if communism or socialism doesn't work........

[Nas]

if it only works on paper , why was there people like Che Guevarra or Mao Zedong?, why are there so many people who believe in this idea ?

why is there a will ?
why do people fight for this idea?

[Shredder]

I veto this question.

[Nas]

its not like a hidden religion or the KKK , where they do not fight , rather terrorize their enemies and do not fight head on , and are secretive and try to seperate themselves from the society which they dont like,

[lucid]

There are a lot of people in this world that are unable to take care of themselves. Therefor they are forced to adopt a belief that they think will provide for them. It's kinda sad =\

[Hate Is Art]

It's sad how people want to create a better world? I find it sad how you people show no compassion for the 3rd world you have created.

[Nas]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 08:20 PM
There are a lot of people in this world that are unable to take care of themselves. Therefor they are forced to adopt a belief that they think will provide for them. It's kinda sad =\
like welfare :D

[DaCuBaN]

There are a lot of people in this world that are unable to take care of themselves. Therefor they are forced to adopt a belief that they think will provide for them

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO !

You've seen it from TOTALLY the wrong perspective. I never got into socialism to leech. Hell, I live in a country that has adopted several socialist ideals such as the welfare state, national health, and yet I buy my healthcare privately because I can afford to and I've never claimed benefits because I don't need them

I'm still an avid supporter of these things because I do not wish to see people suffer

Do you wish to see people suffer?

[Nas]

i do feel kind of sad for the ones who live under welfare, its good for nobody

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 08:11 PM
if it only works on paper , why was there people like Che Guevarra or Mao Zedong?, why are there so many people who believe in this idea ?

why is there a will ?
why do people fight for this idea?
USSR

China

DPRK

Southeast Asia

Eastern BlocK Nations

Cuba


How many tries do you get until someone steps up and says: "This just never ends up the utopia that we calculated out!!!"


Oh, I forgot, somehow America will be at fault.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

It's funny and sad to see how the cappie's on this board, often middleclass and lower, defend the interrests of the upper class. The funny and sad thing about it is, that they wouldn't manage to keep their current welfare in a total cappie state. They wouldn't last a month, if the socialistic grip on capitalism is lost. It's more sad then fun.

[DaCuBaN]

the USA has by no means been a saint in regards to fighting what it perceived as the main threat to their way of life 'the reds'. This said it is incredibly immature to blame the failings of attempted communism purely on the USA. They may have played a vital role in the downfall of many attempts, and could even be attributed as the lynch pin for many, but they are NOT the sole reason and we should stop making out they are.



USSR
China
DPRK
Southeast Asia
Eastern BlocK Nations
Cuba


Not one of these nations ever achieved communism. By your book that makes this a failed experiment, in much the same way as the first 10 lunar launches. Did that stop them though?

*EDIT*
There's a thread flying around somewhere talking about the 'faked' lunar landings.

This always made me laugh... but then I stopped and thought about it. The 11th mission's vid feeds are a tad suspicous (wind moving flag, dust settlling down etc) but then look at mission 13.... complete disaster

I've always taken the attitude (kinda tongue in cheek, though not totally) that the 13th was the first true lunar attempt and the previous were fakes.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Apr 29 2004, 08:34 PM
It's funny and sad to see how the cappie's on this board, often middleclass and lower, defend the interrests of the upper class. The funny and sad thing about it is, that they wouldn't manage to keep their current welfare in a total cappie state. They wouldn't last a month, if the socialistic grip on capitalism is lost. It's more sad then fun.
Its funny that you make presumptions about who is in what class and who would and would not survive in a lazzeis faire (spelling) state.

Your comment holds no substance.

[Nas]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Apr 29 2004, 08:33 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Apr 29 2004, 08:33 PM)
[email protected] 29 2004, 08:11 PM
if it only works on paper , why was there people like Che Guevarra or Mao Zedong?, why are there so many people who believe in this idea ?

why is there a will ?
why do people fight for this idea?
USSR

China

DPRK

Southeast Asia

Eastern BlocK Nations

Cuba


How many tries do you get until someone steps up and says: "This just never ends up the utopia that we calculated out!!!"


Oh, I forgot, somehow America will be at fault. [/b]
Exactly!!!!!!!!!

how many more people does it take until we realize that socialism will never work??????!!!!!!!!
how many more people have to die ?!!!

(i support socialism all the way , and im not saying it will never work)

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Sorry about making presumptions, but here are a couple more:

I assume that most Americans don't own a factory, thus are for their income completly dependable on those who do own a factory. This dependancy on the factoryowner, gives the factoryowner more power then the laborer (most Americans). Power which will be abused.

Suppose tomorrow, by some miracle - you wake up and find out that your dream has come true. Socialism, solidarity and left tendencies have been wiped out.

You and your local factoryowner are in rejoice! The factoryowner celebrates the event, by cutting on your wage! Capitalism is working now, now the waiting for the miracles have started!

He celebrates by cutting your pension! You are even more cheerfull. Soon you know for sure, that employers will stand in lines to give you a higher wage. But you forgot - Oh! Oh! there are thousands, oh wait, millions of others with the same qualifications. It's not the employers who beg for workers, it's the workers who beg. That's a suprise!

Mister Local Factoryowner and his friends of factoryowners decide to commonly raise prices! Now, you have to pinch yourself. No! it's not a dream, it's true. Capitalism pure, it's really happening. You grab your wallet with decreased content and rush to the stores. Buy! Buy! Buy! Buy more! Let's stimulate the Economy! Buy more then we need! Buy now!

After the Pure Capitalism Orgasm is over and your wallet empty. You scratch your head. Inflation, low wages, mass umemployment and few to none workersrights - where does this remind you of?

India? No, India wasn't really cappie. It can't be. Mexico? U.S.A? Whole Africa?Or almost every nation with Capitalism? Laissez Fairez Capitalist Europe around 1900 maybe?

NOO! Capitalism is flawless. It must be those commiepinko's, or those sandniggers again. Let's introduce more PATRIOTIC Act like changes, it will make everything better. Nothing is my fault. Everything is THEIR fault!

[lucid]

We could just do like all the other communist like countries did with their uneeded. Kill em and let em starve.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Name one "communist" country.

Communism is a idealist type of society and that society hasn't been achieved yet. None of the former/existing countries match the critirea of Communism.

[DaCuBaN]

Kill em and let em starve

:lol:

Sorry... I just *had* to pull you up on this.... can you starve a dead man? :P

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Apr 29 2004, 09:31 PM
Name one "communist" country.

Communism is a idealist type of society and that society hasn't been achieved yet. None of the former/existing countries match the critirea of Communism.
oh, of course, those failures were not communism

and santa is coning dec 25th

LOL,LOL,LOL

what an idiot :lol:

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Laughing my pants off.

You still haven't named one communist country and those "failures" you talk about, were socialistic. It even says so in the name. Union of the Socialist Soviet Republics. S O C I A L I S T. That's what makes it funny. They name themselves socialistic, the whole world does, except you and the US gov't. It's like beeing Bob and beeing called Sandy. You funny, funny and kinda weird man.

It's sure clear where you followed your history lessons.

*Yes Capitalist Imperial. America did liberate the whole world and every loves it. Just ignore the massive protests, insurgents and the support for insurgents. I am sorry - did I just hear someone say, Iraq?

[Osman Ghazi]

You are the idiot if you still consider these countries communist. Clearly, if the country does not adhere to the principles of communism, it cannot be called communist. Communism is stateless, therefore a communist state is like saying a white black or an up down. Listen, yes, they called themselves communist, but so what? You could call your ass a tuna fish sandwhich if you really wanted to, but it wouldn't make it so.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Apr 29 2004, 11:43 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Laughing my pants off.

