Communism or Capitalism...

[Sam Adams]

GDP (per capita) www.nationmaster.com

1. Luxembourg $44,586.23 per person
2. United States $35,935.02 per person

114. China $4,671.81 per person

159. Cuba $2,307.49 per person

199. Korea, North $989.91 per person

and china, leader of communist countries, is adopting many modern capitalist economic policies.

[Sam Adams]

and look at this:

"Civil and political liberties"

look who is at the very bottom of the list.

125. China

133. Cuba

135. Korea, North

[Sabocat]

You just can't grasp the concept of Communism can you? There isn't a large salary base, because everything is provided. It's not about salaries. In a true Communist environment, there wouldn't be money at all. Try to read something about it and understand it before you start posting this shit.

[Sora]

True communism is not achievable in today's world, something which the USSR, China, North Korea, and Cuba have proved to us on many occasions.

Your backwards system doesn't work and never will.

[Sabocat]

This has been said here at least 100 times, but I'll repeat it here for you. Pay close attention. .....




RUSSIA, CHINA, CUBA, AND NORTH KOREA HAVE NEVER ACHIEVED TRUE COMMUNISM. THEY ARE NOT COMMUNIST COUNTRIES.

[Y2A]

But every attempt to create a true communist society has failed and eventually becomes a totalitarian state. I understand that these were not or ever have been true communist states but the fact remains that the only way to enforce equality is by way of stalinism which in turn becomes a USSR or North Korea.

[Dirty Commie]

So you are saying that materialism and wealth (which equals waste) is good?

And of course the lackies of amerikkkan imperialism and sweatshops earn less than $1.50 a day, and live in poverty, face starvation, torture from capitalist dictators.

Under communism, no one starves, everyone has a home, and are guarenteed healthcare.


In the u$a 44 million people have NO health coverage. 4.2 million children live below the poverty line, and our minimum wage is the lowest in the industrialized world.
Not to mention our record of supporting doctators like Saddam Hussein in the 80's. And our genocidal war against Native AmerIndians. And slavery.

[Sam Adams]

"There isn't a large salary base, because everything is provided."

No, it is because everyone is lazy and has no motivation to work hard. This is the underlying reason why communism doesnt work.

If you try to provide everyone with everything, people will not work. Then they will have nothing. Understand and learn, disgustapated. Your exact ethos has destroyed nations. It can never work, because it is the exact opposite of human nature.

[Sam Adams]

"earn less than $1.50 a day"

would you prefer that they get nothing, and starve to death?

[Penguin Chariot Archer from Hell]

No, "those who do not work do not eat." IF nothing else encourages them, surely that clause will.

Also, pay attention to the situation of the DPRK and Cuba. Both have guns pointed at them at all sides. No country can develop or prosper if isolated from the rest of the world. Its a miracle they have come as far as they have. And they are SOCIALIST. None ever claimed to be communist. There is no "under communism." No one lives under communism, we haven't reached that stage yet.

[Sora]

Your beloved Che Guevara's ancestors also practiced slavery. Slavery was rampant in Spanish North America.

[Dirty Commie]

Originally posted by Sam [email protected] 8 2004, 06:40 PM
"earn less than $1.50 a day"

would you prefer that they get nothing, and starve to death?
I'd prefer it if they were given a crazy little thing called a FAIR WAGE

btw, one billion people in the "free" world face hunger every day, and 200 million face starvation to death in the next year.

[Sam Adams]

they are getting a fair market wage. If they dont want to get payed 1.50, then they can go back to their jungle farms and try to make their living the way they always have.

Obviously the factories are a better life than their alternatives.

[Ortega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 06:43 PM
Your beloved Che Guevara's ancestors also practiced slavery. Slavery was rampant in Spanish North America.
Wow, so now you're judging people by their ancestors. Pathetic. :angry:

[Ortega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 06:31 PM
True communism is not achievable in today's world, something which the USSR, China, North Korea, and Cuba have proved to us on many occasions.

Your backwards system doesn't work and never will.
CHINA, NORTH KOREA, AND CUBA WERE ALL FOUNDED BY EGOTISTICAL STALINISTS WITH A NEED FOR AN IDEOLOGY TO BACK THEM UP. LEADERS OF ALL THREE COUNTRIES HAVE ADMITTED THIS FOR THE MOST PART.
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE USSR WAS TAKEN OVER BY EGOTISTICAL STALINISTS, MOST NOTABLY STALIN HIMSELF.
NONE OF THOSE COUNTRIES HAVE EVER BEEN REMOTELY COMMUNIST. WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT??!?!?!?!

[Sam Adams]

They tried to be communist. They failed.

Because communism cannot work.

[Ortega]

With a leader who's not an admitted egotistical fascist, it would.

[Bolshevika]

CHINA, NORTH KOREA, AND CUBA WERE ALL FOUNDED BY EGOTISTICAL STALINISTS WITH A NEED FOR AN IDEOLOGY TO BACK THEM UP.

Oh please don't encourage his misinformation :rolleyes:

[Ortega]

Castro has admitted that Communism was just his way of taking control - he wanted power but he never had a true political ideology until Che suggested Communism.
And Kim Jong Il has admitted basically the same thing, less blatantly than Castro.

[Sam Adams]

tell me ortega, why would people work if they had their sustinance provided for them regardless of their work?

Communism cannot work, deal with it.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 11:43 PM
Your beloved Che Guevara's ancestors also practiced slavery. Slavery was rampant in Spanish North America.
This is among the most idiotic statements I have ever seen and I have seen my fair share of them let me tell you.

[Dirty Commie]

At least 1/3 of all all communists don't live below the poverty line.
Under capitalism, crime rates are higher, wars are more prevailant, there is the risk of economic depressions, going broke and living on the street.
Capitalism works for a lucky few, less than 5% of the worlds citizens control 85% of tghe wealth, while over a billion people have less than enough to eat because the 5% won't give up a tiny fraction of their un-needed unused wealth to give them a fair, living wage.

[Sam Adams]

communism works for no one. Communism... making everyone equall... equally poor.

[Dirty Commie]

Beleive it or not, people out side amerikkka are not as hell bent ot material posssion and watching t.v. as amerikans are. people under socialism are equal, not always poor as in N. Corea ("C" is the proper spelling, several inguists confirmed this as an 1800's imperial plan to"englishize" Japanese and make their territory follow them alphbetically)

And N. Corea is suffering a terrible famine from several years of drought and international trade disputes. I'm not denying the fact that KIm Jung Il is a treacherous leader with anti-communist ideas.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Why can't anyone be SUPPORTIVE of the countries run by the Communist party? It pains me to see fellow comrades attacking the most moral, upright countries in the world. Stalin, Kim-Jong Il, Pol Pot, Miloshevik, I understand, but the other guys, namely Castro, Chavez, and the post-Stalin govt. of the Soviet Union, deserve our support.

[Sora]

Originally posted by COMRADE RAF+Jan 9 2004, 12:12 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (COMRADE RAF @ Jan 9 2004, 12:12 AM)
[email protected] 8 2004, 11:43 PM
Your beloved Che Guevara&#39;s ancestors also practiced slavery. Slavery was rampant in Spanish North America.
This is among the most idiotic statements I have ever seen and I have seen my fair share of them let me tell you. [/b]
It&#39;s just as idiotic to say that the US is evil because of slavery. Guevara is a Spanish name. Spaniards practiced slavery. Doesn&#39;t make the descendants of Spanish colonists evil either, does it?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Exactly. It is idiotic.



Remember kiddo.....you were the one who said it.



Think before you type, however if you would rather embarrass yourself again by calling your own statements idiotic...go right ahead....It won&#39;t be a shocker to me.


(I can&#39;t wait for the expected back-peddle...The one where you pretend to say "I was trying to make a point that it was idiotic....Uhhhhhh....Yeah...that&#39;s it.......Then you yell at yourself for being absurd.)


Is your face red yet kid?

[Sora]

It&#39;s no more idiotic than saying "And slavery." (Dirty Commie) in giving reasons why the US is from the depths of hell.

[Ortega]

tell me ortega, why would people work if they had their sustinance provided for them regardless of their work?

Communism cannot work, deal with it.

Pure Communism would not work. It is not meant to work.

Socialism is the form I believe in, at least. Look it up, it might interest you.

[Ortega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 07:30 PM
Guevara is a Spanish name. Spaniards practiced slavery. Doesn&#39;t make the descendants of Spanish colonists evil either, does it?
Think before you assume - Che was mostly Irish, with a bit of Spanish thrown in. He had some American ancestors as well...
Many of them were poor, however. I would not assume that they practiced slavery.

[Sam Adams]

then why do you keep whining about those "communist" countries not being &#39;true communists&#39;, when it is clear that no form of communism can suceed?

[Sora]

Originally posted by Ortega+Jan 9 2004, 12:48 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ortega @ Jan 9 2004, 12:48 AM)
[email protected] 8 2004, 07:30 PM
Guevara is a Spanish name. Spaniards practiced slavery. Doesn&#39;t make the descendants of Spanish colonists evil either, does it?
Think before you assume - Che was mostly Irish, with a bit of Spanish thrown in. He had some American ancestors as well...
Many of them were poor, however. I would not assume that they practiced slavery. [/b]
There were many Americans who didn&#39;t practice slavery either. Plus, Che has both Spanish and American blood. Both countries practiced slavery.

[Vinny Rafarino]

How is it "clear that no communist country can succeed" when there has never been an actual communist "country"? (if you have any clue about the ideology you despise you would see that the very words "communist country" are absurd)

Keep sucking from the bottle mate. Or you can actually look at logic and cede that the fact remains that there is no way of knowing if a communist society would actually work. Unmolested, socialism has proven to operate efficiently (unless of course you ignore actual facts and rely on myth and propaganda to formulate your opinion), more so than even a free market economic platform.

[Ortega]

Originally posted by Sora+Jan 8 2004, 07:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sora @ Jan 8 2004, 07:52 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 12:48 AM

[email protected] 8 2004, 07:30 PM
Guevara is a Spanish name. Spaniards practiced slavery. Doesn&#39;t make the descendants of Spanish colonists evil either, does it?
Think before you assume - Che was mostly Irish, with a bit of Spanish thrown in. He had some American ancestors as well...
Many of them were poor, however. I would not assume that they practiced slavery.
There were many Americans who didn&#39;t practice slavery either. Plus, Che has both Spanish and American blood. Both countries practiced slavery. [/b]
Once again, I can&#39;t even believe that you&#39;re judging someone by their ancestors. I&#39;ll definetly go with Comrade RAF in saying that that is the most idiotic thing I&#39;ve ever seen posted on Che-Lives.

[Sora]

Originally posted by Dirty [email protected] 8 2004, 11:37 PM
And slavery.
This was the first post about judging people by their ancestors. If Commies can do it, why can&#39;t I?

[Ortega]

The rest of this board, or I at least, am not taking responsibility for what Dirty Commie said. I&#39;m not judging anyone by their ancestors, and neither is anyone on this board but you and him. Besides, he was talking about a nation as a whole, which is far more justifiable than judging one person by those standards.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I will spell it out for you.



The comrade in question was referring to a governmental body. You were referring to (a silly as it is)
individual ancestors.


Ortego got there first...I&#39;ll just hammer it into your head....

[Sora]

If you would think for one god damn second you would realize that I&#39;m not judging people by their ancestors either. It took you a whole page of this thread to say that you don&#39;t speak for his stupid comments. You jump all over me for saying that Cuba&#39;s evil, or Che&#39;s evil, because of its slavery past, but instead of bringing Dirty Commie in it, you just focus on my posts and leave his idiocy alone. Of course it&#39;s pure idiocy to judge people by their ancestors behaviour. Slavery is more than 100 years in the past. I don&#39;t call all Russians I meet "Soviet Commies". I don&#39;t call Germans "Jew Hating Nazis". Why is it justifiable to say the US is evil because of slavery that was, by the way, largely localized in the South (remember the whole Civil War thing). The South also had approximately 9 million people to the North&#39;s ~22 million in the years prior to the Civil War. There is more of a Northern legacy in the US than a Southern one.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Actually we are jumping on you for your first post. If you did not want the horns, why did you kick the bull in the balls?


Look at it this way son, you came here looking for a fight and you got what you wanted. Now you would rather "debate". Fair enough. Keep your slags to a minimum and everyone can be happy in their own little worlds.

[Sora]

The comrade in question was referring to a governmental body. You were referring to (a silly as it is)
individual ancestors.


I&#39;m not judging anyone by their ancestors, and neither is anyone on this board but you and him.

This has a whole lot to do with my first post, doesn&#39;t it?

[Hiero]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 9 2004, 01:12 AM
Look at it this way son
HAHAHA that makes him look pathetic.

[Hal]

Originally posted by Sam [email protected] 8 2004, 11:38 PM
"No, it is because everyone is lazy and has no motivation to work hard. This is the underlying reason why communism doesnt work."

"No, it is because everyone is lazy and has no motivation to work hard. This is the underlying reason why communism doesnt work."

Thats saying it at the best. Why should I do a _better_ job? Why should I work _extra_ ? For the good of society? Hell no&#33; I wanna play video games&#33;

[lostsoul]

all those countries were socialist(trying to acheive communism) but did china got grow so huge in the last 50 years? Did the USSR not send the first person into space? Did vietnam not kick 3 imperialist world powers&#39;s ass&#39;s(france, japan, and america)???


i guess those achivements that imperialist nations could not do is cosidered "lazy" when nations that are less then a faction of america&#39;s age do it.

[Sora]

Originally posted by comrade neonate+Jan 9 2004, 01:29 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (comrade neonate @ Jan 9 2004, 01:29 AM)
COMRADE [email protected] 9 2004, 01:12 AM
Look at it this way son
HAHAHA that makes him look pathetic. [/b]
Funny, I don&#39;t feel pathetic because of that.

What, may I ask, is your age, Comrade Raf?

[lucid]

Originally posted by Hal+Jan 9 2004, 01:30 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Hal @ Jan 9 2004, 01:30 AM)
Sam [email protected] 8 2004, 11:38 PM
"No, it is because everyone is lazy and has no motivation to work hard. This is the underlying reason why communism doesnt work."

"No, it is because everyone is lazy and has no motivation to work hard. This is the underlying reason why communism doesnt work."

Thats saying it at the best. Why should I do a _better_ job? Why should I work _extra_ ? For the good of society? Hell no&#33; I wanna play video games&#33; [/b]
-
I&#39;m gonna study for 10 years and become a Doctor so I can have the same things as the garbage man next door&#33;

W00t&#33; It&#39;s gonna be fun :D

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You people seem to think &#39;society&#39; is something abstract that somehow doesn&#39;t apply to you.
Wrong.
If you do something to benefit society, like work, then it will benefit you as well as others.


Why should I do a _better_ job?

Er... because it&#39;ll be more fun and useful?


Why should I work _extra_ ?

Who says you would work more under communism? if anything you&#39;ll work less because there&#39;s more ppl than jobs...


For the good of society?

What&#39;s good for society is ultimately good for you&#33;


Hell no&#33; I wanna play video games&#33;

Do you really want to? or is it the computer game ads that say u want to?

