Where has Communism actually worked?

[Loknar]

Can anyone here name a place where Communism existed/exists and still lived in the same luxury as the US and the west did/does?

[Vinny Rafarino]

This thread AGAin. Good grief Charlie Brown.


What do you consider "luxuries"

Other more enlightened cultures do not consider owning a flash beemer with 19" wheels and low profile tyres, 65" plasma tele with dolby surround sound, a mansion in Bevery Hills, 16 pairs of Nike's, an extra SUV with 19' boat attached in the drive for "family vacations" as "luxuries" Loknar.


Topics like this only re-affirm that the yanqui proletariat will never "reform" and must therefore be herded into the stable.


Didn't your MIA mate Kelvin90210 try this same attack once? I beleive he was made to look the fool in no time flat.

Where is Kelvin90210 anyhow? Perhaps he had an accident cleaning all those assult rifles he claimed to keep in various positions around his home in case of the "big red attack".

Hee Hee!!

[Rastafari]

The happiest people in the world are those who are poor, but are rich in their souls. India and China have very low suicide rates compared to Japan, a rich nation that has almost double. Workers don't need Nike's and SUVs, as Comrade RAF said, to be truely happy.

The whole middle-east has very low suicide rates, except for the country with the highest per capita, Isreal.

Discounting Northern Europe and Parts of Eastern Europe due to the depression caused by lack of sunlight, this trend can be seen across much of the world.
(http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/IASR/suicide-rates.htm)


I will leave your broken arguement with a snippet of a Clash song:
"If it's true that a rich man leads a sad life
N' that's what they from day to day
Then what do all the poor do with their lives?
Have nothing to say on judgment day?"

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 02:00 AM
The happiest people in the world are those who are poor, but are rich in their souls. India and China have very low suicide rates compared to Japan, a rich nation that has almost double. Workers don't need Nike's and SUVs, as Comrade RAF said, to be truely happy.

The whole middle-east has very low suicide rates, except for the country with the highest per capita, Isreal.

Discounting Northern Europe and Parts of Eastern Europe due to the depression caused by lack of sunlight, this trend can be seen across much of the world.
(http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/IASR/suicide-rates.htm)


I will leave your broken arguement with a snippet of a Clash song:
"If it's true that a rich man leads a sad life
N' that's what they from day to day
Then what do all the poor do with their lives?
Have nothing to say on judgment day?"
Good snippet from "I'm not down". My favourite jam off London Calling.


I like comrade Rasta. He's nifty.

[Rastafari]

I know this undercuts my seriousness, but :lol:

[Xvall]

Seeing as communist don't value 'luxury', your statement has no merit. This is like me claiming that capitalism is a failure because people aren't equal. That is not what you are aiming at. Likewise, this is not what we are looking for. Not luxury. Especially not in the sense that Western society sees it.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 03:06 AM
I know this undercuts my seriousness, but :lol:
Yup. Definitely as nifty as a hot bird in a thong walking into my office wrapped in a bow.

[dancingoutlaw]

Coffee. What about Coffee? That is a luxury.

[Rastafari]

I searched the internet for a turkey wearing a thong (to show my dumbass communication breakdown, I guess), but some things even the internet can't provide!
oh, and Coffee is the capitalist man's way of funding drug governments with an alternative crop. Coffee has been a luxory since the South Americans had it raped from them in the 1500s and later were forced to grow it large-scale.

[Loknar]

SO can anyone name a country where Communism is working or has worked?


And comparing Japan to China and India (both are cappy nations) is not fair. Look at Japanese culture first.


And yes, luxury. ? Having cars, Televisions, distractions, ways to enjoy life. Not hanging out in a bread line.

[Nick Yves]

Loknar, I fucking hate you.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 01:35 AM
Can anyone here name a place where Communism existed/exists and still lived in the same luxury as the US and the west did/does?
LUXURY???? If I didnt get you wrong you are talking about what yanquis have and that the rest of the world doesn't (except Japan, and some european countries), and I wont get in many details about how they got them.
By the way, communism has never been applied 100% on a country, and "socialist" countries were poor countries. If all the world would be communist or anarchist, "luxury" will be more usual than in places like Cuba, China or Russia, that many call "communist".

I believe in that in a not poor country a communist/anarchist system would produce more "luxuries" than those yanquis have, and those would be made by working and everyone would have access to the "luxuries" they need.

[Rastafari]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 12:31 AM
SO can anyone name a country where Communism is working or has worked?


And comparing Japan to China and India (both are cappy nations) is not fair. Look at Japanese culture first.


And yes, luxury. ? Having cars, Televisions, distractions, ways to enjoy life. Not hanging out in a bread line.
look at american culture.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/research/suichart.cfm

here we go. Even in this society where "money is everything", the white male has a monopoly on the suicide trends. Look at the highest valued people (moneywise) in the US, the white males, and the trends in their personal monetary value as a correlation with age. you'll see that the it follows a similar trend nowadays, with a lot of the wealth in the hands of twenty-somethings, but even more in the retired and elderly people's koffers. Sure, it doesn't rise as exponentially with age, but the increased suicide there is only because this society says old=useless.