You still haven't named one communist country and those "failures" you talk about, were socialistic. It even says so in the name. Union of the Socialist Soviet Republics. S O C I A L I S T. That's what makes it funny. They name themselves socialistic, the whole world does, except you and the US gov't. It's like beeing Bob and beeing called Sandy. You funny, funny and kinda weird man.

It's sure clear where you followed your history lessons.

*Yes Capitalist Imperial. America did liberate the whole world and every loves it. Just ignore the massive protests, insurgents and the support for insurgents. I am sorry - did I just hear someone say, Iraq?
Don't split hairs on syntax with me, my friend.

Regardless of what the acronym suggests, the U. S. S. R. is the benchmark and posterboy for applied communism, and you know it.

[DaCuBaN]

*sits on his tuna fish sandwich and watches the show*

The various 'attempts' at communism have failed but that doesn't mean you shouldn't keep trying, as the ideal is a great one. Each example failed for a different reason as well, so there is no rule saying communism cannot work

[Take the Power back]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Apr 29 2004, 11:47 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Apr 29 2004, 11:47 PM)
Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Apr 29 2004, 11:43 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Laughing my pants off.

You still haven't named one communist country and those "failures" you talk about, were socialistic. It even says so in the name. Union of the Socialist Soviet Republics. S O C I A L I S T. That's what makes it funny. They name themselves socialistic, the whole world does, except you and the US gov't. It's like beeing Bob and beeing called Sandy. You funny, funny and kinda weird man.

It's sure clear where you followed your history lessons.

*Yes Capitalist Imperial. America did liberate the whole world and every loves it. Just ignore the massive protests, insurgents and the support for insurgents. I am sorry - did I just hear someone say, Iraq?
Don't split hairs on syntax with me, my friend.

Regardless of what the acronym suggests, the U. S. S. R. is the benchmark and posterboy for applied communism, and you know it. [/b]
No, it was never "applied" Lenin distorted Marx's teachings to be put into the people's favor, and he rode it all the way to the top in Russia. True communism has no government, in a sense, rather state-run business. Using a basic idea from Marx (state-run business) the USSR's leaders used it to their advantage, living rather comfortably. So, no, it was never applied.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 08:11 PM
if it only works on paper , why was there people like Che Guevarra or Mao Zedong?, why are there so many people who believe in this idea ?

why is there a will ?
why do people fight for this idea?
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Apr 29 2004, 09:12 PM
Sorry about making presumptions, but here are a couple more:

I assume that most Americans don't own a factory, thus are for their income completly dependable on those who do own a factory. This dependancy on the factoryowner, gives the factoryowner more power then the laborer (most Americans). Power which will be abused.

Suppose tomorrow, by some miracle - you wake up and find out that your dream has come true. Socialism, solidarity and left tendencies have been wiped out.

You and your local factoryowner are in rejoice! The factoryowner celebrates the event, by cutting on your wage! Capitalism is working now, now the waiting for the miracles have started!

He celebrates by cutting your pension! You are even more cheerfull. Soon you know for sure, that employers will stand in lines to give you a higher wage. But you forgot - Oh! Oh! there are thousands, oh wait, millions of others with the same qualifications. It's not the employers who beg for workers, it's the workers who beg. That's a suprise!

Mister Local Factoryowner and his friends of factoryowners decide to commonly raise prices! Now, you have to pinch yourself. No! it's not a dream, it's true. Capitalism pure, it's really happening. You grab your wallet with decreased content and rush to the stores. Buy! Buy! Buy! Buy more! Let's stimulate the Economy! Buy more then we need! Buy now!

After the Pure Capitalism Orgasm is over and your wallet empty. You scratch your head. Inflation, low wages, mass umemployment and few to none workersrights - where does this remind you of?

India? No, India wasn't really cappie. It can't be. Mexico? U.S.A? Whole Africa?Or almost every nation with Capitalism? Laissez Fairez Capitalist Europe around 1900 maybe?

NOO! Capitalism is flawless. It must be those commiepinko's, or those sandniggers again. Let's introduce more PATRIOTIC Act like changes, it will make everything better. Nothing is my fault. Everything is THEIR fault!
It's really cute the way you seem to think that they can just "do" these things at whim, without anyone boycotting them, going out of business or suffering strike action.

And as for inflation, well, if you used the gold standard, I don't see how inflation could really exist.

[Nyder]

If capitalism is so evil then why is it that the standard of living in capitalist countries (like USA, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Canada, the EU) is so much higher then the shithole socialist states of the third world?

And don't give me crap that the third world is the way it is because of 'capitalism'. That is just an unmitigated lie.

[Osman Ghazi]

Umm... Well lets see. All those countries are inhabited by white people; that's somewhat suspicious. Other than that though, if you really don't know that the wealth of these countries was caused by 500 years of colonialism and conquest, then you really oughtta pick up a book or something.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Funny the last time I checked. India, Indonesia, Mongolia, Taiwan, Poland and pretty much every country is capitalistic. And does the word Boycot of Cuba say you anything?

And no, communism hasn't been applied yet. Those were socialistic countries. You can claim that you know it, but you don't. I wanted to use the famous "I know things that we know... something quote of Cheney, but couldn't find it. :)

Strikes you say? Again take your history lessons. The worser the economy is and the fierser the competition, the less workers organise. And even then, we know that as much as Capitalism respects the workers rights, that they have countless times sent the police, army, strikebreakers after the workers. Coca Cola!

And I rather die trying on my way to utopia then sitting in hell.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 30 2004, 11:22 AM
Umm... Well lets see. All those countries are inhabited by white people; that's somewhat suspicious. Other than that though, if you really don't know that the wealth of these countries was caused by 500 years of colonialism and conquest, then you really oughtta pick up a book or something.
You seem to be suggesting that at some point in history we were all "equal" and colonialism is responsible for upsetting that "equality". I think you will find that is a myth, as is the "static wealth" theory. (And please don't trot out the nonsense about only whites took slaves. That's a myth too.)

-------------------------------------------------------


Funny the last time I checked. India, Indonesia, Mongolia, Taiwan, Poland and pretty much every country is capitalistic. And does the word Boycot of Cuba say you anything?

By what definition are they capitalist ?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 30 2004, 11:22 AM
Umm... Well lets see. All those countries are inhabited by white people; that's somewhat suspicious. Other than that though, if you really don't know that the wealth of these countries was caused by 500 years of colonialism and conquest, then you really oughtta pick up a book or something.
logical fallacy: false correlation

You suggest that because his analysis is different than yours, that it is he who suffers friom a lack of education or information, and you are the informed one when in fact that may not be true.

[Osman Ghazi]

You seem to be suggesting that at some point in history we were all "equal" and colonialism is responsible for upsetting that "equality". I think you will find that is a myth, as is the "static wealth" theory. (And please don't trot out the nonsense about only whites took slaves. That's a myth too.)


Yuo know, for a professor, you're not that bright. The first slaves (chattel) were taken in 1516. This is about 200 years or so after Europe gained the advantage over the Muslims in science. Still, it was close. But after they started taking slaves, conquering far-off lands and all that other nice stuff, they started to get a whole lot richer and thus more knowledgable.

Now obviously we weren't all equal at that point but if you are going to try and tell me that the West became rich off of something other than exploiting people, you've got to be retarded. Also, whites taking slaves was somewhat different than when other peoples did it because while in other cultures slaves were captives of war or debtors, chattel slavery was started by going into the jungle and kidnapping people and then selling them for a huge profit. Had people done that before? Sure, mostly Arabs actually. But did they ever do it on a scale like that of the Europeans? You can bet your ass they didn't. If Arab slavers were ever able to capture more than 1% of the population I'd be pretty ing surprised. Europeans, on the other hand took nearly 1/5th of the adult African population. So don't try to tell me that it was the same thing as other types of slavery, becasue it wasn't.

