Equality

[Liberty]

We are all equal in that we all start at the same starting line, as the Chicago school preaches, but we cannot have such equality when there are people who have spoons in their mouths at birth(which is why inheritance has to be taxed more heavily, and per-determined hierarchy, like Monarchy, has to be ended). People have to work to be a part of the middle class, and, if you're smart and lucky enough, the upper class, but the lower classes are simply examples of individuals that have socially failed.

You see, like you Commies, we hold that everyone is equal, as we all begin at the same starting line(if proper conditions are applied). However, the distinction is made between us, in regards to equality, by how you Commies expect everyone to cross the finish line at the same time.

So lets break this down. We both support equality. What is the difference?

While everyone crosses the finish line at the same time, under Communism, everyone begins at the starting line, should the Chicago school be properly implemented, under Capitalism.

Do you now see why Communism failed in the Soviet Union? Do you now see why Capitalism won in the cold war? Do you now see why China, and now even Cuba, have moved to Capitalism?
Do you know why?

BECAUSE IT WORKS! That's something no Communist, nor Socialist, can claim of their own economic systems.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

There's a global economic meltdown and you're saying capitalism works?

[Liberty]

There's a global economic meltdown and you're saying capitalism works?
The flux of the markets are, in themselves, a trend of Capitalism. It is not for the government to tamper with it, rather to respect it. Isn't that what you Commies preach? Materialism?

[Positivist]

No! In a free market, everyone does not "start equal" and in socialism everyone does not "finish equal."

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

The flux of the markets are, in themselves, a trend of Capitalism.

So, you admit that capitalism is inherently volatile and unstable, very good.


It is not for the government to tamper with it, rather to respect it. Isn't that what you Commies preach? Materialism?

I'm not a Marxist, I'm an Anarchist and I'm not sure if you really understand what you're talking about.

[Positivist]

See here, this argument was already refuted several times two days ago.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/very-important-question-t174299/index.html?p=2495387

[Liberty]

I'm not a Marxist, I'm an Anarchist and I'm not sure if you really understand what you're talking about.
Just like I show a certain degree of respect to you, in regards to the validity of what you have to say, I expect the same.

[Liberty]

See here, this argument was already refuted several times two days ago.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/very-important-question-t174299/index.html?p=2495387
Oh... Well, this is a little awkward then.

[Positivist]

The flux of the markets are, in themselves, a trend of Capitalism. It is not for the government to tamper with it, rather to respect it. Isn't that what you Commies preach? Materialism?

Well before I begin my criticism of this idiotic post, I would like to welcome you back to revleft as I have not seen you post in a while and I was beginning to worry that you would no longer be entertaining us here.

Materialism, is the recognition that material conditions are responsible for determing how humans interact, and how they percieve that interaction. As materialists we see capitalism as the product of thousands of years of historical development and most importantly as something which has not always been (and which could not always have been) and as something which will not always be. The market as it exists in capitalism is not a natural phenomenon, and while it may trigger certain material shortages, exchanges, or surpluses (which are material conditions) it is not a material condition. It is a social relation, and as a social relation is imaginary and all too mutable. We do not "respect" the imaginary market, and its self-destructive results, and certainly do not preach the respecting of it or amy similar entities.

[Positivist]

Also "works" as you use it in regard to capitalism in the OP is such a meaningless term that it should be totally disregarded. By works I'm assuming you mean it efficiently accomplishes (as that is the definition.) So what does capitalism efficiently accomplish? To just say that capitalism works is equal to just saying that the sky does. The sky does what?! What does capitalism efficiently accomplish? Nothing more then the enrichment of an intensive minority and the impoverishment of the masses. Not much of a "work" in my opinion.

[RedHammer]

You see, like you Commies, we hold that everyone is equal, as we all begin at the same starting line(if proper conditions are applied). However, the distinction is made between us, in regards to equality, by how you Commies expect everyone to cross the finish line at the same time.

Huh? What does "cross the finish line the same" mean? Under communism, there would be no money, and no way of discerning classes. We support the common ownership of the means of production, because private ownership of the means of production enables one class, the owners, to have leverage over the workers.