[Sora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 01:38 AM
all those countries were socialist(trying to acheive communism) but did china got grow so huge in the last 50 years? Did the USSR not send the first person into space? Did vietnam not kick 3 imperialist world powers&#39;s ass&#39;s(france, japan, and america)???


i guess those achivements that imperialist nations could not do is cosidered "lazy" when nations that are less then a faction of america&#39;s age do it.
China has opened up to foreign investment and is not a true socialist government.

USSR sent the first man into space, but all the while their people waited in huge lines for a loaf of bread.

Japan withdrew from Vietnam. They did beat France, but that&#39;s not hard. The North Vietnamese and VC signed a ceasefire agreement with the US. Only 3 years after the US pulled out most of its forces did the NVA and VC break this agreement and take Saigon, only because the idiots on the Republic of Vietnam government didn&#39;t demand for withdrawl of northern and VC troops from South Vietnam.

[Ian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 01:39 AM
I&#39;m gonna study for 10 years and become a Doctor so I can have the same things as the garbage man next door&#33;

W00t&#33; It&#39;s gonna be fun :D
And while you are studying part-time the Garbage man has to wake up at 3am 5 days a week and work in excess of 12 hours. On top of that he has to deal with his lazy, fat arsed next door neighbour who thinks he is King Shit the 3rd because he can sit at home, study and treat his garbage-collector neighbour like a second class citizen.

Sounds like tons of fun mate... you knobhead.

[Bolshevika]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 12:07 AM
Castro has admitted that Communism was just his way of taking control - he wanted power but he never had a true political ideology until Che suggested Communism.
And Kim Jong Il has admitted basically the same thing, less blatantly than Castro.
When did Fidel say this?

Why are there democratic commissions in Cuba if Fidel is the "power hungry thief" the Cuban subversionist scum label him?

Where is your proof of all of these serious allegations against Fidel and Kim Jong Il ?

[Urban Rubble]

I&#39;m gonna study for 10 years and become a Doctor so I can have the same things as the garbage man next door&#33;

Let me spell it out for you.

Some people would like to be a doctor because it interests them, but they haven&#39;t the money for medical school and they don&#39;t have a means to support themselves through school. So, instead you get some rich kid who didn&#39;t really care about the medical field but knew he could be rich and prestigous by becoming a doctor, so mummy a daddy pay for his college and he becomes an average doctor. Meanwhile, the guy that had a real passion for it who may have been a great doctor wastes his potential as a plumber or a factory worker.

If you want to be a doctor is a Socialist society, you could go to school for free, while you are in school you can work part time. Who really knows what this imaginary society&#39;s laws would be, maybe you would be fully funded while going through school, just like school was a job. Some people would not want to go through excessive schooling and instead would become a plumber&#39;s apprentice or a factory worker.

You see, ideally, people could do the professions that they really wanted to do and possibly excel at them. Instead, they are forced into shitty situations because of circumstances beyond their control.

As far as how much they are paid, after school, I think being a doctor would be much easier and more pleasant than being a garbage man, so why should the doctor be paid more ?

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 01:41 AM

Why should I work _extra_ ?

Who says you would work more under communism? if anything you&#39;ll work less because there&#39;s more ppl than jobs...


You would also work less because there is less pressure on making a profit so there is no competition and therefor no need to work as much because you are only fullfiling needs.

[Sora]

Urban: So only poor disadvantaged people want to become doctors? There aren&#39;t any rich people who want to become doctors for other reasons besides money?

I know of many cases where people work and put themselves through medical school without any help from their parents. Your stereotypes make your points a lot less valid.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 12:38 PM
pinko commie scum
Blue cappie scum.

Wow, look at the intelligent conversation we&#39;re having&#33;

[el_profe]

Originally posted by comrade [email protected] 9 2004, 02:32 AM
You would also work less because there is less pressure on making a profit so there is no competition and therefor no need to work as much because you are only fullfiling needs.
Work is bad? by the way you make it sound work is bad, that means youre lazy.

But who decides how much is needed?

Do you have an election to decide how many shoes will be made?
or how many t-shirts will be made?

Whatif a worker makes more t-shirts than another worker , working the same hours. they both get paid the same? thats not fair, because the 1st worker produced more then the 2nd.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 01:42 AM
USSR sent the first man into space, but all the while their people waited in huge lines for a loaf of bread.
As opposed to the United States, where the homeless and many poor get no bread at all, line or no line.

[Sora]

A minority is like that, Morpheus, and while it is unfortunate, it is a side-effect of capitalism. While that homeless would probably not like to work for a living anyway.

The majority of Soviet citizens were dirt poor and starving.

[Urban Rubble]

So only poor disadvantaged people want to become doctors? There aren&#39;t any rich people who want to become doctors for other reasons besides money?

That is not what I am saying at all and you know it. Of course some rich people want to be doctors purely because it interests them, and that is great. However, there are far more who would like to be doctors but do not have the means to accomplish it.

[lostsoul]

Originally posted by Sora+Jan 9 2004, 01:42 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sora @ Jan 9 2004, 01:42 AM)
[email protected] 9 2004, 01:38 AM
all those countries were socialist(trying to acheive communism) but did china got grow so huge in the last 50 years? Did the USSR not send the first person into space? Did vietnam not kick 3 imperialist world powers&#39;s ass&#39;s(france, japan, and america)???


i guess those achivements that imperialist nations could not do is cosidered "lazy" when nations that are less then a faction of america&#39;s age do it.
China has opened up to foreign investment and is not a true socialist government.

USSR sent the first man into space, but all the while their people waited in huge lines for a loaf of bread.

Japan withdrew from Vietnam. They did beat France, but that&#39;s not hard. The North Vietnamese and VC signed a ceasefire agreement with the US. Only 3 years after the US pulled out most of its forces did the NVA and VC break this agreement and take Saigon, only because the idiots on the Republic of Vietnam government didn&#39;t demand for withdrawl of northern and VC troops from South Vietnam. [/b]
I was refering to china&#39;s growth before Deng took over and converted the system to capitalist. During that time china was one of the top 4 steel producers in the world(America, britain, and ussr were also in there). its pretty impressive considering 25 years earlier they weren&#39;t even in the top 10.

From what i read, Unemployeement emerged for the first time after Stalin died, and kruchuv, reformed the USSR into a state capitalist system.

Japan may have withdrawn, but they didn&#39;t defeat vietnam. How many years did they try for??(refesh my memory). They beat france twice, and yes it was hard for them considering france made laws in that country that no vietnames could own a gun or any type of weapons(they couldn&#39;t hunt properly). Taking on a superpower like france at that time was very hard.
3 years after america pulled Saigon was caputured?? Hey buddy go the the local libary and get the movie "the fall of saigon" within days saigon fell after Amercians left. In fact that video has real footage of american hellicopters evaluating the embrass&#39;s with soliders and vietnames freedom fighters entering the city.

[Maynard]

1. Luxembourg &#036;44,586.23 per person
2. United States &#036;35,935.02 per person

114. China &#036;4,671.81 per person

159. Cuba &#036;2,307.49 per person

199. Korea, North &#036;989.91 per person

and china, leader of communist countries, is adopting many modern capitalist economic policies.


That&#39;s one way to look at it but a rather poor way , in my view. First off, as it needs to be pointed out a lot, they are not communist countries and it can be argued if they are indeed socialists one.

Cuba&#39;s economic growth was larger than the United States for the past ten years , even after they lost there major trading partner and on a whole incomes for the majority of Cubans are higher than when Batista was in charge, where the peasants had nothing at all. You are also unfairly comparing them, The United States has had 300 years to build it&#39;s system , Cuba has had 40, so we can look at why they are not equal, is it because of "socialism" ? No. US imperialism and Spanish imperialism are the major factors in that. So, it looks like you have more to answer for there, than "us".



"Civil and political liberties"

look who is at the very bottom of the list.

125. China

133. Cuba

135. Korea, North


Who did this survey anyway ? and what were there critea ?


the fact remains that the only way to enforce equality

Please explain why that&#39;s a fact ? I can understand why you may see it this way but just because it&#39;s has happened in the past, does not mean it always will.



No, it is because everyone is lazy and has no motivation to work hard. This is the underlying reason why communism doesnt work.


GDP growth in Russia has fallen 3.7 percent every year, since capitalism became there ideology. Cuba&#39;s has risen 4.2 per cent. So, if you saw them as Communists, then there motivation must be higher under &#39;communism".



If you try to provide everyone with everything, people will not work. Then they will have nothing

We are not trying to provide everyone with everything , there would be no state involved. The people will provide for themselves, that is why they will work.


Your exact ethos has destroyed nations

What nations have be destroyed because of it ?



then they can go back to their jungle farms and try to make their living the way they always have.


How classy of you. You make it sound as if they are sub human but in most cases the state already or companies already won much of these farming areas, there obviously is not enough area involved for everyone to do this, so they are forced to take these jobs, so that they don&#39;t die.



tell me ortega, why would people work if they had their sustinance provided for them regardless of their work?


People would work so it&#39;s possible to have this "sustenance" provided for them, along with everything else they desire.


Communism cannot work, deal with it

Then you have nothing to worry about then. You can continue on your merry way.


Communism... making everyone equall... equally poor

The catchphrases are really coming out now. How is it you define "poor" though ?


when it is clear that no form of communism can suceed?

It&#39;s clear to you. Not to me. Why can&#39;t it succeed in your view ? Rather than just saying it can&#39;t.



Thats saying it at the best. Why should I do a _better_ job? Why should I work _extra_ ? For the good of society? Hell no&#33; I wanna play video games&#33;
That&#39;s nice, you could always work at producing video games if you liked that . You would work "extra" because you find it interesting, rather than being forced to take a job because it&#39;s there.



pinko commie scum
Hey good looking &#33;



I&#39;m gonna study for 10 years and become a Doctor so I can have the same things as the garbage man next door&#33;

Good, you base your value as a human being on what type of work they do ? Garbage man help&#39;s society function just as much as Doctors. Without them, the world would not be a nice place to be.



USSR sent the first man into space, but all the while their people waited in huge lines for a loaf of bread.

I agree with you there, I would never justify that. It&#39;s a public relations thing more than anything else, I think the amount of money spent on space programs everywhere cannot be justified.



So only poor disadvantaged people want to become doctors? There aren&#39;t any rich people who want to become doctors for other reasons besides money?


No, I think Urban was saying that was lucid&#39;s reasons for becoming one based on his post. One which I would agree with.


Work is bad? by the way you make it sound work is bad, that means youre lazy.

You have some strange conclusions, I don&#39;t think he meant that work is bad but I think a lot of people would prefer more recreational time than they do now.



But who decides how much is needed?

The people I assume...but what they desire.




Do you have an election to decide how many shoes will be made?


If people desire more shoes, then this will be become aware, so resources will be shifted to meet this increased demand. Just as it is now.


Whatif a worker makes more t-shirts than another worker , working the same hours. they both get paid the same? thats not fair, because the 1st worker produced more then the 2nd.

Well they wouldn&#39;t be "paid" anything, really. It&#39;s a moneyless society , everyone will give what they can according to there ability and have there needs met because of this. People who work "harder" today , don&#39;t see the rewards either. Royal family&#39;s don&#39;t work a single hour, yet they make more in a day than a lot would in a life time. How is that fair ?

[D&#39;Anconia]

That is not what I am saying at all and you know it. Of course some rich people want to be doctors purely because it interests them, and that is great. However, there are far more who would like to be doctors but do not have the means to accomplish it.


How can you back that up?
Your argument is not logical.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/a...-authority.html (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html)

[lucid]

-
I changed my mind =]

I actually wanna become a police officer and risk my life daily. But only if I can make as much as the fry guy at Comrad RedDonalds&#33;



I think its funny that these fuggtards act like people are constantly dying on the streets of starvation. Like there a mass graves of starved kids in every city. The US spends a TON of money every year on social(ist) programs to feed the drunk... er im high... i mean lazy... i mean unlucky people.

You people need to put the pipe down and let it cool off &#33; :blink:

[Sora]

There was a resistance movement in Vietnam, as there is in all conquered countries. Japan controlled it though.

The French can be beaten with two forks and a lasagna pan. Who else would surrender 10,000 troops heavily fortified on top of a hill, with a technologically and numerically superior force? Only the French, and perhaps the Americans in 1812 at Detroit ;)

I did extensive research on America&#39;s involvement in Vietnam for a school essay. The US left in a small amount of troops and, of course, everyone guards their own embassy, especially in a place like Vietnam. The main body of fighting troops was pulled out, the remaining personnel were mostly in an advisor role.

[Captain America]

"So you are saying that materialism and wealth (which equals waste) is good?"

So are you saying that you don&#39;t believe in hard work ethic, acheivment and goals?


"And of course the lackies of amerikkkan imperialism and sweatshops earn less than &#036;1.50 a day, and live in poverty, face starvation, torture from capitalist dictators."

lackies of american imperialism? moron


"Under communism, no one starves, everyone has a home, and are guarenteed healthcare."

Righto on that one, commies just shoot everyone in the head that is starving, doesn&#39;t have a home, or is too costly for healthcare. I&#39;d rather live w/o healthcare, then be shot anyday.


"In the u&#036;a 44 million people have NO health coverage. 4.2 million children live below the poverty line, and our minimum wage is the lowest in the industrialized world.
Not to mention our record of supporting doctators like Saddam Hussein in the 80&#39;s. And our genocidal war against Native AmerIndians. And slavery."

In Russia, an estimated 20-50 million people were murdered by their communist government, thats a good 1/12th of todays population exterminated by its government, that&#39;s a working society.

The industrialized world would be much similiar to Russia had the US not intervened with things such as The Marshall Program. Our support of dictators like Suddam in the 80&#39;s? are you so blind as to not see Europes support of such dictators TODAY? and can you critizise us with that when today we are fighting to take them out? Try again my friend. Genocidal war against the Native Americans? Refer to when Russia killed up to 50 million of its own people, when Germany purposely murdered over 6 million jews, ect. And slavery? As if the US is the only nation to ever own slaves, every country ever has slavery etched in its past.


commie = dummie =P

[lucid]

Originally posted by Captain [email protected] 9 2004, 03:11 AM
"And of course the lackies of amerikkkan imperialism and sweatshops earn less than &#036;1.50 a day, and live in poverty, face starvation, torture from capitalist dictators."


Captain,

Didn&#39;t you know that all Americans wear white sheets and burn crosses. Except, of course, when we are busy starving children or keeping the burger flippers down.

And torture&#33; Everyone knows that US citizen support torture. I mean look at all the stories of torture. I heard bush has an iron maiden in the oval office. Hehe hes one bad ass KKK texan hick&#33;

[Captain America]

lucid - why did you quote me as saying that =P i was quoting the other guy

*still needs to get used to the new forum set up

[Sora]

I believe it was a sarcastic remark, dedicated to making fun of the other guy.

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 03:34 AM
I believe it was a sarcastic remark, dedicated to making fun of the other guy.
;) BINGO

I am having a real hard time taking these angry deadbeats seriously.


I wanna be a neuro surgeon. So I can wait in the bread line with a bunch of dope smoking landscapers. But only if I&#39;m not out starving kids, burning crosses, or watching the "The Torture Show" on the Bush Broadcast Network.