Also, the slave trade of whites ended in about 850 CE, whereas the slave trade of blacks ended in 1850. That is a pretty big difference, no?

And CI, he asked a question. I simply answered him. Obviously, if he didn't know the answer, it would be logical to assume that he should learn it BY READING A BOOK.

[DaCuBaN]

If capitalism is so evil then why is it that the standard of living in capitalist countries (like USA, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Canada, the EU) is so much higher then the shithole socialist states of the third world?

Pick subjects you know about in future ;)

Capitalism does have a role to play in the conditions of the third world, but they did not create them exclusively. However the capitalist nations are in a position to help yet they choose not to...

As for standard of living? well that's just false. I can only assume you never studied history at all as you don't seem to understand that the direct comparison betwen the USA and the USSR on standard of living showed that the poorest in the US was FAR poorer than anyone in the USSR and richest far richer - whereas the USSR the average (which admittedly was below the US) was actually representative of the standard of living. Study mathematics in relation to mean averages - the super rich of the US pull the average standard of living waaaay up beyond what is represntative of life in the US during the cold war.

This is the inequality that socialism tries to right. Everything else is just icing.

[pastradamus]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Apr 29 2004, 08:33 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Apr 29 2004, 08:33 PM)
[email protected] 29 2004, 08:11 PM
if it only works on paper , why was there people like Che Guevarra or Mao Zedong?, why are there so many people who believe in this idea ?

why is there a will ?
why do people fight for this idea?
USSR

China

DPRK

Southeast Asia

Eastern BlocK Nations

Cuba


How many tries do you get until someone steps up and says: "This just never ends up the utopia that we calculated out!!!"


Oh, I forgot, somehow America will be at fault. [/b]
It failed because these countrys were Rich stockpiles of money reduced to rubble by filthy pinko bastards right? Idiot.

[pastradamus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 10:00 AM
If capitalism is so evil then why is it that the standard of living in capitalist countries (like USA, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Canada, the EU) is so much higher then the shithole socialist states of the third world?

And don't give me crap that the third world is the way it is because of 'capitalism'. That is just an unmitigated lie.
Great! Another person that has never read a history book! These Nations are labeled 'Third World States' for a reason.....they lack natural resorces, have poor agricultural base, low buying power, little or no service industries, little Industry, large unemployment, overspending on Arms by corrupt governments & not to mention the fact that they are milked for all they are worth by AmeriKKKa & the IMF as well as overseas multinationals & sweatshops.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by pastradamus+May 1 2004, 03:31 AM--> (pastradamus @ May 1 2004, 03:31 AM)
[email protected] 30 2004, 10:00 AM
If capitalism is so evil then why is it that the standard of living in capitalist countries (like USA, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Canada, the EU) is so much higher then the shithole socialist states of the third world?

And don't give me crap that the third world is the way it is because of 'capitalism'. That is just an unmitigated lie.
Great! Another person that has never read a history book! These Nations are labeled 'Third World States' for a reason.....they lack natural resorces, have poor agricultural base, low buying power, little or no service industries, little Industry, large unemployment, overspending on Arms by corrupt governments & not to mention the fact that they are milked for all they are worth by AmeriKKKa & the IMF as well as overseas multinationals & sweatshops. [/b]
The third world has had plenty of scope to adapt into a modern, prosperous economy. You say they 'lack natural resources' which is a poor assumption because some of the poorest countries are plentiful in resources (Iraq for example).

Western nations are wealthy because they actually produce that amount of wealth, in goods and services. Markets are what have made them wealthy.

Obviously there is some mechanism at work which is stopping the third world from developing. And you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned 'corrupt governments'...

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 11:52 PM
*sits on his tuna fish sandwich and watches the show*

The various 'attempts' at communism have failed but that doesn't mean you shouldn't keep trying, as the ideal is a great one. Each example failed for a different reason as well, so there is no rule saying communism cannot work
A political system that has murdered 100 million people in it's "attempted" implementation is not an ideology.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 03:31 AM
Great! Another person that has never read a history book! These Nations are labeled 'Third World States' for a reason.....they lack natural resorces, have poor agricultural base, low buying power, little or no service industries, little Industry, large unemployment, overspending on Arms by corrupt governments & not to mention the fact that they are milked for all they are worth by AmeriKKKa & the IMF as well as overseas multinationals & sweatshops.
I don't know where you got that crap from, but Africa is rich in natural resources (as many of your comrades insist it's being "exploited" for), not that natural resources are a pre requisite to wealth anyway.

[Professor Moneybags]

Yuo know, for a professor, you're not that bright. The first slaves (chattel) were taken in 1516.

Slavery didn't start until 1516 ? This is a joke isn't it ?


Now obviously we weren't all equal at that point but if you are going to try and tell me that the West became rich off of something other than exploiting people, you've got to be retarded. Also, whites taking slaves was somewhat different than when other peoples did it because while in other cultures slaves were captives of war or debtors,

Lol. What bullshit. Most of the slaves in Africa were slaves to begin with (And even when they ran out of slaves to sell, they would raid another village, tie them up and go out to sell then on thair canoes to the Europeans. Hence the phrase "sold down the river").


chattel slavery was started by going into the jungle and kidnapping people and then selling them for a huge profit. Had people done that before? Sure, mostly Arabs actually. But did they ever do it on a scale like that of the Europeans? You can bet your ass they didn't.

It's the principle that matters, dummy, not the scale.


Also, the slave trade of whites ended in about 850 CE, whereas the slave trade of blacks ended in 1850. That is a pretty big difference, no?

More nonsense. Are you familiar with the lyrics of the US Marine's Hymn ?

"...to the shores of Tripoli."

What happened in Tripoli ? Why, the US Marines were sent to free white slaves from the Africans.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 08:11 PM
if it only works on paper , why was there people like Che Guevarra or Mao Zedong?, why are there so many people who believe in this idea ?

why is there a will ?
why do people fight for this idea?
By your logic, since so many more people believe in capitalism, it must be the better idealogy.

[Osman Ghazi]

A political system that has murdered 100 million people in it's "attempted" implementation is not an ideology.

And capitalism has murdered ten gazillion people. See how fun it is to bandy around numbers that have been wildly exaggerated?


Slavery didn't start until 1516 ? This is a joke isn't it ?


See the part where I specifically said chattel slavery? Not that you'd know what that is, of course.


Lol. What . Most of the slaves in Africa were slaves to begin with (And even when they ran out of slaves to sell, they would raid another village, tie them up and go out to sell then on thair canoes to the Europeans. Hence the phrase "sold down the river").


Umm... they didn't have canoes in Africa. They were invented by Native Americans, but good effort champ. Clearly, you have no idea what the hell your talking about, so why I even bother discussing this is really beyond me but okay:
1) Were there slaves already? Sure there were.
2) Did they make up a significant portion of teh population? No, not really.
3) Clearly, you have never heard of the Asiento, which was an agreement between Portugal and Britain whereby Britain paid Portugal to provide their empire with 150,000 slaves every year. This agreement lasted for more than a hundred years. Add it up, and that is quite a significant number. And that was just the majority of the slave trade, not the whole thing.


It's the principle that matters, dummy, not the scale.


Oh, totally. Because killing 100 million people is exactly like killing one person, right?


More nonsense. Are you familiar with the lyrics of the US Marine's Hymn ?

"...to the shores of Tripoli."

What happened in Tripoli ? Why, the US Marines were sent to free white slaves from the Africans.

Yes, well, there are still white slaves today, whats your point? The thing is that it was legal to enslave blacks and illegal to enslave whites. Also, the Marines were fighting against the Barbary Pirates and, although this is a generalization, pirates tend to break the law.

