Capitalists!

[RedAnarchist]

Considered Communism?

Have you actually even read Communist literature?

Have you got any Communistic views?

[Felicia]

well, you can be a liberal with capitalist views, and still be left-leaning with socialistic views on other issues other than economy... in my opinion

[sXe]

What are "communistic" views, either you are a Marxist, or you are a mindless fool, there are no halfway houses.

[Felicia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 02:59 PM
What are "communistic" views, either you are a Marxist, or you are a mindless fool, there are no halfway houses.
jesus fuck. See, that's half the problem, this "left is right and right is wrong" mentality.

If there was no "right" to balance out the "left" than we would be the equivalent of the right. One force cannot have complete control, that will just lead to more oppression, I don't care what the ideology is!

[Y2A]

One of my favorite authors is Noam Chomsky. And of course I have considered communism before, in all honesty who has not? A system inwhich everyone lives happy and there is no poor or starving in the world, who would not consider such a system. But then you wake up and realize that it's a utopian dream and can never be accomplished. I even disagree with the ideals of communism now. Why should we all be equal? Sure I will say that equal oppurtunity is a god given right but why should those who chooze not to work be made equal by force?

[John Galt]

I used to believe in communism.



Then i turned 10.

[Stapler]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 07:59 PM
What are "communistic" views, either you are a Marxist, or you are a mindless fool, there are no halfway houses.
Well, let's be reasonable. Anyone who hasn't classified themselves is a mindless fool? do I have to agree with everything Marx and Engels write in order to avoid being a "mindless fool"? I consider myself a Marxist, however, anyone who is not a Marxist is entitled to their views, and I respect that.

[Fidel Castro]

I have read a little by Marx, Lenin, Mao, Castro and am very sympathetic to their cause. I would certainly consider myelf a Socialist.

[LSD]

I used to believe in communism.



Then i turned 10.

Yes, socialization is a powerful force. Unfortunately many are so dogmatized by society and come to accept what is around them as the only way.




By the way, Stapler, what the hell is your signature??

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 04:59 PM
Considered Communism?

Have you actually even read Communist literature?

Have you got any Communistic views?
I wouldnt consider communism in this day and age. Man still needs to grow up.


I have read papers writtern by marx and engles.

[Solace]

I agree with Felicia, this whole "Left is right, Right is wrong" is pretty foolish.

Most of the cappies we got here do not seem to have read and understood the least bit of lefty books. THe real ones, those who reject the communist ideology totally and embrace capitalism are out there exploiting people. They don't waste their time on a leftist board.

[allixpeeke]

<<Considered Communism?>>

I considered it. But, I don’t feel it could work; at least not on any large scale. On a large scale, Communism is oppressive. On a small scale, though, it can work, and can be effective. For example, the basic family unit us largely Socialist in nature.

But, I prefer Capitalism in society. I look at it like this: the people should get to decide what they want. If you’re living in a Socialist nation, and you don’t want to be there, you should have the right to leave, and to join a Capitalist nation. Likewise, if a person living in a Capitalist wants to live in a Communist nation, they should have the right to go and join that nation.
If some nations are Capitalist, and others are Communist, it provides people with a choice, which is good. A problem comes up when nations don’t allow mobility to people to leave and choose an alternative.
If an American town came together and decided collectively that they wanted to be Communist, they should have that right. But, I do not condone using violence to achieve this. Once you start forcing people to accept Communism, that is wrong. It should be the choice of the people collectively. And everyone should have choice. Personally, I choose Capitalism.

<<Have you actually even read Communist literature?>>

I don’t read as often as I want. The last book I started reading was called MANIFESTA: young women, feminism, and the future.

<<Have you got any Communistic views?>>

I wouldn’t call my views necessarily Communist in nature, but I do believe that there needs to be an economic safety net. And I don’t like the idea of companies having a monopoly, since I view monopolies as a threat to the survival of Capitalism. I guess you can take that for what it’s worth.

<<well, you can be a liberal with capitalist views,...>>

Absolutely true. This is the case for me. http://www.myezboard.com/projects/ezboard/ezboard_userimages/thx1138ebn/images/1.gif

In fact, to extend on that, I’m a Libertarian. I support legalizing drugs, legalizing gay marriage, legalizing guns, legalizing abortion, legalizing prostitution, etc. And, the only things I support censoring are child porn and rape porn.

<<If there was no "right" to balance out the "left" than we would be the equivalent of the right. One force cannot have complete control, that will just lead to more oppression, I don&#39;t care what the ideology is&#33;>>

