Whats the worst thing about capatilism

[capatilist dude]

Whats good about communism

[Dune Dx]

Corperations dont exploit the worker or consumer.

Every one has a job.

Every one has a home.

Every one has equal rights and chances as everyone has the same pay.

and my tea is ready so I have to finish this post very quickly

[capatilist dude]

The reason there are equal rights through communism because it gets rid of them so everyone has no rights

[Rising]

What's good about communism? the equality represented in it. In a capitalist society, nobody is equal, everybody is competing, not knowing that others are falling behind, the idea is to get everyone ahead. It's like every man for himself, or survival of the fittest, when it should be no man gets left behind (or woman). That's what I think.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Whats so good about capitalism?

[Xvall]

Whats the worst thing about capatilism

You.

[Rasta Sapian]

A wealthy man wines on shelfish, and orderbs, meanwhile outside the gates of his mansion, there is a pregnant girl, giving head for a hit of crack! Who will help her? Who will pay her medical bills? Who will deliver her crack baby? Who will pay enough taxes to support a public health care system with re-hab clinics employed with civil servants to help people in need. It won't happen when people are to busy counting there own money, people to greedy to share there wealth with people in need!

[Essential Insignificance]

The reason there are equal rights through communism because it gets rid of them so everyone has no rights

What, sagacity is this peculiar thought supposed to be comprehended…a very fascinating post.

Do you connote that one man cannot exploit an additional mans labour power, for the profit of himself, well your accurate it does, categorically, take away that right.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 30 2004, 10:54 PM

Whats the worst thing about capatilism

You.

:huh:

[CCCP]

Capitalism causes us to destroy our world so long as we can make some short term personal gains.

[Nas]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 08:44 AM
Capitalism causes us to destroy our world so long as we can make some short term personal gains.
he speaks the truth , in my old house -when i look outside the window , i dont see trees anymore (before there use to be nice looking trees) , you greedy , selfish capitalists , what have you done to our world :angry:

[Disguise]

Captialism is like gambling, you have a small chance to become incredibly wealthy and a good chance that you'll wind up poor. Communism means you don't have to take the chance. You get to live comfortably no matter whatl; but that's not enough for some.

[7189]

The worst thing about capitalism is when power-hungry corporations exploit people for the sake of profits.

Communism on the other hand is a wonderful idea, but it will never work. This is because human nature prevents it from working.

[Essential Insignificance]

Communism on the other hand is a wonderful idea, but it will never work. This is because human nature prevents it from working.

This trifling, cavil objections that communism will "never" work are ever so much exasperating. Why, because of "human nature"…there is know such universal fixation. Period.

[7189]

What a load of bs. Learn English.

[Dune Dx]

7189 you probably shouldnt go on about human nature on this site I argued about it and you cant define human nature because human nature would imply it was the same for everyone but there are selfless people out there. The problem comes in capatilist systems when huge money hungry corporations have the powere and wont relinquish it for the over all good.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by capatilist [email protected] 30 2004, 04:47 PM
The reason there are equal rights through communism because it gets rid of them so everyone has no rights
In fact the basic idea of a communist society would be that people have many rights.
Not as in capitalism where their rights are just the only ones that benefit the ruling class.

[Lardlad95]

....I've never seen this option before...odd...

Anywho, communism's best quality is the lack of exploitation. Everyone is totally equal and it's cooperative.

[Essential Insignificance]

What a load of bs. Learn English.

If this preposterous sentiment is intended for me, I fall short to see your reasoning.

[cubist]

sacrifice of human welfare for a few $$$£££$$$,
encouragemeant of greed,

[7189]

Ditto

[7189]

7189 you probably shouldnt go on about human nature on this site I argued about it and you cant define human nature because human nature would imply it was the same for everyone but there are selfless people out there.

A very small minority.

Not enough for Communism to work.

[Dune Dx]

but if there is a small minority this means it isnt inherrent in every human being. its something picked up in life so its taught, and if its taught then we just dont teach it to people

[7189]

but if there is a small minority this means it isnt inherrent in every human being. its something picked up in life so its taught, and if its taught then we just dont teach it to people

Good point, but couldn't these individuals be classed as mere oddities? Even so, how selfless are they? To be completely and utterly selfless is incredibly difficult, and quite frankly, unnatural.

Charles Darwin came up with the theory of the survival of the fittest. It happens with all other animals, so why not us? Competition is essential for the preservation of the species. Communism is incompatible with this, and so cannot work. It will never work either, simply because you cannot modify human nature.

[cubist]

greed is not inherent its a result of capitalism not human evolution


Charles Darwin came up with the theory of the survival of the fittest. It happens with all other animals, so why not us? Competition is essential for the preservation of the species. Communism is incompatible with this, and so cannot work. It will never work either, simply because you cannot modify human nature.