Still, though, the enslavement of a few white people by pirates didn't cause any economic damage to Europe, whereas chattel slavery decimated the popualtion of Africa and prevented developement in a very significant way.

[gnuneo]

jeez, what garbage masquerading as informed discussion.

1. the states in the former E. europe are NOT commie - they can barely even be classed as socialist, the most accurate description would be state capitalism. The states in the world that *can* be classed as socialist are the nordic lands, finland, denmark, sweden and norway - and they, BTW, have the highest living standards in the world.

2. the US can barely be called capitalistic - not becuase they have the laughable minimal social system, but becuase most of the people are not capitalists - they do not own their own production, they sell it others, and get a substinence ration back, in a manner far closer to feudal times than any notions of free market capitalism.

free market capitalism can only come about in a fully cooperative marketplace, where all the workers are also capitalists, owning the shares in their companies.

for those with two brain cells to rub together, you will note that this is also a definition of direct socialism, but this is hardly surprising to any student of political history who will know that this was the common understanding of Communism until marx came and peddled his victorian notions of social darwinism.

true free market capitalism, and socialism are synonymous, what the barons of the US are espousing is a return to the dark ages, where the elite have total control of the masses, and the masses are little more than plug-n-play machines to create wealth for them to live in splendour whilst the majority toil in poverty.



think about this before replying, ye 'tards, i have little compassion for idiots.

[New Tolerance]

if it only works on paper , why was there people like Che Guevarra or Mao Zedong?, why are there so many people who believe in this idea ?

why is there a will ?
why do people fight for this idea?

Just to bring a fresh perspective (at least I think it's fresh for this thread, unless I missed something)

Reason why these people believed it (if it doesn't work):

- Stupidity
- Igorance
- Naive
- Nothing really works, but people always find something to believe in
- They had too many beans at dinner
- Marx is actually a script writer, and decided to add some drama to this world, and he put on a good show, that's why people liked it
- Why do so many people believe in communism? -> why do so many people believe in god? same reason: shit happens

(hey, don't kill me for suggesting these reasons, I just want to bring a fresh perspective - and those last three are not suppose to be serious)

[Yazman]

Goddamnit Nas, I am really getting sick and tired of all these topics you keep making. It seems to me like you're seriously losing and and all beliefs you ever had in socialism. You're posts always describe the failures of socialism, you're always asking questions like "what if we fail? what if it doesn't work? how come _____ person didn't do this or that?".

I think you need to just stop fucking posting for a while, get yourself ideologically straightened out, and then return if you feel you can post again without bashing the hell out of one ideology just because you're doubting it.

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 03:07 AM
Goddamnit Nas, I am really getting sick and tired of all these topics you keep making. It seems to me like you're seriously losing and and all beliefs you ever had in socialism. You're posts always describe the failures of socialism, you're always asking questions like "what if we fail? what if it doesn't work? how come _____ person didn't do this or that?".

I think you need to just stop fucking posting for a while, get yourself ideologically straightened out, and then return if you feel you can post again without bashing the hell out of one ideology just because you're doubting it.
Read: If you don't share my believes you just shouldn't be able to talk!

Is that better Osman Ghazi?

[Osman Ghazi]

Ummm... Lucid, i.e. means 'for example'.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 11:16 PM
jeez, what garbage masquerading as informed discussion.

1. the states in the former E. europe are NOT commie - they can barely even be classed as socialist, the most accurate description would be state capitalism.
Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere we go again. How many times ?

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "STATE CAPITALISM".

[Osman Ghazi]

That is what is called an unfounded statement and you are masquerading it as fact. Prove it.

[gnuneo]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "STATE CAPITALISM".

wow - once again we see those who imagine volume makes up for content. Can't you do any better 'professor', or is that your best shot?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 08:30 PM
wow - once again we see those who imagine volume makes up for content. Can't you do any better 'professor', or is that your best shot?
State capitalism is a contradiction in terms; I have yet to see any one of you give a coherent, non-contradictory description of what this actually is.

[Osman Ghazi]

In a capitalist society, you attempt to make the most amount of money you can, regardless of who owns the land, if the markets are 'free' or if the excahnge is 'voluntary'. In the USSR, the state buraecracy functioned as a compradot class, that is to say, they attempted to increase profits for themselves and their masters. They ran the USSR like one giant business. If you are running something like a business, and trying to make profits, then you are a capitalist, because capitalism is about profits.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 3 2004, 12:57 PM
In a capitalist society, you attempt to make the most amount of money you can, regardless of who owns the land, if the markets are 'free' or if the excahnge is 'voluntary'. In the USSR, the state buraecracy functioned as a compradot class, that is to say, they attempted to increase profits for themselves and their masters. They ran the USSR like one giant business. If you are running something like a business, and trying to make profits, then you are a capitalist, because capitalism is about profits.
What a load of crap. Profits are only an indicator for efficient use of scarce resources. Whether your economy is socialist or capitalist, you'd still need to know that.

Running something like a business ( :blink: ) can only be done in a marketenvironment. A company needs to sell products and services people actually want, otherwise they'll lose money. A governmentmonopoly can simply raise taxes if they need more money.

How can a "company" that creates his revenue by force be compared to any normal business? Simply calling the USSR state-capitalist because the government wanted to earn profits is just an annoying fallacy.

[Revolt!]

I swear threads like this crop up over and again. We should sticky a reply so people don't have to keep on replying to this trite.

Look down the list. blah blah blah from people who know nothing about the history of the ideology.

[Osman Ghazi]

A governmentmonopoly can simply raise taxes if they need more money.


That's a pretty lame response and you and I both know that it simply isn't true. The government can't simply raise taxes, because people would be more than a little off.

Also, post-Stalin the USSR wasn't really even run by force. Not in the same way, at least. There is still the whole 'threat of force' thing like aynrandians say about taxes, but it really isn't the same thing.

However, I have made a mistake. I said 'make a profit' but waht I meant to say was 'maximizing profits'. That is what makes a capitalist a capitalist.

[New Tolerance]

What a load of crap. Profits are only an indicator for efficient use of scarce resources. Whether your economy is socialist or capitalist, you'd still need to know that.

Running something like a business ( ) can only be done in a marketenvironment. A company needs to sell products and services people actually want, otherwise they'll lose money. A governmentmonopoly can simply raise taxes if they need more money.

How can a "company" that creates his revenue by force be compared to any normal business? Simply calling the USSR state-capitalist because the government wanted to earn profits is just an annoying fallacy.

If you produce something that cost you $1, and sold it for $10000. (you make a massive profit) if the profit is driven up simply because people are in deseperate need of the product (ie food), and no one else produces it, is that really a measure of efficiency?

[Hoppe]

That's a pretty lame response and you and I both know that it simply isn't true. The government can't simply raise taxes, because people would be more than a little off.


Well, it's your problem if you can't distinguish a government-monopoly from a privately owned business which has to compete with others. If you think there isn't you're just like every other crazy republican who shouts that every governmentservice should work more efficiently or work in a businesslike manner.


Also, post-Stalin the USSR wasn't really even run by force. Not in the same way, at least. There is still the whole 'threat of force' thing like aynrandians say about taxes, but it really isn't the same thing.

Why not? When was the last time representatives from your local shoemanufacturer came to your house to collect money for their very ugly shoes?


However, I have made a mistake. I said 'make a profit' but waht I meant to say was 'maximizing profits'. That is what makes a capitalist a capitalist.

This doesn't matter, profitmaximization for monopolies is also economic crap. There is no threat of a loss, unlimited resources thanks to taxes and the absence of markets. A nice mix for calculatory disaster.


If you produce something that cost you $1, and sold it for $10000. (you make a massive profit) if the profit is driven up simply because people are in deseperate need of the product (ie food), and no one else produces it, is that really a measure of efficiency?

