteed employment, free education etc failures? There were many achievements made by socialist revolutions, you just choose to see one side of the story. For example, did you know that women gained suffrage in the Russian SFR in 1918, 2 years before women in the US had the right to vote?

I think socialism and communism have failured miserably because many societies have tried such systems but have failed unless you can point to a successful one which-is-the-whole-point-of-this-thread.

Our public education, (highly influence by liberal ideology I want to add) sucks. I don't remember kids ever been any dumber. Private schools are much better and it cost half as much to educate kids.

And I haven't heard that many good things from free health care either. Healthcare in the United States is expensive because Hospitals threat a lot of people for free in emergencies and are force to charge paying customers high rates. So we do have a form of social heath care.


Your delusional, what evidence do you have to suggest this?

[FreeMan]

[quote=FreeMan;1386588]

They run small businesses out for one thing. They reduce competition which then lets them raise prices.

Watch: Wal-Mart The High Cost of Low Prices.

Walmart does cost a small minority their business but it also gives the majority inexpensive useful products. They don't have walmarts in shitty countries you know.

No, Wal-Mart has never been that expensive or has never made life impossible.

WalMart shouldn't be punish for being successful nor sould small business be rewarded for being unsuccessful.

[FreeMan]

I smell alot of bullshit coming from FreeMan.

Anti working class rhetoric coming from working class people only ever comes from fascists and racists.



U knwo I am sure there are poor people who aren't drunk or druggies.

But I am freakin tired of all those poor people who are drunks, druggies, mommies with 10 kids, gangsters, and high school drop outs who are cheating the system here in the United Sates.

I am not pointing at any race, all the races have this problem.



There is nothing fascists or racist about free trade.

[#FF0000]

But he could start that business in the first place because he inherited money and had useful contacts through his family. This is a huge advantage over others.

Life is not fair and people aren't equal. Yes the person from the rich family probably has a better education and all the advantages in the world.


The "life's not fair and people aren't equal" bit isn't an argument. It's a conclusion that you never made an argument for.


However it is possible for the person at the bottom to start of his own business. There have been many examples of this happening. Bad argument. Is slavery any less barbaric if a slave is able to work his or her way up to being a slavemaster?


Look at poor Americans. Many if not most of them are fat, own a cell
phone, have their own car, have a TV/DVD, have internet access and they could get at least a 6 dollar an hour job if they tried hard enough.

Billions of people all over the world making 2 dollars a day would wish to have this things. They don't even have clean water and enough food to eat. The obesity has more to do with malnutrition than having lots and lots of healthy food to eat. The poor in particular are so fat because the cheapest food available is loaded with empty calories. It's malnutrition all the same.

Even so, you're talking about a minority. You mention that there are billion that don't have these benefits. Are you suggesting that is because of socialism? It isn't, boyo. It's a result of imperialism. Imperialism the U.S. may or may not have had a hand in.


Not everyone is meant to be a billionaire. However this are the people that give you jobs, a means to earn money and make a living, and inexpensive products you use everyday. Everything you own right now was made possible though them. They are the brains behind making it possible. So what? Again, this is a conclusion and not an argument. In any case, the boss might have the idea, but you can't will something into production. The fact of the matter is that the workers are the people who actually do the producing. If you think that isn't as important, feel free to try to will a car for yourself into existance.


Sure, I come from a poor family and a poor neighborhood. A lot of the people I see are drunks who litter their front lawns with beers and I see a lot of mothers with many kids who live of the government. A lot of this people are also driving around in big shiny SUVs with shiny chrom 20 inch rims.
1) I think you're lying.
2) Anecdotal evidence ain't shit in a debate, bro.
3) Do you wonder why they are like this? Is it because they are born like this? They're just lazy? They WANT to be like this? No. Someone who looks at the world scientifically could tell you that people are the way they are for a reason. That looks like the behavior of someone who just lost hope of any long-term improvement, and so they turn to alcohol and buy things they can't really afford.


No they are not forcing us. We can quite their jobs whenever we want to. There are other options. Most people that are not poor actually do quite a bit of work themselves. I don't knwo the working hapbits of rich people but to say they got on there by not working is very inaccurate. Furthermore I don't believe you get rich by just being lucky.
We can quit, then we can starve. Or find another job. Either way we MUST sell our labor for the profit of a boss. There is no choice.

And, sure, bosses might work hard. So do workers, though. So why should bosses get so much more than the workers? Okay. Bosses work hard with the desk work and the logistics, but without the workers, there would be no product, so why isn't their work worth more? Especially when workers are the first to suffer when the boss makes a mistake.

So, why is the work of the boss worth so much more, when the workers actually make the product.

[#FF0000]

U knwo I am sure there are poor people who aren't drunk or druggies.

But I am freakin tired of all those poor people who are drunks, druggies, mommies with 10 kids, gangsters, and high school drop outs who are cheating the system here in the United Sates.

I am not pointing at any race, all the races have this problem.



There is nothing fascists or racist about free trade.

How can anyone, in the midst of this financial crisis, believe that someone who cheats welfare (which is a RARE occurrence if you actually look up the numbers) is such a problem, when we have corporate criminals whose actions threatened to completely demolish our financial system.\

Besides, the people you are talking about are the result of their environment. If you don't want them to be like that, then, uh, get rid of the conditions that make people like that.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I believe the US has practice something that is the closes to Capitalism. Capitalism I believe was born in the United States on a national level. Our forefathers knew that the smaller the government we had the better of we would be and they were right! Thus they gave us a government whoch regulates like IE FREE MARKET/CAPITLISM/FREEDOM!!
It's not a question of whether you believe the US is capitalist or not; you said that the US practices something close to a lassiez-faire economy, which is FAR from the truth. You offer no argument in your reply.


I think socialism and communism have failured miserably because many societies have tried such systems but have failed unless you can point to a successful one which-is-the-whole-point-of-this-thread.You just refuse to listen don't you. I told you how the SU succeed in carrying out a revolution which brought economic growth that was unheard of anywhere before. If you want to use socialist states still in exisitence then fine; Cuba is a shining example of the potential of working class control.

Our public education, (highly influence by liberal ideology I want to add) sucks. I don't remember kids ever been any dumber. Private schools are much better and it cost half as much to educate kids.You have no idea what your talking about. If we use Cuba as an example, we see that universal education is highly effective. In a 2002 cencus, it was reported that 99.8 percent of the population is fully literate.

You like to talk about how great private schools are, but most families cannot afford private education. Private education is also flawed because the school itself can decide the curriculuim of their students, which can be detrimental to a child's education. For example, most private school students are taught creationsim and christianity instead of scientific concepts and history.


And I haven't heard that many good things from free health care either. Healthcare in the United States is expensive because Hospitals threat a lot of people for free in emergencies and are force to charge paying customers high rates. So we do have a form of social heath care.
No, you probably just refuse to hear good things about universal health care. But in any case, I'll show you some good things.

- Cuba leads the way in HIV fight (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2003/denver_2003/2770631.stm)

- Why Cuba is training American doctors (http://members.allstream.net/%7Edchris/CubaFAQ409.html)

- Cuba and biotechnology (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/30/cuba.businessofresearch)

The life expectnacy of Cubans is the same as most Americans, that is, the ones who can actually afford health care. God forbid we humble Americans treat deadbeats with no insurance. :rolleyes:

[Tjis]

First of all, please learn to quote. There's a button in the bottom right corner of every post you can click. It makes things much more readable.

Now to your post.

Life is not fair and people aren't equal. Yes the person from the rich family probably has a better education and all the advantages in the world.

However it is possible for the person at the bottom to start of his own business. There have been many examples of this happening.
I said this before. Sure there are examples of this happening, but they are few compared to the many who don't manage to do this.


Look at poor Americans. Many if not most of them are fat, own a cell phone, have their own car, have a TV/DVD, have internet access and they could get at least a 6 dollar an hour job if they tried hard enough.

Billions of people all over the world making 2 dollars a day would wish to have this things. They don't even have clean water and enough food to eat. Ah it's funny you mention people making 2 dollars a day. They are in fact the reason americans can own a cell phone, have a car, a tv, internet, etc. Much of the improvements in conditions for the working class in the west (not just america) are thanks to the fact that much of the exploitation is being moved to the so-called 3rd world.

About people being fat, unhealthy food is way more cheap than healthy stuff.


Not everyone is meant to be a billionaire. However this are the people that give you jobs, a means to earn money and make a living, and inexpensive products you use everyday. Everything you own right now was made possible though them. They are the brains behind making it possible. No. Everything we own right now was made possible by the labor of countless of workers through history. The contribution of the billionaire is merely that he owns the means of production.
Inventions aren't made by billionaires. Machines aren't built by billionaires. Cellphones, cars, tv's aren't being assembled by billionaires. All this is done by working class people.
Billionaires give us jobs you say. But they can only do this because they own the means of production. Things like land and machines. There's a limited amount of this stuff around. If you want it, you'll have to buy it from someone who has it. Because this is not an option for the vast majority, they have to work for the people that do have means of production in order to make ends meet. This is exploitation because what they get in return of their labor is less than they contributed.

Which brings us to this (I'm shifting some answers here):

No they are not forcing us. We can quite their jobs whenever we want to. There are other options.They aren't forcing us at gunpoint, but we don't have much choice. Contrary to what you seem to think, living off wellfare isn't all that great.


Most people that are not poor actually do quite a bit of work themselves. I don't knwo the working hapbits of rich people but to say they got on there by not working is very inaccurate.Oh, I don't say they don't do any work at all. They are probably very busy managing their factories, watching their stocks rise and fall, etc. But the money they get is the money that's left after the produce of their factory (or whatever it is they're leading) has been sold and their workers have been paid a fraction of the profit. The money they get is money they did not work for.


Furthermore I don't believe you get rich by just being lucky. believe whatever you like, it doesn't change the facts. Unlike what you seem to think, just having a good idea isn't enough. You need capital, labor, and usually also natural resources in order to start a business. And most people don't have that. So you need to be lucky, have the right contacts, meet someone willing to invest in your project, and then you need to pray for its success, because if your invention fails, you're screwed.


Sure, I come from a poor family and a poor neighborhood. A lot of the people I see are drunks who litter their front lawns with beers and I see a lot of mothers with many kids who live of the government. A lot of this people are also driving around in big shiny SUVs with shiny chrom 20 inch rims. Well I'm not from the states, but over here, if you have a front lawn and an SUV, you're not poor.

[FreeMan]

The "life's not fair and people aren't equal" bit isn't an argument. It's a conclusion that you never made an argument for.

Life is not fair and people not being equal to each other are FACTS.

Bad argument. Is slavery any less barbaric if a slave is able to work his or her way up to being a slavemaster?

Slaves are people who are forced to work (usually under a wipe per say) and can't quite their jobs. A person making 6.00 an our isn't a slave.
The obesity has more to do with malnutrition than having lots and lots of healthy food to eat. The poor in particular are so fat because the cheapest food available is loaded with empty calories. It's malnutrition all the same.

Well then they should buy better food then. Its obvious that they will end up being able to afford less food if they buy healthier type which is what they need to do anyways in order to eat less.

Adults and not society are responsible for what they shove down their throats.

Even so, you're talking about a minority. You mention that there are billion that don't have these benefits. Are you suggesting that is because of socialism? It isn't, boyo. It's a result of imperialism. Imperialism the U.S. may or may not have had a hand in.

No, the US is not the cause of poverty around the world nor is capitalism. The cause of a problem vary from country to country. And Africa isn't poor just because some US company wants to buy rubber from there.

So what? Again, this is a conclusion and not an argument. In any case, the boss might have the idea, but you can't will something into production. The fact of the matter is that the workers are the people who actually do the producing. If you think that isn't as important, feel free to try to will a car for yourself into existance.

Usually workers are paid accordingly. If you're a box packager or someone who works pushing the same button over and over or a ditch digger you will be more then likely paid little because your job requires little skill.

But if your some computer chip engineer or some computer operator for a car manufacture you will be paid a lot better.

3) Do you wonder why they are like this? Is it because they are born like this? They're just lazy? They WANT to be like this? No. Someone who looks at the world scientifically could tell you that people are the way they are for a reason. That looks like the behavior of someone who just lost hope of any long-term improvement, and so they turn to alcohol and buy things they can't really afford.

If they give up the will to keep trying hard and turn to drugs for whatever reason thats their choice and society shouldn't be paying for their problems.

Only a weak minded individual would think they are a product of their society vs thinking that YOU MAKE YOURSELF YOUR OWN PRODUCT.

We can quit, then we can starve. Or find another job. Either way we MUST sell our labor for the profit of a boss. There is no choice.

You can grow food to or save up enough money to start a business. Or if you really had any balls people would form their own society, be it communist or capitalist. Either way I hate hearing excuses the rich people aren't responsible for the poor.

And, sure, bosses might work hard. So do workers, though. So why should bosses get so much more than the workers? Okay. Bosses work hard with the desk work and the logistics, but without the workers, there would be no product, so why isn't their work worth more? Especially when workers are the first to suffer when the boss makes a mistake.

Because workers are using their muscle to work and that takes little to no brain power. Bosses are using their minds to work and brain power cost more. People in capitlist societies get paid in accordance to how much their skill labor is worth.

So, why is the work of the boss worth so much more, when the workers actually make the product.

Anyone can be a ditch digger or a burger flipper. Such skills are easy to learn and that is what they cost little to hire.

It takes a lot more to be able to run a business let alone a huge corporation. Another thing, if a person owns a business he has the right to make whatever he wants to make (provided he can ofcourse) and a person can sell his labor for as little or as much as he wishes provided the other party agrees to it though.

Everything under capitalism happens on a MUTUAL VOLUNTARY CONSENSUAL bases. You don't force anyone to pay you X and you don't force anyone to work for X. Shit is agreed upon.

[Plagueround]

Everything under capitalism happens on a MUTUAL VOLUNTARY CONSENSUAL bases. You don't force anyone to pay you X and you don't force anyone to work for X. Shit is agreed upon.


Doesn't that company you were defending earlier constantly get sued for abusing it's workers? Making them work past their shifts with no overtime, work without a break, come in on days off or get fired? And what of all the horrible sweatshops owned and operated by capitalists? If that's an example of volunteerism, you scare me.

Inb4 : If they don't like it they can get a new job blah blah blah

[FreeMan]

It's not a question of whether you believe the US is capitalist or not; you said that the US practices something close to a lassiez-faire economy, which is FAR from the truth. You offer no argument in your reply.

You're right, we don't follow anything close to pure capitalism. Our system is getting to clogged up with all this socialist big government burocrates who punish big money and give tax breaks to people who don't even pay taxes.

You just refuse to listen don't you. I told you how the SU succeed in carrying out a revolution which brought economic growth that was unheard of anywhere before. If you want to use socialist states still in exisitence then fine; Cuba is a shining example of the potential of working class control.

Cuba sucks big time. Untill recently, before that tyrant Castro died, Cubans couldn't even own a cell phone, TV, or have a computer and they also don't have free speech.

Cuba can't even make enough food to feed itself. ANother thing, they have to depend on capitlist countries for food and medical supplies. People are fleeing this country. They were also depending a lot on Russia before Russia's collapse.

You have no idea what your talking about. If we use Cuba as an example, we see that universal education is highly effective. In a 2002 cencus, it was reported that 99.8 percent of the population is fully literate.

They are still poor and they are still driving cars from the 70s.

You like to talk about how great private schools are, but most families cannot afford private education. Private education is also flawed because the school itself can decide the curriculuim of their students, which can be detrimental to a child's education. For example, most private school students are taught creationsim and christianity instead of scientific concepts and history.

I am an atheist myself but whatever they are doing to teach this kids is sure a lot better then the public 'education' American kids get.


No, you probably just refuse to hear good things about universal health care. But in any case, I'll show you some good things.

- Cuba leads the way in HIV fight

- Why Cuba is training American doctors

- Cuba and biotechnology

I hope they find the AIDS cure. I doubt they will though. Cuba is too small and too poor to accomphish anything of any significance.

The life expectnacy of Cubans is the same as most Americans, that is, the ones who can actually afford health care. God forbid we humble Americans treat deadbeats with no insurance.

Well yeah dude. Those fuckers don't have fast food or fatty food like we do. So things kinda balance out.

[Plagueround]

Cuba sucks big time. Untill recently, before that tyrant Castro died,


Also. El oh el.

[FreeMan]

Doesn't that company you were defending earlier constantly get sued for abusing it's workers? Making them work past their shifts with no overtime, work without a break, come in on days off or get fired? And what of all the horrible sweatshops owned and operated by capitalists? If that's an example of volunteerism, you scare me.

Inb4 : If they don't like it they can get a new job blah blah blah

They are pretty big. Probably in the hundreds of billions in capital big. Either way You can't except an elephant not to bump into a few things when it moves.

I wonder how many of the poor workers who are obviously the victims actually get away when they cheat or steal from the company? You always hear about the big capitalist and big shots doing bad things huh? Do you ever hear about poor little people doing bad things?

I'd love to see the day when I hear Jobless Mother gets caught using heroine while having more babies to get more welfare!

[#FF0000]

Pretty bad arguments here...


Life is not fair and people not being equal to each other are FACTS.

So you have no argument. Gotcha.

For what it's worth, the fact that things aren't fair and people aren't equal is completely irrelevant. Life not being fair isn't a good reason NOT to fight injustice, and the fact that people aren't the same is something Marx even talked about in "Critique of the Gotha Programme".


Slaves are people who are forced to work (usually under a wipe per say) and can't quite their jobs. A person making 6.00 an our isn't a slave.They are forced to work, though. If these people do not sell their labor, they can't really live, can they? Oh sure they could start a business... Where people are forced to sell their labor as well... Hmm.

Well then they should buy better food then. Its obvious that they will end up being able to afford less food if they buy healthier type which is what they need to do anyways in order to eat less.

Adults and not society are responsible for what they shove down their throats.
Ah you say it as if that is so easy. Sorry, boyo. It's not as simple as trading quantity for quality. I don't know if you've gone grocery shopping lately, but it is not easy to feed a family of four a healthy diet on minimum wage. Not to mention, most healthy food requires that time be spent in its preperation, which is not always possible when people work one, or multipe jobs.

Society isn't responsible for what people eat? So if there's massive crop failure, it's the individuals fault that they don't have produce? I can't believe there are people out there that don't see a connection between the individual and society.


No, the US is not the cause of poverty around the world nor is capitalism. The cause of a problem vary from country to country. And Africa isn't poor just because some US company wants to buy rubber from there.Sure it isn't just the U.S. It's all of the west. The state of the middle east, for example, can be blamed on the UK, at least in part. So, sure. I agree that it's not true that he US or the West is the only factor playing into the problems in third world countries, but looking at history, and the role the west played in these countries, it would be naive to suggest that Imperialism didn't play a large role.


If they give up the will to keep trying hard and turn to drugs for whatever reason thats their choice and society shouldn't be paying for their problems

Only a weak minded individual would think they are a product of their society vs thinking that YOU MAKE YOURSELF YOUR OWN PRODUCT.Anyone who knows anything about psychology or how people work is laughing at you right now. Including me. People are shaped by society. Do you deny this? If they're shaped by society, then how are their problems not reflective of society's problems? You can't blame it all on the individual. The individual isn't some magical being completely disconnected from the world around it. It's a part of society.


You can grow food to or save up enough money to start a business. Or if you really had any balls people would form their own society, be it communist or capitalist. Either way I hate hearing excuses the rich people aren't responsible for the poor. Oh. So the choice is either sell our labor, or live as a bunch of hermits? That isn't an honest choice, boyo. If someone wants to maintain a decent quality of life, they HAVE NO CHOICE but to sell their labor.

Oh, or we could start our own business. I already explained why this isn't an argument. Were you listening?


Because workers are using their muscle to work and that takes little to no brain power. Bosses are using their minds to work and brain power cost more. People in capitlist societies get paid in accordance to how much their skill labor is worth.How do you determine how much labor is worth? I mean, hey, if a guy works in a chair factory, and the chairs he makes get sold for $50, why doesn't he get $50 in wages for every chair he makes? I mean, he actually put the physical labor into that chair. You can measure the work he's done. That is actually quantifiable.


Anyone can be a ditch digger or a burger flipper. Such skills are easy to learn and that is what they cost little to hire.

It takes a lot more to be able to run a business let alone a huge corporation. Another thing, if a person owns a business he has the right to make whatever he wants to make (provided he can ofcourse) and a person can sell his labor for as little or as much as he wishes provided the other party agrees to it though.

Everything under capitalism happens on a MUTUAL VOLUNTARY CONSENSUAL bases. You don't force anyone to pay you X and you don't force anyone to work for X. Shit is agreed upon.
And you know what? Any council of workers could do the exact same job that a boss does. It'll be even easier if production is about meeting needs, rather than making profit. It's been done before, too. Across Venezuela, for instance, factory workers have kicked out their bosses and run the factory democratically amongst themselves. Hell, it's happening everywhere in different little corners of the world. So, it looks like a boss can be replaced. Can you replace labor yet, though? No, no. Not entirely.

Also, not everything is based in mutual, voluntary, consensual contracts. To say that assumes that everyone who comes to the table is coming from equal grounding, which is not true. If I go out and find a job, I need that job to feed my family and maintain my lifestyle. My very way of life depends on me getting that job. Is the person that hires me coming from such dire straits? Maybe, but not bloody likely.

My suggestion, read some books. I'm not trying to be a dick or anything here. You really don't seem to know at all what we're about, arguing as if we're some welfare-state liberals or something. This guy (http://www.youtube.com/user/brendanmcooney) has some good videos that go over Marx's Capital, which is where we get the whole "value of labor" thing. Give it an honest chance, boyo. Look for truth, and not an argument.

[Plagueround]

They are pretty big. Probably in the hundreds of billions in capital big. Either way You can't except an elephant not to bump into a few things when it moves.

Perhaps we shouldn't let such an elephant exist if it can't respect the people keeping it alive. Edison did a neat experiment with an elephant once that comes to mind...


I wonder how many of the poor workers who are obviously the victims actually get away when they cheat or steal from the company?I suppose until someone furnishes some evidence of that, we would have to label it baseless conjecture. Besides, lately it's been the bigshots stealing all the money. It sure was nice of them to use money the taxpayers had to give them because they were failing to give themselves big giant bonuses. Really restored my faith in 'Merika.


You always hear about the big capitalist and big shots doing bad things huh?Well, generally they only really go after someone when it's one of their own that fucks with them (Bernie Madeoff or w/e comes to mind). Otherwise this news usually gets under reported.


Do you ever hear about poor little people doing bad things?Sure, they've devoted entire television shows to making the poor look like nothing but villains. Catchy theme song though.


I'd love to see the day when I hear Jobless Mother gets caught using heroine while having more babies to get more welfare!Perhaps if that was more common and not the product of Reaganite fearmongering, you would. As is, the politicians and press spend enough time putting this view out in more subtle ways.

I must agree with Rorschach on this one, you should really do some reading and find out what we're all about. Most of your criticisms are the kind that should be directed at welfare capitalists and neo-liberals.

[#FF0000]

Sure, they've devoted entire television shows to making the poor look like nothing but villains. Catchy theme song though.

Man if they can make a series out of small-time drug dealers and thieves, I wonder what they could do with big-time arms dealers and corporate robbers?

[Dejavu]

To say that communism failed because places with it weren't as well off as the U.S. or other capitalist countries are sort of assumes that these socialist states would have done better under capitalism, which you really can't say for sure. In the case of Cuba, for example, I can't imagine that place doing better with capitalism than with socialism. Universal literacy, amazing healthcare, and people tripping over doctors wherever they go.

You would be the first to assert that socialism is not the same as communism. And I don't think he was suggesting 'therefore, capitalism works better.' Maybe he was , I don't know. Truth is there is no , and pretty much was no purely capitalistic or communistic society. Modern economies combine elements of both with government oversight.

Nice joke about Cube. Reminds me of Michael Moore actually. :rolleyes:






Sure, but capitalism doesn't do that. In theory it's supposed to, but it certainly doesn't pan out that way.

No , in theory it has nothing to do with government. What you are probably meaning to ascribe here is a political theory like democracy or republicanism, not an economic one like capitalism.




I would say that we should have a system that ensures the people who do the work get control over the product of their labor. I think that's better than a system that puts people in the poorhouse for taking out the wrong kind of mortgage while the people who pushed it are living large.

Hey I've been agitating for this kind of society for a long time. :thumbup1:

[FreeMan]

Perhaps we shouldn't let such an elephant exist if it can't respect the people keeping it alive. Edison did a neat experiment with an elephant once that comes to mind...

Hold on there, WalMart like any other company helps keep people alive as well. People trade with wal mart, they offer their money for their products or sell their labor for money. It all happens under MUTUAL CONSENSUAL VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS! If the people don't like wal mart they can stop trading with it. If you don't like walmart you can stop trading with it. How many people has Wal Mart Help and hopw many had it hurt?

Other then that God, the King, or not even the Majority have any right in forcing the owners of wal mart to stop wal mart from existening.


I suppose until someone furnishes some evidence of that, we would have to label it baseless conjecture. Besides, lately it's been the bigshots stealing all the money. It sure was nice of them to use money the taxpayers had to give them because they were failing to give themselves big giant bonuses. Really restored my faith in 'Merika.

If you want to pretend employees don't steal from wal mart or cheat it one way or another then thats your problem. Its pretty typical of any leftest to think the the little man has no fault of his own.

Welfare or subsidies towards the rich or poor is a socialist ideology.

Well, generally they only really go after someone when it's one of their own that fucks with them (Bernie Madeoff or w/e comes to mind). Otherwise this news usually gets under reported.

The news always goes after big shots, Parris Hilton, The governor that fuck a hooker, The CEO of that company that failured.

Sure, they've devoted entire television shows to making the poor look like nothing but villains. Catchy theme song though.

I am nothign about the News. And not they don't the Majority is always assumed to be the common GOOD/ greater good.

Perhaps if that was more common and not the product of Reaganite fearmongering, you would. As is, the politicians and press spend enough time putting this view out in more subtle ways.

Cheating the system is common and never reported. Only big shots get reported.


I must agree with Rorschach on this one, you should really do some reading and find out what we're all about. Most of your criticisms are the kind that should be directed at welfare capitalists and neo-liberals.

I knwo what you're about. You're the ultimate form of left wing ideology. Liberals, democrates are just half ass communist. No one owns anything, people get paid by need, people work according to their ability, and your system never works.

When people try to make it work it fails and communist just make up excuses and blame others for it.

[Plagueround]

I knwo what you're about. You're the ultimate form of left wing ideology. Liberals, democrates are just half ass communist. No one owns anything, people get paid by need, people work according to their ability, and your system never works.

When people try to make it work it fails and communist just make up excuses and blame others for it.


I'm ignoring the rest because you've essentially degenerated into "NO U" style arguments, but I'm intrigued about this. Again, tell me what I'm all about. Tell me what I advocate, and what I want to see happen. Since you've come here with an antagonistic and condescending tone right off the bat, I guarantee you know nothing about me.

[Plagueround]

Hey I've been agitating for this kind of society for a long time. :thumbup1:

You and octobox are probably the only capitalists of any kind that have intrigued me on this site.

If you are advocating that, how do you propose that money is distributed? Is one person (or rather billions) living on $2 a day and one person owning $40 billion in assets something that would still exist in this system. If it is, is this justified or something that should be fixed? If does need fixing, how does this system attempt to correct it?

