pro capitalism

[hotsexygrl42]

I used to think that capitalism was evil but after I learned the facts I think it is a good thing.


What exactly do you mean by "capitalism"?
By capitalism I mean a liberal market economy with free competition. A system where the individual is his own master and the master of his property, with the power of making contracts and starting up in business, and the ability to move about, travel and trade regardless of national boundaries. Decision-making, as far as possible, rests with people themselves, not with politicians and government.

How can you justify capitalism? Capitalism means all power to the corporations.
That isn't true. Corporations can acquire monopoly status in a system of tariffs, licensing and coercion, because then consumers are denied the option of buying from anyone else and potential new businesses are prevented from competing. Capitalism means freedom to pick and choose and to reject the businesses which aren't up to scratch. Corporate liberty in a capitalist economy is the same thing as the waiter's liberty of giving the customer a menu to choose from. And the whole point of free trade is that other waiters - even foreign ones - are allowed to come running up with alternative menus.

Hasn't the globalisation of capitalism made the world a progresssively worse place, as the anti-globalisation movement maintains?
The statistics speak for themselves. Over the past 40 years, average life expectancy in the developing countries has risen from 46 to 64 years. Since 1950, infant mortality has fallen from 18 to 8 per cent. The proportion of illiterates has fallen from 70 per cent to about 25. Since 1970 child labour and the proportion of people in the world who have to go hungry has fallen by more than half. Since 1980 the number of people in absolute poverty was reduced by more than 200 million. The number of states which are democratically governed and respect human rights is increasing all the time. Today there are 120 democratic states with a combined population of 3.5 billion people (roughly 60 per cent of the world population), more than ever before in world history. There are still enormous problems in the world, but to anyone who cares to look it is obvious that the world, in most ways, has become a better and a fairer place.

But these improvements don't necessarily have anything to do with globalisation and capitalism, do they?
The improvement has above all been due to the spread of information, technology and prosperity throughout the world, and that has been made possible above all by free people, that is to say, people who are free to live in a capitalist society. There are clear connections between the degree of economic freedom and the growth of property and welfare. The countries making up the one-fifth with the most liberal economies are almost ten times more prosperous than the least liberal fifth. During the 1990s the most liberal had an annual growth rate of 2.56 per cent, whereas the least liberal had a negative growth rate of 0.85 per cent. The most liberal countries have poverty levels which are 60 per cent lower than in the least liberal countries. An average life expectancy in the most liberal fifth is almost 20 years longer than in the least liberal fifth! The connection between economic liberty and political liberty is shown by citizens with the right to trade internationally being more than four times as likely to enjoy political liberty than those who do not have this freedom to trade.

But everyone knows that capitalism and free trade mean that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
In that case "everyone knows" wrong. There is nothing to show that economic liberty, generally speaking, spells greater inequality. On the contrary, it is through privileges and state benefits that the mighty are favoured and the people are shut out. In the least liberal economies, the income gap between the wealthiest fifth and the poorest is more than twice as much as in the most liberal countries. As regards differences between rich and poor countries, it's true that one large group, mainly among the African countries, lags behind the affluent. And that is above all because they have not committed themselves to democracy and capitalism. Poor countries introducing liberal reforms grow faster than affluent countries. During the 1970s and 1980s, developing countries with open markets had annual growth of 4.49 per cent, whereas open industrialised countries had only 2.29 per cent. During the 1990s, globalising developing countries had 5 per cent growth annually, whereas the industrialised countries had 1.9 per cent. Free trade, in other words, gives poor countries a means of moving up on more affluent ones and eventually catching up with them.

Haven't you read Naomi Klein's "No Logo"? She shows that multinationals are destroying the occupational environment and paying starvation wages in the Third World.
Yes, I've read Klein, and although the book is skilfully written I'm unimpressed by her anecdotal pleading. You can't compare working life standards in poor countries with those of affluent countries, because productivity there is much lower, due for example to their having fewer machines, not such a good infrastructure and lower educational standards. Mexico's Ambassador to the USA, Jesús Reyes-Heroles, has explained: "In a poor country like ours, the alternative to low-paid jobs isn't well-paid ones, it's no jobs at all." The interesting comparison, and the one which decides whether foreign businesses in a developing country are a good thing or not, is how well off these employees are compared with other workers in the same country. And because multinationals are more productive than native businesses, they help to raise wages and improve working conditions in poor countries. On average, foreign corporations in the least developed countries pay their employees twice as much as the corresponding native businesses. In the poorest developing countries, somebody working for an American employer earns no less than eight times the average wage in their own country!

Classical capitalism, with businesses and factories, may possibly be a good thing, but surely speculation and the hectic speed of financial markets are generating crises in the Third World and making the poor poorer?
On the contrary, I'd say that free financial markets are a good thing for the poor. Their main function is to handle risks and transfer capital to where it is in short supply but there is a good return to be had. During the 1990s, investors channelled about one trillion dollars into the developing countries. That roughly equals all the development assistance they received in the past 50 years. This has made a huge difference to their economic development. It is true that free exchange movements cannot be combined with regulations such as a fixed exchange rate, for example, because then you get negative speculation. But in that case we must abolish the fixed exchange rate, not the movements of capital. It's an empirical fact that increased turnover in the market has not meant increased fluctuations. It is states with capital controls that have the jerkiest exchange rates.

But surely you don't mean to say that institutions like the IMF and the World Bank run perfectly?
Of course not, what makes you think I'd say any such thing? What I'm defending is the globalisation which gives people more freedom. Political institutions running after this globalisation and trying to structure it isn't necessarily a good thing - it all depends on what they do. I'm just as critical of these institutions as the globalisation critics are. For example, as regards their bail-outs of bad investments, their effort at remote control of other countries' economies and their enticement of the Third World into a debt trap.

You advocate open borders and free immigration. That sounds fine, but it will never work.
What do you mean, "work"? On averagre one individual dies every day round the frontier of the EU in a desperate attempt to get here. Does that work? That's the practical result when governments decide who is and who isn't needy enough to get into the EU. That puts refugees into the hands of unscrupulous refugee smugglers, the sort of people for example who shut them inside hot, air-tight lorries or dump them overboard at sea so as not to get caught. The big question is whether business and welfare systems will be able to keep going if we don't step up immigration. The UNFPA estimates that the EU will need 13.5 million immigrants a year to keep the ratio between the working and the retired populations constant for the next 50 years. Immigrants aren't a burden, they're an asset, and even refugees put more into the national treasury in the course of a lifetime than they get out of it. If large numbers of migrants become permanently dependent on handouts, that's merely an argument for seriously reforming our social security systems and our labour market regulations. But that isn't the main argument. The main argument is that being allowed to migrate, even if there is a national boundary in the way, is in fact a human right. The western world moralised, and rightly so, about the communists forbidding their citizens to leave their native country. But now that they are allowed to do so, we are forbidding them to enter our countries.
For sources and facts, see In Defence of Global Capitalism

[Cobra]

Capitalism is evil. And so are you.


A system where the individual is his own master
The individual needs to buy food to survive so he works for a boss. The boss is the master of the individual.

And the master of his property
What property? I don’t own any property.

Decision-making, as far as possible, rests with people themselves
Decisions are limited to the amount of money you make. And the amount of money you make is based on the amount of people you exploit.

Corporations can acquire monopoly status in a system of tariffs, licensing and coercion, because then consumers are denied the option of buying from anyone else and potential new businesses are prevented from competing. Capitalism means freedom to pick and choose and to reject the businesses which aren't up to scratch.
Free competition will always eventually result in a monopoly. Once a corporation becomes rich enough to have “economies of scale” no one else are able to compete with them.

Hasn't the globalisation of capitalism made the world a progresssively worse place, as the anti-globalisation movement maintains?
The statistics speak for themselves. Over the past 40 years, average life expectancy in the developing countries has risen from 46 to 64 years. Since 1950, infant mortality has fallen from 18 to 8 per cent. The proportion of illiterates has fallen from 70 per cent to about 25. Since 1970 child labour and the proportion of people in the world who have to go hungry has fallen by more than half. Since 1980 the number of people in absolute poverty was reduced by more than 200 million. The number of states which are democratically governed and respect human rights is increasing all the time. Today there are 120 democratic states with a combined population of 3.5 billion people (roughly 60 per cent of the world population), more than ever before in world history. There are still enormous problems in the world, but to anyone who cares to look it is obvious that the world, in most ways, has become a better and a fairer place.
What utter bullshit. How much illiteracy is there in socialist countries? Not much. What’s that about democracy? There can be no democracy under capitalism so all those democratic countries mentioned must not be capitalist ones. Corporations bring politicians to power and fund their campaigns. Corporations are the ones pulling the strings. Has Africa gotten better under capitalism? Has Haiti? Nope. Under capitalism Medical coverage is only for the rich so many people cannot have it. Under socialism it is available to everyone. In all socialist countries the infant mortality rates, child labour, and absolute poverty has been reduced.

As regards differences between rich and poor countries, it's true that one large group, mainly among the African countries, lags behind the affluent. And that is above all because they have not committed themselves to democracy and capitalism.
Could it be because Africa has been a source of cheap labour for rich countries since colonial times? I think so. Rich countries depend on cheap labour in Africa to keep their living standards high. That is why Africans are paid so little and are unable to become “affluent”.

Mexico's Ambassador to the USA, Jesús Reyes-Heroles, has explained: "In a poor country like ours, the alternative to low-paid jobs isn't well-paid ones, it's no jobs at all."
Or the workers can take over the means of production and get paid more.

During the 1990s, investors channelled about one trillion dollars into the developing countries. That roughly equals all the development assistance they received in the past 50 years. This has made a huge difference to their economic development.
Yes, It made a difference all right. It caused huge rise in inflation rates and devalued their currency. They are still trying to pay back their foreign debts.

The western world moralised, and rightly so, about the communists forbidding their citizens to leave their native country.
Nonsense. The communists have let millions of people leave their countries.

The big question is whether business and welfare systems will be able to keep going if we don't step up immigration.
Do Americans you really need a maid from Mexico? I don’t think so.

Your facts are garbage.

[scrap metal]

free time is a terrible thing to waste

[BuyOurEverything]

hotsexygrl42
I should have stopped reading there. If one poorly written and blatantly false article changed your entire opinion on capitalism and socialism, it's obvious you never understood either to begin with, or for that matter now. I also suggest you try writing something yourself instead of just copying and pasting articles if you're going to discuss something as broad as this.

[mEds]

get the fuck out of here imperialist trash.

[hotsexygrl42]

Capitalism is evil. And so are you. Tell me how capitialism is evil


What utter bullshit. tell me how it is bullshit.


Africa gotten better under capitalism? No it is because Africa is not a capitlist countrie.


Your facts are garbage. prove it


If one poorly written and blatantly false article changed your entire opinion on capitalism and socialism, it's obvious you never understood either to begin with, or for that matter now. Tell me what part of that artical is bs? And it was not just that artical is was the book called Defence of Global Capitalism.

I will tell you to stop drinking the Koolaid

[Salvador Allende]

you have to love how hotsexygrl42 only quoted parts out of context and not the actual counters to his comments. To take a Chamberlain like stance to this, if I ignore him, he might go away.

[Shredder]

If the imperialist method of globalization was effective it'd be over by now. Apparently you want sweatshop workers to wait another thousand years before they see their share.

Tell the other 41 hot sexy grls "hi" for me.

[hotsexygrl42]

Originally posted by Salvador [email protected] 16 2004, 05:37 AM
you have to love how hotsexygrl42 only quoted parts out of context and not the actual counters to his comments. To take a Chamberlain like stance to this, if I ignore him, he might go away.
I used to be a misinformed communist myself untill I learned the truth. here is an example of what i mean

Contrary to the common myth, capitalism is not an enemy of the poor. Likewise, there is no capitalist conspiracy against the poor countries of the world. The world trading system is imperfect and scarred by protectionism in developed and under-developed states alike. But despite those imperfections, many poor countries have managed to achieve remarkable prosperity. In 1967, per-capita income in South Korea was an inflation-adjusted $550. In Ghana it was $800. By 1997, South Korean per capita income reached $10,360. In Ghana it had fallen to $370.

[Shredder]

Too bad you have it entirely backward.

"Protectionism" does not cause poverty. Poverty causes protectionism.

And the same is true for liberalism and prosperity.

Capitalism is done doing anything but enriching a few lucky saps in hot-tubs.

[hotsexygrl42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 05:52 AM
Too bad you have it entirely backward.

"Protectionism" does not cause poverty. Poverty causes protectionism.

And the same is true for liberalism and prosperity.

Capitalism is done doing anything but enriching a few lucky saps in hot-tubs.
if you are going to say that capitialism is full of crap back it up please. Thanks

[mEds]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 12:35 AM


Africa gotten better under capitalism? No it is because Africa is not a capitlist countrie.


omg lol. "africa is not a capitalist country" i say insta-ban for stupidity!

[Cobra]

Tell me how capitialism is evil
To put it simply, capitalism is evil because it is a system based on exploitation.

tell me how it is bullshit.
That particular part of the article that I quoted is bullshit because it denies the fact that there would be even greater medical improvements under socialism and claims that capitalism has spread democracy around the world when it has in fact done nothing of the sort.

prove [that my article I copy and pasted is garbage]
I already did didn't I. I'm not sure what your asking for.

Just because you read some article saying how great capitalism is don’t automatically think its true. Don’t be so naïve.

[hotsexygrl42]

It is a myth man!!!!!!! You need to stop drinking the communist koolaid

http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-12-04.html

[Morpheus]

In 1967, per-capita income in South Korea was an inflation-adjusted $550.

South Korea industrialized through a series of 5 year plans; by completely violating your "free market" standards. Do you know how the USSR industrialized? Through a series of 5 year plans. The only prosperous capitalist countries you can cite have a large amount of government intervention in the economy, contradicting your "free market" stance.

[Salvador Allende]

I will simply say that Capitalism is the system where the worker makes money, then has it taken from him and recieves only a small portion of that money because the rest of it goes to a leech employer who makes his living making people into wage-slaves.

Capitalism eventually reaches a point of such greed by the entire nation as a whole that the nation itself starts leeching resources out of smaller nations because it is cheaper. These smaller nations can be less-developed or just have no mimimum wage. However, this eventually backfires as it is not cheaper and in all reality all of the capital is leaving the country. Due to industry and capital leaving the country, the economy of that country will crash. Due to the economic crash, the Bourgeois seizes all of the land because the people and petty-bourgeois cannot pay the payments for that land anymore. Because of this, most people do not have a home and many don't have jobs. The ones that do have jobs suffer because the employers must pay them less. With the overall downfall of the societys job market, if the economy is not forcefully rebounded in 5-10 years there will be a rebellion by the proletariat.

The first person to point out this specific cycle was Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin) in his pamphlet "Imperialism, the Highest Form of Capitalism". As we can all see, the US is entering this final stage as we speak. So, in the end we all have a choice to make. We can either side with the people and attempt to break our chains and free the people from capitalism, we can side with capitalism and attempt to keep the proletariat in a position under the bourgeois or we can watch in the distance and trail behind both parties, chosing whichever side appears to be winning at the moment. Everyone is free to make the choice, apparently hotsexygrl42 has made his choice, but for everyone who has not....events may force you to chose sooner than you think.

[revolutionindia]

Hot sexy girl you have been brainwashed.

I presume you live in America or some rich developed country

Take a walk to some poor coontries in Africa and asia

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer

Thats what capitalism is about

[mEds]

Or he/she could be one of the millions/billions so mentally flawed logically as to deduce that capitalism is a better system than communism/socialism/marxism.

[hotsexygrl42]

Just so you know i am a girl I came to america from russia in 1998

some good things capitialism has done.

china - The problem of food and clothing for more than 200 million rural poor has been solved. The number of poverty-stricken people in rural areas with problems obtaining sufficient food and clothing decreased from 250 million in 1978 to 30 million in 2000.

Without the technological advances spread by globalization, an additional 1.5 billion acres of land around the world would be damaged by primitive farming methods.

