Communism has a 100% failure rate [Archive]

SubcomandanteJames

5th August 2009, 19:30

EVERY country that has ever attempted to install communism has failed.

That's strange. It worked just fine for me.

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/9976/winafsinstallinstalling.jpg

Capitalism has always provided Western Europe with general prosperity compared to the rest of the world. Yes, and Western Europe has remained the moral beacon of the world, and they never had any influence on the lack of prosperity of other cultures, especially not any cultures that had strong, successful collectivist values.

http://www.learner.org/courses/worldhistory/archive-files/1000/1773f.jpg

During the Cold War, the anti-Communist regimes of Western Europe fared better than the regimes of the Communist Bloc founded by Marxists. Have you happened to take a look at the rate of unemployment in Eastern Germany :thumbdown: since the fall of the USSR? Wow, imagine what they could have accomplished with REAL socialism!

Modern-day social democracies of countries like Sweden or Norway provide a higher standard of living to their citizens than any Marxist country.
And a true-communist society would be even better than Sweden or Norway.

The so-called "true Communism" is just unattainable and is a fairy tale just like any religion.
The Zapatistas who practice a form of stateless communism would disagree, and it's working much better for them than the Mexican government could have, or any capitalist government for that matter. Silly aboriginal peoples and their lack of profitability!

Misanthrope

5th August 2009, 19:38

Why do many in Europe want to return to communism? Granted it was an authoritarian hell hole but it shows what capitalism really is like.

stop trolling and actually debate

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

5th August 2009, 19:48

Curing all instances of cancer. 100% failure rate. I guess we better give up instead of trying new things. After all, a little hard work to achieve a lofty goal just isn't worth it.

Sam_b

5th August 2009, 20:11

This guy is even funnier than davemabus :thumbup1:

I wonder if OP is merely trying to educate us through this piece of "BLACK PROPOGANDA".

Dr Mindbender

5th August 2009, 20:19

That's strange. It worked just fine for me.

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/9976/winafsinstallinstalling.jpg

Oh man, that was epic win. :lol:

Havet

5th August 2009, 21:21

John Kennedy, come back when you bother to show proof/justify/argue all the things you have said. Empty sentences have no meaning, serve no purpose, and only enlighten us about your character.

LOLseph Stalin

5th August 2009, 21:38

How can you say Socialism/Communism is a failure when there were no homeless people in the USSR/Warsaw Pact countries? There's still millions of homeless people due to Capitalism.

Manifesto

5th August 2009, 21:44

This JFK guy has not replied to any of his threads.

LOLseph Stalin

5th August 2009, 21:47

This JFK guy has not replied to any of his threads.

Maybe because he either realizes we're right or he knows he can't take us all on?

Manifesto

5th August 2009, 21:56

Maybe because he either realizes we're right or he knows he can't take us all on?
This is his fourth thread he probably has learned nothing yet. He probably just cannot back up anything he says.

Richard Nixon

5th August 2009, 23:03

How can you say Socialism/Communism is a failure when there were no homeless people in the USSR/Warsaw Pact countries? There's still millions of homeless people due to Capitalism.

There were no homeless people in the USSR and Warsaw Pact? Have any sources to back it up? Unless of course like in Czarist Russia the homeless and the poor were either 1) killed, 2) sent to labour camps, or 3) were hidden.

NecroCommie

5th August 2009, 23:22

There were no homeless people in the USSR and Warsaw Pact? Have any sources to back it up? Unless of course like in Czarist Russia the homeless and the poor were either 1) killed, 2) sent to labour camps, or 3) were hidden.

http://books.google.fi/books?id=rimclQNNQk0C&pg=PA482&lpg=PA482&dq=soviet+union+homelesness&source=bl&ots=qayQ5KuHGa&sig=bv4ldmjzX9fVMJnhht4o6pSOqOE&hl=fi&ei=7QR6SpT8CdHJ_gbxwfmIBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Encyclopedia of homelesness by David Levinson:
"Bomzh, a word derived from a Russian acronym indicating a person without specific place of residence, used to appear only occasionally in newspapers but has now become a common term..."
I thought that the good housing in USSR was common knowledge already but I have seem to be mistaken. It is quite close to the truth enough to safely state that the USSR had no homeless.

The book does reveal that homeless people were existent within the SU, but if you read enough you will notice an interesting fact. Every person in the USSR were given a house to live in. Homeless people only emerged if they wanted to live in an other city than the one they were designated to. So most, if not all homeless people were homeless due to a choice of their own.

One might argue that this system lacks individual freedom, but first of all: There propably were'nt enough houses to fullfill everyones wishes. What would it become if everyone suddenly moved to Moscow. Secondly, it is not even the topic at hand. If you really wanted apartment in the SU, you also got one.

I have no information on the Warsaw pact at large, albeit in the DDR there certainly were enough apartments to house everyone.

JimmyJazz

5th August 2009, 23:35

Debate with whom? The OP isn't here to debate. He isn't even here to troll with any wit. He just makes threads with some stupid statements in them and leaves it at that. Trolling is one thing, but when it is done with so little skill it becomes depressing.

Sometimes I wonder if people understand what "trolling with skill" really is

For instance: churning out a different shit OP each day that took you 15 seconds to type and getting pages and pages of responses along the lines of "you're a terrible troll", "you're not even good at trolling", etc. etc., without once replying to your own threads = awesomely skilled trolling

Richard Nixon

5th August 2009, 23:39

http://books.google.fi/books?id=rimclQNNQk0C&pg=PA482&lpg=PA482&dq=soviet+union+homelesness&source=bl&ots=qayQ5KuHGa&sig=bv4ldmjzX9fVMJnhht4o6pSOqOE&hl=fi&ei=7QR6SpT8CdHJ_gbxwfmIBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Encyclopedia of homelesness by David Levinson:
"Bomzh, a word derived from a Russian acronym indicating a person without specific place of residence, used to appear only occasionally in newspapers but has now become a common term..."
I thought that the good housing in USSR was common knowledge already but I have seem to be mistaken. It is quite close to the truth enough to safely state that the USSR had no homeless.

The book does reveal that homeless people were existent within the SU, but if you read enough you will notice an interesting fact. Every person in the USSR were given a house to live in. Homeless people only emerged if they wanted to live in an other city than the one they were designated to. So most, if not all homeless people were homeless due to a choice of their own.

One might argue that this system lacks individual freedom, but first of all: There propably were'nt enough houses to fullfill everyones wishes. What would it become if everyone suddenly moved to Moscow. Secondly, it is not even the topic at hand. If you really wanted apartment in the SU, you also got one.

I have no information on the Warsaw pact at large, albeit in the DDR there certainly were enough apartments to house everyone.

Perhaps but the book also says homelessness was denied in Soviet Russia and the apartments for all were pretty shabby I'd guess.

NecroCommie

5th August 2009, 23:44

Perhaps but the book also says homelessness was denied in Soviet Russia and the apartments for all were pretty shabby I'd guess.
Shabby, I guess. But they were existent which is alot better than what the most of the capitalist countries have.

Bud Struggle

5th August 2009, 23:48

The thing is the OP does make a pretty good point. There WERE a lot of pretty half assed Communist countries that went out of business in the last few years--so it SEEMS that Communism has been a failure.

Now you can argue on the other side that those countries weren't Communist at all--they were only degenerate worker states or state Capitalism or whatever you want to call it--and so the OP could be said to make the point that when Communism is tried what it becomes isn't Communism but some sort of a failure, too.

It's an interesting connumdrum. A case could be made that Anarchism has had a better success rate (in Spain and Mexico and the Paris Commune) than actual Marxism.

Richard Nixon

5th August 2009, 23:53

Lyev

6th August 2009, 00:09

Capitalism has always provided Western Europe with general prosperity compared to the rest of the world.

This is the only mildly coherent thing this bloke said. Capitalism provides only a chosen few with 'prosperity' and leaves the other in the gutter. Capitalism has always 'provided' but only for a chosen few- 3 billion people in the world live on less than $2 per day and 1.3 billion get by on less than the equivalent to $1 per day.

SocialismOrBarbarism

6th August 2009, 00:10

Well all those anarchist states fell in a few years.

lol

Bud Struggle

6th August 2009, 00:12

Well all those anarchist states fell in a few years.

Yea, but you could make a case that real Marxism never really existed at all because it would have to be stateless.

Blackscare

6th August 2009, 00:35

Yea, but you could make a case that real Marxism never really existed at all because it would have to be stateless.

Marxism is an analytical approach, not a strict system. So there is no "real Marxism" (I think you're talking about "real communism" which is a little bit more on the mark.)

For instance, both the USSR and many/all social-democrat parties claim adherence to Marxist ideas. Both are Marxist. That doesn't mean anything though, so OP's statement that social-democracies do better than "Marxist countries" is confused. Marxist is a general descriptor for an ideology's theoretical basis, no matter how much we on the radical left may want to claim that we're the only true Marxists.

Bud Struggle

6th August 2009, 00:50

Marxism is a analytical approach, not a strict system. So there is no "real Marxism" (I think you're talking about "real communism" which is a little bit more on the mark.)

That's true--the problem is that most Anarchism is also Communist. My point still stands that Anarchist societies seem to have faired better than Marxist societies.

I think one could take Spanish, Mexican and Parisian Anarchist communities as a worthwhile ideal--No so much for the USSR, the Iron Curtain countries or North Korea.

#FF0000

6th August 2009, 01:31

That's true--the problem is that most Anarchism is also Communist. My point still stands that Anarchist societies seem to have faired better than Marxist societies.

The Paris Commune was not an anarchist commune. The EZLN is not a strictly anarchist organization. And the Spanish Anarchists did things that I'm sure you would have condemned, such as executing members of the Clergy, burning churches, and forcing collectivization. And to say the anarchist communes workedbetter might be sort of a stretch since they were only around for a couple of years.

I think one could take Spanish, Mexican and Parisian Anarchist communities as a worthwhile ideal--No so much for the USSR, the Iron Curtain countries or North Korea.

Why, specifically?

SubcomandanteJames

6th August 2009, 01:37

The EZLN is not a strictly anarchist organization.

Maybe not "strictly" anarchist, but with revocable positions and direct democracy very common in libertarian/anarchist communism. The only real power structure they have is the council, which rotates, and is merely a mouthpiece of the people, not a governing body.

Il Medico

6th August 2009, 01:52

I am curious to know if any of you "Communism failed!" people have ever read Adam Smith (capitalism's ideological founder, although the basis of capitalism emerged long before him). When you say communism has failed and is unachievable, I ask you to look at Adam Smith's ideas of how capitalism will create a better society through mutual greed and the "invisible hand". Now juxtapose this with current capitalist society and tell me it's failure rating. (hint: 100%)

Bud Struggle

6th August 2009, 01:54

The Paris Commune was not an anarchist commune. The EZLN is not a strictly anarchist organization. And the Spanish Anarchists did things that I'm sure you would have condemned, such as executing members of the Clergy, burning churches, and forcing collectivization. And to say the anarchist communes workedbetter might be sort of a stretch since they were only around for a couple of years.
I didn't mean to imply that this is MY opinion. Just it seems that at RevLeft these blips on the radar screen of history are held in pretty high regard as opposed to the SU or Iron Curtain "Communist" countries which even with their longevity and size don't have much cache with the Revolutionary Sophisticatistas on this site.

Call me old fashioned but I'm still a fan of Capitalist Democracies.

StalinFanboy

6th August 2009, 02:06

Call me old fashioned but I'm still a fan of Capitalist Democracies.
I just call you a chauvinist fool. ;)

Sam_b

6th August 2009, 02:12

when there were no homeless people in the USSR/Warsaw Pact countries?

Is this in the same way that there was no supposed unemployment in these states?

SubcomandanteJames

6th August 2009, 04:48

Call me old fashioned but I'm still a fan of Capitalist Democracies.

There is no such thing as Capitalist Democracies.

Democracy is a principle that the control of authority comes from public, and ruler and non-ruler are the same.

Capitalism makes the means of being elected and put into power reliant on your social/economic status, thus making capitalist democracy a classist system that will always work to benefit bourgeois society, resulting in steps towards corporatism.

Bud Struggle

6th August 2009, 12:11

Capitalism makes the means of being elected and put into power reliant on your social/economic status, thus making capitalist democracy a classist system that will always work to benefit bourgeois society, resulting in steps towards corporatism.

You definition is self fufilling. We just elected a Black guy that was born poor from a broken home President and you call him a member of the Bourgeoise? That's why your easy definitions don't work. You really need a category for those people that make it on their own.

Robert

6th August 2009, 13:47

a category for those people that make it on their own.

Come to think of it, weren't Presidents Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, LBJ, Truman and Eisenhower all from modest origins as well?

The two Bushes and JFK were born rich, and Gerald Ford was from what looks like an upper middle class family, but that's only three out of the last eleven.

Dr Mindbender

6th August 2009, 14:28

You definition is self fufilling. We just elected a Black guy that was born poor from a broken home President and you call him a member of the Bourgeoise? That's why your easy definitions don't work. You really need a category for those people that make it on their own.
We're only interested in their conditions of the day, not the conditions from whence they came.

You really need a category for those people that make it on their own.
No, we don't.

danyboy27

6th August 2009, 14:32

We're only interested in their conditions of the day, not the conditions from whence they came.

in other words: what we are originally isnt really important after all.

Dr Mindbender

6th August 2009, 14:54

in other words: what we are originally isnt really important after all.

On a collective scale it's important because only a few are allowed to climb the class ladder.

Bud Struggle

6th August 2009, 15:12

On a collective scale it's important because only a few are allowed to climb the class ladder.

Even though poor people often become the President of the United States.
But then you don't define them as poor, so the poor never get any power. You realize that one of the reasons Communism is so unpopular in the United States is that your word games aren't fooling anyone. (Well, except for you guys. :D)

danyboy27

6th August 2009, 17:43

On a collective scale it's important because only a few are allowed to climb the class ladder.

i think its important to ask the question:

how those people managed to climb the class ladder? how come some are able to get better living standards while other dont?

Bud Struggle

6th August 2009, 22:05

i think its important to ask the question:

how those people managed to climb the class ladder? how come some are able to get better living standards while other dont?

So the next justice of the Supreme Court:
Sotomayor is of Puerto Rican descent and was born in the Bronx. Her father died when she was nine, and she was subsequently raised by her mother.

Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia other justices, all those past (born poor) Presidents are all Bourgeoise? They never made it? It can't be done?

It's tougher to find US government officials that were born rich or middle class than to find those that weren't.

Marxism needs to find itself a new theory. The poor RULE already.

Bud Struggle

6th August 2009, 22:07

i think its important to ask the question:

how those people managed to climb the class ladder? how come some are able to get better living standards while other dont?

Hard work and ability.

Hard work and ability.

Pogue

6th August 2009, 22:08

Marxism needs to find itself a new theory. The poor RULE already.

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/1696/youtpp.gif (http://img25.imageshack.us/i/youtpp.gif/)

Pirate turtle the 11th

6th August 2009, 22:13

In ancient rome slaves used to be able to buy their own freedom however today slavery even with the chance to get out of it is still looked on as fucked up. The chance of social mobility is no justification.

Bud Struggle

6th August 2009, 22:18

Bud Struggle

6th August 2009, 22:20

The chance of social mobility is no justification.

Why not? If you want to be rich and you can--what's wrong with that?

Pogue

6th August 2009, 22:20

Love you, Brother Pogue.

But in the US at least (I agree with you about dukes and earls in Britain,) the vast majority of imporant government officials and managers of money (I can't speak fro owner of money--I don't know) came from poverty or the lower middle class.

And they call the shots. As long as that fluidity is there it's hard to state you can't "achieve"--because all the important poeple in business and government have done just that.

funny how things still aren't really working out for all the other millions of poor americans isnt it

Bud Struggle

6th August 2009, 22:25

funny how things still aren't really working out for all the other millions of poor americans isnt it

Because they aren't INTERESTED. They're happy being lower middle class in America (which is better than about 99.99999% of the people in the history of the world have ever lived.)

They don't want to be rich--and that's fine. They eat well, they live well, who can blame them? Being rich isn't all that it's cracked up to be--trust me on that one.

Pirate turtle the 11th

6th August 2009, 22:29

Why not? If you want to be rich and you can--what's wrong with that?

Communists arnt really bothered about the whole being able to get money but rather the whole exploitation thing. Which is why class is based on relationship to the means of production instead of if you have a working class or ruling class accent or if you shop at tescos of Marks and spencers.

StalinFanboy

6th August 2009, 22:30

Because they aren't INTERESTED. They're happy being lower middle class in America (which is better than about 99.99999% of the people in the history of the world have ever lived.)

They don't want to be rich--and that's fine. They eat well, they live well, who can blame them? Being rich isn't all that it's cracked up to be--trust me on that one.
Are you fucking loony? People want to be poor?

I have never heard of someone so disconnected from reality.

Pirate turtle the 11th

6th August 2009, 22:30

Because they aren't INTERESTED. They're happy being lower middle class in America (which is better than about 99.99999% of the people in the history of the world have ever lived.)

They don't want to be rich--and that's fine. They eat well, they live well, who can blame them? Being rich isn't all that it's cracked up to be--trust me on that one.

Florida does not equal the world (where abouts in florida do you live)

Pogue

6th August 2009, 22:32

Are you fucking loony? People want to be poor?

I have never heard of someone so disconnected from reality.

Welcome to the middle class!

StalinFanboy

6th August 2009, 22:33

Love you, Brother Pogue.

But in the US at least (I agree with you about dukes and earls in Britain,) the vast majority of imporant government officials and managers of money (I can't speak fro owner of money--I don't know) came from poverty or the lower middle class.

And they call the shots. As long as that fluidity is there it's hard to state you can't "achieve"--because all the important poeple in business and government have done just that.
Look at the proportion of poor working people to wealthy people. A small group has been able to climb up the social ladder on the backs of other people.

You cannot have government or capitalism without a strict divide of rich and poor; powerful and powerless. It doesn't work any other way, and shit is set up to keep it that way.

Bud Struggle

6th August 2009, 22:34

Are you fucking loony? People want to be poor?

I have never heard of someone so disconnected from reality.

NO they want to be lower middle clss in the USA. Not the world. Lower middle class is a good life in America. I was brought up that way most of my friends still are.

Pogue

6th August 2009, 22:35

NO they want to be lower middle clss in the USA. Not the world. Lower middle class is a good life in America. I was brought up that way most of my friends still are.

I see you clearly have researched this topic really well.

.....no rly

Bud Struggle

6th August 2009, 22:37

Look at the proportion of poor working people to wealthy people. A small group has been able to climb up the social ladder on the backs of other people. Wrong! wealth is MADE not distributed. If people want to make their own wealth--so be it--if they don't they get what's handed to them.

That is EXACTLY how the USA works.

You cannot have government or capitalism without a strict divide of rich and poor; powerful and powerless. It doesn't work any other way, and shit is set up to keep it that way. "Preaching." Your first point was good, though.

Richard Nixon

6th August 2009, 22:37

Bud does have a point. The average lower middle class person is better off then a nineteenth century capitalist in terms of their health, lifespan, material goods, and other factors.

Bud Struggle

6th August 2009, 22:39

I see you clearly have researched this topic really well.

.....no rly

Lived it, Brother. No better research than that. I was pretty happy being a kid of a working class family till I met some pretty well off people by accident and said, "I want THAT!"

Then I went to work.

(I could tell you the WHOLE story--but it's pretty boring. :( )

Robert

6th August 2009, 22:43

without a strict divide of rich and poor

What's the "strict" dividing line?

Bud Struggle

6th August 2009, 22:49

What's the "strict" dividing line?

Communist Spankings.

http://media.filmschoolrejects.com/images/vfindy4-03.jpg

:D

StalinFanboy

6th August 2009, 22:50

What's the "strict" dividing line?
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/zerot001/architecture/ghetto.jpg

Vs

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/vond0057/architecture/images/mansion%20tulips.jpg

Bud Struggle

6th August 2009, 22:54

So, you do a little work and move.

I'll find the pics of where I was born and post them with pics where I live now. (Give me a day or so.)

Pogue

6th August 2009, 22:59

Bud Struggle

6th August 2009, 23:04

Pogue

6th August 2009, 23:06

I said in the USA--consistantly. VERY Consistantly.

And I know there are other poor around the world.

They need to learn how to create wealth--something that's never been taught to them. (Everybody's too busy wearing ski maskes and smoking pipes.) So let's stop all this Anarchist/Marxists crapola and go to work.

You know why we talk about the working class, Bud? Because they already go to work, and stillg et paid fuck all for it.

Do you not know anything about the EZLN's crciumstance? Do you even know why they cover their faces?

Bud Struggle

6th August 2009, 23:24

You know why we talk about the working class, Bud? Because they already go to work, and stillg et paid fuck all for it.

In America (and I'm careful to speak about that which I actually know) workers, for the amount of contribution they make to really making a business run--are vastly overpayed. Now they need to eat, and I understand that--but for their actualy WORTH in the production process--they are over payed. Salesmen are underpayed.

Do you not know anything about the EZLN's crciumstance? Do you even know why they cover their faces? Of course it's the ZORRO principle. Mexico is a tourist destination. Sandy beaches, Mayan temples, Revolutionary hot spots with mysterious masked Revolutionaries. All sexy and all waiting on the turisto dineros!

Seriously, yes I know. And they are doing a good job fighting a neo-fascist regime.

StalinFanboy

6th August 2009, 23:24

You know why we talk about the working class, Bud? Because they already go to work, and stillg et paid fuck all for it.

So that's why we are called the working class?

I always thought it was some sort ironic musing.

Bud Struggle

6th August 2009, 23:25

So that's why we are called the working class?

I always thought it was some sort ironic musing.

If you actually have to pay them--the ironic musings are closer to the point of what they really do. :D

Robert

6th August 2009, 23:31

If that mansion is the dividing line, I guess I'm poor.

Brother, can you spare a dime? :lol:

Bud Struggle

6th August 2009, 23:37

If that mansion is the dividing line, I guess I'm poor.

Brother, can you spare a dime? :lol:

Indeed. I only wish we we 1/10 as rich as the Commies think we are! :D

spiltteeth

7th August 2009, 00:11

So the next justice of the Supreme Court:

Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia other justices, all those past (born poor) Presidents are all Bourgeoise? They never made it? It can't be done?