[FreeMan]

So you have no argument. Gotcha.

For what it's worth, the fact that things aren't fair and people aren't equal is completely irrelevant. Life not being fair isn't a good reason NOT to fight injustice, and the fact that people aren't the same is something Marx even talked about in "Critique of the Gotha Programme".

Your system threats everyone as equal but the thing is that not everyone is equal. Some people are better then others.

Your system is full of injustice. Your system forces the wealthy to pay for the needy. There is no justifiable reason to force someone who is able to help another who is in need.

They are forced to work, though. If these people do not sell their labor, they can't really live, can they? Oh sure they could start a business... Where people are forced to sell their labor as well... Hmm.

Dude you gotta do something to be able to sustain yourself like work. Yeah everyone freakign works. But no one likes doing the dirty jobs. That is why you work towards an education and try and work your way up. The best workers will be successful and the less able workers will not.

Ah you say it as if that is so easy. Sorry, boyo. It's not as simple as trading quantity for quality. I don't know if you've gone grocery shopping lately, but it is not easy to feed a family of four a healthy diet on minimum wage. Not to mention, most healthy food requires that time be spent in its preperation, which is not always possible when people work one, or multipe jobs.

Why did this people who make a 6.50 an hour even bother to have children? I'd understand if a dog has puppies in the street, it doesn't know any better. Its onyl following its instinct but why a human. How retard do you have to be to have childen even though u don't have a job or an education? Furthermore why does society have to pay for someone's mistakes?

Reminds me of Africa. Even now there isn't enough food in Africa and the population is 300,000,000. In a couple of decades the population is going to be 500,000,000. Can you possibly imagine how much worse shit will be there if there isn't enouygh food now?

Society isn't responsible for what people eat? So if there's massive crop failure, it's the individuals fault that they don't have produce? I can't believe there are people out there that don't see a connection between the individual and society.

If there is a massive crop failure the capitlist will see the opportunity, grow crops and capitlize! We won't run out of food in our capitlist country of ours.

Just so long as there is an INCENTIVE TO BEING SUCCESSFUL we probably won't run out.

Sure it isn't just the U.S. It's all of the west. The state of the middle east, for example, can be blamed on the UK, at least in part. So, sure. I agree that it's not true that he US or the West is the only factor playing into the problems in third world countries, but looking at history, and the role the west played in these countries, it would be naive to suggest that Imperialism didn't play a large role.

Can you describe for me how much better of this third world countries were before they had any western influence? Was their life span longer? Would they had invented anything? Would they have been able to grow out of the stone age without any western influence?

Anyone who knows anything about psychology or how people work is laughing at you right now. Including me. People are shaped by society. Do you deny this? If they're shaped by society, then how are their problems not reflective of society's problems? You can't blame it all on the individual. The individual isn't some magical being completely disconnected from the world around it. It's a part of society.

I just believe its weak to blame society for all your failures but people do this. A really strong minded indivilual can shape society or influence society greatly in many different ways.

I am not saying that we should disconnect ourselves from society. WHat I am saying is that we should not let the negative things affect us. If you lose a job u shouldn't drink. If your business fails you should go of blaming walmart.

Oh. So the choice is either sell our labor, or live as a bunch of hermits? That isn't an honest choice, boyo. If someone wants to maintain a decent quality of life, they HAVE NO CHOICE but to sell their labor.

If you want to live you gotta work. There is no such thing as free food, free housing, free healthcare, this things cost money.

Oh, or we could start our own business. I already explained why this isn't an argument. Were you listening?

No it is because its an alternative. It is possible to start of a business.

How do you determine how much labor is worth? I mean, hey, if a guy works in a chair factory, and the chairs he makes get sold for $50, why doesn't he get $50 in wages for every chair he makes? I mean, he actually put the physical labor into that chair. You can measure the work he's done. That is actually quantifiable.

Did the guy invented the chains?
Did he design the machines that make the chains?
Did he risk an investement in making a factory and maketing the product?
Did he buy the raw materials that make the chain?
DId he successful find a customer?

Probably not right? He is probably some worker off the street who does a job which requires very little thinking huh? I've worked at a factory before pushing buttons, pulling levers, turning dials and feeding a machine with some material and package material. Those task are repeative but I wasn't expecting to be paid the worth of my product. I understood before hand how much I would get paid and I agreed to it. I was very poor at the time but I still manage to make a living and even be able to afford going to college without any socialist help.


And you know what? Any council of workers could do the exact same job that a boss does. It'll be even easier if production is about meeting needs, rather than making profit. It's been done before, too. Across Venezuela, for instance, factory workers have kicked out their bosses and run the factory democratically amongst themselves. Hell, it's happening everywhere in different little corners of the world. So, it looks like a boss can be replaced. Can you replace labor yet, though? No, no. Not entirely.

You know if I was the owner of an factory that was about to turn socialist and nationalize everything I'd burn the factory down. The factory I imagine isn't going to do that good if everyone is going to get paid the same no matter how hard or how high quality your work is.

Also, not everything is based in mutual, voluntary, consensual contracts. To say that assumes that everyone who comes to the table is coming from equal grounding, which is not true. If I go out and find a job, I need that job to feed my family and maintain my lifestyle. My very way of life depends on me getting that job. Is the person that hires me coming from such dire straits? Maybe, but not bloody likely.

Concensual, volutary agreements has nothing to do with ecnomical status level. Furthermore any good employeer would hire the best person for the job. A person's needs is irrelevant to the employer who wants to run a good business.

[Plagueround]

Can you describe for me how much better of this third world countries were before they had any western influence? Was their life span longer? Would they had invented anything? Would they have been able to grow out of the stone age without any western influence?


Not this again...why does it always come down to this?

Please, enlighten us as to the development and status of societies worldwide pre-western contact. With details.

[#FF0000]

Your system threats everyone as equal but the thing is that not everyone is equal. Some people are better then others.

Your system is full of injustice. Your system forces the wealthy to pay for the needy. There is no justifiable reason to force someone who is able to help another who is in need.

To be quite honest, from all the questions and accusations you've leveled towards Leftism, you've made it abundantly clear that you barely know what you're talking about.


Why did this people who make a 6.50 an hour even bother to have children? I'd understand if a dog has puppies in the street, it doesn't know any better. Its onyl following its instinct but why a human. How retard do you have to be to have childen even though u don't have a job or an education? Furthermore why does society have to pay for someone's mistakes?

Why does society have to pay for someone's mistakes? Because the individual is a reflection of society. Jesus Christ how often do I have to repeat myself? A person, their consciousness, and their personality do not come from nowhere. It comes from their environment, which means their interactions with other people, and from their experiences in interacting with people and objects in their environment.


If there is a massive crop failure the capitlist will see the opportunity, grow crops and capitlize! We won't run out of food in our capitlist country of ours.

Just so long as there is an INCENTIVE TO BEING SUCCESSFUL we probably won't run out.

look at dis nub missin the point. That example was to illustrate how society affects the individual. My point was that problems with society lead to problems to individuals that they can't overcome, no matter how much will-power they possess.


Can you describe for me how much better of this third world countries were before they had any western influence? Was their life span longer? Would they had invented anything? Would they have been able to grow out of the stone age without any western influence?

Sorry. Baseless speculation is more your field.


I just believe its weak to blame society for all your failures but people do this. A really strong minded indivilual can shape society or influence society greatly in many different ways.

But where do they come from!? Great people don't just goddamn materialize from nothing to make and shake the world. They are made, just as the beggar, the teacher, the miner, the drug-addict, are made by their conditions. You may think it's weak, but as far as I can tell, it's true.


Probably not right? He is probably some worker off the street who does a job which requires very little thinking huh? I've worked at a factory before pushing buttons, pulling levers, turning dials and feeding a machine with some material and package material. Those task are repeative but I wasn't expecting to be paid the worth of my product. I understood before hand how much I would get paid and I agreed to it. I was very poor at the time but I still manage to make a living and even be able to afford going to college without any socialist help.

Neat. I guess that's supposed to mean something to me, or...?


You know if I was the owner of an factory that was about to turn socialist and nationalize everything I'd burn the factory down. The factory I imagine isn't going to do that good if everyone is going to get paid the same no matter how hard or how high quality your work is.

Yeah except the people that work in these occupied factories tend to be much, much, much happier than they were beforehand. You'd know that too if you actually looked into the things you're railing against.


Concensual, volutary agreements has nothing to do with ecnomical status level. Furthermore any good employeer would hire the best person for the job. A person's needs is irrelevant to the employer who wants to run a good business.

How can it have nothing to do with economic status!? How voluntary is an agreement when a guy trapped in a well trades his car away for rope to get out? To say there's a choice or anything voluntary in this is playing fast and loose with what "choice" is. "Do this or die" is not a choice. "Work or be poor" is not a choice. The rest of your response is entirely irrelevant.

[Glorious Union]

I disagree, the USSR never made it to first world country conditions.

Lulz, of course it didn't. First world is defined as the western capitalist states, second world is known as the USSR and freinds, third world is everyone who hasn't picked a side yet. Of course the USSR never went to first world, that would defeat the purpose. :rolleyes: The capitalist nations made up this ranking system of course, and being that third is after second they apear to have an "If you aren't with us your against us" attitude.

Blue - 1st World
Red - 2nd World
Green - 3rd World

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/redsyndicate/123world.png

Oh, and from what I have read from this thread you are not a "free man" as you forum name implies, you are an opressor. But then again, in a society of the opressed only the opressors are free, so i guess you are a "free man".

[ZeroNowhere]

Another thing, aren't we suppose to pick the government system that's best for all of us as a whole and individually? Shouldn't we pick one that rewards men for being successful and punishes them for being unsuccessful?
Not being a philosophical libertarian, I say no thanks.
But then again, I'm not especially interested in 'picking a government system'. Also, rewards men for being successful and punished them for being unsuccessful at... What, exactly?


communist/socialist society in all of history where the population doesn't live to what we consider poverty?
Anarchist Spain. Then again, feudalism lasted at least twice as long as capitalism has so far, with failed capitalist revolutions, and I don't see anybody around here protesting that capitalism is impossible.


I could also claim the same thing and say, my idea, capitalism on its purest form has never existed.
Purest form? Capitalism is defined by class relations, not by how 'free' the market is (though for a free market, mutalism > capitalism). As, in fact, is socialism/communism. The USSR wasn't 'impure communism'... It was capitalism.


Life is not fair and people not being equal to each other are FACTS.
Equal? What does equal mean, anyways? If one says that 4 = 4, one is saying that the number four is the number four. If one says that two people are equal, what exactly is one talking about? Rather than talk about people being 'equal' and other stuff, I prefer to put it this way: We call for the abolishment of the parasitic class, who own the means of production, and for democratic decision making in the workplace rather than authoritarian rule. I suppose that this is against human nature in the same way that abolishing chattel slavery was, though. Feudalism had the divine right, capitalism has human nature, and Hell has broken loose.


Only a weak minded individual would think they are a product of their society vs thinking that YOU MAKE YOURSELF YOUR OWN PRODUCT.
These are not the droids you're looking for.


Or if you really had any balls people would form their own society, be it communist or capitalist.
Yay, let's be a collective capitalist, or live as hermits! Wheee!
No.


Bosses are using their minds to work and brain power cost more. People in capitlist societies get paid in accordance to how much their skill labor is worth.
Bosses? No, that would be the managers and 'skilled labourers'. The capitalists? Nah.


I wonder how many of the poor workers who are obviously the victims actually get away when they cheat or steal from the company?
I dunno. Over here, we 'steal from the company' (cutting into profits, of course, because it doesn't actually make a difference to wages) to help foreign construction workers, but ah well. I mean, really, I don't give a shit about workers shoplifting and such.


I'd love to see the day when I hear Jobless Mother gets caught using heroine while having more babies to get more welfare!
You would, wouldn't you?


Modern economies combine elements of both with government oversight.
Oh, come on, surely you've been here long enough to know better than this? :rolleyes:


Hold on there, WalMart like any other company helps keep people alive as well. People trade with wal mart, they offer their money for their products or sell their labor for money. It all happens under MUTUAL CONSENSUAL VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS!
Eh, fuck this 'Wal-Mart' abstraction. We're debating about the capitalists here. The capitalist is not necessary for people to keep alive. How many capitalists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Well, none.
As for consensual...
"In other words, if a pistol is put at a man's head and (he is) told to surrender his purse or his life, it is the exercise of a right on his part when he plunks down his money;

"If a man is placed before a pyre into which he will be hurled if he does not renounce his views, his renunciation of his views is the exercise of a right!

"The workingman, placed before the pyre of capitalism and with the capitalist pistol at his head, accepts wages (pay for his INDIVIDUAL labour power) and cedes to his employer, among other things, that new power that flows from his COLLECTIVE effort - and that is called the exercise of a "right" and the entering into a "contract"!

"Civilization calls the act highway robbery, and it brands the attempt of decking out a manifestation of slavery in the light of an act of freedom as fathomless immorality."
-De Leon

"It is a veritable mainstay of capitalist thought . . . that the moral flaws of chattel slavery have not survived in capitalism since the workers, unlike the slaves, are free people making voluntary wage contracts. But it is only that, in the case of capitalism, the denial of natural rights is less complete so that the worker has a residual legal personality as a free 'commodity owner.' He is thus allowed to voluntarily put his own working life to traffic. When a robber denies another person's right to make an infinite number of other choices besides losing his money or his life and the denial is backed up by a gun, then this is clearly robbery even though it might be said that the victim making a 'voluntary choice' between his remaining options. When the legal system itself denies the natural rights of working people in the name of the prerogatives of capital, and this denial is sanctioned by the legal violence of the state, then the theorists of 'libertarian' capitalism do not proclaim institutional robbery, but rather they celebrate the 'natural liberty' of working people to choose between the remaining options of selling their labour as a commodity and being unemployed."
-Ellerman

It ain't even bargaining.


Welfare or subsidies towards the rich or poor is a socialist ideology.
Bullshit. That is merely a reform of capitalism, generally done to prop up the system. As FDR stated, quoting Macaulay, "Reform if you would preserve." Socialism is the abolition of the capitalist class, not increasing taxes. "Socialism is that social system under which the necessaries of production are owned, controlled and administered by the people, for the people, and under which, accordingly, the cause of political and economic despotism having been abolished, class rule is at an end. That is socialism; nothing short of that." "Whenever a change leaves the internal mechanism untouched, we have reform; whenever the internal mechanism is changed, we have revolution."


Liberals, democrates are just half ass communist.[/quotes]
Liberals aren't socialists, they're annoying. I'm not exactly sure what a democrate is.

[quote]No one owns anything
Sure, you can own an iPod, books, a house, whatever. You can't, on the other hand, own the means of production ('private property').


When people try to make it work it fails and communist just make up excuses and blame others for it.
No, we actually made up 'excuses' for it before they 'failed'.

"All revolutions up to the present day have resulted in the displacement of the rule of one class by the rule of another; but all ruling classes up to now have been only small minorities in relation to the ruled mass of the people. One ruling minority was thus overthrown; another minority seized the helm of state in its stead and refashioned the state institutions to suit its own interests. Thus on every occasion a minority group was enabled and called upon to rule by the given degree of economic development; and just for that reason, and only for that reason, it happened that the ruled majority either participated in the revolution for the benefit of the former or else simply acquiesced in it. But if we disregard the concrete content in each case, the common form of all these revolutions was that they were minority revolutions. Even when the majority took part, it did so — whether wittingly or not — only in the service of a minority; but because of this, or even simply because of the passive, unresisting attitude of the majority, this minority acquired the appearance of being the representative of the whole people.

"As a rule, after the first great success, the victorious minority split; one half was satisfied with what had been gained, the other wanted to go still further, and put forward new demands, which, partly at least, were also in the real or apparent interest of the great mass of the people. In isolated cases these more radical demands were actually forced through, but often only for the moment; the more moderate party would regain the upper hand, and what had been won most recently would wholly or partly be lost again; the vanquished would then cry treachery or ascribe their defeat to accident. In reality, however, the truth of the matter was usually this: the achievements of the first victory were only safeguarded by the second victory of the more radical party; this having been attained, and, with it, what was necessary for the moment, the radicals and their achievements vanished once more from the stage."
-Engels. This was because "the state of economic development on the Continent at that time was not, by a long way, ripe for the elimination of capitalist production." Not much hope for the largely feudalist Russia, it would seem. To quote Marx, "The terror in France could thus by its mighty hammer-blows only serve to spirit away, as it were, the ruins of feudalism from French soil. The timidly considerate bourgeoisie would not have accomplished this task in decades. The bloody action of the people thus only prepared the way for it. In the same way, the overthrow of the absolute monarchy would be merely temporary if the economic conditions for the rule of the bourgeois class had not yet become ripe. Men build a new world for themselves...from the historical achievements of their declining world. In the course of their development they first have to produce the material conditions of a new society itself, and no exertion of mind or will can free them from this fate."


Your system threats everyone as equal but the thing is that not everyone is equal. Some people are better then others.
This isn't false.
It's not true, either. This is because it's not empirically demonstrable.


Your system is full of injustice. Your system forces the wealthy to pay for the needy.
No, it doesn't. Please, why not just find some Nader fans or liberals or some crap, rather than come here?


The best workers will be successful and the less able workers will not.
More accurately, the non-workers will be the most successful.


That is why you work towards an education and try and work your way up.
Heh, school. Don't even get me started on that.
Though I suppose that you should like it, seeing as it perfectly suits capitalism.
Anyways, for a family on minimum wage, a child working on minimum wage would be hugely helpful. Especially for people with negative wealth, like the poorest in the US (oh, wait, it's their fault. The bastards). This means that the poor have to drop out more to work (it's not as easy to think of the future and crap when you haven't even got a guaranteed meal on the table the next day). Of course, it also means that you have to get good grades, which... Oh, wait, I promised not to go into the school system, didn't I? Ah well. Anyways, it could be a bit harder, what with not having as easy access to tutors and the like, being under more stress, and such.
Not that I actually give a shit, though. Fuck school.


Why did this people who make a 6.50 an hour even bother to have children?
I don't know, perhaps they would be completely fucked when they get old if they didn't? Perhaps they like children, since apparently some strange people do? Perhaps they weren't exactly ready for a crisis to hit (which, of course, had nothing to do with them)? Perhaps it doesn't matter, because the children are already born, and your judgmental bickering is boring as fuck?


How retard do you have to be to have childen even though u don't have a job or an education?
I can only assume that you mean 'late'. Which wouldn't make sense.
Being judgmental is the only sin.


Furthermore why does society have to pay for someone's mistakes?
The children's?
The fuckers got born to a poor family. Bastards deserved it.
Then again, we have the productive capacity for far more food than is necessary for everybody to get fat. So society doesn't quite have to pay anything to get everybody food. Then again, I don't know, I suppose that it's the fault of those poor irresponsible bastards that capitalists under produce food and hire people to destroy food so that it can be more profitable.


Reminds me of Africa. Even now there isn't enough food in Africa
There's not enough effective demand, I assume you mean?


In a couple of decades the population is going to be 500,000,000.
Other than being baseless, well, the more the merrier.


I just believe its weak to blame society for all your failures but people do this.
As I had pointed out elsewhere, there is a rather high overlap between philosophical libertarianism and 'libertarian' authoritarianism.


If you lose a job u shouldn't drink.
Spot the Neo-Puritan in disguise.


If you want to live you gotta work. There is no such thing as free food, free housing, free healthcare, this things cost money.
I don't remember seeing carrots grow with a price tag attached.


Did the guy invented the chains?
Nah, the guy who did is probably dead. Let's chuck the money into his grave for no apparent reason.


Did he design the machines that make the chains?
No, I did. Though he could have given in a suggestion which lead to it, which is fairly common. It could have been the workers in the Research and Development facility, if there is one.


Did he risk an investement in making a factory and maketing the product?
Neither did the capitalist, generally.
Also, workers made the factory.


DId he successful find a customer?
I don't see how this at all fits into your argument.


Did he buy the raw materials that make the chain?
Um... So?


You know if I was the owner of an factory that was about to turn socialist and nationalize everything I'd burn the factory down.
That would be pretty impressive, actually. Can we have fireworks too? It would be a lot cooler if you were to get a dinosaur to step on it, actually. Somebody should seriously do that. It would be awesome.
Then again, us socialists don't want to 'nationalize everything'.


The factory I imagine isn't going to do that good if everyone is going to get paid the same no matter how hard or how high quality your work is.
Yo. (http://www.slp.org/pdf/de_leon/ddlother/fif_ques.pdf)


Furthermore any good employeer would hire the best person for the job.
The one with the best value for money, not necessarily the best.

[quote]

[Bilan]

communist/socialist society in all of history where the population doesn't live to what we consider poverty?

There's errors in the question which make it rather difficult to answer.



You communist always talk about how well your system will work for all the common good (Whoever the hell this greater good is) but can you at least point to one example to where it actually has worked?

We don't do this out of the goodness of our hearts, and the communist revolution does not arise out of sentinmental ideas of World Peace, instead, it arises as a material necessity as capitalism continues on its trail of destruction.

[mykittyhasaboner]

You're right, we don't follow anything close to pure capitalism. Our system is getting to clogged up with all this socialist big government burocrates who punish big money and give tax breaks to people who don't even pay taxes.

You have once again completely ignored what I said. "Pure capitalism" only exists in your THICK HEAD. All this nonsense about "socialist big government buerocrates" is complete bullshit.




Cuba sucks big time. Untill recently, before that tyrant Castro died, Cubans couldn't even own a cell phone, TV, or have a computer and they also don't have free speech.
You honestly suck at debating. Where's your evidence for this?



Cuba can't even make enough food to feed itself. ANother thing, they have to depend on capitlist countries for food and medical supplies. People are fleeing this country. They were also depending a lot on Russia before Russia's collapse.
Cuba's Urban Farming a Stunning success (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/08/news/CB-FEA-GEN-Cuba-Farming-Havana.php), even though the source is heavily biased because its an American news site, they refute your baseless claim that "Cuba doesn't make enough food to feed itself."



They are still poor and they are still driving cars from the 70s.
They are not poor, if your going to make accusations you better fucking provide some evidence to prove your point. And most of their cars are actually from the 50's, but most Cuban citizens do not rely on driving as a means of transportation.



I am an atheist myself but whatever they are doing to teach this kids is sure a lot better then the public 'education' American kids get.
But private schools cost thousands of dollars annually. Can you comprehend that the majority of people simply cannot afford a 'private school-education'. So if your going to call it better than public school, your argument is incredibly stupid because you don't realize that it is incredibly unfair for some people to get a better education than others, simply because their families earn more money. Of course you could never understand this, because you seem to think its OK to leave those who are "unsuccessful" behind. Your a vile piece of shit.




I hope they find the AIDS cure. I doubt they will though. Cuba is too small and too poor to accomphish anything of any significance.

Your a complete moron.



Well yeah dude. Those fuckers don't have fast food or fatty food like we do. So things kinda balance out.
Shut the fuck up, if your going to debate about Cuba then refrain from making borderline racist comments like "Cuba is to small to accomplish anything of significance". If you refuse to discuss like a mature human being then you can just kindly fuck off.

[NecroCommie]

Freeman seems to think that productive society is synonymous with good society, which certainly is not the case. He also seems to avoid the realization of the fact that communism prioritizes productivity quite low, and promote economic humanism.

[Jack]

Because the workers "steal" (though many times they're just taking back some of what their boss has made of their backs) to feed themselves. The capitalists steal so they can buy a yacht.

[FreeMan]

Eh, fuck this 'Wal-Mart' abstraction. We're debating about the capitalists here. The capitalist is not necessary for people to keep alive. How many capitalists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Well, none.
As for consensual...
"In other words, if a pistol is put at a man's head and (he is) told to surrender his purse or his life, it is the exercise of a right on his part when he plunks down his money;

"If a man is placed before a pyre into which he will be hurled if he does not renounce his views, his renunciation of his views is the exercise of a right!

"The workingman, placed before the pyre of capitalism and with the capitalist pistol at his head, accepts wages (pay for his INDIVIDUAL labour power) and cedes to his employer, among other things, that new power that flows from his COLLECTIVE effort - and that is called the exercise of a "right" and the entering into a "contract"!


A capitlist society is not a like a pyre.

The Capitalist did not pull the trigger which killed the worker who refused to work at X wage. This is like saying that I killed a starving begging man outside my house by not giving him food.

Freedom is about being free from other people including their whims and moans. Under Capitalism no man is force to help another no mater how rich this man is or what he owns. The fruits of your labor are yours under capitalism no matter what the stupid dumb majority says or what some stupid politician says.

Under Communism you would be FORCED TO WORK under gun point if you have ability. Under Communism you would be FORCED TO GIVE you your property if the majority deems it.

[FreeMan]

Because the workers "steal" (though many times they're just taking back some of what their boss has made of their backs) to feed themselves. The capitalists steal so they can buy a yacht.

WHy did you call it "steal"? Its not stealign to you or something? What would you call it then? I'd really like for you to see the type of people who actually steal from store. And they are freakign stealing in order to buy a freaking apple for their family.

[FreeMan]

Freeman seems to think that productive society is synonymous with good society, which certainly is not the case. He also seems to avoid the realization of the fact that communism prioritizes productivity quite low, and promote economic humanism.

Productivity is very important because of the fact that we need production to sustain ourselves. Look at Cuba, they can't even produce enough food to feed themselves.

No I believe in taking care of our humanitarian needs. The thing is that its up to each of us Individually to sustain our humanitarian/essential needs.

You're not responsible for me nor am I responsible for you no matter how much in need either of us are.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Look at Cuba, they can't even produce enough food to feed themselves.

You are maniacally persistent. You have yet to prove this, but you keep repeating it. Why not show some evidence?

[FreeMan]

Lulz, of course it didn't. First world is defined as the western capitalist states, second world is known as the USSR and freinds, third world is everyone who hasn't picked a side yet. Of course the USSR never went to first world, that would defeat the purpose. :rolleyes: The capitalist nations made up this ranking system of course, and being that third is after second they apear to have an "If you aren't with us your against us" attitude.

Blue - 1st World
Red - 2nd World
Green - 3rd World



Oh, and from what I have read from this thread you are not a "free man" as you forum name implies, you are an opressor. But then again, in a society of the opressed only the opressors are free, so i guess you are a "free man".

America is a lot better of then Russia in terms of human development.

Being free under a capitlist society means that everyone is free from each other and no one has to help anyone else out.

[FreeMan]

You are maniacally persistent. You have yet to prove this, but you keep repeating it. Why not show some evidence?'

I can't post links yet. Look up food shortages in cuba.

CUba is always experience food shortages. They had one just a few months ago. They depend a lot on food imports.

[#FF0000]

America is a lot better of then Russia in terms of human development.

Yes, and Russia is capitalist now, and things don't look much better.

Even so, Russia and Cuba are FAR from what most of us here would call ideal examples of socialism. See: Paris Commune, Anarchist Spain.

[mykittyhasaboner]

'

I can't post links yet. Look up food shortages in cuba.

CUba is always experience food shortages. They had one just a few months ago. They depend a lot on food imports.
LOL, you cant post links, OK then when you have 2 more posts you can. Or why don't you just put the link in your reply so I/we can copy and paste it into our address bars.