[Maynard]

I actually wanna become a police officer and risk my life daily
Well, if people were more equal economically, then Police officers would be less likely to have to risk there lives, as most crimes come out of inequality.


I think its funny that these fuggtards act like people are constantly dying on the streets of starvation. Like there a mass graves of starved kids in every city. The US spends a TON of money every year on social(ist) programs to feed the drunk... er im high... i mean lazy... i mean unlucky people.


Personally, I think one would be too many. World wide however, they are a great percentage of people starving beyond the United States. I do care for those people and wish there was a way, so that it wasn&#39;t like that . Call me a fuggtard for that, if you like. I don&#39;t mind. The US may spend a lot of money, they spend a lot more on useless things. I would rather have my government pay for people to have food, no matter if they are lazy, high , drunk or whatever, then on a space program which costs billions upon billions of dollars. I don&#39;t believe however, that homeless people like to be homeless or have no food.


Righto on that one, commies just shoot everyone in the head that is starving, doesn&#39;t have a home, or is too costly for healthcare. I&#39;d rather live w/o healthcare, then be shot anyday

Ahhh...I haven&#39;t shot a homeless person but where is any evidence for this ? have you any ?


In Russia, an estimated 20-50 million people were murdered by their communist government, thats a good 1/12th of todays population exterminated by its government, that&#39;s a working society

Communist government is an oxymoron but an estimate which ranges 30 million ? That&#39;s seems a bit odd. Anyway, to say the USSR represented "Communism" would be false.


Other nations have supported dictators and have been brutal against native people, that&#39;s right . I don&#39;t believe any have been right , no matter what nation perpetrated it.


Didn&#39;t you know that all Americans wear white sheets and burn crosses. Except, of course, when we are busy starving children or keeping the burger flippers down

Your stereotypes of Communist however, are just as bad as that . Why is it okay for you to do it to us ?
I don&#39;t think that everyone US citizen willingly supports torture but the government has used it as tactic, even in the last few years but other nations, including the government USSR have probably been just as if not more guilty when it comes to torture.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 03:07 AM

"Civil and political liberties"

look who is at the very bottom of the list.

125. China

133. Cuba

135. Korea, North


Who did this survey anyway ? and what were there critea ?

Are you saying CUba, china and north korea, do have civil liberties and dont oppress people with different views. Go to www.hrw.org (http://www.hrw.org) human rights watch to see the oppression Cuba, china and north korea do. Its amazing that you dont admit that they do this.
Look at this, I dont agree with it, but they shouldnt be thrown in jail:

BEIJING (Reuters) - Two Chinese hotel workers were sentenced to life in prison Wednesday for organizing a sex romp involving hundreds of Japanese tourists in a case that hit a raw nerve in China and sparked public outrage.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...china_orgy_dc_3 (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031217/wl_nm/china_orgy_dc_3)



Whatif a worker makes more t-shirts than another worker , working the same hours. they both get paid the same? thats not fair, because the 1st worker produced more then the 2nd.

Well they wouldn&#39;t be "paid" anything, really. It&#39;s a moneyless society , everyone will give what they can according to there ability and have there needs met because of this. People who work "harder" today , don&#39;t see the rewards either. Royal family&#39;s don&#39;t work a single hour, yet they make more in a day than a lot would in a life time. How is that fair ?
So if I make more t-shirts than somone else i receive more food? that is not equality.
What about a fat person and a skinny person, do they get the same amount of food?

It is Unfair that the royal faimlies have all that moeny, but they didnt get that through capitalism. They charged high taxes for that, they where a monarchy, that right their is not capitalism. And Im not sure, but i think that some tax money in the UK still goes to the royal family, If not, the fact that they ever got money is bad, but they had that system a long time ago so dont blame capitalism.

[redstar2000]

Sora, el profe, D&#39;Anconia, lucid, Captain America...

Did villageidiotforums crash and burn? Where have all these losers come from?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 04:04 AM
Sora, el profe, D&#39;Anconia, lucid, Captain America...

Did villageidiotforums crash and burn? Where have all these losers come from?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
If being successful is your idea of being a loser then I am honored to have the title =]

I guess I can only be your friend if I quit bathing and get a shitty job.

[Maynard]

Are you saying CUba, china and north korea, do have civil liberties and dont oppress people with different views
No, just because I was asking for alink for it rather than accepting what he said at face value, has nothing to do with my beleifs. They do have civil liberties though, they also do oppress others with differnet views, I have no doubt. All governments look to do that.

Just because I asked for a link, does not mean I can&#39;t admit. I am willing to learn but you must also critically evalutae your own nation and other nations you hold &#39;dear" into there record. Wouldn&#39;t you agree ?

I agree with you about them not going to jail though, it&#39;s ludicrous and should be condemned by everyone, if the story is true.Which I have no reason to doubt but like it said, a lot has to do with China&#39;s view of Japan more than anything else.


So if I make more t-shirts than somone else i receive more food? that is not equality.
What about a fat person and a skinny person, do they get the same amount of food?

You have some interesting analogies but no, no one would be allocated "more" people will be free to take what they desire to a limit which is sustainable for everyone;s benefit. So, as scoietys become more innovative or "harder working" then that will allow more goods to be made, benefiting everyone.


It is Unfair that the royal faimlies have all that moeny, but they didnt get that through capitalism
I didn&#39;t mention capiatalism but that is the current day situation in which we live, which is promoted by capiatalists and free marketeers who say unemployed people are just lazy.


And Im not sure, but i think that some tax money in the UK still goes to the royal family, If not, the fact that they ever got money is bad, but they had that system a long time ago so dont blame capitalism.
Yes but your analogy of the harder working getting less should be applied to modern day societys as well as "Communist&#39; societies as well, wouldn&#39;t you say ? Tax money does go to the royal family though, from what I know.

[Sora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 04:04 AM
Sora, el profe, D&#39;Anconia, lucid, Captain America...

Did villageidiotforums crash and burn? Where have all these losers come from?


Because we&#39;re fortunate enough to live in a free, capitalist society, where we can succeed and are free to voice our opinions, similar to the way you are able to voice yours on this forum, we decided to show you what a successful individual looks like. But hey, you live in a capitalist society and can criticize the capitalist way of thinking. I&#39;m sure you&#39;d have the same privledge in a communist country, right? We get all kinds of reports from North Koreans about how great life is over there.

[Maynard]

I know it&#39;s a fun habit to bash communists, it makes you feel good to stick it to the uneducated, unemployed, unbathed, no good son&#39;s of *****es. Fine, keep up the insults but at least insult with some facts, like how North Korea is not a communist country and a "Communist Country&#39; is an oxymoron. Because when you insult with incorrect facts, it loses it&#39;s touch a bit. Just trying to help :)

[Stalinator]

True Communism WAS implemented. Not that weaksauce Hitler socialist shit. I&#39;m talking about true communism under Stalin. And any true communist will agree that it worked well.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I wondered how long it would take for one of you to pose as a Stalinist.

[Sora]

Join date is about 4 days before most of us came here.

And Maynard, just for you, from now on, whenever I mention communist country, I&#39;ll put the communist part in quotations. Good enough?

[Maynard]

Thank you or you could just call it North Korea, either way you&#39;d be doing a better job than the mass media is doing.
It&#39;s also not true that everyone here suports has ever supported the USSR, China, Cuba or North Korea, some however do, for various reasons.
Stalinator is an obvious troll though, whoever is doing it.

North Korean&#39;s do have the internet but only have access to North Korean sites, from what I know. Something I do not agree with at all.

[Valishin]

You people seem to think &#39;society&#39; is something abstract that somehow doesn&#39;t apply to you.
Wrong
You seem to be under the very false impression that society is an entity unto itself. It most certainly is not. Society is nothing more than the logical representation of the ongoing relationships between a group of individuals.


What&#39;s good for society is ultimately good for you&#33;
Says who? What is good for society most certainly might not be good for a given individual within that society.


If you want to be a doctor is a Socialist society, you could go to school for free, while you are in school you can work part time.
And if everyone wants to be a doctor what then?


You would also work less because there is less pressure on making a profit so there is no competition and therefor no need to work as much because you are only fullfiling needs.
Which means less production.


As opposed to the United States, where the homeless and many poor get no bread at all, line or no line.
You have never been to the US have you? The homeless in the US have places to go to get a bed, shower, and meal to help them get back on their feet.


During that time china was one of the top 4 steel producers in the world
That is only partially true. Yes they can produce a lot of steel. But they can only produce a lot of low quality steel they are almost entirely incapable of producing any high quality steel. Even today they have to import high quality steel for cars and other various items that require more reliability from their parts.


Good, you base your value as a human being on what type of work they do ? Garbage man help&#39;s society function just as much as Doctors. Without them, the world would not be a nice place to be
You are correct in that much. Howevr one is considerably more difficult to do.


The problem with communism is quite simple it can only exist in a vaccum. If you have any other alternatives then it simply fails because those who want more for their life than to simply survive based on what "society" says that person needs will take their willingness to work hard or natural talents and will go where they are better benifited by them. So the communist country is left with the people who need someone else to pick-up the extra slack for them but the people who can pull more then their own weight are jumping ship. So that means either the entire world wakes up one day and decides to be communist or a lot of people are going to have to be forced into it. Last I checked that was called slavery.

I have no problem with communism as long as those who don&#39;t want to participate don&#39;t have to and those that do are not being repressed. That unfortunatly is not compatable with the ideology.

This problem is also an issue for socialism but to a smaller degree. Socialism can exist along side alternatives like capitalism but it has a very difficult time striving due to the loss of many of its most talented and hardest workers.

I would like to note, I am not saying that all the good workers would leave either of them, but as has history has shown us it has been a significant number.

[Rasta Sapian]

socialism can not be defined with your global economic terms, it is a system that places more emphysis on maintaining production and distribution within its borders. Lenin was very close to establishing a true communist regime&#33; gotta love that guy :)

socialism would bring those factory jobs leaving north america like the bison back here&#33; eliminating free trade which is exploiting the rest of the world (impirialist pigs&#33;&#33;) and put all the umemployed back to work&#33;
one class, equal, to share the benifits of a weathy society. at the same time keeping a closer eye on natural resources which are more than often overlooked by large corperations, primarily concerned with profits and the market economy&#33;&#33; :huh:

So wake up, and find a new type of beer to swill bro&#33;


peace yall

[LSD]

Allright, a couple of things:

1) A lot of people seem to be missing that under communism people would still work. In a communist society people would still have to work a certain amount per day in their chosen occupation. The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people are not intrinsically lazy and will work if there is a reason to. In a communist society that reason is being able to use and utilize everything that society offers. In capitalism for the majority of people no matter how hard they work they are still limited to very very little.

2) Again on the issue of incentives. There is this bizzare notion that under capitalism people are rewarded for working harder. Nothing could be further from the truth. Capitalism is not meritocratic. The presence of inheritance shows that alone. But in addition, the majority of workers work far harder than those who own the means of production, but we know who lives better. Many succeed because of good looks or because of natural talent, hardly a meritocracy. In a communist society everyone has everything that society can provide already so meritocracy become irrelevent, there is nothing more that anyone could have that wouldn&#39;t require taking from others.

3) As to "communism has never worked," if I were living in 1862 fighting for democracy, what would you argue? Athens had been conquered, Rome had become a dictatorship, France had become monarchic after no less than two revolutions, England&#39;s democracy was subverted by intrinsically ademocratic elements (house of lords etc...) and the United States had fallen into civil war..... What if I was looking at democracy from 1762? 1062???? Repeated failure in implementing a system does not negate the validity of this system unless you can show that such failure stems from an inheritent flaw in the system itself which no one has done.

4) Jobs, jobs jobs.... Do I really need to explain why someone would want to be a doctor rather than a garbage man? Maybe because it is more interesting, more fulfilling, maybe they want to help others? Personally given the choice, I would choose the former. But the point is that some would choose differently and that therefore the wide variety of employments are filled without forcing some into unsatisfying occupations just to survive. But you&#39;re right, everyone cannot hold the same job, so yes there will need to be restrictions on how many can be doctors/foundry workers.... The beauty of communism is that it will be the workers themselves who decide how many can join their ranks as well as control the mechanisms of their field.

5) Production. The argument that there will be less production is clearly wrong. The point of communism is that everybody will be engaged in neccessary work. This means that with every member of society working, there will actually be less work individually. In capitalism a great number of people do not do needed work, they &#39;run&#39; buisnesses or trade in money or own/manage corporations. With everyone working the labour is better devided.

6) Leaving. There are a number of things that need to be addressed here. One, communism is an intrinsically global system, but even if it is within one country it is plausible. Your claim that people will leave, again, assumes that capitalist societies are meritocracies. They are not. In the communist society everything they need will be provided for, if they should leave for a communist nation, there is no guarantee of this, on the contrary despite how hard they work chances are they will do better in their original communist environment than the one you imagine them fleeing to.

7) The mythology of allocation. In a true communist society there is no body &#39;allocating resources&#39;, no one portioning out rations. Every member of the society has access to what the society has. There is no need for &#39;calculation&#39; or bureaucracy. While it is often claimed that in communism it would be difficult if not impossible to properly divide resources, this rests on fundamentally misinformed assumptions. Furthermore, any argument resting on the notion that peole will starve because they are not &#39;given&#39; enough to eat, fails again.

8) Finally, as to the statistics that oppened this thread, I&#39;m sure we all remember the actual value of an average. The fact that the average GDP is high does not speak to the fact that there a few with much and many with little. When you plug into a calculator you end up with a nice looking result, but it is ultimately meaningless.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Sam [email protected] 8 2004, 11:40 PM
"earn less than &#036;1.50 a day"

would you prefer that they get nothing, and starve to death?
Err mate... they do, its called famine and every year thousands die from it, because they cant afford to buy food.

Or does the news pass you by, or do you even get news In america? Is it censored so that you guys wont have to wory what&#39;s being done to other people?

And what I prefer is that they live well with a decent wage... which capitalism denies them. The reason why the USA has such a High GDP and GNP is because they exploit the poor to pamper the rich.

I realise that economics for capitalists, above that elementary level which allows them to count loose change, is challenging, but do try and keep up.

[Invader Zim]

Capitalism doesn&#39;t work, if it did then noone would ever be unemployed and everyone would offer the same wage... but they dont.

Capitalism doesnt work, the very existance of third world proves it.

[JustSoul]

Enigma it does work if you have problems with grasping reality then it&#39;s not my fault. Majority of people clearly likes it , i have yet to see one talented and hard working person supporting communism. Yeah show me one hardworking and sucessfull person wanting communism.

Communism ,just like racism , is a tool for loosers to explain their lack of talent.

[LSD]

Enigma it does work if you have problems with grasping reality then it&#39;s not my fault. Majority of people clearly likes it


Most people supported slavery. It&#39;s called indoctrination.




Communism ,just like racism , is a tool for loosers to explain their lack of talent.


Right, so racism doesn&#39;t exist either........talk about showing off your stupidity....