Now explain why the blacks, living in this hell thats been made for them, aren't any more unhappy (or less, in fact) than the white male? They don't seem to care about money, because they aren't the major holders on this countries wealth. Now, I wish I could have found a more descriptive chart, one that included Mexican and Cuban Americans, so you could have seen there rates of suicides dwindle even further down (because they own even less in this system).

The only chink in this trend are the Puerto-Rican-Americans, who have a suicide rate comparable to the infamous white male. My only explanation for this is how they are perceived in this country. If my major representatives were Ricky Martin and J-Lo, I might just consider giving myself the gun as well.

Of course, there may be a psychological reason for these trends, and I realize this, but its lookin' pretty good for my side of the arguement right now at least.

[Loknar]

El Infiltr(A)do

I am curious, what did a soviet citizen have to do in their spare time? Here in the US we are used to enjoying our selves and living it up.

[Loknar]

SO basically you guys are telling me that Communism has never work anywhere........

Cpaitalism works just fine. Why shouldnt I get paid extra for working harder? Why should taxes fo to worthless social programs?

[Nobody]

I think Communism is the combining of being "rich in soul" and having a comfertable lifestyle. Not all people are meant to be monks, living in barren cells. You can not expect people to just work and sleep, that would just make the people sad. Instead we need to try and have the best of both world. Very few people can live with out "luxury" especially in the Western world. If we ever are to gain mass support people can not be afraid that their standard of living will pluge, for some it will (read ultra-rich ruling class) but for the masses it must fise, or we will fall as faster then we came.

So to anwser Lokar question, no communism has never worked out according to your definition.

[synthesis]

Why shouldnt I get paid extra for working harder?

Where has this ever been a basic tenet of capitalism?

In America, two thirds of the people living in absolute poverty, meaning making a daily choice between food and shelter, work an average of 1.9 jobs each.

How is that right?

In New York City, one quarter of all children live under the poverty line.

How is that right?

You might think that's "right", Loknar, but that would make you a sadistic piece of shit.

As I've said before - getting paid in amounts proportional to the labor you have undertaken is a characteristic of socialism - that form of government wherein the position of "CEO", "executive", and "boss" is stricken eternally from the proletarian vocabulary.

Under capitalism, it's simply luck.

So much capitalist criticism can be simply reversed back upon them and their treacherous ideology. We should really be thanking them for providing us with arguments. ;)

[Vinny Rafarino]

Young Loknar is still under the western impression that communists work for eight hours a day and then spend another eight hours in "bread lines". He is still immature enough not to have finally gathered after a couple months of posting here what communism actually is and how it has been manifested in many nations in the past. He also thinks that "working extra hard for extra scratch" is even a relevant argument seeing since the state provides with what you need. All that "extra cash" would only be good for wiping the shit from their communist assholes. BoyLoknar also thinks that communists, rather than intellectually stimulating themselves by learning philosophy, science and art, simply stand around (when not in a "bread line") with their pinko thumbs up their arses waiting for the next day of work to begin. Young boyLoknar also thinks that modern communists will also not have things like television sets and cars because we all want to go live in caves and ignore technology. What the boy here soes not know is that communism embraces technolgy moreso than even capitalism. We want technological advancement for the better living of the "people" rather than for the profit of some fat white guy in Manhattan. BoyLoknar does not understand that things like cars, televisions and nikes are no longer an issue as everyone who requires a car is provided with one. everyone that wants a fucking television can have a fucking television. Every one that needs a new fucking pair of boots can have a new pair of boots. no one gives a toss about material competition with their neighbour because greed is no longer an issue.

My original post from a couple months ago stands;

"BoyLoknar, you are a fucking imbecile"


EDIT:

In addition boyLoknar, if you have any elderly family members living on SOCIAL security, or have any family members that are disabled and therefore cannot work to support themselves and are now collecting disability, I suggest you go explain to them that you feel they should all be put out on the streets 'cos your "hard earned tax dollars" would be better spent on a new set of speakers for your car in place of them having food and shelter.

I want to smack the white right off of you, you silly little oaf.

[Hampton]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 12:05 AM
SO basically you guys are telling me that Communism has never work anywhere........

Cpaitalism works just fine. Why shouldnt I get paid extra for working harder? Why should taxes fo to worthless social programs?
Which ones are worthless? Ones that help the poor I suppose. Welfare, Head Start and other programs that you don't have to use because you were lucky enough to be born into the middle class.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I love how these capitalist get slammed on an issue the wait a couple months and bring it up again. Don't they ever learn?