Even if Cuba does rely on importing food, what does it matter really? If they can provide food for everybody then what does it matter if the food comes from foreign countries.

Cuba has been experiencing food shortages, just like the rest of the world for a number of reasons like hurricane damage, drought/crop failure, etc. But they have been very resourceful and creative, and begun an urban farming program that provides the island with most of its vegetables, fruits and any other food that could be grown.

http://www.slashfood.com/2008/06/10/is-cubas-urban-farming-program-something-for-the-rest-of-the-wo/

http://bss.sfsu.edu/raquelrp/pub/2000_aug_pub.html

http://www.cityfarmer.org/CubaGreen.html

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42597



Even so, Russia and Cuba are FAR from what most of us here would call ideal examples of socialism. I would, but I'm not so sure about there ever being "ideal" example of socialism.

But that's for another discussion.

[MikeSC]

[quote=FreeMan;1386588]

They run small businesses out for one thing. They reduce competition which then lets them raise prices.

Watch: Wal-Mart The High Cost of Low Prices.

Not to mention all the slavery and whatnot.

We had near enough exactly this thread less than two days ago :bored:

EDIT: Come to think of it, this kind of question seems to pop up a lot. Maybe a sticky on the subject would prevent a lot of the hassle,a sticky of opinions of various leftists here about the success/failure of certain "socialist" states and the reasons why the failed ones failed? Rather than having to repeat ourselves every other day.

EDIT2: Edited out me being a cock- you weren't to know this comes up often.

[FreeMan]

[quote=Jack;1386590]

Not to mention all the slavery and whatnot.

We had near enough exactly this thread less than two days ago :bored:

EDIT: Come to think of it, this kind of question seems to pop up a lot. Maybe a sticky on the subject would prevent a lot of the hassle,a sticky of opinions of various leftists here about the success/failure of certain "socialist" states and the reasons why the failed ones failed? Rather than having to repeat ourselves every other day.

EDIT2: Edited out me being a cock- you weren't to know this comes up often.

WHats really funny is that the lowest paid Wal Mart Employees probably make more money and have a lot more then your average Cuban citizen.

No WalMart employees are not slaves. They make more then enouygh to take care of themselves.

[mykittyhasaboner]

WHats really funny is that the lowest paid Wal Mart Employees probably make more money and have a lot more then your average Cuban citizen.

No WalMart employees are not slaves. They make more then enouygh to take care of themselves.
Really? These sources would say other wise:

http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/facts/

http://www.ufcw.org/press_room/fact_sheets_and_backgrounder/walmart/wages.cfm

When are you going to learn that your arse is not the best place to get your information?

[FreeMan]

Really? These sources would say other wise:

When are you going to learn that your arse is not the best place to get your information?

Walmart employee still make more money then your avaerage Cuban and are richer too.

From your site.

In 2001, sales associates, the most common job in Wal-Mart, earned on average $8.23 an hour for annual wages of $13,861. The 2001 poverty line for a family of three was $14,630. ["Is Wal-Mart Too Powerful?", Business Week, 10/6/03, US Dept of Health and Human Services 2001 Poverty Guidelines, 2001]

Cubans on the other hand only make about 10,000 a year. Thats still less then WalMart pay.


You know I lived of 6.50 an hour while paying 400 in rent per month and this was in the state of California where everything is more expensive and guess what? I was making it. I wasn't a freaking slave because I choose the job where in which I was only make 6.50 an hour.

I said this was enough money for one person to live of. I never said a whole family can live of walmart pay. And why the fuck would a person start off a family if he/she is workign for WalMArt int he first place? Only thing this bastards did was burden society more with their children because they sure as hell won't have enough money to raise them.

[#FF0000]

No WalMart employees are not slaves. They make more then enouygh to take care of themselves.

Minimum wage is $7.50. If someone works a 40 hour week for 50 out of 52 weeks, that is $14,500 a year. That puts a two-person household $500 above the poverty line in the contiguous United States. Even though it's above the poverty line, depending on the area it can be ridiculously hard to live off of that wage.


You know I lived of 6.50 an hour while paying 400 in rent per month and this was in the state of California where everything is more expensive and guess what? I was making it. I wasn't a freaking slave because I choose the job where in which I was only make 6.50 an hour.No, you were a wage slave because in this society you have no choice but to sell your labor at some point, unless you've inherited riches, to survive.


I said this was enough money for one person to live of. I never said a whole family can live of walmart pay. And why the fuck would a person start off a family if he/she is workign for WalMArt int he first place? Only thing this bastards did was burden society more with their children because they sure as hell won't have enough money to raise them.I answered this same question in at least six different iterations from you. You just refuse to see the connection between the individual's actions and societal conditions. But okay. You can have your society in which people are punished severely for making a mistake. Then you can wonder what went wrong when you have a society in which it is unsafe to wander outside unarmed.

Actually you know what? Let's take your side for a bit. People who have families when they are payed minimum wage are stupid and irresponsible and deserve to be punished to the fullest extent. Okay. Let's accept this as true.

What about the kids, then? Do the kids in this family deserve to be cut off from healthcare, decent education, clean conditions, healthy food?

[MikeSC]

WHats really funny is that the lowest paid Wal Mart Employees probably make more money and have a lot more then your average Cuban citizen.

No WalMart employees are not slaves. They make more then enouygh to take care of themselves.

The stuff they stock isn't made in the developed world.

http://ihscslnews.org/view_article.php?id=115
http://www.mcspotlight.org/beyond/companies/antiwalmart.html

Etc, etc. Clothes, chocolate, fruit, metals, electronics.... there's very little that isn't made by foreign five year olds working 100 hour weeks. Globalisation has seen developed world companies seek out the countries that will allow slavery and the harshest exploitation. Nestle/Mars Bar/Hersheys to name a few were found (by the ILO) to be using child bond slaves. Literally, people bought on the "free market". Thousands on the Ivory Coast alone. It's far away, and done to foreigners, so people don't care.

EDIT: Found multiple times, by the way. Over a number of years. Every time they get told to regulate themselves. Every time the numbers of slave kids grow.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Walmart employee still make more money then your avaerage Cuban and are richer too.

From your site.

In 2001, sales associates, the most common job in Wal-Mart, earned on average $8.23 an hour for annual wages of $13,861. The 2001 poverty line for a family of three was $14,630. ["Is Wal-Mart Too Powerful?", Business Week, 10/6/03, US Dept of Health and Human Services 2001 Poverty Guidelines, 2001]

Cubans on the other hand only make about 10,000 a year. Thats still less then WalMart pay.

You just keep coming with this ridiculous non-arguments and its getting annoying. Can you fucking understand that when you are comparing two different economies so vastly different, that the same standards don't apply! The cost of living in Cuba is much less than it is in the US, and Cubans don't have to pay rent, mortgage, social security, income taxes, health insurance/taxes, or school-related payments. I don't see why your so damn happy about Wal-Mart employees getting paid lower than the poverty line. Where did you get the statistic that Cuban's make 10,000 a year?



You know I lived of 6.50 an hour while paying 400 in rent per month and this was in the state of California where everything is more expensive and guess what? I was making it. I wasn't a freaking slave because I choose the job where in which I was only make 6.50 an hour.
Woah, you got off your ass and worked a minimum wage job for a living?! What the hell do you want a Nobel prize?


I said this was enough money for one person to live of. I never said a whole family can live of walmart pay. And why the fuck would a person start off a family if he/she is workign for WalMArt int he first place? Only thing this bastards did was burden society more with their children because they sure as hell won't have enough money to raise them.
Your an inconsiderate bastard who has no clue of the reality outside your own head. Most people have families you know, and in an ever shrinking economy people take what jobs they can get, nobody actually wants to work for minimum wage. Get a grip.

[FreeMan]

You just keep coming with this ridiculous non-arguments and its getting annoying. Can you fucking understand that when you are comparing two different economies so vastly different, that the same standards don't apply! The cost of living in Cuba is much less than it is in the US, and Cubans don't have to pay rent, mortgage, social security, income taxes, health insurance/taxes, or school-related payments. I don't see why your so damn happy about Wal-Mart employees getting paid lower than the poverty line. Where did you get the statistic that Cuban's make 10,000 a year?

NO you're fucking wrong dude. I just proved to you that the lowest paid Wal Mart employees are better of then your average Cuban citizen.
All that stuff they get is worth about 10,000 a year

I got my info from wiking Cuba



Here's some news about cuba that isn't tainted by some socialist marxist ideology.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/12/cuba

For years in Cuba, jobs as varied as farm workers and doctors only had a difference in their wages of the equivalent of a few US dollars a month. The average monthly wage in Cuba is around $20 (£10) leaving many Cubans struggling to make ends meet.


I know many people who work for WalMart. I see them driving around in 10,000 SUVs, buy 8 drinks worth 4 each each weekend, and they make more then enough to sustain themselves. They know better then to start of a family.




Woah, you got off your ass and worked a minimum wage job for a living?! What the hell do you want a Nobel prize?

You socialist/communist claim people can't live of the minimum wage. You have been proven dead wrong.





Your an inconsiderate bastard who has no clue of the reality outside your own head. Most people have families you know, and in an ever shrinking economy people take what jobs they can get, nobody actually wants to work for minimum wage. Get a grip.

Why did this people have kids to begin with then? What stupid mentality compels this poor bastards to have kids when they don't even make enough to be able to take care of themselves?




Life in Cuba.

Look at this sorry ass excuse for a country. The streets aren't even paved. Everything is about 30 or more years old. The houses have freakin dryed up grass for a roof. People can't even afford to have cell phones, computers, TVs or Internet.

And This is your freaking shiney example for a socialist society? No freakign Thx. I am not never goign to work for no one else without my consent.


http://www.traveladventures.org/continents/southamerica/images/cubanstreetlife01.jpg

[Plagueround]

Cuba isn't perfect, but given the resources they have to work with they've done quite well. Much of the poverty they encounter is due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the blockades against their country. Even American politicians are saying this. Personally I think they would benefit massively by letting up on some of the political repression, but they're certainly not the evil demonized country people make them out to be. What's funny about the picture you linked above is I've seen many American neighborhoods that look just like that.

America, on the other hand, with the vast amount of resources it has, isn't always a shining beacon of prosperity either:

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l156/phobosblack/americanpoverty.jpg

Perhaps it could be said that both countries could use some work?

Also:


NO you're fucking wrong dude. I just proved to you that the lowest paid Wal Mart employees are better of then your average Cuban citizen.
All that stuff they get is worth about 10,000 a year


This kind of logic doesn't even follow, no matter what side of the debate you're on. I have a feeling all the social services the average Cuban is given probably adds up to more than 10,000 a year. However, even going by the low estimate you've given, if they make 10,000, and the services they get are worth 10,000, then that makes 20,000, which according to the sources presented would put them at a much better standing than the $13,861 average cited in the article. If you're going to argue a point, at least do so coherently.

[mykittyhasaboner]

NO you're fucking wrong dude. I just proved to you that the lowest paid Wal Mart employees are better of then your average Cuban citizen.
All that stuff they get is worth about 10,000 a year
Don't call me dude, I'm not your friend. And all you proved is that you are ignorant of historical development and material conditions. You choose to compare the US and Cuba but you haven't a clue about the historical relation between these two nations, nor the different type of economic systems they practice (your so ignorant that you think the US is close to lassiez-faire economics). Cuba has been suffering under a trade embargo imposed by the US ever since the people of Cuba stood up against the US for socialism 50 years ago. This embargo costs the island millions of dollars in losses annually, because Cuba has to pay more for everything. Yet even though the island is being suffocated by the embargo (which is an act of genocide on part of the USA according to Article 2 of the Geneva Convetion), the Cuban Revolution brought industrialization as well as rapid economic development. Now Cuba is the leading the nation in Latin America in fields such as health care, literacy/education, life expectancy, etc.







I got my info from wiking CubaWhat a surprise! :rolleyes:




Here's some news about cuba that isn't tainted by some socialist marxist ideology.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/12/cuba

For years in Cuba, jobs as varied as farm workers and doctors only had a difference in their wages of the equivalent of a few US dollars a month. The average monthly wage in Cuba is around $20 (£10) leaving many Cubans struggling to make ends meet.
News that isn't "tainted", from BBC? Your fucking brainwashed.


I know many people who work for WalMart. I see them driving around in 10,000 SUVs, buy 8 drinks worth 4 each each weekend, and they make more then enough to sustain themselves. They know better then to start of a family.Is this an argument? Because I can't tell if it is, or if its just an idiot rambling about nonsensical crap.





You socialist/communist claim people can't live of the minimum wage. You have been proven dead wrong.
Do you honestly think you have proved ANYBODY wrong in any of your posts, I think you over esitmate how seriously we take you.




Why did this people have kids to begin with then? What stupid mentality compels this poor bastards to have kids when they don't even make enough to be able to take care of themselves?The kind of mentality that you are displaying, which is one of a narcissistic moron.





Look at this sorry ass excuse for a country.This is the second time I've had to warn you about not making racist/predjiduced comments.

[Jack]

The massive subsidies make it much eadier for Cubans to live on lower wages.

From the Associated Press:

Cost of products:
Rice, per pound: 14 cents
Beans, per pound: 35 cents
Bread, per pound: 39 cents
Sugar, per pound: 47 cents
Pork, per pound: 96 cents
Can of soda: 42 cents
Bottle of rum: $2.30
Package of 20 cigarettes: 27 cents
Roll of toilet paper: 19 cents
Milk, per gallon: $4.55 (available at much lower prices for children under 7)
Cheese, per pound: $4-$5 (can be found for half this price on black market)
Cooking oil, per quart: $2.15
Box of cereal: $4-$10 (depending on brand)
Canned soup (Campbell’s Cream of Mushroom): $2.50
Transportation:
Buses or fixed-route taxis for Cubans: 1 cent
Taxis for tourists: 96 cents per mile
Entertainment:
Movie theater: 4 cents
Sporting event: 4 cents
Concert: 4 cents to $25
A night at the Tropicana cabaret: $65-$85
Utilities, per month (based on consumption):
Water: 15-20 cents
Gas for stoves: 8-38 cents
Electricity: 38 cents to $11.50
Telephone: 38 cents to $11.50

Factor in that there is free housing and healthcare and you end up with a much higher standard of living than Wal Mart employees.

[Jack]

They also get a ration book with free food other than this every month, it's enough basic supplies for about 20 days (toothpaste/brush, food, soap etc).

[mykittyhasaboner]

Man, if I could get a pack of cigarettes for 27 cents, I'd be set for life! :laugh:

[FreeMan]

Don't call me dude, I'm not your friend. And all you proved is that you are ignorant of historical development and material conditions. You choose to compare the US and Cuba but you haven't a clue about the historical relation between these two nations, nor the different type of economic systems they practice (your so ignorant that you think the US is close to lassiez-faire economics). Cuba has been suffering under a trade embargo imposed by the US ever since the people of Cuba stood up against the US for socialism 50 years ago. This embargo costs the island millions of dollars in losses annually, because Cuba has to pay more for everything. Yet even though the island is being suffocated by the embargo (which is an act of genocide on part of the USA according to Article 2 of the Geneva Convetion), the Cuban Revolution brought industrialization as well as rapid economic development. Now Cuba is the leading the nation in Latin America in fields such as health care, literacy/education, life expectancy, etc.

OHH so now its America's fault! Imagine that! You commies just have a way of just putting all the blame on the US huh?

No I knew about the embargo and I totally agree with it. And I knew about Cuba's dependency on SU. This is just more evidence to prove that socialist countries can not work without being dependent on a more productive capitlist country.

Its not America's fault. America is not responsible for taking care of Cuba or whatever other socialist country there is in need of help.




What a surprise! :rolleyes:

Why don't you bring some information concerning the wages they pay in Cuba?



News that isn't "tainted", from BBC? Your fucking brainwashed.

Actually BBC is anti American and pro liberal/socialist.

http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/bbc-admits-anti-american-bias/




Is this an argument? Because I can't tell if it is, or if its just an idiot rambling about nonsensical crap.


Its a fact that proved you dead wrong again. People who work for Wal Mart make enough money to make a living and even have enough money left for a few luxuries.



Do you honestly think you have proved ANYBODY wrong in any of your posts, I think you over esitmate how seriously we take you.

So you're just going to make this types of claims all day without backing them up?



The kind of mentality that you are displaying, which is one of a narcissistic moron.

Seriously, back your shit up dude. Back your shit up. You can start with explaining your position instead of just makign empty statements without even supporting them.

Being a parent takes a lot of self responsiblity and not everyone should be popping out babies. People who are barely able to support themselves or can't support themselves have no business having kids.But the sad reality is that people who shouldn't be having kids are the ones having the most then you communist wonder why there are so many poor.



This is the second time I've had to warn you about not making racist/predjiduced comments.

Dude, I am stating a Fact. Life in Cuba isn't all that good In fact it sucks. People have been fleeing that country. They have experience a lot of hardship and they are always experience many food shortages.

When Castro was around people couldn't even own Cell phones, internet, computers, TVs and didn't have free speech. This is very typical of a socialist/communist country. Very typical.

You would have to have a twisted mentality to say that Cuba is a great country.

To say that life in Cuba isn't all that great isn't beign raciast or prejuice. But with your communist mentality you could probably use any excuse to take make anyone stop talkign huh? Very fucking typical of you commies.

[FreeMan]

The massive subsidies make it much eadier for Cubans to live on lower wages.

From the Associated Press:

Cost of products:
Rice, per pound: 14 cents
Beans, per pound: 35 cents
Bread, per pound: 39 cents
Sugar, per pound: 47 cents
Pork, per pound: 96 cents
Can of soda: 42 cents
Bottle of rum: $2.30
Package of 20 cigarettes: 27 cents
Roll of toilet paper: 19 cents
Milk, per gallon: $4.55 (available at much lower prices for children under 7)
Cheese, per pound: $4-$5 (can be found for half this price on black market)
Cooking oil, per quart: $2.15
Box of cereal: $4-$10 (depending on brand)
Canned soup (Campbell’s Cream of Mushroom): $2.50
Transportation:
Buses or fixed-route taxis for Cubans: 1 cent
Taxis for tourists: 96 cents per mile
Entertainment:
Movie theater: 4 cents
Sporting event: 4 cents
Concert: 4 cents to $25
A night at the Tropicana cabaret: $65-$85
Utilities, per month (based on consumption):
Water: 15-20 cents
Gas for stoves: 8-38 cents
Electricity: 38 cents to $11.50
Telephone: 38 cents to $11.50

Factor in that there is free housing and healthcare and you end up with a much higher standard of living than Wal Mart employees.


You wouldn't be buying too many luxuries such as toilet paper and cheese if you lived there I imagine. Even though the dollar has devalue a lot lately it still takes you a long way in Cuba.

How much do they make per month?
How many of them have computers? Flat Screen? Cable TV? Internet? Cell Phones? Video Games? and other modern technology?

[Jack]

I've found numbers for the income between $20 and $450 a month.

Also, it's only 4 cents for a bottle of beer.

I may not be a Marxist, but that made Cuba sound a hell of alot better!

[Jack]

Havana Utility Bill Cuban Pesos US $ Equivalent
GAS 2.9 pesos less than 11 cents
ELECTRICITY 16.2 pesos just over 80 cents
WATER (imagine!) 1.3 pesos 6 cents
TELEPHONE 8.16 pesos just over 40 cents

LA Utility Bill US Dollars Cuban peso Equivalent
GAS $40.00 800 pesos
ELECTRICITY $70.00 1400 pesos
WATER $25.00 500 pesos
TELEPHONE $30.00 600 pesos

Let's not forget: Cuba: Monthly cost US: Monthly Cost
HOUSING 0 pesos $1,500 or 30,000 pesos
HEALTH INSURANCE 0 pesos $350 or 7,000 pesos

[FreeMan]

Man, if I could get a pack of cigarettes for 27 cents, I'd be set for life! :laugh:

Hey Cuba and US have different economies.

[Jack]

Cubans outlive most in the hemisphere:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-04-22-cuba_N.htm

I consider Cuba to be State Capitalist more than Socialist, and disagree with MANY things they do, but their social welfare is sound and worthy of support from anyone.

[Jack]

Cuba's average life expectancy is 77.08 years — second in Latin America after Puerto Rico and more than 11 years above the world average, according to the 2007 CIA World Fact Book.

[Plagueround]

OHH so now its America's fault! Imagine that! You commies just have a way of just putting all the blame on the US huh?

No I knew about the embargo and I totally agree with it. And I knew about Cuba's dependency on SU. This is just more evidence to prove that socialist countries can not work without being dependent on a more productive capitlist country.

Its not America's fault. America is not responsible for taking care of Cuba or whatever other socialist country there is in need of help.


It isn't a matter of "taking care of them", and to put it that way is a gross misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the way a global economy works. It's a matter of having viable trading partners, something that any country in a global economy needs and something that American policy attempts to limit (if not outright stop). It punishes other countries that wish to trade with Cuba by cutting them out of American markets. Interestingly enough, since the discovery of more oil that Cuba has a claim on, the number of American politicians that want to lift the embargo and reestablish trade is up. Opposition to the embargo is not limited to "commies". :rolleyes:

To put this in perspective, if the rest of the world cut America out in the way that , we would either suffer the same fate or (more likely) bully them with military might.



Actually BBC is anti American and pro liberal/socialist.

http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/bbc-admits-anti-american-bias/



(AIM) is an American organization which monitors the news media in the United States. Founded in 1969 by Reed Irvine, at the time an economist with the Federal Reserve, AIM describes itself as "a non-profit, grassroots citizens watchdog of the news media that critiques botched and bungled news stories and sets the record straight on important issues that have received slanted coverage".
It commonly attacks what it sees as media bias. It is frequently described by some in the mainstream media and other media watchdog groups as a conservative organization.

Surely you can come up with better sources than a neo-con puppet organization?

[FreeMan]

I've found numbers for the income between $20 and $450 a month.

Also, it's only 4 cents for a bottle of beer.

I may not be a Marxist, but that made Cuba sound a hell of alot better!

The person getting paid 450 is probably the president or the people workign for the government. Everywhere I look I am seeing that wages in Cuba is about 20 dollars per month give or take a dollar.

A few months ago they raise the wages on productive workers in order for them to actually have an incentive in working harder and be able to have enough food to feed the population.

[Glorious Union]

America is a lot better of then Russia in terms of human development.
What do you mean, that the USA has more adults than Russia?

Being free under a capitlist society means that everyone is free from each other and no one has to help anyone else out.
Ever heard of teamwork? Thought not. Apart we are weak, but together we are invincible.

[FreeMan]

It isn't a matter of "taking care of them", and to put it that way is a gross misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the way a global economy works. It's a matter of having viable trading partners, something that any country in a global economy needs and something that American policy attempts to limit (if not outright stop). It punishes other countries that wish to trade with Cuba by cutting them out of American markets. Interestingly enough, since the discovery of more oil that Cuba has a claim on, the number of American politicians that want to lift the embargo and reestablish trade is up. Opposition to the embargo is not limited to "commies". :rolleyes:

To put this in perspective, if the rest of the world cut America out in the way that , we would either suffer the same fate or (more likely) bully them with military might.

Whats funny is that ever since we started doing bad the rest of the world started doing bad money wise. Kinda shows you who the rest of the world is dependent on huh?

Yes Imagine a world with no America. Would they ever invent cars? Telephones? Cell Phones? Computers? Treatment for pollio? Nuclear Power? Win WW2?

Yes, I am sure the world would be a lot better of without America :rolleyes:

[Jack]

The person getting paid 450 is probably the president or the people workign for the government. Everywhere I look I am seeing that wages in Cuba is about 20 dollars per month give or take a dollar.

A few months ago they raise the wages on productive workers in order for them to actually have an incentive in working harder and be able to have enough food to feed the population.

I told you, I consider them state capitalist, don't lecture me on their wage labor, I only said I support their social welfare programs.

[FreeMan]

What do you mean, that the USA has more adults than Russia?

Ever heard of teamwork? Thought not. Apart we are weak, but together we are invincible.

Yes I heard of team work. However under your system everyone would be force to be one team and all suffering will be distributed equally amongst everyone. Under Capitalism people can choose who to team up with and in what manner provided the other person agrees.

[Vanguard1917]

Socialism (conscious management of production by workers) has not yet been achieved anywhere. But that does not mean that it can't be achieved.


However under your system everyone would be force to be one team and all suffering will be distributed equally amongst everyone. Under Capitalism people can choose who to team up with and in what manner provided the other person agress though

Could you expand on that?

[mykittyhasaboner]

OHH so now its America's fault! Imagine that! You commies just have a way of just putting all the blame on the US huh?

No I knew about the embargo and I totally agree with it. And I knew about Cuba's dependency on SU. This is just more evidence to prove that socialist countries can not work without being dependent on a more productive capitlist country.

Its not America's fault. America is not responsible for taking care of Cuba or whatever other socialist country there is in need of help.


Your a complete idiot, what the fuck are you talking about? Cuba isn't dependent on America, so why are you even suggesting that its not America's responsibility to take care of Cuba?


Actually BBC is anti American and pro liberal/socialist.

http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/bbc-admits-anti-american-bias/So first you say they aren't "tainted" by "socialist ideology", then you say they are pro-socialist. I wonder if you read the words you type.



Its a fact that proved you dead wrong again. People who work for Wal Mart make enough money to make a living and even have enough money left for a few luxuries. Proven dead wrong? :laugh: All you said was that "you see them ride around in SUV's and buy drinks".




So you're just going to make this types of claims all day without backing them up?WTF do I need to back up? All I said was that you have yet to put forth a logical, sensible argument, and that nobody here takes you seriously.




Seriously, back your shit up dude. Back your shit up. You can start with explaining your position instead of just makign empty statements without even supporting them.
Your beginning to sound insane and delusional, again what the fuck do I need to back up? Ive been providing sources in almost every post I've made in this thread; you on the other hand haven't provided any information which has helped your argument. In fact, you've completely ignored many of my replies.

You completely ignored this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1386573&postcount=18) post, as well as this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1386893&postcount=55) one, and this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1387311&postcount=65) one.

You have also made completely irrelevant/ignorant claims that have no basis in reality such as:

"You're right, we don't follow anything close to pure capitalism. Our system is getting to clogged up with all this socialist big government burocrates who punish big money and give tax breaks to people who don't even pay taxes. "

"Your system threats everyone as equal but the thing is that not everyone is equal. Some people are better then others.

Your system is full of injustice. Your system forces the wealthy to pay for the needy. There is no justifiable reason to force someone who is able to help another who is in need. "

The burden of proof is on you.







Dude, I am stating a Fact. Life in Cuba isn't all that good In fact it sucks. People have been fleeing that country. They have experience a lot of hardship and they are always experience many food shortages. Some more of your slander, which you continue to repeat even though this shitty non-argument of yours has been refuted.


When Castro was around people couldn't even own Cell phones, internet, computers, TVs and didn't have free speech. This is very typical of a socialist/communist country. Very typical.Want to try and say something new?


Hey Cuba and US have different economies.
Your an idiot.

[Jack]

Socialism (conscious management of production by workers) has not yet been achieved anywhere. But that does not mean that it can't be achieved.



Could you expand on that?


Russia before the Bolshevicks destroyed it.

Anarchist Spain.

Some parts of China before Mao made them state property.

Hungarain Revolution, both 1918 and 1956.