I agree. Although I do consider myself liberal, and tend to appreciate the left more than the right, I feel that if the extreme of either side had power, we’d all be screwed. In my humble opinion.

~~~alex.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 09:36 AM
Once you start forcing people to accept Communism, that is wrong.
Even if it means that some people will get food and medicine and proper working hours and rights.

[Valishin]

Considered Communism?
Have you actually even read Communist literature?
Have you got any Communistic views?

Considered it, yes
Read the literature, yes
Communistic views, no

I will take the idea more seriously when someone can show me a real world example where it was achieved without forcing anyone to particpate. Until then it is a pipedream.

Show me Communism with forsaking individual freedom then we can talk.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by comrade neonate+Feb 8 2004, 10:15 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (comrade neonate @ Feb 8 2004, 10:15 AM)
[email protected] 8 2004, 09:36 AM
Once you start forcing people to accept Communism, that is wrong.
Even if it means that some people will get food and medicine and proper working hours and rights. [/b]
Give me liberty, or give me death

[LSD]

Show me Communism with forsaking individual freedom then we can talk.

Show me capitalism without the same.

The fact that an ideology has not been properly implemented does not negate the value of that ideology. If so, than how could one have argued for democracy in, say, 1500?


...And, the only things I support censoring are child porn and rape porn.

That&#39;s still to conservative for me.


If an American town came together and decided collectively that they wanted to be Communist, they should have that right. But, I do not condone using violence to achieve this. Once you start forcing people to accept Communism, that is wrong. It should be the choice of the people collectively. And everyone should have choice. Personally, I choose Capitalism.

The problem with capitalism is that it&#39;s intrinsically expansionist. The American economy could never allow a communistic movement within its borders.


I considered it. But, I don’t feel it could work; at least not on any large scale. On a large scale, Communism is oppressive. On a small scale, though, it can work, and can be effective.

Exactly&#33; That&#39;s why large-scale centralization doesn&#39;t work. Communism requires small seperate collectives to function and any attempt to create a unified national or, godforbid, global state is doomed.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 10:35 PM
One of my favorite authors is Noam Chomsky. And of course I have considered communism before, in all honesty who has not? A system inwhich everyone lives happy and there is no poor or starving in the world, who would not consider such a system. But then you wake up and realize that it&#39;s a utopian dream and can never be accomplished. I even disagree with the ideals of communism now. Why should we all be equal? Sure I will say that equal oppurtunity is a god given right but why should those who chooze not to work be made equal by force?
Equal Oppurtunity? Yeah that works in capitalist theory, but equal oppurtunity is more than a few hollow laws.

Watch the Documentary "Lalee&#39;s Kin" and tell me those kids have the same oppurtunity as the Bush twins.

As far as those who choose not to work...wouldn&#39;t you rather have communism where those guys are forced to work (in labor camps) rather than in America where they leech onto a broken wellfare/unemployment system? :)

The problem with America&#39;s welfare system is that it does nothing to get these people off the bottom, it smply allows them to remain there.



I used to believe in communism.



Then i turned 10.

Stapler.....even though that was a bit insulting to us leftists...that was DAMN FUNNY

[Hate Is Art]

I agree Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, we need to achieve global communism but we can&#39;t have one centralized government, It didn&#39;t work in Russia as well as it could have.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Obviously you guys have considered communism, or else you wouldnt be here in the first place considering it.

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 09:36 AM
<<Considered Communism?>>

I considered it. But, I don’t feel it could work; at least not on any large scale. On a large scale, Communism is oppressive. On a small scale, though, it can work, and can be effective. For example, the basic family unit us largely Socialist in nature.

But, I prefer Capitalism in society. I look at it like this: the people should get to decide what they want. If you’re living in a Socialist nation, and you don’t want to be there, you should have the right to leave, and to join a Capitalist nation. Likewise, if a person living in a Capitalist wants to live in a Communist nation, they should have the right to go and join that nation.
If some nations are Capitalist, and others are Communist, it provides people with a choice, which is good. A problem comes up when nations don’t allow mobility to people to leave and choose an alternative.
If an American town came together and decided collectively that they wanted to be Communist, they should have that right. But, I do not condone using violence to achieve this. Once you start forcing people to accept Communism, that is wrong. It should be the choice of the people collectively. And everyone should have choice. Personally, I choose Capitalism.

Right, fair enough, but this seems a bit simplistic for me.

If half the World were Communist and the other half capitalist (obviously this is only abstract speculation) and everyone had free mobility, then surely all the proletariat would simply move away from the capitlaist half, and the Bourgeoisie would cease to function.

You have to understand that to sustain itself, the well off capitlaists have to be in the minority. Many will say "We should have the right to become what we want", this is impossible however, everyone cannot be rich. It cannot work like that. So your vision of a world where people have self determination over where they live and under what ideology canot be a possiblity, realistically.

[The Feral Underclass]

Why should we all be equal? Sure I will say that equal oppurtunity is a god given right but why should those who chooze not to work be made equal by force?

Look&#33; It&#39;s fine if you dislike communist blah blah, but at least know what your talking about. This is getting really really boring. Is it just that you dont believe the answers that you have been given. Do you think we have all misinterpreated Marx&#39;s theory? If so explain to us how? Please Please Please learn about what it is you are trying to critizise before critizising it. This is why you people are in OI. Because you dont even know what your taking about....*rips and hair*

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 04:44 AM
I agree with Felicia, this whole "Left is right, Right is wrong" is pretty foolish.

Most of the cappies we got here do not seem to have read and understood the least bit of lefty books. THe real ones, those who reject the communist ideology totally and embrace capitalism are out there exploiting people. They don&#39;t waste their time on a leftist board.
Left, have you ever thought for a second that maybe just maybe I and the rest of us do understand communists literature and why there were communist uprising in some countries? That maybe we are not out to exploit people but rather we agree with the basic principles of capitalism. It&#39;s quite arrogant to say that you know everything while we are following blind faith.

[allixpeeke]

<<Once you start forcing people to accept Communism, that is wrong.>>
<<Even if it means that some people will get food and medicine and proper working hours and rights.>>

Yes. If they don’t want food, medicine, and proper working hours and rights, they shouldn’t be forced to accept them. I’m not a big fan of compulsory action.

<<...wouldn&#39;t you rather have communism where those guys are forced to work...>>

Personally not a fan of compulsory action.

<<The problem with America&#39;s welfare system is that it does nothing to get these people off the bottom, it smply allows them to remain there.>>

Agreed. I feel the main objective of welfare should be to encourage and enable persons to be employed.