This post has been edited by 7189 on Apr 7 2004, 05:53 PM


it does apply to us, we are there but we cheated we didn't need to be fit and strong, we were clever enough to work out that tools save on energy and fitness requirements.
we are still competitive on all levels,
but we have been introduced to competiveness on a class scale too which is where most of our effort is placed, trying to be rich, brreding greed effectively, but comadre this will only exist in capitalist economies,

[7189]

Greed had been around long before capitalism came along.

[cubist]

had? greed isn't dead.

yes it will have been present since day one even in fuedal times, but fuedal times didn't encourage greed, capitalism relies on greed and "supposed inherent human weakness" to survive.

why do you believe that you are a fallable being why do you rak yourself as weak?

[7189]

Communism is a beautiful concept, and I wish it could be realised. Unfortunately it never will. No human being will ever be able to care for everyone else in the entire world more than itself. Marx had many wonderful ideas, yet he didn't seem to take into account the crucial fact that man is weak. To attribute man's weakness to one thing, such as capitalism, is folly. Man is weak, and will always be weak. I am not condemning my fellow brothers and sisters. I believe mankind can achieve a lot of wonderful things, but it is important to be realistic. Therefore, I conclude that due to the weakness of mankind, Communism will never work.

Brothers, sisters, comrades! We must find another way! I believe strongly that this should be the task of our generation : to find a better way for mankind to live together. I am positive we can accomplish this! Call me an optimist, call me Panglossian, call me stupid, or just call me 7189. :D

[Essential Insignificance]

Unfortunately it never will


Thats quite an audacious statement with know substantial reasoning.



No human being will ever be able to care for everyone else in the entire world more than itself

Again whats your reasoning.


but it is important to be realistic

Let we say, and I being an part of mankind, that I am being incredibly realistic about the global situation…and the creditability of the proletarians mass consciousness of awaking to there imprisonment and penury.

The proletarians will devastate the greed that you so often affiliate with the nature of mankind…if you took the time to examine the human kind on an mass scale you will comprehend that only a marginal proportion of it is "greedy".

Its capitalism , or more to the point class society that makes man "greedy"…not themselves.



Therefore, I conclude that due to the weakness of mankind, Communism will never work.

I am inclined to disagree hear relatively powerfully. Mankind in not weak…capitalism does "weaken" them under their subordination…the proletarian in concord, will demolish this subordination.

[cubist]

Communism is a beautiful concept, and I wish it could be realised. Unfortunately it never will. No human being will ever be able to care for everyone else in the entire world more than itself. Marx had many wonderful ideas, yet he didn't seem to take into account the crucial fact that man is weak. To attribute man's weakness to one thing, such as capitalism, is folly. Man is weak, and will always be weak. I am not condemning my fellow brothers and sisters. I believe mankind can achieve a lot of wonderful things, but it is important to be realistic. Therefore, I conclude that due to the weakness of mankind, Communism will never work.

Brothers, sisters, comrades! We must find another way! I believe strongly that this should be the task of our generation : to find a better way for mankind to live together. I am positive we can accomplish this! Call me an optimist, call me Panglossian, call me stupid, or just call me 7189.

comrade you are weak, you have become unconscious and a believer in human weakness thats what they want you to think, it is possible. the other way is raise the concsciousness of the proleteriat and bring round revolution not creating a new political ideal to save humanity, no other ideal can be there. its capitalism or communism in this day, people can not harmonise capitalism with socialism its not plausible, one works on equality of rights, and the other relies on oppression and exploitation for means of greater profits.

to create something which doesn't oppress people but makes the rich richer i would love to see comrade, but your relying on the rich to have a heart to pay those more

Man is not weak, man is confused and trapped into wage slavery, and is encouragd to compete in a rat race, which promises freedom if you get rich, that if is huge for us all to be rich would mean the richest will have to become poorer.

democracy is a joke free choice of governemnt provided you choose A or B, C D & F have been removed becuase they don't want to make us (bougeiose) more money.


to attribute yourself as weak makes you a worthless character, how can you do anything if you believe you are fallable and weak.

marx didn't believe man was weak, he saw capitalism as the creator of a belief in human weakness, and he saw religion as a cure, have you actually read any of marx's books?

[7189]

From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs. - Karl Marx, Criticism of the Gotha Programme (1875)

For this statement to be feasible, and for Communism to work requires every single human being to care about every other human being more than itself. Survival of the fittest, natural competition, the strongest of the race etc, prevents this! No-one is completely selfless, and so, this will never work.

Let we say, and I being an part of mankind, that I am being incredibly realistic about the global situation…and the creditability of the proletarians mass consciousness of awaking to there imprisonment and penury.