I distictly remember posting information from the US federal budget showing "social welfare" as less that 7% of the national budget while defense is hovering around 19% and GOVERNMENT PENSIONS is around 8%.

How convenient of this dolt to "suddenly forget".

If you want to ***** about your "tax dollars" then why not ***** to the governmet emplyees now receiving outrageous pensions from the US government.

LESS THAN 7% JACKASS!

Comrade Rasta....Bird = chick

[Bianconero]

Can anyone here name a place where Communism existed/exists and still lived in the same luxury as the US and the west did/does?

The 'luxury' of the U.S. is based on murder, chil - abuse, exploitation and starvation of the masses. You can die with your 'luxury.'

[dancingoutlaw]

[QUOTE]I distictly remember posting information from the US federal budget showing "social welfare" as less that 7% of the national budget while defense is hovering around 19% and GOVERNMENT PENSIONS is around 8%.



Actully the the U.S. budget allocates around 15% to defense which includes retirement. "Social welfare" is more like 40% if you would include Social Security and Medicare.

http://www.kowaldesign.com/budget/percentages.html

[RevolucioN NoW]

'Luxuries' as they exist in the western world are created by the blood of third world laborers and are sustained by a massive use of cheap oil.

The oil is running out, by 2010 world oil production will peak and collpase totally in the next few decades, just watch as the 'luxuries' shrink and dissapear in the face of this gigantic shortfall (source: The parties over, oil, war and the fate of industrialised societies; Richard Heinberg).

The third world will not accept its colonial explotation by the west forever, they are still waiting for the 'trickle down benifits' of globalisation, and when they realise that this will NEVER HAPPEN just watch as you are paying 2000 dollars for your nikes cappie.

To answer your original question, i do not believe that any communist country, present or past, has ever represented a true, democratic socialism, and as such no comparison can be drawn.

:ph34r:

[Sabocat]

It's the same old story. Loknar is confusing happiness with consumerism. I suppose it's not his fault, what with the bombardment of commercials on t.v.

I forget where I read it now, but kids are basically exposed to 20,000 commercials per year. Children at age 4 are even starting to show brand loyalty. Ten years ago there was 9 minutes of advertising per hour during "prime time". Today, the rate is 16 minutes per hour. So you see....poor Loknar doesn't have any choice. He's been programmed to think buying stuff and "working harder for some extra scratch" is happiness.

When he gets a little older, perhaps he will realize that true happiness is spending time with family, loved ones, and neighbors, reading good books, learning new things, seeing new things, trying new things.

To quote Fight Club....."the things you own.....end up owning you."

[Vinny Rafarino]

=dancingoutlaw,Aug 8 2003, 11:10 AM
Actully the the U.S. budget allocates around 15% to defense which includes retirement. "Social welfare" is more like 40% if you would include Social Security and Medicare.

http://www.kowaldesign.com/budget/percentages.html


What are you tallking about?!?!?!? I have the 2004 budget on my desktop. Social welfare is no more that 7 percent of the federal budget. You are talking about the entire Social Security Administration busget. Look at the actual breakdowns in dubya's 2004 budget. social welfare is a very small percentage of SSA's total package. That includes funding for all sorts of different programmes that are not considered "social welfare" .

As you can clearly see in the post you quoted from I only make reference to "social welfare" and not the entire SSA budget.

Another mistake you made when you decided to jump on me so quickly is stating that the defense budget includes retirement. Now since you were attempting to refute my statement that government pensions are somewhere around 8% I must advise you that your source cites Military retirement packages as part of the defense budget. I never advised against this. I will stand in my statement that government pensions are 8% (they are taken from the cash allocated to "other" in your graph.)

I don't know who did these calculations on this graph, but mine I did using raw data from the 2004 federal budget report issued by the whitey house.

I'm sticking with 19%

Perhaps a retractment from you is now in order.

EDIT:

Just so you know, "social welfare" has nothing to do with social security. It's in a class by itself contained in the SSA budget. In addition, why did you even bother to combine two separate government fuding areas? Simply to drive your "percentages" up to create a more dramatic appeal? Dunno, maybe you can explain yourself.

[F_Hayek]

Loknar,

You can better rephrase your question, "can communism actually work?". It would be fun to read the answers.

[Unrelenting Steve]

Where has capitalism worked, and I dont mean a small group of people sustaining their hedanistic existsnances by submitting 10xtimes that many people to slavery legalized by the differance in geological position. I have yet to see a self suffient capitalist nation and therefore utter proof that it works, communism has come much closer to a healthier equilibrium of the poeple's wants and needs and production capacity; and I mean all the people that are involved in sustaining the system.

[dancingoutlaw]

What are you tallking about?!?!?!? I have the 2004 budget on my desktop. Social welfare is no more that 7 percent of the federal budget. You are talking about the entire Social Security Administration busget. Look at the actual breakdowns in dubya's 2004 budget. social welfare is a very small percentage of SSA's total package. That includes funding for all sorts of different programmes that are not considered "social welfare" .