~~~alex.

[LSD]

Yes. If they don’t want food, medicine, and proper working hours and rights, they shouldn’t be forced to accept them. I’m not a big fan of compulsory action.

It&#39;s not that simple.

No one is talking about actively refusing "food, medicine, and proper working hours and rights", but rather workers who are unknowingly fooled into accepting their lack. Fooled into supporting a system which they believe will provide them with exactly what it robbs them of&#33;&#33;


Agreed. I feel the main objective of welfare should be to encourage and enable persons to be employed.

That&#39;s a nice economic analysis, but coldly inhuman.

In any decent society the "main objective of welfare" is keeping people alive and keeping them in humane conditions. Your priorities may be getting them back to work as soon as possible, but they&#39;re not mine.

Don&#39;t feel alone though, there are millions of dictators, monarchs, and slave-masters who would agree with you.
Enjoy the company.

[allixpeeke]

<<Your priorities may be getting them back to work as soon as possible, but their not mine.>>

No. My priority is to get them to be self-sustaining. If they are not self-sustaining, they will surely be stuck as second-class citizens. I don&#39;t want them stuck there. If they&#39;re not self-sustaining, then once the government is gone, they will die. Simply giving them a fish, while refusing to teach them to fish, is the same as murdering them. And that, my friend, is coldly inhuman.