I could talk about more good capitalism has done but i am tired and will go to bed. GOOD NIGHT EVERY BODY PEACE

[mEds]

So you are mentally flawed than. Thanks for proving my point and have a good night's rest. I'm almost an insomniac.

[revolutionindia]

Why did you leave russia for america?

Lenin must be wriggling in his coffing as he watches his
people fall for the illusions of capitalism.

One's country is one's own and there is no place like home

LEAVE AMERICA!!

Osama and gang are coming!!

run everbody run!!!

[Morpheus]

In Russia, UN statistics say the switch to the free market caused 10 million people to die.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 04:53 AM
I used to think that capitalism was evil but after I learned the facts I think it is a good thing.
You didn't learn the facts. That's just nice sounding propaganda.


How can you justify capitalism? Capitalism means all power to the corporations.
That isn't true.

IT IS TRUE. The one with the money changes everything and with capitalism we must do everything for that money, including letting corporations have monopolies because they bribe politicians, just to give an example.


Corporations can acquire monopoly status in a system of tariffs, licensing and coercion, because then consumers are denied the option of buying from anyone else and potential new businesses are prevented from competing.

And "laissez-faire" will stop that, right? :rolleyes:
I don't see how Microsoft will have good competition. Less taxes? I don't think so. And I dont see how new oligopolies and monopolies will be stopped, UNLESS YOU IMPOSE HUGE INCOME TAXES ON THEM!.


Capitalism means freedom to pick and choose and to reject the businesses which aren't up to scratch. Corporate liberty in a capitalist economy is the same thing as the waiter's liberty of giving the customer a menu to choose from. And the whole point of free trade is that other waiters - even foreign ones - are allowed to come running up with alternative menus.

Capitalism means freedom to own slaves. The only difference with slavery is that with capitalism slaves can escape...but if they do they die starving in the streets. And it's not like in Communism yuo will have to eat all days the same thing...please...


Over the past 40 years, average life expectancy in the developing countries has risen from 46 to 64 years. Since 1950, infant mortality has fallen from 18 to 8 per cent. The proportion of illiterates has fallen from 70 per cent to about 25. Since 1970 child labour and the proportion of people in the world who have to go hungry has fallen by more than half. Since 1980 the number of people in absolute poverty was reduced by more than 200 million.

That's not necessarilly thanks to the capitalist system. And it's surprsing that those "developing countries" are those cappies claim that are poor because of "socialist policies". :rolleyes:


The number of states which are democratically governed and respect human rights is increasing all the time.

Yeah, sure :rolleyes:


Today there are 120 democratic states with a combined population of 3.5 billion people (roughly 60 per cent of the world population), more than ever before in world history. There are still enormous problems in the world, but to anyone who cares to look it is obvious that the world, in most ways, has become a better and a fairer place.

Picking a dictator every 4 years isn't that democratic, especially if we consider that they are financed by capitalists and obviously ask for their money back...


But these improvements don't necessarily have anything to do with globalisation and capitalism, do they?
The improvement has above all been due to the spread of information, technology and prosperity throughout the world, and that has been made possible above all by free people, that is to say, people who are free to live in a capitalist society.

Free people doesn't have bosses controlling their economic destiny. Free people doesn't have "representatives". Free people have a say on the matters that affect them. Free people realizes that capitalists exploit them and that while their order was good for a while it won't last forever giving them occasional "prosperity". Free people doesn't exist in capitalism. There has never been free people.


There are clear connections between the degree of economic freedom and the growth of property and welfare. The countries making up the one-fifth with the most liberal economies are almost ten times more prosperous than the least liberal fifth. During the 1990s the most liberal had an annual growth rate of 2.56 per cent, whereas the least liberal had a negative growth rate of 0.85 per cent. The most liberal countries have poverty levels which are 60 per cent lower than in the least liberal countries. An average life expectancy in the most liberal fifth is almost 20 years longer than in the least liberal fifth! The connection between economic liberty and political liberty is shown by citizens with the right to trade internationally being more than four times as likely to enjoy political liberty than those who do not have this freedom to trade.

Countries where neo-liberal policies we implemented had an increase in unemployment, crappy privatizations that fixed nothing, the richer 10% got an extreme growth in wealth while the last poorer 40% has even less money.


There is nothing to show that economic liberty, generally speaking, spells greater inequality. On the contrary, it is through privileges and state benefits that the mighty are favoured and the people are shut out.

Give the one who wrote this one of those "state benefits" and I'm sure he will shut up. Capitalist hypocrisy.


You can't compare working life standards in poor countries with those of affluent countries, because productivity there is much lower, due for example to their having fewer machines, not such a good infrastructure and lower educational standards.

That's why you can't compare Cuba, the USSR, China and Vietnam with capitalist countries. And that shows that capitalism is unequal.


But surely you don't mean to say that institutions like the IMF and the World Bank run perfectly?
Of course not, what makes you think I'd say any such thing? What I'm defending is the globalisation which gives people more freedom.

Of course it gives more freedom, but on on the sense this individual claims.


You advocate open borders and free immigration. That sounds fine, but it will never work.
What do you mean, "work"? On averagre one individual dies every day round the frontier of the EU in a desperate attempt to get here. Does that work? That's the practical result when governments decide who is and who isn't needy enough to get into the EU.

Escaping from the capitalist povery of the Mexican maquiladoras, I suppose :rolleyes:


Without the technological advances spread by globalization, an additional 1.5 billion acres of land around the world would be damaged by primitive farming methods.

So?

hotsexygrl42: you didn't have a better nickname i suppose...

[Don't Change Your Name]

do not censor this post please

It seems you've been into that idea of "communism = totalitarian big government that controls all individuals and hate freedom". Nobody here would "censor" this post...hmmm...maybe comrade RAF but I don't think so.


Osama and gang are coming!!

run everbody run!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Misodoctakleidist]

china - The problem of food and clothing for more than 200 million rural poor has been solved. The number of poverty-stricken people in rural areas with problems obtaining sufficient food and clothing decreased from 250 million in 1978 to 30 million in 2000.

Yeah, china is a fairytale land.

The economic growth in china is due to the dictatorship opressing thw workers; banning strikes ect.

The reason S. Korea experienced such massive economic growth is through military dictatorship, people were forced to work in terrible conditions for pittyful wages, same in japan and most other "tiger economies."

The USSR is by far the most impressive example of economic and technological progress in histrory and this was achieved through strict market regulation.

Africa is a continent not a country. Please stop using the word "capitalism" to refer to lassais-faire capitalism and nothing else, the word existed before LF capitalists hijacked it and claimed a monopoly on truth.

[hotsexygrl42]

You didn't learn the facts. That's just nice sounding propaganda. Every fact i have stated is true.


IT IS TRUE. The one with the money changes everything and with capitalism we must do everything for that money, including letting corporations have monopolies because they bribe politicians, just to give an example.
That statement is so stupid i dont ever know how to respond to that communist propaganda.



Capitalism means freedom to own slaves. The only difference with slavery is that with capitalism slaves can escape...but if they do they die starving in the streets. And it's not like in Communism yuo will have to eat all days the same thing...please... No slaves were not payed for the work they have done.


Picking a dictator every 4 years isn't that democratic, especially if we consider that they are financed by capitalists and obviously ask for their money back First of all dictators are not voted into power they are appointed to power.


Free people doesn't have bosses controlling their economic destiny. No education conrols thier economic destiny.


Free people have a say on the matters that affect them. BS


Free people realizes that capitalists exploit them and that while their order was good for a while it won't last forever giving them occasional "prosperity". Capitalism realy exploited these wealthy countries Japan, China, South Korea, Russia, and Germany. NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Free people doesn't exist in capitalism. Yes it does infact it brings freedoms to other countries like china forexample.


In Russia, UN statistics say the switch to the free market caused 10 million people to die. In Communist russia over a 100 million people have died what is your point?

[Salvador Allende]

hotsexygrl42, if you do not even know the definition of Communism nor do you actually understand the idea of wage-slaves then I will not bother trying to counter your points because your ignorance counters them for me.

[hotsexygrl42]

The reason that China economy is growing is because of capitialism

Yes they start out with low wages(just like america did 200+ years ago) but over time the wages will get better. Things they take time.

[Salvador Allende]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 08:50 PM
The reason that China economy is growing is because of capitialism

Yes they start out with low wages(just like america did 200+ years ago) but over time the wages will get better. Things they take time.
So, you believe that just because an economy grows things get better? The economy in Germany grew in the 1930's? does that mean things got better? Ask a Communist who grew up in Germany then, if you can find one of the few who survived.

[mEds]

You mean America still doesn't have low wages? Your logic is totally flawed, you show no proof or evidence whatsoever and feel it necessary to exploit others because of "time." (in respone to hotsexywhateverthename is .)

[hotsexygrl42]

Your logic is totally flawed, you show no proof or evidence whatsoever and feel it necessary to exploit others because of "time."

that in 1997, 99 percent of American households below the poverty level had electricity. In 1950, just 94 percent of all U.S. households had electricity. In 1997, 99 percent of poor Americans had flush toilets; in 1950, just 76 percent of all Americans did.

Today, the poorest of Americans are more likely to own televisions, refrigerators, automobiles, air conditioning, dishwashers and washing machines than average Americans were in 1950.

Citizens of the world’s least free economies average $1,669 U.S. per person in real income, and live on average to age 55. Citizens of the world’s freest economies average $18,108 U.S. per person, and live on average to the age of 76.

60 percent of american in poverty have own their own houses.(That one might be wrong. I remember hearing that a long time ago)

[ComradeRed]

Where did you get those satistics? You know 11 out of 4 statistics are made up...

[mEds]

The reason why they are are so they can be the peon slaves of the "upper eschelon." They are exploited and doomed to live in mediocrity while violence and inequality runs rampant. Also, why do you think companies like nike and such are so profitable? They exploit children and people of other nations to do their "dirty work." You might also say: "Well, at least they don't starve to death;" but, is it fair that people be doomed and FORCED essentially, to work in such demeaning conditions where there is no hope? Why do you think there are terrorists? It is NOT only because of religion...

[hotsexygrl42]

That is a good question ComradeRed. I got it from the fox news and fox news got it from cato institute and i have no idea where they got it.


11 out of 4 statistics are made up Do you have a source for that

[Y2A]

See, these people can't have a real debate. They'll just attack you. And the funny thing is that most of them are rich suburban white boys! The hypocracy of it all is quite amusing.

[Y2A]

The Cato instiitue is indeed a reliable source.

[hotsexygrl42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 09:19 PM
The reason why they are are so they can be the peon slaves of the "upper eschelon." They are exploited and doomed to live in mediocrity while violence and inequality runs rampant. Also, why do you think companies like nike and such are so profitable? They exploit children and people of other nations to do their "dirty work." You might also say: "Well, at least they don't starve to death;" but, is it fair that people be doomed and FORCED essentially, to work in such demeaning conditions where there is no hope? Why do you think there are terrorists? It is NOT only because of religion...
I am aganst child labor and exploiting the worker but i also understand that in the long run things are going to get better.

[Y2A]

They will just respond with "supporting capitalism is supporting child labor and exploiting the worker!" with their Che shirts on with an immense pride.

[mEds]

But don't you realize capitalism PROMOTES CHILD LABOR? DOn't you see what capitalism is doing to people in Asia, don't you see it forces some women to become prostitutes?

[Salvador Allende]

While Capitalism may have the short-term effects of economic growth, in the end it is self-destructive. Just so you do now have to go to the last page I will paste it and tell you why.

Capitalism eventually reaches a point of such greed by the entire nation as a whole that the nation itself starts leeching resources out of smaller nations because it is cheaper. These smaller nations can be less-developed or just have no mimimum wage. However, this eventually backfires as it is not cheaper and in all reality all of the capital is leaving the country. Due to industry and capital leaving the country, the economy of that country will crash. Due to the economic crash, the Bourgeois seizes all of the land because the people and petty-bourgeois cannot pay the payments for that land anymore. Because of this, most people do not have a home and many don't have jobs. The ones that do have jobs suffer because the employers must pay them less. With the overall downfall of the societys job market, if the economy is not forcefully rebounded in 5-10 years there will be a rebellion by the proletariat.

The first person to point out this specific cycle was Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin) in his pamphlet "Imperialism, the Highest Form of Capitalism". As we can all see, the US is entering this final stage as we speak. So, in the end we all have a choice to make. We can either side with the people and attempt to break our chains and free the people from capitalism, we can side with capitalism and attempt to keep the proletariat in a position under the bourgeois or we can watch in the distance and trail behind both parties, chosing whichever side appears to be winning at the moment. Everyone is free to make the choice, apparently hotsexygrl42 has made his choice, but for everyone who has not....events may force you to chose sooner than you think.

[hotsexygrl42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 09:29 PM
They will just respond with "supporting capitalism is supporting child labor and exploiting the worker!" with their Che shirts on with an immense pride.
call me crazy y2a but they can change. All they need to hear is the facts like i did. I used to be a misinformed communist untill i heard the truth.

[Y2A]

Of course they can and will change. They are in the state of white rebellion against their surburban counterparts. They are your typical middle class teen trying to "be cool". It's quite ridiculous really. I often enjoy making fun of them for it.

[Salvador Allende]

Call me crazy hotsexy, but you can change. All you need to hear is the facts like I did. I used to be a misinformed capitalist until I heard the truth.

Oh and why don't you two stop laughing and try to counter a real Marxist's points?

[hotsexygrl42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 09:31 PM
But don't you realize capitalism PROMOTES CHILD LABOR? DOn't you see what capitalism is doing to people in Asia, don't you see it forces some women to become prostitutes?
No it does not promote child labor and if you believe that you need more help then i thought.

[Y2A]

You see the difference between me and your typical pinko youth is that I realize that the capitalist system is not perfect and many times unrestricted free trade does indeed lead to exploitation of worker's rights. Meanwhile your average pinko feels that he ideal communist system is indeed infallible and does not wish to listen to reason.

[mEds]

Originally posted by hotsexygrl42+May 16 2004, 04:38 PM--> (hotsexygrl42 @ May 16 2004, 04:38 PM)
[email protected] 16 2004, 09:31 PM
But don't you realize capitalism PROMOTES CHILD LABOR? DOn't you see what capitalism is doing to people in Asia, don't you see it forces some women to become prostitutes?
No it does not promote child labor and if you believe that you need more help then i thought. [/b]
But how does it NOT support child slave labor? Nike. Explain that to me and stop using your weak arguments against me.

[hotsexygrl42]

Originally posted by StreetSweeper+May 16 2004, 09:42 PM--> (StreetSweeper @ May 16 2004, 09:42 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 04:38 PM

[email protected] 16 2004, 09:31 PM
But don't you realize capitalism PROMOTES CHILD LABOR? DOn't you see what capitalism is doing to people in Asia, don't you see it forces some women to become prostitutes?
No it does not promote child labor and if you believe that you need more help then i thought.
But how does it NOT support child slave labor? Nike. Explain that to me and stop using your weak arguments against me. [/b]
American companies go into places in mexican and pay then more money they would be makeing from from mexican buisness, so that will bring up the wages. Now i am going to take a shower where i will be naked baby. just giveing you something to think about.

[mEds]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 04:42 PM
You see the difference between me and your typical pinko youth is that I realize that the capitalist system is not perfect and many times unrestricted free trade does indeed lead to exploitation of worker's rights. Meanwhile your average pinko feels that he ideal communist system is indeed infallible and does not wish to listen to reason.
That is where your reasoning ability is flawed. Capitalism for the most part *exploits* and subjugates peoples discriminated upon by one reason or another to be driven to work and essentially be locked into a pre-determined destiny practically forced upon them by those only seeking immense greed.

[Y2A]

It doesn't, individuals however do. How can a system advocate something? Do you ever think that not all "capitalists" have the same mind set? What are you talking about when you say "capitalism" are you refering to Classical Liberalism i.e Libertarianism, or simply of American Capitalism?