It's tougher to find US government officials that were born rich or middle class than to find those that weren't.

Marxism needs to find itself a new theory. The poor RULE already.

I don't know about other countries but here in the US many presidents come from relatively poor families. This is usually preferable for the people who actually rule, the vast majority of congressman were millionaires before they got into congress, because they are much easier to manipulate to bat for the ruling class (just look at how W Bush was manipulated by the military -Rumsfield actually pasted pictures and quotes from the bible onto top secret military reports!) Its one of the reasons presidents are perpetually passing laws that are against the interest of the poor from which they came from. They do work extremely hard, however many people work hard and only one in a million make it rich, so many factors besides hard work are at play, from luck to cultural capital etc
Its also a reason why the CIA only accepts applicants who are practicing catholics and graduated from catholic University's, with rare exceptions (my uncle & aunt are in the CIA)
Incidentally the amount of money you have or earn has no relation to being from the ruling class, in a Marxist sense.
Remember those bankers telling congress that they were willing to take a one dollar a year salary? That doesn't mean they would then stop being the ruling class. It has to do with power and controlling the means of production, or else why would they volunteer to do their jobs for a buck?
In other words, they are not the ruling class because they are rich; they are rich because they are the ruling class.

As far as workers getting paid too much, you would have to believe that the top %2 of the company works at least 2,000 times harder than the guy at the bottom if you factor in the pay differential !
If your talking about worth, saying the guy at the top is worth more than we have to ask why? Was it because of education that he was able to purchase? Why couldn't the guy at the bottom learn the same managerial skills? Did the guy at the top have a good childhood education, good meals and health care?
More than %85 of CEO's come from upper class families - how do you explain this? Does wealth change a families genetic structure so they have hard working children?
As the most basic sociology texts point out lower class children are culturally conditioned for lower class jobs.

Bud Struggle

7th August 2009, 00:39

I don't know about other countries but here in the US many presidents come from relatively poor families. This is usually preferable for the people who actually rule, the vast majority of congressman were millionaires before they got into congress, because they are much easier to manipulate to bat for the ruling class But how many were BORN millionaires. Very few. so what if they bet on the right horses?

(just look at how W Bush was manipulated by the military -Rumsfield actually pasted pictures and quotes from the bible onto top secret military reports!) doo dee doo doo do dee doo doo.

They do work extremely hard, however many people work hard and only one in a million make it rich, so many factors besides hard work are at play, from luck to cultural capital etc Maybe working SMART helps a bit, too? :rolleyes:

Its also a reason why the CIA only accepts applicants who are practicing catholics and graduated from catholic University's, with rare exceptions (my uncle & aunt are in the CIA) Doo dee doo doo.

Incidentally the amount of money you have or earn has no relation to being from the ruling class, in a Marxist sense. Agreed. I've always said the same--that's why I beling to the CPUSA. They "understand" me. :D

Remember those bankers telling congress that they were willing to take a one dollar a year salary? That doesn't mean they would then stop being the ruling class. It has to do with power and controlling the means of production, or else why would they volunteer to do their jobs for a buck?
In other words, they are not the ruling class because they are rich; they are rich because they are the ruling class. Well, OK.

As far as workers getting paid too much, you would have to believe that the top %2 of the company works at least 2,000 times harder than the guy at the bottom if you factor in the pay differential ! I don't know about working harder--but do they make the company more money?--HELL YEA!

If your talking about worth, saying the guy at the top is worth more than we have to ask why? Was it because of education that he was able to purchase? Why couldn't the guy at the bottom learn the same managerial skills? They often do.

Did the guy at the top have a good childhood education, good meals and health care? Public schools do as well for the rich as for the poor. I do OK and my kids are in public schools.

More than %85 of CEO's come from upper class families - how do you explain this? Does wealth change a families genetic structure so they have hard working children? But 15% of CEOS come from the poor--that needs to grow. Parents need to do a better job raising their kids.

As the most basic sociology texts point out lower class children are culturally conditioned for lower class jobs. That's the parent's job not societies.

Il Medico

7th August 2009, 00:54

Welcome to the middle class!
Actually Tom owns a factory. So he is bourgeois (the 'middle class' is part of the proletariat, the privileged part that helps the bourgeois keep control).

And to Tom,

I am working class, I don't like being poor, I don't eat well, I work my ass off. So, tell me, why aren't I rich?

StalinFanboy

7th August 2009, 00:56

Actually Tom owns a factory. So he is bourgeois (the 'middle class' is part of the proletariat, the privileged part that helps the bourgeois keep control).

And to Tom,

I am working class, I don't like being poor, I don't eat well, I work my ass off. So, tell me, why aren't I rich?
You're obviously not working hard enough. Or maybe you're just not smart enough.

Bud Struggle

7th August 2009, 01:01

Actually Tom owns a factory. So he is bourgeois (the 'middle class' is part of the proletariat, the privileged part that helps the bourgeois keep control). By far, I am "petit" at best. :blushing::cool:

And to Tom,

I am working class, I don't like being poor, I don't eat well, I work my ass off. So, tell me, why aren't I rich? You CAN be. You're in hell (Florida) do what I did 10 years ago--look around and see what's missing and fufill that need.

It isn't hard.

But you gotta decide that you are responsible for you--nobody, no mom or dad or government is responsible for YOU. You have to do it yourself.

Then you will be tuly free to make millions if that's what you want. Lots of people have done exactly that.

LOLseph Stalin

7th August 2009, 01:13

Obviously not everybody can make millions though. The people down below you working for you don't have a chance to make millions so it's not truly a "free-market" like you say, bud. An absolute "free-market" in the literal sense would be impossible as there's always those in chains expected to follow their boss' every command so the bosses can have a "free-market".

Bud Struggle

7th August 2009, 01:20

Obviously not everybody can make millions though. No problem there--it's that every one who "wants to" has a chance. That's all America promises. And it's a DAMN GOOD promise.

The people down below you working for you don't have a chance to make millions so it's not truly a "free-market" like you say, bud. They have the same chance I had--I used to be them.

An absolute "free-market" in the literal sense would be impossible as there's always those in chains expected to follow their boss' every command so the bosses can have a "free-market". Maybe, I'm a businessman--I don't much believe in economics.

mikelepore

7th August 2009, 01:48

EVERY country that has ever attempted to install communism has failed. Capitalism has always provided Western Europe with general prosperity compared to the rest of the world. During the Cold War, the anti-Communist regimes of Western Europe fared better than the regimes of the Communist Bloc founded by Marxists. Modern-day social democracies of countries like Sweden or Norway provide a higher standard of living to their citizens than any Marxist country. The so-called "true Communism" is just unattainable and is a fairy tale just like any religion.

Even if the original poster is a troll, the Marxists should be able to answer such comments, if only for the sake of the lurkers who may be reading this.

I think the answer is that the word communism is in the same category as the words democracy, freedom, justice, etc. With such words, there can always be an unlimited number of ways to fake them or betray them, and tyrants will also tend to claim them. But who would judge the basic concept of a republic by looking at the Roman Empire, which applied the word to itself? Who would judge the idea of justice by looking at Hitler's Schutzstaffel, which applied the term to itself? Who would judge the idea of public safety by looking at the mass executions by Robespierre, which was carried out under that name? When considering such concepts, they may be faked, their very opposites given such names, for hundreds of years, or even thousands of years, and still these instances are never any reflection on the ideas themselves. THAT is why "communism has failed" is an invalid argument.

***

"We are marching for freedom...."
-- Hitler Youth marching song lyric composed by Baldur von Schirach

danyboy27

7th August 2009, 01:53

you know bud, you are my friend, but i think seriously you exagerate a lot of the things you say these day, is it to shock or to provoke a reaction? i dont know, but obviously nobody here beside me can take what you say to a lower degree.

to say that everyone can make million is completly exagerated. yes, we can better ourselves, and become succesfull, yes, by looking what missing we can fill a certain gap, but there is limits for everything, i am sure you know that has well.

also bud, you have to learn that no path is wrong, you decided to be a buisnessman, that you wanted to change the world this way, its fine, other peoples like godstomper want to change the world by raising social awareness and be a fervent communist militant, and its also fine.

Personally i find those dialogs painful, beccause both of you have somehow valid points, but you are so entrenched in your certitudes and both of you tend to exagerate thing in order to shock the other side, nothing really constructive is coming from those discussion.

Bud Struggle

7th August 2009, 02:01

to say that everyone can make million is completly exagerated. I said that anyone has the oppotuinity to TRY to become a millionaire. Not everyone can, but everyone can try. Not everyone that tries can--but they get the opportunity.

yes, we can better ourselves, and become succesfull, yes, by looking what missing we can fill a certain gap, but there is limits for everything, i am sure you know that has well. Agreed.

also bud, you have to learn that no path is wrong, you decided to be a buisnessman, that you wanted to change the world this way, its fine, other peoples like godstomper want to change the world by raising social awareness and be a fervent communist militant, and its also fine. I agree with that, too. Follow your bliss. I support all Communist efforts. It's a valid way of viewing the world. So is Capitalism, so is Christianity or Buddahism or whatever. It's another lifestyle choice on the way to view reality and live your life. You can't say any way of living is any better than another--what possibly could be the yardstick you could base things on? Everyone has their own personal choices to make in life.

Personally i find those dialogs painful, beccause both of you have somehow valid points, but you are so entrenched in your certitudes and both of you tend to exagerate thing in order to shock the other side, nothing really constructive is coming from those discussion.OK, my point is--we (the US, Canada, most of Europe) have a pretty good thing going--let's share with the rest of the world. We are sharing Capitalism with China and it's making a great leap forward (pun intended!) We can do so elsewhere.

Dust Bunnies

7th August 2009, 02:03

Capitalism, US levels cannot be spread. Without your sewaty low wage workers it will be harder for Capitalists to make money.

"The higher the fewer"- Star Trek: TNG

Capitalism is a pyramid and if you flatten out the pyramid it shall collapse.

Robert

7th August 2009, 03:27

I am working class, I don't like being poor, I don't eat well, I work my ass off. So, tell me, why aren't I rich? Observe and emulate the Asian-American:

Get married, to a good person with marketable skills like nursing, cooking, or bookkeeping, who has simple tastes.

Eat at home together, every day. Eat simple nutritious food, complex carbos. Food is very cheap if you look for it and don't buy frozen this and takeout that. You want pizza? Make your own.

Avoid drugs and alcohol.

Live in a simple home or apartment. You can only be in one room at a time.

Don't ever buy crap like plasma screen TV's, X-boxes, or I-phones.

Borrow books from the public library.

Never buy a new car.

Never ever have more than one credit card.

Save one salary and put it in the bank, or both of you save 25% of your take home pay.

Read The Millionaire Next Door. I promise it will disabuse many of you of your very mistaken notions of American millionaires.

Look for ways to be as useful as possible to as many people as you can.

Stop with the negative "I'll always be poor because I'm working class" nonsense.

Ditch communism now before it ruins your life.

In 20 years you will both be rich, absent catastrophic illness. If that's what you want.

spiltteeth

7th August 2009, 05:46

But how many were BORN millionaires. Very few. so what if they bet on the right horses?

doo dee doo doo do dee doo doo.

Maybe working SMART helps a bit, too? :rolleyes:

Doo dee doo doo.

Agreed. I've always said the same--that's why I beling to the CPUSA. They "understand" me. :D

Well, OK.

I don't know about working harder--but do they make the company more money?--HELL YEA!

They often do.

Public schools do as well for the rich as for the poor. I do OK and my kids are in public schools.

But 15% of CEOS come from the poor--that needs to grow. Parents need to do a better job raising their kids.

That's the parent's job not societies.

But how many were BORN millionaires. Very few. so what if they bet on the right horses?

I assume your not being serious but I'll answer anyway. "Bet on the right horses"
OK, I guess that means wealth is largely a matter of luck?

"Maybe working SMART helps a bit, too? :rolleyes:"

Yes, sociologically speaking, that is a very tiny differential, but it is a factor. Obviously your not incorporating education so your referring to being born with an above average IQ. OK, luck again. Of course people born into poverty actually have lower IQ's. Emotional stress lowers IQ in developing brains, lower health care, lower cultural exposures, more toxins (I've read shocking studies on the toxins these kids are exposed to in crappy buildings) and so on.
This is an advantage.

"I don't know about working harder--but do they make the company more money?--HELL YEA!"

OK, the point is pay differential -again - if they get paid 2000% more than you are saying they make the company 2000% more money. This is not correct. Here in America the sa;aries for the working class have leveled since the 70's, even though profit has gone up. Only the top 2% of Americans have seen a wage increase adjusted for inflation. Hence now people work %20 more hours since 1970, woman and wives and mothers now work etc

"Public schools do as well for the rich as for the poor. I do OK and my kids are in public schools."

Thats fine. I went to public high school. It was blue ribbon. However, the public highschoold in, say, the Bronx are overcrowded filled with drugs, violence, teachers are more apathetic etc

"But 15% of CEOS come from the poor--that needs to grow. Parents need to do a better job raising their kids."

OK. So you've just proven my point. You think wealthy parents raise their children better. THAT, in clear speak, is called AN ADVANTAGE.

"That's the parent's job not societies."

Yea, and obviously;y parents, for reasons stated above and many more that are apparent to anyone (poor parents might work more etc etc), are at a disadvantage to wealthy ones.

The vast majority, here in America, of politicians come from wealthy families. You can find out more here http://www.raken.com/american_wealth/encyclopedia/index.asp
However this is absurdly not the point, the point is that these politicians are bought by corporations. Usually the politician who gets the most money from corporations gets to be president, Obama received alot more $ from business (less than 2/3rs came from donations). This has been an accurate way to predict elections for generations, although it is true this is not always the case.
Just to get elected costs millions, this money comes from corporations.

I have no idea what the doo-dee doo's are, but as a fellow comrade I would like some respect, otherwise mature thoughful diolouge is not possible and we are all wasting our time.
I brought up the CIA only hiring catholic University students to show how certain ideologies, once in power, tend to stay in power etc

spiltteeth

7th August 2009, 05:47

But how many were BORN millionaires. Very few. so what if they bet on the right horses?

I assume your not being serious but I'll answer anyway. "Bet on the right horses"
OK, I guess that means wealth is largely a matter of luck?

"Maybe working SMART helps a bit, too? :rolleyes:"

Yes, sociologically speaking, that is a very tiny differential, but it is a factor. Obviously your not incorporating education so your referring to being born with an above average IQ. OK, luck again. Of course people born into poverty actually have lower IQ's. Emotional stress lowers IQ in developing brains, lower health care, lower cultural exposures, more toxins (I've read shocking studies on the toxins these kids are exposed to in crappy buildings) and so on.
This is an advantage.

"I don't know about working harder--but do they make the company more money?--HELL YEA!"

OK, the point is pay differential -again - if they get paid 2000% more than you are saying they make the company 2000% more money. This is not correct. Here in America the sa;aries for the working class have leveled since the 70's, even though profit has gone up. Only the top 2% of Americans have seen a wage increase adjusted for inflation. Hence now people work %20 more hours since 1970, woman and wives and mothers now work etc

"Public schools do as well for the rich as for the poor. I do OK and my kids are in public schools."

Thats fine. I went to public high school. It was blue ribbon. However, the public highschoold in, say, the Bronx are overcrowded filled with drugs, violence, teachers are more apathetic etc

"But 15% of CEOS come from the poor--that needs to grow. Parents need to do a better job raising their kids."

OK. So you've just proven my point. You think wealthy parents raise their children better. THAT, in clear speak, is called AN ADVANTAGE.

"That's the parent's job not societies. "

Yea, and obviously;y parents, for reasons stated above and many more that are apparent to anyone (poor parents might work more etc etc), are at a disadvantage to wealthy ones.

The vast majority, here in America, of politicians come from wealthy families. You can find out more here http://www.raken.com/american_wealth...edia/index.asp (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.raken.com/american_wealth/encyclopedia/index.asp)
However this is absurdly not the point, the point is that these politicians are bought by corporations. Usually the politician who gets the most money from corporations gets to be president, Obama received alot more $ from business (less than 2/3rs came from donations). This has been an accurate way to predict elections for generations, although it is true this is not always the case.
Just to get elected costs millions, this money comes from corporations.

I have no idea what the doo-dee doo's are, but as a fellow comrade I would like some respect, otherwise mature thoughful diolouge is not possible and we are all wasting our time.
I brought up the CIA only hiring catholic University students to show how certain ideologies, once in power, tend to stay in power etc

IcarusAngel

7th August 2009, 06:50

Observe and emulate the Asian-American:

Get married, to a good person with marketable skills like nursing, cooking, or bookkeeping, who has simple tastes.

Eat at home together, every day. Eat simple nutritious food, complex carbos. Food is very cheap if you look for it and don't buy frozen this and takeout that. You want pizza? Make your own.

Avoid drugs and alcohol.

Live in a simple home or apartment. You can only be in one room at a time.

Don't ever buy crap like plasma screen TV's, X-boxes, or I-phones.

Borrow books from the public library.

Never buy a new car.

Never ever have more than one credit card.

Save one salary and put it in the bank, or both of you save 25% of your take home pay.

Read The Millionaire Next Door. I promise it will disabuse many of you of your very mistaken notions of American millionaires.

Look for ways to be as useful as possible to as many people as you can.

Stop with the negative "I'll always be poor because I'm working class" nonsense.

Ditch communism now before it ruins your life.

In 20 years you will both be rich, absent catastrophic illness. If that's what you want.

Shouldn't you be at a Townhall meeting trolling the national health care debate:

pM64ABmhXXs

And actually, an interest in communism fits in with the become a millionaire theory.

Because you have to be frugal and cut down on your spending, it helps to have interests that do not cost money.

Having an interest in communism does not cost much money beyond having access to the internet (nearly a necessity in today's society anyway) and access to a Library card (if you're lucky enough to have a semi-decent library), or a University library (preferably).

The people here probably work, and then come here to take time off to discuss politics, their interests. This is far cheaper than constly going to movies, buying video games and computer games, and endless corporate gadgets and shit you don't even need.

In fact, reading is "freeing your mind," even reading simplistic and mediocore novels is good the for the mind and helps your communication skills. And these in turn will lead you to other intellectual pursuits.

You're just trying to get everybody to be stupid and obsessed with stupid things, ala the delta-epsilons in "Brave New World."

However, your own god damn advice contradicts you. But I recommend Your Money or Your Life (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0140286780/ref=s9_simz_gw_s0_p14_t1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=0D423QPJ3HJGN6T4YV0P&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846) for even better advice on how to survive as a wage slave in a capitalistic systems. Because it focuses on wages and the fact that you trade your life energy (the time you spend here on work) for a job that you don't like, and thus, kind of exemplifies the "wage slave" concept.

I'll write a full synopsis tomorrow.

Comrade B

7th August 2009, 08:43

Afraid to debate with those you disagree? Look if all non-Communist/Anarchist/Leftist members were banned this forum would be a one big circlejerk forum.
Hehe, I thought this was a funny post, I decided to quickly go through a couple posts and pick out some communists 'loving' eachother.

There are a lot of different branches of communists, and they tend to be very strong in their opinions.
the time is 12:39
Opened up this one first, it is decent (http://www.revleft.com/vb/really-shocking-account-t114579/index.html)
12:40 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-anti-revisionismi-t114646/index.html)
12:40 (still) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalinism-right-wing-t114369/index.html)
12:42 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/re-electing-obama-t114476/index.html)
You should actually read what we have to say some time, or you can just idolize the Czar (in your picture) who was, just oh such a great man, and jerking off to Reagan speeches online, then posting the same shit over and over...

forgot to adress the post topic:

The so-called "true Communism" is just unattainable and is a fairy tale just like any religion.
not sure what religion is trying to achieve... but...

Capitalism has only been successful because its only goal is to exist. Had the Nazis not have lost power would you have said that Nazism is an effective system, and thus better than attempting to create a better society?

True communism has only rarely been attempted, and it will take a lot of work to create it.
Remember, there have also been plenty of failed western democracies...

Attempts in the past to create true communism have been stopped by one of two things, the United states or the Soviet Union.
In eastern Germany, after the war the people were filled with passion to create a new, better society, this quickly died out though because of the lack of supplies. Moscow had too much power over all countries not puppeted by the Nato countries, the east Germans may have wanted to create communism, but Russia was going to do little to support that, all they wanted was a thick barrier between the interior of the USSR, and the western powers.

I hope that I do not need to provide you with a situation in which the US was successful in ruining an attempt at communism.

Havet

7th August 2009, 11:03

For all of you "hard working workers" out there that use that argument as to show why one can't be rich, tell me, what exactly do you work at?

Is that unskilled work?

Or low-skill work?

Could it occur you that highly-skilled work is payed better than unskilled work precisely because the first one is scarcer that the other?

Example: Cleaners and fast food workers don't get paid much because they're not worth much. Why? Because anyone can do it, therefore the scarcity of that labor is very low. The fact is not many people can run successful business, or become brain surgeons, so the value of those jobs are much higher compared to a job everyone can do.

This also comes down to a misunderstanding of how wealth is generated, the idea that there is a "top". Someone with an average wage in America now, is much richer than the richest man 1000 years ago? How is this possible if there is a limited number of "top" spaces?

There is not a limited number of jobs, or wealth. Who was the "top" before google/yahoo? There was no "top" in that arena, because the arena never existed, and the reason why google is worth billions of dollars, is because they have created a service that didn't exist before, and that service (being able to easily gain information and reach millions of users with targeted advertisement) is extremely valuable.

There's more wealth in the world than ever before because that wealth has been created, not merely passed between person, which is why the wealth of one person never has to be at the expense of another.

Thats why theres no reason there have to be poor people doing the "menial work". If all the people cleaning toilets and stacking shelves got better skills, or started their own business, they would make more money because they're generating more wealth. If the value of human skills where higher in cost than to buy machine, then machines would be bought instead of people, just as has happened in much of the manufacturing industry.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

NOW, I'll give to you the fact that it is HARD to become rich because we are not in a free(d) market
Leftists typically blame markets for state-caused injustice that takes place in markets.

Free-market libertarians often apply a shallow analysis that causes them to defend state-caused injustice merely because its visible manifestation is in the marketplace.

Both fail to recognize that the market is the context, the cause is the state.