Yours truly,
~~~alex.

[LSD]

No. My priority is to get them to be self-sustaining. If they are not self-sustaining, they will surely be stuck as second-class citizens. I don&#39;t want them stuck there.

No, they&#39;re stuck as a "second-class citizen" because that is how capitalist society is modeled. Some people have to be on the bottom, if others are to be on the top.

Teaching people requisite skills is the purpose of education, the purpose of welfare is keeping them alive. Of what use are "work-skills" if you&#39;re dead.


If they&#39;re not self-sustaining, then once the government is gone, they will die.

"once the government is gone"?
Why, you planning an overthrow?

What skills do you want welfare to teach them? Boar hunting? Tent-making? Canoe manufacturing?


Simply giving them a fish, while refusing to teach them to fish, is the same as murdering them.

Oh good...cliches....

It isn&#39;t about education, it&#39;s about survival. We&#39;re taling about people, people who can&#39;t feed themselves, let alone their families. You have to keep them alive before you can start trying to worm them back into the system.
If the priority becomes "finding employment" than you end up with what is happening in the US.

[allixpeeke]

<<Why, you planning an overthrow?>>

No. I don&#39;t think society is ready yet. There&#39;s still plenty of racism, egocentrism, hate, greed, envy, etc. in the world, all of which would prevent it from working. If an anarchist revolution took place, what would result is chaos, followed be resurgence of government in a much more oppressive state. It can&#39;t happen immediately. But, withing hundreds years, I&#39;d like to see government abolished. Perhaps I&#39;m being too optimistic, perhaps anarchism will never work. But, it should be an ultimate goal, at least. And we should put limitations on the power of government nontheless.

<<What skills do you want welfare to teach them?>>

I didn&#39;t mean to imply that it should teach skills. Rather, to help people get back on their feet.

[LSD]

...I&#39;d like to see government abolished. Perhaps I&#39;m being too optimistic, perhaps anarchism will never work. But, it should be an ultimate goal, at least. And we should put limitations on the power of government nontheless.

Well, we agree on this at least.

But I noticed in your profile that you classify yourself as a "anarcho-capitalist". So aren&#39;t you really just suggesting that we replace a political/economic hierarchy with a purely economic one?

As a rule, corporations tend to be more oppressive than states, certainly more than democracies, so isn&#39;t "anarcho-capitalism" is really just another name for "government in a much more oppressive state"?

[Y2A]

The problem with communism is that there is no true way of ataining it without creating a collective government which inturn eventually becomes corrupt and fails. And even then there are people that think differently like us which consider the individual above the collective. Our ideals are just different. It is not that we are "blinded by propaganda" or any other crap that you tell yourselves to get through the day. It is just that we have different ideals. You see equality as a right, while I believe that you earn what you get. Many times I see people that confuse economic corporatism and consider this the type of capitalism that we advocate, which is far from the truth. True capitalists advocate competition, corporatism directly contradicts this theory.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 9 2004, 09:20 AM
As a rule, corporations tend to be more oppressive than states, certainly more than democracies, so isn&#39;t "anarcho-capitalism" is really just another name for "government in a much more oppressive state"?
Yes, I just survived an attack of the Exxon-army. Fortunately I am still alive........

When you are 13 and hear about socialism/communism for the first time I don&#39;t think there isn&#39;t anybody who disagrees that it sounds appealing. That however lasts about 10 minutes because then your history teacher starts about the real world.

But I have read some things from the other perspective, and with a lot I agree. Unfortunately not the fairy tales of Marx

[Y2A]

Marxist theory is the biggest piece of crap I have ever heard aswell. Imagine, you are suppose to give these revolutionaries absolute power over every aspect of the civilian populations lives and then expect them to give it up to create a communist society. It&#39;s just ridiculous how some people can support such stupidity.

[LSD]

Yes, I just survived an attack of the Exxon-army. Fortunately I am still alive........

In an "anarcho-capitalist" environment, that would be a very likely scenario.


The problem with communism is that there is no true way of ataining it without creating a collective government which inturn eventually becomes corrupt and fails.

This "collective government", wouldn&#39;t another name for it be "democracy"??
Seems to me, then, that "collective governments" have worked.


And even then there are people that think differently like us which consider the individual above the collective.

...um....then I&#39;d be one of you.
I "consider the individual above the collective." I just happen to believe that communism serves the individual better than capitalism, it frees them from the monetary-slavery of capitalism.

How "free" can one be if they can&#39;t afford to eat?
How much "freedom of press" do you have if all the newspapers are owned by one man?
How much "freedom to vote" do you have if all parties are bought and paid for?

Bill Gates is "more free" than I am, because he is "free" to do more. We are told that this inequality is neccessary for the good of the economy. That the wealth of the rich will "trickle down" to us. We are told that capitalism is the best way and that, although it means some have more freedom than others, it&#39;s ultimately better. In effect we are told to put aside our individual concerns, for the good of the collective.

Insofar as it affects the average person, capitalism is collectivist, communism is individualistic.


Our ideals are just different. It is not that we are "blinded by propaganda" or any other crap that you tell yourselves to get through the day. It is just that we have different ideals.

I actually think we have similar "ideals" it&#39;s just that we have alternate means to achieve them. I highly doubt you wake up every morning thinking "how can I oppress the proletariat", I know you probably mean well, but I must maintain that your method is wrong.


You see equality as a right,

Yes, I believe that every member of society should be served to the fullest extent by that society.


while I believe that you earn what you get.

Do you?
Then you&#39;re a meritocrat, fine,
But that ain&#39;t capitalism.

This myth is as irritating as it is pervalent, so here we go again:

CAPITALISM IS NOT MERITOCRATIC. "hard work" DOES NOT "pay off", you DO NOT get what you deserve, and the "American Dream" IS JUST THAT.

Capitalism neccessitates that not everyone can be a succes, and most of the time "success" and "failure" is not based on work but on chance, on upbrining, on race, on sex, on creed, on timing, on family, on schooling.........