Oh yes baby, give me more of these examples.

[AC-Socialist]

the absence of markets
Care to re-think that one?

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by AC-[email protected] 3 2004, 09:28 PM

the absence of markets
Care to re-think that one?
No. A statemonopoly and "consumers" is not a market.

[New Tolerance]

Oh yes baby, give me more of these examples.


what the hell does that mean?

[Osman Ghazi]

Well, it's your problem if you can't distinguish a government-monopoly from a privately owned business which has to compete with others. If you think there isn't you're just like every other crazy republican who shouts that every governmentservice should work more efficiently or work in a businesslike manner.


Umm.. there is no correlation between what you quoted and what you wrote. I said that they couldn't simply raise taxes and in response you tell me that I"m a Republican. I don't get it.


Why not? When was the last time representatives from your local shoemanufacturer came to your house to collect money for their very ugly shoes?


Again, what the hell are you talking about?


This doesn't matter, profitmaximization for monopolies is also economic crap. There is no threat of a loss, unlimited resources thanks to taxes and the absence of markets. A nice mix for calculatory disaster.


They may have had a lot at their disposal, but I'd hardly call the USSR's resources unlimited. Also, you don't know much about the Soviet Union, do you? It wasn't like they issued everyone the same pair of shoes or something. They did have stores where you could buy whatever you want. The problem was the fact that they could not anticipate demand properly, and so it was rare that they had exactly what you wanted. So there were still markets, although granted, in a very limited sense.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 3 2004, 10:24 PM

Oh yes baby, give me more of these examples.


what the hell does that mean?
Well, what's the point of your example? Do you really want me to comment on such fantasy?


Umm.. there is no correlation between what you quoted and what you wrote. I said that they couldn't simply raise taxes and in response you tell me that I"m a Republican. I don't get it.

Of course they can. Governments to it every day, whether it be the US or the Swedish one.


Again, what the hell are you talking about?

The use of force, ie taxation. Life would be much simpler for every entrepreneur if money just pours in.


They may have had a lot at their disposal, but I'd hardly call the USSR's resources unlimited. Also, you don't know much about the Soviet Union, do you? It wasn't like they issued everyone the same pair of shoes or something. They did have stores where you could buy whatever you want. The problem was the fact that they could not anticipate demand properly, and so it was rare that they had exactly what you wanted. So there were still markets, although granted, in a very limited sense.

Well, I don't find the USSR my favorite object of study. But statecapitalism is just a contradictio in terminis. Granted, you would call it socialism if the monopolies were democratically runned in the USSR. I find it just a wrong excuse to blame the atrocities of the regime on capitalism so you can wash your hands.

Through taxation a government has a nearly infinite stream of resources. Obviously this ends sometimes, but you can always turn on the printing presses. If inflation gets too rampant, you can resort to confiscating all the gold. Does this ring a bell?

If there are only monopolies there is no such this as a market. There is certainly no market if a consumer is forced to pay for the products. This reasoning by the way doesn't apply to socialist monopolies alone but goes the same for statemonopolies in a capitalist country. That's why most "bourgeois" economist don't like monopolies and many socialist economists have introduced markets in socialist theory.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 3 2004, 07:35 PM
That's a pretty lame response and you and I both know that it simply isn't true. The government can't simply raise taxes, because people would be more than a little off.
Lol. Why ? What are they going to do about it ? The government can simply call the police and jail you or call in the army to shoot you dead if you don't do as your told. This government is more than prepared to do it, never mind yours.


Also, post-Stalin the USSR wasn't really even run by force. Not in the same way, at least. There is still the whole 'threat of force' thing like aynrandians say about taxes, but it really isn't the same thing.

If money is demanded from you and you are threatened with death or imprisonment for not handing it over, then it is force.

[Osman Ghazi]

Of course they can. Governments to it every day, whether it be the US or the Swedish one.

Last I checked, the U$ government was cutting taxes, no?


Lol. Why ? What are they going to do about it ? The government can simply call the police and jail you or call in the army to shoot you dead if you don't do as your told. This government is more than prepared to do it, never mind yours.


They could, but you would have to be a simpleton to think that the situation could be resolved that easily. If that was true, why didn't the hardline communist coup work in 1992? They had the army and the police after all. What could the people do about it? They marched into the streets and defended the Winter Palace. That seemed to work.

By that logic, why did guerillas in China and Cuba succeed? They faced the army and the police so by your logic they should have lost. But they didn't, did they?


If money is demanded from you and you are threatened with death or imprisonment for not handing it over, then it is force.

But any society needs taxes to survive. How could they afford to build roads if not with taxes?

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 4 2004, 01:14 PM
Last I checked, the U$ government was cutting taxes, no?

......

But any society needs taxes to survive. How could they afford to build roads if not with taxes?
Well check again. Someone has to pay for the war.

Roads can be build privately.

[cubist]

don't answer the real points the hoppe

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 02:33 PM
don't answer the real points the hoppe
What real points?

[Osman Ghazi]

Well check again. Someone has to pay for the war.


They used deficit spending. They went 400 billion dollars into debt, remember?


Roads can be build privately.

I still don't see how that is feasible. Who would pay them? They would have to be toll roads, would they not?

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 4 2004, 03:32 PM
They used deficit spending. They went 400 billion dollars into debt, remember?

..........

I still don't see how that is feasible. Who would pay them? They would have to be toll roads, would they not?
Yes because they forgot to cut expenditures as well.

Don't look at the income statement btw. US debt has increased with 1 trillion in a year, yet they only reported a 400 billion deficit. Looks like we have another Enron, yet this time it is the US government.

And with respect to the roads. Yes, they will be tollroads, but probably only the large ones.

[Professor Moneybags]

But any society needs taxes to survive. How could they afford to build roads if not with taxes?

The same way they build cars and TVs and generate electricity without taxes.

[Osman Ghazi]

Don't look at the income statement btw. US debt has increased with 1 trillion in a year, yet they only reported a 400 billion deficit. Looks like we have another Enron, yet this time it is the US government.


It was the Federal debt that increased 400 billion, was it not? I think it only comes to a trillion when you add up all the state and municipal debts. Actually, can they have municipal debts in the U$? Because I know in Canada the municipal gov has to post a balanced budget.


generate electricity without taxes.

Well, in Ontario, our power system is shit since they privatized it. However, it is complicated and it would have been just as bad as if they kept it public. The problem is that the rates are kept frozen by provincial law and our power usage rates are far too high. I would like to see power back in the people's hands but run on market rates so that the prices are kept stable.

[gnuneo]

state capitalism = the economic structure where mainly, or evn only, the State has the 'capital' to invest in production/transportation.


i would say that covers the USSR, no?

whether they do it to maximise profit, or to provide employment, only gives an indication of their social policy.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 4 2004, 09:09 PM
It was the Federal debt that increased 400 billion, was it not? I think it only comes to a trillion when you add up all the state and municipal debts. Actually, can they have municipal debts in the U$? Because I know in Canada the municipal gov has to post a balanced budget.


No, it is federal debt. Total debt increase is twice as large as the reported deficit. As far as I know municipal and state debt is not included. All debt in the US is about 36 trillion and a far greater amount is hidden in off-balance derivatives.

You can buy municipal bonds so the answer should be yes.

[gnuneo]

and now that has been sorted out, perhaps someone can post a thoughtfull reply to:


1. the states in the former E. europe are NOT commie - they can barely even be classed as socialist, the most accurate description would be state capitalism. The states in the world that *can* be classed as socialist are the nordic lands, finland, denmark, sweden and norway - and they, BTW, have the highest living standards in the world.