[redfront]

Capitalism is for the egoistic people (that means the majority of worlds population <_<), but communism referers to the people who can see longer than their own nose.
Basically communism isn&#39;t about money but about humanism, and that&#39;s the reason why you cappies can&#39;t understand communism. All your arguments is about money, and it&#39;s true that a certant group of people would get more money if they were capitalists, but it has a price.
If you can live with the fact that allmost 10&#39;000&#39; children die from starvation a day because of your goverment, then i don&#39;t think that you could even think of open your eyes to communism.

[JustSoul]

Most people supported slavery. It&#39;s called indoctrination.


Yep and when majority became against it only then it was removed.

Right, so racism doesn&#39;t exist either........talk about showing off your stupidity....

Where have i said it doesn&#39;t exist you moron.

If you can live with the fact that allmost 10&#39;000&#39; children die from starvation a day because of your goverment, then i don&#39;t think that you could even think of open your eyes to communism.

Get a brain because you clearly lack any.

[Sabocat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 08:24 AM
Enigma it does work if you have problems with grasping reality then it&#39;s not my fault. Majority of people clearly likes it , i have yet to see one talented and hard working person supporting communism. Yeah show me one hardworking and sucessfull person wanting communism.

Communism ,just like racism , is a tool for loosers to explain their lack of talent.
I own a business with a partner, we are successful, we work hard, and I support Communism 100%.

Now what?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Cool what kind of business?

[LSD]

Yep and when majority became against it only then it was removed.

So....You&#39;re saying that it shouldn&#39;t have been removed sooner??


Where have i said it doesn&#39;t exist you moron.

Well....right here ------&#62; "racism , is a tool for loosers to explain their lack of talent"



Get a brain because you clearly lack any.

Brilliant refutation, really, I&#39;m staggered.

[JustSoul]

So....You&#39;re saying that it shouldn&#39;t have been removed sooner??


Iam saying that it wasn&#39;t possible to remove it sooner. We are living in a real world and not in some dysney dream.

Well....right here ------&#62; "racism , is a tool for loosers to explain their lack of talent

Yes so where exactly do i mention that racism doesn&#39;t exist? I was just questining motives of those racists.

Brilliant refutation, really, I&#39;m staggered.

Thank you very much.

I own a business with a partner, we are successful, we work hard, and I support Communism 100%.

Now what?

First of all how would i know if it&#39;s true? But let&#39;s say it is.

How can you OWN a business and be a communist. Isn&#39;t it against all your moral principles? Why havent you shared it with all your workers ? Unless of course its only 2 of you working and then its not really a big business to start with.

Would be very interesting to hear you elaborate on this subject=)

[Sabocat]

First of all how would i know if it&#39;s true? But let&#39;s say it is.

How can you OWN a business and be a communist. Isn&#39;t it against all your moral principles? Why havent you shared it with all your workers ? Unless of course its only 2 of you working and then its not really a big business to start with.

Would be very interesting to hear you elaborate on this subject=)


Well, other than posting our year end numbers, (which of course I won&#39;t do), you&#39;re just going to have to trust me on it.

As a matter of fact, it is a small buisness with just the two of us. No, it&#39;s not a big business, but we are lucky in that what we do is fairly specialized. Our customers are some of the largest corporations (top 10) in the country that would use our types of services, and we charge a lot of money for it. :lol:

So infrastructure wise, yes we&#39;re very small.

We have also determined that we will not hire and exploit any worker in our business. When we hire, that person will be a partner and share equally. We just haven&#39;t had a real need yet, except in the very busiest of weeks.

[JustSoul]

Not exactly things i was wondering about ;P Let me ask some more.

1) Do you cheat, steal or abuse? As we all know it&#39;s the only way to sucseed in capitalism.

2) What are you so unhappy about in the current situation?

3) Why do you even bother runing a company. As we all know materialistic things are not important for communist suporters.

[Sabocat]

We absolutely do not cheat, steal or abuse. Because of the industry we are dealing with we hold ourselves to a very high ethical standard.

My happiness has nothing to do with the situation the world is in. My desire is for no one to go to sleep at night hungry, for all citizens of society to have a home and a job that personally fulfills them, no matter what that is. For all people to be able to pursue their highest level of education without the need to pay for it. Fro all citizens to have equal right to health care withug the need to pay for it. For no person to have the ability to subjugate or exploit them and their labor in that pursuit.

I run my own company because after 25 years in the workforce, I was tired of making some CEO and corporations wealthy from my efforts.

I am not materialistic, in fact, I&#39;m probably one the most minimalist here. Material possessions with the exception of where I live mean next to nothing to me.

[Rastaman]

Originally posted by Sam [email protected] 8 2004, 11:59 PM
They tried to be communist. They failed.

Because communism cannot work.
communism doesn&#39;t work because there are fuck ups like you living here on this planet

[lucid]

Originally posted by Rastaman+Jan 9 2004, 03:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rastaman @ Jan 9 2004, 03:54 PM)
Sam [email protected] 8 2004, 11:59 PM
They tried to be communist. They failed.

Because communism cannot work.
communism doesn&#39;t work because there are fuck ups like you living here on this planet [/b]
Translation: Because of people like you that work hard and are successfull and THEN commit the SIN of wanting to keep what you worked for &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; You selfish bastard&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[JustSoul]

We absolutely do not cheat, steal or abuse. Because of the industry we are dealing with we hold ourselves to a very high ethical standard.


It was a sarcasm on my part bah;p

My happiness has nothing to do with the situation the world is in. My desire is for no one to go to sleep at night hungry, for all citizens of society to have a home and a job that personally fulfills them, no matter what that is. For all people to be able to pursue their highest level of education without the need to pay for it. Fro all citizens to have equal right to health care withug the need to pay for it. For no person to have the ability to subjugate or exploit them and their labor in that pursuit.


Then you are looking for a socialist state and not communist one. Take a look at Norway or Sweden ... But be ready to pay double in taxes to what you are already paying.

And besides thats an utopia. Do you think anyone wants to work as a janitor? Or prison guard? Or any other sucky job for this matter.

I run my own company because after 25 years in the workforce, I was tired of making some CEO and corporations wealthy from my efforts.


Thats nice but what stops everyone else from doing the same if they want?

I am not materialistic, in fact, I&#39;m probably one the most minimalist here. Material possessions with the exception of where I live mean next to nothing to me.

Why do you work so hard then? Just retire as you have prolly earned enough to live the rest of your life.

[Sabocat]

Then you are looking for a socialist state and not communist one. Take a look at Norway or Sweden ... But be ready to pay double in taxes to what you are already paying.

No, I&#39;m looking for communism. A system that not only would taxes not be necessary, but money either.


Do you think anyone wants to work as a janitor? Or prison guard? Or any other sucky job for this matter.

I think that there will always be people that will do a certain job. The only reason that people don&#39;t actively seek those jobs now is because of the stigma attached to the position. Once there is no class structure and people realize that everyone in the society is equally as important as the next, then people wouldn&#39;t be afraid to take a janitorial job and be looked down upon by the ruling class.


Thats nice but what stops everyone else from doing the same if they want?

Opportunity, capital and education. Things not readily available to a lot of people that would probably be a lot better at what I do if they were given the chance on a level playing field.


Why do you work so hard then? Just retire as you have prolly earned enough to live the rest of your life.

I&#39;m working on it, so that I can pursue "alternate" interests. ;) I&#39;m acually not that far from retirement age anyway. lol.

[LSD]

So....You&#39;re saying that it shouldn&#39;t have been removed sooner??


Iam saying that it wasn&#39;t possible to remove it sooner. We are living in a real world and not in some dysney dream.

That wasn&#39;t the question. Your argument against communism was that it isn&#39;t popular, so since slavery was popular should it have remained in place?


Well....right here ------&#62; "racism , is a tool for loosers to explain their lack of talent

Yes so where exactly do i mention that racism doesn&#39;t exist? I was just questining motives of those racists.

You are comparing communism with racism, which denigrates the real victims of racism by comparing their affliction with an economic/social ideology.



Translation: Because of people like you that work hard and are successfull and THEN commit the SIN of wanting to keep what you worked for &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; You selfish bastard&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;


What about people who "work hard" but get paid shit so that their labour can help support some rich fuck that &#39;inherrited&#39; some businesses and never worked a day in his life? What about workers that have worked harder than practically anyone else in society but just haven&#39;t been &#39;successfull&#39; enough? Screw &#39;em, right?
After all, they&#39;ve worked hard, but THEN commit the SIN of wanting something in return &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Those selfish bastards&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Rastaman]

everyone as best they can. some people can&#39;t do jobs that require hard thinking. so thety become a janitor, policeman, trash collecter etc.

important jobs that are "easy" to do

[JustSoul]

No, I&#39;m looking for communism. A system that not only would taxes not be necessary, but money either.


You never gave a reason why. As i have said all the things you have mentioned are achieved in many European countries. Especially Norway and Sweden.

Apart from no money of course. But you haven&#39;t really described why do you want to get rid of money.

I think that there will always be people that will do a certain job. The only reason that people don&#39;t actively seek those jobs now is because of the stigma attached to the position. Once there is no class structure and people realize that everyone in the society is equally as important as the next, then people wouldn&#39;t be afraid to take a janitorial job and be looked down upon by the ruling class.


We both know you are wrong. I would never ever work as a janitor unless i needed the money badly.

Opportunity, capital and education. Things not readily available to a lot of people that would probably be a lot better at what I do if they were given the chance on a level playing field.


Education is available for everyone. Opportunity ? Everyone can try. Capital ? You can spend first 10 years of your life after college or uni geting this capital.

I&#39;m working on it, so that I can pursue "alternate" interests. I&#39;m acually not that far from retirement age anyway. lol.


Still no reason why are you runing a business. You got enough on your old job. Explain.

[lucid]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 9 2004, 04:28 PM

So....You&#39;re saying that it shouldn&#39;t have been removed sooner??


Iam saying that it wasn&#39;t possible to remove it sooner. We are living in a real world and not in some dysney dream.

That wasn&#39;t the question. Your argument against communism was that it isn&#39;t popular, so since slavery was popular should it have remained in place?


Well....right here ------&#62; "racism , is a tool for loosers to explain their lack of talent

Yes so where exactly do i mention that racism doesn&#39;t exist? I was just questining motives of those racists.

You are comparing communism with racism, which denigrates the real victims of racism by comparing their affliction with an economic/social ideology.



Translation: Because of people like you that work hard and are successfull and THEN commit the SIN of wanting to keep what you worked for &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; You selfish bastard&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;


What about people who "work hard" but get paid shit so that their labour can help support some rich fuck that &#39;inherrited&#39; some businesses and never worked a day in his life? What about workers that have worked harder than practically anyone else in society but just haven&#39;t been &#39;successfull&#39; enough? Screw &#39;em, right?
After all, they&#39;ve worked hard, but THEN commit the SIN of wanting something in return &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Those selfish bastards&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
I never believed the stories I heard about LSD until I started reading this guys stuff. Hey LSD, you didn&#39;t quit taking your meds did you?


"LSD users may manifest relatively long-lasting psychoses, such as schizophrenia or severe depression. It is difficult to determine the extent and mechanism of the LSD involvement in these illnesses."
Quoted from here. (http://www.drugaccess.net/LSD.htm)

[Vinny Rafarino]

What, may I ask, is your age, Comrade Raf?



Not that it is much of your business...however I will bite...I am 35.



Let&#39;s see, now I can expect you to tell me you are....let&#39;s see....uhhhhhhhh....any age over 35....so stop calling you son?

[Sabocat]

You never gave a reason why. As i have said all the things you have mentioned are achieved in many European countries. Especially Norway and Sweden.

Apart from no money of course. But you haven&#39;t really described why do you want to get rid of money.

Those countries that you speak of are Democratic Socialist, and they are becoming more right wing by the day. There are more than a few comrades on this site that live there, that will tell you that while good, they systems is slowing being subverted by right wing politicians.

I want to get rid of money, because without it, it is impossible to enslave people to it.


We both know you are wrong. I would never ever work as a janitor unless i needed the money badly.

I guess we just disagree on this. I still maintain that there will always be people that don&#39;t consider it a menial job and realize that it is important and will do it. In a classless society, everyone would realize how important the job is. There are people that do that job now. There is no reason to believe that they wouldn&#39;t do it in Communist society. If the people had formed a revolution for Communism, you have to believe that they grasp the importance of all jobs, not just the one&#39;s that traditionally were held in high esteem.


Education is available for everyone. Opportunity ? Everyone can try. Capital ? You can spend first 10 years of your life after college or uni geting this capital.

Yes, but what kind of education? Inner city schools because of lack of funding are notoriously bad at providing an education that will help these children develop to their fullest potential. Without a decent education, it is exceedingly difficult to get a job that would either pay for higher education, or allow you to save enough to start your own buisness. On minimum wage, it&#39;s a challenge to even eat or afford any kind of housing let alone the luxuries of a higher education.


Still no reason why are you runing a business. You got enough on your old job. Explain.

No, actually, I didn&#39;t make enough on my old job to retire. The reason I started my own business with my partner is that instead of making some CEO or president money, we decided to actually enjoy the entire fruit of our labor. I keep working because I enjoy my job.

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 04:51 PM
The reason I started my own business with my partner is that instead of making some CEO or president money, we decided to actually enjoy the entire fruit of our labor.
Ok, so your solution to "some CEO or president" getting rich on your labor is to switch to communism. You started your business so you could "enjoy the entire fruit of our labor" but you hate capatalism.

Ok does this sound ass backwards to anyone other than myself?

[JustSoul]

Those countries that you speak of are Democratic Socialist, and they are becoming more right wing by the day. There are more than a few comrades on this site that live there, that will tell you that while good, they systems is slowing being subverted by right wing politicians.

I want to get rid of money, because without it, it is impossible to enslave people to it.


You are messing it up. Austria,Holland - those countries have strong right wing parties and not Sweden or Norway.

It&#39;s impossbile to enslave people without money. Why does it matter so much if it&#39;s money or moneys equivalent in food,cloth etc. Whats the damn difference.

I guess we just disagree on this. I still maintain that there will always be people that don&#39;t consider it a menial job and realize that it is important and will do it. In a classless society, everyone would realize how important the job is. There are people that do that job now. There is no reason to believe that they wouldn&#39;t do it in Communist society. If the people had formed a revolution for Communism, you have to believe that they grasp the importance of all jobs, not just the one&#39;s that traditionally were held in high esteem.


There maybe some fanatics working there but it won&#39;t be enough by a long shot. You do know that a normal ratio of workers to all other kind of jobs should be 3:1. I can bet my money that majority of people would like to do something more fun and less mindboggling then being a worker at a factory.

Yes, but what kind of education? Inner city schools because of lack of funding are notoriously bad at providing an education that will help these children develop to their fullest potential. Without a decent education, it is exceedingly difficult to get a job that would either pay for higher education, or allow you to save enough to start your own buisness. On minimum wage, it&#39;s a challenge to even eat or afford any kind of housing let alone the luxuries of a higher education.


Its hard because it should be hard as i have said people that need a higher education only make up less then a 1/3 of a job market. It&#39;s still possible tho you should just try.

No, actually, I didn&#39;t make enough on my old job to retire. The reason I started my own business with my partner is that instead of making some CEO or president money, we decided to actually enjoy the entire fruit of our labor. I keep working because I enjoy my job.