You want a system where you "earn what you get"? Good, so do I.
It&#39;s called communism.

Everybody works equally, everybody shares equally.


Marxist theory is the biggest piece of crap I have ever heard aswell...It&#39;s just ridiculous how some people can support such stupidity.

Whoah, calm down.

Now, yes, there are aspects of Marxist theory that are dated, there are also elements that never made sense (dialects comes to mind), doesn&#39;t mean the whole thing is "crap". There are many elements of it that are rather brilliant, and many elements that, like it or not, are essential to much of modern philosophy and sociology.


Imagine, you are suppose to give these revolutionaries absolute power over every aspect of the civilian populations lives and then expect them to give it up to create a communist society.

Sounds sort of like the American revolutionaries doesn&#39;t it.....
Believe it or not, there are people of good will out there.

But seriously, Y2A, calm down....

[Y2A]

This "collective government", wouldn&#39;t another name for it be "democracy"??
Seems to me, then, that "collective governments" have worked.

The USSR has worked out? Communist China? North Korea? Please don&#39;t kid yourself. Centralized "Democracy" has proven to continuously fail in histroy, how can you deny this.


Sounds sort of like the American revolutionaries doesn&#39;t it.....
Believe it or not, there are people of good will out there.

The American revolutionaries established a democratic system after the revolution unlike a one-party centralized "democracy" of which Marxist doctorine advocates. I don&#39;t know about you, but I will never put faith in a small band of people to do good. NEVER&#33; I can&#39;t believe that with the countless people that have paid in blood for this thinking you still think it is possible for such a system to work.

[allixpeeke]

<<True capitalists advocate competition,...>>

Totally. Competition is key to growth and the survival of society. Without competition, you have nothing to keep things going. Sure, Socialism will have a few truly dedicated individuals like the horse, Boxer. But they’ll just be exploited by the pigs. With Capitalism, Boxer’s hard work wouldn’t have been “rewarded” with a trip to the glue factory.

[LSD]

The USSR has worked out? Communist China? North Korea? Please don&#39;t kid yourself. Centralized "Democracy" has proven to continuously fail in histroy, how can you deny this.

Who said centralization?
Despite your assumption that we are all Leninist, I never denied the failure of attempted centralization.


The American revolutionaries established a democratic system after the revolution unlike a one-party centralized "democracy" of which Marxist doctorine advocates. I don&#39;t know about you, but I will never put faith in a small band of people to do good. NEVER&#33; I can&#39;t believe that with the countless people that have paid in blood for this thinking you still think it is possible for such a system to work.

Again....calm down.....

And again, I am not a pure Marxist, I am not a Leninist, I am not a Maoist.
AND I NEVER ADVOCATED "a one-party centralized "democracy""

As I said, I am an individualist, I believe stongest in individual freedoms, so I would never surrender to a "one-party" state, and I CERTAINLY never advocated one.

How dare YOU accuse me of dictatorial dreams when you support a collectivist system that CONTINUES to starve BILLIONS around the world.

[LSD]

Totally. Competition is key to growth and the survival of society. Without competition, you have nothing to keep things going. Sure, Socialism will have a few truly dedicated individuals like the horse, Boxer. But they’ll just be exploited by the pigs. With Capitalism, Boxer’s hard work wouldn’t have been “rewarded” with a trip to the glue factory.

Well, any communist society would, of course, require that everyone work, and you blithly assume that most people are interested solely in material renumeration.
Furthemore, you assume that in capitalism, hard work "pays off", which it clearly doesn&#39;t.

[Y2A]

As I said, I am an individualist, I believe stongest in individual freedoms, so I would never surrender to a "one-party" state, and I CERTAINLY never advocated one.

And how do you plan on accomplishing a socialist state(obviously to trancend into communism)? How can you do so without having the state insure equality? There is the problem with the theory. The only way to establish communism is by first creating a centralized socialist government to enforce equality(even Marx agrees with me), but as history has proven this is flawed. But what is the alternative? There is none and that is why communism is flawed, because it can not be accomplished without inevitably creating a totalitarian state.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 9 2004, 10:50 AM

Totally. Competition is key to growth and the survival of society. Without competition, you have nothing to keep things going. Sure, Socialism will have a few truly dedicated individuals like the horse, Boxer. But they’ll just be exploited by the pigs. With Capitalism, Boxer’s hard work wouldn’t have been “rewarded” with a trip to the glue factory.

Well, any communist society would, of course, require that everyone work, and you blithly assume that most people are interested solely in material renumeration.
Furthemore, you assume that in capitalism, hard work "pays off", which it clearly doesn&#39;t.
What are you talking about? It does "pay off". Me and many other immigrants have accomplished the American dream, its just that certain people focus on the fools that stay in the ghetto addicted to drugs or join gangs.

[LSD]

What are you talking about? I does "pay off". Me and many other immigrants have accomplished the American dream, its just that certain people focus on the fools that stay in the ghetto addicted to drugs or join gangs.

Sure, it "pays off" for some, but not for most. Anecdotal examples aside, empiracle evidence shows that the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich, "hard work" doesn&#39;t seem to matter.

Plus, most of the rich in the world inherrited that wealth, what work did they do?
How about the hard-working who are born of poor parents and can&#39;t afford a good education? They will make less than someone born of rich parents who can afford an education.

"hard work"?
No.

[LSD]

And how do you plan on accomplishing a socialist state(obviously to trancend into communism)? How can you do so without having the state insure equality? There is the problem with the theory. The only way to establish communism is by first creating a centralized socialist government to enforce equality(even Marx agrees with me), but as history has proven this is flawed.

On a large scale, you&#39;re probably right, on small collective community scales, you&#39;re wrong.
Community-level communism has been accomplished without centralization because there is no need at such a level. Large-scale communism is impossible, but equality does not need to be enforced in a small community of say, 5000. If you eliminate preexisting socioeconomic status, everyone is already equal and the community is too small of the impersonality required to maintain previous oppressions without the external motivators which are now removed.