Why is it hard to become rich? Under this statist system, where licensing and regulation make it unduly difficult to actually be entrepreneurial, a disproportionate number of those who would otherwise be entrepreneurs become wage labor. This creates an oversupply of wage labor as opposed to entrepreneurial activity.

This gives the capitalist class an unfair advantage in two ways. First, it reduces the amount of competition on the market, increasing the capitalist's market share and prices with little effort on the part of the capitalist. Second, it reduces the amount of bargaining power the wage labor has. Because there is an oversupply of wage labor, wage labor is more easily replaced than it would be on a real free market, and wages are depressed. This amounts to an effective expropriation of value by the capitalists (who are in a state-created position of power) from the consumers on the one hand (through reduced competition and higher prices) and from the workers on the other (who are underpaid and have less than their fair amount of inflence) and even doubly due to the fact that the workers ARE consumers when they are not on the job.

In a free market, where more gain-oriented thought was present, where more entrepreneurs were around seeking to take from the reduced supply of voluntary wage labor workers, the capitalists would no longer have this unfair advantage. The workers, being scarcer, will thus command higher wages and more influence upon the employer, making it a much more fair system, the libertarian's view of it as an interaction between peers would be true.

Robert

7th August 2009, 13:20

You guys are absolutely right. Do the opposite of everything I recommend.

Just don't ask me in 25 years why you are broke and bitter and I'm not.

Good luck. Not that it will help, given your attitude.

Pogue

7th August 2009, 13:23

Knight of Cydonia

7th August 2009, 13:44

EVERY country that has ever attempted to install communism has failed.
o really? what about china? as far i know, china (which a communist country under Mao) is succeeded to control the economic of the entire world, thanks to communism.

Capitalism has always provided Western Europe with general prosperity compared to the rest of the world. During the Cold War, the anti-Communist regimes of Western Europe fared better than the regimes of the Communist Bloc founded by Marxists. Modern-day social democracies of countries like Sweden or Norway provide a higher standard of living to their citizens than any Marxist country.
o yeah??? so you haven't found any bum or homeless people there? my country is a democracies country, but they only provide a higher standart of living only to bourgeuise and rich corrupt people.

danyboy27

7th August 2009, 13:46

OK, my point is--we (the US, Canada, most of Europe) have a pretty good thing going--let's share with the rest of the world. We are sharing Capitalism with China and it's making a great leap forward (pun intended!) We can do so elsewhere.

well bud, and i am pretty sure 90% of the countries worldwide have already adopted this system, there is nothing to share for now.

basicly, we need those 90% in order to substain our way of life. Eventually things will change and we will have to innovate but basicly its up to the 90% to actually do something against their elites and make things better for themselves.
if one day the situation is getting tense and that canada/us/europe cant actually control those 90% anymore, we will have to change our way of doing things, and maybe to save itself from anihlation the statists regimes will have to change a lot of things.

SubcomandanteJames

7th August 2009, 16:03

You definition is self fufilling. We just elected a Black guy that was born poor from a broken home President and you call him a member of the Bourgeoise?

Obama was only raised for a short time by his mother, and then he was brought up by his executive banker mother, successful furniture-chain owner grandfather, and he DIDN'T NEED/HAVE A SCHOLARSHIP to Harvard. His family pulled strings and paid for it themselves. So don't give me this "I was born a poor black child" bullshit.

That's why your easy definitions don't work. You really need a category for those people that make it on their own.It's capitalism. Nobody makes it on their own unless they farm the raw materials, process the materials, make a product from the materials, run the forum of sales, and then use their own products. Collectivist ideals realize that no one gets anywhere by themselves, as individualists like to spout. And often times they end up stepping on the toes of the people that are most necessary to society. When profitability becomes a means of living, then the value of human life deteriorates under the hands of a few.

Richard Nixon

7th August 2009, 16:25

o really? what about china? as far i know, china (which a communist country under Mao) is succeeded to control the economic of the entire world, thanks to communism.

Only because the Chinese have wisely adopted capitalism.

Bud Struggle

7th August 2009, 16:42

I assume your not being serious but I'll answer anyway. "Bet on the right horses"
OK, I guess that means wealth is largely a matter of luck? No it means that they did what had to be done in order to make they money they wanted to make.

Yes, sociologically speaking, that is a very tiny differential, but it is a factor. Obviously your not incorporating education so your referring to being born with an above average IQ. OK, luck again. Of course people born into poverty actually have lower IQ's. Emotional stress lowers IQ in developing brains, lower health care, lower cultural exposures, more toxins (I've read shocking studies on the toxins these kids are exposed to in crappy buildings) and so on.
This is an advantage. Well then it's an advantage. so what if some people have some natural advantages--should they be punished for them. We just confirmed a new Justice of the Supreme Court that came from Puerto Rican indigent parents. She was smart enough to go to Princeton, she found her way. She wasn't held back. Obama went to Harvard--he had disadvantages, too. Colin Powell came from the Bronx. But all were smart and they succeeded.

OK, the point is pay differential -again - if they get paid 2000% more than you are saying they make the company 2000% more money. This is not correct. Here in America the sa;aries for the working class have leveled since the 70's, even though profit has gone up. Only the top 2% of Americans have seen a wage increase adjusted for inflation. Hence now people work %20 more hours since 1970, woman and wives and mothers now work etc You are missing my point. CEOs make vast amounts of money for companies by inventing new business plans, developing new markets, doing a myrad of things that bring in new business. Some lady that puts a label on a bottle doesn't do any of that.

Thats fine. I went to public high school. It was blue ribbon. However, the public highschoold in, say, the Bronx are overcrowded filled with drugs, violence, teachers are more apathetic etc. that's a community problem and it's a parent problem. If parents were interested in improving their schools--if they made their kids behave and study--there really wouldn't be andy bad high schools.

OK. So you've just proven my point. You think wealthy parents raise their children better. THAT, in clear speak, is called AN ADVANTAGE. I'm not denying that some people have advantages. That's just the way the world works. Some parents are just better than other parents. Some people are just smarter than other people.

Yea, and obviously;y parents, for reasons stated above and many more that are apparent to anyone (poor parents might work more etc etc), are at a disadvantage to wealthy ones. Again, so what? Some people have to work a little harder to get ahead--as long as the opportunity is there, it really doesn't matter.

The vast majority, here in America, of politicians come from wealthy families. You can find out more here http://www.raken.com/american_wealth...edia/index.asp (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.raken.com/american_wealth/encyclopedia/index.asp)
However this is absurdly not the point, the point is that these politicians are bought by corporations. Usually the politician who gets the most money from corporations gets to be president, Obama received alot more $ from business (less than 2/3rs came from donations). This has been an accurate way to predict elections for generations, although it is true this is not always the case.
Just to get elected costs millions, this money comes from corporations. Then change the system.

I brought up the CIA only hiring catholic University students to show how certain ideologies, once in power, tend to stay in power etc I actually WENT to the Catholic university that you are no doubt talking about--Georgetown. And yea they hired, but it was "down the street" from Langley. The CIA also hires from a lot of other places, too. Yale has a big contingent there, too. I'm sure lots of other top ranked schools also.

And sorry about the "doo de do do."

Bud Struggle

7th August 2009, 16:52

Obama was only raised for a short time by his mother, and then he was brought up by his executive banker mother, successful furniture-chain owner grandfather, and he DIDN'T NEED/HAVE A SCHOLARSHIP to Harvard. His family pulled strings and paid for it themselves. So don't give me this "I was born a poor black child" bullshit. Fine. He was a rich Black kid. It just shows you anyone can succeed in America.

It's capitalism. Nobody makes it on their own unless they farm the raw materials, process the materials, make a product from the materials, run the forum of sales, and then use their own products.
Collectivist ideals realize that no one gets anywhere by themselves, as individualists like to spout. EXACTLY. Society, Capitalist society is there to help anyone that is interested in succeeding. No one does it on their own. So use the resources provided and you make out OK.

And often times they end up stepping on the toes of the people that are most necessary to society. When profitability becomes a means of living, then the value of human life deteriorates under the hands of a few. A little bit of "preaching" there, don't you think?

RGacky3

7th August 2009, 17:17

Fine. He was a rich Black kid. It just shows you anyone can succeed in America.

Yeah, and anyone in the USSR can become a high level beaurocrat, so what.

So use the resources provided and you make out OK.

I guess the vast majority of the world are just too dumb to make out OK.

No it means that they did what had to be done in order to make they money they wanted to make.

But essencially he's right, a lot of it is betting on the right horses.

Well then it's an advantage. so what if some people have some natural advantages--should they be punished for them.

No one one said that, but Capitalist advantages are not natural, the same way kingship or nobility is not natural.

But all were smart and they succeeded.

For every example you give I could give you hundreds of smart and industrious people that fail.

CEOs make vast amounts of money for companies by inventing new business plans, developing new markets, doing a myrad of things that bring in new business. Some lady that puts a label on a bottle doesn't do any of that.

Most money is made using money, not brains, most inventors end up selling the rights to people with money that can make it happen. Capitalism does'nt reward talent, it rewards money (coupled with some talent, although sometimes the money is enough).

that's a community problem and it's a parent problem. If parents were interested in improving their schools--if they made their kids behave and study--there really wouldn't be andy bad high schools.

You really live in a dream world. And you claim to represent 'reality'. Most community problems are caused, for the most part, by capitalism.

I'm not denying that some people have advantages. That's just the way the world works. Some parents are just better than other parents. Some people are just smarter than other people.

NO ones talking about those advantages. What your arguint is like arguing FOR steroids in the olympics (only for some people), and saying, well some people are just have natural advantages, so why not allow vast unnatural advantages.

Only Capitalism is'nt a sport, its peoples livelyhoods.

Richard Nixon

7th August 2009, 17:25

Yeah, and anyone in the USSR can become a high level beaurocrat, so what.

Perhaps but it's easier to succeed in the USA then it was in the USSR.

I guess the vast majority of the world are just too dumb to make out OK.

No it's because people in say Africa live under a more primitive form of capitalism then America or Europe. However capitalism will end up developing most of the world sooner or later. Of course the homeless and the poor will never be eradicated but it will be reduced.

But essencially he's right, a lot of it is betting on the right horses.

No one one said that, but Capitalist advantages are not natural, the same way kingship or nobility is not natural.

For every example you give I could give you hundreds of smart and industrious people that fail.

Most money is made using money, not brains, most inventors end up selling the rights to people with money that can make it happen. Capitalism does'nt reward talent, it rewards money (coupled with some talent, although sometimes the money is enough).

And how do capitalists make money? Using their brains. Of course a lot of them inherit the wealth but they have to use their brains to keep and expand their wealth.

You really live in a dream world. And you claim to represent 'reality'. Most community problems are caused, for the most part, by capitalism.

So there was no crime, child abuse, and such things in communism? Look, urban decay is fading away (Hell, Los Angeles' crime rate is the lowest since the 1950s) partially due to the expansion of capitalist businesses in inner cities employing thousands of people.

RGacky3

7th August 2009, 17:30

Perhaps but it's easier to succeed in the USA then it was in the USSR.

Thats very debatable, however, even if its true, it does'nt change the principle.

No it's because people in say Africa live under a more primitive form of capitalism then America or Europe. However capitalism will end up developing most of the world sooner or later. Of course the homeless and the poor will never be eradicated but it will be reduced.

Capitalism is global, Africa and the third world have the same Capitalism we have, only they live under imperialistic domination, and have been given that role due to history.

And how do capitalists make money? Using their brains. Of course a lot of them inherit the wealth but they have to use their brains to keep and expand their wealth.

Or someone elses brains, but so what, using your brain does'nt justify the huge power that wealth gives you, or the priviledge. Soviet beaurocrats had to use their brains too.

So there was no crime, child abuse, and such things in communism? Look, urban decay is fading away (Hell, Los Angeles' crime rate is the lowest since the 1950s) partially due to the expansion of capitalist businesses in inner cities employing thousands of people.

There is actually a LOT less crime in the Zapatista territories than sourrounding areas, (they have no prisons). But sure there is child abuse, and crime, but Capitalism makes it a lot lot worse, and its not the investing that we are complaining about, its the power that the few have to choose waht gets the investment, and the profit they get because of that power at the expense of others.

Richard Nixon

7th August 2009, 17:36

Thats very debatable, however, even if its true, it does'nt change the principle.

Capitalism is global, Africa and the third world have the same Capitalism we have, only they live under imperialistic domination, and have been given that role due to history.

The capitalist system has developed many countries (Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia, India). Obviously condition aren't great in Africa but it too is slowly being developed by capitalism, excepting AIDS conditions in Africa are far better then 30 or even 20 years ago.

Or someone elses brains, but so what, using your brain does'nt justify the huge power that wealth gives you, or the priviledge. Soviet beaurocrats had to use their brains too.

There is actually a LOT less crime in the Zapatista territories than sourrounding areas, (they have no prisons). But sure there is child abuse, and crime, but Capitalism makes it a lot lot worse, and its not the investing that we are complaining about, its the power that the few have to choose waht gets the investment, and the profit they get because of that power at the expense of others.

I was talking about the US not Mexico which are apples and oranges.

Bud Struggle

7th August 2009, 17:50

I was talking about the US not Mexico which are apples and oranges.

The Gackster is pretty single minded when it comes to his Mexican Native America friends. :D

Demogorgon

7th August 2009, 17:50

This "you can work your way up" stuff is a bit of a red hearing. In ancient Rome a slave could buy his freedom and not be a slave any more. Did that make slavery itself justifiable?

Havet

7th August 2009, 17:56

This "you can work your way up" stuff is a bit of a red hearing. In ancient Rome a slave could buy his freedom and not be a slave any more. Did that make slavery itself justifiable?

In pre-historic times a primitive human (a slave to nature) could achieve his freedom by producing food and keeping the results for consumption and not be a slave to nature's will any more.If he did not produce nature would kill him (by nature i mean physical reality), much like slaves were killed in ancient rome if they refused to work. Did that make nature's slavery, which continues today, itself justifiable?

EDIT: I'm not trying to say wage slavery does not exist; i know for a fact it exists. But the arguments that people often use here to explain it are very poorly logically based.

Leftists typically blame markets for state-caused injustice that takes place in markets.

Free-market libertarians often apply a shallow analysis that causes them to defend state-caused injustice merely because its visible manifestation is in the marketplace.

Both fail to recognize that the market is the context, the cause is the state.

trivas7

7th August 2009, 18:09

Leftists typically blame markets for state-caused injustice that takes place in markets.

Free-market libertarians often apply a shallow analysis that causes them to defend state-caused injustice merely because its visible manifestation is in the marketplace.

Both fail to recognize that the market is the context, the cause is the state.
Agreed; but this is too subtle analysis for most on this forum.

Demogorgon

7th August 2009, 18:53

In pre-historic times a primitive human (a slave to nature) could achieve his freedom by producing food and keeping the results for consumption and not be a slave to nature's will any more.If he did not produce nature would kill him (by nature i mean physical reality), much like slaves were killed in ancient rome if they refused to work. Did that make nature's slavery, which continues today, itself justifiable?

EDIT: I'm not trying to say wage slavery does not exist; i know for a fact it exists. But the arguments that people often use here to explain it are very poorly logically based.

Leftists typically blame markets for state-caused injustice that takes place in markets.

Free-market libertarians often apply a shallow analysis that causes them to defend state-caused injustice merely because its visible manifestation is in the marketplace.

Both fail to recognize that the market is the context, the cause is the state.I wasn't asking whether it was part of the market or the state. The market isn't some mystical entity, it is just human economic activity. The state is part of it and reflects the nature of the market (and vice versa to an extent). My point is unrelated to that though. My point was that the fact that a slave could leave slavery and become a freeman, did not justify slavery itself. Similarly the fact that an individual can climb the social ladder (with greater or lesser ease depending on the system), does not justify class society.

Old Man Diogenes

7th August 2009, 19:12

Old Man Diogenes

7th August 2009, 19:22

This is his fourth thread he probably has learned nothing yet. He probably just cannot back up anything he says.

I think truth, knowledge and proof are concepts that scare him. :lol:

SubcomandanteJames

7th August 2009, 19:23

Are you still here? Capitalism has provided general prosperity to the ruling class. And I don't think "true Communism" is unattainable, it just hasn't happened yet whenever it shows signs of happening, i.e. the Spanish Revolution, and the early days of the Russian Revolution (when Soviet democracy was in full swing). But these revolutions were either crushed by reactionaries (the Fascists in Spain for example), or by some group of crooks that took power (in the case of the Bolsheviks, for example).

Yeah I don't buy the whole "true communism isn't possible" idea. As Kropotkin pointed out, there are elements of a functional family unit that resemble communism. To each their needs, from each their abilities. It's just a circle of idealism that we should expand to our community.

Comrade Corwin

7th August 2009, 19:27

I also like the argument that was claimed by Bud Struggle that Capitalism allows people to TRY and be successful millionaires. As if Capitalism had exclusive rights to the attempt to TRY and be anything. No matter what system of government or economy you live in, you can TRY to be anything. I could TRY to be a millionaire in a Capitalist, Fascist or Communist nation and in none of them would it happen. I can TRY to be a god, doesn't mean it is possible.

Also, Bud Struggle, you were so willing to be the crusader for Capitalism earlier on, claiming it to be leaps and bounds above that of Communism, but when the time arose you became an insufferable sycophant claiming that all ideologies were beautiful in their own way and no one is wrong. That is not the case in reality and everyone here know this. We currently have lived in a majority Capitalist world for over 200 years and those with different ideologies have been fought against to secure further years of Capitalism. To say everyone wins is a falsehood and terrible lie when you are currently sitting in the winners’ circle. Please make no such foolish accusation again!

Now, what it comes down to is not only do people TRY to be millionaires which has become a possible class position in many Capitalist nations, but the fact of whether or not people truly want to be, regarding the consequences of holding such a position. The fact is that no matter what sort of state you live in that there is a limited amount of currency. That is unavoidable. You print more so that more people have access to wealth and the value of the currency goes down and therefore drives people into poorer standards of living despite having a high numerical value of cash, which in contrast to when you print less to bring up the value makes it less accessible and therefore increases those without money or the means of attaining a better life. Now, taking that into account, Capitalism allows those who are willing to take away from others to raise themselves up the social/economic ladder and create a void of where a lot of financial assets go to those few wealthy individuals and as to deprive it from others, seeing as currency is a limited resource. Thanks to our new Capitalist ideology (especially in the U.S.) those who have acquired wealth are protected and even if they were to suddenly abandon the practices that got them to the top in the first place, they would not lose their wealth. In short, Capitalist millionaires deprive the market and others of the resources necessary to increase your standard of living whereas Socialism or Communism's purpose is to spread that wealth more regularly equitable so that actually the possibility to increase your standard of living is more accessible and attainable than in Capitalism.

Rosa Provokateur

7th August 2009, 20:35

Rosa Provokateur

7th August 2009, 20:41

Yeah I don't buy the whole "true communism isn't possible" idea. As Kropotkin pointed out, there are elements of a functional family unit that resemble communism. To each their needs, from each their abilities. It's just a circle of idealism that we should expand to our community.

Keyword there, community. People have to want to do it, no coup or over-throw by some obscure vanguard can make this happen. If such a society is to exist it will because people want it to and choose to bring it about. All we can do till then is exemplify and shape our lives to function as if such a society existed. By putting more anarchy into our relationships with others, we commit the most powerful acts against the State.

Judicator

7th August 2009, 21:23

To "debate" the OP, one could start by giving an example of a communist country that they see as a success. Although I'd agree with the people who claim he's just a troll.

There is no such thing as Capitalist Democracies.

Capitalism makes the means of being elected and put into power reliant on your social/economic status, thus making capitalist democracy a classist system that will always work to benefit bourgeois society, resulting in steps towards corporatism.

There's no need to be pedantic - people use "democracy" as a blanket term to cover many forms of representative government like say the US, a Federal Republic. Nobody seriously thinks the US is actually a direct democracy. Usually democracies require basic protection of negative rights and universal franchise, but beyond that I don't think there are any common requirements which would contradict capitalism.

Nwoye

7th August 2009, 22:12

There's no need to be pedantic - people use "democracy" as a blanket term to cover many forms of representative government like say the US, a Federal Republic. Nobody seriously thinks the US is actually a direct democracy. Usually democracies require basic protection of negative rights and universal franchise, but beyond that I don't think there are any common requirements which would contradict capitalism.
Well one historical justification for democratic socialism is that it is the only system which adequately applies democracy - and the values that democracy brings - to all spheres of life. Many liberals or libertarians will defend democracy and the justifications for it (egalitarianism, the injustice of one man ruling another, self-determination, etc) and than use that argument to support democracy in the political sphere. But the socialist says that we should apply democracy not only to the political sphere of life, but to the economic and social as well. Why can a government be ruled via democratic principles while a corporation must be a dictatorship? All socialism asks for is the application of democracy to economic relationships, in the form of the collectivization and democratic management of the means of production.

Following this analysis, it becomes clear that capitalism is the withholding of democracy from the economic sphere of life. This has serious ramifications, with the creation of material inequality and class antagonisms. These two factors make political democracy impossible, as democracy cannot exist between unequal and opposing players. So yes, capitalism does contradict democracy.

Rosa Provokateur

7th August 2009, 22:36

Well one historical justification for democratic socialism is that it is the only system which adequately applies democracy - and the values that democracy brings - to all spheres of life. Many liberals or libertarians will defend democracy and the justifications for it (egalitarianism, the injustice of one man ruling another, self-determination, etc) and than use that argument to support democracy in the political sphere. But the socialist says that we should apply democracy not only to the political sphere of life, but to the economic and social as well. Why can a government be ruled via democratic principles while a corporation must be a dictatorship? All socialism asks for is the application of democracy to economic relationships, in the form of the collectivization and democratic management of the means of production.

Following this analysis, it becomes clear that capitalism is the withholding of democracy from the economic sphere of life. This has serious ramifications, with the creation of material inequality and class antagonisms. These two factors make political democracy impossible, as democracy cannot exist between unequal and opposing players. So yes, capitalism does contradict democracy.

This brings up the question of why should we pursue democracy in all aspects of life to begin with. Democracy, in it's basic meaning, is government by the majority or leadership by the majority. Where does this leave the individual?