2. the US can barely be called capitalistic - not becuase they have the laughable minimal social system, but becuase most of the people are not capitalists - they do not own their own production, they sell it others, and get a substinence ration back, in a manner far closer to feudal times than any notions of free market capitalism.

free market capitalism can only come about in a fully cooperative marketplace, where all the workers are also capitalists, owning the shares in their companies.

for those with two brain cells to rub together, you will note that this is also a definition of direct socialism, but this is hardly surprising to any student of political history who will know that this was the common understanding of Communism until marx came and peddled his victorian notions of social darwinism.

true free market capitalism, and socialism are synonymous, what the barons of the US are espousing is a return to the dark ages, where the elite have total control of the masses, and the masses are little more than plug-n-play machines to create wealth for them to live in splendour whilst the majority toil in poverty.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 09:55 PM
and now that has been sorted out, perhaps someone can post a thoughtfull reply to:


1. the states in the former E. europe are NOT commie - they can barely even be classed as socialist, the most accurate description would be state capitalism. The states in the world that *can* be classed as socialist are the nordic lands, finland, denmark, sweden and norway - and they, BTW, have the highest living standards in the world.

2. the US can barely be called capitalistic - not becuase they have the laughable minimal social system, but becuase most of the people are not capitalists - they do not own their own production, they sell it others, and get a substinence ration back, in a manner far closer to feudal times than any notions of free market capitalism.

free market capitalism can only come about in a fully cooperative marketplace, where all the workers are also capitalists, owning the shares in their companies.

for those with two brain cells to rub together, you will note that this is also a definition of direct socialism, but this is hardly surprising to any student of political history who will know that this was the common understanding of Communism until marx came and peddled his victorian notions of social darwinism.

true free market capitalism, and socialism are synonymous, what the barons of the US are espousing is a return to the dark ages, where the elite have total control of the masses, and the masses are little more than plug-n-play machines to create wealth for them to live in splendour whilst the majority toil in poverty.

I shall address this post in full. I am am currently developing a cohesive set of answers to these assertions...

...I have formulated a comprehensive response, but I must go right now. My answer is pending, and I will write it up early tomorrow (Pacific daylight time).

[Vinny Rafarino]

state capitalism = the economic structure where mainly, or evn only, the State has the 'capital' to invest in production/transportation


Not exactly. The myth called "state capitalism" was formulated to out of complete spite.

For "state capitalism" to be applied, the state must extract suplus value from goods and services produced and give it directly to a small portion of individuals. A perfect example would be the economic policies of the USSR under Khruschev through Gorbechev. In these cases, surplus value was extracted from goods and services, of that surplus value, a portion was used to pay for social policies that were implemented under the Bolshevics while the remaining portions made a few fat Soviets rich.

Several Trot camps have attempted to call the Bolshevic party line "state capitalist" but have yet to prove anything...it's more of a silly little myth.

Some have even gone so far as to attempt to equate the collectivisation of agriculture and other Marxist polices as non-Marxist "state capitalism".

They ignore these very simple principles as writted in the Manifest of the Communist Party:

Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.

Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.


It has never been proven (as it never happened) that the Bolshevic party used portions of worker righted surplus value to "get rich" and did nothing more than follow the simple rules as set forth by Marx It is therefore impossible (and wuite ignorant) to call them "state capitalists".

After 1953, is a different story. A story we all know to well.



would say that covers the USSR, no?

whether they do it to maximise profit, or to provide employment, only gives an indication of their social policy.


After 1953, somewhat. After 1970, completely.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Nas+Apr 29 2004, 08:42 PM--> (Nas @ Apr 29 2004, 08:42 PM)
Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 29 2004, 08:33 PM

[email protected] 29 2004, 08:11 PM
if it only works on paper , why was there people like Che Guevarra or Mao Zedong?, why are there so many people who believe in this idea ?

why is there a will ?
why do people fight for this idea?
USSR

China

DPRK

Southeast Asia

Eastern BlocK Nations

Cuba


How many tries do you get until someone steps up and says: "This just never ends up the utopia that we calculated out!!!"


Oh, I forgot, somehow America will be at fault.
Exactly!!!!!!!!!

how many more people does it take until we realize that socialism will never work??????!!!!!!!!
how many more people have to die ?!!!

(i support socialism all the way , and im not saying it will never work) [/b]
Could have fooled me.

[gnuneo]

Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.

Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.



the 'manifesto of the CP' also said that all State apparatus is in the hands of the CP.

i'm sorry, but such self-serving crap is only communism in a marxist/leninst sense, you may argue that because the CPRussia calls itself 'communist' it is so - but like bakunin, i would strongly disagree.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 11:16 PM
jeez, what garbage masquerading as informed discussion.

1. the states in the former E. europe are NOT commie - they can barely even be classed as socialist, the most accurate description would be state capitalism. The states in the world that *can* be classed as socialist are the nordic lands, finland, denmark, sweden and norway - and they, BTW, have the highest living standards in the world.

2. the US can barely be called capitalistic - not becuase they have the laughable minimal social system, but becuase most of the people are not capitalists - they do not own their own production, they sell it others, and get a substinence ration back, in a manner far closer to feudal times than any notions of free market capitalism.

free market capitalism can only come about in a fully cooperative marketplace, where all the workers are also capitalists, owning the shares in their companies.

for those with two brain cells to rub together, you will note that this is also a definition of direct socialism, but this is hardly surprising to any student of political history who will know that this was the common understanding of Communism until marx came and peddled his victorian notions of social darwinism.

true free market capitalism, and socialism are synonymous, what the barons of the US are espousing is a return to the dark ages, where the elite have total control of the masses, and the masses are little more than plug-n-play machines to create wealth for them to live in splendour whilst the majority toil in poverty.



think about this before replying, ye 'tards, i have little compassion for idiots.

jeez, what garbage masquerading as informed discussion.

And I suppose you are to enlighten us with legitimate commentary?


1
. the states in the former E. europe are NOT commie - they can barely even be classed as socialist, the most accurate description would be state capitalism.

While you are somewhat correct, I find "state capitalism" to be an ambitious description, but a misnomer. In reality, I think that we can merely concede that E. Europe in a region in transition. While many for E. Europe's elements remain rooted in socialism, many emerging capitalist markets definately exist. We cannot assign a permmanent description to E. european economics yet, We need to see equilibrium and stability before we can define their economics and ideology.



The states in the world that *can* be classed as socialist are the nordic lands, finland, denmark, sweden and norway - and they, BTW, have the highest living standards in the world.

I've read those UN-generated reports. Their definition of "standard of living" is, like anyone elses, arbitrary. So, in theory, this is maybe true by a UN report that defines "standard of living" as the number of individuals above the poverty line, but these are socialist nations, and by definition the poverty line does not really exist. The United States enjoys a higher GDP per capita, higher average income, much less taxes, and higher home-ownership rates than any of these Scandanavian nations. Thus, I would say that your average american has a higher living standard than your average Scandanavian. Besides, the UN has trouble interpreting their own security resolutions, why should I accept their definition of "standard of living"?



2. the US can barely be called capitalistic - not becuase they have the laughable minimal social system, but becuase most of the people are not capitalists - they do not own their own production, they sell it others, and get a substinence ration back, in a manner far closer to feudal times than any notions of free market capitalism.


from dictionary.com:

cap·i·tal·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kp-tl-st)
n.
1) A supporter of capitalism.
2) An investor of capital in business, especially one having a major financial interest in an important enterprise.
3) A person of great wealth.

adj.
Capitalistic.

[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


capitalist

\Cap"i*tal*ist\, n. [Cf. F. capitaliste.] One who has capital; one who has money for investment, or money invested; esp. a person of large property, which is employed in business.