What a ridiculous statement! The proletariat isn't awakening to anything! Most of the proletariat is completely uneducated and hasn't the faintest idea of what is going on in the world! They don't have the time to ponder and philosophise, only the middle and upper classes have that opportunity! Che, Fidel, Marx, they were all part of the middle class!

The proletarians will devastate the greed that you so often affiliate with the nature of mankind…if you took the time to examine the human kind on an mass scale you will comprehend that only a marginal proportion of it is "greedy".

Interesting. I suppose you have examined 'the human kind' on a mass scale. Quite an achievement I must say. Must have taken a couple of centuries no doubt. I would be much obliged if you could present these examinations here for all to see.

Its capitalism , or more to the point class society that makes man "greedy"…not themselves.

You heap the blame on capitalism. We created capitalism! Do you even know about the roots of capitalism? If not, I suggest you read Adam's Smith's The Wealth of Nations. I think you will find that capitalism is not the cause of greed, but the consequence.

I am inclined to disagree hear relatively powerfully. Mankind in not weak…capitalism does "weaken" them under their subordination…the proletarian in concord, will demolish this subordination*.

I see. Look into the past my friend. What did the Communist revolutions achieve other than death, destruction and misery? OK, Cuba didn't do too badly, but just look at Russia!

* By the way, are you a psychopath? This sounds rather 'Hitler-esque'.

[7189]

comrade you are weak, you have become unconscious and a believer in human weakness thats what they want you to think, it is possible.

to attribute yourself as weak makes you a worthless character, how can you do anything if you believe you are fallable and weak.

I am offended. I am not unconscious, I am not deluded, nor am I falling victim to anyone or anything. I am not weak, nor do I consider myself fallable. I am being realistic. I see things with the pros and the cons attached. I try to look at things without bias. Just because I accept that I have weaknesses and that my fellow humans have weaknesses doesn't make me personally weak! If anything it makes me wise! To deny your flaws, your inabilities, your vices, your weaknesses makes you yourself weak.

its capitalism or communism in this day

NO! We can draw up new, better ways! People thought of them, so we can think of more!

to create something which doesn't oppress people but makes the rich richer i would love to see comrade, but your relying on the rich to have a heart to pay those more

Hold on a minute here. Who said anything about making the rich richer? Who said I am relying on the rich to have a heart? I certainly didn't. I merely stated that we should try and find a better way of life, better than Communism and Capitalism.

Man is not weak, man is confused and trapped into wage slavery, and is encouragd to compete in a rat race, which promises freedom if you get rich, that if is huge for us all to be rich would mean the richest will have to become poorer.

You are too short-sighted. Look into the past, long before capitalism, and you will see that mankind was very, very weak.

democracy is a joke free choice of governemnt provided you choose A or B, C D & F have been removed becuase they don't want to make us (bougeiose) more money.

Marx said that democracy is for fools. I disagree. Democracy in the right hands (i.e the people) is very good. I agree that the rulers of our world, politicians and businessmen alike, are mostly bastards who like to mess around with us, which is why we have to get rid of them and replace them with better people, and a better system! BUT NOT COMMUNISM. It has failed too many times, and as I have said is incompatible with human nature.

marx didn't believe man was weak, he saw capitalism as the creator of a belief in human weakness, and he saw religion as a cure, have you actually read any of marx's books?

Marx saw religion not as a cure, but as a drug, which it is :

Religion... is the opium of the people Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right (1843-4)

Personally, I think Marx was too optimistic about mankind. He didn't take into account its many vices.

[cubist]

ok firstly
don't be offended, but your belief in communisms failures brings you among the unconcsious in terms of slaves to wage (proleteriat).

the rich will not let you implement anything that makes them poor and that inevitbale if your going to create a political ideal. that brings about equality and free education health service, and other national benifits to the people

i see no otherways except the ways allready there, i would love to hear how you intend to do such a thing,

but i do question your belief in human weakness, why is man weak, what is the evolved flaw that only humans have?

[7189]

don't be offended, but your belief in communisms failures brings you among the unconcsious in terms of slaves to wage (proleteriat).

How?

the rich will not let you implement anything that makes them poor and that inevitbale if your going to create a political ideal. that brings about equality and free education health service, and other national benifits to the people

Then we revolt against the rich!

I see no otherways except the ways allready there, i would love to hear how you intend to do such a thing

At this current time, I have no idea, for I am young and inexperienced.

but i do question your belief in human weakness, why is man weak, what is the evolved flaw that only humans have?

Look at the history of mankind. What do you see? War, suffering, pain, sadness. These have all been brought about by the many weaknesses of mankind. These include pride, arrogance, selfishness, jealousy, envy, greed, anger, lust, wrath, the list goes on. Why? Who knows? Maybe its because our natural instincts clash with our ideals and our beliefs. I honestly cannot answer that question. It is one of the unsolved mysteries of life.