Many other, smaller ones. Unfortunately Socialism is either betrayed by Leninists or defeated by Fascists.

[#FF0000]

The person getting paid 450 is probably the president or the people workign for the government. Everywhere I look I am seeing that wages in Cuba is about 20 dollars per month give or take a dollar

Actually the people bringing in the big bucks are usually taxi drivers and wait staff at restaurants.

You have been talking out of your ass for five pages. I'm impressed and disgusted at the same time.

[Jack]

Yes I heard of team work. However under your system everyone would be force to be one team and all suffering will be distributed equally amongst everyone. Under Capitalism people can choose who to team up with and in what manner provided the other person agrees.

Oh goodness! Freedom of association! Isn't that what all us Anarcho Commies have been wanting?

I don't like the "choice" between wage slavery, crime, or starvation.

[Plagueround]

Whats funny is that ever since we started doing bad the rest of the world started doing bad money wise. Kinda shows you who the rest of the world is dependent on huh?

Well yes, America has established itself as one of the "pillars" of the global economy. This is not by accident, but it certainly isn't an indication that other countries are inferior. If anything it demonstrates an interdependency, not a one way street.


Yes Imagine a world with no America.I like that, very much like the John Lennon song about worldwide peace...


Would they ever invent cars?Probably. Since it was a German who invented it.


Telephones?The invention of the telephone is most accurately attributed to an Italian, although Alexander Graham Bell did do some great work.


Cell Phones?Invented in America, however the first cellular networks were in Japan. is this starting to look a little bit more like a group effort yet?


Computers?Also a German.


Treatment for pollio?American.


Nuclear Power?Germans, Italians, and Austrians mostly.


Win WW2?Difficult to say since I didn't bring my crystal ball, although I believe many historians attribute the victory to the allied forces for various reasons. The Soviet Union in particular gets a lot of credit for holding the Eastern Front and stopping Hitler's forces. This is also why the flag being hoisted on the top of the Reichstag is a red one with a hammer and sickle on it.


Yes, I am sure the world would be a lot better of without America :rolleyes:Well, seeing as how I live here, that's not what I'm saying at all. I think America has a lot of potential despite it's history of horrific and brutal oppression from day one. The civil liberties we have, which are mostly the result of the hard won fights of the working class, are not to be taken for granted and we must do everything we can to protect them, especially given how often the government has circumvented and/or eliminated them (usually in the name of "national security"). I think we can do a lot better than America though, which is why I'm an internationalist and not a patriot.

However, I think we've demonstrated that your perceptions are fueled by a false historical perspective and jingoism, not fact.

[Glorious Union]

Yes I heard of team work. However under your system everyone would be force to be one team and all suffering will be distributed equally amongst everyone. Under Capitalism people can choose who to team up with and in what manner provided the other person agrees.

This just in! All governments are opressive and rule with power, life sucks, deal with it.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

And that's not all that's great with Cuba:

qS1iXNzKvvo

This was such a beatdown Fidel wrote a statement saying the mercy rule should have been invoked, though apparently he still demands more (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Fidel-Castro-thinks-Cubans-should-be-winning-by-?urn=mlb,147148) from his team. After the ass-whooping they gave Mexico last night (the mercy rule was invoked), he should be quiet for the next few days.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Cuba has won most of the Baseball World Cups. While I'm no big fan of baseball, I find it incredibly funny and ironic that Cuba is better at "America's Past-time" than the US team is.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

America has a good team. The thing is, it is run in order to satisfy ego's, not win. Unlike other countries (Ichiro Suzuki, for instance, was very critical of his country's leadership in the run-up to the WBC, and was very adamant that Japan needs to 'defend its baseball honor' after failing to medal in the Olympics), Americans just don't really care. Which is unfortunate, I think. I am honestly hoping it's a Cuba v USA final...and they kick our ass.

On a side note, one reason I support ending the embargo is because many of those players would look great in the green and gold of the A's :D To be fair, we should give Havana the Marlins...

[Vanguard1917]

Yes Imagine a world with no America. Would they ever invent cars? Telephones? Cell Phones? Computers? Treatment for pollio? Nuclear Power? Win WW2?



I don't think any anti-capitalist should doubt that American society has made a great contribution to human development, as well as a great disservice. That's the contradictory nature of capitalism, and the US, as its greatest power, is riddled with such contradictions.

[NecroCommie]

Also: American inventions were not made because there is america. They were made because there was a demand for progress in scientific circles. The progress happened despite the existence of US empire, rather than because of US empire. If there were another empire they would have made the inventions. Also soviet scientists were capable of more than just copying.

[NecroCommie]

Hey! Why dont we move this thread to chitchat? We have some other OI:ers who can actually give us some real arguments. This guy is mostly irritating.

[Jazzratt]

Unlike other countries (Ichiro Suzuki, for instance, was very critical of his country's leadership in the run-up to the WBC, and was very adamant that Japan needs to 'defend its baseball honor' after failing to medal in the Olympics), Americans just don't really care. Which is unfortunate, I think. I am honestly hoping it's a Cuba v USA final...and they kick our ass.

I absolutely loathe the habit people have fallen into of using "medal" as a verb. It's just fucking horrible to read.

FreeMan:


Whats funny is that ever since we started doing bad the rest of the world started doing bad money wise. Kinda shows you who the rest of the world is dependent on huh?

If you're going to put causative relationships to these things, perhaps you should consider that Ireland was the first to tank economically. Now because I'm not playing your post hoc ergo proctor hoc game I came to a very different conclusion -- the global economy is incredibly interconnected but the capitalist insistence for freedom of business means that it's also incredibly easy to fuck it up, no matter where you are in the world.


Yes Imagine a world with no America. Would they ever invent cars? Telephones? Cell Phones? Computers? Treatment for pollio? Nuclear Power? Win WW2?

More than likely, see Plagueround's response for reasons. But really, in terms of the inventions you listed it's an incredibly stupid non-argument. Would a world without Scotland have no TV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Logie_Baird)? Why does it matter? No one is arguing that we should go back in time and excise america from the world.


Yes, I am sure the world would be a lot better of without America :rolleyes:

I just love the smell of a burning straw-man in the morning.

[#FF0000]

Yes I heard of team work. However under your system everyone would be force to be one team and all suffering will be distributed equally amongst everyone. Under Capitalism people can choose who to team up with and in what manner provided the other person agrees.

They can do that under Anarcho-Communism too.

[FreeMan]

Cuba has won most of the Baseball World Cups. While I'm no big fan of baseball, I find it incredibly funny and ironic that Cuba is better at "America's Past-time" than the US team is.

WHo the fuck gives a shit about baseball....? Seriously.....

Fuking people from Africa make good runners (I guess they got this training from having to catch their food). Thats great, but that is totally irrelevant when we talk about a countries development.

[FreeMan]

Also: American inventions were not made because there is america. They were made because there was a demand for progress in scientific circles. The progress happened despite the existence of US empire, rather than because of US empire. If there were another empire they would have made the inventions. Also soviet scientists were capable of more than just copying.

Technological developments are very common in a capitlist society. People invent for their own benefit and to make a profit. This results in new products for everyone to buy and new jobs for everyone to have. Thus all this inventions obviously benefit society. Obviously people invented because they were free to do so and they had an incentive. You won't be free to invent whatever you want under a communist society nor would you have an incentive.

New inventions and better products are also the result of competition. Capitalist compete with each other by trying to make a better product for the purpose of making the most sales.

This inventions in America happen because we had a capitlist/republican society which made it a great environment . Had America instead choosen to be some communist or socialist society our technology would probably be the same as 100 years ago.

Communist and socialist are secretly against technological development because it can result in putting people out of jobs and cause a company to monopolize. I remember reading some of their stuff "When the invention of the steam engine came it put a lot of handcrafts workers out of business and made them into slaves for the capitlist. Only rich capitalist were able to afford the steam engine". If the steam engine got invented under their system the invention would be turned over to the people. Thus there would be no incentive for inventors to invent anything.

[MikeSC]

Technological developments are very common in a capitlist society. People invent for their own benefit and to make a profit. This results in new products for everyone to buy and new jobs for everyone to have. Thus all this inventions obviously benefit society. Obviously people invented because they were free to do so and they had an incentive. You won't be free to invent whatever you want under a communist society nor would you have an incentive.

New inventions and better products are also the result of competition. Capitalist compete with each other by trying to make a better product for the purpose of making the most sales.

This inventions in America happen because we had a capitlist/republican society which made it a great environment . Had America instead choosen to be some communist or socialist society our technology would probably be the same as 100 years ago.

Communist and socialist are secretly against technological development because it can result in putting people out of jobs and cause a company to monopolize. I remember reading some of their stuff "When the invention of the steam engine came it put a lot of handcrafts workers out of business and made them into slaves for the capitlist. Only rich capitalist were able to afford the steam engine". If the steam engine got invented under their system the invention would be turned over to the people. Thus there would be no incentive for inventors to invent anything.

I made a couple of posts a while ago on the subject, I can't be bothered retyping-

"Let's get this straight- the central idea is that people wouldn't invent new things if the capitalist didn't pay them to invent new things? Because as you're well aware- the capitalist doesn't do the inventing. S/he pays someone with the aptitude to do it on their behalf.

This is plainly false- inventors throughout history have, more often than not, gained not a single thing from their breakthroughs. They have either been old money and find their lifestyles unchanged by their inventions (yet they keep inventing), or they remain unthanked til they're long dead, and in poverty- yet they keep inventing, they keep writing, they keep contributing.

The capitalist is nothing more than the Dragon's Den style "inventor". They take inventions and pay for them to be mass-made, and take that money and pay for more things. Money that originated in the seizing of natural resources by the state, is put into business, more is accumulated, then is put into business again, more is accumulated. Money is merely the handling of stolen goods. The inventor will invent as long as s/he has the resources to do so- whether that comes from a capitalist or not is a matter of indifference.

Capitalism, as a way to regulate which products and inventions get what resources is inefficient, realistically. The capitalist way encourages populist inventing over breakthrough inventing. A capitalist will sooner churn out a dozen High School Musicals than attempt any radical, risky breakthrough. You say it's their choice what to put resources into? Morally, it is not. Morally it is the collectives- who held all land and all resources in common until the state forcefully claimed those resources, distributed it as they chose, and entered them into the market- nothing more than theft.

In the same way that currently a capitalist owns the means of production, and "invents" by putting the means of production into the custody of those who actually invent, all the while retaining ownership of the means of production- so too a collective society can do the same."

And a specific example-

"
Another good book- very recent, if you're interested. I can't post links yet, it's called "Who Owns You?: The Corporate Gold Rush to Patent Your Genes"


It details the strangle-hold capitalism has over medical research in a specific setting. They pay people to discover new genes, and then patent them. They do nothing with this patent- they don't do any costly further research themselves. They use it to make a profit out of and stifle the research of others.

One example is cancer research- the researchers have to search for and test a multitude of genes- which is resource-heavy anyway, but with each one patented by various capitalists it becomes even more so. The capitalist drives up the cost of cancer research to as high as s/he can- extorting as much as possible out of hospitals and labs- which the hospital/laboratory has to pay if they want to do the research. And they have to pay every time they do something in relation to that gene.

The capitalist grows richer at the expense of charities, the taxpayer, the patients- doing nothing, having never done anything except be lucky enough to start off with enough money to fund someone elses preliminary research. And where did this funding come from originally? Seizure by the state of natural resources owned collectively, as in all early civilisation.

EDIT: Note, the original researcher doesn't get any of this extorted cash, as if that would make it okay anyway- in exactly the same way that a worker doesn't share in the profit of the produce s/he makes. The capitalist/researcher relationship is actually a textbook example of Marx's ideas in the first volume of Capital.
"

No opinion of Walmarts mass use of slaves and children to make the goods it sells, by the way?

[#FF0000]

Technological developments are very common in a capitlist society. People invent for their own benefit and to make a profit. This results in new products for everyone to buy and new jobs for everyone to have. Thus all this inventions obviously benefit society. Obviously people invented because they were free to do so and they had an incentive. You won't be free to invent whatever you want under a communist society nor would you have an incentive.

Yeah man. That's why the Soviets got into orbit before us, huh?


New inventions and better products are also the result of competition.Prove it.


This inventions in America happen because we had a capitlist/republican society which made it a great environment . Had America instead choosen to be some communist or socialist society our technology would probably be the same as 100 years ago.Prove it.


Communist and socialist are secretly against technological development because it can result in putting people out of jobs and cause a company to monopolize. I remember reading some of their stuff "When the invention of the steam engine came it put a lot of handcrafts workers out of business and made them into slaves for the capitlist. Only rich capitalist were able to afford the steam engine". If the steam engine got invented under their system the invention would be turned over to the people. Thus there would be no incentive for inventors to invent anything.Excuse me, are you trying to tell us what we're secretly against? This is all bullshit and if there was any doubt that you came here with total ignorance of what you were attacking, you've removed it. You've got no idea what you're talking about.

And that's fine, normally. Everyone's ignorant. But not everyone comes around trying to attack things they just don't even have a basic understanding of. I'm not saying you have to agree with what we say. There are plenty of people in OI who agree with you on some of the things you stated. But they don't go around making unsubstantiated claims, presenting them as objective truth and fact while presenting no argument to back it up, and they at least try to learn while offering useful, though-out critiques. Then there's you, with your grandiose statements, made without argument, and often times completely off base and irrelevant in regard to what we actually believe.

So instead of continuing this, head out to the library, get some books on Marxism, and do some reading (if only to formulate better arguments).

"Communists are secretly against technological progress. What the fuck are you thinking!?

[Jack]

[quote=FreeMan;1388213]

Fuking people from Africa make good runners (I guess they got this training from having to catch their food). Tquote]

Is this ban worthy?

[Pogue]

WHo the fuck gives a shit about baseball....? Seriously.....

Fuking people from Africa make good runners (I guess they got this training from having to catch their food). Thats great, but that is totally irrelevant when we talk about a countries development.

I'd say thats ban worthy.

[mykittyhasaboner]

It is certainly ban worthy.

WHo the fuck gives a shit about baseball....? Seriously.....

Fuking people from Africa make good runners (I guess they got this training from having to catch their food). Thats great, but that is totally irrelevant when we talk about a countries development.

That post wasn't even directed towards you, so fuck off.

[FreeMan]

[quote=FreeMan;1388213]

Fuking people from Africa make good runners (I guess they got this training from having to catch their food). Tquote]

Is this ban worthy?

They do make good runners you chinless anti-free speech anti-truth political correctioness socialist hearth bleeding liberal. Many of the best runners in the Olympics are African. Are you going to deny this fact too just because it might sound racist or offensive?

You ever seen an African run down a fuking antelope by foot? ( Yes an antelope which is a creature with roughly the same dimensions and muscle mass as a horse)

Get your shit straight. Racism usually implies saying something which has to do with an inferior characteristic on a person's race. Saying that Cubans have good baseball players and African have good runners is not racist. So shut your PC mouth. ANd btw, not all truths and facts are all racist free and pretty to look at. The truth is usually ugly and can go against popular belief.

[Plagueround]

It is racist, or at least ethnocentric, to suggest that Olympic runners got their training from chasing down animals on foot simply because they are from Africa. It paints a one way, stereotypical picture that has no basis in how these athletes train. Your comment is the one that is uninformed.

To claim that this makes us anti-free speech is absurd...take a look around the internet and tell me how many political forums even have an OI section for people to come and disagree...most people would have banned you after the first post. However, we do have guidelines for what is appropriate content, and if you cannot follow them and post civilly I will call for your banning because this site is for serious political discussion, not tirades of insults that do not contribute to discussion.


As a side note, if you ever stumble across the posts on this site that involve free speech, I think you would find most of us end up defending ourselves against neo-con OIers who think we want to allow too much. You wouldn't know this because you don't bother to research anything before spouting off that vile mouth of yours...but hey...

[Pogue]

[quote=Jack;1388297]

They do make good runners you chinless anti-free speech anti-truth political correctioness socialist hearth bleeding liberal. Many of the best runners in the Olympics are African. Are you going to deny this fact too just because it might sound racist or offensive?

You ever seen an African run down a fuking antelope by foot? ( Yes an antelope which is a creature with roughly the same dimensions and muscle mass as a horse)

Get your shit straight. Racism usually implies saying something which has to do with an inferior characteristic on a person's race. Saying that Cubans have good baseball players and African have good runners is not racist. So shut your PC mouth. ANd btw, not all truths and facts are all racist free and pretty to look at. The truth is usually ugly and can go against popular belief.

You're implying that a whole continent's worth of people are living in a backward time where they have to run to hunt food in a primitive fashion, degrading a whole people to being primitive when you speak of a whole continent. You are pandering to a popular racist stereotype which aims to reinforce Africans as inferior or backward compared to Europeans, and you know this. This is a typical idiotic argument you hear regularly from at best the ignorant and at worst the down right racist. I think you fall into the second, due to your aggressive attitude.

[Dejavu]

New inventions and better products are also the result of competition. Prove it.


The poor quality of most American cars before trade barriers were further lifted to import Japanese cars. With better Japanese cars hitting the US Market the US automakers improved their vehicles to Japanese standard. Not a total sucess but it raised the bar for better cars. Not saying competition was the sole determining factor but its hard to see how American cars for example would have a better standard to compare to without foreign competition. Its just an example, take it for what you want.



This inventions in America happen because we had a capitlist/republican society which made it a great environment . Had America instead choosen to be some communist or socialist society our technology would probably be the same as 100 years ago. Prove it.


It was a combination of things. Certainly the creation of new wealth and the advancement in capital contributed to the modern material condition. Other factors played a contingent role as well such as the breakthroughs in science and engineering which was possible partially because of secularized Western socieities.

We cannot say that had these countries adopted a non-capitalistic program ( socialism, communism , or something else) that advancement would not have occured in those hypothetical nations. We can see , however, countries which adopted a industrial capitalist model tended to avoid snares like the Malthusian trap ( compare places like India to a large chunk of Europe and US) but it in no way says that this was the only possible way to achieve a technologically advanced society.

[Bilan]

WHo the fuck gives a shit about baseball....? Seriously.....

Fuking people from Africa make good runners (I guess they got this training from having to catch their food). Thats great, but that is totally irrelevant when we talk about a countries development.

You are despicable.
This is a verbal warning.

[#FF0000]

Get your shit straight. Racism usually implies saying something which has to do with an inferior characteristic on a person's race. Saying that Cubans have good baseball players and African have good runners is not racist. So shut your PC mouth. ANd btw, not all truths and facts are all racist free and pretty to look at. The truth is usually ugly and can go against popular belief.

The racist part was the "chasing down their food" bit, not the "Africans win 100m dash a lot".

And what do you know about truth?

[Jazzratt]

And what do you know about truth?

Oh come on, he has a vague notion of the concept. Much as I imagine a fish has a vague concept of the air.

If he wishes to continue down the "them dark folks sure can run" line he can do it at storm****, however.

Incidentally:


Get your shit straight. Racism usually implies saying something which has to do with an inferior characteristic on a person's race.

Perhaps you should read a book or something before you embarrass yourself online like this. You should certainly be absolutely sure what terms like "racism" mean before you start berating others.

[Comrade B]

This is rare in a successful capitlist (party capitalist) country like America.
You are delusional.
You were born rich. You have never had a conversation with a poor person in your life.
You actually think it is RARE that people are born poor and stay poor?
if that is true, I don't see why people are still even talking to you, you are an idiot if you believe that.
There is a very poor neighborhood a few blocks from me, all the houses out there are rented by the same rich man.
The people that live there have all their family in the same area. I am friends with some of them. One of them is my friend K.R. She has been in AP classes since she was a freshman in high school, she maintained a gpa over 3.0, and got all her credits. All her friends are going off to 4 year colleges, she on the other hand will be going no further than 2 years at the local CC. However, it is doubtful she will be able to complete this because
1. She will need to pay tuition and for books
2. She will need to pay rent for her place
3. She will need to do school work
4. She will need to get a job

Getting a job would help her with the first 2, however in my town, all business is closing up due to the recent arival of a Walmart and the poppings up of several chain resturaunts and cafes. There is a shortage of job openings because the local business cannot afford to open new positions, the large stores already have employees filling all positions needed, and most of them are adults. The only other place where people can work are a local private university, however there has grown a hatred between the poor community, and the wealthy students, thus the college now only really hires within its student body.

This is not a rare case.

Everyone else on her street I am friends with is joining the military. As did K.R.'s father. Their children will do the same.

How rare do you really think this is?
You must live in a gated community or something, because I have never met anyone as ignorant as you.

[FreeMan]

I hate hearing excuses. You're female friend can go to another city and find work there. I have done this before without any social help (work and going to college in another city I mean)

Or she can join the military and after 4 years or so she can qualify for a 50,000 GI bill college scholarship. Nothing wrong with some military training. That shit will make you hard and cry less.

And no, I have had many conversations with poor college people. They usually have this liberal mentality that hates things like walmart for making self automated cash registers, and always cry about not having enough free money handed to them for their school intuition. (amazingly I see many college people at night clubs and bars when finical aid time comes around) This fucking liberal bastards.

[FreeMan]

I made a couple of posts a while ago on the subject, I can't be bothered retyping-

"Let's get this straight- the central idea is that people wouldn't invent new things if the capitalist didn't pay them to invent new things? Because as you're well aware- the capitalist doesn't do the inventing. S/he pays someone with the aptitude to do it on their behalf.

This is plainly false- inventors throughout history have, more often than not, gained not a single thing from their breakthroughs. They have either been old money and find their lifestyles unchanged by their inventions (yet they keep inventing), or they remain unthanked til they're long dead, and in poverty- yet they keep inventing, they keep writing, they keep contributing.

The capitalist is nothing more than the Dragon's Den style "inventor". They take inventions and pay for them to be mass-made, and take that money and pay for more things. Money that originated in the seizing of natural resources by the state, is put into business, more is accumulated, then is put into business again, more is accumulated. Money is merely the handling of stolen goods. The inventor will invent as long as s/he has the resources to do so- whether that comes from a capitalist or not is a matter of indifference.

Capitalism, as a way to regulate which products and inventions get what resources is inefficient, realistically. The capitalist way encourages populist inventing over breakthrough inventing. A capitalist will sooner churn out a dozen High School Musicals than attempt any radical, risky breakthrough. You say it's their choice what to put resources into? Morally, it is not. Morally it is the collectives- who held all land and all resources in common until the state forcefully claimed those resources, distributed it as they chose, and entered them into the market- nothing more than theft.

In the same way that currently a capitalist owns the means of production, and "invents" by putting the means of production into the custody of those who actually invent, all the while retaining ownership of the means of production- so too a collective society can do the same."

And a specific example-

"
Another good book- very recent, if you're interested. I can't post links yet, it's called "Who Owns You?: The Corporate Gold Rush to Patent Your Genes"


It details the strangle-hold capitalism has over medical research in a specific setting. They pay people to discover new genes, and then patent them. They do nothing with this patent- they don't do any costly further research themselves. They use it to make a profit out of and stifle the research of others.

One example is cancer research- the researchers have to search for and test a multitude of genes- which is resource-heavy anyway, but with each one patented by various capitalists it becomes even more so. The capitalist drives up the cost of cancer research to as high as s/he can- extorting as much as possible out of hospitals and labs- which the hospital/laboratory has to pay if they want to do the research. And they have to pay every time they do something in relation to that gene.

The capitalist grows richer at the expense of charities, the taxpayer, the patients- doing nothing, having never done anything except be lucky enough to start off with enough money to fund someone elses preliminary research. And where did this funding come from originally? Seizure by the state of natural resources owned collectively, as in all early civilisation.

EDIT: Note, the original researcher doesn't get any of this extorted cash, as if that would make it okay anyway- in exactly the same way that a worker doesn't share in the profit of the produce s/he makes. The capitalist/researcher relationship is actually a textbook example of Marx's ideas in the first volume of Capital.
"

No opinion of Walmarts mass use of slaves and children to make the goods it sells, by the way?

I honestly don't feel like writing a whole lot either. I am sure the people who do all this inventing with success, whether it be a new cell phone, or a flat screen TV, get paid very well. We aren't talking about you're average factory who's job it is to press a button every so often or package an item in a cardboard box. This are probably top notch engineers who get paid pretty good. So there are plenty of incentives for being a successful inventor.

It is not stealing when the capitlist extracts resources from the lands and turns them into something of value. Everything you own, your car, computer cell phone and what not aren't things made by or from stolen goods. Thats just preposterous. How freaking convenient for you to deem that the material Capitalist which means of production is made of and their products are stolen goods that belonged to everyone in the first place just because they comes from the ground. How freaking convenient! I bet if I were to find a piece of shit on the ground people wouldn't be claiming it belongs to theirs as well since it came from the ground. But if I were to transform this shit into something useful the whole world now has claims to it!!!!!

I am happy company X made this black slog into usable gasoline fuel which gets me from point A to point B. I am happy company X extracted wood and shaped them into 2X4s and flat sheets of wood in order for me to make my own work bench and deck. I am fuckign happy.




You know if a company wants to sell their research information for the cure/threatment for cancer or whatever for a price thats their thing. It someone wants to sell me some information that would help me out thats their thing.

Even though I don't like what they are doing that doesn't mean we should outlaw such a thing. Because If we forced people to share their reserch and discoveries which they obviously invested a lot of time in getting, with everyone for free they will probably stop doing any more research or discovery. Intellectual knowledge isn't something that should belong to everyone whether thy need it or not.

[Comrade B]

You're female friend can go to another city and find work there. I have done this before without any social help (work and going to college in another city I mean)
She doesn't have a drivers license, she cannot afford housing in a larger city, she cannot get into a college because she does not have enough money, transportation to and out of my town has begun to dwindle.

Also, why does her gender matter?


I hate hearing excuses.
You prefer accusations. Son of a *****.


Or she can join the military and after 4 years or so she can qualify for a 50,000 GI bill college scholarship.
She is an AP student, not a soldier. She weighs near 100 pounds, and also, got to tell you, the government is fucking slow as shit on paying those GI bills and has a billion loop holes.

Nothing wrong with some military training. That shit will make you hard and cry less.
Her father went to the military for money. He is poor. She is poor because her family had no money. This is the cycle. You join the military, you get paid a little, you get a family, you can't leave them, you have to work a cheap job, they join the military and repeat.


And no, I have had many conversations with poor college people.
You are so fucking stupid you don't know the difference between a poor college student and a person living in poverty. You don't deserve the comfort you live in you piece of shit.


They usually have this liberal mentality that hates things like walmart for making self automated cash registers, and always cry about not having enough free money handed to them for their school intuition.
You are an idiot. Where do people get money from? I am guessing you got yours from your ancestors. I doubt you ever held a minimum wage job in your life.
The thing that blows about these walmarts and shit is that they kill all the smaller businesses, which provide slightly above minimum wage jobs to the locals. When the smaller businesses die, the people apply for jobs at walmart, where they employ the older people with the greatest need at the time. Massive numbers go unemployed, and the cashflow into the town dies.


(amazingly I see many college people at night clubs and bars when finical aid time comes around) This fucking liberal bastards.
You are in the bars too. You think you are better than them because you don't need to worry about money?

Should one be condemned to a boring life without any pleasure if they are born without money.


You fucking disgust me. In my perfect world, people like you have died.