As you can clearly see in the post you quoted from I only make reference to "social welfare" and not the entire SSA budget.

Another mistake you made when you decided to jump on me so quickly is stating that the defense budget includes retirement. Now since you were attempting to refute my statement that government pensions are somewhere around 8% I must advise you that your source cites Military retirement packages as part of the defense budget. I never advised against this. I will stand in my statement that government pensions are 8% (they are taken from the cash allocated to "other" in your graph.)

I don't know who did these calculations on this graph, but mine I did using raw data from the 2004 federal budget report issued by the whitey house.

I'm sticking with 19%

Perhaps a retractment from you is now in order.





I wasn't jumping on you.... i wasn't even trying to refute your government pensions statment. I was questioning your statement on social welfare vs. military budget. The total military budget (everything listed under National Defense in the budget for 2004) is (in millions) $399,683 out of a total budget of $2,243,021 which is around 17% include the myriad veterans services and military pensions it is probably around 19%. Teaches me for not doing my own math.

What I do disagree with though is your assertion that the SSA is not fully a social welfare program. That is its only job. It is nothing more than a huge.... and I mean huge social welfare program. It's purpose is to transfer wealth from one segment of the population (the working) to another (the retired, handicapped, orphaned and widowed.) There is a payroll tax to pay for all of this and it is not a national pension program because the citizens have no legal right to the money paid in (Supreme Court Case Nestor vs Fleming.) Take what you will from that. The SSA budget (in Millions) 498,844 or around 22%.

Now Medicare and Medicaid are the same way. They are social programs that provide health care to the elderly and disabled. Combined cost (in millions) $456,303 or about 20%.

Combined SSA, Medicare, and Medicaid about %44.

[dancingoutlaw]

Sorry I mean 42%

[Vinny Rafarino]

I'm not talking about these issues. I only talking about social welfare. You know, welfare.


It's a sub-group of the Security Administration where federal budget is concerned. Look it up. I ain't pullin' your leg.

I'm right on this mate.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 04:14 AM
I searched the internet for a turkey wearing a thong (to show my dumbass communication breakdown, I guess), but some things even the internet can't provide!
oh, and Coffee is the capitalist man's way of funding drug governments with an alternative crop. Coffee has been a luxory since the South Americans had it raped from them in the 1500s and later were forced to grow it large-scale.
Coffee has been a luxery since Christian "holy warriors" looted and bought coffee from Arabs during the Kruistochten as we call it in holland. Dunno the English word, it was around the years 1000.

Loknar

Communism isn't about personal luxery. If u still think that we compete for personal luxery then you haven't really listend. Communism is about dividing the luxeries.

[Rastafari]

sorry, I was thinkin' cocoa. but oh well, it has happened with every natural resource we as a people saw fit to use, be it Sugar Cane or Crude Oil

[dancingoutlaw]

I'm not talking about these issues. I only talking about social welfare. You know, welfare.


It's a sub-group of the Security Administration where federal budget is concerned. Look it up. I ain't pullin' your leg.

I'm right on this mate.

I understand what you are saying. What is called "welfare" under the social services budget including WIC food stamps in the Dept. of Agriculture budget is smaller than the defense budget. It is my assertion that the Social Security program, Medicaid and Medicare qualify as "Social Welfare" programs. The budgets of these far exceed (however grossly enormous) the U.S. Defense Budget.

[Hampton]

Does the U.S. Defense Budget include the $4 billion they spend in Iraq each month?

[dancingoutlaw]

Does the U.S. Defense Budget include the $4 billion they spend in Iraq each month?

No that is considered "off-budget" (an accounting trick used to hide how much is actually going out the door the 2004 budget has about $375 billion off budget) but it still has a long way to go to catch up to the $955 billion and change of SSI, medicare and medicaid.

[dancingoutlaw]

There are a lot of things that are luxury that are no longer considered such. Sugar, Coffee, anything alcoholic, in fact you are staring at a luxury item right now.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 10:55 PM

I'm not talking about these issues. I only talking about social welfare. You know, welfare.


It's a sub-group of the Security Administration where federal budget is concerned. Look it up. I ain't pullin' your leg.

I'm right on this mate.

I understand what you are saying. What is called "welfare" under the social services budget including WIC food stamps in the Dept. of Agriculture budget is smaller than the defense budget. It is my assertion that the Social Security program, Medicaid and Medicare qualify as "Social Welfare" programs. The budgets of these far exceed (however grossly enormous) the U.S. Defense Budget.
No one has argued against that fact mate.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 05:00 AM
El Infiltr(A)do

I am curious, what did a soviet citizen have to do in their spare time? Here in the US we are used to enjoying our selves and living it up.
well, millions of people in places so far away from your comfortable house have nothing to do because you "enjoy your selves" and "live it up". And dont say that stupid lie that it is because they dont work or because they dont have skills, because most of this people has never received a chance to show what they could do, and it has been like that since they were born.