I think we've become too obsessed with democracy and have lost sight of an even higher value, liberty. Liberty, being the ability of an individual to lead life as they so choose, seems to me much more radical than any concept of democracy.

Socialism as you talk about it would leave everything in the hands of the majority, things that effect my personal life such as where I live and what I want to do after college supposing I choose college at all. Democracy is nothing more than mob-rule; the side with the most votes, regardless of how wrong it may be, wins. We've seen this played out in California when Prop. 8 was passed and even before that when gay-marriage was banned in Texas by vote in 2004.

Mob-rule, the tyranny of the majority, democracy is nothing more than a mockery to freedom. We must not surrender or seek to surrender our lives, dreams, and asperations in order to appease the desires of those who outnumber us.

As the saying goes: Whoever they vote for, we are un-governable.

spiltteeth

7th August 2009, 22:50

No it means that they did what had to be done in order to make they money they wanted to make.

Well then it's an advantage. so what if some people have some natural advantages--should they be punished for them. We just confirmed a new Justice of the Supreme Court that came from Puerto Rican indigent parents. She was smart enough to go to Princeton, she found her way. She wasn't held back. Obama went to Harvard--he had disadvantages, too. Colin Powell came from the Bronx. But all were smart and they succeeded.

You are missing my point. CEOs make vast amounts of money for companies by inventing new business plans, developing new markets, doing a myrad of things that bring in new business. Some lady that puts a label on a bottle doesn't do any of that.

that's a community problem and it's a parent problem. If parents were interested in improving their schools--if they made their kids behave and study--there really wouldn't be andy bad high schools.

I'm not denying that some people have advantages. That's just the way the world works. Some parents are just better than other parents. Some people are just smarter than other people.

Again, so what? Some people have to work a little harder to get ahead--as long as the opportunity is there, it really doesn't matter.

Then change the system.

I actually WENT to the Catholic university that you are no doubt talking about--Georgetown. And yea they hired, but it was "down the street" from Langley. The CIA also hires from a lot of other places, too. Yale has a big contingent there, too. I'm sure lots of other top ranked schools also.

And sorry about the "doo de do do."

You really didn't answer anything I said. The CIA hires from many places -all catholic University's, my uncle went to some place in buffalo NY, st. mary's?

But the point is that these advantages are not 'natural'. As I pointed out, why do poor communities have such a higher rate of mental illness? Or low IQ? etc As I said, emotional stress, loud noise, toxins, all impacts negatively on IQ and brain function, the type of thing found in poor communities with poor health care.

CEO's, as I said, do make a lot more money and have more valuable skills. Where did they get those skills? First, where did they get the cultural capital to relate to others in such an environment? Likely;ey, it was in college that they learned these skills, how to make good decisions, work with numbers etc If this is true then they BOUGHT their skills.

Of course if parents were better at parenting their kids would be better. Lets look at the sociological factor's that impact good parenting - do both parents work, are they around, is the child exposed to violence and stress in his environment or neighborhood, are there cultural activities around, are the parents in a happy mood or are they stressed out and angry, what about diet, cheap food that doesn;t take time to cook is not very nutritious.

Saying that Colin Powell made it does not prove anything, I know a guy who didn't make it therefore I'm right? I already provided statistical data showing that the number one factor if a child is to financially succeed is coming from a wealthy family, number 2 is actually 'emotional intelligence; or what some sociologists call 'cultural capital' which is partly gained from the child's socializing agents -parents or whoever.

As to me, I;m a fish butcher now. I do have a CSAC degree and worked as a mental Health professional until I was laid off 6 months ago.

Basically, I'm just saying the wealthy have an environment wherein their natural gifts can better be developed and socialized and educated.

The environment has an impact, not to believe that is silly.

You're not thinking of humans, you're thinking of Chuck Norris.

Chuck Norris gives birth to himself, Chuck determines his entire environment and how his psychology interacts with it, Chuck Norris doesn't need to be socialized he educated himself -with his fist! Chuck Norris doesn't need good nutrition or an emotionally supportive environment, Chuck Norris is the only man who has, literally, beaten the odds. With his fists.
Maslow's theory of higher needs does not apply to Chuck Norris. He only has two needs: killing people and finding people to kill.

Nwoye

7th August 2009, 23:17

This brings up the question of why should we pursue democracy in all aspects of life to begin with. Democracy, in it's basic meaning, is government by the majority or leadership by the majority. Where does this leave the individual?

I think we've become too obsessed with democracy and have lost sight of an even higher value, liberty. Liberty, being the ability of an individual to lead life as they so choose, seems to me much more radical than any concept of democracy.

Socialism as you talk about it would leave everything in the hands of the majority, things that effect my personal life such as where I live and what I want to do after college supposing I choose college at all. Democracy is nothing more than mob-rule; the side with the most votes, regardless of how wrong it may be, wins. We've seen this played out in California when Prop. 8 was passed and even before that when gay-marriage was banned in Texas by vote in 2004.

Mob-rule, the tyranny of the majority, democracy is nothing more than a mockery to freedom. We must not surrender or seek to surrender our lives, dreams, and asperations in order to appease the desires of those who outnumber us.

As the saying goes: Whoever they vote for, we are un-governable.
the justification for democracy is that: organization and decision making must take place in situations where interests clash; no human is fit to rule another; every individual should have the same access to political power and civil rights. From there, the only acceptable form of organization is democracy, where every individual has equal input on the decision-making process.

Rosa Provokateur

7th August 2009, 23:35

the justification for democracy is that: organization and decision making must take place in situations where interests clash; no human is fit to rule another; every individual should have the same access to political power and civil rights. From there, the only acceptable form of organization is democracy, where every individual has equal input on the decision-making process.

Interests will always clash; humans will never be able to create a situation where everything is resolved, the best we can do is learn to work it out peacefully and have the courage to seperate if no aggreement is found.

Democracy is many ruling over few.

Why should political power exist, the abolition of the State makes political power abstract.

There are no civil rights, only rights; the only way we can fully experience rights is by being free and that means liberty, not democracy.

Let every individual make his own decisions and live according to them; organization, if given enough power, can only lead to the formation of a State. Democracy, no matter how progressive, is nothing more than the enforcement of a State regardless of whether or not the people enforcing it recognize it as such.

Robert

8th August 2009, 00:19

I could TRY to be a millionaire in a Capitalist, Fascist or Communist nation and in none of them would it happen.

How do you know this?

And which communist nation are you referring to? I thought they didn't exist.

Comrade Corwin

8th August 2009, 00:24

I do believe that we are now arguing what is the best form of government with an Anarchist in regards to the reactions and arguments of Green Apostle. If that is the case, then there is no winning with him.
I have no particular feud with those who follow Anarchist ideology, but to those who actually want to experience Anarchy should move to the polar wastes. It has no limited resources to be distributed and maintained by the state, it has few people and therefore more room to take advantage of liberty with little repression, but has none of the luxuries created by the organization of man. It is the new frontier, the greatest land on Earth for the modern Anarchist.

NecroCommie

8th August 2009, 00:33

Interests will always clash; humans will never be able to create a situation where everything is resolved, the best we can do is learn to work it out peacefully and have the courage to seperate if no aggreement is found.
This does not justify the needless injustice that capitalism creates. It might be that mere change of society does not solve all conflicts, but a better society would have a hell of a lot less of them. The impossibility of a human to be perfect does not justify evil deeds. This is a lousy excuse for a lazy person.

Democracy is many ruling over few.
Democracy is by its very name and definition rule of the majority. THe exact manner of ruling is not stated.

Why should political power exist, the abolition of the State makes political power abstract.
Yet it would leave it existent. Political power always exists, for there is no such thing as political vacuum. At least as long as there is more than two people.

There are no civil rights, only rights; the only way we can fully experience rights is by being free and that means liberty, not democracy.
Rights are man made concepts and the only way to back up your personal idea of rights is to have a monopoly of violence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8

Let every individual make his own decisions and live according to them;
This is propostherous suggestion. My boss would immediately make his decision that he owns me. And I would make the decision that no one can own me or my labour or my means of production. Solve that one without monopoly of violence, aka state.

organization, if given enough power, can only lead to the formation of a State. Democracy, no matter how progressive, is nothing more than the enforcement of a State regardless of whether or not the people enforcing it recognize it as such.
State is needed as long as classes continue to exist. The requirement for a monopoly of violence is direct outome of class differences, and class differences are a direct outcome of capitalist charateristics in society.

Comrade Corwin

8th August 2009, 00:33

I never said that there weren't states that were created with intentions of designing Communist governments. I've never said that Communist states have never failed, because failure is not unusual for a revolutionary form of government. The mistakes made have provided many insights on how to best improve the system and those who think that revolution is instant success are fools.
Look at democracy, capitalism, socialism... etc. All these governments took centuries to improve and properly enforce. Did we give up on them? No. As time goes on, greater theories to improve society will immerge and we must, for the sake of humanity, adapt and evolved unless we intend to fall into stagnant ruin. Communism has provided a multi-step path to follow with justifiable reason to do so and until we adapt to something to better provide for the greater, we should not stop trying to find the necessary elements to make Communism (or similar theories) work.

Judicator

8th August 2009, 01:14

Well one historical justification for democratic socialism is that it is the only system which adequately applies democracy - and the values that democracy brings - to all spheres of life. Many liberals or libertarians will defend democracy and the justifications for it (egalitarianism, the injustice of one man ruling another, self-determination, etc) and than use that argument to support democracy in the political sphere. But the socialist says that we should apply democracy not only to the political sphere of life, but to the economic and social as well. Why can a government be ruled via democratic principles while a corporation must be a dictatorship? All socialism asks for is the application of democracy to economic relationships, in the form of the collectivization and democratic management of the means of production.

Following this analysis, it becomes clear that capitalism is the withholding of democracy from the economic sphere of life. This has serious ramifications, with the creation of material inequality and class antagonisms. These two factors make political democracy impossible, as democracy cannot exist between unequal and opposing players. So yes, capitalism does contradict democracy.

I think it's a question of which rights you give people (life, liberty, property??). Usually, even under democracy, no amount of voting should be able to revoke these basic rights.

Corporations are dictatorships in the same way my house is a dictatorship - it's private property so I can use it as I see fit. Economic relationships are democratic under capitalism in the sense that they are voluntary agreements between free agents.

You can have capitalism and democracy without inequality if you move income around while keeping means of production private. Democracy can exist between opposing players - I think that's the whole point (peaceful conflict resolution). And within reason you can have democracy across various levels of income. There's a fair argument that extremely poor people are less able to participate in the political process, but I don't see why this is a direct contradiction rather than a problem we can deal with.

spiltteeth

8th August 2009, 02:43

Interests will always clash; humans will never be able to create a situation where everything is resolved, the best we can do is learn to work it out peacefully and have the courage to seperate if no aggreement is found.

Democracy is many ruling over few.

Why should political power exist, the abolition of the State makes political power abstract.

There are no civil rights, only rights; the only way we can fully experience rights is by being free and that means liberty, not democracy.

Let every individual make his own decisions and live according to them; organization, if given enough power, can only lead to the formation of a State. Democracy, no matter how progressive, is nothing more than the enforcement of a State regardless of whether or not the people enforcing it recognize it as such.

I think this is a philosophical question. Camus studied it in his book 'The Rebel' about rebellions and revolutions.

It's largely freedom/liberty vs justice/social equality.

100% liberty, if possible, would mean I have no restraints and am free to
even murder, enslave.

100% justice/social equality would mean very few liberties or freedoms, and a good example would be a W Bush trading freedoms of privacy for justice with his wire taps or a Stalinist state that constantly moniters a citizens every move and regulates peoples lives in the extreme.

However, one can fight for freedoms that do not overly diminish another's freedom.

Nwoye

8th August 2009, 03:08

I think it's a question of which rights you give people (life, liberty, property??). Usually, even under democracy, no amount of voting should be able to revoke these basic rights.
Well another fundamental value behind democracy (which can be literally be traced back to the original Greek philosophers) is the establishment of a universal and egalitarian set of rights - meaning everyone has free speech, everyone has freedom of religion, etc. So any action taken to ensure these rights is a fundamentally democratic one in my eyes. In short I agree.

Corporations are dictatorships in the same way my house is a dictatorship - it's private property so I can use it as I see fit. Economic relationships are democratic under capitalism in the sense that they are voluntary agreements between free agents.This is a wonderful sentiment but the fact is that material conditions of the employee along with external factors (teh market) make it such that someone's choice of an employer isn't as simple as "a voluntary agreement between free agents". I'm sure you've had the argument thrown against you that if you don't like the current government, you can just leave right? Well that's obviously not a legitimate argument, as it's not as simple as just moving to another country. Well what this argument boils down to is the concept of positive liberty - without positive liberty (self determination and the ability to live ones life to its potential) one can't freely choose their own government. Well just the same, without positive liberty one can't freely choose what employer they want to work for.

You can have capitalism and democracy without inequality if you move income around while keeping means of production private. Democracy can exist between opposing players - I think that's the whole point (peaceful conflict resolution). And within reason you can have democracy across various levels of income. There's a fair argument that extremely poor people are less able to participate in the political process, but I don't see why this is a direct contradiction rather than a problem we can deal with.Capitalism by its very nature fosters class distinctions - and class distinctions create inequality, economic, social, and eventually political. And the reason bourgeois consistently fails to achieve desirable ends is partly because of the existence of capitalism, that is class society. Where class society exists the irreconcilability of class antagonisms will produce the state as an organ of the ruling class exhibiting control over the working class. And any attempt at "democracy" under this system will either be outright destroyed or corrupted into the bourgeois republicanism that exists in the modern western world.

And all of this is supported by historical evidence.

Verix

8th August 2009, 03:16

Judicator

8th August 2009, 05:37

Well another fundamental value behind democracy (which can be literally be traced back to the original Greek philosophers) is the establishment of a universal and egalitarian set of rights - meaning everyone has free speech, everyone has freedom of religion, etc. So any action taken to ensure these rights is a fundamentally democratic one in my eyes. In short I agree.

:)

This is a wonderful sentiment but the fact is that material conditions of the employee along with external factors (teh market) make it such that someone's choice of an employer isn't as simple as "a voluntary agreement between free agents". I'm sure you've had the argument thrown against you that if you don't like the current government, you can just leave right? Well that's obviously not a legitimate argument, as it's not as simple as just moving to another country. Well what this argument boils down to is the concept of positive liberty - without positive liberty (self determination and the ability to live ones life to its potential) one can't freely choose their own government. Well just the same, without positive liberty one can't freely choose what employer they want to work for.

I would say that a voluntary agreement is one where either party is free to terminate it. Perhaps the agreement is made while one party is worse off, but that just hurts their bargaining situation. I guess it's involuntary in the sense that in modern society you probably have to work to get by, but you have a wide range of choice in how much you work, where you work, and especially who you work for. So I'd say that the choice to work for a particular employer is voluntary.

Well what this argument boils down to is the concept of positive liberty - without positive liberty (self determination and the ability to live ones life to its potential) one can't freely choose their own government. Well just the same, without positive liberty one can't freely choose what employer they want to work for.

Without positive liberty, people will make different choices, but I don't know if that means they lack the ability to choose. Sure, if the government spent twice as much on your education you would make more educated choices when voting, but how does that make you more free?

Like I said above I think you have a choice as to what employer, just not whether or not you want to be employed for at least a couple years of your life.

rednordman

9th August 2009, 17:50

Sarah Palin

9th August 2009, 18:01

Communism has a 100% failure rate

John_Fit[ FORGOT THE Z, YOU IDIOT ]gerald_Kennedy has a 100% EPIC fail rate.

SocialPhilosophy

11th August 2009, 11:40

Dude, shut the fuck up. All your threads have been like this -- only to provoke. It's like me when I join conservative chat rooms in the middle of the night to see how many twits I can piss off in half and hour.

People actually do that?!?:scared::D

Kamerat

11th August 2009, 12:17

RGacky3

11th August 2009, 13:55

But i much rather live in Cuba where i dont have to slave for some capitalist.

Yes you do, its called the state. Slavery for the state in Cuba is much more severe than slavery for a Norwegian capitalist, at least in Norway you have rights and some say, and independant unions.

Kamerat

11th August 2009, 14:32

Yes you do, its called the state. Slavery for the state in Cuba is much more severe than slavery for a Norwegian capitalist, at least in Norway you have rights and some say, and independant unions.
Dont talk about things you dont know. People in Cuba are not slaveing for the state. They are working for themselfs. The workers in Cuba own the means of production. I have talked with Cuban workers, working in a cooporation plantation. They said they own what they produce and the means of production. All the decisions in the cooporative plantatin was taken by all workers in the platation. You have the same rights in Cuba as in Norway, but in addition you have the right to the means of production and what you produce. And there are many independent unions in Cuba and no one is stoping you from createing more. Dont belive everything you hear from fox news, brothers to the rescue, omega 7, coru, alpha 66, commandos f4, brigade 2506, accion cubana, cia, fbi, luis posada carriles, orlando bosch, tony montana(scarface) and in general the empire.

RGacky3

11th August 2009, 14:37

Dont talk about things you dont know. People in Cuba are not slaveing for the state. They are working for themselfs. The workers in Cuba own the means of production. I have talked with Cuban workers, working in a cooporation plantation. They said they own what they produce and the means of production.

So what your saying is that the Cuban state does NOT have control over the workers, and what is produced, or how things get distributed, am I correct?

Kamerat

11th August 2009, 14:43

So what your saying is that the Cuban state does NOT have control over the workers, and what is produced, or how things get distributed, am I correct?
Yes your correct, the cuban people have control over the state and what is produced.

Havet

11th August 2009, 15:05

You have the same rights in Cuba as in Norway, but in addition you have the right to the means of production and what you produce. And there are many independent unions in Cuba and no one is stoping you from createing more. Dont belive everything you hear from fox news, brothers to the rescue, omega 7, coru, alpha 66, commandos f4, brigade 2506, accion cubana, cia, fbi, luis posada carriles, orlando bosch, tony montana(scarface) and in general the empire.

The Cuban government has been accused of numerous human rights abuses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_abuse) including torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture), arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extrajudicial executions (a.k.a. "El Paredón").[92] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#cite_note-91) The Human Rights Watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch) alleges that the government "represses nearly all forms of political dissent" and that "Cubans are systematically denied basic rights to free expression, association, assembly, privacy, movement, and due process of law".[93] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#cite_note-hrw2006-92)

Reporters Without Borders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders) ranked Cuba near the bottom of the Press Freedom Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index) in 2008 and counts Cuba "the second biggest prison in the world for journalists" after the People's Republic of China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China).[94] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#cite_note-93)[95] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#cite_note-94) As a result of computer ownership bans, computer ownership rates are among the world's lowest.[96] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#cite_note-cubaonline-95) Right to use Internet is granted only to selected people and these selected people are monitored.[96] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#cite_note-cubaonline-95)[97] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#cite_note-cubainternet-96) Connecting to the Internet illegally can lead to a five-year prison sentence.

I'm not saying workers don't own the means of production, or that most things like health and education aren't good there. But regarding freedom of expression, seems like things are a bit shady and could use some polishing around there.

There also seems to exist a hate that remembers Orwell's 1984. They have a square right next to the USA embassy called "Gritodromo" (Shouting place) where they assemble once in a while (can't recall how much frequently) and just shout at the embassy. I know this because I went to cuba and saw it with my own eyes.

Kamerat

11th August 2009, 16:00

The Cuban government has been accused of numerous human rights abuses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_abuse) including torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture), arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extrajudicial executions (a.k.a. "El Paredón").[92] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#cite_note-91) The Human Rights Watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch) alleges that the government "represses nearly all forms of political dissent" and that "Cubans are systematically denied basic rights to free expression, association, assembly, privacy, movement, and due process of law".[93] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#cite_note-hrw2006-92)

Reporters Without Borders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders) ranked Cuba near the bottom of the Press Freedom Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index) in 2008 and counts Cuba "the second biggest prison in the world for journalists" after the People's Republic of China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China).[94] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#cite_note-93)[95] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#cite_note-94) As a result of computer ownership bans, computer ownership rates are among the world's lowest.[96] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#cite_note-cubaonline-95) Right to use Internet is granted only to selected people and these selected people are monitored.[96] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#cite_note-cubaonline-95)[97] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#cite_note-cubainternet-96) Connecting to the Internet illegally can lead to a five-year prison sentence.

I'm not saying workers don't own the means of production, or that most things like health and education aren't good there. But regarding freedom of expression, seems like things are a bit shady and could use some polishing around there.

There also seems to exist a hate that remembers Orwell's 1984. They have a square right next to the USA embassy called "Gritodromo" (Shouting place) where they assemble once in a while (can't recall how much frequently) and just shout at the embassy. I know this because I went to cuba and saw it with my own eyes.
I agree that there is little press freedom, and i dont like that or that it is representativ democracy. But lack of computers and internet access is because of the blocade. If you have been to Cuba you would know that it is a completly diffrent economy and that Cuban Peso is not worth anything in compared to capitalist currency, thats why they need Pesos Convertibles.

Never the less its still much better then Norway or any other capitalist country.

Bud Struggle

12th August 2009, 01:29

I agree that there is little press freedom, and i dont like that or that it is representativ democracy. But lack of computers and internet access is because of the blocade. If you have been to Cuba you would know that it is a completly diffrent economy and that Cuban Peso is not worth anything in compared to capitalist currency, thats why they need Pesos Convertibles.

There is no "blackade." The is an embargo so Americans can't spend money in Cuba. Any nation other than America can trade to their heart's content with Cuba.

Any American can travel there and I have done so on several occasions. The economy has a huge Black Market that is let alone for the most part by the Cuban government because it is a large source of foreign currency. The problem with Cuba is that is has little in the way of exports that can generate capital to trade with foreign countries. The problem isn't a "blockade" the problem is that Cuba doesn't produce enough goods to generate any worthwile income for the country.

spiltteeth

12th August 2009, 01:35

There is no "blackade." The is an embargo so Americans can't spend money in Cuba. Any nation other than America can trade to their heart's content with Cuba.

Any American can travel there and I have done so on several occasions. The economy has a huge Black Market that is let alone for the most part by the Cuban government because it is a large source of foreign currency. The problem with Cuba is that is has little in the way of exports that can generate capital to trade with foreign countries. The problem isn't a "blockade" the problem is that Cuba doesn't produce enough goods to generate any worthwile income for the country.