[AvanteRedGarde]

The questions still hasn't been asked how the First World got to its condition?

The answer: the First World exploits the world and concentrates the wealth within in its borders. Of course mainstream populations within the First World are going to have more life-opportunities than people who don't benefit from the exploitation of others.

[Trystan]

Or she can join the military and after 4 years or so she can qualify for a 50,000 GI bill college scholarship. Nothing wrong with some military training. That shit will make you hard and cry less.


That sounds like socialism. Burn it.

[Trystan]

The questions still hasn't been asked how the First World got to its condition?

The answer: the First World exploits the world and concentrates the wealth within in its borders. Of course mainstream populations within the First World are going to have more life-opportunities than people who don't benefit from the exploitation of others.

Exactly.

[FreeMan]

The questions still hasn't been asked how the First World got to its condition?

The answer: the First World exploits the world and concentrates the wealth within in its borders. Of course mainstream populations within the First World are going to have more life-opportunities than people who don't benefit from the exploitation of others.

The first world got this way though capitalization. A person had an idea, he invested in the idea, thus this gave people jobs, a means to make a living and gave the population cheap affordable products that you use everyday but are too ungrateful to release it.

Us having Super Markets, Gigantic size malls, cheap affordable fast computers, and basically anything people in 3rd world countries can only dream of having doesn't come at costing people in poor countries to starve or be poor.

Wealth is generated by the mind and the thinking man. Wealth is not generated by taking away from the poor or the weka because the poor and the weak have nothing to give to begin with.

[Qayin]

Wealth is generated by the mind and the thinking man. Wealth is not generated by taking away from the poor or the weka because the poor and the weak have nothing to give to begin with.
:laugh:
Your a fucking idiot.

[FreeMan]

She doesn't have a drivers license, she cannot afford housing in a larger city, she cannot get into a college because she does not have enough money, transportation to and out of my town has begun to dwindle.Society doesn't own anyone a free college education, a free house or a free car or whatever no matter how much in need they are. Its up to each of us individually to get all this things.

SHe can fuckign buy ornages from WalMart and sell them in the corner or whatever or start pulling out weeds or cutting grass.



Also, why does her gender matter?You're the one who mentioned her gender not me.



You prefer accusations. Son of a *****.No I am not afraid to admit that I seriously don't care about anyone personal problems whatever they may be.



She is an AP student, not a soldier. She weighs near 100 pounds, and also, got to tell you, the government is fucking slow as shit on paying those GI bills and has a billion loop holes.Its not fuking slow in giving out the GI bill, I know a couple of friends who live of it. Plus you can go to college for a good price while you're in the military. Hey being smart or whatever has nothing to do with why she shouldn't join or not. Joining the military is never a bad choice.



Her father went to the military for money. He is poor. She is poor because her family had no money. This is the cycle. You join the military, you get paid a little, you get a family, you can't leave them, you have to work a cheap job, they join the military and repeat.Just because a person joins the military doesn't necessarily mean they are going to be poor or end up being a homeless vet afterwards.



You are so fucking stupid you don't know the difference between a poor college student and a person living in poverty. You don't deserve the comfort you live in you piece of shit.LOL, so you want me to live int he streets so I can start crying for help and blame all my problems on society or something?



You are an idiot. Where do people get money from? I am guessing you got yours from your ancestors. I doubt you ever held a minimum wage job in your life.Dude shutup, I've worked for less then 6 dollars before in my life. Just because I believe in capitlism doesn't nessarrly mean I am rich.



The thing that blows about these walmarts and shit is that they kill all the smaller businesses, which provide slightly above minimum wage jobs to the locals. When the smaller businesses die, the people apply for jobs at walmart, where they employ the older people with the greatest need at the time. Massive numbers go unemployed, and the cashflow into the town dies.

Yes, I am sure super stores are causing massive starvantions and famines where ever they settle. (whats even more amazing is that you won't find any super centers in areas where there are massive starvations and famines.)

And who's to blame for small business going out of business? A) The town's folk who don't support their small business or B) walmart. If you answered B then you are admitting that the population is too dumb and too stupid to decide anythign on their own. But communism fixes this because it decides everything for us huh!!!



You are in the bars too. You think you are better than them because you don't need to worry about money?I need to worry about money however the thing is that I believe I am responsible for taking care of myself finicially and not my neighbor, or society or the wealthy. My point is that students, a lot of times use finical aid for reasons other then educational purposes.



Should one be condemned to a boring life without any pleasure if they are born without money.You know I am all about partying and waseting money on senseless crap. But I sure as hell am not about other people using my money to party on senseless crap. I pay Taxes, part of my wealth goes to people who just waste their welfare money on crap.



You fucking disgust me. In my perfect world, people like you have died.Yes I know, you don't have to tell me this.

In my perfect world even peopel like you would be free to express their opinion.

So how will people like me die in your "perfect world"? Concentration camps? Massive Starvations? Massive exterminations?

What crimes will I have commited? Thought crime? Speech crime? Idea Crime?

[Plagueround]

So how will people like me die in your "perfect world"? Concentration camps? Massive Starvations? Massive exterminations?


I think he just meant that being so blindly stupid would cause you to keel over and die.

[FreeMan]

I think he just meant that being so blindly stupid would cause you to keel over and die.

Still it is true that in societies that tried to practice communism people like me have died by the masses (or rather have been murdered) for having anti communist beliefs.

[Qayin]

No were going to tickle you to death

[Plagueround]

Still it is true that in societies that tried to practice communism people like me have died by the masses (or rather have been murdered) for having anti communist beliefs.

This is again something that is not exclusive to big-C Communism. The United States actually has a long history of backing, assisting, or carrying out the suppression of democratically elected leaders and replacing them with puppet dictators, killing hundreds of thousands and sometimes millions in the process. If the United States has one discernible advantage it's that they've managed to better cover-up and offshore their mass murder. A good number of socialists were also killed in the U.S. for expressing such beliefs. It does not justify the actions of either group, but it once again proves that there is not much moral high ground to be held when speaking government to government.

[Qayin]

Your idea of what communism is wrong
fuck off troll

[Plagueround]

Your idea of what communism is wrong
fuck off troll

It reads like you're saying that to me. And here I thought people liked me. :(

:lol:

[Qayin]

No its towards "FreeMan"

he keeps spouting bourgeoisie nonsense that communism = fascism and theres leaders in it

its pissing me off,hes a troll he is not here to learn what communism is just the stupid crap he learned in history class in high school

[Qayin]

Also this in reply to the original message:

Chiapas Mexico.

[MikeSC]

I honestly don't feel like writing a whole lot either. I am sure the people who do all this inventing with success, whether it be a new cell phone, or a flat screen TV, get paid very well. We aren't talking about you're average factory who's job it is to press a button every so often or package an item in a cardboard box. This are probably top notch engineers who get paid pretty good. So there are plenty of incentives for being a successful inventor.I imagine some get paid well (not compared to the capitalists, of course.) Still- that's not what your argument even was. It was that things just wouldn't get invented without capitalism. Which is bollocks. Capitalism is stifling- the inventors who make things that will be profitable, like a chip carrying more annoying ringtones than ever before, are prioritized over the ones who are, for example, looking for cures for things. Which are stifled by the patent-holding capitalist in addition to this.


It is not stealing when the capitlist extracts resources from the lands and turns them into something of value. Everything you own, your car, computer cell phone and what not aren't things made by or from stolen goods. Thats just preposterous. How freaking convenient for you to deem that the material Capitalist which means of production is made of and their products are stolen goods that belonged to everyone in the first place just because they comes from the ground. How freaking convenient! I bet if I were to find a piece of shit on the ground people wouldn't be claiming it belongs to theirs as well since it came from the ground. But if I were to transform this shit into something useful the whole world now has claims to it!!!!!

I am happy company X made this black slog into usable gasoline fuel which gets me from point A to point B. I am happy company X extracted wood and shaped them into 2X4s and flat sheets of wood in order for me to make my own work bench and deck. I am fuckign happy. This is just empty nonsense. It is a matter of fact that early civilisation held land in common. Everywhere. And that is morally right- by working on something you are depriving what is not yours from others with an equal claim. The only moral way is collectively, by the consent of the collective (who retains ownership- no single person has the right to sell or pass it on). Work on resources that you hold in custody on behalf of the collective (rather than on behalf of the capitalist, as it is now), rather than own. Things are only in private hands because the powerful, the Monarchs, etc- the State- siezed it, and put it into the hands of its nobles.

It's good to know that I'm allowed to take things that aren't mine as long as I improve on them. I'll sign my name on "your" car... or paint a pretty stripe on it- yay, I'm up a car :thumbup:

[synthesis]

Still it is true that in societies that tried to practice communism people like me have died by the masses (or rather have been murdered) for having anti communist beliefs.

I see the American educational system has completely failed yet another bright young individual such as yourself. What we propose would fix that :)

[FreeMan]

I imagine some get paid well (not compared to the capitalists, of course.) Still- that's not what your argument even was. It was that things just wouldn't get invented without capitalism. Which is bollocks. Capitalism is stifling- the inventors who make things that will be profitable, like a chip carrying more annoying ringtones than ever before, are prioritized over the ones who are, for example, looking for cures for things. Which are stifled by the patent-holding capitalist in addition to this.


My point is that we have a lot of inventions in the US because there are incentives. Capitlism enables successful people to propser.

I mean WHat would be the point of working hard in other to invent sometimes if you're just gonna get paid the same as the guy next to you who hasn't been able to invent anything under a communist/socialist society or the worker who's job it is to clean your desk? Thats if you get the job as an inventor in a communist society which more then likely you won't.




This is just empty nonsense. It is a matter of fact that early civilisation held land in common. Everywhere. And that is morally right- by working on something you are depriving what is not yours from others with an equal claim. The only moral way is collectively, by the consent of the collective (who retains ownership- no single person has the right to sell or pass it on). Work on resources that you hold in custody on behalf of the collective (rather than on behalf of the capitalist, as it is now), rather than own. Things are only in private hands because the powerful, the Monarchs, etc- the State- siezed it, and put it into the hands of its nobles.

It's good to know that I'm allowed to take things that aren't mine as long as I improve on them. I'll sign my name on "your" car... or paint a pretty stripe on it- yay, I'm up a car :thumbup:

Private property is not nonsense. Early civilizations who didn't believe in land ownership or private property weren't even civlized and if you look at how far they developed you'd know that they didn't even make it past the stone age. And this is the ideology that you want to follow? Whats funny is that even though they didn't believe in private property early civilizations still had a lot for wars over territory.

The best developed civilizations in early times believed in owning property.

You're supposedly moral idea that everyone should own everything has never even come into existance. Everytime people try that stupdi idea out it falls flat on its face. If everyone owned the same land you wouldn't be able to squeeze a single piece resource out of it.

[FreeMan]

No its towards "FreeMan"

he keeps spouting bourgeoisie nonsense that communism = fascism and theres leaders in it

its pissing me off,hes a troll he is not here to learn what communism is just the stupid crap he learned in history class in high school

You knwo I bet you're a slack jaw cock sucking drooling stupid fuck who's words are just a waste of internet space. Try explaining yourself then maybe you won't sound like a full flege retard.

And just because I don't fall for the this BS ideas and believe in them doesn't mean I don't know or understand this ideas.

[JohnnyC]

communist/socialist society in all of history where the population doesn't live to what we consider poverty?

You communist always talk about how well your system will work for all the common good (Whoever the hell this greater good is) but can you at least point to one example to where it actually has worked?
Communism, to exist, must be international.You can't be part of this world and not part of capitalist economy that is it's dominant economic system.Some revolutions, like the ones in anarchist Catalonia and Soviet Union were proletarian revolutions, but they failed because they didn't spread, and therefore they either degenerated or the rest of capitalist world crushed them.No capitalist government will tolerant socialism, and "peaceful coexistence" is impossible, only way for communism to be successful is to be world wide.

Instead of believing capitalist propaganda about SU, and other "communist" countries, you should read something about theory of communism and make opinion for yourself.If you did that, I'm sure you wouldn't ask such stupid questions on this kind of site.

[FreeMan]

I see the American educational system has completely failed yet another bright young individual such as yourself. What we propose would fix that :)

LOL yes communism would just fix everything!

[FreeMan]

Communism, to exist, must be international.You can't be part of this world and not part of capitalist economy that is it's dominant economic system.Some revolutions, like the ones in anarchist Catalonia and Soviet Union were proletarian revolutions, but they failed because they didn't spread, and therefore they either degenerated or the rest of capitalist world crushed them.No capitalist government will tolerant socialism, and "peaceful coexistence" is impossible, only way for communism to be successful is to be world wide.

Instead of believing capitalist propaganda about SU, and other "communist" countries, you should read something about theory of communism and make opinion for yourself.If you did that, I'm sure you wouldn't ask such stupid questions on this kind of site.

LOL!!!!!!!!!! Ohh so Russia and China weren't big enough for communism to work in!?!?!?!?!

COMMUNISM Can't work unless the Whole world follows it????

NO if communism would've work it would work in whatever country tried to practiced that idea. Like I said, you communist and liberals are just full of people to blame and excuses why your system has failed countless times.

[JohnnyC]

LOL!!!!!!!!!! Ohh so Russia and China weren't big enough for communism to work in!?!?!?!?!

COMMUNISM Can't work unless the Whole world follows it????

NO if communism would've work it would work in whatever country tried to practiced that idea. Like I said, you communist and liberals are just full of people to blame and excuses why your system has failed countless times.
This statement shows you obviously don't know much about communism.No capitalist country will ever tolerate communist society for both political and economic reasons.

As I said, this isn't something new that commies made up to cover their mistakes, this was said much before you and me were born.You should try to educate yourself about communism before you begin to slander it.

[synthesis]

you won't sound like a full flege retard.

:laugh:

This is one of those classic "ur an idoit" lines, where you normally wouldn't give a shit... except they're in the process of slagging someone else's intellect.


LOL yes communism would just fix everything!

Not everything. But your ignorance - certainly.


LOL!!!!!!!!!! Ohh so Russia and China weren't big enough for communism to work in!?!?!?!?!

COMMUNISM Can't work unless the Whole world follows it????

NO if communism would've work it would work in whatever country tried to practiced that idea. Like I said, you communist and liberals are just full of people to blame and excuses why your system has failed countless times.

Communism hasn't failed, communists have. I can explain to you why communists have failed without blaming anyone or apologizing for anything, but something tells me I'd be wasting my time.

[MikeSC]

My point is that we have a lot of inventions in the US because there are incentives. Capitlism enables successful people to propser.

I mean WHat would be the point of working hard in other to invent sometimes if you're just gonna get paid the same as the guy next to you who hasn't been able to invent anything under a communist/socialist society or the worker who's job it is to clean your desk? Thats if you get the job as an inventor in a communist society which more then likely you won't.Like I said, the important inventions have overwhelmingly been invented by people who haven't gained from them- people either old monied nobility or people who died in obscurity. Or state funded- lots of modern inventions came out of the military. If a person has an idea, they're going to pursue that idea- and they'll seek the highest price they can get for it. On reaching that highest price they don't then just cease to do it because there are people getting the same for what they're doing.


Private property is not nonsense. Early civilizations who didn't believe in land ownership or private property weren't even civlized and if you look at how far they developed you'd know that they didn't even make it past the stone age. And this is the ideology that you want to follow? Whats funny is that even though they didn't believe in private property early civilizations still had a lot for wars over territory.

The best developed civilizations in early times believed in owning property.

You're supposedly moral idea that everyone should own everything has never even come into existance. Everytime people try that stupdi idea out it falls flat on its face. If everyone owned the same land you wouldn't be able to squeeze a single piece resource out of it.I'm gonna try to say it nicely, but you just don't know what you're talking about- at all. No one on this forum (outside of Opposing Ideologies, I guess) wants to go primitive. We accept that capitalism has contributed to the development of society- so did feudalism, so did pre-feudal slavery. It has always been immoral, it has always been based in theft. But it was expedient. We are now developed to a point where we don't need society to be immoral for it to survive- the system has overcome much of the problems presented by nature- we have the resources that no one needs to go hungry, that no one needs to go without healthcare, should they be applied in such a fashion. Now, we overcome the problems of the system- private property is one of these problems that prevent the system from being moral. We don't have to choose between morality and efficiency anymore.

[#FF0000]

You knwo I bet you're a slack jaw cock sucking drooling stupid fuck who's words are just a waste of internet space. Try explaining yourself then maybe you won't sound like a full flege retard.

And just because I don't fall for the this BS ideas and believe in them doesn't mean I don't know or understand this ideas.

BUT YOU DON'T KNOW OR UNDERSTAND THE IDEAS. Your questions and your arguments have made that painfully obvious. There are plenty of people in OI who don't agree with us (they're OI, after all), but they don't carry on like idiots with irrelevant arguments. You, on the other hand...

[Dejavu]

I'm gonna try to say it nicely, but you just don't know what you're talking about- at all. No one on this forum (outside of Opposing Ideologies, I guess) wants to go primitive. We accept that capitalism has contributed to the development of society- so did feudalism, so did pre-feudal slavery. It has always been immoral, it has always been based in theft. But it was expedient. We are now developed to a point where we don't need society to be immoral for it to survive- the system has overcome much of the problems presented by nature- we have the resources that no one needs to go hungry, that no one needs to go without healthcare, should they be applied in such a fashion. Now, we overcome the problems of the system- private property is one of these problems that prevent the system from being moral. We don't have to choose between morality and efficiency anymore.


False dilemma me thinks? So before , immorality was necessary to have a prosperous society at least compared to the alternative? If we had a moral society before, that would be bad and no one would survive?

If the old society was immoral but necessary, why should people dissent and demand morality when morality is basically at toxic drug that kills everyone? ( Remember, immorality was necessary for survival!) Somehow I find this very hard to digest and I've read a couple of your posts before and I really do not expect you to have some real solid reasoning behind these claims, if you did , I would be surprised.

Morality vs efficacy, huh? So by your reasoning, that which was efficiant was immoral which must mean that which was inefficiant was moral?



Now, we overcome the problems of the system- private property is one of these problems that prevent the system from being moral.


Why?

[Plagueround]

DejaVu, because I like you, I'm going to be nice. There were a considerable amount of native american societies that had little to no conception of private property, and their level of advancement was far beyond the stone age. Please exclude such things from your arguments in the future because I know you're someone who enjoys being accurate and truthful.

[Dejavu]

@MikeSC

It almost seems to me like you just gave an indirect justification for the destruction and enslavment of countless of human souls in history.

Had they not been raped, mass murdered , pillaged , enslaved then human society could never survive. I'd recheck your premise since this becomes one of the conclusions.

Of course, what are your moral theories grounded in anyway?

[MikeSC]

False dilemma me thinks? So before , immorality was necessary to have a prosperous society at least compared to the alternative? If we had a moral society before, that would be bad and no one would survive?

If the old society was immoral but necessary, why should people dissent and demand morality when morality is basically at toxic drug that kills everyone? ( Remember, immorality was necessary for survival!) Somehow I find this very hard to digest and I've read a couple of your posts before and I really do not expect you to have some real solid reasoning behind these claims, if you did , I would be surprised.

Morality vs efficacy, huh? So by your reasoning, that which was efficiant was immoral which must mean that which was inefficiant was moral? I wasn't saying that morality = inefficiency, as some solid rule or anything like that- "some toxic drug that kills everyone"... no. But just look to history- early, undeveloped civilisations have had to waive morality to even survive. Rome wasn't built on puppy dogs and democratic, collective use of resources- nor could it have been.


@MikeSC

It almost seems to me like you just gave an indirect justification for the destruction and enslavment of countless of human souls in history.

Had they not been raped, mass murdered , pillaged , enslaved then human society could never survive. I'd recheck your premise since this becomes one of the conclusions.

Of course, what are your moral theories grounded in anyway?

"Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater", is what I'm trying to say. We have the ability to do things now that we wouldn't have without such goings on. The pyraminds were built by slaves- that doesn't mean you have to level them to be against slavery. Take the positives you can salvage from previous epochs, while getting rid of the negatives.

[Dejavu]

DejaVu, because I like you, I'm going to be nice. There were a considerable amount of native american societies that had little to no conception of private property, and their level of advancement was far beyond the stone age. Please exclude such things from your arguments in the future because I know you're someone who enjoys being accurate and truthful.

Plagaeround ,

Please read his post again. You are actually agreeing with me. I was emphasizing that it was his point to suggest that historical societies had to give up efficacy in order to be moral. Following his logic, Native American societies would have been far more immoral than Stone Age ones. I am quite sure you can see this ridiculousness in this position.

I was challenging his morality vs efficacy relationship he asserted.

Furthermore he made the claim basically that immorality was required for survival in historical times. This would mean morality meant death.

I understand Native Americans had fully functioning societies and communities and they were for all intents and purposes , very close to what many would consider a communist mode of organization. Thats all fine, I never said otherwise.

[Dejavu]

I wasn't saying that morality = inefficiency, as some solid rule or anything like that- "some toxic drug that kills everyone"... no. But just look to history- early, undeveloped civilisations have had to waive morality to even survive. Rome wasn't built on puppy dogs and democratic, collective use of resources- nor could it have been.


Mike, if you read back you made a direct inverse correlation between morality and efficacy. Furthermore you asserted that in order to survive, immoral societies were necessary. I don't get how you 'waive' morality, you need to explain that one to me. Rome started off as a mild-city state that had a polyglot population. Rome eventually expanded to the point of Empire. Was massive expasnion, which involved ( what you and I would probably consider) immoral acts, necessary for the survival of Roman society?

Its almost like your saying its ok that the Romans expanded and slaughtered and enslaved masses in their wake. It was just survival... However, in order for that expanded society survive, they had to be immoral!

I don't know. You might have some good ideas but check your premise on this moral theory as it leads to some pretty absurd conclusions. Not an insult but a suggestion from one brilliant mind to another.

[revolution inaction]

LOL!!!!!!!!!! Ohh so Russia and China weren't big enough for communism to work in!?!?!?!?!

Russia and china were and are capitalist



COMMUNISM Can't work unless the Whole world follows it????


No just enough of the world so as no outside trade is needed



NO if communism would've work it would work in whatever country tried to practiced that idea. Like I said, you communist and liberals are just full of people to blame and excuses why your system has failed countless times.

a country cant practice communism the idea is absurd.

[MikeSC]

Mike, if you read back you made a direct inverse correlation between morality and efficacy. Furthermore you asserted that in order to survive, immoral societies were necessary. I don't get how you 'waive' morality, you need to explain that one to me. Rome started off as a mild-city state that had a polyglot population. Rome eventually expanded to the point of Empire. Was massive expasnion, which involved ( what you and I would probably consider) immoral acts, necessary for the survival of Roman society?

Its almost like your saying its ok that the Romans expanded and slaughtered and enslaved masses in their wake. It was just survival... However, in order for that expanded society survive, they had to be immoral!

I don't know. You might have some good ideas but check your premise on this moral theory as it leads to some pretty absurd conclusions. Not an insult but a suggestion from one brilliant mind to another.

A direct inverse proportion is something you attributed to me, not something I wrote. I just said that it is past immorality that has led to a position of abundance with the ability to reform society along moral lines. The imposition of a state, for example, certainly aided the formulation and organisation of societies. The imposition of private property certainly contributed towards the industrialisation of society. These are immoral things of the past- that have added somewhat to our current position. We can't erase them from the past- all we can do is abolish them in the present/future. I didn't say anywhere that "Moral = inefficient" as a hard and fast rule. I'm just acknoweledging the events that have led to the position we're in, and the position we could be in.

[synthesis]

Its almost like your saying its ok that the Romans expanded and slaughtered and enslaved masses in their wake. It was just survival... However, in order for that expanded society survive, they had to be immoral!

Explanation is not justification.

[Plagueround]

Plagaeround ,

Please read his post again. You are actually agreeing with me. I was emphasizing that it was his point to suggest that historical societies had to give up efficacy in order to be moral. Following his logic, Native American societies would have been far more immoral than Stone Age ones. I am quite sure you can see this ridiculousness in this position.

I was challenging his morality vs efficacy relationship he asserted.

Furthermore he made the claim basically that immorality was required for survival in historical times. This would mean morality meant death.

I understand Native Americans had fully functioning societies and communities and they were for all intents and purposes , very close to what many would consider a communist mode of organization. Thats all fine, I never said otherwise.

Sorry, I hadn't had my morning coffee yet and misread the long line of quotes. It wasn't you that said that at all, it was freeman. My most profound apologies. :blushing:

[Comrade B]

SHe can fuckign buy ornages from WalMart and sell them in the corner or whatever or start pulling out weeds or cutting grass.
This does not come out as a profit. Also, walmart killed the independant sellers. Few people still buy locally.


Society doesn't own anyone a free college education, a free house or a free car or whatever no matter how much in need they are. Its up to each of us individually to get all this things.
I ask you, did you work for your car? Or did you inherit the money for it? Did your parents buy it for you?
Here it costs $200 for drivers education, $50 for a license test per try. Her father owns a car, however he works 6 days a week. She needs to get the money to get the license, she needs the license to find a place to work, she will also need it to get to work.
Why should she not be able to get into school? Why should others be able to with worse grades?


You're the one who mentioned her gender not me.
I used the words "she" rather than they. you wrote
You're female friend (by the way, You're is short for you are... and "you are female friend" doesn't make too much sense to me)


No I am not afraid to admit that I seriously don't care about anyone personal problems whatever they may be.
we call that selfish


Its not fuking slow in giving out the GI bill, I know a couple of friends who live of it. Plus you can go to college for a good price while you're in the military. Hey being smart or whatever has nothing to do with why she shouldn't join or not. Joining the military is never a bad choice.
Honestly, you are an idiot if you think everyone is capable of being in the military. She is not a physically, or emotionally strong person.
Maybe you should join the army, if it is such an easy way to gain cash and an education...


Just because a person joins the military doesn't necessarily mean they are going to be poor or end up being a homeless vet afterwards.
But if you don't get promoted, you will end up poor. They are not homeless. They are just poor.... I don't think you know what poor is.
Let us put it this way. She lives with 6 people, in a 6 room house. This includes the kitchen, and bathroom. There are also 3 doors in this house... by the way...


LOL, so you want me to live int he streets so I can start crying for help and blame all my problems on society or something?
no, I want you to die. But that has nothing to do with what I said. I said that you don't know the difference between a poor middle class college student, a poor person from the ghetto, and a homeless person.


Dude shutup, I've worked for less then 6 dollars before in my life. Just because I believe in capitlism doesn't nessarrly mean I am rich.
But you are, aren't you. You wrote "nessarrly" which I assume was supposed to be necessarily. Let me guess, you worked for less than $6... in high school? Try living off it.


Yes, I am sure super stores are causing massive starvantions and famines where ever they settle. (whats even more amazing is that you won't find any super centers in areas where there are massive starvations and famines.)
You... you have never been to a poor neighborhood... have you?
There are NO businesses in the poor parts of town... except coke... but I had my run in with the black market, and I am good keeping out of it. Would suggest the same to my buddies. There are industrial areas, commercial areas, and residential areas. Commercial areas in poor residential areas go unvisited, because the people that live their cannot afford the stuff there, so they go out of business. The businesses work for those with money.

People don't make these mega stores there, because PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD IT HERE!