[Hampton]

This might be out of the blue, but shouldn't the government be spending more on "social programs" than they do on defense?

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Unrelenting [email protected] 8 2003, 08:57 PM
Where has capitalism worked, and I dont mean a small group of people sustaining their hedanistic existsnances by submitting 10xtimes that many people to slavery legalized by the differance in geological position. I have yet to see a self suffient capitalist nation and therefore utter proof that it works, communism has come much closer to a healthier equilibrium of the poeple's wants and needs and production capacity; and I mean all the people that are involved in sustaining the system.
Absolutely agree.

Capitalism needs a rich country that invests (and where all what the corporations gain ends up) and a poor country to exploit (trying to convert it into a country which is "developing", without never making it by some "strange" reason)

You cappies say that socialism/communism has failed, but if it did it was because of corrupted governments which didnt really follow the ideology and because it happened in poor countries.

But as capitalism is installed worldwide and everytime the yankee leader gains more, there's no proof that it would have worked the other way (all world being socialist/communist/anarchist and only 3 or 4 capitalist countries).

[dancingoutlaw]

This might be out of the blue, but shouldn't the government be spending more on "social programs" than they do on defense?

They do. SSI, Medicare and Medicaid budgets are much higher than the U.S. defense budget. I am not in anyway defending the defense budget of the U.S. which is far too much but social programshave more money thrown at them.

[Exploited Class]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 09:31 PM
And yes, luxury. ? Having cars, Televisions, distractions, ways to enjoy life. Not hanging out in a bread line.
hehehe I love the bread line propaganda. Take some pictures of the Soviet Union and people waiting for bread and then tell everybody in the west how everybody in the Soviet Union has to wait forever for bread.

You do know it is still like that there? Can you even understand why? Everybody before work goes and gets fresh bread in the morning at the same time. After 9 O'clock nobody, save it a few, buy anymore bread. So you have, because of culture and a desire for fresh bread, thousands of people all at the same time hitting the same stores, which creates huge lines waiting for bread. They didn't make a lot of bread stores because none of them get used after 9 AM. So if they made more there would be more stores, bakeries, doing nothing productive all day.

Yes sometimes they didn't have enough bread, this is true. Just like last weekend in America I went to a sub shop and they didn't have any more bread because they over sold that day and they were in the last 15 minutes before shutting down and weren't going to be making anymore.

Every house I ever visted had a TV, Refrigerator, Coffee Maker, Seperate Freezer, Washer and Dryer. No dishwashers however. This was all pre-captitalism days in the Eastern Block.

And what is this fascination with Americans and cars being neccessary? Just because the rest of the world designs cities so you don't need cars, doesn't mean thier lives are wreck. A lot of people in NY city don't own a car, because the enviroment is a pain in the ass and public transportation works well. I never once took a car over there and never even thought about how I needed it.

If Americans didn't build spread out towns with shopping so far away, they could easily get around without cars. Public transportation works, the only reason it doesn't in America is because everybody is too human scared to sit next to a stranger. They need little isolation booths, to fit their isolated mentality.

[Exploited Class]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 10:28 PM

This might be out of the blue, but shouldn't the government be spending more on "social programs" than they do on defense?

They do. SSI, Medicare and Medicaid budgets are much higher than the U.S. defense budget. I am not in anyway defending the defense budget of the U.S. which is far too much but social programshave more money thrown at them.
hahahahahaha

Show me how medicare and Social Security combined are greater than 400 Billion dollars a year, because 400 billion is the budget just for the military, not counting homeland security which is 44 Billion.


The administration of President George W. Bush is requesting $399.1 billion for the military in fiscal year 2004 ($379.9 billion for the Defense Department and $19.3 billion for the nuclear weapons functions of the Department of Energy). This is $16.9 billion above current levels, an increase of 4.4 percent.

http://www.cdi.org/budget/2004/discretionary.jpg
Note: The "Social Security & Medicare" funding in this graph refers to administrative costs associated with these programs, and does not reflect actual benefits paid out.

Granted on Social Security much of what is paid out has already been paid in to certain extents.

Most payroll taxes immediately pay benefits to current retirees, survivors, or the disabled. In 1998, of an estimated $435 billion that American workers paid in payroll taxes, about $380 billion was spent on benefits.

[Exploited Class]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 10:00 PM
El Infiltr(A)do

I am curious, what did a soviet citizen have to do in their spare time? Here in the US we are used to enjoying our selves and living it up.
What free time? Oh when we are laid off?
Starting with 24.
You sleep 8 hours a day, 16 left.
Get ready for work, 30 minutes.
You work 9 - 6.5 hours left.

Commute averages 22 minutes, round up to 30 minutes both directions in most US cities. 1 hour, 5.5 hours left.