I thought the US puts pressure on other countries not to trade with Cuba -is this true?

spiltteeth

12th August 2009, 01:43

The financial and trade embargo, which Cuba calls an "economic blockade," was imposed in 1962 in response to Cuba's alignment with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Felipe Perez Roque, the Cuban foreign minister, has blamed the sanctions for damaging the island's economy by $93 billion over the decades.

the fact is that the US coerces other countries into also not trading with Cuba. If one of this countries does decide to go ahead and trade, the US sanctions that country by placing tariffs on their products or suspending trade, aid or whatever they have to blackmail with in order to discourage them from trading with Cuba. So now, that is why people are urging the US to lift the illegal embargo.

http://www.cubatrade.org/
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/10/2008102921416975869.html
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/50/plenary/a50-401.htm

SouthernBelle82

12th August 2009, 02:23

Well it's easy to fail when the other side is killing you.

RGacky3

12th August 2009, 10:59

Any American can travel there and I have done so on several occasions.

Not legally.

The problem with Cuba is that is has little in the way of exports that can generate capital to trade with foreign countries. The problem isn't a "blockade" the problem is that Cuba doesn't produce enough goods to generate any worthwile income for the country.

Well it did before, and still does to a great extent, however remember before the revolution the United States was its primary trading partner, it had built many many ties with American buisiness, when those were cut, the USSR ran in and took the market. However since that fell Cuba has'nt really recovered compleatly.

The United States its the obviously trading partner with Cuba considering geography, however because of the ban its obviously puts a strain on it.

When it comes to Cuba, the United States is rediculously hypocritical. It still does'nt recognise the cuban government, even though the rest of the world does, however it demonizes people who don't recognise Isreal as legitimate, which is more of a plausable concept, considering it was made by england, and forced people off their land.

Bud Struggle

12th August 2009, 22:48

Not legally. Up until Bush's 2nd term you could easily go to Cuba with your own boat. The Clinton administration couldn't care less who went there as long as you didn't make too big of a fuss. You just had to be careful not to spend any money. It's about 5 1/2 horus from the Keys. Bush made it considrably more difficult to travel there.

Well it did before, and still does to a great extent, however remember before the revolution the United States was its primary trading partner, it had built many many ties with American buisiness, when those were cut, the USSR ran in and took the market. However since that fell Cuba has'nt really recovered compleatly. True.

The United States its the obviously trading partner with Cuba considering geography, however because of the ban its obviously puts a strain on it. True.

When it comes to Cuba, the United States is rediculously hypocritical. It still does'nt recognise the cuban government, even though the rest of the world does, however it demonizes people who don't recognise Isreal as legitimate, which is more of a plausable concept, considering it was made by england, and forced people off their land. The US government is under lots of pressure fom the ex-pat Cubans to keep up the embargo. They like to see the country remain poor so that they could stage a coup when Castro dies.

That being said--the socialist government would fall faster and harder if the US did stop the embargo--a flood of Capitalist goods and tourists from America would end Castro's government in no time--BUT in that case the Cuban ex-pats would have very little chance to take over.

I agree the US government is being foolish.

RGacky3

13th August 2009, 00:12

Up until Bush's 2nd term you could easily go to Cuba with your own boat. The Clinton administration couldn't care less who went there as long as you didn't make too big of a fuss. You just had to be careful not to spend any money. It's about 5 1/2 horus from the Keys. Bush made it considrably more difficult to travel there.

Its STILL illigal, just because you can get away with it does'nt take away its illigality. Its easy to get weed too, that does'nt mean the anti-weed laws don't exist.

The US government is under lots of pressure fom the ex-pat Cubans to keep up the embargo.

The ex-pats are not the reason, its not like they have huge political influence. The real reason is the United States does'nt want its hegemony challenged in the reason, a successful "socialist" state in the region would encourage other countries, lessening the United States power, its simple imperialism.

flood of Capitalist goods and tourists from America would end Castro's government in no time--BUT in that case the Cuban ex-pats would have very little chance to take over.

Not really, because remember its the State, and public companies that would be doing the trading with United States Capitalists, just because the United States allows free trade with cuba does'nt mean that Cuba will just allow Capitalists to buy it up, remember, this is public buisinesses we're talking about.

I agree the US government is being foolish.

It has nothing to do with foolish or not, its hypocritical and imperialistic.

Bud Struggle

13th August 2009, 01:04

Its STILL illigal, just because you can get away with it does'nt take away its illigality. Its easy to get weed too, that does'nt mean the anti-weed laws don't exist. It's not illegal for Americans to GO anywhere. In order to go to Cuba you have to get a paper from the Treasury department--they issue them. It takes a couple of months but they issue them. You also can't spend any money.

The ex-pats are not the reason, its not like they have huge political influence. The real reason is the United States does'nt want its hegemony challenged in the reason, a successful "socialist" state in the region would encourage other countries, lessening the United States power, its simple imperialism. The ex-pats are the reason--they have HUGE political influence in Florida. Especially south Florida. Cubans run the entire southern half of the state.

Not really, because remember its the State, and public companies that would be doing the trading with United States Capitalists, just because the United States allows free trade with cuba does'nt mean that Cuba will just allow Capitalists to buy it up, remember, this is public buisinesses we're talking about. Well Nixon opened up China to American trade and now they function as a Capitalist country in most respects. But Cuba would fall to Capitalism just like the SU and the Iron Curtain countries. The Cuban lifestyle is universally poor--they have great government services, but not much food or other "worldly goods." An influx of rich American tourists would create a good deal of pressure on the government to produce those goods for the people.

As we all know Socialism works well only as a "closed system". When faced with direct competition from Capitalism, Socialism folds.

It has nothing to do with foolish or not, its hypocritical and imperialistic. Sorry, but in history it's the winners that do the naming of things not the losers--and America doesn't call it's policy either.

leninwasarightwingnutcase

13th August 2009, 01:13

Well Nixon opened up China to American trade and now they function as a Capitalist country in most respects. But Cuba would fall to Capitalism just like the SU and the Iron Curtain countries. The Cuban lifestyle is universally poor--they have great government services, but not much food or other "worldly goods." An influx of rich American tourists would create a good deal of pressure on the government to produce those goods for the people.Do you really think that most people in the former eastern bloc countries now get to own western style goods? In the 90's Russian GDP shrank over 50%. Yes, you heard me right, the economy halved.

As we all know Socialism works well only as a "closed system". When faced with massive violence from Capitalism, Socialism folds.Fixed that for you.

spiltteeth

13th August 2009, 01:17

"Sorry, but in history it's the winners that do the naming of things not the losers--and America doesn't call it's policy either."

Yea. And if America called it a 'freedom kiss', that means it really helps Cubans get more free cuz naming things constitutes its objective reality.

I've wondered why people are so easily manipulated by propaganda, not that America does it cuz its a winner!

Bud Struggle

13th August 2009, 01:17

Fixed that for you. Thanks I appreciat that! :D

Yea. And if America called it a 'freedom kiss', that means it really helps Cubans get more free cuz naming things constitutes its objective reality.

Nothing constitutes objective reality. It's all lifestyle and opinion--there are "facts" of course, but they ultimately tell us nothing about reality.

spiltteeth

13th August 2009, 01:26

Thanks I appreciat that! :D

Nothing constitutes objective reality.

Than lets just make shit up! Slaves is a terrible word. Lets call them Freedom plower's !

Bud Struggle

13th August 2009, 01:32

Than lets just make shit up! Slaves is a terrible word. Lets call them Freedom plower's ! No there are facts, of course, but they tell us nothing about reality. You can look at facts about Capitalism and say it's rotten--other's look at those same facts and say it's just fine. The same with Communism--it's all opinion about which is better. If you decide that the Capitalist lifestyle is best for you--you live like a a Capitalist. If you decide Communism is best--then you live a Communist lifestyle. You say things like "down with Capitalism" or "hurray for Che!"

Nothing wrong with that if that's the way you choose to live.

spiltteeth

13th August 2009, 01:52

OK. I'm gonna choose communism.
Also, I will suggest that those living under fascism choose something different.
Nothing simplistic about that at all...

RGacky3

13th August 2009, 13:19

It's not illegal for Americans to GO anywhere. In order to go to Cuba you have to get a paper from the Treasury department--they issue them. It takes a couple of months but they issue them. You also can't spend any money.

YOu have to be a journalist if I'm nto mistaken. And not being able to spend money is pretty much the smae thing.

Also, in theory weed is'nt illigal either, because you need a liscence for it, only they don't issue it, so you can mince word if you want, but the fact is its illigal.

The ex-pats are the reason--they have HUGE political influence in Florida. Especially south Florida. Cubans run the entire southern half of the state.

Thats rediculous, the US is going against the WHOLE world, ruining relations with a country with very rich resources, and loosing profit opportunities. For a couple of cubans in south of 1 of 50 states? The voting block against isreals war crimes is much bigger, but guess what, the US ideologically supports isreal.

If you look at declasified documents from past presidents and leaders in the US about cuba you'll see its ALL about ideology, they did'nt want anyone in the region to oppose US hedgemony and get away with it, and set a precident.

Well Nixon opened up China to American trade and now they function as a Capitalist country in most respects.

China moved to Capitalism because the government decided to, not because America opened up.

But Cuba would fall to Capitalism just like the SU and the Iron Curtain countries. The Cuban lifestyle is universally poor--they have great government services, but not much food or other "worldly goods." An influx of rich American tourists would create a good deal of pressure on the government to produce those goods for the people.

As we all know Socialism works well only as a "closed system". When faced with direct competition from Capitalism, Socialism folds.

Really? Well Cuba trades with EVERYOTHER CAPITALIST COUNTRY, and trades a lot with europe, and gets a lot of european tourists, but guess what its the same. Is there something compleatly special about American tourists, and American buisiness men?

Sorry, but in history it's the winners that do the naming of things not the losers--and America doesn't call it's policy either.

Well it follows the definition of imperialism, sooo.

It's all lifestyle and opinion--there are "facts" of course, but they ultimately tell us nothing about reality.

Facts don't tell us about reality? Are you high? You mean you think propeganda is actually more real then facts?

No there are facts, of course, but they tell us nothing about reality. You can look at facts about Capitalism and say it's rotten--other's look at those same facts and say it's just fine. The same with Communism--it's all opinion about which is better. If you decide that the Capitalist lifestyle is best for you--you live like a a Capitalist. If you decide Communism is best--then you live a Communist lifestyle. You say things like "down with Capitalism" or "hurray for Che!"

Nothing wrong with that if that's the way you choose to live.

Well the ruling class does'nt think that, which is why it goes very very much out of its way to demonize any type of socialism and hide the cause and effect of things and get away with double standards.

It has nothing to do with lifestlye, any more than "pro-slavery or anti-slavery" is a "lifestyle", your not using your head.

Bud Struggle

13th August 2009, 13:54

YOu have to be a journalist if I'm nto mistaken. And not being able to spend money is pretty much the smae thing.

Also, in theory weed is'nt illigal either, because you need a liscence for it, only they don't issue it, so you can mince word if you want, but the fact is its illigal.

It is "legal" for people under US jurisdiction to go to Cuba. BUT:

It is illegal for people under US jurisdiction to have transactions (spend money or receive gifts) in Cuba under MOST circumstances.
It is legal for American to have transactions (spend money or receive gifts) in Cuba if they have a "license", but
The government is arbitrary about how it interprets its rule and who it issues licenses to.
http://www.ibike.org/cuba/ofac/cuba-travelto.htm

FWIW: I never had a problem getting a license. (Though I haven't been down there since '04.) Also I have a boat and a place in the Keys so I provided my own transportation which lessens the difficulty considerably. I was never stopped or questioned on my return.

Thats rediculous, the US is going against the WHOLE world, ruining relations with a country with very rich resources, and loosing profit opportunities. For a couple of cubans in south of 1 of 50 states? The voting block against isreals war crimes is much bigger, but guess what, the US ideologically supports isreal. Oh, it started with ideology--but the time for that is long since past. Momentum and the very vocal ex-pats are keeping it going. Listen, NOBODY wants the embargo over more than I do--there's a huge market there for all sorts of American goods and those goods and services are going to stored in warehouses and I'm well situated to jump over there the second that market is opened up.

If you look at declasified documents from past presidents and leaders in the US about cuba you'll see its ALL about ideology, they did'nt want anyone in the region to oppose US hedgemony and get away with it, and set a precident. Right, but that was THEN. After the fall of the Iron Curtain all that is done with. Communism just isn't an ideology that anyone cares about anymore (with the exception of RevLeft, of course,) so it's just momentum and the ex-pats that are keeping things going.

China moved to Capitalism because the government decided to, not because America opened up. It started with Nixon and when the Chinese saw the advantages of a Capitalist system they jumped on board. The same thing's going to happen with Cuba. Obama should do a "Nixon" and open the place up.

Really? Well Cuba trades with EVERYOTHER CAPITALIST COUNTRY, and trades a lot with europe, and gets a lot of european tourists, but guess what its the same. Is there something compleatly special about American tourists, and American buisiness men? We can do a pretty good job opening things up. Fidel has to "meet his maker" first and then I think Raul can be talked into easing restrictions, etc. and then after he absconds into the hereafter the country can be opend up. The problem is that the ex-pats want to control the country politically, while business people only wnat to do business so there will be some problems there. Actually they are hurting the whole process.

Well it follows the definition of imperialism, sooo. Everything seems to follow your definition of Imperialism--you attack and occupy a country, that's Imperialism. You ignore a country--that's Imperialism. :confused:

Facts don't tell us about reality? Are you high? You mean you think propeganda is actually more real then facts? All facts can be turned into propaganda. It just takes a little effort.

Well the ruling class does'nt think that, which is why it goes very very much out of its way to demonize any type of socialism and hide the cause and effect of things and get away with double standards. So the entire United States is fooled but only YOU (and a couple of others) see the real truth? Lucky you.

It has nothing to do with lifestlye, any more than "pro-slavery or anti-slavery" is a "lifestyle", your not using your head.Being a Communist and/or an Anarchist when such things barely exist in the world and you live in a Capitalist society is nothing but "lifestyle."

RGacky3

13th August 2009, 16:13

Oh, it started with ideology--but the time for that is long since past. Momentum and the very vocal ex-pats are keeping it going. Listen, NOBODY wants the embargo over more than I do

No ideology is still the main factor, this is also the reason the United States view people like Evo Morales and Huga Chavez as "the enemy," its because they are threatening American power in the region.

Communism just isn't an ideology that anyone cares about anymore (with the exception of RevLeft, of course,)

I think Latin America would disagree with you.

Everything seems to follow your definition of Imperialism--you attack and occupy a country, that's Imperialism. You ignore a country--that's Imperialism.

Trying to starve out a country economically is not ignoring the country, they are actively stopping American buisinesses from doing deals with Cuba.

So the entire United States is fooled but only YOU (and a couple of others) see the real truth? Lucky you.

Well, in a way, but when it comes to real issues, most Americans are far left of the government.

Bud Struggle

13th August 2009, 21:41

No ideology is still the main factor, this is also the reason the United States view people like Evo Morales and Huga Chavez as "the enemy," its because they are threatening American power in the region. So we "hate" him. No one reall cares. Another South American jackdaw--they come, they go. America remains.

I think Latin America would disagree with you. Peron is more the symbol of Latin America than either Chavez or Pinochet. Neither/nor--they have theoir own way of doing business.

Trying to starve out a country economically is not ignoring the country, they are actively stopping American buisinesses from doing deals with Cuba. If a Socialist country is that dependant on a Capitalist country--is it really a Socialist country at all?

Well, in a way, but when it comes to real issues, most Americans are far left of the government. How is universal healthcare doing?:D

You are living in a dream world--but if that's your "lifestyle" who am I to say you are wrong?

I bet in ten years I'll have warehouses in Cuba.

spiltteeth

13th August 2009, 22:10

How is universal health care doing?:D

I think you proved his point, over %70 of Americans approve of universal health care. They will not get it. In a direct democracy this may matter, but in an oligarchy a few businesses decide the policy. Just like over 70% of people thought we ought to get out of the war in Iraq, it doesn't matter what the majority want.

It's well documented most Americans, in polls, are left of center - not communist certainly.

Ideology matters, look into the way America interacts with Right dictators (Sudan) vs Left dictators (Chavez)-its very different.
Also, look at how people are manipulated into believing "Obama-care" is a Nazi socialist fascist agenda.

All sociological phenomena is based on idealogical social contructs. I know you think people just "choose" their living conditions - like the Native Americans chose capitalism, and so did Chile, and Iraq chose the constitution America drew up, etc etc

Hmmmm I wonder why all those Latin American leftist's come and go while America remains - ever heard of the SOA in Georgia? The 2 dudes who just overthrew Zelays were trained there. And who funded that attempted overthrow of Chavez -according to the freed of information act -it was America! etc etc I could go on and on.

I guess if a country buys its permanence at the expense of other's freedom with aggression and violence you consider it 'superior.'

I consider it morally repulsive.

Old Man Diogenes

14th August 2009, 08:36

What I think Leninists have yet to grasp is that for communism to work, it cant be enforced be a State whether proletarian or otherwise. For communism to work it must be maintained at the community/local level by house-holds and neighborhoods. This makes democratic co-operation more plausible and allows people to change things according to their personal needs.

You know what, I think you've got an excellent point there. :thumbup1:

Old Man Diogenes

14th August 2009, 08:40

RGacky3

17th August 2009, 19:54

So we "hate" him. No one reall cares. Another South American jackdaw--they come, they go. America remains.

Well considering we sponsered 2 coups in the region, you should care, the people of south America care.

Peron is more the symbol of Latin America than either Chavez or Pinochet. Neither/nor--they have theoir own way of doing business.

Chavez and pinoche are absolutely nothing alike, right now, the symbols of Latin America are people like Chavez and Morales, at least those are the ones that are immensely popular with the public at the moment. Another symbol would definately be Salvador Allende, you know who he is? YOu know what happend to him? 911 for Latin America :P (the American sponsered coup happend on september 11th if you did'nt get what I was talking about). Why did the US support the coup? Because he was threatening Americas iron grip on the region.

If a Socialist country is that dependant on a Capitalist country--is it really a Socialist country at all?

Yes ... If a Capitalist country is dependant on other Capitalist countries, are they really Capitalist at all? The United States is dependant on other countries, whats your point.

Socialist is public control, Capitalist is plutocratic control, thats the difference.

How is universal healthcare doing?

Considering its been the number one issue for most americans for years, pretty well.

Also considering that right now the right is resorting to the most rediculous blatent lies possible (Fox News is the prime example, which seams to be on your level), it just shows that they are pretty scared.

You are living in a dream world--but if that's your "lifestyle" who am I to say you are wrong?

You are one of the most arrogant pricks in revleft.

Considering you still think that America is altruistic, and you still think that "anyone can make it" and use that as a justification, YOUR the one living in a dream world.

I don't know what your talking about "lifestyle", I don't live any different than you (other than perhaps I'm in a radical union). Your just really, a hyprocrite and kind of dumb (considering you still believe rediculous things).

*Red*Alert

17th August 2009, 20:24

Robert

18th August 2009, 00:13

Also considering that right now the right is resorting to the most rediculous blatent lies possible (Fox News is the prime example, which seams to be on your level), it just shows that they are pretty scared.<blatant>

But Gack, have you been watching the news lately, as in the last 36 hours? Not just Fox News, ANY news? This is from August 17:

Obama faces backlash over potential retreat on public healthcare option

Barack Obama faced a backlash from the left today after his administration signalled retreat over the introduction of a government-run national health plan. Progressives dubbed the move 'treachery' and 'betrayal'.

Obama will continue to push for reform this year but the new healthcare provision is now likely to be run by private insurance companies rather than by the federal government, which had been his preferred option.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/17/healthcare-obama-public-option-reform

Are you sure that it's the right that is freaking out at the moment?

RGacky3

18th August 2009, 09:30

But Gack, have you been watching the news lately, as in the last 36 hours? Not just Fox News, ANY news? This is from August 17:

Obama faces backlash over potential retreat on public healthcare option

Barack Obama faced a backlash from the left today after his administration signalled retreat over the introduction of a government-run national health plan. Progressives dubbed the move 'treachery' and 'betrayal'.

Obama will continue to push for reform this year but the new healthcare provision is now likely to be run by private insurance companies rather than by the federal government, which had been his preferred option.

Yeah, but that has nothing to do with public opinion, the public opinion in the United States, by the vast majority is behind a public health care program. The pressure from obama is political pressure, the United States is not a democratic society, political pressure means pressure from people with political power, like buisiness intrests and the such.

The fact remains, that the AMerican public wants public healthcare.

Rosa Provokateur

18th August 2009, 10:27

EVERY country that has ever attempted to install communism has failed.

But what if you installed communism IN the country? Evidence shows that it works (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTIp9ABMbpY)

NecroCommie

18th August 2009, 11:13

What I think Leninists have yet to grasp is that for communism to work, it cant be enforced be a State whether proletarian or otherwise. For communism to work it must be maintained at the community/local level by house-holds and neighborhoods. This makes democratic co-operation more plausible and allows people to change things according to their personal needs.
What I think you have yet to grasp is that this is exactly what Leninists want. The state in Leninist theory is not for governing the majority of the people, but a tool for that majority to enforce itself upon the small remaining capitalist minority.

Rosa Provokateur

18th August 2009, 11:16

What I think you have yet to grasp is that this is exactly what Leninists want. The state in Leninist theory is not for governing the majority of the people, but a tool for that majority to enforce itself upon the small remaining capitalist minority.

What Leninists theorize and what they actually do are contradictory; every Leninist State has been an enforcement of a vanguard minority upon the majority.

NecroCommie

18th August 2009, 14:07

What Leninists theorize and what they actually do are contradictory; every Leninist State has been an enforcement of a vanguard minority upon the majority.
Is this a sectarian variant of the famous capitalist: "communism is a nice idea but does not work in practice"-argument?

Rosa Provokateur

18th August 2009, 14:48

Is this a sectarian variant of the famous capitalist: "communism is a nice idea but does not work in practice"-argument?

No, it's a statement about Leninism's hypocrisy.