The expenditure of the capitalist. --Burke.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


capitalist

adj 1: of or relating to capitalism or capitalists; "a capitalist nation"; "capitalistic methods and incentives" [syn: capitalistic] 2: favoring or practicing capitalism [syn: capitalistic] [ant: socialistic] n 1: an advocate of capitalism [syn: rugged individualist] 2: a person who invests capital in a business (especially a large business)


As you can see, by the above definitions, pretty much every single american is a capitalist. The very 1st definition encompassses the vast majority of Americans. the 3rd definition is subjective, but even a working-class American has "great wealth" compared to most of the world's citizens. Either way, at least one of the definitions fit. Also, I don't consider a home, 2 cars in the garage, and food on the table every night, and additional disposable inome a "ration". It is much more than one could expect in a communist economy.


free market capitalism can only come about in a fully cooperative marketplace, where all the workers are also capitalists, owning the shares in their companies.

On the contrary, by definition, if all workers own the means of production, then it is communism. However, 401K's and stock-options allow much of the workforce to voluntarily invest in the companies they work for. However, this is a moot point, as the voluntary nature of the labor market is in fact a fundamental constituent of capitalism. The point of free market capitalism is that it is a "free market", so participation is voluntary. Labor in and of itself is a commodity, and thus ownership of the means of production is in no way a prerequisite of free-market capitalism.


for those with two brain cells to rub together, you will note that this is also a definition of direct socialism, but this is hardly surprising to any student of political history who will know that this was the common understanding of Communism until marx came and peddled his victorian notions of social darwinism.

Because I believe that your definition of free market capitalism is flawed, the two in fact do not reconcile.


true free market capitalism, and socialism are synonymous, what the barons of the US are espousing is a return to the dark ages, where the elite have total control of the masses, and the masses are little more than plug-n-play machines to create wealth for them to live in splendour whilst the majority toil in poverty.

Again, per my above responses, your fundamental argument is flawed. Your suggestion that "true, pure free-market capitalism" and socialism are the same is inaccurate at best, ludicrous at worst. Your references to "barons of the US" (nice reference and suggestion towards "robber-barons") and the theory of emerging total elitist control seem to me to be nothing more than a paranoid "slippery slope" fallacy.

[Osman Ghazi]

by definition the poverty line does not really exist

Huh? :blink:


The United States enjoys a higher GDP per capita, higher average income

These are the same thing. Besides, Scandinavia has a higher median average which is all that counts really as even Cuba has a fairly high GDP during the Batista days but most people were still poor, but the ultra-rich bring up the average. In fact, if you were to take just the billionaires out of the question, the GDP per capita falls by nearly $4000, just to show you how inflated and artificial it is.


less taxes, and higher home-ownership rates than any of these Scandanavian nations.

But Americans still end up paying a higher percentage of their income for necessities than do the Scandinavians, so it is a moot point.


On the contrary, by definition, if all workers own the means of production, then it is communism. However, 401K's and stock-options allow much of the workforce to voluntarily invest in the companies they work for.

Presuming that they work for a corporation, that is.


"free market", so participation is voluntary

Yes, in the same way that slavery is voluntary. That is to say, a slave can chose not to work, but he will die. As will anyone who shooses not to participate in the free market. I still have yet to determine a way of surviving without participating in the 'free' market.


Labor in and of itself is a commodity

Buying and selling humans by the day. Wage-slavery.


the theory of emerging total elitist control

It is far from total control but the rich man definately has more power than the poor one.

[Professor Moneybags]

by definition the poverty line does not really exist

Huh?

By that, I think he means poverty in that context is relative.


Yes, in the same way that slavery is voluntary. That is to say, a slave can chose not to work, but he will die. As will anyone who shooses not to participate in the free market. I still have yet to determine a way of surviving without participating in the 'free' market.

Ah didums...you're a "slave" because food and other necessities won't just fall out of the sky and land at your feet ? Lol. You people can't tell the difference between the metaphysical and the man-made.

Where do you think these "necessities" are going to come from if you don't work to provide them, Ghazi ? We can't all be on the dole; there would be no-one to pay for it.


Buying and selling humans by the day. Wage-slavery.

You give your labour voluntarily, you are not "bought" or "sold" against your will.


It is far from total control but the rich man definately has more power than the poor one.

Economic power, yes. Political power, no.

[Osman Ghazi]

Ah didums...you're a "slave" because food and other necessities won't just fall out of the sky and land at your feet ? Lol. You people can't tell the difference between the metaphysical and the man-made.

Where do you think these "necessities" are going to come from if you don't work to provide them, Ghazi ? We can't all be on the dole; there would be no-one to pay for it.


So what you are saying is that you have no choice but to participate in the 'free' market! How is it free if you have to participate?


You give your labour voluntarily, you are not "bought" or "sold" against your will.


Exactly, the exact same way that slave labour is voluntary. Yes, unlike a slave you get to choose who you sell your labour to and to a limited extent you get to decide the price of your labour, but in the end you have no choice but to sell your labour!


Economic power, yes. Political power, no.

But if I am the CEO of a corporation, I can make campaign contributions and influence political policy wheras if I am a poor person, I only get to vote. Besides, the only reason political power exists is to provide economic power. No one participates in politics just for the fun of it, they do it to provide for their material interests.


By that, I think he means poverty in that context is relative.


It really isn't. Well, kind of. The poverty line (I think) is the amount of money it would take to get all your necessities with 80% (or so) of your income. If you spend more than that on necessites, you are considered to be under the poverty line.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 6 2004, 12:55 AM

by definition the poverty line does not really exist

Huh? :blink:


The United States enjoys a higher GDP per capita, higher average income

These are the same thing. Besides, Scandinavia has a higher median average which is all that counts really as even Cuba has a fairly high GDP during the Batista days but most people were still poor, but the ultra-rich bring up the average. In fact, if you were to take just the billionaires out of the question, the GDP per capita falls by nearly $4000, just to show you how inflated and artificial it is.


less taxes, and higher home-ownership rates than any of these Scandanavian nations.

But Americans still end up paying a higher percentage of their income for necessities than do the Scandinavians, so it is a moot point.


On the contrary, by definition, if all workers own the means of production, then it is communism. However, 401K's and stock-options allow much of the workforce to voluntarily invest in the companies they work for.

Presuming that they work for a corporation, that is.


"free market", so participation is voluntary

Yes, in the same way that slavery is voluntary. That is to say, a slave can chose not to work, but he will die. As will anyone who shooses not to participate in the free market. I still have yet to determine a way of surviving without participating in the 'free' market.


Labor in and of itself is a commodity

Buying and selling humans by the day. Wage-slavery.


the theory of emerging total elitist control

It is far from total control but the rich man definately has more power than the poor one.

These are the same thing. Besides, Scandinavia has a higher median average which is all that counts really as even Cuba has a fairly high GDP during the Batista days but most people were still poor, but the ultra-rich bring up the average. In fact, if you were to take just the billionaires out of the question, the GDP per capita falls by nearly $4000, just to show you how inflated and artificial it is.

First of all, they are not the same thing. Second, Scandanavian mean income is not higher than the US mean income post-taxes. (Or even before taxes)


But Americans still end up paying a higher percentage of their income for necessities than do the Scandinavians, so it is a moot point.

No they don't. They just get more choice on how they spend their money on necessities. The Scandanavians simply take more taxes and make decisions for the people. Limiting choice and freedom significantly. After all is said and done, Americans have more disposable income as well.


Yes, in the same way that slavery is voluntary. That is to say, a slave can chose not to work, but he will die. As will anyone who shooses not to participate in the free market. I still have yet to determine a way of surviving without participating in the 'free' market.

The comparison of US free-market labor and slavery is probably one of the world's most innacurate and desperate analoges. No matter what economy you participate in, you have to work. That is not slavery, that is economics. If anything, it is communism that is more like slavery. In that system, you have little or no choice as to what your occupation is, no chance to create wealth, and little or no disposable income to use at your discretion. The central planners determine it all. You are told what to do regardless of your preference, and you are told what to use in terms of goods, housing, and services, again with little or no choice.