Get bills, pay bills, shopping for food for dinner, making a healthy and nutritious dinner eat said dinner- 1.5 hour
4 hours left.

House work, lawn work, clothes and dishes another hour, 3 hours left.

Woohoo out of 24 hours I am going to have a whole 3 hours of dusk and nightime stuff to myself, at which point what does every american do on average a day, watch 2 hours of TV.

I am sure you can live it up with 3 hours, granted this is without kids.

This doesn't even account for all the other things burning away at your free time, post office trips, doctor, special stores, gas for the car, mechanics, tune ups, vets for pets, dentist, court, traffic jams.

I'll see living it up with free time when I see the average work week drop to 30 or less hours. Otherwise is it just employers happy that employees burn their whole day at work or taking care of themselves, with just a fraction of the day left over for themselves. The robot that takes care of itself for survival on its time not ours.

Then your whole weekend is Saturday sleep in and try to regain strenght from all the work you did the 5 days before, then house work, shopping, obviously because the malls are packed. How many times does anybody go to the lake? I have 4 neighbors on my street with boats and I have seen those boats all leave about twice this year.

Vacation time? Forget it. The rest of the world except a few 3rd world countries and a few Eastern European countries get more vacation time on average than Americans. Granted it all depends if you even get vacation time in America.

[dancingoutlaw]

Exploited class. That chart is misleading. It only shows the Discretionary Budget of all of the departments. If you include Discretionary and Mandatory spending SSA, Medicare, and Medicaid equal around $955 Billion. Even with Social Securities' supposed "pay as you go" system (which it isn't) It is a tax which transfers wealth from one segment of the population to another. That qualifies as "Social Welfare" in my mind.

here is where I have been getting my numbers

http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2004/s...heets/fct_1.xls (http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2004/sheets/fct_1.xls)

[F_Hayek]

Originally posted by Unrelenting [email protected] 8 2003, 08:57 PM
Where has capitalism worked, and I dont mean a small group of people sustaining their hedanistic existsnances by submitting 10xtimes that many people to slavery legalized by the differance in geological position. I have yet to see a self suffient capitalist nation and therefore utter proof that it works, communism has come much closer to a healthier equilibrium of the poeple's wants and needs and production capacity; and I mean all the people that are involved in sustaining the system.
So why you need proof? Look around you, although it's quite far from perfect. That's a bit of a problem in communism isn't it? Your wants and needs, it will only result poverty and starvation. If you just descend of your cloud and start analysing what will happen under socialism/communism, so will see that your ideology is ridiculous. But I suspect I cannot ask this much from people whose definition of capitalism is "everything that is bad in this world".

And you can't say people never tried socialism, but looked what happened.......

[Unrelenting Steve]

i cant understand ur point, plz rephrase that.

Reality is is against u, all the poeple involved in sustaing ur American economy, are basicly serfs and barrons; the surfs being the non Americans working in sweat shops and the barrons being the Americans. That is the truth and it is quiet evident and obvious. Yes in Cuba you might say that the standard of living is worse than that in America, but if u take their system vs ur system, including all ur serfs that u will not recognize as part of of ur system, CUBE WINS ON THE QUALITY OF LIFE MEASURE and is way more humanetarian.

I dont think u understand wat ur critizising.

[Unrelenting Steve]

economics is hard. Communism has everything above board, so u can see what and where its going wrong, Capitalsm moves its problems to a third world nation and hides them there where it is said to be the way the world works- yes you can say there are more problems in Communism, because we seek to tackle the problems that people cause when they converse instead of support an agressor taking from the weak, which at the end of the day is always easier with victors justice and the help of some geopolitical borders. But then no one said communism was easy- if the world is to ever be at peace with itself or close to that state, it will be thru communism, and if the world ever is to be wronged most heniously, i garentee it will be at the hands of a capitalist nation. Look around u, capitalism is not a thing quiet far from perfect, but the closest thing to evil.

Yes this is not written in the capitalist doctrin, but what I have said are the physical ramifications of capitalism, and that is also self evident.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by F_Hayek+Aug 9 2003, 03:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (F_Hayek @ Aug 9 2003, 03:55 PM)
Unrelenting [email protected] 8 2003, 08:57 PM
Where has capitalism worked, and I dont mean a small group of people sustaining their hedanistic existsnances by submitting 10xtimes that many people to slavery legalized by the differance in geological position. I have yet to see a self suffient capitalist nation and therefore utter proof that it works, communism has come much closer to a healthier equilibrium of the poeple&#39;s wants and needs and production capacity; and I mean all the people that are involved in sustaining the system.
So why you need proof? Look around you, although it&#39;s quite far from perfect. That&#39;s a bit of a problem in communism isn&#39;t it? Your wants and needs, it will only result poverty and starvation. If you just descend of your cloud and start analysing what will happen under socialism/communism, so will see that your ideology is ridiculous. But I suspect I cannot ask this much from people whose definition of capitalism is "everything that is bad in this world".