"The state in Leninist theory is not for governing the majority of the people, but a tool for that majority to enforce itself upon the small remaining capitalist minority."

Leninism has been tried in Russia, China, Cuba, and Albania. In all of these places the State, rather than being a tool for the majority to enforce itself upon the small remaining capitalist minority, has instead been a tool for the vanguard to retain power and enforce it's will on the people.

Where Leninists true to their ideas as they claim, they would use the State as you described it. History shows otherwise.

NecroCommie

18th August 2009, 15:12

Rosa Provokateur

18th August 2009, 15:34

Ad hominem.

Your logic:
-Leninist state theory says that a workers state is run by the majority against the minority.

-Self identifying Leninist states do not fullfill your idea of a good country.

-Therefore there must be something fundamentally wrong with Leninist theory of state, or it's practice.

Would you be so kind as to even play with the thought that the degeneration of Leninist revolutions might have been due to other reasons, like... say, economy or external aggression? The truth is that Leninism has a far better success rate in practice than anarchism. It is mere coinsidence that when Leninist worker states devolve, they... well, they devolve. The fact that the anarchist revolutions have a tendency to come crashing down in military conflicts does not make anarchism somehow better. On the contrary I dare say!

Well what about spots where the economy was stable and no outside aggression was in action; the USSR when Stalin was running industrialization, China before the Cultural Revolution.

As far as practice of anarchism; Nestor Makhno, Whiteway Colony, and Woodstock of 1969 all prove that anarchism can and does work WITHOUT bereucratic vanguards who preach one thing and practice another.

RGacky3

18th August 2009, 16:34

Would you be so kind as to even play with the thought that the degeneration of Leninist revolutions might have been due to other reasons, like... say, economy or external aggression? The truth is that Leninism has a far better success rate in practice than anarchism. It is mere coinsidence that when Leninist worker states devolve, they... well, they devolve. The fact that the anarchist revolutions have a tendency to come crashing down in military conflicts does not make anarchism somehow better. On the contrary I dare say!

Thats been said over and over again, that it was external reasons.

However, what possible external reasons forced the leninist government to crack down on dissent, restrict freedom of speach and essencially kill soviet democracy. Also if the Leninist state was truely run by the workers they could'nt have done that could they?

Leninists say they need state power to crack down on the remaining capitalists.

History shows that leninists use it to crack down on ANY dissent and to hold on to absolute power.

What I think you have yet to grasp is that this is exactly what Leninists want. The state in Leninist theory is not for governing the majority of the people, but a tool for that majority to enforce itself upon the small remaining capitalist minority.

Thats fine, but thats not what happened. Don't blame 'external problems' either, because guess what, the Bolsheviks took power for themselves and destroyed any dissent, you can say the majority was in control until your blue in the face, but empirical evidence shows that its not the case.

Rosa Provokateur

18th August 2009, 16:56

NecroCommie

18th August 2009, 17:34

Thats been said over and over again, that it was external reasons.

However, what possible external reasons forced the leninist government to crack down on dissent, restrict freedom of speach and essencially kill soviet democracy. Also if the Leninist state was truely run by the workers they could'nt have done that could they?
You show signs of vast ignorance on the details of degeneration argument. All degeneration (as all change in society) starts from the economy. In the example of USSR it started when the communal farm leaders were given too much power over their farms. This power was similar to owning that farm, so early seeds of class struggle were born here. Our friend Stalin then used the interests of these "owners" (repression of democracy) to further the goals he deemed more important.

You will notice how this degeneration process has little to do with fatalities in Leninist theories, and more about the existence of class antagonism even after any revolution. A fact that many anarchist revolutions have ignored completely, and paid the price on that dearly.

Now, you might ofcourse claim that the very existence of these communal farm "owners" were a mistake of Leninism in itself. Before you do that however, I would like to point out how leninists have never been the only force at work, even in revolutions where they were the dominant one. These "hidden class antagonisms" are a reality that must be faced, and the reason for democratic centralism.

History shows that leninists use it to crack down on ANY dissent and to hold on to absolute power.
Ah, yes the famous Leninist conspiracy! I too, am in here forum as a disguised capitalist intent on the thwarting of your ah, so clean and pure proletarian revolutions. In reality I just want a country full of slave labour for myself, while I rest in my mansion and laugh maniacly at my plans of world conquest.

Thats fine, but thats not what happened. Don't blame 'external problems' either, because guess what, the Bolsheviks took power for themselves and destroyed any dissent,
You will notice how "destroying dissent" is little different to fighting capitalist armies. Only the geological position of the enemy differs.

you can say the majority was in control until your blue in the face, but empirical evidence shows that its not the case.
Might I see this empirical evidence?

RGacky3

19th August 2009, 01:10

BTW, bud struggle, I'm waiting for a response, about how somehow 70% of America is'nt America..

However.

All degeneration (as all change in society) starts from the economy. In the example of USSR it started when the communal farm leaders were given too much power over their farms. This power was similar to owning that farm, so early seeds of class struggle were born here. Our friend Stalin then used the interests of these "owners" (repression of democracy) to further the goals he deemed more important.

Those communal farm leaders were not the ones that set up the NKVD, or the KGB, they were not the ones that took democracy away from the soviets, or destroyed desent, or how they set up the political prison camps. If they are please make the connection.

Ah, yes the famous Leninist conspiracy! I too, am in here forum as a disguised capitalist intent on the thwarting of your ah, so clean and pure proletarian revolutions. In reality I just want a country full of slave labour for myself, while I rest in my mansion and laugh maniacly at my plans of world conquest.

What are you talking about? I never said that. What makes you think that a guy with a red star on his suit will act any differently than a guy with an american flag on his suit if they have the exact same power?

You will notice how "destroying dissent" is little different to fighting capitalist armies. Only the geological position of the enemy differs.

Sure, were thousands of anarchists, socialists, non-bolsheviks, free-thinkers, non-loyal to the bolshevik people actually capitalist armies?

Might I see this empirical evidence?

Will get some sources about how the soviet government worked tommorow, that is if you actually believed that the soviet government was 100% accountable to the wishes of the people, you believe that?

Bud Struggle

19th August 2009, 01:32

BTW, bud struggle, I'm waiting for a response, about how somehow 70% of America is'nt America..

Please.

Refresh my memory a bit as to where I ever said that. ;)

RGacky3

19th August 2009, 08:55

Quote:
Well, in a way, but when it comes to real issues, most Americans are far left of the government.
How is universal healthcare doing?:D

You are living in a dream world

THere is the full poll, its actually 76% of Americans. The numbers go way back, for years the public has supported universal healthcare, however, the problem is, the media and the politicians don't care about what the public actually supports.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/090617_NBC-WSJ_poll_Full.pdf

Also all the fuss over the healthcare reform recently, has'nt been about the public option, its been about straight up lies, that people have put out saying things like you won't be able to choose your doctor, the government chooses if you can get healthcare, and so on and so forth, not about the actual public option. The fact is to get the public afraid some right wingers in America have to resort to straight up lies, which they are doing, and blatently (sometimes now they arn't even just hiding facts, they are blatent lies.)

Bud Struggle

19th August 2009, 14:05

Well, then there is this poll:

August 5, 2009 -
American voters, by a 55 - 35 percent margin, are more worried that Congress will spend too much money and add to the deficit than it will not act to overhaul the health care system, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. By a similar 57 - 37 percent margin, voters say health care reform should be dropped if it adds "significantly" to the deficit.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1357

I personally am for "health care reform" as much as anyone else--I just don't want to spend any public funds on it.

Muzk

19th August 2009, 14:09

I personally am for "health care reform" as much as anyone else--I just don't want to spend any public funds on it.

You mean taxing the rich? You know that such a thing is not possible in america, and if Obama somehow got this through the republicans would go batshit insane... ;_; damn conservatives.

RGacky3

19th August 2009, 14:41

I personally am for "health care reform" as much as anyone else--I just don't want to spend any public funds on it.

But your ok spending public funds to kill other people in other contries, just not save your own people in your country. We are the only industrialized country without public healthcare, and we also the country with one of the worst health care.

Also for that poll I"d like to see the actual questions and how it was worded. Just because people are worried, due to blatent lies and false information, does'nt mean they don't want universal healthcare.

LOLseph Stalin

21st August 2009, 20:23

But your ok spending public funds to kill other people in other contries, just not save your own people in your country. We are the only industrialized country without public healthcare, and we also the country with one of the worst health care.

Yet the Conservatives still like to argue that American healthcare is the best. Why? Because there's no waitlists. Makes perfect sense when the wealthy can just buy their way into better care while millions of Americans in poverty are virtually ignored. It would make sense to me that only the wealthy in America would support such a system. Too bad they're the ones who also have control over the US government. With the US government being a corporate puppet no real healthcare reforms would pass. Obama seems like he would actually want a system pretty close to Universal Healthcare, but has to compromise to please both sides. Of course this still results in private healthcare. :cursing:

Bud Struggle

21st August 2009, 20:51

But your ok spending public funds to kill other people in other contries, just not save your own people in your country. We are the only industrialized country without public healthcare, and we also the country with one of the worst health care. Personally I'm not much for Iraq or all those US bases all around the world. It's a waste of money and people.

Also for that poll I"d like to see the actual questions and how it was worded. Just because people are worried, due to blatent lies and false information, doesn't mean they don't want universal healthcare.

Oh, I think universal healthcare is going to cost LOTS--I don't think there's much question of that. The question is--do we want to spend all that much money on something (and this is speaking from a Capitalist perspective) that doesn't have any financial return?

What universal healthcare will do is push America further in the direction of Social Democracy (NOT Socialism, Communism or Anarchism.) Is that an overall goal for America?

Another problem is that America has a GREAT healthcare system for those that can afford it. It is by far the best in the world. My healthcare is great and I PAY so that it's great. So do a lot of other people. What Obama is asking me to do is is to still pay for my healthcare--but pay it to the government and to pay more and to get less service. As a matter of fact he wants me to get the SAME service as someone that pays nothing into the system. You could see why people like me have trouble with that idea.

Actually, I really don't mind paying more to help people out who don't have healthcare--but I certainly would like to keep my private service for me and my family--I have a big problem with him taking away my rights on the matter.

Robert

21st August 2009, 21:19

Another problem is that America has a GREAT healthcare system for those that can afford it.

It also has great health care for those who cannot afford it. My county may be unique, but its hospital delivers about 70 babies per day to the poor, legal or illegal immigrant, at zero cost. Leukemia treatments, dialysis, dental care, orthodontics, and eye care are also available. No cost, zero, insured or not. It's dishonest to ignore this.

The problem is in preventative care -- cancer screening, for example -- for the poor.

LOLseph Stalin

21st August 2009, 21:24

The problem is in preventative care -- cancer screening, for example -- for the poor.

Which everybody, INCLUDING the poor should have access to.

danyboy27

21st August 2009, 21:32

The problem is in preventative care -- cancer screening, for example -- for the poor.

i dont think this is unique to private healthcare system, we have that issue here too in canada.

RGacky3

23rd August 2009, 20:36

Personally I'm not much for Iraq or all those US bases all around the world. It's a waste of money and people.

Its more than that, its imperialism.

Oh, I think universal healthcare is going to cost LOTS--I don't think there's much question of that. The question is--do we want to spend all that much money on something (and this is speaking from a Capitalist perspective) that doesn't have any financial return?

Well, actually looking at the rest of the industrialized world, state healthcare is actually more efficiant.

From a Capitalist perspective? Thats the point, the argument for universal public healthcare is that it should'nt be a Capitalist perspective, its peoples lives we're talking about.

What universal healthcare will do is push America further in the direction of Social Democracy (NOT Socialism, Communism or Anarchism.) Is that an overall goal for America?

Like I said before, politicizing it or economizing it is rediculous, the fact is, the American healthcare system is deplorable, people are loosing their lives, not getting healthcare, getting financially raped. The fact is this is a very serious issue, in my opinoin this is beyond socialism or capitalism, this is peoples lives we are talking about.

Another problem is that America has a GREAT healthcare system for those that can afford it. It is by far the best in the world. My healthcare is great and I PAY so that it's great. So do a lot of other people. What Obama is asking me to do is is to still pay for my healthcare--but pay it to the government and to pay more and to get less service. As a matter of fact he wants me to get the SAME service as someone that pays nothing into the system. You could see why people like me have trouble with that idea.

Actually, I really don't mind paying more to help people out who don't have healthcare--but I certainly would like to keep my private service for me and my family--I have a big problem with him taking away my rights on the matter.

No one is talking about taking away the private sector, infact its going to make the private sector more efficiant because its going to compete with public health care that is subject to public control. In social democratic countries there are private health care services, the same way in America you can send stuff by USPS or UPS.

It also has great health care for those who cannot afford it. My county may be unique, but its hospital delivers about 70 babies per day to the poor, legal or illegal immigrant, at zero cost. Leukemia treatments, dialysis, dental care, orthodontics, and eye care are also available. No cost, zero, insured or not. It's dishonest to ignore this.

The problem is in preventative care -- cancer screening, for example -- for the poor.

Not according to the statistics.

Dr Mindbender

24th August 2009, 11:16

Another problem is that America has a GREAT healthcare system for those that can afford it. It is by far the best in the world. My healthcare is great and I PAY so that it's great. So do a lot of other people. What Obama is asking me to do is is to still pay for my healthcare--but pay it to the government and to pay more and to get less service. As a matter of fact he wants me to get the SAME service as someone that pays nothing into the system. You could see why people like me have trouble with that idea.

This is what troubles me about the capitalist mentality; this invincibility complex that they will always be immune to hardship. What if you ever find yourself down on your luck and rubbing shoulders with the millions of uninsured?

Perhaps you should view socialised medicine as an insurance for 'medicine during hardship' rather than a burden you have to saddle. Don't say it won't happen, because wealthy americans are often duped into paying insurance on many asinine or unlikely policies.

Actually, I really don't mind paying more to help people out who don't have healthcare--but I certainly would like to keep my private service for me and my family--I have a big problem with him taking away my rights on the matter.

Mantaining your privilege isnt a 'right'. Especially when that percieved rights undermines the rights of others. All that the private sector hospital does is leech resources from the overall national industry helping wealthier patients jump the waiting list and push poorer ones further down.

Bud Struggle

24th August 2009, 13:35

This is what troubles me about the capitalist mentality; this invincibility complex that they will always be immune to hardship. What if you ever find yourself down on your luck and rubbing shoulders with the millions of uninsured?
I know one thing:
Each time I find myself laying flat on my face,
I just pick myself up and get back in the race
That's life.

Mantaining your privilege isnt a 'right'. Especially when that percieved rights undermines the rights of others. Why isn't it my right? As long as the law declares it to be so--it is.

All that the private sector hospital does is leech resources from the overall national industry helping wealthier patients jump the waiting list and push poorer ones further down. But that's how Capitalism works--if you want better service at a restaurant, you pay more. If you want better service at a hospital, you pay more. What makes the system fair isn't the the level of service--it's access to wealth. As long as there is a chance that one can do well financially--the system is fair.

Robert

24th August 2009, 13:49

Its more than that, its imperialism.

We are voluntarily leaving Iraq and taking nothing home with us but wounded soldiers.
That's imperialism?

Give us a break now and then, will ya?

Bud Struggle

24th August 2009, 13:50

Its more than that, its imperialism. But that's how the world works--countries have always conquered other countries since the beginning of time. I'm against it not because I really care much about the damn Iraqis--the problem is that such adventures cost ME as a tax payer too much money for little or no gain. Anyway--as Robert said we're leaving Iraq--and it's a much better country for us having visited.

Well, actually looking at the rest of the industrialized world, state healthcare is actually more efficiant. I don't quite know if efficiency is the goal for healthcare.

From a Capitalist perspective? Thats the point, the argument for universal public healthcare is that it should'nt be a Capitalist perspective, its peoples lives we're talking about. The Capitalist perspective is that everyone takes care of themselves. You work, you make money, you pay for the things you need and you want. You have to plan ahead, you have to work hard enough and smart enough to afford you insurance. For the most part that can be done in the US--not so much in other parts of the world, I agree to that.

Like I said before, politicizing it or economizing it is rediculous, the fact is, the American healthcare system is deplorable, people are loosing their lives, not getting healthcare, getting financially raped. The fact is this is a very serious issue, in my opinoin this is beyond socialism or capitalism, this is peoples lives we are talking about. The thing is--people are resonsible for the OWN LIVES. The government isn't responsible, I'm not responsible. People have to find a way to support themselves so that they can take care of themselves and their families. Most people do--but there are always few that don't, but they get taken care of through charity for the most part. Probably as you said not the most efficient way--but it works (and from the way things are going it's probably the way things are going to continue.)

No one is talking about taking away the private sector, infact its going to make the private sector more efficiant because its going to compete with public health care that is subject to public control. In social democratic countries there are private health care services, the same way in America you can send stuff by USPS or UPS. I never had any objection to Social Democracies--my problem has always been with Socialism. I really don't care what they do with the public sector as long as I can maintain my private coverage, though from what I've understood (and it may not be up to date) I though Obama wanted to take away all private insurance.

Green Dragon

24th August 2009, 14:56

The problem is in preventative care -- cancer screening, for example -- for the poor.

But considering that the USA has better long term survivability for cancer (earlier detection and quicker treatment) and such, than the UK or Canada, it would seem the present USA health system has done a better job in solving that problem.

Green Dragon

24th August 2009, 15:04

[QUOTE=RGacky3;1523774]THere is the full poll, its actually 76% of Americans. The numbers go way back, for years the public has supported universal healthcare, however, the problem is, the media and the politicians don't care about what the public actually supports.

I doubt that 76% of Americans support it. Its probably closer to 100%. Who would be against someone having health insurance?

Also all the fuss over the healthcare reform recently, has'nt been about the public option, its been about straight up lies, that people have put out saying things like you won't be able to choose your doctor, the government chooses if you can get healthcare, and so on and so forth, not about the actual public option. The fact is to get the public afraid some right wingers in America have to resort to straight up lies, which they are doing, and blatently (sometimes now they arn't even just hiding facts, they are blatent lies.)

Most people (80%) like their present health insurance plan. The concern is losing what they have.
The problem with the "public option" is that most people get their health insurance from their employer. And anyone knows that the government can always provide insurance (or any other product) more cheaper because it can simply subsidise it (ie tax somebody for it). So yes, there will be employers who will absolutely dump their coverage, and let the government take over with whatever policy they deem.

That is the concern, and it is not an illegitimate one.

Dr Mindbender

24th August 2009, 16:11

I know one thing:
Each time I find myself laying flat on my face,
I just pick myself up and get back in the race
That's life.
Ok, well you just keep telling yourself that if you ever find yourself both broke and lumbered with a life threatening disease on the brink of turning terminal.

I'm sure then you'll come round to the benefits of healthcare-at-point-of demand.

Why isn't it my right? As long as the law declares it to be so--it is.
The law isnt infallible. All services, such as healthcare which serve as a necessity to the saving and preservation of life should be regarded as human rights; not commodities. As a supporter of the private health system it makes you complicit to the removal of rights of others via curtailing their access to it.

But that's how Capitalism works--if you want better service at a restaurant, you pay more. If you want better service at a hospital, you pay more. What makes the system fair isn't the the level of service--it's access to wealth. As long as there is a chance that one can do well financially--the system is fair.
See above- the state of public health systems in social democracies like the uk is not an indictment of running them publicly per se, more of running them in tandem with a private system.

If all resources were channelled publicly then the greatest denominator would get access to the best possible system on average. That is how a health system should be run.

RGacky3

24th August 2009, 16:37

The problem with the "public option" is that most people get their health insurance from their employer. And anyone knows that the government can always provide insurance (or any other product) more cheaper because it can simply subsidise it (ie tax somebody for it). So yes, there will be employers who will absolutely dump their coverage, and let the government take over with whatever policy they deem.

Of coarse, but whats the other option, what we have now is rediculous, essencially, its insurance companies taking in as much money, and spending the least (common sense really). So I don't know if that concern is really a big one considering what exists now.

Anyway--as Robert said we're leaving Iraq--and it's a much better country for us having visited.

Are you talking about when we visited this time? Or when we visited the first time :P?

Beceause I think it would have been way better off had we never visited at all.

I'm against it not because I really care much about the damn Iraqis--the problem is that such adventures cost ME as a tax payer too much money for little or no gain.

At least your honest :). When something happens to Americans however, don't have a double standard now.

I don't quite know if efficiency is the goal for healthcare.

It should be, efficient, as in, the most people helped in the best way possible. Rather than the most profit made.

The Capitalist perspective is that everyone takes care of themselves. You work, you make money, you pay for the things you need and you want. You have to plan ahead, you have to work hard enough and smart enough to afford you insurance. For the most part that can be done in the US--not so much in other parts of the world, I agree to that.

There is nothing special about the American Capitalist system as opposed to the rest of the world, its the same system.

In the real world, it does'nt really matter how smart you are or how hard you work, some people just cannot afford health insurance.

In the real world also, everyone does'nt take care of themselves, the State has been taking care of the ruling class for decades, ignoring the general public, and you never heard a peep from the Capitalists, when the bailout happend it was all great.

Now the government is trying to do something civil for the general public, mainly because of public pressure over the years, and because we are WAY behind the rest of the world when it comes to this. Now hte Capitalists are up in arms.

the United States and Capitalism has never been about, do it yourself, the Capitalist has always had the aid of the state, and the public has alwayd had to fight long and hard (lets be mature now) for anything.

Its never been a fair playing field.

The thing is--people are resonsible for the OWN LIVES. The government isn't responsible, I'm not responsible. People have to find a way to support themselves so that they can take care of themselves and their families. Most people do--but there are always few that don't, but they get taken care of through charity for the most part. Probably as you said not the most efficient way--but it works (and from the way things are going it's probably the way things are going to continue.)

I agree, but we have a state, and that state is using OUR money, so we should have it for our intrests.

Yes are are responsible for our own lives, but this is a tyrannical system we are in, Capitalism, it essencailly denies the vast majority of the population any control over their own lives or over their enviroment. Right now the Capitalists are in control of our health care, the public has NO say over that control, the State is much more subject to public control than the Capitalists, so we are being responsible for our own lives by taking control over something fundamental, health care.

I never had any objection to Social Democracies--my problem has always been with Socialism. I really don't care what they do with the public sector as long as I can maintain my private coverage, though from what I've understood (and it may not be up to date) I though Obama wanted to take away all private insurance.