What I do know, is that these weaknesses prevent Communism from working.

[Essential Insignificance]

What a ridiculous statement! The proletariat isn't awakening to anything! Most of the proletariat is completely uneducated and hasn't the faintest idea of what is going on in the world! They don't have the time to ponder and philosophise, only the middle and upper classes have that opportunity! Che, Fidel, Marx, they were all part of the middle class!


It hasn’t to date, in an heavily industrialised nation on a mass scale. Although there was a rather large and progress general strike in France in 1968.

The proletarian will sooner or later recognize their position under the despotism of capitalist society…its only an matter of time.

Most…that depends on what nation your discoursing about 3rd world or highly capitalist nations…the former you are correct the latter you are not. Minority may a have been the more appropriate word.

I have some friends, whom are considered proletarians, and admittedly there not the most intelligent guys…but they know what’s going on.

Of course they don’t have the time to 'ponder" and "philosophise", because their to busy making money for the bourgeois, on an impressive scale….that doesn’t imply that there absolutely oblivious to thier position, in class society.


Interesting. I suppose you have examined 'the human kind' on a mass scale. Quite an achievement I must say. Must have taken a couple of centuries no doubt. I would be much obliged if you could present these examinations here for all to see.

No, not at all, just a few books…and logical reasoning of them.


You heap the blame on capitalism. We created capitalism! Do you even know about the roots of capitalism? If not, I suggest you read Adam's Smith's The Wealth of Nations. I think you will find that capitalism is not the cause of greed, but the consequence

Yes "we" did…but capitalism is only objectively high-quality for a few…the vast majority its an nightmare.

Its class society that makes men covetous in his pursuit to survive.


I see. Look into the past my friend. What did the Communist revolutions achieve other than death, destruction and misery? OK, Cuba didn't do too badly, but just look at Russia!

I am in agreement, in totality…the material conditions of theses revolutions were in order for the succession from feudalism to capitalism.

These revolutions that you speak of were not the work of the proletarian, on an mass scale…some not even having any, well not much at all. Russian, for instance…3 million out of an population of 150 million.


By the way, are you a psychopath? This sounds rather 'Hitler-esque'.

No, that is, not that I am attentive of. Just saying how it will be. :D

[Fidelbrand]

Whats the worst thing about capitilism--->
consumerism.

1)Fucking change a model of (computer, cell-phonoes, high-fi, etc) every 2-3 months (or WEEKS) to enrich the rich.
2)Custody and restirction on one's soul, perverted herd instinct to follow the bloody trend created by the market machine~ ------> ZOMBIES~~~~~~~~

[Nas]

Survival of the fittest means the ones most "fit" to the environment will survive !!!!!!

it doesn't mean "the strongest will survive"

[Dune Dx]

Just out of curiosity do you people think survival of the fittest is the same as evolution?

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

The proletarian will sooner or later recognize their position under the despotism of capitalist society…its only an matter of time.

Thats quite an assumption, the same Marx made a long time ago. In fact there a more barriers to revolution in our time especially toward violent revolution plus of course propaghanda has come in leaps and bounds.

I think you are wrong on this one anyway.


I have some friends, whom are considered proletarians, and admittedly there not the most intelligent guys…but they know what’s going on.

Well so do I and they are completely apathetic towards politics and their situation. The working class cares not for some mass revolution but who is going to win the match on saturday etc. Of course there are revolutions for example a member I know from this board personally but the general concensus is not towards any kind of liberation unless it is of national importance.


Of course they don’t have the time to 'ponder" and "philosophise", because their to busy making money for the bourgeois, on an impressive scale….that doesn’t imply that there absolutely oblivious to thier position, in class society.

Marx would beg to differ. In the German Ideology he points out quite clearly that workers become immersed in their work etc. Class conciousness is something I am only getting my teeth into so I'll come back on this.


No, not at all, just a few books…and logical reasoning of them.

Can I get a bibliography there? Seriously.





Yes "we" did…but capitalism is only objectively high-quality for a few…the vast majority its an nightmare.

I thought this was quite obvious, why have you stated it.




Its class society that makes men covetous in his pursuit to survive.

You are blaming class antagonism for mans natural response to gain as much for himself as he can?


I am in agreement, in totality…the material conditions of theses revolutions were in order for the succession from feudalism to capitalism.

I cant make sense of this, your English is obscure and disobeys its natural function: to clearly communicate ideas.

For example the following statement is like symbolism for Wittengenstein... :D


No, that is, not that I am attentive of.

[Essential Insignificance]

Thats quite an assumption, the same Marx made a long time ago. In fact there a more barriers to revolution in our time especially toward violent revolution plus of course propaghanda has come in leaps and bounds.