And you can&#39;t say people never tried socialism, but looked what happened....... [/b]
Yes look what happened. Capitalst nations successfully uprooted communism using political deception and sabatoge, mass propaganda and hysteria, economic sanctions and boycots and military occupation/imperialism . Let us not forget a nice healthy threat of nuclear attack against small third world nations.


To say that communism is wrong because of inherent flaws in it&#39;s idealology is simply juvenile.

The USSR prior to 1954 was proof that communist ideals coupled with a good socailist economic platform can indeed work. Not only work but work quicker and more efficiently than any other form of government in history.

To say otherwise is wrong. Sorry Mr. Bush, you lose.

[F_Hayek]

Whahaha, the only reason why the USSR didn&#39;t collapse immidiately was because the could look at western marketeconomies to check for prices (you know, read von Mises, Hayek, etc).

Comrade RAF, I still can&#39;t see why you have a phd in politics, have you complety skipped the other side of the spectrum?

And please guys, I am from the Netherlands, hardly a capitalist nation.


Yes in Cuba you might say that the standard of living is worse than that in America

It is....


, but if u take their system vs ur system, including all ur serfs that u will not recognize as part of of ur system, CUBE WINS ON THE QUALITY OF LIFE MEASURE and is way more humanetarian

Accept when you oppose good old Fidel.

[Unrelenting Steve]

U have not countered my argument. u r a fool if u think u have.

[F_Hayek]

Originally posted by Unrelenting [email protected] 10 2003, 10:32 AM
U have not countered my argument. u r a fool if u think u have.
So, you haven&#39;t provide a viable argument then. The thing you wrote is exactly in line with your definition of capitalism. Try again as I assume you have some basic idea about politics.

[Unrelenting Steve]

Accept when you oppose good old Fidel.

- what happens when one of ur citizens breaks the law? yes criminals do have a more degraded life in general in an ordley sociaty. You make no point, and certainly do not counter my extremely plain and simple point, u just give an irrelevant little chirp and think urself vindicated. And then u have the gual to be sarcasric when someone calls ur bluff. Get over urself and grow a brain.

I do not support Cuba, but we are not looking at what constitutes criminality and civiliberties, we are looking at how sociaties treats the normal persons that make them up, yes I think Cuba is a little too strict, but we are comparing the quality of life each system can offer to its indivduals, Cube can offer a better one than America&#39;s system can (that has been proven by my above posts, which u have also not been able to contradict in the slightest), now actualy try and contardict my point&#33;&#33;&#33; Stop trying to be a smart ass and actualy think, you apear to lack the capibility to process any substance, yes polotics is not like dissing- u see u actualy have to be endowed with some kind of intelect to get by in this areana, so go cultivate one and them come back.

I hate having to argue with cappie ignorant trash, they cant tell when their being pathetic even after uve pointed it out to them, and then their cocky enough to seve up an even saucier respite than their initial essenceless rebuke. just wait and see what he will reply with, they r so predictable.

[F_Hayek]

Ignorant trash whaha

You&#39;re the pathetic fool here as the only thing which you seem to come up with is the Third World. So who is the lunatic here if you think that is capitalism?

[Unrelenting Steve]

no substance. no intelect. no point. no contradiction. ur a waste of oxygen.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 09:58 AM
Whahaha, the only reason why the USSR didn&#39;t collapse immidiately was because the could look at western marketeconomies to check for prices (you know, read von Mises, Hayek, etc).

Comrade RAF, I still can&#39;t see why you have a phd in politics, have you complety skipped the other side of the spectrum?

And please guys, I am from the Netherlands, hardly a capitalist nation.


Yes in Cuba you might say that the standard of living is worse than that in America

It is....


, but if u take their system vs ur system, including all ur serfs that u will not recognize as part of of ur system, CUBE WINS ON THE QUALITY OF LIFE MEASURE and is way more humanetarian

Accept when you oppose good old Fidel.
I have not skipped the other side of the spectrum. I undoubtably know more that you about capitalist politics. I simply think it&#39;s bullshit politics made by bullshit people.


You are proving my reasoning.

[Rastafari]

Originally posted by Unrelenting [email protected] 11 2003, 01:28 PM
no substance. no intelect. no point. no contradiction. ur a waste of oxygen.
good points, bub, but using letters as words died out with Prince

[Unrelenting Steve]

y dont u just call me a non comformist then...........wait, they call me that already.

Ive neva seen or herd about u b4 Rastafari, 1000 posts, wow&#33; where were u hiding? so... wat do u support/ believe? where do u lie in the political spectrum?