Not at all the case, stop watching glenn beck. Theres a reason its called the public option.

I know one thing:
Each time I find myself laying flat on my face,
I just pick myself up and get back in the race
That's life.

Right now most of the world is laying flat on its face, and public healthcare is one way Americans are trying to get back in the race. The best example in recent times of getting back in the race, I think has been Bolivia, which in my opinion, is one of the most exciting and inspiring regions right now.

Why isn't it my right? As long as the law declares it to be so--it is.

Thats fine, but don't complain if its taken away. Again, no double standards.

But that's how Capitalism works--if you want better service at a restaurant, you pay more. If you want better service at a hospital, you pay more. What makes the system fair isn't the the level of service--it's access to wealth. As long as there is a chance that one can do well financially--the system is fair.

This "as long as there is a chance" thing does'nt fly at all. If it does it can justify the Soviet Union as well, everyone had a chance to get into the Party.

Green Dragon

24th August 2009, 18:26

[QUOTE=RGacky3;1528288]Of coarse, but whats the other option, what we have now is rediculous, essencially, its insurance companies taking in as much money, and spending the least (common sense really). So I don't know if that concern is really a big one considering what exists now.

Health Savings Accounts.

Comrade Corwin

24th August 2009, 21:53

Capitalism isn't the enemy here. It served its purpose, it boosted our economy out of the serfdom ideology and brought us to the modern age. However, it has finished role and should leave the stage with dignity to allow the next star to take its place instead of fighting like a cornered dog against reality like some people are doing.
This belief that America was built on everyone fending for themsleves like some kind of dystopic battle dome is rediculous! I mean, look at the base of the Statue of Liberty, one of our nation's most treasured iconic symbols: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door." This nation was based off of the idea of sheltering the poor and weak from the cruel persicution that has existed in governments that consider people to be no more than GDP numbers, and allowed the seemingly weak (like Albert Einstein) prove their worth on a equal playing ground. We must adapt to follow this ideal. Do you not think a public option to expand the availability of the United State's quality healthcare is an extension of our nation's compassionate nature?
Do you want a capitalist perspective of the benefits of socialized medicine? Through the system of a single-payer healthcare option we will be treated to quality healthcare with standards that go along with our nation's ethics rather than quality that reflects the depth of our pockets. We'd pay less and be guaranteed more as doctors will be required to provide the proper treatment and not try to pocket the difference. Now this is cheaper and of great quality, but if you want to stick with your limited private organizations, they will still be there and you can pay more so that your private physician can rent a 100 foot yacht on his birthday. Either way, if you ask an economist what the point of government is he'll say it is to ensure the circulation of limited resources and if you want to choose the medical option that best does that, it should be peoples' right to do so, so instead of fighting that right to mantain your empty status symbol let people have their choice.

Bud Struggle

24th August 2009, 22:02

Are you talking about when we visited this time? Or when we visited the first time :P?

Beceause I think it would have been way better off had we never visited at all. All in all id doesn't matter if we went in and kicked their ass--that's just how countries do things. What matters is that we have stayed and built up quite as bill. Not a good idea.

It should be, efficient, as in, the most people helped in the best way possible. Rather than the most profit made. It works really well in that the BEST and the BRIGHTEST go into medicine--they can make a lot of money. If Socialized healthcare goes into operation and the best people will find other avenues to make money.

My eldest daughter (in HS) has been seriously thing about a career in medicine (as a Radiologist) as a re a number of her friends. They're meeting with doctors in different fields that are my friends and friends of their parnets to discuss different medical fields and opportunities. The doctors are worried and kids like my daughter and her friends will definitely go elsewhere if a good income isn't provided in the business. That will leave the field open to second banannas.

It won't be good for medicine.

There is nothing special about the American Capitalist system as opposed to the rest of the world, its the same system. Maybe.

In the real world, it does'nt really matter how smart you are or how hard you work, some people just cannot afford health insurance. Bue whay is their problem EVERYBODY'S problem. They need to face the mistakes they made in their life and fix them and move ahead.

In the real world also, everyone does'nt take care of themselves, the State has been taking care of the ruling class for decades, ignoring the general public, and you never heard a peep from the Capitalists, when the bailout happend it was all great. Agreed that bailout was STUPID. It whould have never happened. If you fail--then you fail.

Now the government is trying to do something civil for the general public, mainly because of public pressure over the years, and because we are WAY behind the rest of the world when it comes to this. Now hte Capitalists are up in arms. Well let's see how it works. My guess though--and it's only a guess but heathcare will go down in flames.

the United States and Capitalism has never been about, do it yourself, the Capitalist has always had the aid of the state, and the public has alwayd had to fight long and hard (lets be mature now) for anything.

Its never been a fair playing field. I don't disagree--but nobody's going to give anything away. You just can't expect that.

I agree, but we have a state, and that state is using OUR money, so we should have it for our intrests.

Here's who pays income taxes:

Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%
$410,096
40.42

Top 5%
$160,041
60.63

Top 10%
$113,018
71.22

Top 25%
$66,532
86.59

Top 50%
$32,879
97.11

Bottom 50%
<$32,879
2.89

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service

It's the rich people.

[Edit] The form didn't come out well when I posted it. Here's the website it came from.

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

Yes are are responsible for our own lives, but this is a tyrannical system we are in, Capitalism, it essencailly denies the vast majority of the population any control over their own lives or over their enviroment. Most poor people are fat, dumb and happy. If they weren't this heathcare porblem would go away in a second. If they WANTED it to really go through--it would.

Right now the Capitalists are in control of our health care, the public has NO say over that control, the State is much more subject to public control than the Capitalists, so we are being responsible for our own lives by taking control over something fundamental, health care. Well true. But as I said if poor people REALLY wahted heathcare the'd get it. Thay have the political power to vote anyone in office they want.

Right now most of the world is laying flat on its face, and public healthcare is one way Americans are trying to get back in the race. The best example in recent times of getting back in the race, I think has been Bolivia, which in my opinion, is one of the most exciting and inspiring regions right now.You realize that was a Frank Senatra song? And good luck to Bolivia. I certainly wish them well. I've never been there--but I've been to Peru which is probably similar--a definite devide between the rich and the poor--the rich too rich and the poor too poor.

Thats fine, but don't complain if its taken away. Again, no double standards. Fair point--rights are Quitoxic. That's why all this nonsense about a "woman's right to her body" is nonsense. (Obviously that comment wasn't directed at you RGacky.)

This "as long as there is a chance" thing does'nt fly at all. If it does it can justify the Soviet Union as well, everyone had a chance to get into the Party. You and I RGacky really and truly live in different Americas.

Skooma Addict

24th August 2009, 22:16

Here's who pays income taxes:

Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%
$410,096
40.42
Top 5%
$160,041
60.63
Top 10%
$113,018
71.22
Top 25%
$66,532
86.59
Top 50%
$32,879
97.11
Bottom 50%
<$32,879
2.89

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service

It's the rich people.

This is practically meaningless. It ignores the various subsidies and privileges certain people are granted. It doesn't matter if a multimillionaire pays a lot in taxes if he is only a millionaire due to government grants.

Most poor people are fat, dumb and happy. If they weren't this heathcare porblem would go away in a second. If they WANTED it to really go through--it would.

He who asserts must prove. You claim most poor people are fat, dumb, and happy...can you provide proof? Also, the health care problem would only go away with complete privatization of the entire medical business.

Well true. But as I said if poor people REALLY wahted heathcare the'd get it. Thay have the political power to vote anyone in office they want.

What are you saying? that poor people don't want health care? I also don't know where you get the idea that the poor have the political power to vote anyone into office they want.

Fair point--rights are Quitoxic. That's why all this nonsense about a "woman's right to her body" is nonsense.

Feminism in general is nonsense.

Comrade Akai

24th August 2009, 22:26

Just throwing this out there, but I'd like everyone reading this to take a quick look at my signature.

Bud Struggle

24th August 2009, 22:32

This is practically meaningless. It ignores the various subsidies and privileges certain people are granted. It doesn't matter if a multimillionaire pays a lot in taxes if he is only a millionaire due to government grants. Read The Millionare Next Door
it will tell you why and how people become millionares and it has suprisingly little to do with "government grants."

He who asserts must prove. You claim most poor people are fat, dumb, and happy...can you provide proof? I actualy didn't mean to be taken "literally." But poor people have enough political clout to elect anyone they want into office--Communists included. The fact is they don't. They honestly aren't looking after their own best interest.

What are you saying? that poor people don't want health care? I also don't know where you get the idea that the poor have the political power to vote anyone into office they want. I would assume they have the votes by their large numbers to vote in anyone they choose. Besides, they sometimes do--New Orleans is a good example of that.

Feminism in general is nonsense. Well we agree on something at least! :D

Comrade Corwin

24th August 2009, 22:38

I love how everyone ignores me.

Comrade Akai

24th August 2009, 22:45

I love how everyone ignores me.
Capitalism is always the enemy. While it may help one group of people (mostly the bourgeois) it screws over everybody else. Look at Africa, look at North America. One part of the world dies of obesity while another dies of starvation, as well as easily preventable and curable disease. This outcome is invariable when capitalism is implemented.

Skooma Addict

24th August 2009, 23:25

Just throwing this out there, but I'd like everyone reading this to take a quick look at my signature.

How do you know a person dies every 4 seconds due to starvation? Even if it were true, what does it have to do with capitalism?

Read The Millionare Next Door
it will tell you why and how people become millionares and it has suprisingly little to do with "government grants."

Some do, and some don't. There are other things such as subsidies, tariffs, patents, legal restrictions, etc. But just because one pays a lot in taxes, doesn't necessarily mean they are a productive member of society. It varies with each person.

I actualy didn't mean to be taken "literally." But poor people have enough political clout to elect anyone they want into office--Communists included. The fact is they don't. They honestly aren't looking after their own best interest.

Well, "the poor" are not a single group with a single common cause. For example, saying white people have enough political clout to elect anyone into office they want is meaningless. Also, the poor can't elect anyone they want. They must choose between a few candidates they may not even like. The same can be said for the rich.

Capitalism is always the enemy. While it may help one group of people (mostly the bourgeois) it screws over everybody else. Look at Africa, look at North America.

Both of your examples are mixed economies. They are not free market economies.

One part of the world dies of obesity while another dies of starvation, as well as easily preventable and curable disease. This outcome is invariable when capitalism is implemented.

People will always die of starvation and obesity. That is a fact that will not change anytime soon.

Comrade Corwin

24th August 2009, 23:29

Come on now! Have you read the Communist Manifesto? It specifically says that capitalism is a necessary step. It also perticularly prohibits the thought that one can come from feudalism and despotism and to leap naively into socialism without learning the power of capital first! Do not pass GO, friend. That is what Karl Marx and Frederick Engels called German or "True" Socialism and it was this flawed plan that led to the downfall of the Soviet Union. Ironically Russia is a capitalist dictatorship, which it could have avoided had it attempted capitalism first. But if it were not for the Russian Revolution who knows who would have considered communism. Shame they did it all wrong...
Sure, capitalism causes inequality and suffering, but so does everything until we reach the fabled phase of communism. I think you believe I am wrooting for the capitalist right now, and I assure you I am firmly for revoltution. Please do not misunderstand me.

Comrade Akai

24th August 2009, 23:31

Bud Struggle

24th August 2009, 23:35

I love how everyone ignores me.

Just a friendly note--people usually don't read big blocks of type. Use paragraphs and you'll get a better response.

Welcome to RevLeft.

Comrade Akai

24th August 2009, 23:36

How do you know a person dies every 4 seconds due to starvation? Even if it were true, what does it have to do with capitalism?

I read the statistics.

If you don't know how this has anything to do with capitalism, you obviously do not know what capitalism is.

Both of your examples are mixed economies. They are not free market economies.

Please explain...?

People will always die of starvation and obesity. That is a fact that will not change anytime soon.
Communism would change that.

Skooma Addict

24th August 2009, 23:48

I read the statistics.

Seems shady. I have no idea how anyone could possibly know how often a person dies of starvation. But even if your right, I see no connection with free market capitalism.

If you don't know how this has anything to do with capitalism, you obviously do not know what capitalism is.

A free market capitalist economy contains the private ownership over the means of production. However, there are state-capitalist economies, but that is basically fascism. I prefer the term "free market", because capitalism can mean different things for different people.

Please explain...?

Africa is full of Countries who's economies are basically a state/corporatist hybrid. The same can be said for America, although to a lesser degree.

Communism would change that.

How? Force people to stop eating unhealthy foods? I also think starvation would be more common under communism.

Plagueround

25th August 2009, 06:24

. This nation was based off of the idea of sheltering the poor and weak from the cruel persicution that has existed in governments that consider people to be no more than GDP numbers.

I used to think that too. These thoughts permanently left my mind after about chapter 2 or 3 of "A People's History of the Unites States".

Plagueround

25th August 2009, 06:36

Bue whay is their problem EVERYBODY'S problem. They need to face the mistakes they made in their life and fix them and move ahead.

Meanwhile back over here in the real world the thousands of people being laid off each day and losing their health care benefits fail to even come close to fitting your already delusional view of the lazy welfare leech. These are not just minimum wage jobs being lost, but college educated professionals who put their lives into careers and had nothing to do with the market failures that are now costing them their livelihood. Not that anyone subjected to the market based whims of big business and government should have the idea that they just made mistakes shoved down their throats.

You can return to Candyland if you'd like now.

RGacky3

25th August 2009, 10:00

All in all id doesn't matter if we went in and kicked their ass--that's just how countries do things. What matters is that we have stayed and built up quite as bill. Not a good idea.

Your saying the context does'nt matter? Of coarse it does, what the United States did in Iraq, is'nt unique, we've done it many other times. Remember we supported Saddam for a long long time.

Its not just how countries do things, imperialism is not inevitable.

It works really well in that the BEST and the BRIGHTEST go into medicine--they can make a lot of money. If Socialized healthcare goes into operation and the best people will find other avenues to make money.

Is that what has happened in the rest of the industrialized world? Most doctors and phisicians in social-democratic countries make a lot of money, its not like they are less well off than capitalist doctors.

IF you want to say all this will happen, you'll have to show how it IS happening in social-democratic countries.

The doctors are worried and kids like my daughter and her friends will definitely go elsewhere if a good income isn't provided in the business. That will leave the field open to second banannas.

It won't be good for medicine.

Who says the state will pay doctors less? Like I said, in the countries with socialized healthcare doctors do extreamly well.

Bue whay is their problem EVERYBODY'S problem. They need to face the mistakes they made in their life and fix them and move ahead.

Most peoples poverty has nothing to do with their mistakes, its not like we all get an equal start on the race, most people don't even have achange to get IN the race.

Its everybodies problem, because the premis is that the Capitalist system is just and fair and the market is actually democratic, its not, and putting healthcare in that system is horrible.

a few thousand people died in 911, we put in a LOT of money to hunt down the terrorists, many many many more die every year from lack of health care, so WE the people want to take it into our own hands, instead of leaving it to the unnaccountable.

with that argument I can say, why is YOUR property rights, our problem? The state defends it, Id say everyonese health is more important.

Agreed that bailout was STUPID. It whould have never happened. If you fail--then you fail.

I agree, however the reason it was done was because in todays supercapitalism, companies are so huge they actually have an innordinate amount of power over society and have a huge impact. The externalities are huge, so its not longer just a matter of succeess or failure. Both have huge impacts on the rest of society that has nothing to do with the comapany.

Health cares effect is even beyond that.

Well let's see how it works. My guess though--and it's only a guess but heathcare will go down in flames.

Like it has'nt done in EVERY SINGLE OTHER industrialized country in the west?

but nobody's going to give anything away. You just can't expect that.

I agree, which is why I and other revolutionary socialists advocate taking it.

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service

It's the rich people.

If you compare it to the overall wealth distribution, you'll see that its not that bad at all. If the top 5% control the top 95%, well, think about it :P.

Most poor people are fat, dumb and happy. If they weren't this heathcare porblem would go away in a second. If they WANTED it to really go through--it would.

First of all, no they arn't, and its pretty arrogant of you to say that.

Second, the American system has nothing to do with what people want, they've wanted it for a long long time, what people have to do, is fight, not through the system, but outside it. Right now it seams like the systme might give this too the people, but we'll see.

Well true. But as I said if poor people REALLY wahted heathcare the'd get it. Thay have the political power to vote anyone in office they want.

Yeah? So what, history has shown that they don't have the Political power, Leaders Always bow to Capitalists first, no matter what they say in their campains. The only time the people have the power is when they damn near revolt.

You and I RGacky really and truly live in different Americas.

Perhaps.

Bud Struggle

25th August 2009, 13:01

Meanwhile back over here in the real world the thousands of people being laid off each day and losing their health care benefits fail to even come close to fitting your already delusional view of the lazy welfare leech. These are not just minimum wage jobs being lost, but college educated professionals who put their lives into careers and had nothing to do with the market failures that are now costing them their livelihood. Not that anyone subjected to the market based whims of big business and government should have the idea that they just made mistakes shoved down their throats.

You can return to Candyland if you'd like now.

I understand all of that. And certainly getting laid off isn't a good thing--but how is somebody getting laid off from some multi-national corporation any of my (or for that matter your) business? These people need to do whatever thay have to to reinvent themselves and turn their lives around. That is THEIR business. I have no problem with the government being there as a place of last resort. I certainly don't want anyone to starve--but I don't want the government to have to be responsible when there's a bump in life's road and things don't always go the way its been planned.

People have to be responsible for themselves.

Comrade Akai

25th August 2009, 13:05

I understand all of that. And certainly getting laid off isn't a good thing--but how is somebody getting laid off from some multi-national corporation any of my (or for that matter your) business? These people need to do whatever thay have to to reinvent themselves and turn their lives around. That is THEIR business. I have no problem with the government being there as a place of last resort. I certainly don't want anyone to starve--but I don't want the government to have to be responsible when there's a bump in life's road and things don't always go the way its been planned.

People have to be responsible for themselves.

True, but people should look out for each other, no?

Bud Struggle

25th August 2009, 13:22

Your saying the context does'nt matter? Of coarse it does, what the United States did in Iraq, is'nt unique, we've done it many other times. Remember we supported Saddam for a long long time.

Its not just how countries do things, imperialism is not inevitable. Maybe not, but I don't see the trouble with it. FWIW: I see the Iraq invation as the last try by a superpower to do such a thing. It's pretty obvious that it's not worth the effort.

Is that what has happened in the rest of the industrialized world? Most doctors and phisicians in social-democratic countries make a lot of money, its not like they are less well off than capitalist doctors.

IF you want to say all this will happen, you'll have to show how it IS happening in social-democratic countries. I don't have an exact answer to your question--but here's an article about how the USA gets a large amount of doctors from the third world. They come here for the money.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/581814

Who says the state will pay doctors less? Like I said, in the countries with socialized healthcare doctors do extreamly well. I'll look up those figures--but who says a doctor can't parctice his business as he sees fit--and if he doesn't want to be in some government program--why should he? Same with hospitals.

Most peoples poverty has nothing to do with their mistakes, its not like we all get an equal start on the race, most people don't even have achange to get IN the race.

Its everybodies problem, because the premis is that the Capitalist system is just and fair and the market is actually democratic, its not, and putting healthcare in that system is horrible. All right--but you seem to think that things have to be fair. It would be nice, I guess--but that's not how things are.

a few thousand people died in 911, we put in a LOT of money to hunt down the terrorists, many many many more die every year from lack of health care, so WE the people want to take it into our own hands, instead of leaving it to the unnaccountable. But that's just how we CHOOSE to spend our money. There's no law that says we have to do things one way of another.

with that argument I can say, why is YOUR property rights, our problem? The state defends it, Id say everyonese health is more important. That's the system. You could change it if you want--but, I just don't see it happening anytime on the future.

If you compare it to the overall wealth distribution, you'll see that its not that bad at all. If the top 5% control the top 95%, well, think about it :P. That's the problem with Socialists--it really doesn't matter where all the wealth is located (personally I could care less) all I (and other capitalists) care about is what wealth I create. What others have done is their business.

First of all, no they arn't, and its pretty arrogant of you to say that. Its actually the way I see RevLefters thinking. Personally I think poor people are fine intelligent and do and get exactly what they want. If they want a change--they could change things. I don't think they are so stupid and so deluded that they don't know what's good for them--that's the Communist line--not mine.

Second, the American system has nothing to do with what people want, they've wanted it for a long long time, what people have to do, is fight, not through the system, but outside it. Right now it seams like the systme might give this too the people, but we'll see. There is the system and nothing outside it--at least in the US. People could change the system if they want. But no one wants--and I'm not in the business of telling people what's best for them. I let them alone to manage their own business.

Yeah? So what, history has shown that they don't have the Political power, Leaders Always bow to Capitalists first, no matter what they say in their campains. The only time the people have the power is when they damn near revolt. It isn't going to happen in my lifetime--or yours.

Bud Struggle

25th August 2009, 13:23

True, but people should look out for each other, no?

Sure--it's called Charity.

RGacky3

25th August 2009, 13:43

I see the Iraq invation as the last try by a superpower to do such a thing. It's pretty obvious that it's not worth the effort.

For who? This is history repeating itself, I don't think its going to stop.

Maybe not, but I don't see the trouble with it.

Heheh, well of course YOU don't :P, you don't live in an exploited country, and your not an exploited person.

but here's an article about how the USA gets a large amount of doctors from the third world. They come here for the money.

Of coarse, but we arn't third world, I'm comparing the United States to other first world industrialized countries, them WITH socialized health care and us Without. You can't compare first world to third world.

I'll look up those figures--but who says a doctor can't parctice his business as he sees fit--and if he doesn't want to be in some government program--why should he? Same with hospitals.

In Europe where they have socialized healthcare a doctor can open a private practice if he wants, there are private hostpitals .... No one is proposing that.

All right--but you seem to think that things have to be fair. It would be nice, I guess--but that's not how things are.

Well, they should be :P, and we should work to make them more fair, also this is'nt about just "fairness" its about freedom and democracy, which are both based on fairness (just words Americans like more :P).

But that's just how we CHOOSE to spend our money. There's no law that says we have to do things one way of another.