Let&#39;s skip it=) Its not really that important was just intrested =)


Anyways let sum it up shall we? You are claiming that in a ideal world with unlimited resources it&#39;s possible to run a communist state. Maybe. But real life is much harsher. Of course its better to have free education,free healthcare etc etc. But it&#39;s not possible. You only have that much money or moneys equivalent in resources. Capitalism is the most effective way to run a society with those limited resources.

[Sabocat]

Ok, so your solution to "some CEO or president" getting rich on your labor is to switch to communism. You started your business so you could "enjoy the entire fruit of our labor" but you hate capatalism.

Ok does this sound ass backwards to anyone other than myself?

It wouldn&#39;t sound ass backwards to you if you had any concept of what Communism really is. By not having my labor exploited by a ruling class, while I make a sustenance living. Get it?

And yes, I would like for no one to have their labor exploited. That is what Communism is. That will never happen in a capitalist society.

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 05:05 PM

Ok, so your solution to "some CEO or president" getting rich on your labor is to switch to communism. You started your business so you could "enjoy the entire fruit of our labor" but you hate capatalism.

Ok does this sound ass backwards to anyone other than myself?

It wouldn&#39;t sound ass backwards to you if you had any concept of what Communism really is. By not having my labor exploited by a ruling class, while I make a sustenance living. Get it?

And yes, I would like for no one to have their labor exploited. That is what Communism is. That will never happen in a capitalist society.
But you will be exploiting other peoples labor. You just want to exploit talents instead of the present system which in your mind exploits the talentless.

[LSD]

Jesus Christ, does anyone here understand that capitalism is not meritocracy?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;? The hardest working do not get the greatest reward. The point of communism is to allow the workers to control their own labour, to not be exploited by a rulling class which takes their labour and gives them shit. if you want people to be rewarded for their work, you are not a capitalis.

[Sabocat]

Anyways let sum it up shall we? You are claiming that in a ideal world with unlimited resources it&#39;s possible to run a communist state. Maybe.

There are plenty of resources available on the planet to support it&#39;s population. Having money, or not having money doesn&#39;t alter that. The only other conclusion that I&#39;m able to draw, is that you think that people with money are more entitled to the resources than people without. I&#39;m sure that&#39;s not what you meant. Money is replaced by labor. From each according his ability, to each according their need.


But real life is much harsher.

But it doesn&#39;t have to be. That is what we are proposing. Communism is a humanist theory.


Of course its better to have free education,free healthcare etc etc. But it&#39;s not possible.

It is possible. Cuba and North Korea have free education and healthcare. You can argue ideologies and politics of it&#39;s leaders, but regardless, they do have those things.


You only have that much money or moneys equivalent in resources. Capitalism is the most effective way to run a society with those limited resources.

All that capitalism allows is the appropriation of the labor that provides those things. That means some end up on top, and most end up on the bottom.

[JustSoul]

There are plenty of resources available on the planet to support it&#39;s population. Having money, or not having money doesn&#39;t alter that. The only other conclusion that I&#39;m able to draw, is that you think that people with money are more entitled to the resources than people without. I&#39;m sure that&#39;s not what you meant. Money is replaced by labor. From each according his ability, to each according their need.


I wasnt only talking about natural resources. Work is a resource too. Let&#39;s say we have 3 milliards of people. Each working 10 or 50 hours a week. Its a limited resource and considering people under communism won&#39;t work as hard as under capitalism, it gets even smaller.

I meant that playing semantics does nothing. Changing "money" with equivalent in food,cloth or other items won&#39;t change anything. Hence we use money just because it&#39;s easier this way.

But it doesn&#39;t have to be. That is what we are proposing. Communism is a humanist theory.


In reality people won&#39;t work hard if they don&#39;t have to. And so you "work" resource will be very very limited.

It is possible. Cuba and North Korea have free education and healthcare. You can argue ideologies and politics of it&#39;s leaders, but regardless, they do have those things.


None of those countries have a real free healthcare. They have basic healthcare for free yes. But they won&#39;t do you any operation that inloves costly equipment and medicines. Hence have you ever been to any of this free medicine hospitals? Most of them are lacking basic equipment. BASIC.

All that capitalism allows is the appropriation of the labor that provides those things. That means some end up on top, and most end up on the bottom.


Its called evolution. Talented and/or hardworking deserve more then lazy bums.

[LSD]

I wasnt only talking about natural resources. Work is a resource too. Let&#39;s say we have 3 milliards of people. Each working 10 or 50 hours a week. Its a limited resource and considering people under communism won&#39;t work as hard as under capitalism, it gets even smaller.


assumptions. people will work in communism but more of them will actuall work in neede areas.


n reality people won&#39;t work hard if they don&#39;t have to. And so you "work" resource will be very very limited.

people will still have to work, they&#39;ll just actually get something in return.


None of those countries have a real free healthcare. They have basic healthcare for free yes. But they won&#39;t do you any operation that inloves costly equipment and medicines. Hence have you ever been to any of this free medicine hospitals? Most of them are lacking basic equipment. BASIC.

Come on man, most western countries have free healthcare, the US is the major exception in this area.


Its called evolution. Talented and/or hardworking deserve more then lazy bums.

Social Darwinism?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;? Jesus Christ that&#39;s sad, I didn&#39;t know people like you were still around....

[JustSoul]

assumptions. people will work in communism but more of them will actuall work in neede areas.


Tell me one unneeded area ? If you think of CEOs and managers then don&#39;t forget they hardly make up 2%s of jobs.

people will still have to work, they&#39;ll just actually get something in return.


They would have to spend their time on working place. And that hardly can be considered working in most cases.

Come on man, most western countries have free healthcare, the US is the major exception in this area.


Educate yourself. I can&#39;t think of many countries with a free healthcare that works any good. Maybe apart from Sweden and co.

Social Darwinism?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;? Jesus Christ that&#39;s sad, I didn&#39;t know people like you were still around

They still are and also people like me are a majority. People that live in a real world instead of stupid dreams.

[LSD]

Tell me one unneeded area ? If you think of CEOs and managers then don&#39;t forget they hardly make up 2%s of jobs.

are you serious??? Needed, i.e, neccessary, needed for human society. Advertising is not needed, acting is not needed, polling is not needed, marketing is not needed, computer programming is not needed, how about clothing design or graphics design or label design or toy manufacturing or soft drink bottling..... people can still do such things on their free times (if they want), but they are certainly not needed.


They would have to spend their time on working place. And that hardly can be considered working in most cases.

"spend their time on working place"??, I&#39;m sorry, what?????



Educate yourself. I can&#39;t think of many countries with a free healthcare that works any good. Maybe apart from Sweden and co.

Here, let me summarize what you just said. "I can&#39;t think of any countries with a free healthcare that works except these examples." which means examples exist which means it is possible for "free healthcare [to] work". QED


Social Darwinism?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;? Jesus Christ that&#39;s sad, I didn&#39;t know people like you were still around

They still are and also people like me are a majority. People that live in a real world instead of stupid dreams.

Sorry to tell you but no you aren&#39;t.... most people abandoned social darwinism a long time ago, about the same time they abandoned eugenics.

[JustSoul]

are you serious??? Needed, i.e, neccessary, needed for human society. Advertising is not needed, acting is not needed, polling is not needed, marketing is not needed, computer programming is not needed, how about clothing design or graphics design or label design or toy manufacturing or soft drink bottling..... people can still do such things on their free times (if they want), but they are certainly not needed.


Well then i doubt many people would want to live in such a world. I don&#39;t know about you but all those things are needed for me aside from advertising. If you want to live in a shallow and boring world its fine but dont force everyone.

"spend their time on working place"??, I&#39;m sorry, what?????

You are obviously have no idea how work is going on in non capitalist economics? In USSR majority of people did 2 hours worth of work in the whole working day. They had no motvation to work. Is it a surprise for you anyhow? I won&#39;t call that activity working so instead iam using that term.

Here, let me summarize what you just said. "I can&#39;t think of any countries with a free healthcare that works except these examples." which means examples exist which means it is possible for "free healthcare [to] work". QED


Because all those countries are capitalistic. Doctors there earn a lot of cash even tho its "free". It is not really free because you pay for it with your taxes. And even there many people are unhappy with current situation and the unhapiness is rising. A country with one of the best qualities of life in the world can only support "decent" free healthcare. But decent at best.

Sorry to tell you but no you aren&#39;t.... most people abandoned social darwinism a long time ago, about the same time they abandoned eugenics.

You got me wrong iam not talking about eugenics. I just think that talented and working people should get more rewards then lazy bums. Is it hard?

[LSD]

Well then i doubt many people would want to live in such a world. I don&#39;t know about you but all those things are needed for me aside from advertising. If you want to live in a shallow and boring world its fine but dont force everyone.

The point is that people will be required to do work in an essential service, but with all the free time they will have people will still make toys and build guitars.

By the way, you think Marketing is needed?



You are obviously have no idea how work is going on in non capitalist economics? In USSR majority of people did 2 hours worth of work in the whole working day. They had no motvation to work. Is it a surprise for you anyhow? I won&#39;t call that activity working so instead iam using that term.


1) The USSR was not a communist state, in fact there no such thing as a communist state (communism is intrinsically astatist), 2) again, people will be required to work, 3) the &#39;motivation&#39; is that by working for the society they reap the rewards of all of society, unlike in capitalism where no matter how hard you work, most of your labour bennefits others.


Because all those countries are capitalistic. Doctors there earn a lot of cash even tho its "free". It is not really free because you pay for it with your taxes. And even there many people are unhappy with current situation and the unhapiness is rising. A country with one of the best qualities of life in the world can only support "decent" free healthcare. But decent at best.

If you look at the research countries with socialized medicine are ranked as having the best medical systems in the world. And in terms of monetary economics, it has actually been estimated that Americans pay far more for healthcare than Canadians, despite the healthcare taxes. But in a communist society money is not an issue, medical care is actually free because everything is free. The issue of &#39;paying&#39; doctors does not arise because no one is &#39;payed&#39;. And before you argue that no one would want to be a doctor, think about the fact that many today choose to go into medicine to help others or out of interest. If no job is paying and you have to pick among occupations, many will choose to be doctors.


You got me wrong iam not talking about eugenics. I just think that talented and working people should get more rewards then lazy bums. Is it hard?

So why do you support capitalism?? Explain inheritence. Explain Bill Gates. Explain unemployment. Here&#39;s a mantra for you: CAPITALSIM IS NOT MERITOCRACY, CAPITALISM IS NOT MERITOCRACT

[Valishin]

eliminating free trade which is exploiting the rest of the world (impirialist pigs&#33;&#33;)
Ah so you would rather see all those people overseas have no jobs and stave to death. Man you are cruel.


one class, equal, to share the benifits of a weathy society
Why do you need one class when everyone is benifiting from the progress already?


There is this bizzare notion that under capitalism people are rewarded for working harder.
No they are rewarded for being more productive. If you work hard but don&#39;t produce anything then you get nothing.


Many succeed because of good looks or because of natural talent, hardly a meritocracy.
Merit in the market is defined by the ability to produce a good or service someone desires. If that is directly related to their appearance or talent then why isn&#39;t that a meritocracy?


In a communist society everyone has everything that society can provide already so meritocracy become irrelevent, there is nothing more that anyone could have that wouldn&#39;t require taking from others.
Which puts everyone where? Below average by capitalist standards.


Repeated failure in implementing a system does not negate the validity of this system unless you can show that such failure stems from an inheritent flaw in the system itself which no one has done
I already did that. Communism can&#39;t work unless in a vaccum because by its very nature it needs to hold on to the best and brightest to pull the extra weight for the not so productive. But when there are alternatives then human nature dictates that the best and brightest will take their skills where they get the most benifit for them. Since no system exists in a vaccum then you have the innate failing of communism.


The beauty of communism is that it will be the workers themselves who decide how many can join their ranks as well as control the mechanisms of their field
So you have an built in system of elitists. I thought the idea was that everyone was equal.


The point of communism is that everybody will be engaged in neccessary work.
And if they prefer to just clock in do very little each day and go home collecting the same paycheck as everyone else?


This means that with every member of society working, there will actually be less work individually.
You do realize don&#39;t you that we aren&#39;t dealing with large percentages of unemployeed don&#39;t you? For all intents and purposes people are still going to have to be just as productive as they are now, and they would have to do it on less incentive.



Why then has brain drain been from nearly every country into the US always been a historical fact? You seem to claim an awful lot that capitalism does not reward productivity, that is quite simply not the case. Companies want productivity and they will continue to recruit and better reward the more productive workers.

[quote]The mythology of allocation. In a true communist society there is no body &#39;allocating resources&#39;, no one portioning out rations. Every member of the society has access to what the society has.
And what exaclty keeps the human nature of greed from kicking in and people taking what they want instead of what they need?


And what I prefer is that they live well with a decent wage... which capitalism denies them
It does no such a thing. The cute thing about capitalism is that while living in a capitialist society you are not forced to participate. You are welcome to find your own method of providing what you need for yourself. Just so long as you aren&#39;t hindering the rights of others in the process.


Capitalism doesn&#39;t work, if it did then noone would ever be unemployed and everyone would offer the same wage... but they dont.
Do you even begin to understand the law of supply and demand as well as competition? No unemployed is a noble cause but is more of an issue of trying to minimize it as it can&#39;t be done away with completely. As for the same wages, why on earth would capitalism do such a thing? Capitalism is based on competition. The better you are at what you do the more you are rewarded.


We have also determined that we will not hire and exploit any worker in our business. When we hire, that person will be a partner and share equally. We just haven&#39;t had a real need yet, except in the very busiest of weeks.
So your denying people jobs because of your greed. You can obviously afford to hire workers but you refuse to do so because your optimizing your profits.


I run my own company because after 25 years in the workforce, I was tired of making some CEO and corporations wealthy from my efforts.
Humm sounds very similar to not wanting to give poor people a free ride based on the efforts of the successful.


What about people who "work hard" but get paid shit so that their labour can help support some rich fuck that &#39;inherrited&#39; some businesses and never worked a day in his life?
They are free to sell their services to someone else who will pay what they think it is worth.


Inner city schools because of lack of funding are notoriously bad at providing an education that will help these children develop to their fullest potential.
Yet oddly enough they get more funding per student to educate the kids than private schools bring in per student. So is money really the issue?


And yes, I would like for no one to have their labor exploited. That is what Communism is. That will never happen in a capitalist society.
It is not explotation when your envolvement is completely volunteery.


Jesus Christ, does anyone here understand that capitalism is not meritocracy?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;? The hardest working do not get the greatest reward.
Just to reiterate this. Merit is based on productivity not effort. Those who are the most productive gain the most. And yes owning the means of production and using that means is being productive.


The point of communism is to allow the workers to control their own labour
They already control their own labor in capitialism. They then sell that service to whomever they choose for an agreed upon rate. Of course some people assume their service is worth more than it is, they have a difficult time finding buyers.


assumptions. people will work in communism but more of them will actuall work in neede areas
Who gets to define the needed areas?