[Durruti]

What do you mean "where has Communism acutally worked?" What do you mean by the word "worked"? Capitalism is better at providing luxuries for the rich, Communism is better at supplying necessities for the poor.
In order to know if something works we have to know what it&#39;s goal is (and what it&#39;s stated goal is). Has Communism ever succeded? In order to succede the dictator would have to step down leaving a viable state. Has this ever happened, no.
What is the stated goal of capitalism? Slavery for the poor and autocracy for the rich. To that end capitalism is an incredibly successful system. But it is further stated by capitalists that the autocracy of the rich will lead (through "trickle down economics") to empowerment of the poor. This will never happen.
According to Marx, the goal of Capitalism (unstated and unrealized) is (through the force of evolution) to bring about the conditions which will allow a viable Communist state to emerge. Has Capitalism worked then? I don&#39;t know that anyone can answer that.

If the capitalist is denied his "freedom to luxury" he will declare the system has failed him. Where a Communist sees workers starving in the street he will say the system has failed him. Each will see every flaw in the other&#39;s system, but will refute (as propaganda perhaps) the flaws in his own.

Perhaps the question should be, "Where has government worked?"

[F_Hayek]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 11 2003, 06:43 PM

I have not skipped the other side of the spectrum. I undoubtably know more that you about capitalist politics. I simply think it&#39;s bullshit politics made by bullshit people.


You are proving my reasoning.
You may know more about politics but I doubt on the economic system. But people seem to mix the two up a lot here.

[elijahcraig]

Politics and economics are hard to separate, the one works off the other.

[F_Hayek]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 08:37 PM
Politics and economics are hard to separate, the one works off the other.
So this means after the revolution we get another Stalin?

[elijahcraig]

I&#39;m a Stalinist, so I would love it if we got anyone NEAR his ability. Though I don&#39;t exactly how your statement has anything to do with this.

[Durruti]

Politics centers on resource distrobution, there is little more to it than that. Politics in the greatest sense is driven by economics. To that end the Capitalist system is no more than Fedualism, but Stalinism is even greater despotism. True communism means small scale collective control and direct democracy of the workers.
If we get another Stalin after the revolution, we&#39;ll have another revolution.

[one sick kid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 03:24 AM

Perhaps the question should be, "Where has government worked?"
i think the real question here should be "would communism have succeeded if the US had not intervened at every possible opportunity?". in my opinion, socialism or communism can never take place as long as the US remains a superpower.

[Loknar]

Originally posted by one sick kid+Aug 14 2003, 03:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (one sick kid @ Aug 14 2003, 03:42 PM)
[email protected] 12 2003, 03:24 AM

Perhaps the question should be, "Where has government worked?"
i think the real question here should be "would communism have succeeded if the US had not intervened at every possible opportunity?". in my opinion, socialism or communism can never take place as long as the US remains a superpower. [/b]
That&#39;s BS and you know it. China and Russia are self sufficent powers who had a fair shot and still do. Maybe the Paris Commune was where Communism worked?

[one sick kid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2003, 03:14 AM
Maybe the Paris Commune was where Communism worked?
that i could agree with - i think the place that was closest to communism would be embryonic france during the revoloution, and maybe even israel, because of the communist-style farming that&#39;s still in practise there.

[synthesis]

That&#39;s BS and you know it. China and Russia are self sufficent powers who had a fair shot and still do. Maybe the Paris Commune was where Communism worked?

Capitalist debating tactics are such a laugh. You completely ignore every other totally valid deconstruction of your absolute nonsense and then return with some moronic shot that is easily dismantled by anyone with even the vaguest knowledge of history.

I&#39;ll give you three examples right now, even though I&#39;m quite short on time. If it proves necessary to do so, I can easily provide more.

1) Indochina. Over a period of thirty years, American forces deliberately slaughtered up to six million innocent civilians in Laos, Vietnam, and Cambodia for the crime of living under a regime that provided a better lifestyle than the Western-supported alternative.

2) Afghanistan. The shockingly brutal oppression of women even before the Taliban was one of the many horrific aspects of Afghani society that the Communist government was committed to reforming. Yet, the American government spent billions of dollars of taxpayers&#39; money to make sure that social reform would never occur in this backwards Middle Eastern state. You know as well as I do who won there: over a million dead, three million disabled (I believe this system is called Shariah), and five million emigrants (refugees) from the brutal, U.S.-supported regime.

3) Cuba. The acts of terrorism carried out against Cuba by the United States are innumerable. The eight American-sponsored assassination attempts on Castro&#39;s life are merely the tip of the iceberg. Over a mere four month period ranging from October 11, 1959 to January 12, 1960, eleven bombing raids carried out by the U.S. destroy hundreds of tons of sugarcane and eleven sugar mills. I don&#39;t know about you, Loknar, but if the U.S. had been subjected to forty years of terrorist attacks, bombings, assassination attempts, sanctions, embargoes, isolation, and full-scale military invasion by a neighboring country in its birth, I doubt it would be too far away from Cuba&#39;s situation today.

Good enough?

-Dom

[FistFullOfSteel]

Poor People has a better heart&#33;