[Salvador Allende]

hey Y2A and Hot, why don't you two stop insulting street and try to counter anything that I have said instead of ignoring it? do you know why you ignore it? Because it is political science, it is actually a political theory of development backed by political science and you have no counter for it. But, I believe Neville Chamberlain proved that ignoring it does not make it go away, so try and debate to me your points while countering mine. Or are you two going to make fools out of yourselves by ignoring the man who can prove you wrong?

[Ortega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 05:31 PM
But don't you realize capitalism PROMOTES CHILD LABOR? DOn't you see what capitalism is doing to people in Asia, don't you see it forces some women to become prostitutes?
This is the part where I have to join in.

Don't you see what 'communism' is doing to people in Cuba?!

Don't you see it forces some women to become prostitutes (or child labourers)?!

http://www.globalmarch.org/worstformsreport/world/cuba.html

http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/...n_pope0126.html (http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/dailynews/mullen_pope0126.html)

http://www.ecpat.net/eng/Ecpat_inter/Publi...cuba.pdf&e=7317 (http://www.ecpat.net/eng/Ecpat_inter/Publication/Other/English/Pdf_page/ecpat_prostitution_and_sex_tourism_cuba.pdf&e=7317)

[mEds]

Originally posted by hotsexygrl42+May 16 2004, 04:45 PM--> (hotsexygrl42 @ May 16 2004, 04:45 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 04:38 PM

[email protected] 16 2004, 09:31 PM
But don't you realize capitalism PROMOTES CHILD LABOR? DOn't you see what capitalism is doing to people in Asia, don't you see it forces some women to become prostitutes?
No it does not promote child labor and if you believe that you need more help then i thought.
But how does it NOT support child slave labor? Nike. Explain that to me and stop using your weak arguments against me.
American companies go into places in mexican and pay then more money they would be makeing from from mexican buisness, so that will bring up the wages. Now i am going to take a shower where i will be naked baby. just giveing you something to think about. [/b]
Again, your posts prove that the typical capitalist is un-intelligent and misinformed. How does having taking a shower directly relate to this conversation? You are just a big waste of time.

[Salvador Allende]

Jacabo, you must take into accounts the limitation that Cuba cannot trade with the closest power to them. Also the fact that the US has tried to destroy Cuba's Socialism for over 40 years.

[Y2A]

But that's only because they are not allowed to trade with American companies due to the embarrgo. Oh wait a sec.....why is it that pinkos claim to despise trade of any kind yet on this occassion realize that trade is indeed good for the Cuban economy? You see, it has nothing to do with the facts it just has to do with the fact that America is doing it. And since America is indeed the embodiment of pure evil, pinkos are more then willing to "alter" their "claimed" beliefs in this situation.

[Salvador Allende]

And to Hotsexy, that very same thing you mentioned will cause the collapse of US Capitalism. Due to the fact that industry, jobs and overall capital is leaving the US, there is to be an economic crash in the US. Much as Rome all of a sudden crashed because all of it's capital left into India and China almost 1600 years ago.

And to Y2A, why don't you stop insulting the people who insult themselves and try to directly go after me?

[mEds]

Originally posted by Jacobo Arbenz+May 16 2004, 04:47 PM--> (Jacobo Arbenz @ May 16 2004, 04:47 PM)
[email protected] 16 2004, 05:31 PM
But don't you realize capitalism PROMOTES CHILD LABOR? DOn't you see what capitalism is doing to people in Asia, don't you see it forces some women to become prostitutes?
This is the part where I have to join in.

Don't you see what 'communism' is doing to people in Cuba?!

Don't you see it forces some women to become prostitutes (or child labourers)?!

http://www.globalmarch.org/worstformsreport/world/cuba.html

http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/...n_pope0126.html (http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/dailynews/mullen_pope0126.html)

http://www.ecpat.net/eng/Ecpat_inter/Publi...cuba.pdf&e=7317 (http://www.ecpat.net/eng/Ecpat_inter/Publication/Other/English/Pdf_page/ecpat_prostitution_and_sex_tourism_cuba.pdf&e=7317) [/b]
Cuba could have been so much more sucessful if it wasn't for American imperialistic intervention. America's embargos etc have caused economic deficiencies in Cuba thus increasing prostitution in Cuba.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by Salvador [email protected] 16 2004, 09:52 PM
And to Hotsexy, that very same thing you mentioned will cause the collapse of US Capitalism. Due to the fact that industry, jobs and overall capital is leaving the US, there is to be an economic crash in the US. Much as Rome all of a sudden crashed because all of it's capital left into India and China almost 1600 years ago.
You make quite a good point there. Indeed, outsourcing is a very serious threat. That is why many feel that restrictions must be imposed in order to keep jobs in the United States. However, my feelings on that is mixed.

[mEds]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 04:51 PM
But that's only because they are not allowed to trade with American companies due to the embarrgo. Oh wait a sec.....why is it that pinkos claim to despise trade of any kind yet on this occassion realize that trade is indeed good for the Cuban economy? You see, it has nothing to do with the facts it just has to do with the fact that America is doing it. And since America is indeed the embodiment of pure evil, pinkos are more then willing to "alter" their "claimed" beliefs in this situation.
Since when did I or other communists despise trade? In a marxist civilization trade is necessary. For example, greed and profit is not at concern, North america could trade corn for "Chinese broccoli" from China or wherever that stuff comes from. We are not seeking profit. Trade means exchange of some sort of things.

[Y2A]

I just made a valid point SA. Pinkos are remarkably against trade. But in this situation American companies are all of a sudden the "good guys". Communism is suppose to be about living off your own land, what you people are saying directly contridicts that is quite hypocritical.

[Salvador Allende]

I think every Communist forgets for at least a moment that Capitalism is not the spawn of satan, rather it is a neccesary step in social development.

[Y2A]

Also in a "Communist" society, how do you deal with inflation? Would efficiency not drastically drop? How is no use of currency realistic?

[Dyst]

Communism is suppose to be about living off your own land, what you people are saying directly contridicts that is quite hypocritical.
Unless I completely misunderstood you, your wrong. What you are talking about must be some kind of patriotic Stalinism. Most communists believes that the whole world needs to work together to make communism work the best.

Communists about trade, just listen to the quote of Marx, "From each according to ability to each according to need."

[mEds]

There would be no *money* system in a communist/marxist society; therefore, no inflation. Look, now you're just asking general topics about communism. Why don't you read some textbooks or online articles than come back here and post ok?

[hotsexygrl42]

Has someone ever sayed to you that history alway repeats itself? Well America used to have child labor and now it does not. Japan used to have child labor now it does not. CAPITIALISM IS NOT EVIL

[mEds]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 05:18 PM
Has someone ever sayed to you that history alway repeats itself? Well America used to have child labor and now it does not. Japan used to have child labor now it does not. CAPITIALISM IS NOT EVIL
America now uses other countries as a source of it's child labor; such as: the Nike and India/Asia connection. Also, children/pre-teens/teens are sometimes forced to work in their parents stores long hours and some teens are forced to quit highschool by their parents and get a job because they cannot sustain themselves from reasons imposed by them because of capitalism. Ergo, America still uses child labor; any way you put it.

[BuyOurEverything]

Has someone ever sayed to you that history alway repeats itself? Well America used to have child labor and now it does not. Japan used to have child labor now it does not. CAPITIALISM IS NOT EVIL

Well, yes it does actually, just not legally. There's plenty of illegal imigrant kids working in the States, the only reason there's not more child labor is because of 'Marxist' labor laws, which go against laissez-faire. Also, as SS mentioned, US based corporations employ many children in foreign countries.


I just made a valid point SA. Pinkos are remarkably against trade. But in this situation American companies are all of a sudden the "good guys". Communism is suppose to be about living off your own land, what you people are saying directly contridicts that is quite hypocritical.


It's unrealistic to expect a country as small as Cuba to be entirely self-sufficient. Trade is not inherintly bad, however when it is controlled by a handful of capitalists with concern only for the profit motive, it tends to be. The example of Cuba just goes to show that socialism really must be global, not isolationist.


You make quite a good point there. Indeed, outsourcing is a very serious threat. That is why many feel that restrictions must be imposed in order to keep jobs in the United States. However, my feelings on that is mixed.

Do you feel those in America have some sort of a birthright to better employment than foreign workers? Unlike democrats, such as yourself, I view outsourcing as a problem not because it takes jobs away from Americans, but because it only exists so employers can pay lower wages and results in more exploitation. Where is the motivation in the US to restrict outsourcing? Both official parties are funded almost entirely by corporations that benefit from it.

[Cobra]

I am aganst child labor and exploiting the worker but i also understand that in the long run things are going to get better.
Things will get better once the exploitation ends, that is, when we take over the factories.

No education conrols thier economic destiny.
Tell that to Bill Gates.

Capitalism realy exploited these wealthy countries Japan, China, South Korea, Russia, and Germany. NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So you think China, South Korea, and Russia are wealthy countries? They might be for the rich, but not for the masses.

Anyway, Corporations exploit workers in all countries, including in the so-called “wealthy” ones.

Yes [capitalism] does infact it brings freedoms to other countries like china forexample.
Yes, the freedom to starve on the streets.

The reason that China economy is growing is because of capitialism
I think you are referring to the ludicrous measures of prosperity used by bourgeoisie economists. The most popular one they use is the GDP. I doubt if you know much about economics so I will explain some of it to you.

The GDP is the total market value of all final goods and services produced within a country during a specific time period. It does not include volunteer work.

Capitalists consider a rise in GDP to be a good thing, but this is not always true.

Example:

Year 1989: The Exxon Valdez crashes against the rocks spilling 11 million gallons of oil creating an environmental catastrophe. In order to clean up the mess, over 2 billion dollars were spent. This money paid the clean up crews for their services. As a result, GDP went up.

Year 1998: Thousands of acres of old growth forests are cut down in Scandinavia destroying their native ecosystem. This also raised GDP.

Year 2000: Alaskan Airlines flight 261 crashes into the Pacific Ocean. All passengers and crewmembers are killed. Millions of dollars are spent for people to search for debris. As a result of this tragedy, GDP went up.

Using GDP as a measure of prosperity is very flawed. I could give many more examples, but I think you get the point.

Instead of focusing on economic nonsense, start thinking about the people themselves. While the GDP in China might be “growing”, many people liked China a lot better during the time of Mao.

[Maynard]

A system where the individual is his own master and the master of his property
What about those who do not own any property now ? How will they be catered for under Capitalism ?


with the power of making contracts and starting up in business
The majority now, do not have the means too start up a new business. How will this change under a "pure" capitalist system ?


and the ability to move about, travel and trade regardless of national boundaries
I would agree this would be good. It seems, however, the party which likes too promote "free market " philosphy also is now putting the most restrictions on travel now.

Decision-making, as far as possible, rests with people themselves, not with politicians and government
I agree this would be a good thing if it happened. What decisions however, would rest with the government ? What excatly would their "role" be ?


Over the past 40 years, average life expectancy in the developing countries has risen from 46 to 64 years
So now "capitalism" takes credit for that but when Africa is brought up, that suddenly isn't "capitalism". Which one is it ? I would like too know their source for these statistics. Saying "Capitalism" caused all these improvements, is also a rather shaky claim too make. Life expetenancy, literacy and infant mortality rates are lower also in Cuba as well over the same period, same goes for the Soviet Union during it's existence.


The number of states which are democratically governed and respect human rights is increasing all the time
So, "democratically governed" is somehow linked to human rights being respected. Indonesia, Turkey and Colombia come too mind when talking about that.

They also don't say what the most liberal and least liberal countries are as well. Cuba for instance, has a life expectancy 2 years below the United States I believe. They have seemed too pick out countries with low life expectancy, defined them as economically "unliberal" so as too suit their argument. They are being very vague when they use statistics


During the 1990s the most liberal had an annual growth rate of 2.56 per cent, whereas the least liberal had a negative growth rate of 0.85 per cent
Cuba had a GDP growth of 4.2 per cent last year and had a similar rate throughout the 90's, while GDP growth in Russia from 1990 too 1995 was -9.8 per cent, even when they were "more" economically liberal.


In that case "everyone knows" wrong. There is nothing to show that economic liberty, generally speaking, spells greater inequality
"According to the Federal Reserve, in 1990 the richest 1 percent of America owned 40 percent of its wealth -- the greatest level of inequality among all rich nations, and the worst in U.S. history since the Roaring Twenties. Furthermore, the richest 20 percent owned 80 percent of America -- meaning, of course, that the bottom four-fifths of all Americans owned only one fifth of its wealth. "

"Another revealing way of expressing this statistic is that the top 1 percent owned more than the bottom 90 percent combined. "

Is not the United States one of the most "economic Liberal" countries ? United States also ranks last in the Poverty Index for the 17 most developed nations, while "welfare States" such as Sweden are first or have the lowest poverty.

[Shredder]

All of the statistics mean nothing, because they are upside-down. They would be like me saying: The economies with the highest wages have the most successful markets, therefore all you need for a successful market are high wages!

I'll stick to common sense: liberal economies are caused by successful markets, not the other way around.

[Maynard]

Well America used to have child labor and now it does not. Japan used to have child labor now it does not
So, "capitalism" stopped child labour in Japan and the United States ? I do not think that is true. If there was no "child labour laws", would companies still not hire children ? If there was this Capitalist system, would it be okay too hire children ? Since they are voluntarily choosing too accept a contract with their employer ? Even with government laws passed, Companies still blantly ignore them in such countries as India.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2206026.stm



They are your typical middle class teen trying to "be cool".
I bet Redstar2000 liked that one but your friend lucid, claims we are low income "losers' who blames the "man" for our problems, which one is it going too be ? Or perhaps that is just as ridiculous a generalisation as all supporters of Capitalism being CEO's of multinational corporations.


Do you ever think that not all "capitalists" have the same mind set?
Do you ever think not all "pinkos" have the same mind set ? Or do you ever think not all "pinkos" are suburban teenagers rebelling against their parents or something.


why is it that pinkos claim to despise trade of any kind yet on this occassion realize that trade is indeed good for the Cuban economy?
Where has anyone claimed that trade is "evil" ? I don't despise trade at all, The one million pinkos marching in Havana don't despise it either. I see it very much as necessary in a modern day economy, socialist or not. Cuba's problems cannot all be blamed on the embargo, that is true. It is however, a ridiculous policy trying too gain extra voters in Florida. It also just does not apply too American companies however, any companies that trade with Cuba are not allowed too trade within the United States or if any part of the product has been made in the United States it's not allowed too enter.


Pinkos are remarkably against trade
You say that but not have shown one example of anyone being against trade, at all. I think it's good for any economy too be as self sufficient as possible, however, that is almost impossible in any nation, due too varying weather conditions and all other factors. Socialist try too promote more self suffiency within their economies but not complete. If there was no trade, Cuba could not receive any oil for instance, which is rather important.

[hotsexygrl42]

Between 1965 and 1998, the average world citizen’s income practically
doubled, from 2,497 to 4,839 dollars, corrected for purchasing
power and in fixed money terms. This has not come about through
the industrialised nations multiplying their incomes. During this
period the richest one-fifth of the world’s population increased their
average income from 8,315 to 14,623 dollars, i.e. by roughly 75 per
cent. For the poorest one-fifth of the world’s population, the increase
has been faster still, with average income rising during the same period
from 551 to 1,137 dollars, i.e. more than doubling.8 World consumption
today is more than twice what it was in 1960.

[Maynard]

The fact sill remains that In 1998, the richest fifth of the world's population received 89 % of the total world income, while the poorest fifth received just 1.2% of the global income. While in 1960, the highest had 70.2 % , while the poorest had 2.3 %. The trickle down effect isn't working too well. The world has become wealthier, no doubt , it also became wealthier when the system was Feudalism but the rich are the ones seeing the most benefit out of it.



World consumption
today is more than twice what it was in 1960.
The richest fifth of the world's people consumes 86 percent of all goods and services while the poorest fifth consumes just 1.3 percent, much like income levels, while the average African household today consumes 20 percent less than it did 25 years ago. As have been pointed out as well, these "improvements" would not just be because of Capitalism anyway. Government regulation is still a big part in all economies.