And who's to blame for small business going out of business? A) The town's folk who don't support their small business or B) walmart. If you answered B then you are admitting that the population is too dumb and too stupid to decide anythign on their own. But communism fixes this because it decides everything for us huh!!!
People go for what is cheap. It is what they do. It is why the country's economy is in decline. Do we blame people for taking money and expecting people who are giving it out to be responsible, or do we blame the people who don't give a shit about what is going on. Do we blame the Jews who put the golden stars on for not resisting (I realized you may be too stupid to know this reference, but look up the yellow stars that the Nazis had Jews wear before moving them into the ghettos)? People do what their society accepts.


My point is that students, a lot of times use finical aid for reasons other then educational purposes.
Financial aid is deducted from your tuition. You can't use the money for whatever you want, only for going to the school.


In my perfect world even peopel like you would be free to express their opinion.
What, a fascist society?


So how will people like me die in your "perfect world"? Concentration camps? Massive Starvations? Massive exterminations?

What crimes will I have commited? Thought crime? Speech crime? Idea Crime?
You would have died. I did not say how. It is a hypothetical.
Let me rephrase.
In my perfect world, you would not exist. Nor would you ever have.

[Blackscare]

My main problem with the capitalist "incentive" argument is that it assumes that no one on this planet has passions beyond making money. It completely dehumanizes people (or probably reflects the morally bankrupt, hollow personalities of those that argue this line of thought), and it's an awfully cynical world view.


Perhaps you can only be motivated to do things if there's some sort of carrot dangled in front of your face, but we're not all unthinking pack animals.

Your argument assumes that doctors only help people for money, but surely there are easier and less pressurized ways of making money, right? People's lives hang in the balance, are you saying that these people are in their line of work because of profit motive rather than a passion for helping people?

And inventors are a personality type of their very own, they are people who delight in the act of creating something new. True, maybe the instances of people building novel contraptions for opening wine bottles, etc, may fall off, but who needs another inane product for an infomercial? Those aren't real inventors, at least not of the actually valuable type like Tesla (who, incidentally, was ruthlessly fucked over by Edison in the name of capitalist competition. Who knows what other innovations Tesla would have created had he not been stolen from and ruined by Edison, the model capitalist?).

Scientists typically love the act of discovery, the creation of new theories and such. Do scientists get paid as much as stock traders? No they don't, yet their work is infinitely more technical and difficult than what stock traders do.

And what about free/open source computer programmers? These are people that contribute to free software projects for the love of programing and the feeling of creation that follows. They often are never even known individually by the users of their projects, so we can see that ego and recognition also plays not part in the motivation of many people. They also firmly believe in the value of their work and open source/free software in general, without any economic incentive that you talk about these people continue to make high quality, useful software for the good of every user. And this is no fringe movement, you probably have free/open source software on your computer right now. So much for profit motive being the only motivator, eh?


People aren't blank blocks of clay (well maybe you and other people who think like you are) that just mold themselves into whatever niche stands to make them the most money. Each person has different passions and interests, some are artists, others inventors, etc. The money making aspect to most people, when you break it down, is secondary. The most useful jobs are not the ones that are paid the most, even the salary of a doctor or physicist is nothing compared to a CEO of some company. Are they any less useful? You seem to think that we support those that don't want to work, but that is in fact the opposite of our position. We want to restore the dignity of useful classes of people and end the exploitation being perpetrated by the LEAST useful group, corporate paper pushers. By restoring comfortability and dignity to the most productive and useful classes of people we aim to free people from wage slavery and allow them to pursue their own passions, leading to a more intellectual and artistic society. We live in a time when a narrow set of interests are economically rewarded, and where few of those that actually have potential are able to realize it because of material circumstances.

Of course, for some people, the collecting of wealth is the passion that drives them. This is not a good trait, but unfortunately we live in a system that rewards that particular passion more than any other. Those that are the richest aren't better or more 'successful' people, they are people who's personality type is best suited to the values promoted by the current system.

If I had to guess I'd say you worked in some oppressive desk job, kissing major ass with your bosses in an effort to become one of them and have minions of your own. This is in no way admirable, you are motivated by the desire for wealth pure and simple, this is clear in your posts. You, sir, are the true parasite, because in a truly fair society where each man's equal share is expected you would have no incentive, but as I have shown you are not indicative of all of humanity. You are a member of a sick, morally bankrupt class that can't be bothered with genuinely useful work if it doesn't lead to the collection of wealth (or rather, MORE wealth than others, I think it would be less appealing to you without the feeling of superiority). You apply, wrongly, you're reasoning to the thought processes of others. Sure, there are people in every profession motivated by the desire for material wealth, but outside of the corporate paper pusher class, this is by no means the rule. It's also an attitude that is conditioned into people from the time they are very little, because we live in a society where success or value of individuals is determined by the amount of money they are able to amass.

[Blackscare]

And for the record, I'm a libertarian communist. I don't like the idea of some government telling me what to do or how to do it any more than you, I believe in free association and mutual aid. So stop implying that a communist society would have to be some Orwellian nightmare where the NKVD are hiding behind every corner, because it's just another of the many capitalist strawmen. It has no basis in reality, mostly because communism has never really been tried on a large scale. References to the USSR or Mao's China just show your complete lack of understanding of the various leftist movements, we aren't some monolithic group of people that all identify with previous socialist states or believe they were a success. The leftist movement is an ever evolving, self-perfecting movement, in contrast to the stagnant ideology and defense of the status quo characterized by right-wing movements.

[Blackscare]

Also, do you think that a person who is inclined to pursue a technical profession would somehow decide to become an iron worker if he wasn't payed? I know many college educated people who admit fully that they would make lousy carpenters or mechanics, and aren't interested in such a line of work. I, for one, plan on going into education, hopefully as a professor one day after I've done my share of active political work and all. I want to do it because I love academia, it's the only profession I'd go into. Money does not factor into it, if I could make more as a farmer I still wouldn't personally be interested in that.


Why is that career path more celebrated? Farmers, workers, and professors all serve a purpose in society, yet when someone decides that they aren't interested in a college oriented job they are considered failures in this society? For some reason it's ok to admit that I would rather work in academia than with my hands but when people honestly say that they'd rather learn a trade than go into college, they are looked down upon.


That's because this system does not reward the hardest workers, or the most useful jobs. It rewards those with marketable skills, this is the only reason college based jobs are more respected in this system. Someone who works with his hands requires less extensive schooling than a doctor, and therefore the labor pool is much larger and the pay one can expect much less. Never mind that both are useful professions, there are less of one so it is higher paying. Does this make sense outside of a system based on profit motive? No, the moment you look at the situation objectively you can see that it is ridiculous.

[FreeMan]

This does not come out as a profit. Also, walmart killed the independant sellers. Few people still buy locally.

Wrong, plenty of people do this and if it wasn't profitable they won't do it. They go aroudn selling roses or cutting grass.




I ask you, did you work for your car? Or did you inherit the money for it? Did your parents buy it for you?

I paid for my own car and motorcyle bike in cash. I buy used. I don't fall for the payment bullshit nor do I buy stuff that I can't afford like so many people do. I already learned from my mistakes and I don't feel sorry for people who bought homes they couldn't afford.



Here it costs $200 for drivers education, $50 for a license test per try. Her father owns a car, however he works 6 days a week. She needs to get the money to get the license, she needs the license to find a place to work, she will also need it to get to work.

She can walk or buy a bike or hell even an electric scooter, there are about chines kids who walk miles everyday across mountainous regions just to get to school. You gotta do what you gotta do, this is afterall the realworld.



Why should she not be able to get into school? Why should others be able to with worse grades?

Because that shit aint free thats way and no one else should be force to pay for her college. No society, not the rich or the able unless they CHOOSE to.




we call that selfish

Welcome to Human Nature 101. Understanding human nature might just make you understand why yoru ideology doesn't work.



Honestly, you are an idiot if you think everyone is capable of being in the military. She is not a physically, or emotionally strong person.
Maybe you should join the army, if it is such an easy way to gain cash and an education...


LOL she can join the Airforce they got pretty lax training. She doesn't necessarily have to join the Marines. Yes I think she can.I've seen people under 100 pounds join the military.

Actually I am an Ex Marine



But if you don't get promoted, you will end up poor. They are not homeless. They are just poor.... I don't think you know what poor is.
Let us put it this way. She lives with 6 people, in a 6 room house. This includes the kitchen, and bathroom. There are also 3 doors in this house... by the way...

Actually I think you're the one who doesn't knwo what poor is. Poor is havign to get your water using a bucket from a contaminated river every morning. Poor is using candles for light. Poor is havign to dig up your own meal everyday next to pigs and havign to sleep next to them to. A poor family is a family that works for a farmer by catching rats in the field everyday and eating them. That is fuckign poor you ungrate bastard who's the hater or true progress. They don't have super markets and malls in thsi places.




no, I want you to die. But that has nothing to do with what I said. I said that you don't know the difference between a poor middle class college student, a poor person from the ghetto, and a homeless person.

No I do, BTW a poor middle class person that goes to college can be someone from the ghetto as well. A homeless person is just that A homeless perosn.



But you are, aren't you. You wrote "nessarrly" which I assume was supposed to be necessarily. Let me guess, you worked for less than $6... in high school? Try living off it.


No, it was during my years after high school when i was on my own working in a job makign 6 bucks an hour. And yes it is possible to live of it. 2 billion people right now are living of 2 dollars a day. You communist do a hell of a job cryign for other people though.




People go for what is cheap. It is what they do. It is why the country's economy is in decline. Do we blame people for taking money and expecting people who are giving it out to be responsible, or do we blame the people who don't give a shit about what is going on. Do we blame the Jews who put the golden stars on for not resisting (I realized you may be too stupid to know this reference, but look up the yellow stars that the Nazis had Jews wear before moving them into the ghettos)? People do what their society accepts.

No shit people go for what is cheap, thats because we are greedy. This includes everyone. Yes I know about the Jews and their golden starzs in Nazi Germany. Whats funny is that they were blamed for the ecnomical crises back then because they were for the most part rich while the rest of the population was poor.

Can you guess who we are blaming for our ecnomoical crises here int he USA? It sure as hell ain't the poor living in the ghettos. Its the American Business man IE the capitlist. To bad we can't learn from history. I guess we'll have to repeat it a few more times.




Financial aid is deducted from your tuition. You can't use the money for whatever you want, only for going to the school.


Maybe if your state but in most states finical aid is just plain money given to the student which the student can use to spend any which way she'he wants. Many people cheat the system by applying for finical aid without goign to college.



What, a fascist society?

Ok, whats so fascist about Capitlism?




You would have died. I did not say how. It is a hypothetical.
Let me rephrase.
In my perfect world, you would not exist. Nor would you ever have.

In your world trading will be done in human blood. The murders and the biggest killers will win over the pick pockets. The best beggers and scoundrels would benefit the most while the honest men get screwed over. The result of your ideology is nothing but destruction. History has told us this many times over.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Actually I am an Ex Marine
Filthy scum.

edit: lol, 666th post.

[Blackscare]

Welcome to Human Nature 101. Understanding human nature might just make you understand why yoru ideology doesn't work.

So what do you think of my argument against your "human nature" idea then? I await your response :)

[Plagueround]

Welcome to Human Nature 101. Understanding human nature might just make you understand why yoru ideology doesn't work.


The problem is that you haven't even come close to understanding human nature. This is one of those broken record responses that people around here get used to typing out again and again. To reduce human nature purely to selfishness is to completely misunderstand human nature.. Human beings will act in self-interest, something that does not inherently imply selfishness. Please do some research into this and perhaps you will be able to come up with a decent reply. "It's human nature" is largely a phrase used to replace "It's god's will" or "It's the king's wishes".

[Plagueround]

If you don't mind me asking FreeMan, what exactly do you do for a job now?

[mykittyhasaboner]

Lol, at human nature 101. Humans live in society, with each other. Everything you know, have, done etc wouldn't be possible if it wasn't for the effort or sacrifice of others before you. If we are so purely selfish then why do we go through so much trouble to keep society going?

[Comrade B]

Wrong, plenty of people do this and if it wasn't profitable they won't do it. They go aroudn selling roses or cutting grass.
I have never seen someone reselling anything in my town. Ever. You are just bull shitting now.


I paid for my own car and motorcyle bike in cash. I buy used. I don't fall for the payment bullshit nor do I buy stuff that I can't afford like so many people do. I already learned from my mistakes and I don't feel sorry for people who bought homes they couldn't afford.
Where did you get the money though? I don't give a shit how you payed for it, I want to know where you got the money.


there are about chines kids who walk miles everyday across mountainous regions just to get to school.
Source?
stop pulling shit out of your ass.


She can walk or buy a bike or hell even an electric scooter
Buy is the important word there

Also... it is a bit hard to walk.... across town.... through the shitty neighborhoods...


Because that shit aint free thats way
That isn't a justification, that is a statement


and no one else should be force to pay for her college.
So, even though she is intelligent and devoted, she does not deserve an education, because her father does not have the money to pay for it?


Welcome to Human Nature 101. Understanding human nature might just make you understand why yoru ideology doesn't work.
So you say that humanity should embrace their nature completely?
Alright, enjoy your life sentence in prison. Human nature is animal nature. Animals rape each other, and when one has something another one doesn't like it, they kill each other for it. Lovely society we would have there.


LOL she can join the Airforce they got pretty lax training. She doesn't necessarily have to join the Marines. Yes I think she can.I've seen people under 100 pounds join the military.
So she should be forced to join the military and put her life on the line because her father didn't have the money to send her to school. Do you really think she would get rich from this?
My friends in the military don't expect to get much out of it, they only expect to leave this town. You won't be living your dreams off of it.


Actually I am an Ex Marine
Did you get the opportunity to use that GI bill education? because your writing sure as hell doesn't look like it.



Actually I think you're the one who doesn't knwo what poor is. Poor is havign to get your water using a bucket from a contaminated river every morning. Poor is using candles for light. Poor is havign to dig up your own meal everyday next to pigs and havign to sleep next to them to. A poor family is a family that works for a farmer by catching rats in the field everyday and eating them. That is fuckign poor you ungrate bastard who's the hater or true progress. They don't have super markets and malls in thsi places.
You are so damn fucking stupid, you don't even remember what I was talking about. I was telling you how you don't know the difference between urban poor and homeless. And you just proved it. You think that you are either living on the dirt, or you are in a suburb. Your examples are also, still, bull shit. Give me an example of a family that lives in your described manner.

I have one solid story that I have used for this entire thing. It is reality. You make up a billion stories to glorify your view. They are all bull shit. Be real.


No I do, BTW a poor middle class person that goes to college can be someone from the ghetto as well. A homeless person is just that A homeless perosn.
Middle class and ghetto contradict each other. If you are middle class, you don't live in the ghetto. You do not know what a shitty neighborhood looks like.


And yes it is possible to live of it. 2 billion people right now are living of 2 dollars a day
Source? That is also bull shit when you take out inflation and the money scale. People in Zimbabwe sure as hell don't live off 2 Zimbabwean dollars a day. That would be less than a penny. Get a real source.


No, it was during my years after high school when i was on my own working in a job makign 6 bucks an hour.
And how was the family you were supporting off of these 6$ an hour?


because they were for the most part rich while the rest of the population was poor.
That is actually Nazi propaganda... but... you know... believe your own people.



Can you guess who we are blaming for our ecnomoical crises here int he USA? It sure as hell ain't the poor living in the ghettos. Its the American Business man IE the capitlist. To bad we can't learn from history. I guess we'll have to repeat it a few more times.
You honestly don't blame the bankers for the collapse? They knowingly loaned money to make it look like their company was more profitable than they really were, thus raising stock prices.


Maybe if your state but in most states finical aid is just plain money given to the student which the student can use to spend any which way she'he wants. Many people cheat the system by applying for finical aid without goign to college.
Source? There is none. Colleges don't give you the aid unless you go to their school. It is part of their way of luring you to them rather than other schools.


Ok, whats so fascist about Capitlism?
Let me requote what I made this a response to

In my perfect world even peopel like you would be free to express their opinion.


In your world trading will be done in human blood.
What the fuck are you talking about?


The murders and the biggest killers will win over the pick pockets. The best beggers and scoundrels would benefit the most while the honest men get screwed over.
What does that even mean?!?!?! You are just listing bad things because you think they sound scary, even though they have no relevance.


The result of your ideology is nothing but destruction
I am not a nihilist buddy... I am a communist... I have an ideology in which we construct a new society... Lots of reform... not much breaking...


History has told us this many times over.
Name these "many times" and I want you to do better than Stalin. I am a Trotskyist. Tell me of a Trot that killed many people.

[FreeMan]

My main problem with the capitalist "incentive" argument is that it assumes that no one on this planet has passions beyond making money. It completely dehumanizes people (or probably reflects the morally bankrupt, hollow personalities of those that argue this line of thought), and it's an awfully cynical world view.

Perhaps you can only be motivated to do things if there's some sort of carrot dangled in front of your face, but we're not all unthinking pack animals.

Your argument assumes that doctors only help people for money, but surely there are easier and less pressurized ways of making money, right? People's lives hang in the balance, are you saying that these people are in their line of work because of profit motive rather than a passion for helping people?

And inventors are a personality type of their very own, they are people who delight in the act of creating something new. True, maybe the instances of people building novel contraptions for opening wine bottles, etc, may fall off, but who needs another inane product for an infomercial? Those aren't real inventors, at least not of the actually valuable type like Tesla (who, incidentally, was ruthlessly fucked over by Edison in the name of capitalist competition. Who knows what other innovations Tesla would have created had he not been stolen from and ruined by Edison, the model capitalist?).

People do different things for different reasons. Capitalist aren't out there JUST to make money. Money is just a tool we use to exchange items of value. A capitalist motive might be to build and grow a huge company and make his name known "Donald Trump". Or maybe they simply want to live a wealthy life style.




Scientists typically love the act of discovery, the creation of new theories and such. Do scientists get paid as much as stock traders? No they don't, yet their work is infinitely more technical and difficult than what stock traders do.A scientist has to be very compassionate about their tedious work.

Being a successful stock trader takes a lot of skill. Many stock traders I've read about spend years learning this trade and end up losing whatever little money they have many times over when they first start. Their work consist of 10 hour work days watching charts, doing research, and processing data (hmm sounds a lot like a scientist).



And what about free/open source computer programmers? These are people that contribute to free software projects for the love of programing and the feeling of creation that follows. They often are never even known individually by the users of their projects, so we can see that ego and recognition also plays not part in the motivation of many people. They also firmly believe in the value of their work and open source/free software in general, without any economic incentive that you talk about these people continue to make high quality, useful software for the good of every user. And this is no fringe movement, you probably have free/open source software on your computer right now. So much for profit motive being the only motivator, eh?Whatever the case many people do things to seek a selfish end. They get pleasure out of painting.


People aren't blank blocks of clay (well maybe you and other people who think like you are) that just mold themselves into whatever niche stands to make them the most money. Each person has different passions and interests, some are artists, others inventors, etc. The money making aspect to most people, when you break it down, is secondary. The most useful jobs are not the ones that are paid the most, even the salary of a doctor or physicist is nothing compared to a CEO of some company. Are they any less useful? You seem to think that we support those that don't want to work, but that is in fact the opposite of our position. We want to restore the dignity of useful classes of people and end the exploitation being perpetrated by the LEAST useful group, corporate paper pushers. By restoring comfortability and dignity to the most productive and useful classes of people we aim to free people from wage slavery and allow them to pursue their own passions, leading to a more intellectual and artistic society. We live in a time when a narrow set of interests are economically rewarded, and where few of those that actually have potential are able to realize it because of material circumstances.

Would you also say that your brain is the least important organ? I mean all it does is send signals to all your other organs who are the ones doing all the work....

Not true, corporations wouldn't be able to exist without someone directing all work and the direction of a corporation. The CEO is the one responsible for what all the doctors, engineers, scientist do under their company so in actuality he is the most useful person. He is the captain of the ship who has to keep the whole boat flowing. I am not claiming that CEOs are like human gods, there are dumb CEOs who are runnign a company just like there are dumb mechanics who are fixing cars.

If it is true that CEOs and corporations take so much that they just end up making everyone else poor and are so useless then why are the places where very few CEOs and Corporation exist so very poor? WHy are countries with the richest CEOS and biggest corporations much wealthier?




Of course, for some people, the collecting of wealth is the passion that drives them. This is not a good trait, but unfortunately we live in a system that rewards that particular passion more than any other. Those that are the richest aren't better or more 'successful' people, they are people who's personality type is best suited to the values promoted by the current system.


You will find nothign of any value in places where no one makes money. Generally speaking US Native Americans were people who totally didn't care about makign money and they had no care about makign a currency and that is why they never made it past the stone age. What I said is complete fact. If you compare them with societies who's culture consisted of people who like making money their human development difference is night and day.

I mean, the whole point of this thread was for someone to show me a successful society that was completely free of capitlism.



If I had to guess I'd say you worked in some oppressive desk job, kissing major ass with your bosses in an effort to become one of them and have minions of your own. This is in no way admirable, you are motivated by the desire for wealth pure and simple, this is clear in your posts. You, sir, are the true parasite, because in a truly fair society where each man's equal share is expected you would have no incentive, but as I have shown you are not indicative of all of humanity. You are a member of a sick, morally bankrupt class that can't be bothered with genuinely useful work if it doesn't lead to the collection of wealth (or rather, MORE wealth than others, I think it would be less appealing to you without the feeling of superiority). You apply, wrongly, you're reasoning to the thought processes of others. Sure, there are people in every profession motivated by the desire for material wealth, but outside of the corporate paper pusher class, this is by no means the rule. It's also an attitude that is conditioned into people from the time they are very little, because we live in a society where success or value of individuals is determined by the amount of money they are able to amass.You assume much. and NO, I don't kiss anyone's ass nor am I anyone's little dancing monkey. I believe that in order to make money it helps a lot that you are good at your job. You must be competent. If a capitlist only hired people who kiss good ass his company would be bankrupt while the capitlist who hires the best workers succeeds. And don't give me this bull shit that capitlist pay people veyr little because this isn't true in all cases. This is mostly true for entery level postions. People who work for microsoft, chevron and thrump make good money.

Your ideology will offer little to no incentive for technological advancement and discovery. The discoveries made in capitlist societies compared tot he ones made my socialist societies is like night and day.

In the end you still haven't shown anything and your claims are completely mostly unsupported.

[JohnnyC]

Your ideology will offer little to no incentive for technological advancement and discovery. The discoveries made in capitlist societies compared tot he ones made my socialist societies is like night and day.
First of all can you prove it?
And second, I understand that you were born during the era of capitalism but that doesn't mean it was the only mode of production that has ever existed.If you didn't know people also made discoveries during feudalism and primitive communism, and do you know what their main incentive was?Practical need.

[#FF0000]

Welcome to Human Nature 101. Understanding human nature might just make you understand why yoru ideology doesn't work.

How can capitalism and statism be part of our nature when we lived without it for thousands of years?

Are you going to answer this, or are you going to skip over this post too?

[NecroCommie]

Would you Freeman shut up about human nature! The folks on this forum have clearly demonstrated dozens of times why the "human nature"-argument is not valid. If you want to continue ranting about human nature, please try to at least counter the previous replies. All you really have done is ignore all the valid data and source material we have given you.

[GPDP]

I'm gone for a week, and yet another reactionary fuckhead decides to come in, guns blazing, about how we evil commies want to secretly build a totalitarian world government that would push the world back to the stone age.

Glad to see nothing's changed othwerwise.

[FreeMan]

I have never seen someone reselling anything in my town. Ever. You are just bull shitting now.

People resell shit in the cities. In myn I know they do that for sure. I've seen people buy candy/roses/fruits in bulk and resell it in the streets and public places. Just because you haven't seen it done in you little isolated town doesn't mean it happens.




Where did you get the money though? I don't give a shit how you payed for it, I want to know where you got the money.


Dame dude, u're makign it seem like its an impossibility to buy a fuckign car. For my mustang i manage to make money for it when I did 6 months in Iraq. For my motorcycle I just saved up 35 hundred using my current job. I have very little expenses, my rent is only 200 a month.




Source?
stop pulling shit out of your ass.

I got your little source right here.

http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/1676E22B-58E4-4B72-8CE3-1404E335449B/

http://content5.clipmarks.com/image_cache/valann%2047/512/06C4AF29-5B7B-4958-BC40-E60A1876ED5F.jpg





Buy is the important word there

God, a fucking bike... They got credit plans...



Also... it is a bit hard to walk.... across town.... through the shitty neighborhoods...

Those poor/ghetto/trash neighborhoods where the poor are up to no good? But we all know that its not their fault they are poor right? I mean they are just the victims.




That isn't a justification, that is a statement

There is no justifiable reason why a person should pay/work to provide for another person's free health care, free schooling, free housing etc etc etc.



So, even though she is intelligent and devoted, she does not deserve an education, because her father does not have the money to pay for it?

So you're saying that a less intelligent child doesn't deserve an education as much as her? I thought you commies were all about making things equal.

To make the people pay for her education would be enslavement.



So you say that humanity should embrace their nature completely?
Alright, enjoy your life sentence in prison. Human nature is animal nature. Animals rape each other, and when one has something another one doesn't like it, they kill each other for it. Lovely society we would have there.


Not embrace our nature put go with flow of our nature. We should be free from one another. We shouldn't have a system that forces everyone to work for one another at gun point. All assications should be consenual and mutual.

Just because people won't be force to pay for yoru friend's education doesn't mean there won't be people willing to give her money.




So she should be forced to join the military and put her life on the line because her father didn't have the money to send her to school. Do you really think she would get rich from this?

No one is talking about forcing her. The only force we're talking about is when you say that peopel sould be force to pay for her education.

She should consider the military an option. She can join the Airforce. The Airforce isn't goign to put her anywhere close to combat. They are more like a civilian job.

Furthermore she ain't joining to become rich. Sheis joining to be able to pay for her education afterwards.



You are so damn fucking stupid, you don't even remember what I was talking about. I was telling you how you don't know the difference between urban poor and homeless. And you just proved it. You think that you are either living on the dirt, or you are in a suburb. Your examples are also, still, bull shit. Give me an example of a family that lives in your described manner.


LOL you're a dumb fuck for a communist. Most other communist here already knwo that billions of people world wide are living of 2 dollars a day. I am not going to prove that there are people without running water or who eat rats for dinner. This shoudl be common knowledge for a communist.



I have one solid story that I have used for this entire thing. It is reality. You make up a billion stories to glorify your view. They are all bull shit. Be real.





Middle class and ghetto contradict each other. If you are middle class, you don't live in the ghetto. You do not know what a shitty neighborhood looks like.

lol yeah Ok I don't know what ghetto is... Right... Iam not goignto waste my time taking pictures of my neighborhood just to prove you wrong.



Source? That is also bull shit when you take out inflation and the money scale. People in Zimbabwe sure as hell don't live off 2 Zimbabwean dollars a day. That would be less than a penny. Get a real source.

Man, you're probably going to hate captilism 1000 times more when you find this out but at least you will be two times more knowledge abotu world facts.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats



And how was the family you were supporting off of these 6$ an hour?

I wasn't supporting a family. I am not dumb enough to grow a family when I know I wouldn't be able to support them.



That is actually Nazi propaganda... but... you know... believe your own people.