I think you are wrong on this one anyway

It was admittedly, an intrepid statement without much reasoning...thats not to say that I am wrong.


Well so do I and they are completely apathetic towards politics and their situation. The working class cares not for some mass revolution but who is going to win the match on saturday etc. Of course there are revolutions for example a member I know from this board personally but the general concensus is not towards any kind of liberation unless it is of national importance

Seldom did I intend to point out that the general population of proletarians were engrossed in mass revolution..at the momment. I was referring to the consciousness of mass exploration and class society and they’re position in it.

Sooner or latter it "may" cross their mind.


Marx would beg to differ. In the German Ideology he points out quite clearly that workers become immersed in their work etc. Class conciousness is something I am only getting my teeth into so I'll come back on this.

The people I know, absolutely "detest" their, given occupation…is that what your getting at.

On what would Marx "differ".



Can I get a bibliography there? Seriously.

You mentioned the German Ideology earlier...that would be an splendid start.


I thought this was quite obvious, why have you stated it.

Reiteration…in order to make abundantly clear for those that are in irresolute.


You are blaming class antagonism for mans natural response to gain as much for himself as he can?

What is meant by ''natural respones" to gain more.


I cant make sense of this, your English is obscure and disobeys its natural function: to clearly communicate ideas.

I think that it is plausibly understandable and articulated. Was this post much more simpler...it seemed it.

[cubist]

the strongest will survive, in many cases, primarily look at cats, the cheif lion mates with all the females and beats everyone else up when he finally loses someone else gets mationg rights, also upon loosing the lions cubs are eaten by the victor.

7189

Look at the history of mankind. What do you see? War, suffering, pain, sadness. These have all been brought about by the many weaknesses of mankind. These include pride, arrogance, selfishness, jealousy, envy, greed, anger, lust, wrath, the list goes on. Why? Who knows? Maybe its because our natural instincts clash with our ideals and our beliefs. I honestly cannot answer that question. It is one of the unsolved mysteries of life.

What I do know, is that these weaknesses prevent Communism from working.


oh look the seven deadly sins plus some extras, unsolved mysteries, the only mystery is how you can be a socialist with these opinoins.

these are not weakness in mankind they are personal weaknesses exploited and taught by capitalism, capitalism wants you to spend money,

easiest ways are,CLASS, be jealous of others so you have better things which cost more

capitalism wants those that have everything to carry on spending, so greed is used to get them to thik that quantity is another way of providing CLASS,

anger is not a weakness anger is a reaction to oppression and feelings of inferiority its natural yes but its not a weakness if anything its a strneght it stops you beiong oppressed.


again envy is jealousy of those that have a higher CLASS status, its purely material, man created materialism so envy and jealousy are products of CLASS systems not nature.

Lust thats natural yes but again lust provides the foundation for procreation and thus reproduction one of the fundamentals basis's of survival. i fail to see it as a weakness.

wrath is carrying out vegance or acting upon anger, again prime instinct of survival but i fail to see it as a weakness as its there for survival purposes.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

It was admittedly, an intrepid statement without much reasoning...thats not to say that I am wrong.

What was fearless about your statement?


Seldom did I intend to point out that the general population of proletarians were engrossed in mass revolution..at the momment. I was referring to the consciousness of mass exploration and class society and they’re position in it.

Sooner or latter it "may" cross their mind.

A very unclear statement both in the idea and the way in which it is presented. Your English is a blend of overabundance and disregard for clear communication.


The people I know, absolutely "detest" their, given occupation…is that what your getting at.

On what would Marx "differ".

Why is differ in quotations marks? He would differ on the proletariats awareness of their alienation.




You mentioned the German Ideology earlier...that would be an splendid start.

Um, I asked for a bibliography not because I wanted it for myself but to see where you are coming from, obviously I have read it if I am attempting to refute your points from it...


Reiteration…in order to make abundantly clear for those that are in irresolute.

It would help then if you put it in a form of English understandible to all. I know Professors of English who would be confused by your English not because it is good but due to its use of words you do not need.


What is meant by ''natural respones" to gain more.

Man's inherent desire to have more.


I think that it is plausibly understandable and articulated. Was this post much more simpler...it seemed it.

Not really, you need to scale down your vocab to suit the 'mood', to be honest you are overdoing what you are trying to communicate. Remember the most effective way to communicate your ideas is with short, simple sentences.

[Essential Insignificance]

What was fearless about your statement?

My assertion.


A very unclear statement both in the idea and the way in which it is presented. Your English is a blend of overabundance and disregard for clear communication

I disagree.



It would help then if you put it in a form of English understandible to all. I know Professors of English who would be confused by your English not because it is good but due to its use of words you do not need.

I guess they’re not up to the standard. I think I need those words, when explaining something…and that’s what counts.