[hotsexygrl42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 01:59 AM
The fact sill remains that In 1998, the richest fifth of the world's population received 89 % of the total world income, while the poorest fifth received just 1.2% of the global income. While in 1960, the highest had 70.2 % , while the poorest had 2.3 %. The trickle down effect isn't working too well. The world has become wealthier, no doubt , it also became wealthier when the system was Feudalism but the rich are the ones seeing the most benefit out of it.



World consumption
today is more than twice what it was in 1960.
The richest fifth of the world's people consumes 86 percent of all goods and services while the poorest fifth consumes just 1.3 percent, much like income levels, while the average African household today consumes 20 percent less than it did 25 years ago. As have been pointed out as well, these "improvements" would not just be because of Capitalism anyway. Government regulation is still a big part in all economies.
that cant be true give me your soruce for that info


WASHINGTON — Rapid economic growth in East and South Asia over the last couple of decades has been responsible for a decrease in the number of people living in extreme poverty in developing countries, from 40 percent of global population in 1981 to 21 percent in 2001. However, Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe and Central Asia are still far from reaching the U.N. Millennium Development Goal of halving poverty levels by 2015, says a new World Bank report released today.

The report presents numbers related to a current world population of 6 billion, 5 billion of whom live in developing countries. If the Millennium Goals were set for 2004, the world would indeed be close to achieving the target of halving poverty. However, the world's population is expected to grow by 1 billion by 2015, thereby raising the number of people potentially living on less than $1 per day and negatively affecting the millennium targets.

According to World Development Indicators 2004, East and South Asia, particularly China and India, have lifted 500 million people out of extreme poverty — those living on less than $1 a day — in 20 years. Over that period, the population living in all developing countries on less than $1 a day dropped from 1.5 billion to 1.1 billion.

"There is good news, which is that global poverty is falling in the world rather quickly," said the World Bank's chief economist, Francois Bourguignon. The figures presented in this report "confirm that even though other factors are important in poverty reduction, economic growth is a driver."

In the East Asia and Pacific region, gross domestic product per capita more than tripled, while the proportion of people in extreme poverty fell from 56 percent to 16 percent. In China, the number of people living in extreme poverty fell from 600 million in 1981 to around 200 million in 2001.

"Indeed, China is responsible for the drop in global poverty and this is not a surprise, first because of the size of China [and] second because of the rate of growth in China, which has been over the 20-year period of 8.5 percent per year," Bourguignon said.

In South Asia, there were almost 50 million fewer people living in extreme poverty in 2001 compared to 1990, according to the report.

[Maynard]

that cant be true give me your soruce for that info
You don't have much source for your info. It's from the United Nations Human development report 2003 from the United Nations. The New York times report here:http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ungap.htm, you can see a report on it. "Illustrating the yawning gap between rich and poor, it said the 20 percent of people living in high-income countries consume 86 percent of the world's goods and services. The poorest 20 percent, by contrast, consume just 1.3 percent."

Here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1763410.stm

"In the five years of the study, world per capita real income increased by 5.7%.
But all the gains went to the top 20% of the income distribution, whose income was up 12%, while the income of the bottom 5% actually declined by 25%. " Which came from the World Bank



You can look at articles about what is happening in America here : http://edition.cnn.com/2000/US/01/18/wage.gap/ with
"According to the Federal Reserve, in 1990 the richest 1 percent of America owned 40 percent of its wealth -- the greatest level of inequality among all rich nations, and the worst in U.S. history since the Roaring Twenties"

and income levels

Quintile 1950-1978 1979-1993
Lowest 20% 138% -15%
2nd 20% 98 -7
3rd 20% 106 -3
4th 20% 111 5
Highest 20% 99 18

http://mirrors.korpios.org/resurgent/4Inequality.htm

Read that over.

They measure poverty by howmany live under 1 dollar US a day but they don't take into aco**** inflation, as far as I know, which could well mean those who came out of "extreme poverty" aren't any better off than before.

[Nyder]

How many times do I have to tell you - America has that much wealth because they produce that much wealth. Economics is not a zero-sum game. You can't blame America for the poverty of the third world.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Salvador [email protected] 16 2004, 05:37 AM
you have to love how hotsexygrl42 only quoted parts out of context and not the actual counters to his comments.
"get the fuck out of here imperialist trash" is not an addressing an issue either.

[revolutionindia]

Once I was a capitalist and I used to worship money

Then I became a communist and worshipped marx,engles

Now I have become a believer and I believe all this is an illusion

This world is not what it seems and the answers for all questions are all within.

Search not for the truth in the books of MARX or the books of WTO

Listen to your intitution which shows the truth and follow the path shown by god.

[Professor Moneybags]

The fact sill remains that In 1998, the richest fifth of the world's population received 89 % of the total world income,

Because they produced 89% of the world's goods and services.


while the poorest fifth received just 1.2% of the global income.

Because they produced 1.2% of the world's goods and services.

That wasn't too hard to understand, now, was it ?

I don't like your use of the word "recieved", either. It suggests that we're all pooling our wealth and that someone is handing out an unequal share; it creates the nice illusion of the haves "stealing" from the have-nots.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 02:56 AM
They measure poverty by howmany live under 1 dollar US a day but they don't take into aco**** inflation, as far as I know, which could well mean those who came out of "extreme poverty" aren't any better off than before.
Oh no, not the "less than one dollar a day" nonsense again. They obviously don't take into account economies of scale either; in those countries, an entire family can be fed for pennies.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 08:31 AM
In Russia, UN statistics say the switch to the free market caused 10 million people to die.
And every time you fart an armadillo somewhere drops dead.


Capitalism means freedom to own slaves.

Really ? What happened to individual rights ?


the word existed before LF capitalists hijacked it and claimed a monopoly on truth.

The king of France asked the workers how he could help to increase their productivity. They replied : "Laissez nous faire" ("leave us alone"). Hence LF capitalism = no government intervention. How has that been "hijacked" ?


actually understand the idea of wage-slaves

The idea is self contradictory; there's nothing to understand.

[Hiero]

I would advise going and getting the new "news internationalisy" magazine. It has some facts of what happened to old USSR countries with the fall of the USSR and the transition to capitalism.

news internationalist (http://www.newint.org)

[hotsexygrl42]

source (http://www.unwire.org/News/328_426_23113.asp)


WASHINGTON — Rapid economic growth in East and South Asia over the last couple of decades has been responsible for a decrease in the number of people living in extreme poverty in developing countries, from 40 percent of global population in 1981 to 21 percent in 2001. However, Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe and Central Asia are still far from reaching the U.N. Millennium Development Goal of halving poverty levels by 2015, says a new World Bank report released today.

The report presents numbers related to a current world population of 6 billion, 5 billion of whom live in developing countries. If the Millennium Goals were set for 2004, the world would indeed be close to achieving the target of halving poverty. However, the world's population is expected to grow by 1 billion by 2015, thereby raising the number of people potentially living on less than $1 per day and negatively affecting the millennium targets.

According to World Development Indicators 2004, East and South Asia, particularly China and India, have lifted 500 million people out of extreme poverty — those living on less than $1 a day — in 20 years. Over that period, the population living in all developing countries on less than $1 a day dropped from 1.5 billion to 1.1 billion.

"There is good news, which is that global poverty is falling in the world rather quickly," said the World Bank's chief economist, Francois Bourguignon. The figures presented in this report "confirm that even though other factors are important in poverty reduction, economic growth is a driver."

In the East Asia and Pacific region, gross domestic product per capita more than tripled, while the proportion of people in extreme poverty fell from 56 percent to 16 percent. In China, the number of people living in extreme poverty fell from 600 million in 1981 to around 200 million in 2001.

"Indeed, China is responsible for the drop in global poverty and this is not a surprise, first because of the size of China [and] second because of the rate of growth in China, which has been over the 20-year period of 8.5 percent per year," Bourguignon said.

In South Asia, there were almost 50 million fewer people living in extreme poverty in 2001 compared to 1990, according to the report.

In the Middle East and North Africa, extreme poverty rates also declined, from 5 percent in 1981 to 2 percent in 2001. The number of people living on less than $2 a day also dropped, from 29 percent to 23 percent.

However, in sub-Saharan Africa, poverty rose from 41 percent in 1981 to 46 percent in 2001, while GDP per capita decreased by 14 percent. Over the 20 years, 140 million people were included in the group of those living in extreme poverty.

Given these negative figures, Bourguignon said, "we expect that sub-Saharan Africa will soon be the region where most of the world's poor will be concentrated. Twenty years ago, poverty was an Asian problem and in a few years, poverty will be an African problem."

Meanwhile, people living on less than $2 per day in Eastern Europe and Central Asia rose from 8 million in 1981 to more than 100 million in 1999, dropping to 90 million in 2001.

Latin America and the Caribbean saw a slight increase in economic growth through the 1990s, although the proportion of people living on less than $1 and $2 a day — 10 and 25 percent respectively — remained approximately the same. That is because, the report says, the relationship between economic growth and poverty is weaker in countries where income distribution is less equitable.

Countries are also far from achieving the goal of halving hunger by 2015 from 1990 levels, says the report, which estimates that only 29 of 74 developing nations are currently on track to achieve the target.

Overall, the Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that more than 840 million people are chronically undernourished. Around 830 million of them live in developing nations.

Here too, sub-Saharan Africa is behind in achieving the goal, while the East Asia and Pacific region shows the fastest progress in reducing child malnutrition.

On the goal of ensuring that by 2015 all children in the world are able to complete a course of primary education, East Asia and the Pacific, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean are on track, the World Bank says.

Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and North Africa, and South Asia, however, risk falling short. The three regions together account for around 150 million primary school-age children and if the current trend persists, that will mean millions of them could be out of school by 2015.

Because gender equality and the empowerment of women — the fourth Millennium Development Goal — are related to education, countries also risk falling short on that promise, especially in the Middle East and North Africa and, again, sub-Saharan Africa.

On the goal of reducing child mortality worldwide by two-thirds of 1990 levels by 2015, Latin America and the Caribbean is the only region likely to achieve it, the report says.

Progress has been particularly slow in sub-Saharan Africa, where civil conflicts and the HIV/AIDS epidemic have driven up rates of infant and child mortality. In the region, the mortality rate for children under 5 is 171 deaths per 1,000 live births, compared with less than 7 deaths in high-income countries.

The number of women who die in childbirth is also increasing and all regions, except for the Middle East and North Africa, are likely to fall short of the 2015 target of reducing the maternal mortality ratio by three-quarters from 1990 levels.

The World Bank estimates that in some poor countries, maternal mortality reaches 1,300 deaths per 100,000 live births, compared with 13 deaths in rich countries.

On the goal of combating epidemic diseases, ensuring environmental sustainability and developing a global partnership between rich and poor nations for development, progress has also been slow, the report says.

The HIV/AIDS epidemic, particularly, has been threatening development in many nations, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, which accounted for 70 percent of the 47 million HIV/AIDS cases by the end of 2002.

According to Bourguignon, the two most important ways to revert the negative outlook in achieving the goals are to increase economic support to poor countries through increased aid and debt reduction.

"It is absolutely necessary that the international development community, and in particular the rich countries, give some help" on both fronts, he said.

World Bank indicators show that in 2002, development assistance from the 22 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) accounted for an average of 0.59 percent of government disbursements, compared with an 11 percent expenditure for military activities.

Developing countries also need to increase their access to foreign markets through trade liberalization. According to World Development Indicators, although around 70 percent of the world's poor live in rural areas and depend directly or indirectly on agriculture, two-thirds of the world's agricultural trade originates in OECD countries. Subsidies to producers in developed countries are the main factor responsible for this trade imbalance and, therefore, a problem that must be urgently tackled.

Finally, the report emphasizes that developing countries must implement social policies in their nations and improve distribution of income, since without it, economic growth is meaningless.

"Enhancing security for poor people means reducing their vulnerability to ill health and economic shocks," said Martin Ravallion, manager of the bank's poverty research program. "To increase the security of poor people, national poverty reduction strategies must support their immediate consumption needs and protect their assets by ensuring access to basic services, including health, education and nutrition."

The launch of World Development Indicators 2004 follows yesterday's release of the Global Monitoring Report by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The Development Committee, composed of the Board of Governors of both institutions, is to discuss progress toward the Millennium Development Goals this weekend during their annual spring meeting here.

[thatCHEr]

I havent bothered reading much of this, but whoever said this(not sure if it was a quote or not):

Protectionism" does not cause poverty. Poverty causes protectionism.

Protectionism and poverty are not directly related. Protectionism prevents international trade properly being undertook, which in turn leads to in general the world being less efficiant. In that sense it can contribute to poverty. But removing protectionist policy in the short term can cause unemployment in the home country, as cheaper imports cause demand for home goods to fall. But this can be countered by exports being cheaper, if the other countries have been holding protectionist policies against the home country.

But in any case, it should be opposed, its just a measure used by politicians too lazy to explain the benefits of international trade, or trying to get easy election points. In the process hindering international trade and distorting the market.

[Vinny Rafarino]

You make quite a good point there. Indeed, outsourcing is a very serious threat. That is why many feel that restrictions must be imposed in order to keep jobs in the United States. However, my feelings on that is mixed


Well unfortunately you can't have it both ways. Once a labour market is reached its valley, there is no other way to reduce Variable Capital rates to maintain surplus value.

The ONLY option to keep reducing Variable Capital is to globalise your production while marketing those goods and commodities domestically. Unfortunately, this is only a finite resource. Eventually your third world labour pool demands higher wages (V) as their GDP continues to rise exponentially. This guarantees that the first world will always be looking for their next third world labour market to exploit.

In some cases (as in Iraq) if you are unable to create "friendly" relations with third world labout markets you will have to "create" your own. Iraq is the perfect example. (it's not only about oil you see) Iraq'a labour market was "softened" over severl years of international economic sanctions, while at the same time their leaders were subsequently turned into "evil monsters" that "must be removed from power".

Once the target is softened to a degree where they are unable to defend themselves, their labour market is suffeciently reduced to third world levels and the international community is sufficiently programmed to support the "toppling of an evil regime" it's an easy cure for the loss of domestic suplus value.

One question that capitalists can never answer is "what do you do when 3rd world labour markets no longer exist"? they do not answer this because there is no answer. Once there is no way to reduce V, it is impossible to continue to extract surplus value from your goods. We know it, they know it.

Remember this, those that truly benefit from capitalist policies will not be around once this actually occurs, so they really don't care. Their lives are filled with caviar and quick jumps to the Alps for a weekend with Buffy.

It's those that support capitalist (like the capitalists on this board) policies without actually benefitting from it's fruits that I feel sorry for. What a shame.

How does it feel to be sheep kids?

[thatCHEr]

Once a labour market is reached its valley, there is no other way to reduce Variable Capital rates to maintain surplus value.

Well not really. There is also population increases, immigration, improved technology meaning less labour is needed per unit produced of a good produced, and many other ways to maintain GDP growth.
But still international trade should be allowed, in the long run it will benefit all countries to have such flexible global markets.

[Vinny Rafarino]

There is also population increases, immigration

Not Really. Population increases and immigration have nothing to do with the falling rate of profit.



improved technology meaning less labour is needed per unit produced of a good produced, and many other ways to maintain GDP growth.



You are a bit confused here. Improved technology can only decrease Variable Capital for a short period of time as your competitors will eventually apply the same technology to their own production facilities. The market value of goods will always level itself out, this is an economic fact. A short "burst" of an increased rate of profit is hardly a "cure" for a steadily falling rate of surplus value.

Anti trust laws are a thorn in the side of capitalism.

Not that national GDP has much to do with the falling rate of demestic profit but I would love to hear about some of those "ways" to maintain GDP growth.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 05:47 AM
I used to be a misinformed communist myself untill I learned the truth. here is an example of what i mean

Contrary to the common myth, capitalism is not an enemy of the poor. Likewise, there is no capitalist conspiracy against the poor countries of the world. The world trading system is imperfect and scarred by protectionism in developed and under-developed states alike. But despite those imperfections, many poor countries have managed to achieve remarkable prosperity. In 1967, per-capita income in South Korea was an inflation-adjusted $550. In Ghana it was $800. By 1997, South Korean per capita income reached $10,360. In Ghana it had fallen to $370.
In the 1970s the DPRK outstripped the economic growth of the ROK. In addition, Socialist countries such as the PRC and the USSR have achieved massive economic growth.