But what is the alternative? There is none and that is why communism is flawed, because it can not be accomplished without inevitably creating a totalitarian state.

I think I just gave you one.


(even Marx agrees with me)

Yipeeeeee&#33;

[Y2A]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 9 2004, 11:02 AM

What are you talking about? I does "pay off". Me and many other immigrants have accomplished the American dream, its just that certain people focus on the fools that stay in the ghetto addicted to drugs or join gangs.

Sure, it "pays off" for some, but not for most. Anecdotal examples aside, empiracle evidence shows that the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich, "hard work" doesn&#39;t seem to matter.

Plus, most of the rich in the world inherrited that wealth, what work did they do?
How about the hard-working who are born of poor parents and can&#39;t afford a good education? They will make less than someone born of rich parents who can afford an education.

"hard work"?
No.
So you are going to strip me my family out of the house that it took 16 years to earn in an attempt to punish the rich&#33;&#33;&#33; You will do so over my dead capitalist body. Yes. Of course it favors the rich, but all systems do really. The fact is that I have lived in the ghetto and can tell you from personal experience that the majority of those that never make it out are those who do join gangs and get addicted to drugs. It&#39;s the truth and I am tired of god damn commies that have never lived a day in my shoes trying to tell me otherwise. Of course there are problems with capitalism, I am not saying there are not. I want more tax dollars to go into education and healthcare, but this can be done without resorting to communism. It seems that you can&#39;t understand that.

[LSD]

So you are going to strip me my family out of the house that it took 16 years to earn in an attempt to punish the rich&#33;&#33;&#33; You will do so over my dead capitalist body.

I&#39;m not strpping you of anything&#33;&#33;
I&#39;m just showing you that capitalism isn&#39;t meritocratic.


Yes. Of course it favors the rich, but all systems do really.

Well, a system without any rich can hardly favour them.


The fact is that I have lived in the ghetto and can tell you from personal experience that the majority of those that never make it out are those who do join gangs and get addicted to drugs. It&#39;s the truth and I am tired of god damn commies that have never lived a day in my shoes trying to tell me otherwise.

No offense, but in terms of argumentation, personal anectodes cary very little weight with most people, and that&#39;s something that crosses ideological lines.


Of course there are problems with capitalism, I am not saying there are not. I want more tax dollars to go into education and healthcare, but this can be done without resorting to communism. It seems that you can&#39;t understand that.

I&#39;m not saying that lives cannot be ammeliorated within capitalism, the last 100 years clearly show they can. But as long as a system persits which requires the subjugation of many to help the few, I will argue for change.

You must know that nothing lasts forever and that eventually capitalism will be replaced. It&#39;s the way that civilization works. Every advance requires a fundamental change, a paradigm shift.

It&#39;s going to happen some day, the only question is what will it become?
I&#39;m hoping for an equal just society.
What are you hoping for?

[Y2A]

I&#39;m not strpping you of anything&#33;&#33;
I&#39;m just showing you that capitalism isn&#39;t meritocratic.

Communism calls for abolishing private property.


Well, a system without any rich can hardly favour them.

Idealistic. That&#39;s all I have to say about that.


No offense, but in terms of argumentation, personal anectodes cary very little weight with most people, and that&#39;s something that crosses ideological lines.

That&#39;s bullshit. A person that has actually lived though the experience has far more merit then those who see it from afar and think they can understand the problem. But believe what you wish to believe.


I&#39;m not saying that lives cannot be ammeliorated within capitalism, the last 100 years clearly show they can. But as long as a system persits which requires the subjugation of many to help the few, I will argue for change.

Why? The system works as it is, why make a drastic change to a system that has proven consistently not to work. As I said before, it all depends on you ideals.



What are you hoping for?

A more regulated version of the current capitalist system.

[LSD]

Communism calls for abolishing private property.

Yes it does, for everyone. So you will still have your damn house, it&#39;s just that we&#39;ll tear down the mansions and give houses to everyone.


Why? The system works as it is, why make a drastic change to a system that has proven consistently not to work.

Because it hasn&#39;t.
The capitalism of the first world is abusing and exploiting the third even today. There are billions starving around the world ,and millions starving within the richest countries on earth. Capitalism is, at best, a stopgap, at worst fatal, but it is certainly not "working".

It may be better than other pervious systems, there have been some bad ones. But that in no way means that it should not be changed. "drastic change" is what moves civilization forward.
Democracy was a "drastic change", one could argue, and many did, that monarchy was proven, consistent, and working. Aren&#39;t we glad that not everyone listened?
Slavery endured for thousands of years, and again its proponents argued that it was working, it was essential and there was no alternative. There was.
Longevity does not equate validity
Capitalism isn&#39;t the best, it&#39;s just the best we&#39;ve tried so far.


As I said before, it all depends on you ideals.

Well, what doesn&#39;t?


A more regulated version of the current capitalist system.

No, I mean in the long term, after capitalism has gone.


That&#39;s bullshit. A person that has actually lived though the experience has far more merit then those who see it from afar and think they can understand the problem. But believe what you wish to believe.

Yes, but personal stories are unconfirmable and subjective and so cannot be used to make determinations. Memory is untrustworthy and differs from person to person.

[allixpeeke]

<<Well, a system without any rich can hardly favour them.>>

The problem there being that, even when Socialism has been attempted, those who had power still had more than those not in charge.

<<...it&#39;s just that we&#39;ll tear down the mansions and give houses to everyone.>>

Houses that are not owned by individuals, but rather by the Communist Party?

<<Democracy was a "drastic change", one could argue, and many did, that monarchy was proven, consistent, and working. Aren&#39;t we glad that not everyone listened?>>

Technically, what we have is not a Democracy, but rather a democratic Republic.