No, the Rich Jews in Nazi germany where blamed for everything and that is why they were sent to concentration camps. They were the scapegoats,

Right now the American rich Business man is beign blamed for everything. Idiots all across this nation are falling for this.

This isn't propaganda, this is from a 30 year old qoute that no one knows about.




You honestly don't blame the bankers for the collapse? They knowingly loaned money to make it look like their company was more profitable than they really were, thus raising stock prices.

The government forced the banks to give low income people with low credit scores home loans which they couldn't pay of. Thats why people are losing their homes and thats why people banks are closing down.



Source? There is none. Colleges don't give you the aid unless you go to their school. It is part of their way of luring you to them rather than other schools.

Funyn hwo I am the onyl one here providing sorces.

The college isn't giving you the aid. The government is actually. No wait, actually its the Tax Payer thats being force to give people aid. DUde I go to college and I know you can use finicial aid for stuff other then intuition.





Name these "many times" and I want you to do better than Stalin. I am a Trotskyist. Tell me of a Trot that killed many people.

You system doesn't work. You system depends on takign away from the wealth and givign to the poor. It can't even produce anything on its own.

The onyl thing that has brought us progress is capitlism.

[FreeMan]

I'm gone for a week, and yet another reactionary fuckhead decides to come in, guns blazing, about how we evil commies want to secretly build a totalitarian world government that would push the world back to the stone age.

Glad to see nothing's changed othwerwise.

LOL I am staying within my own thread. You little commies should be grateful that I am giving you all this information for free.

Who directs all work, all wealth, all resources and all need under a communist society anyways?

[FreeMan]

First of all can you prove it?
And second, I understand that you were born during the era of capitalism but that doesn't mean it was the only mode of production that has ever existed.If you didn't know people also made discoveries during feudalism and primitive communism, and do you know what their main incentive was?Practical need.

There hasn't been much invented out of people who just do it for the goodness of their hearts.

Care to point out any of them?

[Jack]

God, do you really have nothing better to do, idiot?

[MikeSC]

I love how he ignores the answers people give, and then asks the same questions again.

[mykittyhasaboner]

He ignores entire posts.

Why is anyone still talking to this moron?

[Mindtoaster]

WHY HELLO RIGHT WING TROLL OF THE WEEK

I would like to present a basic concept of the world capitalist economy to you: Money is a finite resource.

In other words, people must lose money, so that others can have it. Therefore, would you like to take a guess at how many people must live in poverty in order for a pencil-pushing CEO to make 10.8 million dollars a year (367 times the wage of an average American worker). Does the CEO deserve to make this much money? Does he actually do 367 times the amount of work that the average laborer of his company does to support him?

In short, yes, we blame the rich. Fuck them. Fuck you.

[synthesis]

I would like to present a basic concept of the world capitalist economy to you: Money is a finite resource.

In other words, people must lose money, so that others can have it. Therefore, would you like to take a guess at how many people must live in poverty in order for a pencil-pushing CEO to make 10.8 million dollars a year (367 times the wage of an average American worker). Does the CEO deserve to make this much money? Does he actually do 367 times the amount of work that the average laborer of his company does to support him?

In short, yes, we blame the rich. Fuck them. Fuck you.

I must say, that's not the best argument against capitalism. Money isn't as finite of a resource as you suggest, because at some level money is tied to value and there are plenty of ways to produce value - namely, labor.

The problem is not that capitalism is a "zero sum" game; to argue that, you'd have to entirely abandon the labor theory of value. The problem is that the compensation given to workers for their labor is unjust compared to the compensation of the bourgeois for simply owning the means of production. Or at least that's one of the problems.

[FreeMan]

WHY HELLO RIGHT WING TROLL OF THE WEEK

I would like to present a basic concept of the world capitalist economy to you: Money is a finite resource.

In other words, people must lose money, so that others can have it. Therefore, would you like to take a guess at how many people must live in poverty in order for a pencil-pushing CEO to make 10.8 million dollars a year (367 times the wage of an average American worker). Does the CEO deserve to make this much money? Does he actually do 367 times the amount of work that the average laborer of his company does to support him?

In short, yes, we blame the rich. Fuck them. Fuck you.

Like any other commie around here your view on reality is totally distorted.

Lets suppose you are right in saying that rich people like CEOs are like big cancerous tumors to society that prevent the world from being wealthy.

If this was true then countries with the biggest and most CEOs would be the poorest and least wealthiest. But in fact the opposite is true. Countries with the most and richest CEOs are in fact the wealthiest. Capitalist give people jobs, a means to make a living and cheap affordable products which you use every day.

[FreeMan]

I must say, that's not the best argument against capitalism. Money isn't as finite of a resource as you suggest, because at some level money is tied to value and there are plenty of ways to produce value - namely, labor.

The problem is not that capitalism is a "zero sum" game; to argue that, you'd have to entirely abandon the labor theory of value. The problem is that the compensation given to workers for their labor is unjust compared to the compensation of the bourgeois for simply owning the means of production. Or at least that's one of the problems.

You can't say that all workers make unjust compensation for their work. Tell me, at what wage level do you consider it to be unjust for a worker to be making for their work?

[FreeMan]

He ignores entire posts.

Why is anyone still talking to this moron?

I can't answer everyone nor can i get in to deep.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Like any other commie around here your view on reality is totally distorted.

Ouch, the irony here is pretty bad.


I can't answer everyone nor can i get in to deep.
Or maybe you just don't have an argument.

[FreeMan]

This statement shows you obviously don't know much about communism.No capitalist country will ever tolerate communist society for both political and economic reasons.

As I said, this isn't something new that commies made up to cover their mistakes, this was said much before you and me were born.You should try to educate yourself about communism before you begin to slander it.

If this was true we would be invading socialist and communist countries right now. But we don't, what the US has in fact tried to do before is stop communism from being forced ont he people like Vietnam and Korea.

And if communism was better then capitalism communism would'
ve beaten capitalism but military wise and economical wise.

[FreeMan]

Or maybe you just don't have an argument.

No seriously, I just don't care enough to answer all 100 plus questions directed at me in this thread let alone spend hours havign a political discussion/philosophical discussion with everyone here.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Sounds like a cop out to me, whats the point of discussing if your not going to finish them? Why keep coming on here and ridiculing yourself with your nonsense?

[FreeMan]

India has 23 billionaires. 85% of Indians live under $2.5 a day. Around 25% live under $1 a day. Ever since the so-called "liberalisation" in India, a few rich people became more richer and some lucky poor people became rich. What about the remaining people? So much for your "billionaires = wealth for all" theory.

A lot of this mofos sure like escaping from there and opening up shops here in America.

How rich were the people of india before this liberalization?

How much would the whole world be making if we just gave everyone an equal salary? Would the top minds in our society liek doctors, engineers, CEOs and scientist stay at their job if we paid everyone equally?

[FreeMan]

Sounds like a cop out to me, whats the point of discussing if your not going to finish them? Why keep coming on here and ridiculing yourself with your nonsense?

Just because I said that I won't answer everyone doesn't mean I won't answer some.

[FreeMan]

Sounds like a cop out to me, whats the point of discussing if your not going to finish them? Why keep coming on here and ridiculing yourself with your nonsense?

U've been debunk several times already.

U were that idiot claiming that Cuba had a better system then us huh or something to that effect.

Bastards can't even produce enough food to feed themselves. If their system was so successful Cuba would never have food rations and they would be producing a lot more for their size. (But I guess its to much to ask for me to say that one of the qualifications for my definition of a successful country would be one that is able to produce enough food to sustain itself. I guess its just to much to ask. No doubt you commies care so little about materal things like production quotas that it doesn't matter to you if a country can't produce enough food.)

Even if we take into account both economical systems they would still be a lot poorer then us.

[Comrade B]

People resell shit in the cities. In myn I know they do that for sure. I've seen people buy candy/roses/fruits in bulk and resell it in the streets and public places. Just because you haven't seen it done in you little isolated town doesn't mean it happens.
You advised my friend to do this in my "little isolated town" to get funding to leave it.


I got your little source right here.

http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/1676E2...-1404E335449B/ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/1676E22B-58E4-4B72-8CE3-1404E335449B/)
That is one source for one situation. It does not make life easier, it just lets you know that life is difficult for lots of people.


I wasn't supporting a family. I am not dumb enough to grow a family when I know I wouldn't be able to support them.
I knew you weren't supporting a family. The point was that there are people with families that are trying to live off that, and it is a lot harder for a guy in his late 30s to care for their family than it is for a 18 year old kid to get his rent and food covered.


Rich Jews
I know that "rich Jews" were the scape goat, however the wealth of the Jewish community was far overstated.


Those poor/ghetto/trash neighborhoods where the poor are up to no good? But we all know that its not their fault they are poor right? I mean they are just the victims.
When put on the edge, people go to survival instincts. People will fight viciously to survive. With communism all survival needs are met, making this much less of a problem.


So you're saying that a less intelligent child doesn't deserve an education as much as her?
I am a communist. I believe everybody deserves an education, but they should also be devoted to earning it.


To make the people pay for her education would be enslavement.
I think you should try a week of living in slavery and tell me again that working for the benefit of society is slavery.


Not embrace our nature put go with flow of our nature.
what is the difference between embracing and "going with the flow"


Just because people won't be force to pay for yoru friend's education doesn't mean there won't be people willing to give her money.
Guess what
there aren't

You live in a fantasy world of Horatio Alger books.

No one is talking about forcing her. The only force we're talking about is when you say that peopel sould be force to pay for her education.


She should consider the military an option. She can join the Airforce. The Airforce isn't goign to put her anywhere close to combat. They are more like a civilian job.

Furthermore she ain't joining to become rich. Sheis joining to be able to pay for her education afterwards.
Go tell her that. I won't try to convince anyone to fight for something I disagree with.


Most other communist here already knwo that billions of people world wide are living of 2 dollars a day.
You didn't understand what I said dumb ass.
A dollar is worth something different in different countries.
2 US dollars can buy a shit load more in one country than another. You have no understanding of basic economics. A person who has a billion Zimbabwean dollars isn't rich. In fact, they are very poor.


I am not going to prove that there are people without running water or who eat rats for dinner
I know there are poor people starving in the world. You don't know who they are though. I am talking about the urban poor. You are talking about people who will die in a few moments.


yeah Ok I don't know what ghetto is... Right... Iam not goignto waste my time taking pictures of my neighborhood just to prove you wrong.
I am betting you live in a moderately shabby middle class neighborhood. With your motorcycle and your car. Which you own 100%.


Man, you're probably going to hate captilism 1000 times more when you find this out but at least you will be two times more knowledge abotu world facts.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/...acts-and-stats (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats)
10$ in the US = more in other parts of the world.
They are still poor. I am not arguing that, but I am just frustrated by your lack of understanding of the difference between what kinds of poor people are.


Funyn hwo I am the onyl one here providing sorces.
Use spell check
Anyway, I don't need to give you sources because I am not making up stories, I am just giving basic information.
If I say, gravity pulls things down, I don't need to give you a source for that.
If I say, we must find a way to fight gravity because gravity is growing and will crush us, I do need a source, because it is a story that not everybody knows. Also. It is not true. Please don't quote this thinking I actually believe that... because in your complete lack of understanding of communism, I can see you bringing this up later.


The college isn't giving you the aid. The government is actually. No wait, actually its the Tax Payer thats being force to give people aid. DUde I go to college and I know you can use finicial aid for stuff other then intuition.
And? The government provides schools money to give to students who attend them. You are wrong that people can use it for whatever they want. Look up information on financial aid.


Quote:
Name these "many times" and I want you to do better than Stalin. I am a Trotskyist. Tell me of a Trot that killed many people.
You system doesn't work. You system depends on takign away from the wealth and givign to the poor. It can't even produce anything on its own.
Please actually give me an example of a failed Trotskyist government.



I have one question for you that I want you to answer completely honestly and without any bull shit attached to it. A yes or no.
Have you read the Communist Manifesto?

[mykittyhasaboner]

U've been debunk several times already.
Prove it.

[Mindtoaster]

If this was true then countries with the biggest and most CEOs would be the poorest and least wealthiest. .

Yes, that would be true if we all lived on little islands that did not ever interact or trade with each other.

We live in a global market economy, countries mean nothing.

[JohnnyC]

There hasn't been much invented out of people who just do it for the goodness of their hearts.

Care to point out any of them?
Did I said that?
You obviously ignored my answer so here it is again:


If you didn't know people also made discoveries during feudalism and primitive communism, and do you know what their main incentive was?Practical need.

[FreeMan]

You advised my friend to do this in my "little isolated town" to get funding to leave it.


WHat I am advising is for her to find a way to make money by reselling stuff. How many hours a week does she spend looking for a job? What has she done to try and make money? There are even companies that will pay for by mail you many envelops and flyers for you to package and send mail back out.




That is one source for one situation. It does not make life easier, it just lets you know that life is difficult for lots of people.

You fucking claim that I was pullinjg shit out of my ass and you got proven dead fuckign wrong. Yes it is one source, do you fucking deny there aren't any other situatiosn like this now?

I suggested she can walk instead of having to use a car just like I am sure many kids around the world do in countries that are 100 times worse.




I knew you weren't supporting a family. The point was that there are people with families that are trying to live off that, and it is a lot harder for a guy in his late 30s to care for their family than it is for a 18 year old kid to get his rent and food covered.

The point is that they shouldn't have started up a family without without the means to be able to support them. This people have no right complaining about a situation they put themselves in. They don't have any right asking other finically responsible people for their money to take care of their kids or to pay for their house.



I know that "rich Jews" were the scape goat, however the wealth of the Jewish community was far overstated.

I don't knwo what you're tryign to prove or disprove here. But Again, the Rich American Business man is being used as a scape goat just like the jews were used during Nazi Germany. This didn't come from propaganda. Actually must propaganda is control by the left side. In extreme cases communist societies take control of all media.




When put on the edge, people go to survival instincts. People will fight viciously to survive. With communism all survival needs are met, making this much less of a problem.


There is no excuse for people stealing stuff. Must of this people are BTW druggies looking to buy another hit. This aren't starving people. Actually many of the poor people in the US are fat.



I am a communist. I believe everybody deserves an education, but they should also be devoted to earning it.

I am a capitalist because I believe I shouldn't have to pay for anyones education or housing nor do I believe anyone should pay for me. Under your system we are all enslaved to one another.



I think you should try a week of living in slavery and tell me again that working for the benefit of society is slavery.

Being force to work for anyone and/or everyone is slavery.



what is the difference between embracing and "going with the flow"

Going with our nature means we don't adopt a system that forces everyone to work for everyone instead of for ourselves. People should be free to choose.



Guess what
there aren't

You live in a fantasy world of Horatio Alger books.

Wrong, there are plenty of people willing to give to charity ina capitlist society. Bill Gates gave 30 billion of his own money to charity. There are plenty of people giving out scolorships. SO no you are dead wrong on this.






Go tell her that. I won't try to convince anyone to fight for something I disagree with.

Sure, give me her number and I'll have a little talk with her.




You didn't understand what I said dumb ass.
A dollar is worth something different in different countries.
2 US dollars can buy a shit load more in one country than another. You have no understanding of basic economics. A person who has a billion Zimbabwean dollars isn't rich. In fact, they are very poor.

There are billions of people world wide that are much much much poorer then even the bottom of our 3rd class. This is a fact.

However much strong the dollar is in other countries making 2 dollars a day is still almost nothing.



I know there are poor people starving in the world. You don't know who they are though. I am talking about the urban poor. You are talking about people who will die in a few moments.


Your talking about America's poor.

I am talkign about real poor people who dont have runnign water and who dig their food of the ground. IE real poor people



I am betting you live in a moderately shabby middle class neighborhood. With your motorcycle and your car. Which you own 100%.


You're making assumptions about me again. You should stop it. Either way being rich or poor should be totally irrelevant to a person choosing whether he wants to believe in capitlism or communism.



10$ in the US = more in other parts of the world.
They are still poor. I am not arguing that, but I am just frustrated by your lack of understanding of the difference between what kinds of poor people are.

No I understand. What I am arguing is that they are a lot more poor then your average American who lives in the ghetto.



Anyway, I don't need to give you sources because I am not making up stories, I am just giving basic information.

Yes, your information is very basic and very common knowledge with little to no support.



If I say, gravity pulls things down, I don't need to give you a source for that.


But if I say that many children have to walk miles upon miles to school everyday I do right? I ahve to claim that Iam not rich or well of either? I have to provide sources that explain why making 2 bucks a day is almost nothign no matter where you live? I have to provide sources about the families who live of living rats?



If I say, we must find a way to fight gravity because gravity is growing and will crush us, I do need a source, because it is a story that not everybody knows. Also. It is not true. Please don't quote this thinking I actually believe that... because in your complete lack of understanding of communism, I can see you bringing this up later.

But we need to fight capitlism because capitlism is growing and crushign us all right? Those that are closes to the biggest capitlist are feeling the effects full right?



And? The government provides schools money to give to students who attend them. You are wrong that people can use it for whatever they want. Look up information on financial aid.

I've gotten finical aid before dumb dumbs.

Here you go dumb dumbs.
http://www.universityparent.com/parents/2008/08/01/students-make-costly-mistakes-financial-aid



Please actually give me an example of a failed Trotskyist government.


The burden of proof is on you to prove that communism works.

If I were to say "Eating 2 gallons of milk is good for you". The burden of proof would be on me.



I have one question for you that I want you to answer completely honestly and without any bull shit attached to it. A yes or no.
Have you read the Communist Manifesto?

If you're talking about the he history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Then yesI have, probbaly more then a few times.

[#FF0000]

One question.

How is capitalism, hierarchy, class-society and statism in our nature if we started as a species, and developed for thousands of years without any of the above?

[GPDP]

This guy looks like someday he'll be a Captain of industry in today's Capitalist society, perhaps by the time he's 68. Don't you think so?

[Comrade B]

If you're talking about the he history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Then yesI have, probbaly more then a few times.
Presently, I am in a staet too drunk to read oyur stupid bull shit which will make me vomit, so instead, I will just go to the end of this whole thing, and repeat mhyself

Have you ever ead Marx and Engle's Communist Manifesto.
If not, you do not know communism. Please leave this forum, read the book, and return after understanding actually what we are.
Otherwise, I will not spend a half a fucking second reading your idiocy.

[FreeMan]

Presently, I am in a staet too drunk to read oyur stupid bull shit which will make me vomit, so instead, I will just go to the end of this whole thing, and repeat mhyself

Have you ever ead Marx and Engle's Communist Manifesto.
If not, you do not know communism. Please leave this forum, read the book, and return after understanding actually what we are.
Otherwise, I will not spend a half a fucking second reading your idiocy.

So are you saying you prefer to vomit when you see your wife in bed instead or something?

[Unclebananahead]

As far as I am aware, all countries which had successful socialist/communist revolutions, were lifted by their nation's post-revolutionary governments out of the third world and into the second. In fact, the very classification of 'second world' was created by so-called 'communist governments' (governments presiding over some form of planned economic structure).

[NecroCommie]

The burden of proof is on you to prove that communism works.


No, actually it is on you. We on the revleft were living happily our lives until you come barging in making absurd claims, without any shred of evidence.

Then you start ranting about soviet union and china being hells to live in (they too without any source material to back these claims up). Here comes a man who says that those countries do not even represent his ideology, so you should also "prove" his ideology wrong.

And you say the burden of proof is on us?!??

There is no reason why anyone should take you seriously!

I've seen pre-teen kids argue their oppinions better than you, I really have!

[MikeSC]

You say you don't have time to acknowledge most of the answers to your questions- so why repeat your questions? It looks to me like you're trying to cherry pick the posts that you can twist and intentionally misunderstand, to try and score points. It's childish.

[Kappie]

One question.

How is capitalism, hierarchy, class-society and statism in our nature if we started as a species, and developed for thousands of years without any of the above?
The majority of animal species have hierarchical social structures, although of course compared to human hierarchical social structures they are incredibly primitive, and it is only logical to assume that going as far back as the first hominids some sort of primitive hierarchical structures existed.

We can also, however, see that hierarchy, class-society and statism are in our nature by seeing that these things are a relatively universal aspect of human society. Primitive hierarchical structures grow into larger systems until eventually they become full-blown statist governments. Classes develop in one way or another. There has never been a human society in our entire history which existed without some form of hierarchy and class and statism are natural outgrowths of hierarchy.

As for capitalism, once groups began to turn to agricultural development away from hunter-gatherer societies which resulted in an excess of goods and resources, this excess has pretty much universally developed into a system of private ownership, and when private ownership as such did not exist, it was generally because of governments and/or specific classes assuming complete and total ownership of the means of production and all goods produced.

The fact that all of these things occur and develop time and time again, independently of each other, seem to say that they are part of human nature.

[Blackscare]

Freeman, if you're going to pollute this site with your shit can you please do two things?


1) Learn to fucking spell and use grammar. This shit is like reading a gradeschool english assignment, it's painful.

2) Actually try to string together relevant, coherent thoughts, rather than nitpicking the tiniest details that don't actually prove anything about communism, like the fact that some school kids have to walk along a mountain side to get to school in a CAPITALIST country (China).

[Comrade B]

So are you saying you prefer to vomit when you see your wife in bed instead or something? Well, to start off, I am single, and just had gotten back from a part, but none of that is an issue. Answer the fuck question. Have you ever read the communist manifesto. Is this the 3rd time you avoided this question?


I refuse to respond to read anything else you say until you answer this question. Until you answer this, I assume you have not read the manifesto, thus you do not actually know what communism is. I am tired of wasting time talking to some idiot who refuses to see any perspective other than his own.

[FreeMan]

Well, to start off, I am single, and just had gotten back from a part, but none of that is an issue. Answer the fuck question. Have you ever read the communist manifesto. Is this the 3rd time you avoided this question?


I refuse to respond to read anything else you say until you answer this question. Until you answer this, I assume you have not read the manifesto, thus you do not actually know what communism is. I am tired of wasting time talking to some idiot who refuses to see any perspective other than his own.

Answer the fuck question?

I already told you that I have dumb dumbs.

[FreeMan]

As far as I am aware, all countries which had successful socialist/communist revolutions, were lifted by their nation's post-revolutionary governments out of the third world and into the second. In fact, the very classification of 'second world' was created by so-called 'communist governments' (governments presiding over some form of planned economic structure).

So you believe all this socialist/communist laded countries were successful?

But if you claim that communism/socialism is better then capitalism why did capitlist countries do much better in terms of living conditions, military might, economically, and just about everything else? (Hence why they are called second world)

[FreeMan]

No, actually it is on you. We on the revleft were living happily our lives until you come barging in making absurd claims, without any shred of evidence.

Then you start ranting about soviet union and china being hells to live in (they too without any source material to back these claims up). Here comes a man who says that those countries do not even represent his ideology, so you should also "prove" his ideology wrong.

And you say the burden of proof is on us?!??

There is no reason why anyone should take you seriously!

I've seen pre-teen kids argue their oppinions better than you, I really have!

The whole point of this thread was to give you commies a chance to prove that communism works by showing me a successful communist society.

Someone said Cuba but Cuba is in my eyes is a sorry excuse for a society.

I am not the one making the claim that communism works, you guys are yet you failed to prove this. You always come up with excuses (some very stupid ones I might add)

"Communism has never existed, if it had it would work!"

"In order for communism to work the whole world has to practice communism"

"Capitalism got in the way of communism"

You commies are just full of excuses and people to blame. And BTW the person who makes the claim about some is the person with the burden of proof to prove his claim.

[Comrade B]

Answer the fuck question?

I already told you that I have dumb dumbs.
So you are saying you have read the Communist Manifesto. Not a book about communism, or related to communism, but the actual manifesto.

I don't believe you.

[MikeSC]

Still no acknowledgement of any of the posts you've ignored? You've spent a lot of time on the empty nonsense, why not spend the time addressing the posts that you yourself solicited?

[mykittyhasaboner]

^He won't, don't hold your breath. I think everyone should just stop feeding this troll.

[FreeMan]

Still no acknowledgement of any of the posts you've ignored? You've spent a lot of time on the empty nonsense, why not spend the time addressing the posts that you yourself solicited?

Which question or post do you want me to answer?

I am not going to answer all questions or reply to every single post made against me.

[FreeMan]

^He won't, don't hold your breath. I think everyone should just stop feeding this troll.


Hey fucktard, you still think Cuba has a better system then us?


From

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/world/americas/20havana.html
Cuban doctors abroad receive much better pay than in Cuba, along with other benefits from the state, like the right to buy a car and get a relatively luxurious house when they return. As a result, many of the finest physicians have taken posts abroad.

CAN YOU SAY INCENTIVE?

The doctors and nurses left in Cuba are stretched thin and overworked, resulting in a decline in the quality of care for Cubans, some doctors and patients said.

Dr. Reynaldo Rios Casas, the director of the institute, said the first days of the program were hectic. Eye surgeons worked in three shifts, keeping the hospital’s operating rooms going all day and all night. It was not uncommon for a single surgeon to perform 40 operations in a shift.


LOL, Hey But so long as health care is free! I mean who cares if you only make 20 dollars a month!


Here say hi to the well threat health care patients in cuba. Like I said, socialism fails anywhere it roots itself in.




http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pAMwcvks3lE/SVic--84POI/AAAAAAAAAvU/RJzrXCbU218/s400/15.jpg

[FreeMan]

So you are saying you have read the Communist Manifesto. Not a book about communism, or related to communism, but the actual manifesto.

I don't believe you.

Ohh so I am suppose to prove that I have read it?

am I suppose to videotape myself reading the manifesto now?

[Jazzratt]

Ohh so I am suppose to prove that I have read it?

am I suppose to videotape myself reading the manifesto now?

You could do that, I suppose. It might be easier to illustrate in your writing that you have managed to absorb some of the information or indeed understand so much as a paragraph. Of course illustrating that you know anything about communism from any kind of source whatsoever would be great too: walk before you can run and all that.

[FreeMan]

You could do that, I suppose. It might be easier to illustrate in your writing that you have managed to absorb some of the information or indeed understand so much as a paragraph. Of course illustrating that you know anything about communism from any kind of source whatsoever would be great too: walk before you can run and all that.

You know just because I don't like your stupid ideology doesn't mean i don't understand it.

LOL anyways, so are you just gonna try and throw insults at me all day or can you at least provide a shred of evidence of a successful communist/socialist society?

[synthesis]

communist/socialist society in all of history where the population doesn't live to what we consider poverty?

Can you at least point to a "communist" society that did not originate in poverty?

I mean, government can never be truly omnipotent, no matter how hard it strives to be so; development takes time. Also, even from a capitalist perspective, ex-"socialist" countries are generally in better shape than they were before socialism.

[FreeMan]

Can you at least point to a "communist" society that did not originate in poverty?

I mean, government can never be truly omnipotent, no matter how hard it strives to be so; development takes time. Also, even from a capitalist perspective, ex-"socialist" countries are generally in better shape than they were before socialism.

Capitalism originated from poverty as well. Contrary to popular belief many capitlist didn't get free money and property from kings and rich people. They started from the bottom and out of nothing but their own vision in mind. They produced the means of production without taking away from others with the use of force. They hired people and gave people a means to make money and make a living and enable them to buy cheap affordable useful products which you use everyday!

Communism depends on taking away the wealth from productive members of society with the use of force. A communist society can't produce anything of any significance. Thats why many of your communist societies fall flat on their face and can't even produce enough food to sustain their population.