Man's inherent desire to have more

Men does not have an "inherent" desire to obtain more, then one requires, to appease their daily perquisites.

If what your saying is true…then communism has know chance from the "start".



Not really, you need to scale down your vocab to suit the 'mood', to be honest you are overdoing what you are trying to communicate. Remember the most effective way to communicate your ideas is with short, simple sentences

If I am indeed…it unpremeditated…its just flowing, its how I always converse.

My communication is short with simple sentences…that’s the way I see it anyway.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I guess they’re not up to the standard. I think I need those words, when explaining something…and that’s what counts.

First of all, my English professor is not up to that standard, nobody is. I sit among 300 English undergraduates who would laugh at the way you try to sound like you have some kind of elite command of English, in fact I showed one and he thought it was a joke on my part.

Secondly you do not need these words, you use words that are required to explain diffiulct concepts or if the meaning needs to be exact for say a treatise but not on a bloody message board.


Men does not have an "inherent" desire to obtain more, then one requires, to appease their daily perquisites.

If what your saying is true…then communism has know chance from the "start".

It is Nno not trying to be sarcastic but you have done that way to much.

I dont think communism has a chance, I have long given up on that idea.



If I am indeed…it unpremeditated…its just flowing, its how I always converse.

My communication is short with simple sentences…that’s the way I see it anyway.

Ok so you believe the following sentence is short and simple:

Men does not have an "inherent" desire to obtain more, then one requires, to appease their daily perquisites.


I see so many dodgy aspects to this sentence I can only presume you are maybe in your final year of school caught in the trap of pretentious words and elongated sentences, I have a feeling you will grow out of it once you hit college where an examiner would most likely spill their coffee upon looking at your work.

[Revolt!]

The guy who started this thread didn't even spell capitalist right in his name. Then he went on to say the opposite of what it said in the title. No wonder hes restricted.

Capitalism creates an illusion of necessity. It places the majority of wealth to the few and so they have the most power. We cannot allow a small group of elitists to gain so much control over society; in business, in media and in politics. It creates huge inequalities for the rest of the world. The majority of countries in the world are poor, third world ones because they produce everything for us! And we repay their good work with pathetic salaries.

[Essential Insignificance]

The subject matter of the intended question has in the process of the thread become a little of "track"…this is of course anticipated.

After a lengthy amount of recurring retaliations on my literary style…I get the point.

Even though after the amount of attention that has been generated, I still, notwithstanding, disagree somewhat strongly.

I have just shown my girlfriends farther a few of my posts, whom is an Professor of History and Classical Literature, who is always candid about my papers when I ask him to read over them…he said that although there are a "few inaccuracies, grammatical problems and the like", they are nonetheless in accordance with that of an sagacity paper.

Like you said, it is only a message board.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

They are in accordance but highly pretensious and this is coming from somebody who has been called pretentious a lot on this message board.

I guess I can not ask you to change your style but I believe it is a forced, unnatural style but thats just my opinion.

[Wenty]

I concur with Geist. I find it hard to believe a Professor would have only said 'a few' cus i can see many little mistakes which bug me! You use 'an' in many of the wrong places! and farther is spelt the way in which it relates to distance! Arg!!

[cubist]

avin sed all dis u fuken h8 it wen ppl shrt typ 2

[Essential Insignificance]

Simple spelling mistakes... everyone is receptive to them every now and then.

Its a message board…it customary.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Simple spelling mistakes mixed with over elaborate English however is not.

[God of Imperia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 06:17 PM
Marx said that democracy is for fools. I disagree. Democracy in the right hands (i.e the people) is very good. I agree that the rulers of our world, politicians and businessmen alike, are mostly bastards who like to mess around with us, which is why we have to get rid of them and replace them with better people, and a better system! BUT NOT COMMUNISM. It has failed too many times, and as I have said is incompatible with human nature.
Communism is never really been achieved, nor even been close to achieving it. So it is impossible to say that communism failed us.

[Essential Insignificance]

Communism is never really been achieved

Not even in the "slightest" .

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

However it is possible to say that all atempts at communism has failed.

Cuba has attained a certain socialist society.

[Essential Insignificance]

However it is possible to say that all atempts at communism has failed.

It is "possible" to say that…but I diverge, I don’t see them as "attempts" at communism... but rather extended socialist despotism.



Cuba has attained a certain socialist society.

Agreed insofar.

[7189]

Communism hasn't been achieved because it is incompatible with mankind.

[robob8706]

Communism can be achieved through thorough education of virtues and altruism. The world is ours for the taking, anyone who opposes a peace loving society, does not deserve to reap the benifits of such society. Communism is possible through meliorism.

[cubist]

Communism hasn't been achieved because it is incompatible with mankind.

is that it after all the challenges to yourpossts thats it. thats all you cancome up with.

please explain why it is incompatible wit hmankind

[7189]

I have proved my point.