Social Darwinism?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;? Jesus Christ that&#39;s sad, I didn&#39;t know people like you were still around....
Like it or not natural selection is the reality of the existance in which we live. It exists in all aspects of our lives, regardless to how politically incorrect uttering such a thing might be. Like it or not we all still seek out mates that are attractive. And for most people success, health, and intelegance are part of that equation.


computer programming is not needed
So in your mind we should all be living as sustanance farmers in the 1700s.


the &#39;motivation&#39; is that by working for the society they reap the rewards of all of society
And if they show up to work and do somewhere between little and nothing? And who gets to monitor this? And who is monitoring the monitors?


And in terms of monetary economics, it has actually been estimated that Americans pay far more for healthcare than Canadians
Of course in america your waiting time for treatment might be as long as a week maybe two if the specialist is on vaction. In Canada you might never get the treatment unless your in critical condition. Of course in the US if your in critical condition you get the treatment regardless of ability to pay.


There are two truths that must be accounted for in any economic system.
1. Humans are greedy
2. Humans are lazy and will do as little as possible while optimizing the benifit recieved.

There are exceptions to every rule but that is fact for the vast majority. That is human nature. And if an economic system cannot take those into account in its practice then it is doomed to failure.

[Sora]

The point is that people will be required to do work in an essential service, but with all the free time they will have people will still make toys and build guitars.

People won&#39;t do these things in their spare time unless there is some sort of reward, and even if they do, it will only be for themselves. It&#39;s human nature.


If you look at the research countries with socialized medicine are ranked as having the best medical systems in the world. And in terms of monetary economics, it has actually been estimated that Americans pay far more for healthcare than Canadians, despite the healthcare taxes. But in a communist society money is not an issue, medical care is actually free because everything is free. The issue of &#39;paying&#39; doctors does not arise because no one is &#39;payed&#39;. And before you argue that no one would want to be a doctor, think about the fact that many today choose to go into medicine to help others or out of interest. If no job is paying and you have to pick among occupations, many will choose to be doctors.

Canadian healthcare isn&#39;t all that great. Refer to my story about the old lady dying of heart problems after waiting 6 hours in the waiting room of the emergency ward of a hospital. Few people would want to be doctors, plus not everyone who wants to be one has the skills and talents required.


So why do you support capitalism?? Explain inheritence. Explain Bill Gates. Explain unemployment. Here&#39;s a mantra for you: CAPITALSIM IS NOT MERITOCRACY, CAPITALISM IS NOT MERITOCRACT

Bill Gates didn&#39;t inherit anything, he made his money basically on his own. Inheritence is passing down from a generation to another; some pass down an old grandmother&#39;s necklace, some pass down money. As for unemployment, there are many who choose not to work and leech off the welfare system.

COMRADE RAF:


Not that it is much of your business...however I will bite...I am 35.

I was only curious as to the age of some of the people here. Call me son all you want.

[LSD]

Ah so you would rather see all those people overseas have no jobs and stave to death. Man you are cruel.


Originally posted by The Guardian 11 October 2003

Globalization, say the authors, has partly caused and greatly exacerbated the perilous social and physical condition of slum dwellers. While the liberalization of all economies may have offered opportunities for a few entrepreneurs and for cities to act in their own right, the report says that the new insecurities that globalization has created are legion, with barely any benefits going to the poor.

In the past decade — the period of the greatest wealth creation in history, and the largest growth in cities ever recorded — the rich have gained and the poor have lost. Some developing countries would have done better to stay out of the globalization process altogether if they had the interests of their own people in mind, it hazards.

The authors argue that the few benefits going to the slum dwellers have been far outweighed by the disadvantages. They’ve lost jobs, seen their land grabbed by the rich, pay more for privatized basic services, their social cohesion has been damaged and none of the wealth accumulated by the few has “trickled down”. In cities like Dhaka, Bangladesh, the slum dwellers range from established communities — which have been living in the city center for decades — to thousands of newcomers living in squatter settlements, set up on waste ground or on rubbish dumps. All may be moved on by the city authorities or private sector landlords. Tens of thousands of people moved when trade protection barriers were pulled down, making cotton or rice growing unprofitable. Many more have been displaced by the global shrimp industry which has taken over vast tracts of former rice land.


Why do you need one class when everyone is benifiting from the progress already?

Everyone?? Are you denying the existence of poverty and homelessness under capitalism?


No they are rewarded for being more productive. If you work hard but don&#39;t produce anything then you get nothing.

Call it what you wish, this is mere mythology. In physical terms, a steel miner producers, an artisan produces. The claim that a CEO produces &#39;wealth&#39; is more mythology. Besides beyond that if I inherit my wealth, what have I produced?


Merit in the market is defined by the ability to produce a good or service someone desires. If that is directly related to their appearance or talent then why isn&#39;t that a meritocracy?

Because the &#39;market&#39; is hardly a fair gage of anything. Merit needs to be judged from an objective perspective. (If you don&#39;t see why this is, think about it this way, we are arguing about whether or not capitalism is a meritocracy. The argument that in capitalism the wealthiest are considered the most deserving is redundent, it&#39;s like saying that in neopotism one&#39;s relatives are considered the most deserving, but no one would claim nepotism is meritocratic.) Objectively, one&#39;s looks do not aid society in any way, do not constitute hard work, and do not demonstrate any effort or labour on one&#39;s behalf to do either.



In a communist society everyone has everything that society can provide already so meritocracy become irrelevent, there is nothing more that anyone could have that wouldn&#39;t require taking from others.
Which puts everyone where? Below average by capitalist standards.

Actually no. Think about what average means. Since I assume you mean the mean lifestyle, then actually the maximum potential lifestyle available is by definition exactly the same as the current average. It would mean taking from a select few and giving to many many more.


Communism can&#39;t work unless in a vaccum because by its very nature it needs to hold on to the best and brightest to pull the extra weight for the not so productive. But when there are alternatives then human nature dictates that the best and brightest will take their skills where they get the most benifit for them. Since no system exists in a vaccum then you have the innate failing of communism.

1) The point of communism is that everyone would produce the same amount, there won&#39;t be &#39;not so productive&#39;, those not capable in certain fields will join others. 2) your assumptions about &#39;human nature&#39; are unfounded and besides many talented/able people do not succeed under capitalism despite your claims, therefore they are actually better within communism. 3) your claim would imply that no system could exist that is more socialist than any other system. By your logic, every single doctor from Canada should of gone south because they can get paid more. Surprise&#33; most haven&#39;t.



The beauty of communism is that it will be the workers themselves who decide how many can join their ranks as well as control the mechanisms of their field
So you have an built in system of elitists. I thought the idea was that everyone was equal.

I think you missed the point, all the workers will control their work, every member of society is a worker, where is the elite?


And if they prefer to just clock in do very little each day and go home collecting the same paycheck as everyone else?

1) there fellow workers will notice and require them to work as hard as they do, 2) most of human behavior is not legally mandated it is social. In communist society it would be socially (in an unofficial sense) inacceptable to not work, a social taboo, that is something far stronger than any law...


You do realize don&#39;t you that we aren&#39;t dealing with large percentages of unemployeed don&#39;t you? For all intents and purposes people are still going to have to be just as productive as they are now, and they would have to do it on less incentive.

I&#39;m not talking about the unemployed, I&#39;m talking about those currently employed in unnescessary occupations, e.g, advertising, athletic shoe design... with all of them working on essential services, the requisite time will decrease.


Why then has brain drain been from nearly every country into the US always been a historical fact? You seem to claim an awful lot that capitalism does not reward productivity, that is quite simply not the case. Companies want productivity and they will continue to recruit and better reward the more productive workers.

The &#39;brain drain&#39; is a trickle compared with how many choose to stay in their respective countries. There are some who are so desperate for personal gain that they will run to the US, they are the minority and will remain so.


And what exaclty keeps the human nature of greed from kicking in and people taking what they want instead of what they need?

People aren&#39;t taking anything, they&#39;re using it. if you mean food, there&#39;s only so much someone can realistically eat, if you mean, say, a 50 inch plasma screen, everything is communally owned so everyone has equal use to it, you can cart in the back of a truck to your farm, but it doesn&#39;t become yours.


It does no such a thing. The cute thing about capitalism is that while living in a capitialist society you are not forced to participate. You are welcome to find your own method of providing what you need for yourself. Just so long as you aren&#39;t hindering the rights of others in the process.

Hardly&#33;&#33; You still have to pay taxes to the government, buy/rent a house, buy/rent land or foor etc......


Do you even begin to understand the law of supply and demand as well as competition? No unemployed is a noble cause but is more of an issue of trying to minimize it as it can&#39;t be done away with completely. As for the same wages, why on earth would capitalism do such a thing? Capitalism is based on competition. The better you are at what you do the more you are rewarded.

You know what? You&#39;re right, capitalism is intrinsically unjust, fine, we agree, now let&#39;s replace it with something that isn&#39;t.


They are free to sell their services to someone else who will pay what they think it is worth.

No they aren&#39;t. They can either take the job or they can starve. Exactly how many jobs do you think are available?


Yet oddly enough they get more funding per student to educate the kids than private schools bring in per student. So is money really the issue?

yes money is the issue, so is that their parents can&#39;t get decent jobs, or that the government won&#39;t deal with crime in the areas. Or that so many of them are desperate that they are forced to steal and rob to live. There are many issues afflicting inner cities, most of them can be traced back to capitalism.


It is not explotation when your envolvement is completely volunteery.

It isn&#39;t voluntary when there is no other choice.


Just to reiterate this. Merit is based on productivity not effort. Those who are the most productive gain the most. And yes owning the means of production and using that means is being productive.

I feel like I&#39;ve covered this already. You can&#39;t determine if something is meritocrartic by judging it with its own standards (take my example of nepotism above for example) you need to look at it from without. From that perspective, &#39;production&#39; means actual production. The owner of the company is not being productive it is being &#39;productive&#39; from a capitalistic perspective, which means using other people&#39;s labour.


They already control their own labor in capitialism. They then sell that service to whomever they choose for an agreed upon rate. Of course some people assume their service is worth more than it is, they have a difficult time finding buyers.

Bullshit. If there is only one job available in my field, or, say, two that pay the same, exactly what are my options?



assumptions. people will work in communism but more of them will actuall work in neede areas
Who gets to define the needed areas?

Society, the collective, every member of society together.


Like it or not natural selection is the reality of the existance in which we live. It exists in all aspects of our lives, regardless to how politically incorrect uttering such a thing might be. Like it or not we all still seek out mates that are attractive. And for most people success, health, and intelegance are part of that equation.

Society should not be based on biology. Do you think that the "healthy and intelligent" should then rule us all politically, after all they are, by your reckoning, "more evolved"?


So in your mind we should all be living as sustanance farmers in the 1700s.

Yes, that&#39;s exactly what I&#39;m saying....of course not......people will still have time to computer program and computer design on their free time, of which they&#39;ll have much, it just will not be a mandatory occupation (such as, say, medecine).


And if they show up to work and do somewhere between little and nothing? And who gets to monitor this? And who is monitoring the monitors?

I&#39;ve already answered this, the workers will moniter their fellow workers, and what motivation would the collective of workers have to protect one who is not doing his share?


Of course in america your waiting time for treatment might be as long as a week maybe two if the specialist is on vaction. In Canada you might never get the treatment unless your in critical condition. Of course in the US if your in critical condition you get the treatment regardless of ability to pay.

What about the third of Americans with no health insurance. They aren&#39;t waiting a week, they&#39;re just not getting treated. Personally I would rather wait a month for surgery than have no shot of ever getting it.


There are two truths that must be accounted for in any economic system.
1. Humans are greedy
2. Humans are lazy and will do as little as possible while optimizing the benifit recieved.

Assumptions. And even if they are correct (which I do not concede), communism is still a superior option. Under capitalism as you have admitted, hard work does not equate success, under communism everyone works less and recieves more. Therefore which system takes advantage of your second assumption????

Jesus, that&#39;s a lot of writing, I hope you read the whole damn thing....

[LSD]

People won&#39;t do these things in their spare time unless there is some sort of reward, and even if they do, it will only be for themselves. It&#39;s human nature.

That&#39;s crap. You think every musician is out for profit? What about artists or painters. Many people do things for a love of the craft.



Canadian healthcare isn&#39;t all that great. Refer to my story about the old lady dying of heart problems after waiting 6 hours in the waiting room of the emergency ward of a hospital. Few people would want to be doctors, plus not everyone who wants to be one has the skills and talents require

No it&#39;s not, French, for example (also socialized), is better. So what? it&#39;s still far better than the US, where a significant number have no health insurance and therefore instead of waiting 6 hours, never get treated at all.


Bill Gates didn&#39;t inherit anything, he made his money basically on his own.

Bill Gates inherited a great deal. His grandfather was the vice president of a nation bank, and his father was a prominent lawyer. For university he went to Harvard, but that wasn&#39;t my point. After he dropped out, he made his money by buying from one guy and selling it to another. He is an example of how you can be successful in capitalism without having produced anything and without having created anthing.


Inheritence is passing down from a generation to another; some pass down an old grandmother&#39;s necklace, some pass down money.

Don&#39;t evade the point. If I inherit 100 million dollars from my father, I never have to work. Despite my talents or lack thereof, despite my abilities or lack thereof, I will not ever have to work. Here&#39;s a quote: "I just think that talented and working people should get more rewards then lazy bums. Is it hard?" Now who&#39;s lazier, the guy who inherited 100 million, or some foundry worker making 15000 a year?


As for unemployment, there are many who choose not to work and leech off the welfare system.

Not that many. With all the recent cuts, welfare doesn&#39; pay much, and not for very long. Plus more and more are being exluded from qualifying....

[JustSoul]

The point is that people will be required to do work in an essential service, but with all the free time they will have people will still make toys and build guitars.

For me it is an essential service. People doing all those things for a hobby won&#39;t be as good as professionals and there won&#39;t be enough of them. It is a damn fact.

By the way, you think Marketing is needed?

Of course. Saves you time from producing unneeded things.

1) The USSR was not a communist state, in fact there no such thing as a communist state (communism is intrinsically astatist), 2) again, people will be required to work, 3) the &#39;motivation&#39; is that by working for the society they reap the rewards of all of society, unlike in capitalism where no matter how hard you work, most of your labour bennefits others.


1) True but the wage wasn&#39;t based on work done. It was based on position and time spend on the working place only. 2) Required? How are you going to force me. Here iam at my working place simulating work. So what if i have no results. Sorry iam just untalented i can&#39;t do better. 3) Who have told you that people would consider it a motivation? Want a news flash. Majority of people don&#39;t give a crap about benefits for the society. And please quit your "in capitalism all my work gets riped by others" bullshit. Even kids do not believe this stuff today.

If you look at the research countries with socialized medicine are ranked as having the best medical systems in the world. And in terms of monetary economics, it has actually been estimated that Americans pay far more for healthcare than Canadians, despite the healthcare taxes. But in a communist society money is not an issue, medical care is actually free because everything is free. The issue of &#39;paying&#39; doctors does not arise because no one is &#39;payed&#39;. And before you argue that no one would want to be a doctor, think about the fact that many today choose to go into medicine to help others or out of interest. If no job is paying and you have to pick among occupations, many will choose to be doctors.


Yes i have actually looked at them. And no countries with free healthcare do not have best medicine. Infact in all of those countries unrest about the medicine is just growing.