~~~alex.

[LSD]

The problem there being that, even when Socialism has been attempted, those who had power still had more than those not in charge.

Yes, because it was badly implemented, doesn&#39;t mean it can&#39;t be done propery.


<<...it&#39;s just that we&#39;ll tear down the mansions and give houses to everyone.>>

Houses that are not owned by individuals, but rather by the Communist Party?

What?
How can you possible read that from what I wrote.


Technically, what we have is not a Democracy, but rather a democratic Republic.

Speak for yourself. &#39;round these parts it&#39;s a parliamentary democracy.

[allixpeeke]

Oh, I&#39;m sorry. I just assumed you where American. Where do you live?

<<What?
How can you possible read that from what I wrote.>>

I was asking you if the houses would be owned by the persons residing in them, or if they&#39;d ultimately be owned by the Communist Party, or whatever state is set up?

~~~alex.

[LSD]

Oh, I&#39;m sorry. I just assumed you where American. Where do you live?

Look north...


I was asking you if the houses would be owned by the persons residing in them, or if they&#39;d ultimately be owned by the Communist Party, or whatever state is set up?

Well in the system I&#39;m envisaging, there would be no "state", just small independent communities. People would have possession over their own homes and small items like that, but large items would be owned by the community as a whole. Everything would be communally owned. No private property, but a right of personal usage would be guaranteed. This allows privacy and relative independence (much as one finds for the middle-class in today&#39;s industrial societies) while also ensuring that no one can abuse or hoard wealth, as they do not ownanything and no one owns means of production/industries/factories.....

[Y2A]

Well in the system I&#39;m envisaging, there would be no "state", just small independent communities.

I agree that communism can work if it was with small independent communities, there is no doubt about that. The only problem is that this would drastically decrease advancement.


as they do not ownanything and no one owns means of production/industries/factories.....

No competition would drastically increase inflation.


Look north...

Canadians....

*Shrugs

[LSD]

No competition would drastically increase inflation.

Inflation? Inflation of what?
No currency, no "unit of exchange", nothing to "inflate".


I agree that communism can work if it was with small independent communities, there is no doubt about that. The only problem is that this would drastically decrease advancement.

That is, of course, a guess at best. But even if you&#39;re right, I would propose that a slowing in the speed of technological growth is a fair price for the equalization of the world.

[Hoppe]

That is, of course, a guess at best. But even if you&#39;re right, I would propose that a slowing in the speed of technological growth is a fair price for the equalization of the world.

"To each according...." works perfectly well in most families, but most people don&#39;t feel connected with any person living more than 50 metres from his house.

But then, everyone is equal but they all die because equality is better than a cure for AIDS?

[Osman Ghazi]

Capitalism is working on a cure for AIDS now is it?
Took them long enough. I mean they hardly attempted to develope a cure when the disease first came out more than 25 years ago.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 10 2004, 12:53 AM
Capitalism is working on a cure for AIDS now is it?
Took them long enough. I mean they hardly attempted to develope a cure when the disease first came out more than 25 years ago.
Did Fidel find one already then?

Our capitalist companies have been working on a cure for many many years now. That&#39;s a long time if a society has to vote to allocate resources to this particular project.

[LSD]

But then, everyone is equal but they all die because equality is better than a cure for AIDS?

As I said above, the theory that communism would lead to slower growth is entirely speculative, I would in fact, propose that the opposite would occur.

But even if slower growth were to be a byproduct, I would remind you that far more people die due to sarvation than due to aids. If we were to forced to choose between "equality" and "a cure for AIDS" (a choice I do not believe we need to make) than choosing "equality" would actually save more lives.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 08:52 AM
Our capitalist companies have been working on a cure for many many years now. That&#39;s a long time if a society has to vote to allocate resources to this particular project.
And im sure they will spread it around the world at regular retail price.

So you are going to strip me my family out of the house that it took 16 years to earn in an attempt to punish the rich
Where did oyu get the idea that if communist got power they would make more homeless

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 08:24 PM

as they do not ownanything and no one owns means of production/industries/factories.....

No competition would drastically increase inflation.


They only thing that would be harmed from no competition is pathetic products that peopel are made to belive the need like fucking AB swinge or osme stupid shit.

[kylieII]

Yes I have read communist literature, and it has affected my views. And the idea that it is as black and white as communist or capitalist is stupid.
It completely ignores how big differences there can be on social policy, and their view on government intervention. The term &#39;capitalist&#39; is quite a general one. Those who believe in solely the free market and as little government intervention as possible have completely different views to say someone who is for lots of taxation, subsidies, public ownership, etc. Plus you then add to that views on social issues such as abortion, immigration, equal rights for various groups, censorship, etc.
As is the same for Communism. Most people are neither far right or far left, despite what you seem to believe, ie that there is the true communists, and that everyone else is &#39;capitalist&#39; which is supposedly an adjective to describe Nazism.


What are "communistic" views, either you are a Marxist, or you are a mindless fool, there are no halfway houses.
A nice little bit of irony there for you. :rolleyes:


Yes, socialization is a powerful force. Unfortunately many are so dogmatized by society and come to accept what is around them as the only way.
Socialization is not as powerful as you think. Political views are not hereditory. And the secondary source of socialization, education, also is not fully effective. Hence you get many people who leave school with a poor education, reject what they were taught in terms of values, and form &#39;lad culture&#39;.
I personally have a very conservative family, yet have not unquestionably accepted these views, and have formed my own.