Your argument for hunting the terrorists, is thats how we CHOOSE to spend our money, and your right, the majority of Americans supported going after Al Qaida and spending public money on it. Now the majority of Americans support public health care, and have for a long long time.

That's the system. You could change it if you want--but, I just don't see it happening anytime on the future.

Thats the system is'nt the argument. If health care passes and you still oppose it (which I doubt you will), I cannot justify it by saying "well thats the way it is."

That's the problem with Socialists--it really doesn't matter where all the wealth is located (personally I could care less) all I (and other capitalists) care about is what wealth I create. What others have done is their business.

When you say it does'nt matter, in what sense? The fact is that wealth = power, so it damn well DOES matter. Also when you ahve economic power, you can use it to make more for yourself (through economic exploitation, YOUR not making the wealth, but your contorling the wealth made).

SO ultimately it does matter who has the wealth. Wealth is'nt neutral, wealth is power, and wealth is control.

ersonally I think poor people are fine intelligent and do and get exactly what they want. If they want a change--they could change things.

There is the system and nothing outside it--at least in the US. People could change the system if they want. But no one wants--and I'm not in the business of telling people what's best for them. I let them alone to manage their own business.

First of all, the majority of polls show that people are not happy with the way things are, and do want a change. Saying that the poor are happy with the way things are is ignorant and ignoring the real world, common sense and slightly open eyes would show people are NOT happy.

Arguing that the people would change it if they wanted to is rediculous. There are HUGE forces against the people, and huge systems of control.

The USSR controlled the population for 70 years and thats with a much more primative control system than the US has and thats also being opposed by most of the worlds super powers extreamly intensely.

It isn't going to happen in my lifetime--or yours.

Its happened in the last century a couple times ...

Jimmie Higgins

25th August 2009, 13:53

I'll look up those figures--but who says a doctor can't parctice his business as he sees fit--and if he doesn't want to be in some government program--why should he? Same with hospitals.Capitalism says a doctor can't practice business as he sees fit - even doctors are more like prols than they were a generation ago thanks to the "health" industry. It's not just nurses who have to deal with higher patient to staff ratios, doctors are also subject to this now.

When health is done for profit, the small private doctors can not compete with Kaiser - it's not good for doctors or nurses or patients, but it's good for profit.

All right--but you seem to think that things have to be fair. It would be nice, I guess--but that's not how things are.This is the stupidest argument in favor of the status quo I've ever heard.

Slaveowner to slave: "Who said things have to be nice?"
Aristocrat to serf: "Who said things have to be nice?"
Stalinist dictator to worker: "Who said things have to be nice?"
Boos to worker: "Who said things have to be nice?"

a few thousand people died in 911, we put in a LOT of money to hunt down the terrorists, many many many more die every year from lack of health care, so WE the people want to take it into our own hands, instead of leaving it to the unnaccountable. But that's just how we CHOOSE to spend our money. There's no law that says we have to do things one way of another.Hmm... "we" choose? Both the Democrats and Republicans supported war - both decided to take universal health care "off the table" before the debate even began. It seems we don't have much choice whereas the insurance companies can choose no health reform and other industries can choose to back Obama's "public option".

That's the system. You could change it if you want--but, I just don't see it happening anytime on the future.Fine.

That's the problem with Socialists--it really doesn't matter where all the wealth is located (personally I could care less) all I (and other capitalists) care about is what wealth I create. What others have done is their business.Do you own your own business or something? Actually capitalists should care about the wealth that their worker's create that then creates profits for the capitalists. The wealth I create goes to my bosses and the wages I make go to my landloard, so winning control over my own labor (which can only be done democratically with my fellow workers) is a big part of what socialism is about for me.

Its actually the way I see RevLefters thinking. Personally I think poor people are fine intelligent and do and get exactly what they want. If they want a change--they could change things. I don't think they are so stupid and so deluded that they don't know what's good for them--that's the Communist line--not mine.So since there were no slave revolts that permanently destroyed slavery in the US south, you think black people liked slavery? You said it, you just admited that slaves like slavery.

There is the system and nothing outside it--at least in the US. People could change the system if they want. But no one wants--and I'm not in the business of telling people what's best for them. I let them alone to manage their own business.People could change the system if they want? Well for one thing, people are pretty pessimistic about change in the US right now - this will change if militant strikes begin to win or strong grassroots movements develop, as it has in the past. Second, people have repeatedly tried to change the system and have been met with the National Guard, Pinkerton thugs, COINTEL PRO sabotage, imprisonment, and so on. Maybe you have no interest in telling people what's best for them (if so, why post here and tell us what you think is best?) but the entire repressive arm of the US state is built on forcing people to do what's best for our ruling class.

It isn't going to happen in my lifetime--or yours.Maybe there won't be a full revolution that gets rid of capitalism in my lifetime, but I'm 100% sure there will be massive social uphevals and labor struggles - these things happen all the time - and if the workig class is going to win these battles, it will take learning the lessons of history so we can repeat the victories and avoid the failures of the past and this is why I'm a socialist.

danyboy27

25th August 2009, 14:24

i dont know why capitalists make so much fuss about socialised medecine, this is probably the best thing that could happen for them.

if you take it from a purely capitalist perspective, making poor people healthy make more sense, your worker will be more happy, and the money they wont put on a HMO will be spent into the economy. also, has a boss you dont have to fuck around with complicated and costly insurance for your worker since the state is taking care of it.

Bud Struggle

25th August 2009, 14:30

Capitalism says a doctor can't practice business as he sees fit - even doctors are more like prols than they were a generation ago thanks to the "health" industry. It's not just nurses who have to deal with higher patient to staff ratios, doctors are also subject to this now. They still operate their own businesses--they aren't slaves to some system that pays them what it wants. Up till now doctoring was still a pretty good business to go into.

When health is done for profit, the small private doctors can not compete with Kaiser - it's not good for doctors or nurses or patients, but it's good for profit. Most doctors as I see it (and I'm no expert) seem to do a blend of both. It's not perfect--but doctors still can make some decent money.

This is the stupidest argument in favor of the status quo I've ever heard. I wan't making an argument. Things just are this way--you want to change them--be my guest.

Hmm... "we" choose? Both the Democrats and Republicans supported war - both decided to take universal health care "off the table" before the debate even began. It seems we don't have much choice whereas the insurance companies can choose no health reform and other industries can choose to back Obama's "public option". There's lots of other parties some with dead on Socialist agendas--but the electorate, the Proletarians, the people you want to "liberate" seem to treat these parties a jokes.

Do you own your own business or something? Yup. My father worked as a laborer for a big corporation. He was screwed by the corporation and the union. It was a difficult life for him supporting his family--he worked full time and also had a part time job. It wasn't the way I wanted to live. (As far as the job situation went--the man himself was great.)

Actually capitalists should care about the wealth that their worker's create that then creates profits for the capitalists. The wealth I create goes to my bosses and the wages I make go to my landloard, so winning control over my own labor (which can only be done democratically with my fellow workers) is a big part of what socialism is about for me. OK.

So since there were no slave revolts that permanently destroyed slavery in the US south, you think black people liked slavery? You said it, you just admited that slaves like slavery. 'Cept people aren't in slavery. That's your premise not mine. I think for the most part people are happy. Worried, concerned, but happy. People care about American Idol--not Revolution.

People could change the system if they want? Well for one thing, people are pretty pessimistic about change in the US right now - this will change if militant strikes begin to win or strong grassroots movements develop, as it has in the past. I don't see any protests unless it's about Paula leaving American Idol.

Second, people have repeatedly tried to change the system and have been met with the National Guard, Pinkerton thugs, COINTEL PRO sabotage, imprisonment, and so on. Yesterday's news.

Maybe you have no interest in telling people what's best for them (if so, why post here and tell us what you think is best?) I like you guys.

but the entire repressive arm of the US state is built on forcing people to do what's best for our ruling class. Are you serious? I was never "forced" to do anything in my life since Mom gave up trying to make me eat liver. Who ever forced you to do anything?

Maybe there won't be a full revolution that gets rid of capitalism in my lifetime, but I'm 100% sure there will be massive social uphevals and labor struggles - these things happen all the time - and if the workig class is going to win these battles, it will take learning the lessons of history so we can repeat the victories and avoid the failures of the past and this is why I'm a socialist.

Maybe, but I doubt it. And that's why I'm a Capitalist. I LIKE the Socialist system. I personally think it would be good--but I'm also a pragmatist and I have a family to feed and a life to live--so why not make the most of what America has to offer?

Comrade Corwin

26th August 2009, 17:07

RGacky3

26th August 2009, 22:49

People care about American Idol--not Revolution.

STOP WATCHING TV. The world is not fox news.

'Cept people aren't in slavery. That's your premise not mine. I think for the most part people are happy. Worried, concerned, but happy.

I bet most slaves were happy, if they had a good family life, if they had good friends. That does'nt mean they were happy with slavery.

Most people ARE NOT happy with the way things are done, and most of them would much rather have more say over their own labor.

Yesterday's news.

You seam to think the United States has suddenly grown a consiounce right? History does'nt matter? Context does'nt matter?

Ok, Stalin, yesterdays news, lets try Stalinism again.

Are you serious? I was never "forced" to do anything in my life since Mom gave up trying to make me eat liver. Who ever forced you to do anything?

Well the United States forces many people in other countries to do things, litterally. In the United States you have choices, that are basically equivilent to paper or plastic, and you guys wave your flag and declare freedom.

but I'm also a pragmatist and I have a family to feed and a life to live--so why not make the most of what America has to offer?

Of coarse. Again, that does'nt justify the system.

Again, since you've aparently taken up amoralistic pragatism, (which is fine) I don't want to hear any double standards.

I know I say this a lot, but American pro-capitalist patriots are the KINGS of double standards, which is simply dishonest.

Bud Struggle

27th August 2009, 13:08

Is this even an argument anymore or has the opposition given it a rest? Hahaha!

Well, Bud you seem to be backing up from your original assault and become civil with our ideals except on three points which I'd like to comment on: Yea, people were yelling at me. :(

Firstly, you said that we have made our third parties into jokes and that isn't entirely true. It wasn't the proletariat, who worked hard to bring these smaller parties about, that have insulted their efforts, but the two major parties that wish to stay in power.

Who started telling the voters that voting for one of the more liberal, up-starting parties would divide and ruin the larger "liberal" Democratic vote? The Democratic Party. Who killed the Ross Perot movement (don't say common sense)? The Republicans! The "divided we'll fall" method. They don't want us to have choices. They want to force us to settle with them. Voters are afraid now to vote for the single-issue parties now because the big daddy propaganda machines scare them into thinking it will cause the other big scary party to win. If we all really voted for the candidate we really wanted, like they do in Germany and other European democracies, we wouldn't have to settle, and who knows... we might actually get something done for once. You are right there, even someone like Ralph Nader who is a substantial political force was marginalized. But it's really not the business of the Democrats or the Republicans to advertise the Socialist or Marxist or whatever parties. They have to get out the grass root support with probrams people are interested in. Where I live in Florida we had a grass root campaign against gay marriage (I'm not for the amendment--it's just an example) and those folks did a fabulous job getting their point accross without the support of either political party. Personally, I just don't think any third party has come up with something to sell that people want to buy.

Secondly, our nation isn't happy. You said we are "worried, concerned, but happy" and the truth is that our nation has fallen really far on the international happiness polls. Currently Iceland and Australia top that list. Researchers have found it was not income or job satisfaction that made the cut; it was better government-monitored healthcare and higher standard of living for the poor. Last time I checked, worried and concerned didn't lead to happy. I guess it all depends on who you talk to. We are in an economic recession which is bad for some people especially those on fixed income, but italso shakes up the economy a bit and gives others a chance to grow their businesses. I will concede you point that people liked to be "taken care of" it makes their lives easier to be sure--but it also allows them to be manipulated easier. I'm sure most peole in Germany in 1937 were "happy." (Except the Jews.)

Thirdly, we don't have the mass revolts we need and that isn't because people don't want change. You said people are more concerned about American Idol and that is so true! It's material sensationalism. It's like offering two lifestyles: is it better to raise a family or have sex with a bunch of prostitutes? Sure the prostitutes give you gratification for your more basic instincts and make it easier, but it is unhealthy and doesn't provide the many benefits (least of all preserving the human race) that raising a family does. Material sensationalism is the easiest way to distract you from real problems and hardcore capitalist know this and want to keep it that way to ensure their success is not compromised by the needs of their fellow man. What it comes down to is we live for a short period of time. Is it better to have success that only lasts a blip on the radar of our species' history or work to change the world so that future generations may live better than we did. Don't we owe our children at least that much? I definitely agree with you here. We have bread and circuses. But there's the rub--people have to be responsible for their own actions. We can't TELL them what they should be interested in. There's plenty of hard news and plenty of commentary about every aspect of our political and economic life available to the citizenry. If they choose to vote Republcrat--it's their own fault.

Also material sensationalism is a direct result of people interpreting the world through a materialistic philosophy--something that Communists are insistant on, so the fault lies in many places.

In the end though people can TRY to manipulate you all they want--but if you don't CHOOSE to be manipulated--you won't be. Everything is in the end in the hands of the Proletariat--they choose what is important in their lives and if it is American Idol, then that's their choice. As long as other venues of information are open to them--as long as they have RevLeft and the Socialist Party and Marxism.org and whatever else is out there, and that includes things like Stormfront and other disagreeable places, I have no problem.

Either you give people all the choices available and respect their decisions or you lead them like sheep.

:)

Bud Struggle

27th August 2009, 13:18

STOP WATCHING TV. The world is not fox news. Me and my little family almost never watch TV--we don't have cable and we don't watch anything on school nights and only watch a movie on Saturday night.

I bet most slaves were happy, if they had a good family life, if they had good friends. That does'nt mean they were happy with slavery.

Most people ARE NOT happy with the way things are done, and most of them would much rather have more say over their own labor. And that option is open to them. Start a business.

You seam to think the United States has suddenly grown a consiounce right? History does'nt matter? Context does'nt matter? Well we are better, not the best. Things change, though.

Well the United States forces many people in other countries to do things, litterally. In the United States you have choices, that are basically equivilent to paper or plastic, and you guys wave your flag and declare freedom. I don't know--I seem to have all the freedom I want. So do most people.

Of coarse. Again, that does'nt justify the system.

Again, since you've aparently taken up amoralistic pragatism, (which is fine) I don't want to hear any double standards.

I know I say this a lot, but American pro-capitalist patriots are the KINGS of double standards, which is simply dishonest. I didn't come here being an amoral pragmatist--but it's really the system the Communists work with and understand best. It goes back to my point (well Dostoyevsky's) that without God everything is permitted. And everything is fair.

RGacky3

27th August 2009, 15:30

And that option is open to them. Start a business.

Thats not an option for the vast vast majority of people, don't be rediculous. Also the ability to win the loterry does not constitute freedom.

Well we are better, not the best. Things change, though.

THe government has'nt changed, the rulling class has'nt changed, the only thing that has changed is that through public pressure they can't do buisiness the way they used to and get away with it.

I don't know--I seem to have all the freedom I want. So do most people.

So do most people? I don't think so, also your narrow view of freedom is not the totality of freedom.

but it's really the system the Communists work with and understand best. It goes back to my point (well Dostoyevsky's) that without God everything is permitted. And everything is fair.

most communists, infact the vast majority of them have a moral code, moral codes are something personal, if you have one then you have one, but you seam to argue based on the premis that you don't (sometimes that is).

Comrade Corwin

27th August 2009, 23:45

Bud Struggle

28th August 2009, 12:48

Well, honestly, I agree with you Bud Struggle that capitalism has opened up many rights and freedoms to our society. Though, I'd give most credit to democracy, but capitalism aided in its part. But the thing that will be the downfall of capitalism is that it may offer many freedoms of choice and options to attain happiness, but whether or not you may take advantage of those rights are strictly limited to where you were born, how much money you can make and what your ethnic/national background is. Right now--but as things progress hopefull those opportunities will be open to everyone. The problem is that for whatever reason European/American society developed the fastest and managed to "take over" the world with it's brand of reality a copuple of hundred years ago and unfortunately the rest of the workd has been playing catch up since then. some places have done better than others but eventually it will even out. You just have to be patient.

To simplify my point, lets say we have 100 rights, options and choices in this country. That is very small in comparison to what we do have in our developed nation, but it is just for my example. Now, a majority of people can access maybe 50 of those rights if they are lucky. What I suggest as a more stable form of government would actually limit those given rights to lets say 75, but in exchange people will be able to access 70 of them easily and therefore have more fulfilled lives! Freedoms are the foundation of this nation, and so I believe to be able to have the potential to take advantage of them is essential. Not all my comrades would agree on this matter, but that is my view. Excellent analogy. But the problem is in the "doing". But every time Communism has tried to do that very thing it's gotten itself bodded down iin a myrad of technicalities and problems that were far worse than the problems they were trying to solve maybe because it's tried to do too many things too quickly with it's Revolutions and such. On the other hand a gradual approach by Social Democracy (which I'm a fan of) might achieve better and longer lasting results.

The reason I believe this necessary is that the population of our people has exploded beyond an era of trust. Capitalism requires trust to remain stable and that has now become impossible, as we are desperate people struggling to obtain ever-dwindling limited resources that shrink as the people who demand them grows. When people become desperate, they begin to use flawed, self-sustaining tactics that hurt society. Now capitalism is unsalvageable simply because there are not enough resources to let the market and the desires of every desperate human being decide where they go and what they are used for. We now need a more logical system that determines where they can be best used. Yes, any system can be twisted for any groups benefit, but that is a very minor risk to pay for survival of the human race. Socialism and, in my opinion, eventual communism are those systems. This goes beyond desire and ensures needs are met to create a more productive, content society.

You make a good point. And it sounds like a good plan--I just don't think that without a good deal enslavment people are going to do what's best for the common good. Besides for that I think there's always going to be a Hitler or a Napoleon or a Caesar or a Fidel or a Stalin or a Kim to throw a monkey wrench in the whole plan.

But you do make a good case. :)

leninwasarightwingnutcase

28th August 2009, 13:30

Right now--but as things progress hopefull those opportunities will be open to everyone. The problem is that for whatever reason European/American society developed the fastest and managed to "take over" the world with it's brand of reality a copuple of hundred years ago and unfortunately the rest of the workd has been playing catch up since then. some places have done better than others but eventually it will even out. You just have to be patient.What you always leave out here is that western governments are doing everything in their power to stop the rest of the world 'catching up'. This isn't a view restricted to crazy communists. IMO, this is the best account of how this is done:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596913991
The author is on the economics faculty at cambridge university and his proposed economic model is his native south korea.

Our beef isn't some people/nations being 'behind' or disadvantaged because they didnt do as well as others. The problem is a political and economic system which works actively and intelligently to prevent any independent developments. One which learns and gets better and better at doing this. It is imperative to change things quickly, to disable the mechanisms by which this happens, before they becomes too strong to ever disable. Quite possibly it is already too late.

Hiero

28th August 2009, 13:42

Communism has a 100% success rate.

Zolken

28th August 2009, 14:03

Communism has a 100% success rate.

When was Communism ever enacted?!

Hiero

28th August 2009, 14:04

When was Communism ever enacted?!
Does it really matter?

Havet

28th August 2009, 14:06

Does it really matter?

lol

What about those spanish communes. Didn't they count as success?

RGacky3

28th August 2009, 16:02

The problem is that for whatever reason European/American society developed the fastest and managed to "take over" the world with it's brand of reality a copuple of hundred years ago and unfortunately the rest of the workd has been playing catch up since then. some places have done better than others but eventually it will even out. You just have to be patient.

No no, the western elite has'nt thrived DISPITE third world misery, it has thrived, partly, BECAUSE of third world misery.

It won't even out, its getting worse, its getting more and more uneven, this is not a mistake, its being done on purpose for the purpose of control and power and profit.

On the other hand a gradual approach by Social Democracy (which I'm a fan of) might achieve better and longer lasting results.

Theres a reason its being dismantled in Europe, and there is a big backlash in many countries where its being dismantled (such as France). Social Democracy is very very hard to mentain.

Besides for that I think there's always going to be a Hitler or a Napoleon or a Caesar or a Fidel or a Stalin or a Kim to throw a monkey wrench in the whole plan.

Its MUCH harder for that to happen where there are no institutions for them to do it, than it is where there are.

StalinFanboy

29th August 2009, 05:36

There's lots of other parties some with dead on Socialist agendas--but the electorate, the Proletarians, the people you want to "liberate" seem to treat these parties a jokes.

Tight. I think of them as jokes too.

Comrade Corwin

29th August 2009, 06:54

I agree with my comrades here. Even with the one with most poorly informed name at the top. Hahaha!

The fact that other nations and their people have been unable to compete in progress to our developed Western society is in no way accidental. Take Africa, for example, for it is the most obviously affected of the underdeveloped continents. Their nation, devoid of the natural resources that fueled early progress fell behind naturally and its people remained nomadic and unindustrialized. European explorers saw this as an opportunity when they landed on the African shores to easily confiscate lands and luxury resources in their land-grabbing colonization race.

Centuries later, when the last few colonies were emancipated during the early globalization efforts following WWII, the continent of Africa was left completely unprepared to rule themselves as the former European governors took everything that resembled governance and structure with them on their way back to Europe. The power struggle and many coup détentes that followed were inevitable as native political successors were not well defined. As everyone knows, civil war is the best way to ensure that infrastructure growth will halt. Continuous pseudo-militaristic political insurrections continued to take place as no government was able to maintain the needs of the people fast enough to maintain power and so infrastructure suffered.

The instability in Africa was not made easier by the fact that profit was to be made in weapons and technology sales. After every successfully, solely violent revolution there is still much hostility that can be easily fueled and rearmed to start another war. So, even if their was to be a stable government to come out of many of the vicious African conflicts, the weapons sales from the developed nations (especially during the Cold War) made it easy for the small aggravated losing parties to take action against their rivals that were in power. This has created a horrible circle of never ending violence, plunging Africa into irrevocable warfare that can only be ended if the suppliers of war gear end their sales and only initiate peaceful concessions. Seeing as the point of capitalism is to make profit, the only way to end weapons sales is to end capitalism and resurrect a government willing to take away the profiteers' rights to make arms sales at the expense of universal peace and progress. These systems willing to do this include socialism/communism, etc.