There are not enough doctors as is. And in communism there will be even less and thats defenitly not enough.

So why do you support capitalism?? Explain inheritence. Explain Bill Gates. Explain unemployment.

Inhertence is good. If i work my ass off and earn some cash i sure as hell want my kids to benefit from it.

Bill Gates is a genius. He built an empire from the scratch.

Unemployment is a needed element of economics. And there is welfare for those who are in trouble at the moment.

[LSD]

For me it is an essential service. People doing all those things for a hobby won&#39;t be as good as professionals and there won&#39;t be enough of them. It is a damn fact.

You&#39;ll have to define proffesional. Someone who has been making guitars for 40 years and who loves it and does it as an art versus an assembly line, which would you trust more?


Required? How are you going to force me. Here iam at my working place simulating work. So what if i have no results. Sorry iam just untalented i can&#39;t do better.

Of course it depends on the field in which you&#39;re in, but your fellow workes can tell if you are working or not. Plus you are ignoring the social elements. Social pressure is far more powerfull than any law or economic structure. Within this community it will be a social taboo to not work, a fundamental breaking of social mores, you&#39;d be surprise how powerfull that is. Besides watch me ask you the same question, what if i &#39;simulate&#39; work under capitalism, who would know? I think that fellow workers in an industry are a better judge than the &#39;owner&#39; or his lackeys.


Who have told you that people would consider it a motivation? Want a news flash. Majority of people don&#39;t give a crap about benefits for the society.

1) most people care about their societies/communities, how else do you explain patriotism. How do you explain people choosing to join the military? most people care about something outside themselves, if you can&#39;t understand that I pitty you.
2) the point is also that they bennefit themselves also. By working in that society they gain far more than under capitalism.


And please quit your "in capitalism all my work gets riped by others" bullshit. Even kids do not believe this stuff today.

Do you know what German children in 1937 though??? What kids believe or do not believe is irrelevent, the fact remains that the majority of the value of the labour of workers does not go back to them. It doesn&#39;t matter how hard they work, most of their value goes to the poeple who &#39;own&#39; and &#39;trade&#39; in meaningless capitalist monetary exchanges.


Yes i have actually looked at them. And no countries with free healthcare do not have best medicine. Infact in all of those countries unrest about the medicine is just growing.

There are not enough doctors as is. And in communism there will be even less and thats defenitly not enough.

um.....let&#39;s look at some numbers shall we:


Life Expectancy (years):
Men Women
Japan 76.2 82.5
France 72.9 81.3
Switzerland 74.1 81.3
Netherlands 73.7 80.5
Sweden 74.2 80.4
Canada 73.4 80.3
Norway 73.1 79.7
Germany 72.6 79.2
Finland 70.7 78.8
United States 71.6 78.6
United Kingdom 72.7 78.2
Denmark 72.2 77.9
Infant Mortality Rate (per 1,000 live births):
United States 10.4
United Kingdom 9.4
Germany 8.5
Denmark 8.1
Canada 7.9
Norway 7.9
Netherlands 7.8
Switzerland 6.8
Finland 5.9
Sweden 5.9
Japan 5.0

Death rate of 1-to-4 year olds (per community of 200,000 per year):
United States 101.5
Japan 92.2
Norway 90.2
Denmark 85.1
France 84.9
United Kingdom 82.2
Canada 82.1
Netherlands 80.3
Germany 77.6
Switzerland 72.5
Sweden 64.7
Finland 53.3

Death rate of 15-to-24 year olds (per community of 200,000 per year):
United States 203
Switzerland 175
Canada 161
France 156
Finland 154
Norway 128
Germany 122
Denmark 120
United Kingdom 114
Sweden 109
Japan 96
Netherlands 90

Note: the murder rate for the above age group is 48.8 per 200,000. Even
subtracting this entirely still puts the U.S. near the top of the list.

Premature Death (years of life lost before the age of 64 per 100 people):
United States 5.8 years
Denmark 4.9
Finland 4.8
Canada 4.5
Germany 4.5
United Kingdom 4.4
Norway 4.3
Switzerland 4.1
Netherlands 4.0
Sweden 3.8
Japan 3.3

Yup...best in the world allright....


Inhertence is good. If i work my ass off and earn some cash i sure as hell want my kids to benefit from it.

Youre avoiding the point. If I inherit millions and never work I live better than someone who works their ass off every day and never makes more than 15000 a year. Doesn&#39;t that undermine your claim that capitalism is a meritocracy?


Bill Gates is a genius. He built an empire from the scratch.

Bill Gates bought and sold, bought and sold, bought and sold. He created nothing, he produced nothng.


Unemployment is a needed element of economics.

Tell that to the man whos children are starving because he can&#39;t find a job.


And there is welfare for those who are in trouble at the moment.

not much of it and not for many.

[JustSoul]

You&#39;ll have to define proffesional. Someone who has been making guitars for 40 years and who loves it and does it as an art versus an assembly line, which would you trust more?


I would trust the guy more. But there won&#39;t be enough people making guitars or any other things for that matter. Do you really believe that someone doing it for a hobby can compete with corporations making money on those things?

Of course it depends on the field in which you&#39;re in, but your fellow workes can tell if you are working or not. Plus you are ignoring the social elements. Social pressure is far more powerfull than any law or economic structure. Within this community it will be a social taboo to not work, a fundamental breaking of social mores, you&#39;d be surprise how powerfull that is. Besides watch me ask you the same question, what if i &#39;simulate&#39; work under capitalism, who would know? I think that fellow workers in an industry are a better judge than the &#39;owner&#39; or his lackeys

Working with motvation and working without motivation are two exactly different things. Someone working with motivation can be twice as effective. Also what stops all of the people iam working with to start simulating too? USSR had laws against simulating yet people were still doing it. Majority of people were doing it. If you think you can solve this problem you are being very naive here.

1) most people care about their societies/communities, how else do you explain patriotism. How do you explain people choosing to join the military? most people care about something outside themselves, if you can&#39;t understand that I pitty you.
2) the point is also that they bennefit themselves also. By working in that society they gain far more than under capitalism.


Pitty me whatever you want but it doesnt change the fact. Of course majority of people do care about society , but defenitly not enough. It doesnt even come close to caring about yourself.

I dont get it? Why would they gain more. They will get nothing actually.

Do you know what German children in 1937 though??? What kids believe or do not believe is irrelevent, the fact remains that the majority of the value of the labour of workers does not go back to them. It doesn&#39;t matter how hard they work, most of their value goes to the poeple who &#39;own&#39; and &#39;trade&#39; in meaningless capitalist monetary exchanges

Yes it does. Stop dreaming. Iam tired of those stupid rhetoric with nothing to back it up.

um.....let&#39;s look at some numbers shall we:

What does it have to do with quality of medicine at all? It would be better to count number of expensive operations done or number of hard operations done. Life expentacy , mortality rate etc has more to do with genetics and enviroment then with medicine. Oh and look Japan is on top of the list i guess thats because they have free medicine right?

Youre avoiding the point. If I inherit millions and never work I live better than someone who works their ass off every day and never makes more than 15000 a year. Doesn&#39;t that undermine your claim that capitalism is a meritocracy?


I have never claimed it is really. All i have said that talented and hard working will sucseed no matter in what family they were born. Yeah he can inherit millions and live happily , but what is wrong with that?

Bill Gates bought and sold, bought and sold, bought and sold. He created nothing, he produced nothng

And what is wrong with that? He have earned everything with his "brains" . He is a very very talented man and should be rewarded.

Tell that to the man whos children are starving because he can&#39;t find a job.


If you can&#39;t provide a family with food then dont have chilndred. Not that hard? Besides as i have said there is welfare for those.

not much of it and not for many.

Enough to live and for everyone who deserves it.

[Sora]

That&#39;s crap. You think every musician is out for profit? What about artists or painters. Many people do things for a love of the craft.

Musicians, painters, artists; these are not jobs like doctors, lawyers, architects. Why say that everyone will work without profit, and then list completely different jobs than the profession you were arguing about in the first place?


No it&#39;s not, French, for example (also socialized), is better. So what? it&#39;s still far better than the US, where a significant number have no health insurance and therefore instead of waiting 6 hours, never get treated at all.

A lot of those without health insurance gamble by not buying it. Many can afford it, they just choose not to pay for it. Rather unintelligent, but that&#39;s their choice.


Bill Gates inherited a great deal. His grandfather was the vice president of a nation bank, and his father was a prominent lawyer. For university he went to Harvard, but that wasn&#39;t my point. After he dropped out, he made his money by buying from one guy and selling it to another. He is an example of how you can be successful in capitalism without having produced anything and without having created anthing.

Bill Gates developed too. He didn&#39;t just buy and sell, he developed a product, which he sold. He added to his profits by buying and selling. He&#39;s a smart guy, and is being rewarded for his intelligence. Under your prefered system, all of his intelligence would be wasted.


Don&#39;t evade the point. If I inherit 100 million dollars from my father, I never have to work. Despite my talents or lack thereof, despite my abilities or lack thereof, I will not ever have to work. Here&#39;s a quote: "I just think that talented and working people should get more rewards then lazy bums. Is it hard?" Now who&#39;s lazier, the guy who inherited 100 million, or some foundry worker making 15000 a year?

Capitalism is not a meritocracy, I agree. But just as you are living in the country you live in now because of the work of your ancestors, the people who inherit money are living the way they do because of the work of their ancestors. Despite capitalism not being a meritocracy, it is still possible to come from nothing and become successful.


Not that many. With all the recent cuts, welfare doesn&#39; pay much, and not for very long. Plus more and more are being exluded from qualifying....

Come to Canada. It&#39;s easy to get on welfare.

[LSD]

Musicians, painters, artists; these are not jobs like doctors, lawyers, architects. Why say that everyone will work without profit, and then list completely different jobs than the profession you were arguing about in the first place?

Because those are jobs which demonstrate the point in current society. You don&#39;t think there are doctors who do it for the love of it. In a society in which you can choose between any job, many would choose medicine even without financial incentive.


A lot of those without health insurance gamble by not buying it. Many can afford it, they just choose not to pay for it. Rather unintelligent, but that&#39;s their choice.

But most who don&#39;t have it, cannot afford it.


Bill Gates developed too. He didn&#39;t just buy and sell, he developed a product, which he sold. He added to his profits by buying and selling. He&#39;s a smart guy, and is being rewarded for his intelligence. Under your prefered system, all of his intelligence would be wasted.

Bill Gates himself developped nothing, he just bought and sold. His intelligence would not be &#39;wasted&#39;, he could still help society on his own time. I would argue that his intelligence has been wasted by capitalism. It has gone into a useless company that provides very little.


Capitalism is not a meritocracy, I agree. But just as you are living in the country you live in now because of the work of your ancestors, the people who inherit money are living the way they do because of the work of their ancestors. Despite capitalism not being a meritocracy, it is still possible to come from nothing and become successful.

possible, but very very difficult. In communism, everyone is already &#39;successful&#39; in the sense that they have everything they can have.


Come to Canada. It&#39;s easy to get on welfare.

It won&#39;t be for long (paul martin&#39;s comming)

[Sora]

It won&#39;t be for long (paul martin&#39;s comming)

And I&#39;m very glad about that.

[Captain America]

"Ahhh...I haven&#39;t shot a homeless person but where is any evidence for this ? have you any?"

Refer back to the statment about Russia. And you are an idiot to say that the USSR doesn&#39;t or didn&#39;t represent communism. The USSR lead the communist movement from the start.

[Valishin]

Everyone?? Are you denying the existence of poverty and homelessness under capitalism?
I said everyone benifits. Didn&#39;t say these groups don&#39;t exists. Their quality of life isn&#39;t increasing as fast as the rich that might be true, but they are benifiting none the less.


In physical terms, a steel miner producers, an artisan produces. The claim that a CEO produces &#39;wealth&#39; is more mythology.
Steel miners actually get paid pretty well. An artist produces IF his art is something someone wants. Otherwise he isn&#39;t being productive. As for the CEO, do you begin to fathom how much work a CEO does and how valuable he is to a company? His contacts alone are enough to justify his salary. The fact of the matter is that CEOs get things done. They make deals that other people could not make. They are organize, plan, and obtain needed resources. True they aren&#39;t in the pits working back breaking labor. But that does not mean they are not contributing to the end product.


Besides beyond that if I inherit my wealth, what have I produced?
You haven&#39;t that is true but someone did. And what is so wrong with someone scaraficing the benifits of his efforts for the sake of someone else of their choosing? We call it charity when they do so for people they don&#39;t know. But somehow when they do so for their family it is evil.


Merit needs to be judged from an objective perspective
It is. It is judged based on how much someone else is willing to give up to obtain that service or product. The market doesn&#39;t make this determination the consumers do. The market is just the mechanism they use to make the trade.


one&#39;s looks do not aid society in any way
If it is providing something an individual wants than that aids society. Society is not a creature unto itself. Society is the representation of the relationship of a group of individuals. What benifits and individual benifits society.


Actually no. Think about what average means. Since I assume you mean the mean lifestyle, then actually the maximum potential lifestyle available is by definition exactly the same as the current average. It would mean taking from a select few and giving to many many more
Which destroys the reason for the select few to continue to output more than their bare neccessity. Meaning you don&#39;t have people making up the difference for those unable to carry their own weight.


The point of communism is that everyone would produce the same amount
So everyone is producing the bare minimum how is that benifitual?


your claim would imply that no system could exist that is more socialist than any other system.
Not that they can&#39;t exist but that they are as benifitial. Socialism can exist because it understands that human nature must be taken into account. They just do it to a lesser degree with slows down their progress. Communism however goes against human nature.


your assumptions about &#39;human nature&#39; are unfounded
So your saying humans are not naturally greedy and lazy?


I think you missed the point, all the workers will control their work, every member of society is a worker, where is the elite?
The ones getting to decide who gets to do the desirable jobs and who doesn&#39;t. Contrary to the belief of some, people don&#39;t want to not be garbage workers not because of prestige but because quite frankly there is nothing interesting about the job and you have to spend all day smelling garbage.


there fellow workers will notice and require them to work as hard as they do
And this is enforced how?


a social taboo, that is something far stronger than any law
Which of course is why premartial sex is so rare. Not to mention homosexuality.


I&#39;m talking about those currently employed in unnescessary occupations
Again who gets to determine what is unneccessary?


The &#39;brain drain&#39; is a trickle compared with how many choose to stay in their respective countries. There are some who are so desperate for personal gain that they will run to the US, they are the minority and will remain so.
Is it a matter of choice or because they aren&#39;t being allowed to? You better hope your right. Because human nature seems to work against your logic.


if you mean, say, a 50 inch plasma screen, everything is communally owned so everyone has equal use to it
So now everyone and their brother can just walk into the home my family lives in and watch the TV? Man that&#39;s going to suck at 3 AM when they start partying while my kids are trying to sleep.


you can cart in the back of a truck to your farm, but it doesn&#39;t become yours.
Oh so I am going to come home from work and my TV is gone because someone else wanted it?

Man we are going to be living with Kinder.


Hardly&#33;&#33; You still have to pay taxes to the government, buy/rent a house, buy/rent land or foor etc......
There are ways around the tax issue for those that want to go to that excess. But hay your wanting to not participate so food, heat, etc... are your problem to provide.