Actually, there has been some psychological research which has found similar things, related to socialization in the family, by Marcia. An adolescent tends to go through 4 stages of development of views. The second stage of this is forclosure, where the person does yes accept family views without questioning them. but this does not last, and for most people they move onto the third stage, moratorium, exploring ideas for themselves, and eventually in the final stage come to their own values and ideas about society.

[Osman Ghazi]

Did Fidel find one already then?


Maybe you don&#39;t realize this but the capitalist countries of the world are about 5000 times as powerful as Cuba. Besides which, we already have a temporary cure for AIDS: Anti-retroviral drugs. The Western world has proven consistently that they are more than willing to watch Africans die if they don&#39;t get their 15 grand per person. In fact it costs about &#036;350 per person but of course, we need to compensate these billion dollar companies so what can we do right?

Don&#39;t try to tell me that the Western companies give a good god damn about people. All they care about is money and that is all they ever will care about. Socialism isn&#39;t about collectives and working together and all that . It is about putting people ahead of profits, plain and simple.

[Hoppe]

Maybe you don&#39;t realize this but the capitalist countries of the world are about 5000 times as powerful as Cuba

How come? It&#39;s not like nowone wants to trade with them. My country does.


The Western world has proven consistently that they are more than willing to watch Africans die if they don&#39;t get their 15 grand per person. In fact it costs about &#036;350 per person but of course, we need to compensate these billion dollar companies so what can we do right?

I seem to recall that the South-African government has just decided to decrease their AIDS-fighting budget with 2/3........

Go complain at the FDA.


Don&#39;t try to tell me that the Western companies give a good god damn about people. All they care about is money and that is all they ever will care about. Socialism isn&#39;t about collectives and working together and all that . It is about putting people ahead of profits, plain and simple

The people talking most about profits are the lefties on this board. <_<

What have you actually done to better the lives of the needy?

[Osman Ghazi]

How come? It&#39;s not like nowone wants to trade with them. My country does.


How come all the world is more powerful than a 110,000 sq km island whose main produce is sugar? I don&#39;t get what you&#39;re trying to say here. What country are you from by the by?


I seem to recall that the South-African government has just decided to decrease their AIDS-fighting budget with 2/3........

Go complain at the FDA.

So what? Are you trying to say that you don&#39;t mind millions dying? You were the one who brought it up and now you trying to say that the policies the West has used in regards to AIDS are good?
Either your one sick mother er (to use the parlance of our times) or I&#39;ve grossly misinterpreted what you&#39;ve said. And I don&#39;t think it&#39;s the latter, if you get my meaning.

What use is a cure if the people who have the disease can&#39;t afford to get it?


The people talking most about profits are the lefties on this board.

What have you actually done to better the lives of the needy?

True, we talk about it more but usually we are referring to it as &#39;legalized theft&#39;, so I don&#39;t quite understand your point. As for the second question, I might as well ask you the same question.
Ever heard of practicing what you preach?

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 10:04 PM
But then, everyone is equal but they all die because equality is better than a cure for AIDS?
Good attemp to change the point of view of the discussion to benefit your personal oppinion. It&#39;s surprising that, although this is done frequently, it actually worked.

My reply:
But then, (in your ideal system) everyone has their "individual rights" but they all die because individualism is better than a cure for AIDS?

As you can see, it&#39;s the same situation. Cappies don&#39;t care, unless of course they get AIDS.

[Y2A]

But then, (in your ideal system) everyone has their "individual rights" but they all die because individualism is better than a cure for AIDS?

As you can see, it&#39;s the same situation. Cappies don&#39;t care, unless of course they get AIDS.

Yes, cappies don&#39;t care. Your right. Congrtats on completely missing his point. You know nothing about the advantages of having means of production compete do you? It forces them to create better products to out do the competition and thus earn higher profits. The downside to this is the fact that once a new revolutionary product comes out, the prices are much to high since there are not many outlets to sell it from(thus supply and demand), but eventually other companies get there hands on these products and sell them thereselves thus greatly reducing the price. This is why competition must be maintained and never centralized. The problem with centralization is of course the fact of corruption and most importantly the fact that you only have one outlet to choose from, thus supply and demand works ultimiately to the advantage of the state, which by being centralized aswell, is corrupt and does not spread the wealth out evenly.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 04:20 AM
Yes, cappies don&#39;t care. Your right. Congrtats on completely missing his point. You know nothing about the advantages of having means of production compete do you? It forces them to create better products to out do the competition and thus earn higher profits. The downside to this is the fact that once a new revolutionary product comes out, the prices are much to high since there are not many outlets to sell it from(thus supply and demand), but eventually other companies get there hands on these products and sell them thereselves thus greatly reducing the price. This is why competition must be maintained and never centralized. The problem with centralization is of course the fact of corruption and most importantly the fact that you only have one outlet to choose from, thus supply and demand works ultimiately to the advantage of the state, which by being centralized aswell, is corrupt and does not spread the wealth out evenly.
Sorry to ask this but how&#39;s this related to what I said?

[Osman Ghazi]

Actually, that doesn&#39;t apply in the world of science.
For example, it isn&#39;t the capitalist who is doing the research.
Likewise, it isn&#39;t the scientist marketing the product.
In capitalism, businessmen pay scientists to develop these things, they don&#39;t develop the cures themselves.
Therefore, if all the capitalist does that is essential to the devlopment of a cure is to give scientists the money, why not just have the government support the scientists and leave the cappies out of the question?

Edit: Also, you&#39;d be hardpressed to find a member of this site advocating a centralized form of economy. Don&#39;t blame us for what others have done.