Nobody should own the means to livelihood. That's what we're about. You are thinking about communism with the lenses of capitalism.


Do you now see why Communism failed in the Soviet Union? Do you now see why Capitalism won in the cold war? Do you now see why China, and now even Cuba, have moved to Capitalism?
Do you know why?

BECAUSE IT WORKS! That's something no Communist, nor Socialist, can claim of their own economic systems.You're presumptuous. Not all of us think the Soviet Union was a failure; and regardless, the reason it "failed" probably has to do with the fact that it was not in good shape to begin with, was decimated by two World Wars, fought a cold war filled with espionage and sabotage, and continually faced the threat of the United States while degenerating because the people in charge were heading into new waters and socialism didn't have the luxury of having hundreds of years to gradually develop like modern capitalism has.

Capitalism is by no means a success. Try saying that to the people of the Third World that live in poverty and work to support your living standard.

Out of curiosity, how does somebody get negative reputation?

[cynicles]

Lol, ussr and Cuba being communist.

[Positivist]

Oh... Well, this is a little awkward then.

This response reeks of trolling.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

No no, the OP is right - look at the Chicago School's playground in South America in the 70s/80, there was great equality at the start: everyone started above ground. It was only those who opposed the wonderful economic policies who found themselves 6 feet under in some unmarked grave.

Besides, the OPs right, I did start life the same as Bill Gates' kids. :rolleyes::laugh::laugh:

OP must be reaaaaalllll sad to have stayed around here tryina troll for so long. Get a life!

[sublime]

"Equal poverty for all" should have been the communist credo.

[#FF0000]

what a useful post thanks for that sublime

[Oswy]

...People have to work to be a part of the middle class, and, if you're smart and lucky enough, the upper class, but the lower classes are simply examples of individuals that have socially failed...

1. People born into advantage already have a head-start in a competitive society and the greater the advantage you are born into the easier it is to maintain and reproduce it.

2. People don't always have to work to be part of the middle class, some people are born into comfort and security, some people are born into millions, no working hard necessary.

3. Plenty of poor people work hard, indeed if it weren't for the poor masses working hard under capitalism there'd be no middle class, let alone upper class.

4. People born into poverty have to work so much harder, and have so much more brute luck, than people born into middle-class conditions, in order to successfully compete under capitalism. The Capitalists like to say 'anyone can be a millionaire' but fail to recognise that a) we can't all be millionaires no matter how hard we work and b) it's many, many times easier for the son or daughter of a millionaire to become a millionaire than for the son or daughter of a poor person to do so.

5. Socialists believe all people have needs which should be given equal priority, everyone should have food, shelter, clothing, medicine, education and dignity before even a single person gets to drink caviar from gold taps, indeed there should be no drinking of caviar from gold taps. It's not that we don't think people should be free to compete in races but that they shouldn't be made to compete for their needs, this difference the capitalist does not, or will not, understand.

[Veovis]

Out of curiosity, how does somebody get negative reputation?

Click the balance scales at the upper right corner of the post and you can 'disapprove.'

Anyway, how can the OP claim capitalism works when there are so many hungry and homeless people in the world, yet houses stand empty and perfectly good food is thrown away by the tons?

[Marxaveli]

^^Because if people are willing to believe in some invisible sky wizard that will send them to hell if they wont repent, they will believe in "invisible hands" and "free markets" and other Capitalism folklore just as easily. But thats all it is, is folklore, much like Horatio Alger crap that helped promote it.

[Jazzratt]

Anyway, how can the OP claim capitalism works when there are so many hungry and homeless people in the world, yet houses stand empty and perfectly good food is thrown away by the tons?
It's because he doesn't live anywhere near places where these are a problem. Hell the gates around his neighborhood probably keep out the homeless and hungry of his country, too.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

"Equal poverty for all" should have been the communist credo.

Mhmmmm, but you see, the capitalists stole it first. ;)

[Positivist]

"Equal poverty for all" should have been the communist credo.

Sigh.