There are, I imagine, thousands of companies out there. And the ones owned by the people in socialist societies don't even come close to the production power of a capitalist company.

They say Cuba has some of the best and most doctors. ANd guess what? Cuba also gives their doctors special privileges and incentives like the right to buy a car, and a decent home and better pay. And here you socialist and communist claim that Cuba is among one of the best examples of a socialist society there is.

[Mindtoaster]

Hey fucktard, you still think Cuba has a better system then us?


From

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/world/americas/20havana.html
Cuban doctors abroad receive much better pay than in Cuba, along with other benefits from the state, like the right to buy a car and get a relatively luxurious house when they return. As a result, many of the finest physicians have taken posts abroad.

CAN YOU SAY INCENTIVE?

The doctors and nurses left in Cuba are stretched thin and overworked, resulting in a decline in the quality of care for Cubans, some doctors and patients said.

Dr. Reynaldo Rios Casas, the director of the institute, said the first days of the program were hectic. Eye surgeons worked in three shifts, keeping the hospital’s operating rooms going all day and all night. It was not uncommon for a single surgeon to perform 40 operations in a shift.


LOL, Hey But so long as health care is free! I mean who cares if you only make 20 dollars a month!


Here say hi to the well threat health care patients in cuba. Like I said, socialism fails anywhere it roots itself in.




http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pAMwcvks3lE/SVic--84POI/AAAAAAAAAvU/RJzrXCbU218/s400/15.jpg

http://www.sheepoverboard.com/passingparade/img-mature/starving-child-4.jpg

CAPITALISM

See, I can use shock images to try and attack an economic system too!

[synthesis]

Capitalism originated from poverty as well.

Actually, capitalism as a historical development originated around the time of the Enlightenment, and more importantly the rebirth of Western imperialism. It appealed to wealthy merchants who were not part of the privileged aristocratic class.


They produced the means of production without taking away from others with the use of force.

Again, there would be no powerful capitalist countries without imperialism.


They hired people and gave people a means to make money and make a living and enable them to buy cheap affordable useful products which you use everyday!

The rest of your post doesn't address my point at all.

[FreeMan]

http://www.sheepoverboard.com/passingparade/img-mature/starving-child-4.jpg

CAPITALISM

See, I can use shock images to try and attack an economic system too!

What capitlist country are this hungry people from? Do you think it would help this people out if a Mc Donals or a Wal Mart opened up a store there? I am being serious too.

Care to explain how this is a result of capitalism?

[FreeMan]

Actually, capitalism as a historical development originated around the time of the Enlightenment, and more importantly the rebirth of Western imperialism. It appealed to wealthy merchants who were not part of the privileged aristocratic class.

You missed the whole point. Capitalism brought many countries out of the dark ages and now the best countries on earth are all capitlist.

And no, you don't necessarily have to be wealthy to become a successful capitlist.




Again, there would be no powerful capitalist countries without imperialism.


Dead Wrong, there are many powerful well developed countries who practice capitalism and who aren't imperialist. Japan, Australia, France, etc etc.

An Imperialist conqours other countries and claims their land. How many countries has thew United States conquered anyways?



The rest of your post doesn't address my point at all.

What the hell was your point again?

[#FF0000]

Dead Wrong, there are many powerful well developed countries who practice capitalism and who aren't imperialist. Japan, Australia, France, etc etc.

An Imperialist conqours other countries and claims their land. How many countries has thew United States conquered anyways?

Imperialism in the Marxist sense is not the same thing as Imperialism in the general sense. But hey, once again you make it clear that you don't know anything about Marxism.

[FreeMan]

Imperialism in the Marxist sense is not the same thing as Imperialism in the general sense. But hey, once again you make it clear that you don't know anything about Marxism.

You know we might actually get some real discussion done if you stopped behaving like a total fucktard and actually explain things in your own sense. You idiots spend half the time and half the space on this thread throwing me insults. No wonder you stupid commies are so unproductive and no wonder yoru ideology is such a POS that it only succeeds in destroying everything before it falls flat on its face.

You know if anyone in real life tried to force me to work for them, or society or for whoever for a min out of my life i'd fuckign bite their face off. freaking Literally. And you get bet your commie ass that many Americans would to.

[synthesis]

You idiots spend half the time and half the space on this thread throwing me insults.It's not an insult, really; all we're saying is that your rhetoric is residing on a lot of premade assumptions about our take on things that are entirely off base and could be solved by reading some other threads on this board where these same subjects have been pounded into the dust dozens of times over.

You see, the thing is, you see yourself as far closer to the truth than you are. If you maybe slow down, try and read thoughtfully, we might be able to have a more productive discussion here.


Dead Wrong, there are many powerful well developed countries who practice capitalism and who aren't imperialist. Japan, Australia, France, etc etc.But they were imperialist in the not-so-distant past, and understand that the massive value of those millions of hours of forced labor is still circulating in their economy. Australia's power and development was also the result of colonialism.

This is really more of a historical fact than a debating point, so to speak.



An Imperialist conqours other countries and claims their land.Well, an imperialist pursues an empire. You should Google "neo-imperialism."


What the hell was your point again?Please read this closely; what I'm trying to do here is bridge the gap of knowledge between us. These are things that have to be explained then debated, not the other way around. If you think that we're making assumptions that we shouldn't be, you can point them out and explain why you disagree.

But the point is that Marx had always intended revolution to take place in the most developed parts of the world at that point in time.

This was because their technology was able to handle the massive amount of really tedious labor that would otherwise have to be filled by an underclass of laborers, who often had to be relegated to their tasks with brute force.

(If you want to read up on the history of labor unions in the West before the 20th century you'll catch my drift.)

Also, since the most developed parts of the world have always been imperialist, Marx wanted revolution to take place in the "heart of the empires" instead of the situation deteriorating into simply more of the same - imperialists versus their empire - and that's really what happened anyways.

This is reality, not politics.

You have to understand that neither Marx nor any well-read Marxist sees capitalism as entirely bad. To us, capitalism is just one step on the path to communism; before it, feudalism, and after it, socialism.

There can't be socialism without capitalism first, because capitalism itself needs a certain level of development before it. After all, capitalists can't dominate when they can't sell a lot of stuff to a lot of people.

The problem with the Marxist governments of the 20th century is that all of them tried to "bridge the gap" between pre-capitalism and socialism, which can never turn out well.

This is because there is certain labor that must be done, and pre-modern economies have always been closely tied to the brute force that's needed to get this work done, which is exactly what happened in those countries. Yes, modern "democracy" is a development of capitalism.

You asked if there has ever been a successful socialist country, and here's the answer: what happened was exactly what you'd expect to happen, if you understood the theory correctly.

The Marxist governments of the 20th century all thought they could just make the leap from pre-capitalist, predominately agricultural, imperialized conditions to a socialist democracy, but what really happened was that a few of them turned into modern capitalist countries and the rest of them turned into their empires.

I mean, Russia and China both started out as nearly powerless and highly colonized and now, after their attempts at socialism, they have political autonomy as well as modern economies and fledgling empires.

And there's the answer to your original question. Instead of becoming truly democratic, which is the definition of communism - economic democracy - pre-capitalist countries transformed into capitalism in the sense that Marxists use the word. And that's exactly what historical materialist analysis would have predicted in the first place.

[FreeMan]

Do you think wage slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is about free consent? Why don't you try biting the heads of your bosses if you have any?

Because I am not being force to work.

When a man offers you a job for nothing is COMPLETELY different from when a man forces you to work.

[Dejavu]

A little vid for freeman.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZCFUB_W6MA&feature=channel_page

[synthesis]

When a man offers you a job for nothing is COMPLETELY different from when a man forces you to work.

But that man didn't necessarily earn the right to offer you a job, and there's no difference between being forced to work at the point of a gun and being forced to work because you'll starve otherwise.

It's not like we can just "live off the land" - somebody already owns it.

[FreeMan]

But that man didn't necessarily earn the right to offer you a job, and there's no difference between being forced to work at the point of a gun and being forced to work because you'll starve otherwise.

It's not like we can just "live off the land" - somebody already owns it.

Ideally anyone has the right to offer anyone else a job for whatever price. I can offer you a job to clean my house or type my messages for whatever price. You can to and you have the right to work for me for whatever price PROVIDED WE COME TO A MUTUAL AGREEMENT.

No there is a great amount of difference between being force to work at gun point and having to work because you're starving.

Being force to work at gun point comes from a result of another person's actions. Another person is the one who is going to shoot you if you don't work and so he is to blame. This is clearly a violation of our inalienable rights. Able workers in communist societies have been force to work at gun point.

When having to work because you are starving is the result of your actions because you lead yourself to a situation where in which you are starving and have no other choice but to work to survive. Self responsibility preaches that we don't lead ourselves in such dire situations where we would be starving or in the street or whatever. Even in such a situation no other man is obligation to give you free food or a job simply because you happen to be in need. If indeed a person is to be force to give you free food or whatever because people voted a certain way this person is now force to work at gun point. Single Mothers who have 20 kids put themselves in such a situation where they end up staving and in need. Men who become drunks put themselves in such a situation. People who spend money irresponsibly and buy things they can't afford put themselves in such a situation. And here you say that they are the Victims. No they deserve to suffer. Stupidity I believe should be painful.


You might rebuttal "Well how can I feed myself if the capitlist own everything and wouldn't have to give me nothing". Whats really funny is that in places where the capitlist do indeed own almost everything and you have corporations everywhere owning everything and running everything, like in US, people are doing quite well compared to places where you find very little capitlist and few corporations. Many poor people in the US are fat and got a life which billions of starving people all over the world could only dream about.

(there is no reason why I am using you as an example. i don't know if your a starving marvin or if you make a 70,000+ a year and brag to me about it like I seen some commies do here but don't realize that I have 0 class envy)

Think of all the starving villages in Africa where people are eating off the land and toiling around in the soil trying to find a meal. You won't find a single business running in this places. ANyways Capitalism is no where near this starving villages. The capitlist didn't take away from them everything because they had nothing to offer to begin with. But capitlist have given this people a better chance in life by giving them a job and a means to make a better living. You call this sweat shops. More then likely a person's alternative to working in a sweatshop is having to toil around in the fields trying to grow food.

[Jazzratt]

You know just because I don't like your stupid ideology doesn't mean i don't understand it.

Yes, but the uninformed attacks you're making illustrate that either you don't understand communism or your deliberately constructing a strawman.


LOL anyways, so are you just gonna try and throw insults at me all day or can you at least provide a shred of evidence of a successful communist/socialist society?

Given that so far you've shown yourself to be too thick to understand the responses of others I don't really see the point.

[MikeSC]

Which question or post do you want me to answer?

I am not going to answer all questions or reply to every single post made against me.

I was thinking specifically of the whole "capitalism = inventions!" arc- I remember I was left hanging, but then you came back later repeating the same claims.

I'll sum up, for ease, 'cause there were a few posts-

The claim was that without capitalism, we wouldn't have a drive to invent or research, when...

We've had some pretty important inventions pre-capitalism.

A lot of inventors did not materially gain from their inventions- they were either old-money and invented for the prestige and out of interest, or they just never gained from their inventions.

Under capitalism, a lot of the most important inventions come out of the military, using state funding.

Capitalism actually stifles inventing and inventors/researchers- as we can see with the cure for cancer example.

Capitalism focusses on easy-profits rather than breakthroughs- a capitalist would sooner pour resources into another High School Musical than into things that matter.

The capitalist doesn't have control of these resources legitimately- all current private ownership is the latest link in a chain stretching back to the seizure of resources from the collective by the state "at the point of a gun".

[EvilEggCracker]

The claim was that without capitalism, we wouldn't have a drive to invent or research, when...

We've had some pretty important inventions pre-capitalism.



Ah, but we have progressed far further in the last 100~150 years or so of capitalism (technology wise, at least) than the thousands of years before that. Without a doubt capitalism does inspire people to conduct research. It may be for a profit but I fail to see the problem with that.


Capitalism actually stifles inventing and inventors/researchers- as we can see with the cure for cancer example

I'm sorry but what? Do you have any evidence to show that it's economics, rather than real medical issues and/or gaps in kowledge that is the problem?



The capitalist doesn't have control of these resources legitimately- all current private ownership is the latest link in a chain stretching back to the seizure of resources from the collective by the state "at the point of a gun".

So you suggest we steal lands back from people who own it and hand it out to everyone else? That is stealing and wrong. I still don't see why the "collective" have any more right to the land than the person who worked for it.

Could you explain that link as well, please? I don't think I understand exactly.

[#FF0000]

You know we might actually get some real discussion done if you stopped behaving like a total fucktard and actually explain things in your own sense. You idiots spend half the time and half the space on this thread throwing me insults. No wonder you stupid commies are so unproductive and no wonder yoru ideology is such a POS that it only succeeds in destroying everything before it falls flat on its face.

You know if anyone in real life tried to force me to work for them, or society or for whoever for a min out of my life i'd fuckign bite their face off. freaking Literally. And you get bet your commie ass that many Americans would to.

Why am I responsible for gaps in your education?

You don't understand anything about Marxism, so we have to start from the beginning, BUT you're belligerent, and you're more interested in trying to "stump the commies" than actually learn anything, so you're on your own until you change that attitude.

[MikeSC]

Ah, but we have progressed far further in the last 100~150 years or so of capitalism (technology wise, at least) than the thousands of years before that. Without a doubt capitalism does inspire people to conduct research. It may be for a profit but I fail to see the problem with that.True or not, there's no reason to believe that without capitalism people wouldn't invent. I'd argue that the scientific leaps made pre-capitalism, the invention of medicine, hell- the invention of the wheel- are more important than most of capitalism's contributions. A good number of which came out of the military, like the internet, so in a non-capitalist environment anyway.


I'm sorry but what? Do you have any evidence to show that it's economics, rather than real medical issues and/or gaps in kowledge that is the problem?

Yes. THIS (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Who-Owns-You-Corporate-Philosophy/dp/1405187301/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231100900&sr=8-13) book is a good place to start, it's a very recent book I've been trying to sell people on this forum for a while :)

"It details the strangle-hold capitalism has over medical research in a specific setting. They pay people to discover new genes, and then patent them. They do nothing with this patent- they don't do any costly further research themselves. They use it to make a profit out of and stifle the research of others.

One example is cancer research- the researchers have to search for and test a multitude of genes- which is resource-heavy anyway, but with each one patented by various capitalists it becomes even more so. The capitalist drives up the cost of cancer research to as high as s/he can- extorting as much as possible out of hospitals and labs- which the hospital/laboratory has to pay if they want to do the research. And they have to pay every time they do something in relation to that gene.

The capitalist grows richer at the expense of charities, the taxpayer, the patients- doing nothing, having never done anything except be lucky enough to start off with enough money to fund someone elses preliminary research. And where did this funding come from originally? Seizure by the state of natural resources owned collectively, as in all early civilisation.

Note, the original researcher doesn't get any of this extorted cash, as if that would make it okay anyway- in exactly the same way that a worker doesn't share in the profit of the produce s/he makes. The capitalist/researcher relationship is actually a textbook example of Marx's ideas in the first volume of Capital."


So you suggest we steal lands back from people who own it and hand it out to everyone else? That is stealing and wrong. I still don't see why the "collective" have any more right to the land than the person who worked for it.

Could you explain that link as well, please? I don't think I understand exactly. It's not stealing, or wrong, because the land (anything material for that matter) is not owned legitimately. It is a redistribution among the collective to be managed democratically. It is to fix the original distribution of wealth- seizure, by monarchs or the state in whatever guise, is what introduced resources originally communally owned into the markets. Locke's "justification" is arbitrary, and accounts for 0% of property ownership in the real world anyway. A king siezed some land, gave it to a noble, who passed it down to his son, who sold it to a capitalist- etc. There is no ceremony, or rite, or act, that can make private property legitimate.

[Dr Mindbender]

Ah, but we have progressed far further in the last 100~150 years or so of capitalism (technology wise, at least) than the thousands of years before that. Without a doubt capitalism does inspire people to conduct research. It may be for a profit but I fail to see the problem with that.

The technological advances we have were made in spite of capitalism, not because of it.

Capitalism, the price system or whatever you want to call it requires scarcity in order to function. This scarcity in turn places restrictions on the scientists and engineers behind technological milestones.



So you suggest we steal lands back from people who own it and hand it out to everyone else? That is stealing and wrong. I still don't see why the "collective" have any more right to the land than the person who worked for it.
It isn't stealing if you understand the labour theory of value.

[EvilEggCracker]

True or not, there's no reason to believe that without capitalism people wouldn't invent. Hell, I'd argue that the scientific leaps made pre-capitalism, the invention of medicine, hell- the invention of the wheel- are more important than most of capitalism's contributions. A good number of which came out of the military, like the internet, so in a non-capitalist environment anyway.


They were very important yes. But the rate at which inventions are created is vastly vastly more efficient in a capitalist society. Ambition is rewarded, so it makes more logical sense that there would be an increase in inventions.


Yes. THIS book is a good place to start, it's a very recent book I've been trying to sell people on this forum for a while :)


Well, that's interesting certainly. I'd have to read more to properly debate you on the issue. Anywhere on the internet that I could read more about it?




It's not stealing, or wrong, because the land (anything material for that matter) is not owned legitimately. It is a redistribution among the collective to be managed democratically. It is to fix the original distribution of wealth- seizure, by monarchs or the state in whatever guise, is what introduced resources originally communally owned into the markets. Locke's "justification" is arbitrary, and accounts for 0% of property ownership in the real world anyway. A king siezed some land, gave it to a noble, who passed it down to his son, who sold it to a capitalist- etc. There is no ceremony, or rite, or act, that can make private property legitimate.

I'd disagree with you there on the fact that land isn't free and belongs to those that purchase it. Property law is inviolable ;). If someone has bought land then they own it.


The technological advances we have were made in spite of capitalism, not because of it.

How do you account for the increase in technological level when capitalism (or at least the closet to real capitalism that there is) in that case?

And I'll go look into the labour theory of value. Will respond when I learn about it =)

[NecroCommie]

Ah, but we have progressed far further in the last 100~150 years or so of capitalism (technology wise, at least) than the thousands of years before that. Without a doubt capitalism does inspire people to conduct research. It may be for a profit but I fail to see the problem with that.
Once again (sigh)... Capitalism is not the one inspiring, for it is rarely the economic system that drives minds into inventions. The fast human advancement began with the enlightment mentality of the 1800's. This new idea that stuff should be resolved with reasoning (strange term for freeman) rather than feeling, gave birth to the modern scientific method. Scientific advancement will speedup as long as the scientific method is in use, and inventions was, and will be made as long as there are humans. This is proven by the fact that there were important scientists far before capitalism, and that the scientific method has advanced in "pulses" regardless of capitalism rather than because of capitalism. There is no correlation between this timeline ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_history_of_scientific_method
And the history of capitalism.


I'm sorry but what? Do you have any evidence to show that it's economics, rather than real medical issues and/or gaps in kowledge that is the problem?
It does not matter whether he can prove this one certain small thing since market failures are quite a common concept even among capitalist economists. ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure




So you suggest we steal lands back from people who own it and hand it out to everyone else? That is stealing and wrong. I still don't see why the "collective" have any more right to the land than the person who worked for it.

What if the landowner never worked for it? Perhaps the owner were just born into a rich family. And that is only stealing if you refuse to think this objectively. The nobles of old europe used the same argument against the rising power of the bourgeoisie, that taking their divine power away was stealing it. And what if you were stealing slaves in 19th century america and then setting them free? Would that not be good stealing.

You must understand that marxists see the private ownership of means of production and labour as bad as slavery. That is because we see that owning someone elses labour is exactly like putting a "gun of starvation" on the forehead of the worker. Therefore private ownership of factories is wage slavery of the workers, and it is therefore ethically right to "steal" the means of production back. To steal our freedom back to be precise.

If you want us to "convert" to private ownership, you will have to convince us that wage slavery is not slavery. This will be a difficult task though, and I suggest some reading of these forums before trying anything like that.

[MikeSC]

Well, that's interesting certainly. I'd have to read more to properly debate you on the issue. Anywhere on the internet that I could read more about it?I'm afraid not- there's a section on the subject in Monbiot's "Captive State". I can't think of anything online- if anything comes up I'll post it :)


I'd disagree with you there on the fact that land isn't free and belongs to those that purchase it. Property law is inviolable http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/wink.gif. If someone has bought land then they own it.It's as inviolable as any other arbitrary law introduced and enforced by a state through force (that is, not- morally.). The person who bought, bought it off someone who had no right to sell it. The person bought it with money s/he has no right to. Private property is the state construction on top of the moral equilibrium.

[NecroCommie]

Property law is inviolable ;).
You did notice we are revolutionary left did you not? Personally I could not care less what laws the bourgeoisie make, they are all made in blood.



How do you account for the increase in technological level when capitalism (or at least the closet to real capitalism that there is) in that case?
See my post about the scientific method.

About the labour theory of value you can read in these forums.

I suggest the moderators dont restrict EvilEggCracker this very moment, since he seems to be able to argue sensibly. Unlike some other OI:er whose name I shall not mention.

[#FF0000]

How do you account for the increase in technological level when capitalism (or at least the closet to real capitalism that there is) in that case?

And I'll go look into the labour theory of value. Will respond when I learn about it =)

Technology advances at an exponential pace. That is, we advance faster and faster every single day.

And as for the Labor Theory of Value, I suggest Karl Marx's Capital. That's pretty much the book for the basis of Marxist economics.

[#FF0000]

I suggest the moderators dont restrict EvilEggCracker this very moment, since he seems to be able to argue sensibly. Unlike some other OI:er whose name I shall not mention.

Restriction is not punishment. People who hold an "opposing ideology" are restricted to keep discussion locked in this particular subforum.

[griffjam]

No they don't. Not capitalism at least. Social Darwinism came much, much later.

Yes, but social Darwinism was used to explain the negative effects of capitalism starting around the late 19th century.

[EvilEggCracker]

I don't have much time so I'll just give out a basic overview of what I'm trying to say. I'll come back at a later date and include more details and do more research into examples and such;

When there is incentive for work, there is creative, useful output. This creative, useful output drives the economy and world. There is incentive to create better techniques--cutting edge medicine pays ridiculous amounts of money. MRIs, NMR, CAT scans, etc. etc. all of these were developed from obscurity by capitalist Americans. Capitalism relies on the basic component of human effort-for-reward. Socialism offers reward for nothing, and produces nothing.


I suggest the moderators dont restrict EvilEggCracker this very moment, since he seems to be able to argue sensibly.

Heh, thanks. But I'm not just here to argue. I don't hold onto my viewpoint religiously; what's the point of having it if it fails under pressure? I'm here to learn about differing viewpoints. I currently think that Objectivism is the best and most fair stance to take. That could change in the future if I'm persuaded otherwise, like I was to Objectivism from my previous ideas =)

[Dr Mindbender]

How do you account for the increase in technological level when capitalism (or at least the closet to real capitalism that there is) in that case?

Because capitalism, while currently a reactionary force was at the time of the industrial revolution progressive because it heralded mass manufacturing and heavy industries not seen during previous epochs.

The Marxist perspective is that capitalism is a necessary adolesence on the transition towards a classless society. However, it has now outgrown its own usefulness in terms of being a socially just system.

Read the communist manifesto on this, Marx puts it better than i can.



And I'll go look into the labour theory of value. Will respond when I learn about it =)

Please do, it makes a change to get some opposing views that arent closed minded.

[NecroCommie]

Restriction is not punishment. People who hold an "opposing ideology" are restricted to keep discussion locked in this particular subforum.
I meant that he should be able to view the "theory" subforum since he seems the type who can actually grasp something from there.

...

Now that I think of it, what subforums non-members can view exactly?

[NecroCommie]

I currently think that Objectivism is the best and most fair stance to take. That could change in the future if I'm persuaded otherwise, like I was to Objectivism from my previous ideas =)

As I see it objectivism is a state of mind, not a separate viewpoint on philosophy. But then again, its just my view so what the heck.

As to the incentive part, Communism does not offer something for nothing. Communism goes by the rule: "From everyone according to their capability, to everyone according to their need" and, "Those who do not work shall not eat". I would like to point out that the latter mostly refers to capitalist class and other vermin, not people with disabilities and such.


Technology advances at an exponential pace. That is, we advance faster and faster every single day.
I would not put it so blatantly, since there are some known technological regressions (such as the dark ages in europe) I would say that science advances in pulses (two steps forwards and one step back), and that we are coming to an end of another pulse. But more generally speaking I agree with you.

[griffjam]

I currently think that Objectivism is the best and most fair stance to take. That could change in the future if I'm persuaded otherwise, like I was to Objectivism from my previous ideas =)


http://www.revleft.com/vb/world-john-galti-t103714/index.html?t=103714

[Comrade B]

Ohh so I am suppose to prove that I have read it?

am I suppose to videotape myself reading the manifesto now?
No. You are supposed to show an understanding of the basic concepts. You have not.

[FreeMan]

The claim was that without capitalism, we wouldn't have a drive to invent or research, when...

If you compared the inventions made by socialist/communist countries compared to capitalist countries the difference is night and day. Without capitalism the world would still be in darkest.

Capitlism offers an incentive to invent communism doesn't.




We've had some pretty important inventions pre-capitalism.
It should also be pointed out that societies which had good technological development for their time (IE Rome, Greece, Egypt) had a market and a currency so they were practicing a smaller form of capitalism. Compare them to the societies that were practicing a form of communism IE native Americans who never made it past the stone age.



A lot of inventors did not materially gain from their inventions- they were either old-money and invented for the prestige and out of interest, or they just never gained from their inventions.I am sure they were paid pretty good though. They were not your average poor dumb peasant who's job is it to toil around in the soil. They probably work directly under the king and had a lot of resources and time for inventing.




Under capitalism, a lot of the most important inventions come out of the military, using state funding.This is not completely true.

But either way the government rewards the company that offers the best invention. The government will say "We need a new fighter jet that has stealth capabilities" Then you'll have 4 companies try and design this fighter. The one with the best design gets REWARDED with the contract to build them.



Capitalism actually stifles inventing and inventors/researchers- as we can see with the cure for cancer example.No, not in all cases. Non the less whatever company manages to invent the cure for cancer can do whatever they want with the cure. They can throw burn the data and flush the cure down the toilet. They are free to do so.



Capitalism focusses on easy-profits rather than breakthroughs- a capitalist would sooner pour resources into another High School Musical than into things that matter.You have no right telling other people what they can spend their money on or how to run their company. If you don't like the way a company runs its business you can choose not to association with them in any way and you're even free to make bad remarks about them.



The capitalist doesn't have control of these resources legitimately- all current private ownership is the latest link in a chain stretching back to the seizure of resources from the collective by the state "at the point of a gun".
Untrue, most large companies we see today started from the ground up. Google didn't seize control private property at the point of a gun. IBM didn't plunder villages to gain its richest. Ford didn't steal from the population at gun point to become rich.

Actually the only people who steal at gun point are the communist. The communist can't produce anything so their only option is to seize everything away from the capitlist.

I mean you're over here saying that capitalism has nothing to do with making people invent and that communism societies can invent things just as well but the truth of the matter is that there hasn't mean much of any inventing coming out of communist society while capitlist societies have propelled the whole world were we are today. You're communsit societies have done nothign but hinder world progress.