[Essential Insignificance]

Communism hasn't been achieved because it is incompatible with mankind.

Why…because of "insatiability", have you not got the "point"…man is not "inherently" avaricious.

Material conditions make man; therefore if men changes his material conditions he changes himself in the process.

It has not be "achieved" because of material conditions…to date. Examine the revolutions of the 20th century there lies your answer.

[cubist]

I have proved my point.

no you haven't even refuted arguments against your belief that mankind is fallable, you my friend have prooved nothing, i wish to leave at this fine, if you wish to explain how mankind is naturally selfish, and how due to the inherent fallability we supposedly have (which i may add i find insulting that you believe i am selfish and that there nothing i can do about it,) Commusim will never work.

you have used examples of supposed failed attempt which to teh actual definiton of communism weren't even attempts at communism, but that is niether here nor there on this matter

[Gunman]

The worst thing about capitalism it has to be the exploitation!

[Cerebral Knievel]

Mankind's fallability and selfishness doesn't have to be "proven" as history has done this time and time again. The burden of proof is on those who base their trust and philosophical and political stances on the "charity" of man, as that is rarely proven.

Capitalism is strong and spreading because it appeals to all "animals" tendency for self preservation and inclusion in the strongest of the available groups.

[Essential Insignificance]

Mankind's fallability and selfishness doesn't have to be "proven" as history has done this time and time again.

It is obvious to the onlooker that who have none to little "faith" in mankind and his ability to smash class society…and I think we have read dissimilar books of human history.



The burden of proof is on those who base their trust and philosophical and political stances on the "charity" of man, as that is rarely proven.

I put nothing upon the "charity" of man.



Capitalism is strong and spreading because it appeals to all "animals" tendency for self-preservation and inclusion in the strongest of the available groups.

It is spreading because it is progressive and for other reasoning notwithstanding…now there’s a fundamental mistake; "animals" are the most "unselfish" creatures on earth, they take what they need an nothing more…man does not so.

If your thinking is that the bourgeoisie is the "strongest" "group"…then you are intolerably wrong. There the weakest.

[Cerebral Knievel]

Most efforts to "smash" class society have failed miserably because the reformers reverted to a natural state of greed and selfishness, which led to the creation of new "classes" that empowered themselves. Class society is never really smashed, it is just reordered. It is easy to be generous when you have nothing to lose.

Animals establish social hierachies too, and kill or maim to enforce their "class" systemgs.

[Essential Insignificance]

Most efforts to "smash" class society have failed miserably because the reformers reverted to a natural state of greed and selfishness, which led to the creation of new "classes" that empowered themselves. Class society is never really smashed, it is just reordered. It is easy to be generous when you have nothing to lose.

I would go one "stride" auxiliary then yourself and say all socialistic revolutions have "failed" despondently insofar, but capitalism did come out of it, which is highly progressive …the material conditions would not allow anything more…most if not all 20th century revolutions were carried out by an "self appointed" vanguard…following the teachings of Lenin and supposedly Marx…in semi-feudalistic nations with strong aristocracies and colonial powers.

This however was not what Marx had in mind when he referred about proletarian revolution…all the revolutions of the 20th century were proletarian revolutions in name only, there were however bourgeoisie revolutions …its all rather inconsistent with Marxism, that is, Leninism.

The "laws" of history are following their "inherent" course.


Animals establish social hierachies too, and kill or maim to enforce their "class" systemgs.

There are no "classes" in nature…nature is nature, its how it is. Its anarchist and lawless.

[Cerebral Knievel]

There are no "classes" in nature…nature is nature, its how it is. Its anarchist and lawless.

What are alphas and dominants, omegas and outcasts if not "classes" in their simplest forms? Most pack animals hold to clearly defined social guidelines that determine when and if you eat, mate, etc. It is not the free for all you are implying that it is.

[Essential Insignificance]

What are alphas and dominants, omegas and outcasts if not "classes" in their simplest forms? Most pack animals hold to clearly defined social guidelines that determine when and if you eat, mate, etc. It is not the free for all you are implying that it is.

I acknowledge that there are "hierarchies" in nature…but it is nature and nature does not have "classes"…it all most seems you are signifying that there are "social" "classes" in nature.

[Raisa]

When there is communism....the things that you complain " we all have the same!" wont even matter. It wont be an issue, because we wont need to be that way any more.

That is when, the human race can soar in its greatness, and be the gods we really are, because we are amazing.We are the gods that can right wrongs like diseases, can travel space, and make astounding conclusions. We are the only living thing to descover atoms.

We are the only living thing that can think about our effect on the planet, we take that for granted. Right now we are not at our potential, we are subject to a belittling system where every one has to struggle like they are all alone as they live in a society full of people. We are alienated.