You point out that trade is very important in terms of creating prosperity. I agree, it is vital. Socialist countries have found it difficult to trade because the majority of economic production in the world has often been in capitalist countries. To make an accurate comparison you would have to look at a socialist country that had the same possbilities for trade as certain capitalist countries have had.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 08:44 PM
Every fact i have stated is true.
How sure are you of that? And after all it doesn't prove much.


That statement is so stupid i dont ever know how to respond to that communist propaganda.

It will be interesting if some day those "anarcho"-capitalists are listened and everything gets privatized. :rolleyes:


No slaves were not payed for the work they have done.

They were kept alive. And in capitalism you are not paid for the work you have done. The one with the materials necessary for producing a good get all the profit. That makes no sense.


First of all dictators are not voted into power they are appointed to power.

Ever heard of Allende?
And people "vote" those candidates they know (those who are usually financed by the owning class).


No education conrols thier economic destiny.

I don't get what you're talking about. Oh, you mean that poor people, as in utopian capitalism won't be able to pay for a good education, won't have destiny? Oh, I see. Nice argument to exploit people by making them "work harder". :rolleyes:


BS

That's all you have to say?


Capitalism realy exploited these wealthy countries Japan, China, South Korea, Russia, and Germany. NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Exactly. It did.


Yes it does infact it brings freedoms to other countries like china forexample.

And Pinochet's regime in Chile, fascist Italy, the last Argentinian dictatorship, Saddam's Iraq, Franco's Spain and even Nazi Germany I suppose... :rolleyes:


In Communist russia over a 100 million people have died what is your point?

4 things for you dear:
1) not everyone here like stalinism
2) Stalinists will be glad to argue that number
3) The "100 million" of deaths attributed to "communism" are not in Russia, they are meant to be WORLDWIDE
4) COMMUNISM HAS NEVER EXISTED with few exceptions such as in Spain during the Civil War


See, these people can't have a real debate. They'll just attack you. And the funny thing is that most of them are rich suburban white boys! The hypocracy of it all is quite amusing.

That's all you have to say? Maybe you should post more frequently, this kind of posts really make you look like a stupid. Sorry to tell this to you.


I am aganst child labor and exploiting the worker but i also understand that in the long run things are going to get better.

Blah blah blah. You could be a nice politician, you could start by promising "progress", maybe you could win. People often believes this foolish "promises". :rolleyes:

[Don't Change Your Name]

American companies go into places in mexican and pay then more money they would be makeing from from mexican buisness, so that will bring up the wages.

And those same mexicans have a tendency to cross the border to yanquiland...but of course the CNN is more busy showing "Cubans escape by boat and arrive to florida" than showing them. :rolleyes:


Pinkos are remarkably against trade

Maybe you should talk about that with your "libertarian laissez faire" comrades, instead of posting this useless and fake assumptions.


I bet Redstar2000 liked that one but your friend lucid, claims we are low income "losers' who blames the "man" for our problems, which one is it going too be ? Or perhaps that is just as ridiculous a generalisation as all supporters of Capitalism being CEO's of multinational corporations.

Yeah, redstar probably loved that one.


Because they produced 89% of the world's goods and services.


Because they produced 1.2% of the world's goods and services.

HAHAHAHAHA!

And I assume you consider yourself as a wealth producer...otherwise I doubt you would have said that.


Really ? What happened to individual rights ?

Without property, you can't have life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. They are a nice lie that only applies to the minority that has property. And I'm not talking about a house here.

[Comrade Hector]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 04:53 AM
I used to think that capitalism was evil but after I learned the facts I think it is a good thing.

[Imitating Valley Girl] Oh how I love Capitalism. Its because of capitalism why my daddy can like buy my a red mercedes convertible, and I can like take my girlfriends to the Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera concert. If it like wasn't for Capitalism I wouldn't like be able to shop at Victoria's Secret, and get my nails done. Daddy would be able to give me the money. Capitalism like rocks. Africa isn't Capitalist because like they don't live in houses like us, and they like don't have shopping malls. God bless America.

[Normal Tone] Capitalism only profits the wealthy who spend a few jolly hours jotting down notes on a piece of paper, and spends the rest of his/her day in a mansion jacuzzi enjoying the good life while the workers who do the real work struggle daily, getting half of their paycheck taken away for taxes, with a cheap wage. This is what Capitalism is all about. Corporations profiting from the workers under cheap wages. This is what makes Capitalism grow. In one word: exploitation. Tell me: what type of economic system are the African nations if they're not Capitalist? Unbelievable!

[Invader Zim]

OMFG Bullshit alert!

In Communist russia over a 100 million people have died what is your point?

Well done honey, you are the most ignorant person on the internet!

The atrositologist Rummel states that the USSR had a total of 61,911,000 democides, in its entire history. You say 100,000,000, hell not even that idiot Rummel is that out. You do realise that only around 30,000 bodies have ever been recovered from the USSR, and they were found over WW2 battle sites?

More accurate figures are thus: -

Nove, Alec ("Victims of Stalinism: How Many?" in J. Arch Getty (ed.) Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives, 1993): 9,500,000 "surplus deaths" during the 1930s.
Cited in Nove:
Maksudov, S. (Poteri naseleniya SSSR, 1989): 9.8 million abnormal deaths between 1926 and 1937.
Tsaplin, V.V. ("Statistika zherty naseleniya v 30e gody" 1989): 6,600,000 deaths (hunger, camps and prisons) between the 1926 and 1937 censuses.
Dugin, A. ("Stalinizm: legendy i fakty" 1989): 642,980 counterrevolutionaries shot 1921-53.
Muskovsky Novosti (4 March 1990): 786,098 state prisoners shot, 1931-53.
Gordon, A. (What Happened in That Time?, 1989, cited in Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993): 8-9 million during the 1930s.
Ponton, G. (The Soviet Era, 1994): cites an 1990 article by Milne, et al., that excess deaths 1926-39 were likely 3.5 million and at most 8 million.
MEDIAN: 8.5 Million during the 1930s.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin

Read a book, before posting bullshit.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 18 2004, 12:53 AM
They were kept alive. And in capitalism you are not paid for the work you have done.
What, you work for nothing ?


HAHAHAHAHA!

And I assume you consider yourself as a wealth producer...otherwise I doubt you would have said that.

Why ? It's the truth.


Without property, you can't have life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. They are a nice lie that only applies to the minority that has property. And I'm not talking about a house here.

You can't do what you want without property ? Why, what's stopping you ? You are free to earn money but not free to steal someone else's. Are you saying that because you're not "free" to steal other people's property then you think you're not really "free" ?


Tell me: what type of economic system are the African nations if they're not Capitalist?

Good question, but they're hardly upholders of individual rights, are they ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 09:25 AM
OMFG Bullshit alert!
White washer/Gulag apologist alert.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 18 2004, 10:34 AM
You can't do what you want without property ? Why, what's stopping you ? You are free to earn money but not free to steal someone else's. Are you saying that because you're not "free" to steal other people's property then you think you're not really "free" ?


You are free to work for someone who will give you some money, and maybe you can make enough or get a loan and create your onw buisness, if it fails you are free to call bankruptcy, you are free to start again, you are free to get welfare etc.

Its not as simple as working and becoming rich.

And yes we are free to steal back property from the thiefs to be given to the people.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 18 2004, 10:35 AM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 18 2004, 10:35 AM)
[email protected] 18 2004, 09:25 AM
OMFG Bullshit alert!
White washer/Gulag apologist alert. [/b]
LOL, did you bother to read my post?

Where I listed a number of sources that are made by historians who actually support the common view regarding the attrocities in the USSR?

LOL your good for a laugh.

[Comrade Hector]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 18 2004, 10:34 AM

Tell me: what type of economic system are the African nations if they're not Capitalist?

Good question, but they're hardly upholders of individual rights, are they ?
That doesn't mean they're not Capitalists. The African leaders are a perfect example of how Capitalism keeps the poor in total poverty. The way the sell their country's natural resources to foreign corporations in exchange for money and arms.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by comrade [email protected] 18 2004, 11:15 AM
And yes we are free to steal back property from the thiefs to be given to the people.
It was never yours to begin with, never mind to "steal back".


LOL, did you bother to read my post?

Where I listed a number of sources that are made by historians who actually support the common view regarding the attrocities in the USSR?

LOL your good for a laugh.

Heard it all before. Who cares whether they murdered 100 million or "only" 99 million ? The results are clear to see; they don't respect people's right to life.


That doesn't mean they're not Capitalists.

I'm afraid it does. Individual rights are axiomatic to capitalism.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 18 2004, 10:14 PM

LOL, did you bother to read my post?

Where I listed a number of sources that are made by historians who actually support the common view regarding the attrocities in the USSR?

LOL your good for a laugh.

Heard it all before. Who cares whether they murdered 100 million or "only" 99 million ? The results are clear to see; they don't respect people's right to life.


That doesn't mean they're not Capitalists.

I'm afraid it does. Individual rights are axiomatic to capitalism.
Heard it all before. Who cares whether they murdered 100 million or "only" 99 million ?

Imaterial you accused me of being a "White washer/Gulag apologist", when the fact is I just posted sources which confirm the attrosities in the USSR, so your wrong. Stop trying to evade that.

However on the issue of numbers, it does matter when some one inflates the actual figures by about 80,000,000. its called lying.

I'm afraid it does. Individual rights are axiomatic to capitalism.

A common error, capitalism allows (in theory, rather than practise) economic freedom for individuals, it does not however allow social or political freedoms.

[Lardlad95]

I used to think that capitalism was evil but after I learned the facts I think it is a good thing.


For the record no one censored you the first time. You posted it in the wrong forum

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 18 2004, 10:34 AM
What, you work for nothing ?
Yes, unless you are a rich owner, which gives you all the profit of each product you sell. In capitalism, the one who puts the necessary means of production is the one who takes most of the profit.


Why ? It's the truth.

The typical "I'm a really worthy successful individual who deserves to own slaves and buy politicians!" argument. That's why I distrust all this "the rich are rich because they deserve it" argument. I'll forget it when I see a poor "defender of individual rights".


You can't do what you want without property ? Why, what's stopping you ? You are free to earn money but not free to steal someone else's. Are you saying that because you're not "free" to steal other people's property then you think you're not really "free" ?

Tell this to anyone living in a "villa miseria".
For poor people it's either stealing or accepting the worst kind of jobs. They have no choice. Nobody seems to complain about that, but they do complain when such people kills or robs them. I don't think they have many choices. If you dont have any kind of property chances of eating are very low.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 10:28 PM
I'm afraid it does. Individual rights are axiomatic to capitalism.

A common error, capitalism allows (in theory, rather than practise) economic freedom for individuals, it does not however allow social or political freedoms.
Economic and social freedom should be individsible. I don't know what you mean by "political" freedom.


Yes, unless you are a rich owner, which gives you all the profit of each product you sell. In capitalism, the one who puts the necessary means of production is the one who takes most of the profit.

In the fist sentence, you say "all" of the profit, in the second, you say "most of" the profit. "Most of" the profit goes back into production. What you get paid is not determined by the whim of your boss, or he will find himself going out of business rather quickly.


The typical "I'm a really worthy successful individual who deserves to own slaves and buy politicians!" argument.

Slavery contradicts individual rights.


That's why I distrust all this "the rich are rich because they deserve it" argument. I'll forget it when I see a poor "defender of individual rights".

You are talking to one.


For poor people it's either stealing or accepting the worst kind of jobs.

False dichotomy.


Nobody seems to complain about that, but they do complain when such people kills or robs them.

Can't you tell the difference between the metaphysical and the man-made either ?

[apathy maybe]

I doubt that anyone has written this yet so, this person seems to not want to be convinced. There are plenty of people out there who no matter how much you try and convince them they are wrong will ignore you. However, providing alternatives and facts to back up your argument is a Good Thing. So I ask someone (unless it has already been done) to write a four page long essay on why communism (in true sense) is good and capitalism (in any guise) is bad.

(edit: screwing grammer, my bad)

[Nyder]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 19 2004, 08:03 AM
I doubt that anyone has read this yet so, this person seems to not want to be convinced. However, there are plenty of people out there who no matter how much you try and convince them they are wrong will ignore you. However, providing alternatives and facts to back up your argument is a Good Thing. So I ask someone (unless it has already been done) to write a four page long essay on why communism (in true sense) is good and capitalism (in any guise) is bad.
Who's going to read it? I just argue basic logic. Sometimes it helps to actually think rather then act as Marx's parrot.

[h&s]

The fundamental flaw in the capitalist ideology is this;
Capitalists say they deserve lots of money because they have "worked" for it.
Have they worked harder than the guy on the minimum wage with no holidays or sick pay?
No.
So basically capitalists are saying that poor people don't deserve to have money.
Capitalists make me sick, I can't wait for the revolution! :hammer:

[iloveatomickitten]

Now really who gives a shit about capitalist ideology, "I deserve more blah blah blah" its just a cover up the "I want more" and therefore justify the current system. Same goes for Marxism, the dialectic is a total waste of time really all that matters in communism is its the moral "righteouness."

And whats with the obsession with quoting every damn thing someone said anychance you could just write a response, I'm sure you could manage.

[thatCHEr]

Capitalists say they deserve lots of money because they have "worked" for it.

No, thats not how wage determination is explained at all. No one with any knowledge of economics would claim that the reason people recieve high wages is because they have 'worked' for it. That is just your view of capitalism that you're trying to impose upon people.

Wage determination is based on the supply and demand of labour, ie the labour market. If there is a high supply of labour, then wages will be lower, of there is a shortage of labour, wages will be high because its scarce. As is the case with goods. It's fairly simple economics.
So the reason a high ranking businessman will recieve high wages is because few people could do the job they do, or even have the skills. Meanwhile unskilled labour there is a lot of, because the population at the moment still has a lot of unspecialised people who have dropped out after high school, etc. Because of this firms can offer a lower wage and still gain a significant amount of employees.

[thatCHEr]

Now really who gives a shit about capitalist ideology
There is no such thing as 'capitalist ideology'.


"I deserve more blah blah blah" its just a cover up the "I want more" and therefore justify the current system. Same goes for Marxism, the dialectic is a total waste of time really all that matters in communism is its the moral "righteouness."

See above post. As for marxism being more 'moral', ellaborate.

[Vinny Rafarino]

There is no such thing as 'capitalist ideology'.



I believe you are confused as to what "ideology" means.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 19 2004, 02:59 PM
The fundamental flaw in the capitalist ideology is this;
Capitalists say they deserve lots of money because they have "worked" for it.
Have they worked harder than the guy on the minimum wage with no holidays or sick pay?
No.
So basically capitalists are saying that poor people don't deserve to have money.
Capitalists make me sick, I can't wait for the revolution! :hammer:
Capitalism rests upon the premise that every man is the owner of his labour, the products of which are not to be disposed of or redistributed according to need.

If you don't like working hard, then learn to work smart.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 04:02 PM
Lamerspicegirlwannabeesatomicshitten says :

Now really who gives a shit about capitalist ideology, "I deserve more blah blah blah" its just a cover up the "I want more" and therefore justify the current system.
Is there really a problem with wanting more to futher your life ? There is nothing virtuous about living in poverty and it is possible to create wealth without taking it from someone else.

[thatCHEr]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 17 2004, 07:45 PM



Not Really. Population increases and immigration have nothing to do with the falling rate of profit.
You were commenting on falling economic performance. An increased labour market, or more flexible one, will mean obviously more resources. Also it's likely it will lower the cost of labour for firms, until full employment is reached at least.