No they aren&#39;t. They can either take the job or they can starve. Exactly how many jobs do you think are available?
It is up to that individual to convince someone purchase his service/product. Which by the way is why marketing is a needed task.


It isn&#39;t voluntary when there is no other choice.
You always have a choice. You can always start your own company providing a needed service. Or choose a different line of work if that company is the only one who needs that service.


The owner of the company is not being productive it is being &#39;productive&#39; from a capitalistic perspective, which means using other people&#39;s labour.
The owner of the company is providing needed resources and ideas as part of the production. And depending on if he is also part of management he is also doing additional tasks such as getting buyers for the product/service.


Bullshit. If there is only one job available in my field, or, say, two that pay the same, exactly what are my options?
Change fields, it seems you may be one of those people assuming your efforts are more valuable than they really are. It is basic supply and demand.


Society, the collective, every member of society together.
This occurs how?


Society should not be based on biology. Do you think that the "healthy and intelligent" should then rule us all politically, after all they are, by your reckoning, "more evolved"?
If we choose them of our own free will then by all means. If we desire something else then that too is natural selection.


Yes, that&#39;s exactly what I&#39;m saying....of course not......people will still have time to computer program and computer design on their free time, of which they&#39;ll have much, it just will not be a mandatory occupation (such as, say, medecine)
So basicly there will be no computer programs that are more complicated than what a single individual can write on their own? Which means no advances in robotics to perform menial and dangerious labor. Little if any research advancements as researchers are all working seperately on their own funding. Oh wait they don&#39;t have funding because they only get the basics of what they need to survive.


under communism everyone works less and recieves more
Where do you get this idea? Your still assuming the people who are highly productive are going to remain that way after taking away the incentive to do so.


So what? it&#39;s still far better than the US, where a significant number have no health insurance and therefore instead of waiting 6 hours, never get treated at all.
If they need emergancy treatment they cannot be denied regardless of ability to pay. That is the law in the US.


You don&#39;t think there are doctors who do it for the love of it.
Sure there are, but how many would there be without the rewards? Even some of the for the love of it crowd wouldn&#39;t be there with all the preasures of that job.


But most who don&#39;t have it, cannot afford it.Actually most can afford it, they just choose not too. They would rather have TVs, VCRs, Computers, Microwaves, second car, and eat out twice a week.


Bill Gates himself developped nothing
That is a blaten lie. He was one of the lead developers for the original versions of Windows up until Win95. Dos he purchased the rights too that much is true. But the GUI interface that went along with it aka windows Bill worked on after taking the idea from Apple who got the idea from Zerox when they created the mouse.


It has gone into a useless company that provides very little.
You are aware are you not that without Microsoft computers would still be the sole realm of the "geeks". Microsoft made it affordable and viable for everyone to learn. Apple tried but screwed up by keeping everything priced to high and not willing to share information with software producers until it was too late.

[LSD]

Allright, here we go.....

VALISHIN:



I said everyone benifits. Didn&#39;t say these groups [poor and homeless] don&#39;t exists. Their quality of life isn&#39;t increasing as fast as the rich that might be true, but they are benifiting none the less.


"Quality of life"?? we are talking about starving freezing dying . Exactly how are the "benifiting" from capitalism?




Steel miners actually get paid pretty well. An artist produces IF his art is something someone wants. Otherwise he isn&#39;t being productive. As for the CEO, do you begin to fathom how much work a CEO does and how valuable he is to a company? His contacts alone are enough to justify his salary. The fact of the matter is that CEOs get things done. They make deals that other people could not make. They are organize, plan, and obtain needed resources. True they aren&#39;t in the pits working back breaking labor. But that does not mean they are not contributing to the end product.

It is. It is judged based on how much someone else is willing to give up to obtain that service or product. The market doesn&#39;t make this determination the consumers do. The market is just the mechanism they use to make the trade.

If it is providing something an individual wants than that aids society. Society is not a creature unto itself. Society is the representation of the relationship of a group of individuals. What benifits and individual benifits society.

The owner of the company is providing needed resources and ideas as part of the production. And depending on if he is also part of management he is also doing additional tasks such as getting buyers for the product/service.

ok......again.......to judge if a system is meritocratic you have to look from outside of the system iteslf. Merit: (noun) Demonstrated ability or achievement. From outside of capitalism, a stock broker has neither, Keannu Reeves has neither. You are looking at it from a capitalistic perspective while trying to defend capitalism&#33;&#33; That CEO has not produced pr created anything. the artisan created by the definition of the word if he made something new, it is only from within a capitalist framework that creation is only creation if the &#39;market&#39; approves. "his contracts along are enough to justify his salary." Paper. Signed pieces of paper with words. Paper that usualy is of no value to anyone outside of the little economic circle of which he is a part. Don&#39;t glamorize CEOs, they do some work, of course, but the point is it&#39;s unnescessary.


Again who gets to determine what is unneccessary?

Again, the entire collective (that means everyone) together.


Which destroys the reason for the select few to continue to output more than their bare neccessity. Meaning you don&#39;t have people making up the difference for those unable to carry their own weight.


So everyone is producing the bare minimum how is that benifitual?

Where do you get this idea? Your still assuming the people who are highly productive are going to remain that way after taking away the incentive to do so.

I&#39;ve already explained that people will be required to work, which leads us to:




there fellow workers will notice and require them to work as hard as they do

And this is enforced how?

It is enforced by their "fellow workers" (see above), if one refuses to work his share and after several warnings, he will be asked to either begin working or leave the collective. Every society needs rules, the difference is that in this society the rules are not comming from above, they are comming from one&#39;s colleagues for the collective bennefit of everyone.


The ones getting to decide who gets to do the desirable jobs and who doesn&#39;t. Contrary to the belief of some, people don&#39;t want to not be garbage workers not because of prestige but because quite frankly there is nothing interesting about the job and you have to spend all day smelling garbage.

Well....this seems to be a contradiction, because I&#39;ve heard the exact opposite from other capitalists. Namely that on one would want to be a doctor (because of all the education and work but instead choose to do borring jobs like collecting garbage. This difference of oppinion epitamizes perfectly why this system would work, because there are different people and while some would choose a job because of its ease, others would choose a job they found interesting.



You don&#39;t think there are doctors who do it for the love of it.

Sure there are, but how many would there be without the rewards? Even some of the for the love of it crowd wouldn&#39;t be there with all the preasures of that job.

Make up your mind. Earlier you said that everyone would want to be doctors and there wouldn&#39;t be enough garbage men, now you are saying that everyone will want to be a garbage man, and there won&#39;t be enough doctors.



your claim would imply that no system could exist that is more socialist than any other system.

Not that they can&#39;t exist but that they are as benifitial. Socialism can exist because it understands that human nature must be taken into account. They just do it to a lesser degree with slows down their progress. Communism however goes against human nature.

haha, great dodge, but answer the question. You claimed that everyone talented would leave a communist society to go to one in which they could concievably have more, if this were true no socialist society could exist if there was one less socialist easily accessable to its citizens.



Is it a matter of choice or because they aren&#39;t being allowed to? You better hope your right. Because human nature seems to work against your logic.

Hardly, why are there still doctors in Canada?? They could be making more in the US but they don&#39;t go. Strange, could it be that people are actually motivated by more than capital?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?


So your saying humans are not naturally greedy and lazy?

Yes, I am saying that many if not most humans exhibit those characteristics, but they are not the defining attributes. Again, look at the millions of Americans who joined the Army after 9/11. They may have been misguided, but their actions hardly qualify as either "lazy" or "greedy".



a social taboo, that is something far stronger than any law

Which of course is why premartial sex is so rare. Not to mention homosexuality.

Those are hardly taboo anymore. Society evolves. What about incest? Beastiality?


So now everyone and their brother can just walk into the home my family lives in and watch the TV? Man that&#39;s going to suck at 3 AM when they start partying while my kids are trying to sleep.



Oh so I am going to come home from work and my TV is gone because someone else wanted it?

Man we are going to be living with Kinder.


There are a couple of things you need to realize. We are not talking about a society in which violence reigns, in which I can run up and take anything I want from you. There is a fundamental difference between what is "yours" and what you can use. In communist society, you would, of course, still have use rights. If you are using something no one can come and claim it or take it. But it is not yours. You cannot destroy, or engineer (without permission of the collective), and certainly not &#39;sell&#39; it. If someone begins taking and keeping more and more and more than society will have to intervene, but that will be far rarer than you think.


It is up to that individual to convince someone purchase his service/product. Which by the way is why marketing is a needed task.


You always have a choice. You can always start your own company providing a needed service. Or choose a different line of work if that company is the only one who needs that service.

Ha&#33; This is what is called freedom under capitalism. Regardless of who you sell it too, you still must sell your labour to someone, you still are not recieving the full bennefits of the value of your work. And if I am a steel miner (to use the same example) which company am I going to found?? This is an illusion of freedom, it isn&#39;t there. If most people could go out and start a company, why haven&#39;t they??


Change fields, it seems you may be one of those people assuming your efforts are more valuable than they really are. It is basic supply and demand.

Yes, that&#39;s brilliant, use capitalist theory to prove capitalism. You are again assuming that the value given by the &#39;market&#39; is in some way reflective of something beyond the confines of the exploitive nature of capitalism. The simple fact is that the average worker&#39;s labour is worth more than the &#39;market&#39; suggests, as shown by the amount of people who make money off of it.


So basicly there will be no computer programs that are more complicated than what a single individual can write on their own? Which means no advances in robotics to perform menial and dangerious labor. Little if any research advancements as researchers are all working seperately on their own funding. Oh wait they don&#39;t have funding because they only get the basics of what they need to survive.

With the time they will have, there is no reason why people can&#39;t get together to work on programming/robotics, hell it happens right now. Look at open source software, some of the best new software is not being done for profit. In fact the free software movement is a perfect example that money is not the sole motivating factor.



That is a blaten lie. He was one of the lead developers for the original versions of Windows up until Win95. Dos he purchased the rights too that much is true. But the GUI interface that went along with it aka windows Bill worked on after taking the idea from Apple who got the idea from Zerox when they created the mouse.


You are aware are you not that without Microsoft computers would still be the sole realm of the "geeks". Microsoft made it affordable and viable for everyone to learn. Apple tried but screwed up by keeping everything priced to high and not willing to share information with software producers until it was too late.

Please, don&#39;t get your information from television. Gates got Xerox&#39;s prototype well before Apple did, that&#39;s why Apple lost the lawsuit against Microsoft. Gates took DOS from the SCC and Windows from Xeros (and yes, a little from apple&#39;s early MAC OSs) but the point is that for the amound of effort he put in in creation....for the amount of real contribution he provided, what he has is ludicrous. It goes to show the invalididy of the myth of capitalist "hard work paying off".


Actually most can afford it, they just choose not too. They would rather have TVs, VCRs, Computers, Microwaves, second car, and eat out twice a week.

....or food....or heating.....no society should put its people in a place where they have to decide between medical care or heat in the winter.


This occurs how?

It&#39;s called democracy, look it up.



Society should not be based on biology. Do you think that the "healthy and intelligent" should then rule us all politically, after all they are, by your reckoning, "more evolved"?

If we choose them of our own free will then by all means. If we desire something else then that too is natural selection.

No, that is human selection. Natural selection means nature selects. Clearly you see the ridiculousness of being politically ruled by those who happen to have been born stronger or smarter, so can&#39;t you see the ridiculousness of being economically ruled by them (which in today&#39;s society is just as powerfull)?



Besides beyond that if I inherit my wealth, what have I produced?

You haven&#39;t that is true but someone did. And what is so wrong with someone scaraficing the benifits of his efforts for the sake of someone else of their choosing? We call it charity when they do so for people they don&#39;t know. But somehow when they do so for their family it is evil.

no not evil, but it raises the question of what exactly capitalism is. If it isn&#39;t meritocratic (as this clearly shows) than is it just feudalism, certain people controlling to their children and their children&#39;s children? Is this the society we want to live in?? Where you may have a chance for a good life, but chances are you labour will help support someone who&#39;s done nothing in their lives but be born to the right family.




JUSTSOUL:


I would trust the guy more. But there won&#39;t be enough people making guitars or any other things for that matter. Do you really believe that someone doing it for a hobby can compete with corporations making money on those things?


you don&#39;t understand that people will have a great deal more time, and since we are talking about small collectives you don&#39;t need that many people making them. One guy can&#39;t compete with a trans-national assembly line, but in a small collective with a small population that assembly line is overkill.


Working with motvation and working without motivation are two exactly different things. Someone working with motivation can be twice as effective. Also what stops all of the people iam working with to start simulating too? USSR had laws against simulating yet people were still doing it. Majority of people were doing it. If you think you can solve this problem you are being very naive here.

You haven&#39;t answered my question, if someone is so damn good at simulating work that he can fool all the workers around him continually day after day than he could sure as hell do it under capitalism. In the USSR, there is no motivation to report if you think your neighbor is simulating because, in honesty, you don&#39;t really give a damn, it all goes to the state anyway. Under communism, you are very motivated to make sure that everybody is doing their share.



Pitty me whatever you want but it doesnt change the fact. Of course majority of people do care about society , but defenitly not enough. It doesnt even come close to caring about yourself.

I dont get it? Why would they gain more. They will get nothing actually.

They gain more becaue the fruits of their labour actually go back to them and not to someone else, they gain more because they don&#39;t have to work as much, and can use much more.


Yes it does.

Glad to see you&#39;ve conceded this point, thank you.



What does it have to do with quality of medicine at all? It would be better to count number of expensive operations done or number of hard operations done. Life expentacy , mortality rate etc has more to do with genetics and enviroment then with medicine.

right....the US just has worse genes than Canada and england and france and italy and sweden and denmark......



And what is wrong with that? He have earned everything with his "brains" . He is a very very talented man and should be rewarded.

The point is that he did far less work than a good number of people within his own country, to say nothing of the rest of the world.


If you can&#39;t provide a family with food then dont have chilndred. Not that hard? Besides as i have said there is welfare for those.

Yes, because no one is ever fired. You may be able to provide for you family one day and not the next. Maybe your factory moved to mexico, maybe your corporation had to downsize and reduce redundancies. It is never as black and white as you would like it to be.


Enough to live and for everyone who deserves it.

no and no. Are you then prepared to decide who should and who shouldn&#39;t live? if so, take a good long look at yourself before you pass judgement on others.


I have never claimed it is really [a meritocracy]. All i have said that talented and hard working will sucseed no matter in what family they were born. Yeah he can inherit millions and live happily , but what is wrong with that?

Where is the money comming from?? there are only so many resources, so if you have so many of them, than clearly not every talented person can succeed.

Within one sentence you contradicted yourself. "hard working will sucseed", "inherit millions and live happily". If I inherit millions, I&#39;ve &#39;succeeded&#39; but I did not &#39;work hard&#39;, if I am a hard-working foundry worker, I &#39;work hard&#39; but do not &#39;succeed&#39;. If you admit that "hard work" does not always correspond to &#39;success&#39; than capitalism is just a cover for a new form of feudalism. If it is not a meritocracy ("I have never claimed it is really"), than what is it???