We cant think about OUR world so much as human beings when we are workers becasue we are in a system that does not even care about human beings, and the ones of us who are in control become blind. They see whats wrong, they just dont see whats wrong with it. The ones of us who do see, are living it and are too buisy in our pay check to pay check lives to loose every thing in an attempt to open their eyes when we have families we start as one of the only things to look forward to in the world.

In alienation our good is perverted. We descover the atom makes everying and contain it into the device that destroys every thing.

This speaks innumerable words on our condition.
It is so sad to see such a magnificent creature belittling itself in the alienation that is this system we are so much better then. We can be great. We are great. And all it takes is a matter of showing it.

The few things the ritchest man acheives for himself in his life, is nothing compared the brilliance the human race can acheive together.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Essential [email protected] 3 2004, 11:37 PM

What are alphas and dominants, omegas and outcasts if not "classes" in their simplest forms? Most pack animals hold to clearly defined social guidelines that determine when and if you eat, mate, etc. It is not the free for all you are implying that it is.

I acknowledge that there are "hierarchies" in nature…but it is nature and nature does not have "classes"…it all most seems you are signifying that there are "social" "classes" in nature.
Thats almost how its taught to us. You&#39;d think that thought process was a reflection of acceptance of social class. <_<

[Cerebral Knievel]

Originally posted by Essential [email protected] 3 2004, 11:37 PM

I acknowledge that there are "hierarchies" in nature…but it is nature and nature does not have "classes"…it all most seems you are signifying that there are "social" "classes" in nature.


We can debate semantics until we all become queasy, but in the end "pecking orders", "hierachies" and "classes" are essentially the same thing...imposed limits on your role in the society in which you exist. Egalitarian/collectivist style social models have no parallel in nature...all living things divide themselves into groups and it is inevitable that one group (or individual) will become dominant and establish a social order that reinforces it&#39;s dominance. Is a society of equals impossible? I refuse to say that, but it is "unlikely" as it only takes a greedy minority to undermine the attempt. This is not taking observations of animal behavior out of context to support an opinion this is simple, unprejudiced fact.

[Cerebral Knievel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 11:59 PM

Thats almost how its taught to us. You&#39;d think that thought process was a reflection of acceptance of social class.


It is an acceptance that "class" in it&#39;s rawest form is not a uniquely "human" entity. It by no means condones "class", or declares class struggle a futile and flawed pursuit, but it does underline one of the pitfalls of communal society..natural behavior in most living things isn&#39;t generous, selfless or egalitarian. If it was, "voracious" capitalist government models would be losing ground rather than gaining.

[percept¡on]

The idea is not that classes are natural or unnatural - it doesn&#39;t matter. Social hierarchy may very well be natural. Hierarchical orders such as capitalism reward certain inherent human qualities/tendencies, one of which is self preservation, or, in its perverse manifestation, greed. But Marxism as an ideology focuses too much on the goal of the destruction of capitalism. It is a given that the current system will have to be dismantled in order to build a new order. How that comes about is irrelevant. In order to create a sustainable society which is non-hierarchical, we must find a way to reward those of man&#39;s tendencies which would support such an order - his altruism, his conscience, his communitarianism. And moral incentives unfortunately are vastly insufficient.

[Cerebral Knievel]

Originally posted by percept¡[email protected] 4 2004, 03:39 AM
The idea is not that classes are natural or unnatural - it doesn&#39;t matter. Social hierarchy may very well be natural. Hierarchical orders such as capitalism reward certain inherent human qualities/tendencies, one of which is self preservation, or, in its perverse manifestation, greed. But Marxism as an ideology focuses too much on the goal of the destruction of capitalism. It is a given that the current system will have to be dismantled in order to build a new order. How that comes about is irrelevant. In order to create a sustainable society which is non-hierarchical, we must find a way to reward those of man&#39;s tendencies which would support such an order - his altruism, his conscience, his communitarianism. And moral incentives unfortunately are vastly insufficient.
The problem is...if you "reward" altruism, conscience and communitarianism, you reinforce the scarcity mentality that constantly undermines attempts at equal- communal society. You move away form alturism for altruism&#39;s sake and create a scenario in which demonstration of altruism becomes a method of elevating oneself above your neighbors. In this case the reward creates competition, competion is fueled by scarcity (of rewards, which gain value through rarity) and scarcity is the bane of a society that holds "true" generosity as a central pillar. It is "easier" to be generous with things that you feel are abundant, and people like easy. You cannot introduce actual "value" into any one thing above any other thing without exposing the thread that when pulled will unravel the sweater.

There is no monetary value from being the teacher&#39;s pet but the very fact that a favored position exists disrupts the "balance" of the classroom...some covet the position, others resent it, but very few can look at it without reaction.