You are a bit confused here. Improved technology can only decrease Variable Capital for a short period of time as your competitors will eventually apply the same technology to their own production facilities.
All firms making use of it is the assumption. It will decrease all firms average costs, lowering the products cost, increasing quantity produced or quality produced. These all will help the economy and boost gdp.
Lowering a products cost will because this will mean quantity sold will rise, ie more will be produced. This being what GDP measures. It could also improve other industries efficiancy, if its a business to business good.
Increasing quantity produced will raise GDP because one way GDP is measured is simply by finding the total amount of goods/services produced. Also it will have an anti-inflationary effect, always a good thing.
The lower average costs could mean the good/service is now cheap enough to compete with foreign firms and be exported. This should improve the balance of payments(trade deficit/surplus), and raise the value of the home currency.
Increased quality will make the goods more popular, again increasing demand and the amount produced.


Not that national GDP has much to do with the falling rate of demestic profit but I would love to hear about some of those "ways" to maintain GDP growth.
Well there is all those mentioned above. And they are only from improved technology.
There is also lowering interest rates, supply-side policies, improving the flexibility of the labour market(less unions, less unemployment, better jobseeking facilities for those between jobs), improving the skills of the labour force(meaning less labour per unit), improving international trade(reducing trade barriers, better infrastructure etc), government expenditure arguably is a way to raise gdp(civil servant wages, materials for services, etc), and finally of course privatization and de-regulation.

[thatCHEr]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 19 2004, 04:30 PM

There is no such thing as 'capitalist ideology'.



I believe you are confused as to what "ideology" means.
People such as whoever I was quoting seem to believe that there is one all encompassing 'capitalist' theory, which sees one way to go about economic policy, and also one way to go about social policy. This is completely wrong. There is many many divides among those who are not Marxist. In my opinion with much bigger and more fundamental divisions than there is with marxism vs 'capitalists'/non-marxists.

[Vinny Rafarino]

People such as whoever I was quoting seem to believe that there is one all encompassing 'capitalist' theory, which sees one way to go about economic policy, and also one way to go about social policy. This is completely wrong. There is many many divides among those who are not Marxist. In my opinion with much bigger and more fundamental divisions than there is with marxism vs 'capitalists'/non-marxists.

I would imagine that this individual thinks this because he is correct. No one denies that there are variants withing social policy among capitalists however one specific ideology will always remain the same among capitalists; the belief that the means of production, of any good or service, must remain privitised to the individual citizens of the state.

What you fail to recognise is that us communists don't really care that there are capitalist that will settle for "a few social crumbs". You are all one in the same. I understand you feel a certain amount of "distance" should be placed between you and the members of the capitalist right (I certainly don't blame you) but regardless of what party actually "wields executive power", their economic exploitation of the masses as well as the striking similarities among the ruling elite will always remain a constant.

This is what we are fighting against and we will not be "fooled" into believing otherwise. If yiu give a blind man back his sight, he will never give it back up without a fight.

[thatCHEr]

Well I disagree. Marxism and 'capitalists' disagreement can be boiled down to whether the economic structure should be removed completely or kept/modified.
Meanwhile there are those who question whether this economic structure even exists or is important on life, and accuse marxism/capitalism of being far too deterministic. These can be seen as accepting the market system by default.
Or those who claim its impossible to generalize at all so many people and make judgements on them.

These two theories both go beyond the command vs market disagreement, and disagree with things marxism and capitalism agree on. So I dont see the marxism/capitalism division as the most fundamental and biggest there is.

Another example, of ideologies more within capitalism. There is the neoconservative view, supported by the republicans for example. These see modern life as far too liberal, and identify the cause of many of societies problems too non-traditional values in society. They also support the market system, although feel government should have a large role in controlling it, and believe international trade should only be used when it immediately benefits the state.
Their policy goals? To bring us back to the 'good old days', where society was supposedly more stable. State backed christianity, restricted rights for deviants, etc.
The free market isn't particularly central to their views. It's only accepted because it's the status quo, and of course the alternative - a command economy - is out of the question because of its more modern views.

Now compare that to a more libertarian point of view. The free market is supported, the reason being it is seen as the most fair and democrat economic system. Social views are more modern, and looked at from a rational point of view, and based around freedom to the individual.

These two are completely different. One is basically a reaction against modernity, while the other accepts and takes as its central principle the features of modernity.

[Guest1]

I believe in economic liberation, the end of economic slavery. Thus I am anti-Capitalist. Enigma, Capitalism is not economic freedom. Socialism is. An end to tyranny by the dollar.

[Vinny Rafarino]

You were commenting on falling economic performance. An increased labour market, or more flexible one, will mean obviously more resources. Also it's likely it will lower the cost of labour for firms, until full employment is reached at least.



An increase in the labour pool will only lead to more people working for less, until the Federal Minimim Wage is reached. More people working for less means two things; either you cut the market value of goods produced (not an option when one is attemting to increase surplus value by cutting variable capital) or allow your
economy to fall into a depression. Less money to spend means less "non essential" products are purchased.


Now, if you get rid of minimum wage legislation and dissolve all unions, yes, the cost of variable capital can be decreased domestically for a longer period of time. Unfortunately you cannot decrease it forever.


All firms making use of it is the assumption


It's not an assumtion, it's a fact. Companies that fail to indroduce the same Constant Capital and Variable Capital reducing technologies to their productiuon facilities will not be able to lowert the the market value of their goods and services in relation to their competitors. If these companies offer the very same product as their competitors but for a much higher market price they will go out of business.

Why do you think that prices for, electronics lets say, steadily decrease after the product is introduced until the lowest possible market price is reached? You cannot deny this simple economic fact.


It will decrease all firms average costs, lowering the products cost, increasing quantity produced or quality produced. These all will help the economy and boost gdp.

As GDP is calculated by the total market value of goods and sevices produced, lowering variable and constant capital rates will have no affect on GDP.
This is the only reason capitalism keeps developing new products and services. It's impossible under capitalism to retain the same market value of goods and services indefinietely, so they have no choice.

Why do you think the government introduced Anti-trust laws? (I wrote an essay on it many years ago at LSE actually) As GDP is measured by the market value of goods and services produced, and the rate of profit will always fall, Anti-Trust laws always force private enterprise to develop and market new goods and services with an inflated market value.

If these laws did not exists, the first one to develop and and distribute products will rarely, if ever, be forced to lower the market value of their products. They will retain the majority of the market share as other companies play "catch up".

Once a monopoly is created, and there is no need to search for the "next best thing" as surplus value remains constant. Your market will only be as big as your initial population. Great for the company, but bad for the national GDP.

Since the GDP will now rely solely on the production value of this one company's products, It will create a situation where one specific producer will be responsible for the production of every product and service within that nation. Once one company is responsible for the entire GDP of a nation, how long do you think it will take before they assume executive power and become the State?

Sound a bit like socialism don't you think? :lol: This is something the current ruling class will never want to happen, therefore they make sure that the proper legislation is passed so that market value will always flatten; forcing many companies to independently produce the same products in place of one massive production facility. This subsequently keeps the actual governmental "power" in the hands of the same ruling class.

It's all very simple you see.


Lowering a products cost will because this will mean quantity sold will rise, ie more will be produced.

You can only lower a product's market value to a level that is just above the combined totals of constant and variable capital. It's not a "indefinite" fix to GDP.



Also it will have an anti-inflationary effect, always a good thing.


The phenomenon of "inflation" is always confused among the masses. Inflation, as a laymen would describe it, would be "anything that causes prices to rise" however the actual definition of inflation is an "increase in the amount of money that is in circulation"; therefore if you produce "more" but lower the market value of those goods to stimulate purchase, in actuality, the same amount of money will be in circulation as when you started.

Only a massive increase in production along with the lowering of market value will actually produce more currency in circulation. The last time the USA tried this as a "fix" to the (then called GNP) GDP let to the depression as variable capital costs had to be cut severely to maintain surplus value extraction.



Well there is all those mentioned above. And they are only from improved technology.
There is also lowering interest rates, supply-side policies, improving the flexibility of the labour market(less unions, less unemployment, better jobseeking facilities for those between jobs), improving the skills of the labour force(meaning less labour per unit), improving international trade(reducing trade barriers, better infrastructure etc), government expenditure arguably is a way to raise gdp(civil servant wages, materials for services, etc), and finally of course privatization and de-regulation.


None of these will EVER change the fact that the rate of profit will always fall. That alone will spells disaster for capitalism.

[Osman Ghazi]

Capitalism rests upon the premise that every man is the owner of his labour

Even the worker? Or is he not given this honour? The next time I see a worker who gets to take the fruits of his labour I'll stop being a Marxist.

[thatCHEr]

Comrade RAF: before I reply, could you clear this up for me, to make sure we're talking about the same things here. "Constant Capital and Variable Capital" by this do you mean a firms fixed and variable costs? I study economics not business studies or any of the other more micro based areas, so they're not terms I have come accross. But I would assume you're referring to what is known as fixed costs and variable costs in economics.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 19 2004, 08:05 PM
I believe in economic liberation, the end of economic slavery.
So you advocate real slavery instead.


Thus I am anti-Capitalist. Enigma, Capitalism is not economic freedom. Socialism is. An end to tyranny by the dollar.

Yes, we must get rid of free trade in the name of freedom.

The opposite of free trade being *what*, exactly ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 19 2004, 08:38 PM
Even the worker? Or is he not given this honour? The next time I see a worker who gets to take the fruits of his labour I'll stop being a Marxist.
He's already recieving them.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 19 2004, 08:38 PM

Capitalism rests upon the premise that every man is the owner of his labour

Even the worker? Or is he not given this honour? The next time I see a worker who gets to take the fruits of his labour I'll stop being a Marxist.
Still arguing the ltv, I see? Even though you can't or won't answer its many valid criticisms.

[dopediana]

Yes, we must get rid of free trade in the name of freedom.
The opposite of free trade being *what*, exactly ?
your free trade puts no regulations on trade. people can be exploited in the physical, social, and economic sense. people don't necessarily get at least a reasonable fraction of the labor put into making a product. free trade does not always make it necessary for employers to uphold safety regulations in the workplace or offer healthcare. free trade is only good for those at the very narrow pinnacle of the receiving end of an industry. examples: a south american farmer grows tomatos to pay off the mortgage on his land. he's always behind so he has to sell his whole crop yield to the landlord who sells them to someone else who takes it to the market. the farmer goes to the market and buys it back for 10 times the price he paid for them. or a child in asia in a very large family is sent off to work at age 5. she puts in 12-16 hours a day practically chained to a loom with no chance for education at all and is verbally and physically abused by the overseer if her work is not up to par. i'm sure this equips her to work her way to the top in a capitalist society. if her body and mind are not so depressed and run-down and stagnant so that she can actually go home at night....

the opposite of free trade is fair trade. human rights are observed, people are properly recompensed for their work, and the margin of profit is not outrageously obscene. vegetables and fruits are grown without pesticides and fertilizers that deplete fields and leave nasty chemical compounds that can subject bodies to bioaccumulation. in factories, safety is a priority, working hours are reasonable, and wages are enough to live on. in industry and technology, it is not about who can satisfy themselves with material objects beyond their wildest desires, but of how we can improve the human condition for everyone, which means not advancing oneself at the expense of others. in global terms, fair trade puts globalism aside and encourages countries to not only embrace new technology, but to retain their own cultural identity and not be molded by other imperialist nations and commercially forced into adopting their clothing and music and try to emulate their way of life.

[apathy maybe]

Nice post!

I read that and I thought "I can't top it". So I'll just say well done.


As to real slavery, no matter what the name slavery is slavery. We on the left advocate getting rid of all forms of slavery. Not just the slavery where someone 'owns' someone else, but the slavery where someone can dictate to someone else how they live their life. Economic slavery is like what ATP talked about above, a 12 year old child practicly chained to the loom. The child is not chained there, she is free to go. But if she goes she will have to find another job (probably prostititution) or starve. Economic slavery, wage slavery, 'real' slavery. In all cases someone is dictating to someone else what to do. This is what we are trying to abolish.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 08:51 PM
Comrade RAF: before I reply, could you clear this up for me, to make sure we're talking about the same things here. "Constant Capital and Variable Capital" by this do you mean a firms fixed and variable costs? I study economics not business studies or any of the other more micro based areas, so they're not terms I have come accross. But I would assume you're referring to what is known as fixed costs and variable costs in economics.
Unless you have taken a class in Marxist economics, the chances are slim that you would have come across these terms. Constant Capital is the amount of capital that is spent on the materials that are used to produce a commodity (including capitalist economics' fixed costs), Variable Capital represents the cost of wages paid to the worker.

To extract surplus value from a product you you must subtract the sums of C and V from the market value of the product.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 21 2004, 01:38 AM
Not just the slavery where someone 'owns' someone else, but the slavery where someone can dictate to someone else how they live their life. Economic slavery is like what ATP talked about above, a 12 year old child practicly chained to the loom. The child is not chained there, she is free to go. But if she goes she will have to find another job (probably prostititution) or starve. Economic slavery, wage slavery, 'real' slavery. In all cases someone is dictating to someone else what to do. This is what we are trying to abolish.
What about the slavery where I'm forced to subsidise someone else's education/housing/laziness/pet projects through taxation ?


As to real slavery, no matter what the name slavery is slavery. We on the left advocate getting rid of all forms of slavery.

Including taxation ? Welfare too ?


the opposite of free trade is fair trade.

You are dancing around the fact that the opposite of an unregulated market is a regulated one. A regulated market requires a regulator. Presumably someone (or several someones) to impose what they feel are the "right prices" for goods, what are "acceptable profits" and what "reasonable hours" and "reasonable wages" are. How are these prices determined ? Who knows ? It's arbitary; it's not run by supply and demand, it's a "pretend" market . Why not just stop the pretence and say you want to ban free trade ?

[Vinny Rafarino]

You are dancing around the fact that the opposite of an unregulated market is a regulated one. A regulated market requires a regulator. Presumably someone (or several someones) to impose what they feel are the "right prices" for goods, what are "acceptable profits" and what "reasonable hours" and "reasonable wages" are. How are these prices determined ? Who knows ? It's arbitary; it's not run by supply and demand, it's a "pretend" market . Why not just stop the pretence and say you want to ban free trade ?


It's already been proven that a a regulated market will not work when the free market still exists. The USSR attemted to assess regulated value to their goods and services based on "social value" and found that it was impossible to actually apply these values to exported goods.

This is why Stalin began to use the international market to assess value on commodites, a programme that worker very well. Until the free market no longer exists, it must be used to assess value.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 21 2004, 04:14 PM
What about the slavery where I'm forced to subsidise someone else's education/housing/laziness/pet projects through taxation ?


As to real slavery, no matter what the name slavery is slavery. We on the left advocate getting rid of all forms of slavery.

Including taxation ? Welfare too ?


the opposite of free trade is fair trade.

You are dancing around the fact that the opposite of an unregulated market is a regulated one. A regulated market requires a regulator. Presumably someone (or several someones) to impose what they feel are the "right prices" for goods, what are "acceptable profits" and what "reasonable hours" and "reasonable wages" are. How are these prices determined ? Who knows ? It's arbitary; it's not run by supply and demand, it's a "pretend" market . Why not just stop the pretence and say you want to ban free trade ?
Just as they fund your childrens education, pick you up when you fall, pay for your health care if you become ill, clean your streets, etc.


Including taxation ? Welfare too ?

Taxation is not slavery, welfair is the complete polar opposite of slavery, it is the ultimate sign of freedom.

Freetrade is a shallow lie, it has never existed and never will. The nearest Freetrade has ever come to created the most sever economic crash in history, and killed millions in its subsequent depression. Caused a huge world wide famine, and the rise of Hitler.

free trade? More like the slave trade.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 21 2004, 06:09 PM
This is why Stalin began to use the international market to assess value on commodites, a programme that worker very well. Until the free market no longer exists, it must be used to assess value.
And then what will be used to assess value ? The world economy will then enter a state of what Ludwig von Mises described as "Planned Chaos".

[Professor Moneybags]

Taxation is not slavery, welfair is the complete polar opposite of slavery, it is the ultimate sign of freedom.