Participation in a free market means you can choose to work for others, but even then it is still your choice what type of work you can do (unlike communism). You can also elect to start your own business, or work in the public sector (unlike commuism, where everything is public sector and assigned). No matter what you do, when you get paid, the money is yours to use as you se fit, and you have virtually endless choices on how you spend your money (unlike in communism, where even fundamental things like housing, transportation, and food is centrally planned and allocated. If you can really argue that free-market economics is more like slavery than communist work-planning and resource allocation management, let me know.


Buying and selling humans by the day. Wage-slavery.

No, to the contrary, people willingly selling their specific experiences and skill set for the wage that the market brings. the key is, it is ultimately the worker's choice, not the employer's. I fail to see the problem, or anything that fits the definition of "slavery". Go to dictionary.com, look up "slavery", and explain to me how it legitimately reconciles with american labor. I dare you.



It is far from total control but the rich man definately has more power than the poor one.

This is true, but usually such power is well earned and deserved. Also, as Moneybags said, the power is mostly economic. Any political power is usually checked by contrarian lobby interests.

[Osman Ghazi]

First of all, they are not the same thing. Second, Scandanavian mean income is not higher than the US mean income post-taxes. (Or even before taxes)


Which is precisely why I didn't say that the Scandinavians had a higher mean income. I said they had a higher median income. They are two different types of averages. Mean average is (for income) when you add up all the money that is being made, then divide it by the amount of people there are. Median is simply the income range that appears most (i.e. 25000-30000 dollars). As I said before, the mean average is brought up artificially by the rich, whereas the median tells you what the 'average' person is making. Median is far more accurate for telling the situation of the average person.

And if they are not the same thing, what is the difference between average income and per capita GDP?


No they don't. They just get more choice on how they spend their money on necessities. The Scandanavians simply take more taxes and make decisions for the people. Limiting choice and freedom significantly. After all is said and done, Americans have more disposable income as well.


If you consider taxes to be a necesity, (and since you HAVE to pay it, that makes it a necessity) then the average Scandinavians doe pay less of their income to necessities.


that system, you have little or no choice as to what your occupation is

According to who? People in the Soviet Union quit their job all the time and it took far less time to find a new one too, about a week in Leningrad/St. Petersburg. And that wasn't even communism.


no chance to create wealth

Well, since most forms of wealth come from labour, and you are allowed to work, yes, you can create wealth. Can you create wealth for yourself at the expense of others? No. But so what? We don't give people the right to kill other people, so why would we give them the right to exploit others?


and little or no disposable income to use at your discretion

Again you base this on nothing. I've seen stats comparing the Soviet Union and America and although Americans made nearly 3 times what the average Soviet citizen made, they spent nearly 70% of their income on necessities, whereas the Soviet citizen spent only about 60%.


You can also elect to start your own business

If everyone could simply start their own business, why don't they?


No matter what you do, when you get paid, the money is yours to use as you se fit

Exactly like in the Soviet Union. They just had less of it.


3 entries found for slavery.
slav·er·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slv-r, slvr)
n. pl. slav·er·ies
The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.

1. The practice of owning slaves.
2. A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.
3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.
4. A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery.


[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


slavery

\Slav"er*y\, n.; pl. Slaveries. [See 2d Slave.] 1. The condition of a slave; the state of entire subjection of one person to the will of another.

Disguise thyself as thou wilt, still, slavery, said I, still thou art a bitter draught! --Sterne.

I wish, from my soul, that the legislature of this state [Virginia] could see the policy of a gradual abolition of slavery. It might prevent much future mischief. --Washington.

2. A condition of subjection or submission characterized by lack of freedom of action or of will.

The vulgar slaveries rich men submit to. --C. Lever.

There is a slavery that no legislation can abolish, -- the slavery of caste. --G. W. Cable.

3. The holding of slaves.



Well, number 4 was actually quite convenient for my purposes. I don't even have to explain it. Thank you dictionary.com

Also, the second number 2 fits my purposes quite nicely.


No, to the contrary, people willingly selling their specific experiences and skill set for the wage that the market brings. the key is, it is ultimately the worker's choice, not the employer's. I fail to see the problem, or anything that fits the definition of "slavery". Go to dictionary.com, look up "slavery", and explain to me how it legitimately reconciles with american labor. I dare you.


I certainly called you on that one.


This is true, but usually such power is well earned and deserved. Also, as Moneybags said, the power is mostly economic. Any political power is usually checked by contrarian lobby interests.

'Certain contrarian lobby interests'. How decisively vague. I hope you feel comfortable putting your faith in them becasue quite frankly I can't even tell what that means let alone what they could do to prevent more power being taken by the rich.

[Dyst]

Replying to what some of the capitalist preferables have said in this topic: We must always remember that most communist spiring nations has not exactly risen without problems. What I am talking is the international force of capitalism itself. Have you any idea how powerful the capitalists are? There is no problem to crush a country if you control 95% of all wealth on the face of the earth. For example boicotting and influence on nations is enough to set a nations course to hell.

Also, it is not few socialist ideological countries who has been involved with the American or the Brittish military throughout the history. Most times the most right-winged nations even declare war on socialist nations.

Also, Russia were REALLY, REALLY bad off before the revolution. Russian workers had by no means the same sanity and intelligence which we have today, they had only a desperate solution and they had a leader. It quite rapidly evolved from socialism to a fascist dictatorship.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 1 2004, 11:34 PM

if it only works on paper , why was there people like Che Guevarra or Mao Zedong?, why are there so many people who believe in this idea ?

why is there a will ?
why do people fight for this idea?

Just to bring a fresh perspective (at least I think it's fresh for this thread, unless I missed something)

Reason why these people believed it (if it doesn't work):

- Stupidity
- Igorance
- Naive
- Nothing really works, but people always find something to believe in
- They had too many beans at dinner
- Marx is actually a script writer, and decided to add some drama to this world, and he put on a good show, that's why people liked it
- Why do so many people believe in communism? -> why do so many people believe in god? same reason: shit happens

(hey, don't kill me for suggesting these reasons, I just want to bring a fresh perspective - and those last three are not suppose to be serious)
so you seriously imply the first three things?
That for people to believe in communism their stupid ignorant or naive?
Explain yourself.

[DaCuBaN]

Reason why these people believed it (if it doesn't work):

- Stupidity
- Igorance
- Naive


1) Perhaps. Although it's not a very accurate way of ascertaining true intelligence, might I suggest all board members take an IQ test? The results would be enlightening I'm sure.

2) Ignorance.... Surely this is more truthfully applied to the current system? how can you be ignorant when you've had to do so much damn reading on the subject?

3) Naive. Now this just DOESN'T make sense. It's far more likely to be applied again to market capitalism because that is what we currently have. If someone doesn't try to learn about other ways/means then they will always remain naive/ignorant

Suitable?

[Professor Moneybags]

3) Naive. Now this just DOESN'T make sense. It's far more likely to be applied again to market capitalism because that is what we currently have.

If what you think we "currently have" is capitalism, then you prove his point; you are naive. This is a mixed system.

[New Tolerance]

so you seriously imply the first three things?
That for people to believe in communism their stupid ignorant or naive?
Explain yourself.

Hey, I put in brackets saying that these could be reasons "if it doesn't work", but we don't know that for sure, so...


Ignorance.... Surely this is more truthfully applied to the current system? how can you be ignorant when you've had to do so much damn reading on the subject?

Well, reading theory doesn't really add too much scientific knowledge in some cases, (ie reading the bible), to get some real results you need to work with numbers and statistics.