Taxation involves taking money backed up by the threat of force. Usually, this is not voluntary and the person paying will not be the beneficiary. What you have is people working involuntarily to earn money which is then taken from them by force and given to others. That is slavery thinly disguised as something else, not the "ultimate sign of freedom".


Freetrade is a shallow lie, it has never existed and never will.

Free trade is a default. It's what happens when you stop meddling with it.


The nearest Freetrade has ever come to created the most sever economic crash in history, and killed millions in its subsequent depression.

Care to explain how this happened as a result fo free trade ? If not, put away the FDR book of fairytales; the crash was the government's fault.

[/QUOTE]free trade? More like the slave trade.[QUOTE]

Freedom is slavery ? I've heard that somewhere before...

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 21 2004, 10:38 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 21 2004, 10:38 PM)
COMRADE [email protected] 21 2004, 06:09 PM
This is why Stalin began to use the international market to assess value on commodites, a programme that worker very well. Until the free market no longer exists, it must be used to assess value.
And then what will be used to assess value ? The world economy will then enter a state of what Ludwig von Mises described as "Planned Chaos". [/b]
What Von Mises ignored (as do you) is that in a communist society, money no longer exists. If money no longer exists then value no longer exists. Production is guaged by territorial census.

Capitalist "economists" like Mises and his lackey Hayek would never even consider the fact that society can flourish without money. (eliminating the bourgeois concept of value) They simply were not smart enough to comprehend it.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 21 2004, 10:57 PM

Taxation is not slavery, welfair is the complete polar opposite of slavery, it is the ultimate sign of freedom.

Taxation involves taking money backed up by the threat of force. Usually, this is not voluntary and the person paying will not be the beneficiary. What you have is people working involuntarily to earn money which is then taken from them by force and given to others. That is slavery thinly disguised as something else, not the "ultimate sign of freedom".
You hired them to tax you. Sorry, but while we live with the current institutions you will have to face it and the "social contract".

All this "the government wants to steal my hard earned money" is a crappy argument for lazy cappies to justify their greedy and how they enjoy exploiting others. And it makes you "libertarians" look stupid, moaning all the time.


Freedom is slavery ? I've heard that somewhere before...

Probably on comrade Orwell's brilliant description of a totalitarian capitalist state.

[Professor Moneybags]

What Von Mises ignored (as do you) is that in a communist society, money no longer exists. If money no longer exists then value no longer exists.

Non sequitur; value doesn't come from money, it comes from people. He didn't ignore it at all, he said that it would just make economic calculation impossible. Getting rid of money doesn't suddenly make everything worthless and without value.


Capitalist "economists" like Mises and his lackey Hayek would never even consider the fact that society can flourish without money.

Prove it.


(eliminating the bourgeois concept of value) They simply were not smart enough to comprehend it.

He predicted the collapse of the soviet union an exposed the unsustainable nature of it's economy. At least he doesn't think that getting rid of money is going to make everything valueless.


You hired them to tax you.

No I didn't.


Sorry, but while we live with the current institutions you will have to face it and the "social contract".

I don't remember signing any contract. I remember anyone else signing it too.


All this "the government wants to steal my hard earned money" is a crappy argument for lazy cappies to justify their greedy and how they enjoy exploiting others. And it makes you "libertarians" look stupid, moaning all the time.

Not wanting to get my money stolen is a sign of laziness ? What has not wanting to be robbed got to do with greed and exploitation ?

The money I earn is taken from me by the government and given to others to buy their votes. I don't know about you, but it looks like exploitation to me.


Probably on comrade Orwell's brilliant description of a totalitarian capitalist state.

You are the ones claming that free trade is slavery. I guess "the party" doesn't quite have the political affilation you thought it had...

[Vinny Rafarino]

Non sequitur; value doesn't come from money, it comes from people. He didn't ignore it at all, he said that it would just make economic calculation impossible. Getting rid of money doesn't suddenly make everything worthless and without value.


You are making the same mistake he did, trying to apply bourgeois economics to communism. Capitalist and even socialist economics use value to determine production of a commodity and to determine the market monetary value of a commodity.

If money does not exist and everyone can get whatever they require at any given time; no one product carries more value than another. The is no longer any market value OR production value. As I stated before, production is guaged with territorial census information, so in reality, without money value does not exist.

Von Mises, (and later Hayek) were incapable of viewing economics in this fashion. They simply could not comprehend it.


Prove it.


If theory could easliy be proven at any time, it would cease to be theory now wouldn't it? As theory requires observation to prove its arguments, we cannot prove it until we have a communist society to provide the conditions necessary for observation.

I'm surprised you would even say such a thing. :lol:


He predicted the collapse of the soviet union an exposed the unsustainable nature of it's economy. At least he doesn't think that getting rid of money is going to make everything valueless.


You are correct, the capitalist economic structure of the USSR after 1953 collapsed as predicted by many people, including Stalin. Do you even understand the differences in the economic policies of the USSR during and after Stalin? Probably not, ignorance of easily obtained information is typical behaviour of the lazy west.

Look mate, perhaps economics is not your cup of tea. If something like value is confusing to you, then perhaps you should try something else.

[Professor Moneybags]

You are making the same mistake he did, trying to apply bourgeois economics to communism. Capitalist and even socialist economics use value to determine production of a commodity and to determine the market monetary value of a commodity.

If money does not exist and everyone can get whatever they require at any given time; no one product carries more value than another.

See below.


The is no longer any market value OR production value. As I stated before, production is guaged with territorial census information, so in reality, without money value does not exist.
Von Mises, (and later Hayek) were incapable of viewing economics in this fashion. They simply could not comprehend it.

Getting rid of money is not going to get rid of value as values are determined by people and not money. Value existed before money. Do you really think people are going to exchange a load of bread for a car because you have declared both of their values non-existant ? It's not for you to decide. (http://www.fff.org/freedom/0990b.asp)


You are correct, the capitalist economic structure of the USSR after 1953 collapsed as predicted by many people, including Stalin.

It wasn't capitalist.


Do you even understand the differences in the economic policies of the USSR during and after Stalin? Probably not, ignorance of easily obtained information is typical behaviour of the lazy west.

Why didn't they just get rid of all money and adopt this money-less system you seem to think is so much better ?


Look mate, perhaps economics is not your cup of tea. If something like value is confusing to you, then perhaps you should try something else.

Take your own advice. You have'nt got a clue where values come from; a loaf of bread is of far greater value to the starving than a car is, regardless of whether you or "society" acknowledges it or not.

[Osman Ghazi]

Getting rid of money is not going to get rid of value as values are determined by people and not money. Value existed before money. Do you really think people are going to exchange a load of bread for a car because you have declared both of their values non-existant ? It's not for you to decide.


It wont get rid of value or equalize value, but it will drastically change it. Most likely the 'value lines' will become blurred as many things will be seen as having the same value.


It wasn't capitalist.


It was state capitalist. There are different types of capitalism, you know.


Why didn't they just get rid of all money and adopt this money-less system you seem to think is so much better ?


Because then they couldn't get any products that couldn't be made in the Soviet Union. A better question is: Why do you ask such stupid questions?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Getting rid of money is not going to get rid of value as values are determined by people and not money. Value existed before money. Do you really think people are going to exchange a load of bread for a car because you have declared both of their values non-existant ? It's not for you to decide.



Read my previous post about this. When you are finished with it, read it again.





It wasn't capitalist.



Of course it was.



Why didn't they just get rid of all money and adopt this money-less system you seem to think is so much better ?

As you have been told time and time again, if the free market still exists, you cannot make the transition into communism. International trade is required by any nation. The USSR used their the LTV to assess value to their commodities but found that their values of commodities to be traded internationally were so different from the standard free market, they simply could not continue to do it.


Read this one, and then read it a second time. If you have any questions about it, read it a third time.


Take your own advice. You have'nt got a clue where values come from; a loaf of bread is of far greater value to the starving than a car is, regardless of whether you or "society" acknowledges it or not.

Thanks, I will be sure to go and tell my economics professors at LSE (if they still teach there) that after 4 years of graduate school and many years of listening to bourgeois "economists", I STILL WILL NOT SWALLOW THE NONSENSE SPILLED FROM THE MOUTHS OF CAPITALISTS.

Perhaps one day you will be wise enough to understand how value relates in a communist society, until then keep truckin' dude.

[Nas]

you know what capitalism is ??

getting f*cked

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 05:24 AM
you know what capitalism is ??

getting f*cked
Sound like fun.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 22 2004, 11:14 PM
It wont get rid of value or equalize value, but it will drastically change it. Most likely the 'value lines' will become blurred as many things will be seen as having the same value.



What about the example I gave ?


It was state capitalist. There are different types of capitalism, you know.

No there isn't. Either individual rights are enforced or they are not.


Because then they couldn't get any products that couldn't be made in the Soviet Union. A better question is: Why do you ask such stupid questions?

Because I debate with such stupid people.

[Professor Moneybags]

As you have been told time and time again, if the free market still exists, you cannot make the transition into communism.

Then it's not going to be made. Ever. It's totally unenforcable. You need world domination for a start and a police state to moderate everyone in case they try and engage in unauthorised trading which would undermine the system.


Thanks, I will be sure to go and tell my economics professors at LSE (if they still teach there) that after 4 years of graduate school and many years of listening to bourgeois "economists", I STILL WILL NOT SWALLOW THE NONSENSE SPILLED FROM THE MOUTHS OF CAPITALISTS.

When are you going to address the issue of a loaf of bread being of greater value to the starving than a car, regardless of accessibility ? How is getting rid of money going to stop that ? Perhaps you could ask one of those enlightened college professors of yours.


Perhaps one day you will be wise enough to understand how value relates in a communist society, until then keep truckin' dude.

Pity you couldn't have used your so-called wisdom to come up with an non-coercive political system. Even if communism as you describe it was achieved, it would still be involuntary; teritorial census does not bypass the problem that if need is the standard of value, someone is going to have tobe forced to provide goods or services for those needs or face punishment.

[DaCuBaN]

Taxation involves taking money backed up by the threat of force. Usually, this is not voluntary and the person paying will not be the beneficiary

You have of course stumbled onto the block known as social conscience. If you do not possess this and cannot understand why we should always have taxation in one form or another then you sir, are nothing but an idealist.


He predicted the collapse of the soviet union an exposed the unsustainable nature of it's economy

Indeed... I think every socialist the world over predicted the fall of the soviet union too... within five years of the revolution it was obvious that this particular experiment was going nowhere


Then it's not going to be made. Ever. It's totally unenforcable. You need world domination for a start and a police state to moderate everyone in case they try and engage in unauthorised trading which would undermine the system

Then long live the USA! :lol:
Communism rests on the idea of wrestling control from the bourgeious+ - The US is certainly doing a good job of creating a police state, and they most certainly are making inroads into world domination.

I guess in the long run I may have to swallow my pride and praise America for creating the necessary conditions for a revolt :rolleyes: ;)


a loaf of bread is of far greater value to the starving than a car is

I personally fail to see your point here. Elaborate?


Pity you couldn't have used your so-called wisdom to come up with an non-coercive political system. Even if communism as you describe it was achieved, it would still be involuntary

Communists are as divided on 'how things should work' as any other political ideology. Most will agree that before communism can be set up anywhere we must first increase social conscience amongst the population. You yourself have proved this is a long road, but it does not mean that the political system is oppressive or coercive. In fact, the status quo is more like this than (my) communism ever could be. If you are the owner of a television, radio, or simply have to drive along a freeway or through a city you will be bombarded with attempts at coercion. It's called advertising.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 10:10 PM
Freetrade is a shallow lie, it has never existed and never will. The nearest Freetrade has ever come to created the most sever economic crash in history, and killed millions in its subsequent depression. Caused a huge world wide famine, and the rise of Hitler.

free trade? More like the slave trade.
Utter fucking bullshit, and I'll tell you why.

For a start, it wasn't free trade that caused the depression it was interference by the Central Banks. But that's not my main point.

My main point is that free trade does exist and has probably existed for centuries. NOT EVERY MARKET IS REGULATED. It is impossible for the Government to regulate every market, even in communism. The free market is usually called 'the underground economy' or the 'black market'. It can include things like 'illegal' trade which it is usually associated with, but most of it is just trade that goes unrecorded.

[Big Mike]

True Capitalism is equal to true Communism ... they both don't work because of human nature. Greed and Sloth kill those philosophies ... and hurt the common man's human rights, and potential for growth.

There has to be a balance somewhere in between ... and that's where the debates lie. Trying to promote a pure Capitalist World is a major joke ... as is trying to promote a pure Communist one.

[cubist]

thanks for that usefull insight Big Mike, wwhats styupid about premote absolute equality and Real FREE TRADE,

[Professor Moneybags]

You have of course stumbled onto the block known as social conscience. If you do not possess this and cannot understand why we should always have taxation in one form or another then you sir, are nothing but an idealist.

So you think you are some sort of “enlightened being” with something called “social conscience”, which grants you the justification for robbing people at gunpoint for the “common good”.


Communists are as divided on 'how things should work' as any other political ideology. Most will agree that before communism can be set up anywhere we must first increase social conscience amongst the population.

“social conscience” being what exactly ?


You yourself have proved this is a long road, but it does not mean that the political system is oppressive or coercive. In fact, the status quo is more like this than (my) communism ever could be. If you are the owner of a television, radio, or simply have to drive along a freeway or through a city you will be bombarded with attempts at coercion. It's called advertising.

Advertising is not coercion. It’s suggestion. When someone demands money from you and threatens you if you do not comply, that is coercion (not a suggestion).

[Big Mike]

Cubist,
Real Free Trade doesn't work because of the greed of corporations. Their 'bottom line' is their profit and their paychecks ... and has nothing to do with the common good. That's why unions rose up around the world ... and in a way, why communism became popular in the first place. Imperialism and greedy capitalists simply enslaved the working classes with jobs that didn't pay enough for anyone to move out of their current class. The factory owners, literally built towns, controlled the local stores and local governments ... while making themselves millions and millions of dollars on the back of the working poor.

Unrestircted free trade promotes that same behavior, by today's corporations ... and it sucks as much NOW as it did back then.

[Nas]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 23 2004, 02:02 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 23 2004, 02:02 PM)
[email protected] 23 2004, 05:24 AM
you know what capitalism is ??

getting f*cked
Sound like fun. [/b]
you like to get f*cked?


are you a girl or a guy?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Nas+May 25 2004, 08:03 PM--> (Nas @ May 25 2004, 08:03 PM)
Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 23 2004, 02:02 PM

[email protected] 23 2004, 05:24 AM
you know what capitalism is ??

getting f*cked
Sound like fun.
you like to get f*cked?


are you a girl or a guy? [/b]
Are you making a pass at me ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Cubist,
Real Free Trade doesn't work because of the greed of corporations. Their 'bottom line' is their profit and their paychecks ... and has nothing to do with the common good.

Explain what this "common good" is and why it is a desirable goal.


Imperialism and greedy capitalists simply enslaved the working classes with jobs that didn't pay enough for anyone to move out of their current class.

"Enslaved" ? What, did they force them to work at gun point ? Were they wearing chains.


Unrestircted free trade promotes that same behavior, by today's corporations ... and it sucks as much NOW as it did back then.

Restricted free trade means that some dome dictatorial elite/mob has to be employed to do the restricting. That's how we end up with Hitlers and Stalins.

[apathy maybe]

Anyone who promotes un-restricted trade is a nut-case. Not only does it screw up the environment, it removes those rights for the majority that you seem to want so much. Even most capitalists today see the need for restriction of trade. Because un-restricted trade encourages monopolies. And monopolies are bad, near everyone I talk to agree. The thing with monolopies is that they can control what people buy. And that restricts peoples rights.

[Osman Ghazi]

"Enslaved" ? What, did they force them to work at gun point ? Were they wearing chains.


Actually, yes they did. You've never heard the stories of the horrible treatment of workers during the Industrial Revolution?


Explain what this "common good" is and why it is a desirable goal.

What are you, some kind of Neitchean superman?


Restricted free trade means that some dome dictatorial elite/mob has to be employed to do the restricting. That's how we end up with Hitlers and Stalins.

And unrestricted free trade means that some dictatorial/elite group of rich fucks controls all the trade. That's how we end up with Enrons and Worldcoms.

[Professor Moneybags]

Actually, yes they did. You've never heard the stories of the horrible treatment of workers during the Industrial Revolution?

Not involving guns and chains I didn't. Have you ever heard of how they were treated before the industrial revolution ?



Explain what this "common good" is and why it is a desirable goal.

What are you, some kind of Neitchean superman?

No, I'm not. But I don't understand how that question is relevent to the one I asked, or how asking what the "common good" is has got do with Neitsche.


And unrestricted free trade means that some dictatorial/elite group of rich fucks controls all the trade.

Are you familiar with the term "self contradiction" ?


That's how we end up with Enrons and Worldcoms.

Yeah, sure...

[Professor Moneybags]

Anyone who promotes un-restricted trade is a nut-case. Not only does it screw up the environment,

Explain.


it removes those rights for the majority that you seem to want so much.

Explain.


Even most capitalists today see the need for restriction of trade.

Then they are not capitalists.


Because un-restricted trade encourages monopolies.

Monopolies can only be achieved as a result of a government banning competition.


And monopolies are bad, near everyone I talk to agree. The thing with monolopies is that they can control what people buy.

No they can't.


And that restricts peoples rights.

Even if they did, no it wouldn't.

[Nas]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 26 2004, 07:07 AM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 26 2004, 07:07 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 23 2004, 02:02 PM

[email protected] 23 2004, 05:24 AM
you know what capitalism is ??

getting f*cked
Sound like fun.
you like to get f*cked?


are you a girl or a guy?
Are you making a pass at me ? [/b]
since you are a guy , i dont think you like to get f*cked, am i right?

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 22 2004, 01:28 PM
No I didn't.
You did. Even if you didn't vote for that. That's the point of representative "democracy".


I don't remember signing any contract.

When you live in a country you are accepting it's laws, unless it is some kind of dictatorship.

Well maybe all those street lights, police, military, roads, rivers, public squares shouldn't be available for you then so you can keep "your" money.

Wait! Maybe we should privatize them!

It will be very interesting to try to get out of your home, paying your fee to the employee outside to open that barrier so you can pass. What? As this is the only company in the town you have inflated prices a 20% AGAIN???? Ok, dammit!

Ah!!! The capitalist freedom... :rolleyes:


Not wanting to get my money stolen is a sign of laziness ? What has not wanting to be robbed got to do with greed and exploitation ?

The money I earn is taken from me by the government and given to others to buy their votes. I don't know about you, but it looks like exploitation to me.

Who said that money was yours in first place?
Oh, you "worked so hard" for it. Sure! Especially considering that maybe your boss got more money thanks to your work than the one you got, just because his ancestors moved faster to take all those cows.
The "to buy their votes" bit is funny. It happens though. But it's not that usual. However, most politicians get most of their money from PRIVATE COMPANIES, which they use for their propaganda, as they defend their interests. Now you are telling me you oppose "individuals making donations to politicians"?


You are the ones claming that free trade is slavery. I guess "the party" doesn't quite have the political affilation you thought it had...

"Free" trade? Of course, you have the "freedom" to trade your property. Here we see how all you "cappies" only care about things that are related to the "freedom to own" (which could be translated into the freedom to claim to own a piece of this world, which is as stupid as claiming to be "chosen by God", the freedom to get what your rich daddy left you, even if you didnt "work hard" for it, the freedom to own slaves, the freedom to exploit all those "poor lazy bums", the freedom to drop waste in rivers, thus affecting anyone nearby, like the Riachuelo in Buenos Aires, the freedom to pay taxes to corporations instead of governments, the freedom to think you are an "exceptional successful hard working individual", the freedom to ask for the police to kill all those "poor niggers" because they want to steal your BMW, EVEN IF YOUR BELOVED MARKET CAUSED THEIR POVERTY, LACK OF EDUCATION, SHITTY ENVIRONMENT, and other evils, etc.).
So they are irrational freedoms, if you ask me.

[Osman Ghazi]

Not involving guns and chains I didn't. Have you ever heard of how they were treated before the industrial revolution ?


They regularly chained their workers to the machines, especially the children. Guns weren't used as often because the other methods of repression worked pretty well. However, if it ever got to the point where the workers started to organize, they whipped out their nines and popped some caps in their asses.


No, I'm not. But I don't understand how that question is relevent to the one I asked, or how asking what the "common good" is has got do with Neitsche.


Well then you've never read Nietsche then have you? One of his concepts was the 'will to power' or an individual taking all power for himself and casting aside morality as merely an impediment to individual power. Do you have morality? Obviously not if you don't care about other people.


Are you familiar with the term "self contradiction" ?


No please explain. :P How is that self-contradiction? In a free trade situation, the one who is the most powerful always wins. Eventually, more and more power becomes concentrated in the hands of the rich elites. To deny this is to deny all capitalist history.


Then they are not capitalists.


It's funny how when communism is applied in the real world but goes against all the theory of the ideology, it is automatically considered the practical version of communism but when capitalsim is applied in the real world and goes against the original ideology then it isn't really capitalism. Allow me to rehash something you just said:

"Are you familiar with the term "self contradiction" ?"

[DaCuBaN]

social conscience

Social
Living together in communities.
Of or relating to communal living.
Of or relating to human society and its modes of organization: social classes; social problems; a social issue.

Conscience
The awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one's conduct together with the urge to prefer right over wrong: Let your conscience be your guide.
A source of moral or ethical judgment or pronouncement: a document that serves as the nation's conscience.
Conformity to one's own sense of right conduct: a person of unflagging conscience.

Enlighten
To give spiritual or intellectual insight to: “Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppression of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day” (Thomas Jefferson).
To give information to; inform or instruct

Hope that clears any confusion moneybags. Incidentally http://www.google.com is a good little tool ;)

[Professor Moneybags]

When you live in a country you are accepting it's laws, unless it is some kind of dictatorship.

Well it is "some kind of dictatorship".


Well maybe all those street lights, police, military, roads, rivers, public squares shouldn't be available for you then so you can keep "your" money.

Maybe they should be funded voluntarily, rather than by force.


Wait! Maybe we should privatize them!

It will be very interesting to try to get out of your home, paying your fee to the employee outside to open that barrier so you can pass. What? As this is the only company in the town you have inflated prices a 20% AGAIN???? Ok, dammit!

Ah!!! The capitalist freedom... :rolleyes:

Idiot.


Who said that money was yours in first place? Oh, you "worked so hard" for it. Sure!

I earned it by working. I though I owned my own labour. Obviously not, according to you.


Especially considering that maybe your boss got more money thanks to your work than the one you got, just because his ancestors moved faster to take all those cows.

The boss at my work started out on the shop floor, so you know where you can shove your little "inheritence" argument.


The "to buy their votes" bit is funny. It happens though. But it's not that usual. However, most politicians get most of their money from PRIVATE COMPANIES,

At least they do it voluntarily. You do it by force.


which they use for their propaganda, as they defend their interests. Now you are telling me you oppose "individuals making donations to politicians"?

Thank heavens they do too, otherwise we'd all be paying for the propaganda out of our taxes to fund politicians who do not share our views.


"Free" trade? Of course, you have the "freedom" to trade your property. Here we see how all you "cappies" only care about things that are related to the "freedom to own" (which could be translated into the freedom to claim to own a piece of this world, which is as stupid as claiming to be "chosen by God"

What, owning your own labour and trading it is as stupid as claiming being "chosen by god" ? Yes, I am the owner of my own labour and everyone else is the owner of theirs. and they can trade with me as they please. You want to stop that do you ? Proper little dictator, aren't you ?



, the freedom to get what your rich daddy left you, even if you didnt "work hard" for it,

If rich daddy wants to leave me his money, that's his choice. It is his money and his labour, after all.


the freedom to own slaves,

Which contradicts indivdual rights and is more appropriate to you, seeing as you don't think I own my own labour.


the freedom to exploit all those "poor lazy bums",

Again, exploitation is a meaningless word in the context you have used it.

[/b][/quote]the freedom to drop waste in rivers, thus affecting anyone nearby,


If it was privately owned, it's owner might sue me. But you don't believe in that, I suppose.

[quote][b]the freedom to pay taxes to corporations instead of governments,

Taxation is theft, regardless of who does it.


the freedom to think you are an "exceptional successful hard working individual",

Sorry, am I not free to think ? (Am I beginning to detect a hint of envy in there somewhere ?)


the freedom to ask for the police to kill all those "poor niggers" because they want to steal your BMW,

Trying to pretend that capitalism causes "racism" ? Well if they were genuinely trying to steal my car, yes, but then that would go for people of any colour or financial stature.


EVEN IF YOUR BELOVED MARKET CAUSED THEIR POVERTY, LACK OF EDUCATION, SHITTY ENVIRONMENT, and other evils, etc.).

"My beloved market" did not do any such thing. Poverty is a default.


So they are irrational freedoms, if you ask me.

Straw men if you ask me. Come back when you can form a logical argument.

[lucid]

After thinking about it for a few it dawned on me that every boss I have ever worked for started in my position.

[Professor Moneybags]

They regularly chained their workers to the machines, especially the children.

Cite. It would have been wrong if they had.


Guns weren't used as often because the other methods of repression worked pretty well. However, if it ever got to the point where the workers started to organize, they whipped out their nines and popped some caps in their asses.

Sorry, I don't remember any revolution. I must have missed that part.


Well then you've never read Nietsche then have you? One of his concepts was the 'will to power' or an individual taking all power for himself and casting aside morality as merely an impediment to individual power. Do you have morality? Obviously not if you don't care about other people.

mo·ral·i·ty ( P ) (m-rl-t, mô-)
n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties

-The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
-A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
-Virtuous conduct.
-A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

Nope, doesn't say anything about "caring about other people" in there. Maybe you've ignored the actual definition and are attempting to smuggle your own in. This is called the 'frozen abstraction' fallacy.


No please explain. :P How is that self-contradiction? In a free trade situation, the one who is the most powerful always wins.

Powerful in what way ?


Eventually, more and more power becomes concentrated in the hands of the rich elites. To deny this is to deny all capitalist history.

To deny this is to cite reality.


It's funny how when communism is applied in the real world but goes against all the theory of the ideology, it is automatically considered the practical version of communism but when capitalsim is applied in the real world

It was ? When was the last time a party representing LFC came to power ?

[DaCuBaN]

After thinking about it for a few it dawned on me that every boss I have ever worked for started in my position

Your line manager most probably did.... Hell, your general manager most probably did - even the CEO probably did. What's the relevance? Nowadays your 'boss' doesn't simply tell you what to do. He, like you, is paid a salary by 'the company'.

It's another example of 'Having your cake and eating it' - the modern corporation is generally publically owned (floated) and as such doesn't really have a 'boss' - making it look to the uneducated that exploitation isn't happening. Directly of course, this is true. However, the people who do own the company now did not necessarily work in the business itself, they merely had the funds to buy out a part of the company (a little wager on their part) and if succesful will reap the rewards.

All this just serves to make me laugh a little more at the sig someone is floating around with talking about the rich getting richer by doing what they've always done and ditto for the poor.

I must commend that individual for allowing me to read such a fine quote that without their realising it intimates some of the flaws of the capitalist system.

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 02:41 PM

After thinking about it for a few it dawned on me that every boss I have ever worked for started in my position

Your line manager most probably did.... Hell, your general manager most probably did - even the CEO probably did. What's the relevance? Nowadays your 'boss' doesn't simply tell you what to do. He, like you, is paid a salary by 'the company'.

It's another example of 'Having your cake and eating it' - the modern corporation is generally publically owned (floated) and as such doesn't really have a 'boss' - making it look to the uneducated that exploitation isn't happening. Directly of course, this is true. However, the people who do own the company now did not necessarily work in the business itself, they merely had the funds to buy out a part of the company (a little wager on their part) and if succesful will reap the rewards.

All this just serves to make me laugh a little more at the sig someone is floating around with talking about the rich getting richer by doing what they've always done and ditto for the poor.

I must commend that individual for allowing me to read such a fine quote that without their realising it intimates some of the flaws of the capitalist system.
So who exactly is going to pay the people if they are not "paid by the company"?

Whats wrong with public companies. They allow people of all classes to be able to own a part of the company where a private one doesn't.

That's me with the sig and that saying is dead on.

[DaCuBaN]

"Remember, the rich keep getting richer because they keep doing whatever it was that made them rich. Ditto for the poor."

I think that's a classic to be honest. I'm still laughing. :D :rolleyes:

For centuries the rich and the ruling classes were very clearly one and the same. This quote clearly asserts this fact, and show you to be an imperialist. Is this what you intended?


So who exactly is going to pay the people if they are not "paid by the company"?

I fail to see the relevance... under capitalism we have companies that employ people. How else could it work. I don't like the system itself, remember?


Whats wrong with public companies. They allow people of all classes to be able to own a part of the company where a private one doesn't.

This is what I mean by 'having your cake and eating it'.
A public company isn't owned by an individual, but by whoever buys the shares. This in itself seems like a really good idea, but pair that with your own quote that I'm ridiculing and the problem becomes more apparent. It's a vicious circle... To get rich this way you invest, but to invest you need money. The only people who have this kind of surplus money are those who are already playing the market and as such althought it looks like anyone can get involved, it is only the rich that can really do it.


That's me with the sig and that saying is dead on

Sure is buddy ;) :D

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 03:45 PM

"Remember, the rich keep getting richer because they keep doing whatever it was that made them rich. Ditto for the poor."

I think that's a classic to be honest. I'm still laughing. :D :rolleyes:

For centuries the rich and the ruling classes were very clearly one and the same. This quote clearly asserts this fact, and show you to be an imperialist. Is this what you intended?


So who exactly is going to pay the people if they are not "paid by the company"?

I fail to see the relevance... under capitalism we have companies that employ people. How else could it work. I don't like the system itself, remember?


Whats wrong with public companies. They allow people of all classes to be able to own a part of the company where a private one doesn't.

This is what I mean by 'having your cake and eating it'.
A public company isn't owned by an individual, but by whoever buys the shares. This in itself seems like a really good idea, but pair that with your own quote that I'm ridiculing and the problem becomes more apparent. It's a vicious circle... To get rich this way you invest, but to invest you need money. The only people who have this kind of surplus money are those who are already playing the market and as such althought it looks like anyone can get involved, it is only the rich that can really do it.


That's me with the sig and that saying is dead on

Sure is buddy ;) :D
I started getting envolved with stocks years ago. I was hardly what you would call rich. I just small amounts away and it adds up. It can be done but people chose not to.

[DaCuBaN]

I was hardly what you would call rich

To me, rich is anything above the breadline of your locality. You had funds excess to those required for your immediate survival, and hence qualify.

This is again a personal definition. I'm sure there are 'standards' set for various parts of the world as to what constitutes 'rich'

A safe description would be 'persons with expendaable capital'

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 05:00 PM

I was hardly what you would call rich

To me, rich is anything above the breadline of your locality. You had funds excess to those required for your immediate survival, and hence qualify.

This is again a personal definition. I'm sure there are 'standards' set for various parts of the world as to what constitutes 'rich'

A safe description would be 'persons with expendaable capital'
We are all hugley rich then.

I disagree anyway, rich is wealth above average.

[Big Mike]

Lucid,
You told a story about every boss you ever had starting at your position and working his way up the ladder. A noble quest ... but it's NOT true for the majority of companies here in the USA anymore.

Now, bosses have college degrees and are fundamentally seperated from the workers they direct. They are recuited by others with their backgrounds and they basically are a new 'class' of boss ... devoid of any history of working poverty and living paycheck to paycheck ... they are the new elite ... and they see the workers of the world as expendable and replacable .......... like tools.

They don't care about anything but their bottom line ... and will out-source their jobs to anyone who is willling to work for less ... anywhere in the world.

The new World Economy isn't working ... to make the world a better place for workers ... it's all about the rich getting richer ... and the poor going to hell.